[XCSSA] ROEI: Ethanol vs. ADM vs. Return on Energy Investment vs. PHILL

[xcssa@xcssa.org]

On Jun 18, 2007, at 5:48 PM, xcssa-admin@xcssa.org wrote:

>> My take:
>>
>> Bio-diesel (or any diesel for that matter):
>> Some of the nastiest, half-burning, particulate pollution creation  
>> fuel/engine
>> combinations out there today!

"Clean Diesel" technologies are now available.  Particulate Traps can  
reduce particulate emmissions by 90%, and catalytic converters reduce  
NOx (smog producing) by 50%.  For many years these were delayed  
because of high sulfur fuel in the US.  Now, finally, after decades  
of delay, we have low sulfur diesel fuel in the USA.  (Sulfur poisons  
catalytic converters.)

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2004/08/16/209488.html
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/01/08/detroit-auto-show-mercedes-benz- 
launches-clean-diesels-for-the/

Lots of ways have been proposed for producing biodiesel.  You could  
"clean" the output of coal electric plants by running the emissions  
through pipes of algae, then ultimately harvest the algae for biodiesel.

One cool property of diesel engines is that they burn a wide variety  
of stuff.  They were originally invented to run on peanut oil.


> Crop-based fuels are just one facet of a multi-pronged approach to  
> weaning the
> world off of petroleum. Think of it this way - petroleum fuels  
> right now use up
> carbon without returning anything to the earth. Crop-based fuels  
> are nearly zero
> in carbon use since most of the byproducts can go right back into  
> the earth for
> the next batch.

That would be true if the crops and processing didn't require any  
carbon-based inputs.  However, current ethanol production from corn  
uses carbon-based diesel for farming and transport, and other fuels  
(typically natural gas) for processing and distillation.  According  
to some studies (Pimental and others) more carbon-based energy is  
used in producing ethanol than there is energy in the ethanol itself.

However, the same is not necessarily true for all methods of  
producing ethanol.  Brazil does a good job with sugar cane.  They use  
the waste gas from processing the cane to power the distillation.   
Sugar cane also works better, for them, for other reasons.  Lots of  
water is required, but Brazil has lots of rainfall (at least it does  
now...).    Unfortunately, the rain forest is being cut down  
(probably mostly for export beef, but also arguably for ethanol.)   
The consequences of this are enormous.  Among other things, it could  
result is reduced rainfall...killing the very industries that are now  
responsible for cutting the rainforest.  In the end, the amazon could  
be a desert...  And no more giant forest to inhale CO2.  Here is some  
discussion on Brazilian ethanol (which, BTW, is kept out of the US by  
tariff...):

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/10/10/171011/86

Some ethanol plants in the US are also using renewable power.  But  
because of poor energy return, Corn is not a sustainable energy  
crop.  But there are lots of other possibilities that may be worth  
looking into, including things that could grow in pipes...

But the need is enormous, and there is very limited arable land and  
water left in the world.  In fact, we pretty much need all there is  
simply to grow food.

According to some analysts I believe, such as Robert Rapier, ethanol  
is at best a niche solution, for locales that have special  
resources.  What your engine burns will depend on where you live.

Other possibilities:

Natural gas.  There is not enough surplus natural gas in North  
America for significant transportation use.  Some sources say it has  
already peaked in North America, so supply is falling, and it already  
has many uses, such as keeping people warm in winter.  It could be  
imported from other countries where it is in surplus.  But some of  
those countries might not want to sell, and nobody wants an LPG port  
either.

Synthetic fuels from coal, etc.  Possible, but with double or triple  
the CO2 compared to current fuels, so it's a big problem for global  
warming, and other kinds of pollution.  Not cheap either.

Hydrogen?  Not likely to be of much help for many decades, if ever.   
It's very hard to transport and store; leaks out of everything, low  
energy density.  (Wasn't that the point for a vehicle fuel?)  Fuel  
cells are very expensive.  It's not an energy source, just a way of  
tranporting energy, and, as it turns out, not a very good way.   
Making hydrogen from electricity is very inefficient.  Currently most  
hydrogen is made from natural gas.  If that's what you're going to do  
for energy, why not just burn the natural gas, which *is* already a  
practical fuel for vehicles.  But see above.


>
> For electricity, yes. Don't think I'll be attaching a windmill to  
> the top of my
> car or solar panels on the roof anytime soon since I wouldn't get  
> very far. I
> want my air conditioning and my loud radio, and those alternative  
> sources
> wouldn't cut it. :)

Yes, but whenever I park my Vehicle-to-Grid Plug-In-Hybrid or  
electric car, I charge up from the local solar panels or wind farms.   
Plus, I get an extra low electricity cost because I allow the grid to  
tap my batteries during peak electricity grid demands.  I program it  
to ensure I will have enough juice for my next trip.

(In my dreams, anyway.)

Electric vehicles are already practical for many if not most people.   
Some now have ranges up to 200 miles between charges.  (With plug-in  
hyrbids you can use electricity mostly, but have fuel backup when  
needed.)  And there are many new promising battery technologies that  
may do even better.   GM killed the mainstream EV-1 (which used plain  
old lead acid batteries), but there are many interesting EV's now in  
limited production; something for everyone, super high performance or  
super economy, take your pick.

Electricity can be made from just about anything, including renewable  
sources, and transported.  It can even be stored (batteries, hydro  
storage, etc.)

Don't forget lots of other transportation solutions:

1) Run all existing fixed-track diesel trains on electric power.   
This frees up diesel fuel for other purposes.  In the future, we will  
likely be using trains more and trucks less, because trains are far  
more energy efficient.  Some countries are already doing this.  In  
some cases, it's an ironic reversal, where diesel trains replaced  
electric just after WWII.

2) More efficiency can go a long way.

3) More commuter light rail, etc.

4) Telecommuting, ride sharing, etc.

5) Big changes.  More centralized cities, collapsing suburbs and  
exurbs.  Less need for transportation, and better use of electric  
powered light rail.  More locally grown food, and other local  
production too.  (Downside: less trade because transportation cost is  
now substantial.)  After WWII, we abandoned inner cities for suburbs  
in a revolution that was nearly completed in 20 years.  Likewise, we  
specialized, outsourced manufacturing, etc. Cheap oil made that  
possible.  At some point in the future, the reverse processes may occur.

6) Bicycles and shoes.

Like them or not, big changes are probably coming in the next few  
decades.  We can adapt creatively, or just wait for doom and the  
collapse of civilization.  Even with creative adaptation, however,  
many sacrifices will probably have to be made post-peak-oil.  Things  
we have taken for granted will get much more expensive.  Best start  
thinking about it now, and implementing some things.  (1) and (2)  
above are a clear win and should be started now.

Charles