PDA

View Full Version : Study Says Ethanol Not Worth the Energy


Trent
07-19-2005, 04:34 PM
(AP) - ALBANY, N.Y.-Farmers, businesses and state officials are investing millions of dollars in ethanol and biofuel plants as renewable energy sources, but a new study says the alternative fuels burn more energy than they produce.

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. For switch grass, a warm weather perennial grass found in the Great Plains and eastern North America United States, it takes 45 percent more energy and for wood, 57 percent.

It takes 27 percent more energy to turn soybeans into biodiesel fuel and more than double the energy produced is needed to do the same to sunflower plants, the study found.

"Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, the economy, or the environment," according to the study by Cornell's David Pimentel and Berkeley's Tad Patzek. They conclude the country would be better off investing in solar, wind and hydrogen energy.

The researchers included such factors as the energy used in producing the crop, costs that were not used in other studies that supported ethanol production, said Pimentel.

The study also omitted $3 billion in state and federal government subsidies that go toward ethanol production in the United States each year, payments that mask the true costs, Pimentel said.

Ethanol is an additive blended with gasoline to reduce auto emissions and increase gas' octane levels. Its use has grown rapidly since 2004, when the federal government banned the use of the additive MTBE to enhance the cleaner burning of fuel. About 3.6 billion gallons of ethanol were produced last year in the United States, according to the Renewable Fuels Association, an ethanol trade group.

The ethanol industry claims that using 8 billion gallons of ethanol a year will allow refiners to use 2 billion fewer barrels of oil. The oil industry disputes that, saying the ethanol mandate would have negligible impact on oil imports.

Ethanol producers dispute Pimentel and Patzek's findings, saying the data is outdated and doesn't take into account profits that offset costs.

Michael Brower, director of community and government relations at SUNY's College of Environmental Science and Forestry, points to reports by the Energy and Agriculture departments that have shown the ethanol produced delivers at least 60 percent more energy the amount used in production. The college has worked extensively on producing ethanol from hardwood trees.

Biodiesel can be used in any diesel engine with few or no modifications. It is often blended with petroleum diesel to reduce the propensity to gel in cold weather.

http://news.findlaw.com/ap/f/66/07-19-2005/cf960018f3ad4f6a.html

Boomer Chick
07-19-2005, 11:24 PM
Hi! Trent!

Well I think you need to read all sides of the ethanol story and make up your own mind on this!


http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=334579&postcount=275

It might be worth it as a transitional fuel additive in the short term. I prefer biodeisel in all respects in the short term.

BC ;)

Yaak
07-20-2005, 04:07 PM
Thank you to both of you for your research and postings.

Ethanol is a political football which makes it difficult to find the truth. Also, it hasn't been in use long enough to draw final conclusions.

whitemajikman
07-20-2005, 08:43 PM
Thank you to both of you for your research and postings.

Ethanol is a political football which makes it difficult to find the truth. Also, it hasn't been in use long enough to draw final conclusions.

THATS BULLSHIT.......ETHANOL HAS BEEN USED IN CANADA FORE ALMOST 20 YEARS NOW.........

AND IS NOT CHEAP TO PRODUCE.......

BIO- DIESEL IS THE WAY TO GO.....

WMM

Yaak
09-02-2005, 11:14 AM
http://www.dmregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050902/NEWS/509020382/1001


News (http://www.dmregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=NEWS&profile=)
Cargill agrees to cap emissions



The grain processor will make cuts at its plants, including those for ethanol, over a 10-year span.



ByvarUsername = "pbeeman@dmreg.com";document.write("PERRY BEEMAN (http://perry%20beeman/)"); PERRY BEEMAN
REGISTER STAFF WRITER
September 2, 2005
Grain-processing company Cargill Inc. must spend $130 million to cut air pollution at ethanol and other processing plants in Iowa and 12 other states, under an agreement announced Thursday by federal environmental officials.

The work to reduce the health-threatening emissions is expected to span a decade. The chemicals can cause cancer and lung problems, and contribute to acid rain and global climate change.

The agreement grows out of reports in 2002 that plants that produce ethanol — billed as an environmentally friendly gasoline additive — were polluting the air far more than originally estimated.

As part of the agreement, Cargill will pay a $1.6 million fine to be shared among the states and the federal government. Iowa will get about $246,000. The firm agreed to spend another $3.5 million for added controls and local environmental projects.

The deal is one of the biggest environmental pacts involving Iowa businesses in recent history, said Wayne Gieselman of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.

Iowa is the nation's largest producer of both corn and ethanol, and is a major source of corn sweeteners, feed and food products.

Ethanol is an additive intended to make gas burn more cleanly. Demand for the product is expected to grow. New ethanol plants are coming online, and the additive got a boost from the federal government's refusal to waive a requirement that California and other polluted states use smog-cutting gas additives.

The agreement covers plants in Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Eddyville, Sioux City and Iowa Falls.

The pollutants come from burning coal and natural gas for boilers, and from fermentation of corn, said Cargill Vice President Bob Siegert.

The required cuts include some reductions Cargill has already made, Siegert said. The company spent $20 million to cut emissions over the past eight years.

Federal regulators "acknowledged that we are industry leaders," in dealing with the pollution, Siegert said.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency charged that Cargill and other firms had underestimated emissions from ethanol plants and other sites. The excess emissions were discovered in Minnesota in 2002, leading to a national crackdown.

Earlier agreements covered a dozen plants in Minnesota, the national operations of Archer Daniels Midland, U.S. Energy in Kansas, Golden Triangle in Missouri, and AGP Corn Processing Inc. in Nebraska. Archer Daniels Midland agreed to spend $340 million in 16 states during a 10-year period.

The pollution cuts will be equivalent to pulling more than a million cars off the roads in those states combined, officials said.

"This was something that the industry discovered and self-reported to EPA," said Cargill spokesman Bill Brady. "We, as an industry, and now as an individual company, have been working with EPA ever since to get permits."

In the new agreement, Cargill agreed to spend $3.5 million in the next three years on local environmental projects - including a dune and wetland restoration at Eddyville and a wetland in Cedar Rapids.

While the wetland work in Cedar Rapids will have no effect on cutting the air pollution, the EPA tries to get companies to pay for important environmental work in the areas near the plants, said Jim Gulliford, EPA regional administrator.

Iowa's share of the fine will be split among the state, $123,082; Linn County, $92,307; and Polk County, $30,769.

Gulliford said the pollution cuts will help clear the air in Iowa and much of the rest of the country.

In Iowa, the federal action comes after state officials spent several years working with ethanol plants to make sure they meet air-pollution guidelines, Gieselman said. "After the Minnesota case, in 2002, we started working more with our plants. A lot of them are local, farmer-owned operations."

The new agreement means that 81 percent of the country's previously uncontrolled ethanol production capacity is now governed by court agreements.

The agreement was filed in a federal court in Minneapolis.