Deadly Brew: The Human Toll of Ethanol

[PenforPrez]

This is an investigative special Bloomberg Television is doing tonight on Brazil's ethanol industry. Brazil reduced gasoline consumption by half (according to the estimate I read) by using ethanol from sugar cane, but at great environmental cost.

I'd like to watch it, but I won't be home in time (7 and 9 P.M. Eastern tonight). If anybody else watches, would you please post about it? Thanks! :) Old-fashioned me hasn't advanced to DVR yet. :p

Bloomberg has a snippet on their website:

http://www.bloomberg.com/tvradio/tv/

Paul

[Bman120]

Ethanol is a huge mistake. We're burning our crops to get a substance that can't be shipped via the existing pipeline system and is nowhere near as efficient as oil.

There is more than enough natural resources out there. We have enough coal to power us for many decades. If we get past this environmental bs and open up anwar and the oil reserves off the coasts, we'll have plenty of oil and once we get the technology to access oil shale properly, that will be an even bigger boost.

And let's not forget our natural gas reserves. All things considered, we have more than enough fuel, all of which are better than ethanol. All we need to do is develop the technology and the spine to use it.

[redav]

However, while there IS enough oil/coal/natural gas right now, there will be a point where we will need to transition to something else. It's our choice whether to do it now or later. I prefer getting a good start on it.

I do not believe that the oil issue can be solved by dealing with the supply side of the problem. If we produce more, it will lower the price, people will go back to buying their gas-guzzlers, and we will be in exactly the same place as before. Rather, we need to tackle the supply side--get people to voluntarily decrease demand, which will then lower price and prolong reserves.

The best solution would be if people were noble and conserved because it is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, history has shown that people don't do this. Therefore, if they will not cut back, they either need to be forced to do it (bad idea), or an alternative can be provided (better idea).

Increased domestic production does give an alternative to foreign oil, but it is still oil, and it only delays the eventual transition. Biological fuels offer a true alternative, so I am all in favor of pursuing them aggressively.

That being said, ethanol (from corn or sugar) has so many problems that it is a waste of time & money. Not only is it incompatible with existing infrastructure (pipelines, engines), drives price increases for food, and contains less energy (albeit due to ethanol's higher octane, engines can be built with higher compression ratios that will yield as high mpg as traditional gas engines, but you will not be able to put gas in them--they will not be 'flex-fuel,' and diesel still beats them, anyway), but ethanol's aziotropic behavior with water is much worse. Basically, ethanol is guaranteed to be contaminated with water, and you cannot get rid of it all without very expensive processes.

Ethanol can be a part of the solution on the small scale, but only if it is made from waste products. Coors (IIRC) uses waste grain material that is unfit for beer to make fuel ethanol. Cellulosic processes, if they work, will enable us to use waste plant material. Using waste material makes it worthwhile because either your raw material is zero cost, e.g. collecting wild-growing switch grass, or it could be negative cost (you are paid to receive it), e.g. yard clippings.

Biodiesel is a much better solution, especially if algae-based methods (http://www.valcent.net/i/pdf/HoustonChronicle100807.pdf) pan out. It does not suffer nearly as many problems as ethanol.

[PenforPrez]

Ethanol is a huge mistake. We're burning our crops to get a substance that can't be shipped via the existing pipeline system and is nowhere near as efficient as oil.

That's my view on ethanol. Over 20% of America's prodigious corn crop is going to ethanol production, and it's not a drop in the bucket. Furthermore, it's wreaking havoc with the commodity markets; most grain futures are near record highs right now.

Paul

[and1grad]

Its surprising to me that ethanol is even being pursued as a potential strategy. It just seems like such a loser.

[meatwad]

Its surprising to me that ethanol is even being pursued as a potential strategy. It just seems like such a loser.

It's like the energy situation is Lisa Turtle and ethanol is Screech.

[Bocheezu]

Its surprising to me that ethanol is even being pursued as a potential strategy. It just seems like such a loser.

You haven't seen loser technolgy until you've seen the shit I get to research every day.

[aggiegrad05]

Its surprising to me that ethanol is even being pursued as a potential strategy. It just seems like such a loser.
Kind of a different view on this: I work for an engine manufacturer (for power plants) and you'd be really surprised how many inquires we get asking if our engines can burn ethanol. Mostly the people doing the asking are these kooky, kind of way left field people who claim that they have a "huge project in the works" for some 100-200 MW ethanol-fired plant :rolleyes:

I really don't even hear much about ethanol at all in any of the energy conferences I go to. The reality is that the capital costs and fuel costs are just way too high to have this be a viable solution for the power industry unless there are some serious government subsidies put into place. There are plenty of other viable, cheaper and more proven renewable energy options available in order for utilities to get their renewable energy credits.

[old_school_soul]

I find this very interesting:

Startup Says It Can Make Ethanol for $1 a Gallon, and Without Corn

http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2008/01/ethanol23

[PenforPrez]

I find this very interesting:

Startup Says It Can Make Ethanol for $1 a Gallon, and Without Corn

http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2008/01/ethanol23

Ethanol can be made out of almost any vegetation. Brazil makes theirs out of sugar cane, which is about the most efficient method.

Paul

[meatwad]

Ethanol can be made out of almost any vegetation.

Does that include Elizabeth Taylor?

[ebruening]

Ethanol can be made out of almost any vegetation. Brazil makes theirs out of sugar cane, which is about the most efficient method.

Paul

Switchgrass = good for ethanol

[Bman120]

Increased domestic production does give an alternative to foreign oil, but it is still oil, and it only delays the eventual transition. Biological fuels offer a true alternative, so I am all in favor of pursuing them aggressively.


I agree that we need to persue them, but do you think we need to be aggressive at this point? If we can get into ANWAR and the deposits off the coast of oil and start using the coal, natural gas and shale we have here, we should be good to go for quite some time. Also, as technology gets better, mining and refining of the fossil fuels will be better and more can be taken from the earth.

Seems to me we should be persuing these alternatives, but there is no reason to really push it and spend so much. If we push too hard, we get ideas like this ethanol thing. I don't know what Bush was thinking here.

[redav]

I agree that we need to persue them, but do you think we need to be aggressive at this point? If we can get into ANWAR and the deposits off the coast of oil and start using the coal, natural gas and shale we have here, we should be good to go for quite some time. Also, as technology gets better, mining and refining of the fossil fuels will be better and more can be taken from the earth.

Seems to me we should be persuing these alternatives, but there is no reason to really push it and spend so much. If we push too hard, we get ideas like this ethanol thing. I don't know what Bush was thinking here.
There have been some very significant technological advancements in the last few years that dramatically open up reserves to economical exploration. However, govt has blocked access to those reserves. I think it is a toss-up as to when these areas will be opened. The status quo is never. There is extreme political pressure to never open them. It will take just as much political pressure to overturn the status quo, and the only thing driving that (in the general populace) is the price of gas, but right now all the pressure created by high prices isn't going into opening up these areas. This indicates that not only must there be more pressure to open them, there must be a change of mind in reaction to expensive gas. That will only happen as the consequence of some extreme event. The war in Iraq isn't enough to do it, so that makes me wonder how severe & painful must be the event that does change that mindset.

We've got a bad case of Star Trek-itis--we think every new technology can mature overnight. It won't be like DVDs where the new kid becomes the dominant standard in a few years. It will be more like unleaded/leaded gas that takes decades to transition. While I don't subscribe to the doomsday peak-oil scenarios, I do think we are plateauing. I think it is very likely that worldwide production will begin to slip in 15-20 yrs, and even with new technology and open access to reserves, will that be be enough to stay ahead of the demand created by developing countries? I doubt it. Twenty years from now we WILL have a problem, and if we choose to pursue the alternative fuel solution, IMO we need to start now to have it ready by then. That is why I feel urgency on the matter. Also, this is not alternatives instead of increased oil production; it is alternatives + increased oil production.

Another reason is that faint heart never won fair lady. If you want to be the best, you have to do what it takes to be the best. You can't sit on your laurels patting yourself on the back while the rest of the world catches up to you. R&D is critical, and unfortunately, you have to throw lots of stuff at the wall to make a few things stick. (The military understands these principles.) I'm not satisfied with contracting European companies to build our alternative energy systems (wind turbines, solar power, etc.). We should be exporting these products to the rest of the world. Our economy desperately needs exports. We're not going to beat China & India on price, so have to beat them
with technological advancement--produce things that no one else can. Alternative energy/fuels is one of those emerging fields where we can dominate the rest of the world if we get off our lazy collective butt, do it now, and beat everyone else to market.

The "ethanol thing" is partly a result of that being one of the first options, and so it got pushed as well as pandering to corn-growing states. Good business sense says that you can't keep an inferior product just because of sentimentality. Eventually, someone is going to have to have the guts to tell the farmers "suck it up--we're not doing corn-based ethanol." However, from my experience, these long-term govt mandates are more show than substance. Their horizon is longer than their lifespan--whoever comes next will change it, and hopefully reality (and a well-educated electorate) will persuade those in power to make the proper changes sooner than later.

[PenforPrez]

The "ethanol thing" is partly a result of that being one of the first options, and so it got pushed as well as pandering to corn-growing states. Good business sense says that you can't keep an inferior product just because of sentimentality. Eventually, someone is going to have to have the guts to tell the farmers "suck it up--we're not doing corn-based ethanol." However, from my experience, these long-term govt mandates are more show than substance. Their horizon is longer than their lifespan--whoever comes next will change it, and hopefully reality (and a well-educated electorate) will persuade those in power to make the proper changes sooner than later.

It's not the farmers so much; they don't have a lot of political clout. It's agribusiness. Archer Daniels Midland, Monsanto, et. al., stand to benefit the most of anybody from ethanol, and they contribute enormous sums of campaign money (mostly to Republicans), so nothing will be done as long as that money keeps flowing. Always follow the money.

There is a lot of political hogwash with this, certainly. A lot of corn-producing areas feel ethanol could be their economic salvation because most of those areas have lost much of their manufacturing base. I know there's a lot of such sentiment in northern Missouri; it's a tad politically hazardous to oppose ethanol up there.

But I've heard a lot of politicians say we need ethanol to "rescue ourselves from the deadly clutches of Middle Eastern dictators and their oil." The current Republican administration in Missouri has used a lot of that rhetoric, but I've heard that a lot of places. That is utterly ludicrous. I think these people have read a few too many Tom Clancy novels.

The largest exporter of crude oil to the U.S. is Canada. :rolleyes: Only two of the six leading foreign suppliers of oil are from the Middle East: Saudi Arabia and Iraq. The latter is more a U.S. puppet state than an "unfriendly dictatorship." Venezuela is more of an "unfriendly dictatorship."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

Paul

[Bman120]

But I've heard a lot of politicians say we need ethanol to "rescue ourselves from the deadly clutches of Middle Eastern dictators and their oil." The current Republican administration in Missouri has used a lot of that rhetoric, but I've heard that a lot of places. That is utterly ludicrous. I think these people have read a few too many Tom Clancy novels.


The middle east doesn't just control their oil, they can use theirs to affect everything. Just watch what would happen if Iran interdicts the strait of Hormouz or has Hezbollah bomb the Saudi oil fields. Crude prices would skyrocket. We'd still have our oil, but it would cost a fortune.

Those dictators have a great deal of clout and its pretty dangerous. Hense why we need to get into our own sources of oil.

[redav]

If you grow crops, you're a farmer. It doesn't matter if it's mom-&-pop or a part of a multinational. And I believe it is about the states more so than individuals or companies (money being pumped into local economy, jobs, increased political clout in Wash, etc.).

In many regards, it doesn't matter where the money is going (Venezuela, Canada, mid-east, etc) if it is outside our economy. It has the same effect on the trade deficit & value of the dollar. Reducing imports is critical to fixing our national economic woes.