Interesting timing, especially when some biomass companies are switching from wood chips to corn, because they couldn’t turn a profit on wood chips. Looks like all the wheels are coming off the bus now.
To Survive, Some Biofuels Companies Give Up on Biofuels – Technology Review
Gevo, a prominent advanced-biofuels company that has received millions in U.S. government funding to develop fuels made from cellulosic sources such as grass and wood chips, is finding that it can’t use these materials if it hopes to survive. Instead, it’s going to use corn, a common source for conventional biofuels. What’s more, most of the product from its first facility will be used for chemicals rather than fuel.
As the difficulty of producing cellulosic biofuels cheaply becomes apparent, a growing number of advanced-biofuels companies are finding it necessary to take creative approaches to their business, even though that means abandoning some of their green credentials, at least temporarily, and focusing on markets that won’t have a major impact on oil imports. This is hardly the outcome the government hoped for when it announced cellulosic-biofuels mandates, R&D funding, and other incentives in recent years.
Here’s the story on the subsidy ending from the Detroit News:
Congress adjourned for the year on Friday, failing to extend the tax break that’s drawn a wide variety of critics on Capitol Hill, including Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. Critics also have included environmentalists, frozen food producers, ranchers and others.
The policies have helped shift millions of tons of corn from feedlots, dinner tables and other products into gas tanks.
Environmental group Friends of the Earth praised the move.
“The end of this giant subsidy for dirty corn ethanol is a win for taxpayers, the environment and people struggling to put food on their tables,” biofuels policy campaigner Michal Rosenoer said Friday.
Dirty Corn Ethanol? I’m all for ending taxpayer siphoning, but dirty corn ethanol?
Full story h/t to Lawrence Depenbush
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“3) Following the lead of Brazil, and the U.S., the “World” is now producing close to 2 Million Barrels/Day of Ethanol. Taking this 2 mbpd off of the global market would surely raise the price of gasoline, Substantially.”
How many MBPD are used worldwide?
Well, that’s just it, Mark. The Subsidy is going away in 3 days, now.
The oil companies have fought a Powerful fight against it. And, they are the ones that own the fueling infrastructure.
Also, the Greenies have settled on Electric Cars, powered by wind, and solar, and have united against biofuels (and all other fuels that complement fossil fuels.)
And, you have, whether you realize it or not, witnessed an unholy alliance of some “greenie” outfits, and their financiers, the oil companies. None of this is as simple as it might appear.
To Neo says:December 28, 2011 at 2:16 pm
The information I found on prices of ethanol fuel don’t agree with what you have. Not sure where the problem is, but here is what I found:
From http://www.neo.ne.gov/statshtml/66.html, the current price of ethanol is $2.88 per gallon. On a BTU basis, that is like paying $2.88*1.5= $4.32 for a gallon 0f gasoline. Per the same report, gasoline is selling for $2.69 a gallon. Ethanol was cheap once, not any more. Or where am I wrong.
And apparently ethanol is no longer available from Brazil due to a shortage there. It turns out that things like droughts can reduce biofuel output. Not a problem with fossil fuels. There’s that inconvenient need for a backup energy source again.
Kum Dollison says:
December 28, 2011 at 2:38 pm
“Part of what has happened is the oil companies use lower octane (84) when they blend E10. As a result, you don’t get the benefit of Ethanol’s Higher Octane (114) that you get from blending it with standard 87 Octane Gasoline. That means you get the lower btu content w/o the advantage of ethanol.”
=============================================================
I might recommend knowing something about the subject matter before posting a comment. Octane is an 8 carbon, saturated aliphatic hydrocarbon. The “octane rating” is simply a means to compare the ignition temp and combustion pressure of a motor fuel to pure octane. High octane fuels do NOT necessarily contain “more energy”. High octane rated fuels are necessary in high compression engines, they are a complete waste in an ordinary engine. Ethanol does indeed have a higher “octane rating” but it possesses about 67% of the energy of an equal volume of gasoline. It’s all about energy content, not “octane rating.”
Dr. Dave, Octane has “Everything” to do with gas mileage. The higher the Octane Rating, the more Compression can be utilized. The More Compression, the more Power.
That’s why the new turbocharged engines develop between 10% and 15% More power on E85 than on gasoline. As I said, the next step will be Heated Injectors, and Ethanol Sensors in the fuel delivery system, and everything will be in place to utilize turbocharging, Direct Injection, Variable Valve Timing, and Exhaust Gas Recirculation to deliver equivalent fuel mileage with E85 Or gasoline. The E85 Will deliver more power, however.
Dr. Dave says:
December 28, 2011 at 2:06 pm
Hotrod Larry,
I would NEVER get in an aircraft fueled with the ethanol slurry you describe (and quote from an ethanol industry propaganda site). My Dad had a Cessna 172 from the time I was 11 until my early 20s. I spent a lot of hours flying. Etc.
=====================================================
This is a complex subject isn’t it ? It also reminds me that there is equal complexity relating to regular automobile engines too.
It’s quite amazing that the EPA has to allow AvGas containing tetraethyl lead, but there is no alternative (other than the banned MTBE and ETBE presumably).
From both a manufacturing perspective and a fuel chemistry perspective, ethanol’s propensity to cling on to water make it a product with many undesirable properties. In fact, if we humans hadn’t developed yeast strains for thousand of years that make ethanol for alternate purposes, bioethanol would not exist.
However, since MTBE is effectively banned in the U.S., there’s always going to have to be something like ethanol (or butanol) in gasoline to act as an oxygenate, antiknock agent. So until the advanced oxygenated biofuels come into play, we’re going to be stuck with ethanol at whatever price it commands. So we’re likely to be paying for it anyway, with taxpayer subsidies or at the pump. I’m not an economist/social engineer, but it would seem to me that this would be more of a stealth tax on poorer people, or an initiative to get them off the roads, or an unintended consequence ??
Not trying to be controversial here. Just pointing out an oxygenate/antiknock fact relating to AvGas and gasoline in light of MTBE being banned.
An ex. of what that means in a regular old, garden variety flexfuel engine available today:
My Flexfuel Impala is not a very advanced engine; however, in hilly areas it does Not downshift as often on E85 as it does with gasoline. As a result, instead of losing 30% mileage, as you would expect from comparing btus, I lose about 20% mileage.
Jabra every one of your arguements is based on the premise the US imports oil. Welcome to the new world where we actually drill for oil in the US.
US is going to be a net exporter for the first time since 1949.
So, that means using the logic of the site you qouted we get to subtrack the cost of oil and gas exported, plus subtrack the cost of the benefit to economy, subtrack taxes, etc… viola oil now puts money in our pockets.
Drill baby, drill!!!
Please note I am using the logic from his post for the third paragraph.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-16/us-oil-boom/52053236/1
A lot (most?) Brazilian Crop Dusters use E85. And, the American (?) Boat Racing Association requires E10 be used.
If you get some water in your “gasoline” it settles out to the lowest point. If you get it in your ethanol blend, the ethanol just soaks it up, and you go on about your business. If you get a LOT of water it can settle out, but it would have stopped your gasoline engine, also. It’s, actually, very much a “red herring.”
There were a couple of boats made back in the sixties that had fuel tanks that would release a resin when subjected to ethanol, which caused, in many cases, engine failure. Tanks like that haven’t been produced since then.
The United States still Imports close to 9 million barrels of oil/day.
We have, recently, become a small net exporter of oil “Products,” gasoline, diesel, etc, (about 200,000 bbl/day, the last I saw.)
@jabre. I wonder would you be interested in doing an article on the true cost of oil based on the links you have provided. I think it would be fascinating.
Anthony / Modeators, could I suggest you invite him to do so.
40 Shades
I think I misspoke. I think those Brazilian Cropdusters are using E100, not E85.
Kum Dollison says:
December 28, 2011 at 3:53 pm
“There were a couple of boats made back in the sixties that had fuel tanks that would release a resin when subjected to ethanol, which caused, in many cases, engine failure. Tanks like that haven’t been produced since then.”
The politically enforced introduction of E10 in 2011 in Germany was de facto cancelled by the widespread boycot of car owners. Car makers published lists of vehicles suited or not suited to the new fuel; the standard VW motors are all suited; but, for instance not all Opel motors (Opel is the German subsidiary of GM). Insecurity led to most people rejecting E10.
So, you do get problems with modern car engines when they used the wrong material for the seals. The German ADAC tested with an Opel that was not suited to run on E10 according to Opel’s information, and it did break down after a few 1,000 km. Just as promised.
Sal Minella says:
December 28, 2011 at 12:09 pm
A. Scotts, Hotrod, et al,
Until you stop stating the information concerning energy out vs energy in in such an obtuse and misleading way, I will not stop ridiculing you,re inference of perpetual motion. If it is factual that corn ETOH contains more energy than the sum of its energy inputs. it is an energy amplifier.
Since it doesent matter what the source of the input BTUs in is then corn ETOH could be used as the energy input. Then one BTU of corn ETOH in will give you 1.6 BTU of corn ETOH out. In this case only one BTU of non corn ETOH is needed to prime the corn ETOH pump making all other sources of energy moot and all ETOH energy essentially free.
Your statement is misleading at best and something that you honestly believe at worst. If ETOH was such a magical fuel. it would need no subsidy and would bring nearly free energy to every citizen of the world.
I started working on detailed responses to the several people with legitimate honest questions, but as I read thru the thread, the amount of gross ignorance and arrogance here – the purposeful and willful ridicule by some of well known and well understood scientific topics like “net energy balance” – from ignorant people and boorish, uneducated posts like the above – along with the direct personal attacks and refusal to make any attempt to learn and understand the science, and instead blindly attack to promote the political agendas by some – shows it is pretty much a pointless effort here.
Too many of the people and replies in this thread show exactly why the AGW scientists so despise the skeptics. Outside a strong core group that truly do care about the science, regardless of whichever way it leads them, far too many are vehemently married to their agendas on this topic – damn the facts, full attack speed ahead.
Kum Dollison believes that the 20% – 30% loss in fuel economy [his own numbers] is a net positive befefit in return for using an ethanol blend, despite all the problems.
There is no fuel more “green” and harmless to the environment than 100% pure fossil fuels. The ethanol market only exists due to heavy government subsidies. If ethanol was a good deal, producers wouldn’t need subsidies to sell it. Consumers would buy what is best for them.
Kum Dollison says:
December 28, 2011 at 3:15 pm
You are confusing power with economy. Small, turbocharged engines get much more power from each cubic inch because they squeeze more air and fuel into the cylinders. They are more efficient because they are smaller and lighter than a big V8, whether running on ethanol or gasoline. Higher octane ratings allow higher compression ratios and earlier spark ignition, which can increase power and also increase fuel efficiency slightly, but only if you have a very light foot. Other tricks are more important than octane, like computerized ignition, variable valve timing, direct injection, more gear ratios, low drag bodies, and engines that shut off while waiting at a stop light.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating
Many high-performance engines are designed to operate with a high maximum compression, and thus demand fuels of higher octane. A common misconception is that power output or fuel efficiency can be improved by burning fuel of higher octane than that specified by the engine manufacturer. The power output of an engine depends in part on the energy density of the fuel being burnt. Fuels of different octane ratings may have similar densities, but because switching to a higher octane fuel does not add more hydrocarbon content or oxygen, the engine cannot develop more power.
I noticed a few posts that mentioned ethanol in avgas.
There are two basic problems.
In most planes, the ethanol attacks the seals and sealants, resulting in fuel starvation when the lines plug up or start leaking. Not good.
At high altitudes, the induction air is very cold and the air is very “thin”, therefore containing little heat. Ethanol does not vaporize as readily as avgas and could cause problems. In fact, it takes about 2.5 times as much heat to vaporize an equal weight of ethanol. Liquids entering the cylinders is not acceptable.
In addition, range would be severely reduced. Premature fuel starvation is also not good.
One point that is missing from the argument with the ethanol advocates is thus.
Use of E10 will give a mpg of 10 – 35% less mpg (depending on the engine). For the sake of this argument let’s use only a 10% reduction in mpg overall.
Pour the 10% etanol down the drain and the ‘pure’ gasoline in the tank will deliver 10% greater mpg so you could drive nearly (99%) as far on only 90% volume of fuel (real gas). On many, if not most, engines not designed for the E10 there could be an increase of 25 – 35% greater mpg.
Consider the EROI of ethanol and only a fool would put in in their tank if given the option. Government mandates at its best?
A. Scott says:
“Too many of the people and replies in this thread show exactly why the AGW scientists so despise the skeptics.”
Umm-m-m… have you checked out alarmist blogs like Tamino, Pseudo-Skeptical Pseudo-Science, realclimate, climateprogress, etc.? Try to submit a reasonable comment that refutes the alarmist meme at any of those blogs, and see where it gets you. Either you will submit a point of view that can’t be refuted, in which case your comment will never see the light of day, or you will make an easily refuted mistake, in which case every one of the echo chamber true believers will endlessly monkey-pile on you from then on.
Alarmists despise scientific skeptics for one reason: skeptics hold their feet to the fire, and demand that they “prove it.” Since baseless scare tactics demonizing “carbon” are the staple of the alarmist cult, they hate people who deconstruct their belief system with facts. It’s also why they hide out from open debates.
So please, continue with your ‘detailed response’. If you make sense, you will eventually convert the majority of readers to your viewpoint. But you can’t be so thin-skinned; this is the internet. If you have the truth on your side, you will eventually prevail. If not, the attacks will naturally follow.
An amazing amount of misinformation here. WUWT should invite a post from someone in the ethanol industry. I’d volunteer but I do not have the time to do it right.
I’m glad that the subsidies are ending. When I worked as VP of a small company working on an ethanol plant we assumed that these subsidies (along with the subsidies for biodiesel) would disappear. We made sure that the process would be profitable without the subsidies. Otherwise it just doesn’t make economic sense to build something that is going to be in operation for 30 years.
Some of the more extreme posters suggest that turning food into fuel is evil and it should be banned. Every major country that has substantial agriculture and industry grows crops that are turned into ethanol. If we banned the process in the US, the result would be that our field corn would be exported to China which would happily turn it into fuel to reduce some of their own petroleum imports. This would be an economic disaster for us.
Corn is turned into ethanol (and has been for many decades) because it is an extremely profitable process (assuming historical gasoline, corn and energy prices, a market for the ethanol at prices similar to gasoline, a market for the distiller’s grains at prices comparable to field corn, and assuming you can obtain capital for financing the equipment at reasonable interest rates, and assuming reasonable land costs and regulations, etc., etc., etc..). If you want to see how profitable it is for yourself, do an internet search on how much a bushel of corn costs, how many gallons of ethanol you get from it, how much distiller’s grains, and what these products can be sold for. If you don’t know anything about the industry the results will stun you.
When people talk about how much energy there is in ethanol as compared to the petroleum that went into it they are avoiding the very simple economics of the process. What you’re doing is taking cheap things and turning them into somewhat less cheap things. Right now you can buy natural gas at a price much cheaper (per BTU) than gasoline so a process that uses up natural gas but saves gasoline is profitable.
Some “ethanol” companies are not actually intended to make a profit by producing ethanol cheaply. Instead, they are designed to sell shares of stock to the public. A lot of these companies have incredibly high management costs, do a variety of stupid things, and when they lose money it gives the impression that ethanol is not profitable. But the big chemical companies understand the nature of the chemical business which is to produce a product that can only be distinguished from the competition by its price. So they concentrate on low overhead costs. They and the small farmers are quite profitable on ethanol and have been steadily ramping up production.
The US now exports fuel. What this means is that the 10% ethanol mandates no longer have any major effect. If they were eliminated, our use of ethanol in gasoline would not decrease substantially. From the point of view of the mixers, ethanol is too attractively inexpensive to avoid using it as a fuel. I think that if they eliminated the mandates today, you might be able to buy gasoline without ethanol again, but it would be a boutique fuel and would be quite expensive. As stated in posts above, it would be made from more expensive, higher octane stock.
I don’t think that the opinions of the general public have much basis in fact in this industry. I think that politicizing this industry is as much a bad idea as would be politicizing any other industry including solar energy. So I’m glad to see the subsidy going away. The argument about “food vs. fuel” is very emotional, but the fact is that people starve because they’re poor, not because American farmers can’t produce enough corn or because corn has uses as an industrial chemical feedstock. If the corn ethanol business were outlawed world-wide tomorrow, the response of farmers would be to quit planting as much corn. Farmers are not in the business of providing food to people who can’t pay for it. Furthermore, the resulting increase in transportation fuel costs would also impact the poor.
By the way, I used to believe that man-caused global warming was significant (and unavoidable). I had to come around to the belief that it was mostly hype as a result of writing up an analysis of whether there would be subsidies for the biofuels industry based on carbon credits or the like. My conclusion was that these subsidies would disappear. This conclusion was shared by the other engineers but the funny thing was that the investors interested in corn ethanol were true believers.
eyesonu says:
December 28, 2011 at 4:27 pm
One point that is missing from the argument with the ethanol advocates is thus.
Use of E10 will give a mpg of 10 – 35% less mpg (depending on the engine). For the sake of this argument let’s use only a 10% reduction in mpg overall…..
===========================================================
On the four vehicles I tested…… none older than 2003 model, pickups and sedans, the average was a 20% reduction in mileage.
I don’t know why some of the people here were never taught not to play with their food. But, with the ending of the subsidy, we’ll see most of their claims go down in flames. Now, finally, some of us will be able to afford a steak now and again.
Smokey says:
December 28, 2011 at 4:29 pm
A. Scott says:
“Too many of the people and replies in this thread show exactly why the AGW scientists so despise the skeptics.”
Umm-m-m… have you checked out alarmist blogs like Tamino, Pseudo-Skeptical Pseudo-Science, realclimate, climateprogress, etc.?
==================================================================
Thank you Smoke, …..I don’t understand why people don’t expect to be challenged here. That’s why they’re here! If you’re going to state something here, you better bring it, and even if you do, someone will bring up some points you haven’t thought of. Yeh, its a mean lot, but like Smokey says, if you have truth and are willing to take the heat, you’ll prevail. Think of it as real peer-review. To be sure, this ain’t pal review!
david says:
December 28, 2011 at 10:55 am
C’mon Sal Minella!
No perpetual motion here!
The only question here, is if the 1 BTU represents all the costs associated from the moment the corn is planted until it arrives as ethonal at the pump, or as some are questioning here, does it only represent the energy needed at the factory to convert the sugar to ethonal.
Perhaps A. Scott could clarify that, and while doing so, perhaps he could phrase it so that the “perpetual motion” comments are avoided.
David – appreciate the support, and honest question …
The concept of “net energy balance,” or EROEI (Energy Return over Energy Invested), of ethanol (or any fuel product for that matter) is well settled, has reviewed in detail and fairly well understood.
Regarding ethanol, there have been numerous studies from reputable scientists, institutions and agencies, that clearly show the net energy balance of ethanol production is positive. These energy balance studies take into account all of the various inputs involved in growing, harvesting, and processing corn or other feed stock into fuel. The net energy balance figure of appx 1.6 btu produced for 1 BTU of energy expended is the current best estimate of average energy balance using corn based processes. This is up from 1.2 to 1.3 to 1 a few years back.
More advanced cellulosic processes are providing net energy balances of 6 and up to 8 to 1 and more.
There is a single study (or ongoing study’s might be more accurate) by David Pimentel of Cornell and Tad Patzak of Berkeley that claim to show a negative energy balance for corn based ethanol. Their work has repeatedly and thoroughly been debunked by a myriad of scientists, government agencies, and more. For one – they ignored the value of the co-products produced. And attributed all of the energy expense to the ethanol side and little or none to the co-product side.
If folks like Sal truly cared about educating themselves – about learning the facts – rather than ridiculing those who disagree with their uneducated, unsupported by the facts, views – they could simply type “net energy balance” into google and in a few minutes learn far more than they want to know.
They could simply read the Wiki info on ethanol, or better yet as someone noted – read the Brazilian Ethanol Wiki entry – which provides a great overview of the facts regarding ethanol and what its taken to build a sustainable successful renewable energy program.
People like Sal, eyesonu and the like are more interested in attacking those that don’t agree with them than in learning. For the record I have zero problem with being challenged, and responding – provided its civil and from someone who has first, shown they took the time to at least understand the basics of the issue, and second, who makes the request civilly.
Had ol Sal read even the basic Brazil ethanol Wiki entry he would have answered his own attack – and in doing so maybe looked a lot less silly – a simple quote:
“One of the main concerns about bioethanol production is the energy balance, the total amount of energy input into the process compared to the energy released by burning the resulting ethanol fuel. This balance considers the full cycle of producing the fuel, as cultivation, transportation and production require energy, including the use of oil and fertilizers. A comprehensive life cycle assessment commissioned by the State of São Paulo found that Brazilian sugarcane based ethanol has a favorable energy balance, varying from 8.3 for average conditions to 10.2 for best practice production.[12]
Reading further he could have read virtually verbatim what I posted:
“This means that for average conditions one unit of fossil-fuel energy is required to create 8.3 energy units from the resulting ethanol. These findings have been confirmed by other studies.[81][83][159]”
Funny, but its almost the same exact thing the USDA says in their recent study as well – it should be noted this is regarding 2008 yields – which it found were in fact higher than I stated for corn based ethanol production:
“USDA Releases Corn-Ethanol Industry Report Showing Improving Energy Efficiency
WASHINGTON, June 21, 2010 – USDA’s Chief Economist Joseph Glauber today announced the publication of a report by the Office of Energy Policy and New Uses that surveyed corn growers for the year 2005 and ethanol plants in 2008, which indicates the net energy gain from converting corn to ethanol is improving in efficiency.
This report measures all conventional fossil fuel energy used in the production of 1 gallon of corn ethanol. For every British Thermal Unit (BTU) unit of energy required to make ethanol, 2.3 BTUs of energy are produced. The ratio is somewhat higher for some firms that are partially substituting biomass energy in processing energy. Since the last study in 2004, the net energy balance of corn ethanol has increased from 1.76 BTUs to 2.3 BTUs of required energy.
According to the report, overall, ethanol has made the transition from an energy sink, to a moderate net energy gain in the 1990s, to a substantial net energy gain in the present. And there are still prospects for improvement. Ethanol yields have increased by about 10 percent in the last 20 years, so proportionately less corn is required. In addition to refinements in ethanol technology, corn yields have increased by 39 percent over the last 20 years, requiring less land to produce ethanol.
The authors of the report are: H. Shapouri, Agricultural Economist, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, Office of the Chief Economist, USDA; Paul W. Gallagher, Associate Professor, Economics Department, Iowa State University; Ward Nefstead, Associate Professor, Applied Economics Department, University of Minnesota;
Rosalie Schwartz, Program and Recruitment Director, Agricultural Economics Department, University of Nebraska (Lincoln); Stacey Noe, Program Coordinator, Agricultural Entrepreneurship Initiative, Iowa State University; and Roger Conway, Former Director, Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, Office of the Chief Economist, USDA. The report can be found at: http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/index.htm.”
Damn, pesky facts … right Sal?
E10 will, on average, if blended with 84 SubOctane gasoline give about a 3% loss of fuel economy. If blended with 87 Octane gasoline the reduction in mpg will be about 1.5 to 2%. In either case, it comes out pretty close to a “wash.”
The important thing is you’re greatly reducing the demand for gasoline. And, reducing the Price of gasoline. We paid a Historical World Record, $3.50 Gallon in 2011. What would we have paid if we would have taken that 2 Million barrels of Ethanol/Day off the market?
There were no fatalities compared with 1.28 deaths per 100 million miles for gasoline fleet
vehicles The collision rate for NGV fleet vehicles was 31% lower than the rate for gasoline fleet vehicles
The fleet of 8,331 NGVs was involved in seven fire incidents, only one of which was directly
attributable to failure of the natural gas fuel system.
Natural gas vehicles were first commercialized after World War II in Italy. There are now over twelve
million in use worldwide. Natural gas vehicles have been used in the US since the early 1970s, with
over 120,000 in use today. Yet there has been only one fatality in the US involving a NGV in all that
time and it was attributed to human error.
There were no fatalities compared with 1.28 deaths per 100 million miles for gasoline fleet
vehicles The collision rate for NGV fleet vehicles was 31% lower than the rate for gasoline fleet vehicles
http://www.cleanvehicle.org/committee/technical/PDFs/Web-TC-TechBul2-Safety.pdf
The experience here in Perth is that the rare fires in NG vehicles occur in home converted vehicles, which leave them as petrol/NG hybrids. A petrol fire then cooks the NG tank.
Petrol/NG hybrids are illegal for this reason.