cdelena

Supporters of ethanol and other biofuels contend they burn cleaner than fossil fuels, reduce U.S. dependence on oil and give farmers another market to sell their produce.

But researchers at Cornell University and the University of California-Berkeley say it takes 29 percent more fossil energy to turn corn into ethanol than the amount of fuel the process produces.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8607389/

iatacs19

But it pollutes less right?
And once the process becomes more efficient like fossil fuel refining then it would be better in the long run.

btw, where is the msn article that said 80% of studies are retarded?

steven975

no.

fossil fuels must be used to MAKE the ethanol.

if one just used fossil fuels instead, 29% more energy could be had.

also, ethanol does not burn "clean". It produces just as much CO2 as gasoline. True, it produces les CO and NOx, but CO2 is the "greenhouse gas".

no_really

for that matter, fossil fuels are required to make gasoline :/

E85 and E95 are 15% and 5% gasoline, respectively. E85 is a gasoline replacement, and E95 is a diesel replacement, so if one used E95 in the vehicles used to produce and transport the raw materials, the equation changes drastically in favor of ethanol, if you only look at percentage of fossil fuels necessary for ethanol production.

Another bit of info:
"The US Department of Agriculture reports a net energy balance for ethanol production of 1.67. In other words, for every one unit of energy used to produce ethanol and its accompanying co-products, 1.67 units of energy results. However, the US Department of Energy reports that petroleum refining can actually have a negative energy balance. For example, every unit of energy expended in gasoline production is reported to result in only 0.79 units of energy in the form of gasoline."

From http://www.cleanairchoice.org/outdoor/E85background.asp

Ethanol burns much cleaner than gasoline or diesel, resulting in 30% less greenhouse emissions. CO2 generated in production is captured and used in beverage production. Overall, there is a significant reduction in emissions throughout the whole process, from production to usage.

You can reach any conclusion you wish in a study, including or excluding any data that disagrees with your desired conclusion. I'd tend to disagree with a single study from California that contradicts numerous studies and facts from the departments of Agriculture and Energy, and studies performed in communities that currently have ethanol production on a relatively significant scale, such as in the Midwest, and Minnesota specifically.

cdelena

Huh? What kind of study is this with a crazy misleading statement? Explain how this works.. it sounds like you have to keep shipping in fuel to the refinery and nothing comes out!

Obviously there is no agreement on the subject.. but you will not get me to agree that growing corn and making ethanol is less energy consuming than pumping and refining oil.

Slithr

Explain to me why fossil fuels have to be used to create ethanol.

The point regarding petrofuel might have been the total energy used:

drilling (do you count the energy used in drilling dry holes?)
pumping (if necessary)
transportation to storage/refinery
refining
transportation to point of sale

Even with all these energy costs, I'm not buying a negative energy production ratio for oil.

I really think that biodiesel and ethanol could be a big part of our future energy picture. It makes sense to remove as much leverage as possible that the Middle Eastern countries have on us.

cdelena

The biggest reason is that corn production is not efficient unless heavily fertilized and that fertilizer is made from natural gas. The energy content of the fertilizer is what makes the process unproductive in the big picture.

no_really

you have any hard numbers on the amount of fertilizer used in the production of one bushel of corn, in various growing regions? I didn't think so. This guy (Pimentel) releases a new "study" every year reporting a negative net energy harvest from ethanol production, and his studies are universally criticized for using old data, inaccurate assumptions, and never deviating from the results of the prior "study."

The Department of Energy study can be explained by acknowledging that something other than gasoline powers much of the production of gasoline.

Something being ignored here is the fact that ethanol reduces the demand for gasoline and diesel by a very large amount, which is the goal behind ethanol production. The production of gasoline does not reduce the demand for crude oil. This ethanol comes from local waste and excess production, not from a remote resevoir. Turning starch to alcohol is easy, safe, well-understood, and generates less harmful emissions than refining crude oil. Gasoline is still a better fuel from an energy-density standpoint, but gasoline is better than any proposed alternative fuel in that respect. Ethanol is better than any of the other alternatives. One BS report vs. stack upon stack of study analyzing the pros and cons in an effort to decide if an ethanol plant makes economic sense in a community - the studies that are commissioned by local people looking to make a practical choice for monetary gain trump a study written by an academic with no credibility in the scientific community.

cdelena

There are many reports that have kept this debate going on for years. The complexity of the issue, high farm subsidies from the government, and a very powerful farming lobby makes it difficult to get fair reporting.

I sure wont argue facts with you since neither of us have any that can be verified. You seem to have a strong opinion on this and I really do not.

Just wanted to offer an article from the other side of this story because it seems that we often get barraged with one side.