The increasing net energy gain of ethanol

This is FOOLS GOLD pure and simple. The source of the "information" in this piece is laughable:
"surveys with ethanol producers and corn farmers and is summarized in a press release they issued this week."
Why don't you just ask a coal company to tell you how great coal is??

How about using a number Sterling Energy Systems for the power source?

The study needs to get its hands on the actual refinery energy bills. You can bet the refiners are fudging the surveys.

Cane ethanol is subject to efficiency gains as well and will always dwarf corn when it comes to net energy. We can't compete with tropical cane. When the tariffs fall, corn ethanol will be in a world of hurt, in fact, it would be in a world of hurt if the mandates get dropped, or the subsidies, and on and on. After 30 years, it still can't stand on its own.

Why would anyone believe an article written by an ethanol refiner?

That may have been true 30 years ago? The corn ethanol energy balance did not become positive until the idea of giving energy credit to distillers grains came along in 2004.

The USDA marching orders have been amended to promote the production of corn ethanol. It is by no means, an unbiased source. They said so in a press release last year.

Read "How Reliable are Those USDA Ethanol Studies?"

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2006/03/30/how-reliable-are-those-usda-ethanol-studies/

and here:

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2006/03/23/grain-derived-ethanol-the-emperor%E2%80%99s-new-clothes/

In 2004 the net energy gain for ethanol production was 1.76/1? In 2006 a paper was published in Science that reviewed six corn ethanol energy balance studies and concluded that about 80% of the energy in a gallon of corn ethanol came from fossil fuels.

The ability to improve efficiency is nearly limitless? Yeah, riiiight. If you don't buy the laws of physics.

Someone wrote: --were biomass used instead of natural gas for heating the process, the energy units returned are above 20:1!

There is a company offering a bale burning furnace that can do just that. see http://aaecorp.com/ceo.html for a view of their unit that is clamed to be scaleable for any loose or baled biomass feedstock.

jnshere----" Bryce might reply to the study you cite by saying that of course ethanol producers are going to claim a net energy gain, but that a survey of people who make their livings in ethanol is hardly the most objective measure of energy gains or losses.

What do you think?"------

I think the same thing can be said of people who support petroleum use.

sacramentoE85----" Natural gas is not a renewable fuel,"-----

Natural gas(methane) is both a fossil fuel and a biofuel. It can be made cheaply and easily from any type of organic material. We've been doing for over 150 years.

Ethanol plants will become more energy efficient. Net energy value of ethanol will continue to improve.

http://www.dynglobal.com

The study that Bryce referenced is titled 'Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass, and Wood; Biodiesel Production Using Soybean and Sunflower' and was written by Ted Patzek and David Pimentel. A copy of the study in PDF form can be found at the following address.

http://www.c4aqe.org/Economics_of_Ethanol/ethanol.2005.pdf

This study was widely criticized for using old data and for not giving any credit for the production of distillers grains.

I can understand why Bryce just referenced the studies conclusions without providing a link to where the study can be found. If you look over the study you will see that they threw everything that they could think of at ethanol to come up with those numbers. I have always wondered how well petroleum would fare if subjected to the same type of scrutiny.

Well, Bryce is a long-time renewable energy critic, headquartered out of the natural gas rich state of Texas (though he is also a big-time nuclear and advanced battery fanatic). Natural gas is not a renewable fuel, and how likely is it that nuclear is going to take off an provide much electricity in the current political climate? Electricity would be mostly from coal. Aside from that, UC Berkeley received a $500 million grant from BP to build the Energy Biosciences Institute, which BP runs so that they can invent and patent the next generation biofuel. That won't be corn or switchgrass in their mind (probably algae or something else they can closely control and take our U.S. dollars from us). So that's why you'll see dramatically negative American farmer-grown corn and switchgrass/cellulosic biofuel information coming from Berkeley. Berkeley's not alone though; many universities across the country have received many millions of dollars from the oil industry, and those same industries spew out gushers of lies like that study.

http://www.robertbryce.com/node/7

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/02/01_EBI_press.shtml

It is hard to question that corn ethanol is getting more efficient, as that's how companies remain profitable and competitive in a low margin market--that is, to become more efficient. As well, corn yields are ever increasing, and production practices also become far more efficient. The number of 2.3 may or may not be exactly accurate (though I believe very close), but there's no doubt that it is a POSITIVE number and it is ever improving. One thing not mentioned in this blog entry--were biomass used instead of natural gas for the heat process, the energy units returned are above 20:1!

Interesting. I'm reading the book "Gusher of Lies," by Robert Bryce, which includes a scathing chapter on ethanol. According to Bryce, a 2005 study by researchers at UC Berkeley shows that corn ethanol results in a net energy loss of 29% and that cellulosic ethanol made from switchgrass results in a net energy loss of 50%. (I tried to find the study online, without luck). I imagine that Bryce might reply to the study you cite by saying that of course ethanol producers are going to claim a net energy gain, but that a survey of people who make their livings in ethanol is hardly the most objective measure of energy gains or losses.

What do you think?