Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ethanol subsidies in perspective

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ethanol subsidies in perspective

    http://www.climatechangedispatch.com...ld-food-crisis

    Today a whopping 6.5 percent of the world’s grain has been stripped from the global food supply.

    ...

    World Ethanol Fuel Production in Million Liters








    2006
    2007
    2008
    2009
    2010
    2011
    Europe
    1,627
    1,882
    2,814
    3,683
    4,615
    5,467
    Africa
    0
    49
    72
    108
    165
    170
    Americas
    35,625
    45,467
    60,393
    66,368
    77,800
    79,005
    Asia/Pacific
    1,940
    2,142
    2,743
    2,888
    3,183
    4,077
    World
    39,192
    49,540
    66,022
    73,047
    85,763
    88,719



    Source: F.O. Licht
    The Global Renewable Fuels Alliance promotes “biofuels friendly policies internationally and represent over 65 per cent of the global biofuels production from 44 countries.” They predict only growth in this voracious business and if their numbers are correct, a death sentence is being issued on millions more in the future.
    World Ethanol Production Forecast 2008 - 2012 by Country, Millions of Gallons

    2008
    2009
    2010
    2011
    2012
    CAGR, %
    Brazil
    4,988
    5,238
    5,489
    5,739
    5,990
    2.8%
    U.S.
    6,198
    6,858
    7,518
    8,178
    8,838
    5.7%
    China
    1,075
    1,101
    1,128
    1,154
    1,181
    1.4%
    India
    531
    551
    571
    591
    611
    2.2%
    France
    285
    301
    317
    333
    349
    3.2%
    Spain
    163
    184
    206
    227
    249
    6.9%
    Germany
    319
    381
    444
    506
    569
    9.7%
    Canada
    230
    276
    322
    368
    414
    9.9%
    Indonesia
    76
    84
    92
    100
    108
    5.6%
    Italy
    50
    53
    55
    58
    60
    2.8%
    ROW
    2,302
    2,548
    2,794
    3,040
    3,286
    5.7%
    World
    16,215
    17,574
    18,934
    20,293
    21,653
    4.6%
    Note how the US increased its ethanol production nearly 50% from 2008 to 2012.

    The scale of the increase - 2,640,000,000 gallons - is itself more than 10% of the entire world's production of ethanol from all source.

    More importantly, $7.7 billion was spent on ethanol subsidies last year. This equates to $0.94 per gallon.

    Furthermore to put the 8,178,000,000 gallons on ethanol product in perspective: The US uses roughly 9.21 million barrels per day for gasoline. This is over 180 million gallons per day.

    The ethanol in question thus represents 12.4% of gasoline usage just in the US, albeit the energy equivalent is significantly less.

    What's truly ironic? There is significant oil usage in the production of corn.

    If this example is correct (http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/...iveexample.htm) 1.2 gallons of petrochemical fertilizer is used to grow 1 bushel of corn, which in turn can be used to create 2.7 gallons of ethanol - using natural gas in the conversion process.

    This link speaks to the actual energy transfers:

    http://www.carbohydrateeconomy.org/l...a_Gallon_.html

    Table 1:Energy Used to Make Ethanol From Corn and Cellulose (Btus per Gallon of Ethanol)


    Corn Ethanol (Industry Average)Corn Ethanol (Industry Best)Corn Ethanol (State-of-the-Art)Cellulosic Crop-Based Ethanol
    Fertilizer12,9817,5423,8693,549
    Pesticide1,060643406437
    Fuel2,6511,5651,3218,120
    Irrigation7,0466,6246,046--
    Other (Feedstock)3,3953,2483,1222,558
    Total (feedstock)27,13419,62214,76514,663
    Process Steam36,73228,20126,18549,075
    Electricity14,4447,3005,1488,925
    Bulk Transport1,3301,1008001,330
    Other (process)1,4501,2821,0502,100
    Total (processing)53,95637,88333,18361,430
    TOTAL ENERGY INPUT81,09057,50447,94876,093
    Energy in Ethanol84,10084,10084,10084,100
    Co-product Credits27,57936,26136,261115,400
    TOTAL ENERGY OUTPUT111,679120,361120,361199,500
    Net Energy Gain30,58962,85772,413123,407
    Percent Gain38%109%151%162%
    So under the most optimistic assumptions - i.e. 4x efficiency improvements over present industry average - there is only a 162% gain in energy. This optimistic assumption is also better than 2x improved over industry best levels.

    Using the most highly optimistic assumption, and since the vast majority of the input energy is oil, 1 gallon of gasoline converts to a bit over 4 gallons of ethanol.

    Under existing industry averages, one gallon of gasoline converts to 1 gallon of ethanol.

    (By the way, 1 gallon of gasoline contains roughly 60% more energy than 1 gallon of ethanol).

    Talk about entropy in action...
    Last edited by c1ue; May 12, 2011, 03:32 PM.

  • #2
    Re: Ethanol subsidies in perspective

    Originally posted by c1ue View Post
    http://www.climatechangedispatch.com...ld-food-crisis

    Note how the US increased its ethanol production nearly 50% from 2008 to 2012.

    The scale of the increase - 2,640,000,000 gallons - is itself more than 10% of the entire world's production of ethanol from all source.

    More importantly, $7.7 billion was spent on ethanol subsidies last year. This equates to $0.94 per gallon.

    Furthermore to put the 8,178,000,000 gallons on ethanol product in perspective: The US uses roughly 9.21 million barrels per day for gasoline. This is over 180 million gallons per day.

    The ethanol in question thus represents 12.4% of gasoline usage just in the US, albeit the energy equivalent is significantly less.

    What's truly ironic? There is significant oil usage in the production of corn.

    If this example is correct (http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/...iveexample.htm) 1.2 gallons of petrochemical fertilizer is used to grow 1 bushel of corn, which in turn can be used to create 2.7 gallons of ethanol - using natural gas in the conversion process.

    This link speaks to the actual energy transfers:

    http://www.carbohydrateeconomy.org/l...a_Gallon_.html

    So under the most optimistic assumptions - i.e. 4x efficiency improvements over present industry average - there is only a 162% gain in energy. This optimistic assumption is also better than 2x improved over industry best levels.

    Using the most highly optimistic assumption, and since the vast majority of the input energy is oil, 1 gallon of gasoline converts to a bit over 4 gallons of ethanol.

    Under existing industry averages, one gallon of gasoline converts to 1 gallon of ethanol.

    (By the way, 1 gallon of gasoline contains roughly 60% more energy than 1 gallon of ethanol).

    Talk about entropy in action...

    And for those of you who track your car's gas mileage, ethanol mixed with gasoline (I think the ratio is 10%) results in fuel with a BTU content that is 3.7% less than pure gasoline....I was wondering why my 34 mpg car's gas mileage had fallen off to 32.7 mpg!!!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Ethanol subsidies in perspective

      So it actually wastes oil as well as costs more? What a scam.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Ethanol subsidies in perspective

        This is how our political economic system deals with peak cheap energy.

        Cash in.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Ethanol subsidies in perspective

          The ethanol scam and the damage ethanol does to the environment by wasting oil is another reason why I call the advocates of ethanol, "eco-frauds". And then we have the small issue of ethanol driving-up the cost of food by driving-up: a.) the cost of corn; b.) the cost of animal feed; and c.) the cost of cropland. And then there is the cost of pay-offs, not just to farmers but to Congress and the Members of Parliament in Ottawa, plus the cut ethanol lobbyists get on this scam.
          Last edited by Starving Steve; May 12, 2011, 07:01 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Ethanol subsidies in perspective

            Originally posted by don View Post
            This is how our political economic system deals with peak cheap energy.

            Cash in.
            Who here is cashing in?

            I will also mention the enormous wasteful use of water to grow corn, beets, and other ethanol ingredients.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Ethanol subsidies in perspective

              Originally posted by chr5648 View Post
              Who here is cashing in? ...
              Archer Daniels Midland and the American Corn Growers Association. Alone each are commercial giants; together they are a juggernaut.
              Long ago I did serious research on alternative transportation fuels, and these were the driving commercial interests back then -could have changed in the years since.
              As I recall, Warren Buffet's son was a big spoke for the American Corn Grower's Association back in the day.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Ethanol subsidies in perspective

                Notice that eco-frauds at the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington on January 21, 2011 approved a mix of 15% ethanol for motor fuel, and they have dismissed the damage ethanol fuels do to catalytic converters. And the EPA did this allowing a waiver to the Clean Air Act.

                Be it on faked-issues of radiation safety, faked-modelling of climate change, on ethanol and E-15, on garbage and bio-fuels, on air quality, on licensing of power plants, acid rain, oil drilling, fracking, faked-issues about taconite-tailings in Lake Superior, rare birds, rare field-mice in San Francisco, faked-issues about mercury in San Jose, defining CO2 as a pollutant, or whatever, I have NEVER known the EPA in Washington to be anything but a bunch of liars and frauds. The EPA is cashing-in on money from the lobbyists, including from the Sierra Club and Greenpeace and agri-business.
                Last edited by Starving Steve; May 13, 2011, 02:37 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Ethanol subsidies in perspective

                  Originally posted by Starving Steve View Post
                  Notice that eco-frauds at the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington on January 21, 2011 approved a mix of 15% ethanol for motor fuel, and they have dismissed the damage ethanol fuels do to catalytic converters. And the EPA did this allowing a waiver to the Clean Air Act.

                  Be it on faked-issues of radiation safety, on climate change, on ethanol and E-15, on garbage and bio-fuels, on air quality, on licensing of power plants, acid rain, oil drilling, fracking, rare birds, faked-issues about mercury, CO2, or whatever, I have NEVER known the EPA in Washington to be anything but a bunch of liars and frauds.
                  I understand the very good reasons you say this, Steve, and you are mostly right.

                  But there is a counter-argument that says the thermodynamic and economic cost is justified by a subtle and small gain in certain narrowly-defined types of air pollution.

                  Plus, should oil be suddenly denied to us, it is worth something to have a small fleet of Flex-Fuel E-85 autos able to run on our corn, on the road on day one of such an unexpected event. Many thousands of ordinary pickups and sedans today have a little green leaf on the back panel that says "FFV"- they're all running on normal petroleum gasoline every day, but they can run on E-85 if they need to. We have that contingency covered right now.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Ethanol subsidies in perspective

                    Originally posted by thriftyandboringinohio View Post
                    I understand the very good reasons you say this, Steve, and you are mostly right.

                    But there is a counter-argument that says the thermodynamic and economic cost is justified by a subtle and small gain in certain narrowly-defined types of air pollution.

                    Plus, should oil be suddenly denied to us, it is worth something to have a small fleet of Flex-Fuel E-85 autos able to run on our corn, on the road on day one of such an unexpected event. Many thousands of ordinary pickups and sedans today have a little green leaf on the back panel that says "FFV"- they're all running on normal petroleum gasoline every day, but they can run on E-85 if they need to. We have that contingency covered right now.
                    I think you have made a fair comment: From the standpoint of national security, a variety of fuels being offered at the pump and flex-fuel vehicles that can run on E-85, if necessary, do make sense.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Ethanol subsidies in perspective

                      Originally posted by Starving Steve View Post
                      ...The EPA is cashing-in on money from the lobbyists, including from the Sierra Club and Greenpeace and agri-business.
                      I would respectfully rebut this point. The people I worked with at EPA ( and DOT and DOE) were good folks trying to see the good side of the work we all did. None of them made anything more than a modest paycheck. ADM et al were arm-twisting legislators and their staff to spend tax money on research projects to justify tax subsidies for their ethanol. We were the professional research houses piling on to get the research contracts. But the rank-and file EPA folk did nothing wrong.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Ethanol subsidies in perspective

                        Originally posted by thriftyandboringinohio View Post
                        I would respectfully rebut this point. The people I worked with at EPA ( and DOT and DOE) were good folks trying to see the good side of the work we all did. None of them made anything more than a modest paycheck. ADM et al were arm-twisting legislators and their staff to spend tax money on research projects to justify tax subsidies for their ethanol. We were the professional research houses piling on to get the research contracts. But the rank-and file EPA folk did nothing wrong.
                        I have counterparts at the EPA. The rank and file does VERY well financially. Can't quite see them as rank-and-file, but also don't see how the EPA cashes in with lobbyists, either. Can you explain (actually, this is a question for Steve)?
                        Last edited by wayiwalk; May 13, 2011, 08:11 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Ethanol subsidies in perspective

                          Originally posted by TABIO
                          Plus, should oil be suddenly denied to us, it is worth something to have a small fleet of Flex-Fuel E-85 autos able to run on our corn, on the road on day one of such an unexpected event. Many thousands of ordinary pickups and sedans today have a little green leaf on the back panel that says "FFV"- they're all running on normal petroleum gasoline every day, but they can run on E-85 if they need to. We have that contingency covered right now.

                          The main point is reasonable, but I think it is quite clear from the above numbers that ethanol is probably not the right choice to achieve 'energy insurance'.

                          For one thing, coal is far cheaper as well as being extremely abundant in the US. Building or guaranteeing 14 coal to liquids plants would provide far more bang for the buck than 1 year's subsidy of ethanol production.

                          Other avenues: CNG distribution proliferation. Public transportation enhancement.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Ethanol subsidies in perspective

                            At least we end up with one hell of a corn infrastructure expansion. Maybe we can sell grain and corn syrup to the world when dollar devalues by another 40%.
                            BTW I missed the trade in 2005 and never purchased Iowa farm land.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Ethanol subsidies in perspective

                              Originally posted by bill
                              At least we end up with one hell of a corn infrastructure expansion. Maybe we can sell grain and corn syrup to the world when dollar devalues by another 40%.
                              BTW I missed the trade in 2005 and never purchased Iowa farm land
                              I don't know about that.

                              The average yield per acre is roughly 42 bushels. Times 2.7 = 113 gallons of ethanol. The roughly $1 subsidy per gallon thus yields you about $100 extra per year.

                              How much was an acre of corn farmland in 2005?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X