Recent Activity About Blog Press Releases Calendar Products Feeds Contact
 

Ethanol: How Much Can We Produce?

By Stephanie Dreyer
April 5, 2011   |   40 Comments

Do you like this blog post?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

40 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 40
April 8, 2011
Do these great numbers include feedstock grown specifically for this purpose? If so, the fertilizer needs to be added to the cost. Fertilizer is made with oil, and the oil industry is constantly massaging numbers to make this process look better. At best, this science is carbon nuetral, and we seldom operate at our best when profits are at risk. My scinetific interest in this is if we are truly using waste stock, that is what makes this machine tick. But never forget children, the oil monster is out there ... right in your own closet.
Comment
2 of 40
April 8, 2011
tim-gard-25916, it's true that today's fertilizer has a large oil input. However, I question 'science' that says oil is a requirement for fertilizer. Indeed, I suspect anyone who looks even casually will find that fertilizer predates the oil well by several millenia. And, as to your assumption that fertilizer is required to grow today's biomass, let me ask when was the last time you saw a fertilizer spreader roaming through the pine woods of South Georgia?
Comment
3 of 40
April 8, 2011
I did not say oil was a requirement for fertilizer, and I do not appreciate you putting words into my mouth to make lame points. You need to research the industry. Today, and for the last 50 years, cow dung is in short supply for fertilizer, and ignoring the oil manufacture process for this element to fill the large gap is foolhardy, and in the case of oil people, self serving. If you are not an oil person, research the fertilizer manufacture and profits of the largest manufacturers in the US and my point becomes obvious. And pointing out one smooth patch of skin on an oger, does not make the critter a thing of beauty, even in South Gerogia. nice try ...
Comment
4 of 40
April 8, 2011
David Blume has suggested mesquite limb-ups and pods as a source for alcohol production. This does not require fertilizer, as it grows wild in the SW.

In the South, there is kudzu.

In other areas, other plants over-grow and become a bother. Some consider Douglass Fir to be a pest.

I am not fond of grass, personally, and grass-seed growers are having to change out what they do because the bloom is off grass. The Chinese and other smart people grow clover as cover, which sets nitrogen, and then they can grow fancy plants, if they want, without nitrogen fertilizer.

Other plants, such as flax, are easy to grow and have multiple uses.

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2011/04/flax_returns_to_the_willamette.html

Another plant that requires minimal or no fertilizer is industrial hemp. Lord Rees-Mogg, no hippy, has proposed that we could solve our energy challenges with this. The seeds contain valuable Omega-3 oils, and assorted other things can be made from the plant, including plastics and high-quality paper (some of the U.S. founding documents were written on hemp).

A hemp farm was on the ground where the Pentagon now is because hemp was required for rope in big war efforts of earlier times.

It is just ridiculous that Canadian farmers can sell hemp products into the U.S., but U.S. farmers cannot compete with the trade. Even that can only happen because a private company, Dr. Bronner's, took on the DEA, and sued them to include hemp oil in their products. One of the Bronner family members got busted in a photo-op protest outside DEA offices in D.C.

We live in an unspeakably silly and inefficient political system. If we make improvements in that, we will make headway on energy efficiency and resilience.
Comment
5 of 40
April 8, 2011
Last I looked, most ammonia - a significant component of most US fertilizer - is made using natural gas as the hydrogen source, not oil. Now tim-gard-25916 obviously feels more up to date on science than I, but let me mildly ask - not to put words in anyone's mouth - if it is not true that several times as many acres of biomass on this earth never see synthetic fertilizer as succumb to the evil mix? And does not several times as much biomass productivity come each year from growth not enhanced with synthetic fertilizer as from fields dosed with N-P-K? And is this true in the US, as well as outside this country? What ARE the facts?
Comment
6 of 40
April 8, 2011
Fertilizer is mostly made with natgas, not oil. Most cellulosic feedcrops have low fertilizer inputs relative to corn and such. The problem is with cellulosic ethanol production, which always seems to be tomorrow's technology.
Comment
7 of 40
April 8, 2011
Charles, the facts are a great deal of oil is used in the process and manufacture of fertilizer. I did not say, again, that it was the only source. Stop saying that is what I said. Fertilizer, in massive amounts is manufactured using oil. And natural gas, feel better?

now a quote I looked up ...
'On the other hand, manufactured nitrogen fertilizers are normally made from petroleum or natural gas' This was found in Plain Talk Colorado. http://www.ext.colostate.edu/ptlk/1619.html
as ons source. If you still believe fertilizer is not manufactured using oil, the People in Colorado might need to know that. And yes, natural gas is a fossil fuel. And you are correct, several times more acres of biomass never see synthetic fertilizer. But I am speaking of damage done, not damage not done! You are correct, it was only one bullet to the head, not three! Does everyone succomb to this mumbo jumbo you expell as intellent arguement??
No image available
Comment
8 of 40
Anonymous
April 11, 2011
It is nice to see this article come out. The fact that ethanol is THE molecule has been rattling around the industry for at least three years now. Quite a few are focusing on 'drop in fuels' or bio-crude or bio-butanol. While drop-in fuels are needed for jet fuel, ethanol will out preform anything else for land transport, both light and heavy. BIG OIL needs bio-butanol for its own blending reasons and would like to see the biofuels industry go to bio-crude so they can realize value from their down stream refining assets. We will need a bio drop-in fuel component and bio-isobutanol as long as we continue to blend low levels of ethanol with gasoline, but as a transition takes place, it is important to remember the power of ethanol for its high octane enabling the highest thermal efficiencies in IC engines and its two carbon molecule which drastically reduces GHG over diesel or gasoline.

Our agriculture industry needs to pay attention to soil sustainability and use of chemical fertilizers needs to be addressed. Some say that the biomass needs to be left in the field (or forest) to maintain soil fertility, but my question to them is "what happens to the hydrogen?" While sequestering carbon in the soil is desirable as a way to hold nitrogen and other soil nutrients, most of the hydrogen escapes as methane gas. We need that hydrogen to remain in the fuel cycle to make a low carbon fuel.

Making any fuel requires energy, be it gasoline of ethanol. Coskata's process uses gasification and the biomass supplies that energy. If a traditional fermentation process is used, energy needs to be added from somewhere and CO2 will be a by product. We know how to make ethanol from CO2 and H2, so the question is how can we leave the carbon in the soil and get the hydrogen to the ethanol facility? Bio char is getting some notice as a way to improve soil fertility and nitrogen holding capacity. Can it be integrated into the ethanol fuel process? We don't know. B. Brandon
Comment
9 of 40
April 11, 2011
Bio fuels are a dead end road. These elements (like hydrogen) are an important part of the ecosystem, and there are thousands of years of proof that man rarely pays any real attention to environmental impact when there is cash involved. And biomass on its best day is barely carbon neutral once you consider all the incidentals. Once we remove fossil fuels from the energy stream the planet can deal with these farming elements easily.

No, the real solution is pure hydro electricity, purely solar driven, and more than enough to replace all fossil fuels and biomass solutions. Then we can put up scrubbers all around the world to clean that dirty hydrogen from the air …
Comment
10 of 40
April 11, 2011
Jean Pain had a system where he made compost, heat, and methane from forest duff.

He used the heat to warm his home and generate wash water. He used a big enough area so he could get a pile to work for 18 months.

I know methane is inferior to ethynol as fuel, but still, it's something, and at the end, he had high-grade compost.

I know an individual who heated his city house this way while he and his wife raised three children (Ole and Maitri Ersson).

Is the reason this does not happen more frequently that we have a handy-man/geek deficiency?

Especially in these times, I am puzzled about why this does not happen more.
Comment
11 of 40
DOE in it's report for 2010 states that the total requirement of energy by 2035 is 737.8 Quadrillion BTU of which the requirement for transportation is 142.1 Quadrillion BTU.Ref DOE/EIA-0484(2010)
My studies involving dedicated plantations consisting of four plants indicate that 1,143 Quads BTU – 3981 Quads BTU depending on the cultivar of the major crop that is planted, can be produced.These dedicated plantations are low in capital and maintenance costs and near independent of irrigation, agro chemicals and by a suitable modification of the distillation system require nearly 50% less energy for distillation.
The net result would be fuel at less than 50% of the price at the pump at present.It could be near 10-15%.
Comment
12 of 40
April 20, 2011
If nature sequesters carbon through the natural degradation of plant life burial, just how much energy can Mankind draw from this science without long range negative impact? Once this becomes as common as natural gas is now, there will be a significant increase in greenhouse gasses. Do you really want to go down that road? If you have already placed your life work in this science, I suppose the long range outcome is not relavant to you, but others do not have that commitment created by a bad decision to begin with.
Comment
13 of 40
April 21, 2011
Tim Gard, traditional cultures often limbed up standing trees to decrease fire risk. Another choice is to compost limbings or coppice.

Jean Pain, in France, was famous for this. If you work out the carbon/nitrogen ratio properly, you can get high temperatures for long periods, and produce gas.

Alcohol Can Be a Gas by David Blume describes a method for producing gas as well. He would not dream of using corn. The corn monoculture is an artifact of a corrupt federal government. It does not make sense to feed this stuff to humans unless your goal is a lot of chronic illness. Straight, corn is not good for cattle either. The cattle who win blue ribbons at rural fairs are often the ones who were fed mash left over from alcohol production. That is how the BATF used to figure out whom they would bust next.

I am not in the alcohol industry, other than drinking a beer or a glass of wine now and then. But I am a person who composts, and I know there is often an alcohol phase of that process, depending on the feedstock. Unharvested figs left on a tarp in the rain will make your back yard smell like a brewery. This is not hard to do, which is why the oil industry went to such great pains to see that brewing your own could be punished. You would not want farmers to grow their own tractor fuel, or re-use their own seeds, for that matter.
Comment
14 of 40
April 21, 2011
The US produces well over twice as much corn and plants less acreage than it did in 1980.

Dent corn, can not be eaten by humans, it is grown for cattle feed. Dent corn is 2-4% protein, and mostly starch. Twinkies and Ding Dongs for cattle. The yeast culture left over as DDG after the fermentation of ethanol from the grain contains 25-30% protein---comparable to the soy meal it replaces in feed rations. Corn is over 3X as productive in bu/ac than soybeans. In order to produce the same amount protein using soy meal that is produced from corn using ethanol fermentation, you'd have to pay twice as much, and plant twice as many acres. DDG is a basic feedstock for all sorts of high quality foods, meats, dairy, eggs, baked goods, even vitamin and protein supplements. The ethanol is a bonus.

We can not supply all of our energy usage with ethanol made from corn. So what? We don't have to. We have many other sources of ethanol too. Nothing anywhere says we have to get all of our ethanol from one source only.

And nothing anywhere says that we have to use only one biofuel. In fact, we can use a range of fuels in one engine. They are on the roads today.
Comment
15 of 40
April 21, 2011
Hi Mary,

April 21, 2011

>Tim Gard, traditional cultures often limbed up standing trees >to decrease fire risk. Another choice is to compost limbings >or coppice.
You must remember to carry your formulas out to the finish. We are not talking about composting the simple things we generate normally, we are talking about opening up a whole new industry. Attach that word, industry, to simple composting and the formula changes radically. We will be putting even more greenhouse gasses into the air with this plan than we do with oil, because if there is enough electricity you see, they will make it and sell it. Because of this, it is a bad idea, more bad science like dams. Making money is good sometimes, but those who plan to make money on this will encourage you even with its warts. Be careful ...
Comment
16 of 40
April 21, 2011
Tim Gard, so you are criticizing what Brazil has done with its economy? Flex cars, telling the IMF to take a hike, not burdening its people with outdated military imperial adventures, not tilling because cane grows on the same roots for many years, using swales to catch water for the cane so mechanical irrigation is unnecessary, etc.?

When I compare the behavior of the U.S. government to the behavior of government and private companies like SEMCO in Brazil, I think about moving. I hear the music is good down there also.
Comment
17 of 40
April 21, 2011
Brazils economy?? You're joking, right? I am criticizing the fractured science of energy through plant waste Mary, not the actions of a separate country. And yes, if they do it in Brazil, it must be OK, is that your argument Mary? That is deflecting the argument to brace your choice, but it is lame. You can do better than that. And if you are incapable of reasonable discussion you should move to Brazil where they are so much more intelligent than us silly Americans.
Comment
18 of 40
April 21, 2011
Many postings here have discussed things that grow easily that can be turned into fuel, substrates that are not subsized.

Often these plants are attacked with chemical warfare that does not work and that harms the value that should be and could be stored, in soil health and bio-diversity.

Chemical welfare/warfare can harm medical personnel working to treat harm to line-workers.

Take your shoes off before walking on carpet where children will crawling, if you have walked on treated ground.

Brazil is not unique in ability to use biomass well. If your argument is to apologize for poor U.S. government policy, well, yes, we need to agree to disagree.

In my judgment, U.S. policy needs to become independent of the corrupt revolving door that shackles U.S. people to subsidy-seekers who have harmed everyday U.S. people in unspeakable ways.

It is the season of forgiveness. Maybe they know not what they do, but that does not excuse their willingness to leverage subsidies by purchasing influence with campaign donations.

Parts of the U.S. can grow sorghum, from which molasses and alcohol can be made, while it grows on the same roots for many years.

Mint-family plants make oils that are mostly too valuable to use for fuel, but they are like weeks and grow on the same roots for years.

I do not understand why looking at what succeeds elsewhere is irrelevant to U.S. people.

If there is a joke about Brazil, it is a sad joke on us at present. Have you noticed how the real is doing compared with the dollar?

Security agencies are supposed to protect us from companies on probation for criminal negligence. When pipelines and other "infrastructure" blow-up and kill working people, these agencies could have protected. The FBI is supposed to protect us from domestic danger.

BP was on probation when the Gulf blew up. Where was accountability for the harm from that? The FBI was filming peace groups.
Comment
19 of 40
April 21, 2011
If the Renewable Energy community does not publicize the externalities and collateral damage from present policy, and the constructive directions we need to go in, now, who else is going to do this?
Comment
20 of 40
April 21, 2011
Talking about how wonderful your science is does not change what I have said Mary. The planet using plant groth for energy will remove mass amounts of stored carbon from the ground and fling it into the air. Think monkeys throwing poop ... simple as that.
Comment
21 of 40
April 21, 2011
Tim, you are not aware that plants require CO2 and remove it to produce roots and sugars and so on?

The CO2 sequestration print of a plant called eelgrass is quite remarkable. I will post a link later if you are interested.
Comment
22 of 40
April 21, 2011
Tim---in a nutshell, Mary is absolutely right, you are absolutely wrong. CNN is running stories this week on the status of the Gulf oil spill. What they are showing is proof incontrovertible that Mary is absolutely right. Oil is killing fish, birds, animals, plankton, plant life and people.

-------" The planet using plant groth for energy will remove mass amounts of stored carbon from the ground and fling it into the air."---------

You've got it completely bassackwards. Plants REMOVE CO2 and respire oxygen. Digging or pumping coal and oil out of the earth and burning them puts new CO2 into the atmosphere.

Period.
Comment
23 of 40
April 21, 2011
No, again you are failing to follow the complete path. Your nutshell is not a nutshell, it is misguided simplicity. You simply stop at the growing stage. *Ya can't stop there Fred!! Follow through completely!!*
Yes, plants do remove CO2 from the air. But when you use the mass they created as an energy source, now follow this Fred, the CO2 that was collected by the plant in its lifetime is released back into the atmosphere. If the plants are left on the ground to decay, some CO2 does return to the air, but some becomes sequestered in the earth it grew in. That's the hard part for you I guess. Leave it alone and it sequesters CO2, but burn it and it does not. Let me repeat that , if you cut and burn it, every spec of CO2 is released back into the air that it came from. This natural sequestration is why the planet went from high CO2 to high oxygen over the last million years or so. Check your science book Fred, it's all in there.
And when the hell did I say oil wasn't killing fish and wildlife?? Is there a group of you guys making this stuff up in order to make yourselves feel better? Cut it out you horses petute!
Now, if you wanted to claim carbon neutral, if you consider not sequestering CO2 naturally with the same result, well that is still not neutral, because the increase in CO2 is not neutral. If you people are going to go natural, you might want to do a bit of homework before you shoot your mouths off.
Comment
24 of 40
April 21, 2011
Tim. When plants plants do their own tilling, as many of them do, at least half the biomass that supports the plant is underground. If you scrape the visible stuff off the top, some plants die with that biomass still down there, where it will be colonized by soil life if left undisturbed.

It might not die though. It might send new life up somewhere else, in the hope the entity that ate its top will not find the new shoots.

Whether the stuff underground lives or dies after having parts amputated, that stuff was put there using CO2.

That underground infrastructure is built in symbiosis with bacteria, that may help plants to use CO2, and with fungi, who may mine minerals and break them into digestible sizes and chemical compositions for plants to use.

I know this because I took a permaculture design certification course and because I have been a permie hobbyist for years. I used to think I was just this odd person who read a One Straw Revolution by herself, and no one else in the world understood that book. That was years ago. I was trying to be a bookdealer. I bought a bunch of first editions. Too bad I did not hang on to those firsts. I'm not as unique as I thought.

Some tree people do not care for earthworms because trees are often capable of their own excavation and aeration, but gardeners of vegetables tend to like worms and sometimes moles and mice for the same reasons they like worms.

Oaks can send roots so deep, I don't think anyone even knows the record.

In some climates, plant books will say a plant gets 15 feet tall, say.

In the Pacific NW, where enough biomass still exists to temper the climate, that same plant may get thirty feet tall. We have to have our own books.

Junipers will tap deep aquifers, which is why there has been a bounty on them in the drier areas east of the Cascades, on the other side of the rain shadow.
Comment
25 of 40
April 21, 2011
The science is changing rapidly on these issues.

Anne Merica, who sometimes comments here, sent me over to Systems Thinking World where I learned some stuff about emergency grow sacks in Kenya, provided by a French group, that allowed people in the Kibera neighborhood of Kenya to survive when they could not leave their homes or get food shipped in. Many of these were women-headed families that are now selling surpluses from their grow-sacks. They need portability because they could be displaced from their homes.

There are many ways to measure wealth and wellbeing. The health of soil could be a prime way that we measure.

If what I read on Systems Thinking World is indicative of how many are thinking, the world over, we are getting there.
No image available
Comment
26 of 40
Anonymous
April 21, 2011
TO COMMENT#24 above - I tried to plug my flex-fuel SUV into the electrical grid and I couldn't get it to move an inch! "Of course" not you might say, "It wasn't made to run on electricity." Well neither was my flex-fuel Suv made to run on ethanol! It just can, somewhat. From your referenced article - "The internal combustion engine just isn't very efficient, especially when compared to electric vehicles," says Campbell. "Even the best ethanol-producing technologies with hybrid vehicles aren't enough to overcome this." This is misleading (they obviously don't know what emerging technologies are capable of) the to the point of being just plain wrong. The authors clearly have used out of date and unfavorable data. Look who supported this study. They are at the center of the growing academic/industrial complex that will study everything (without really knowing what is going on in the field), and develop noting.

Detroit and other manufacturers know how to make high efficiency IC engines. Advanced bio-ethanol conversion can be very very efficient from biomass. Much of the present focus on ethanol is focused on waste streams (even corn ethanol is largely a 'waste stream' product. LanzaTech has microbes that produce ethanol from flue gasses (no biomass needed). They are presently building a small commercial plant in China using waste CO from a steel mill. They have proof of concept lab production using CO2. Forget sequestration, use it as a resource. A quick comparison on state of the art technologies - Electric: 93%motor x 90% charge/discharge x 90% transmission loss (cost) x 45% plant efficiency using a very expensive gasification, dual cycle turbine generator = 34% efficiency. Ethanol: 80% net conversion x 90%? transportation x 48% IC engine efficiency = 35% efficiency. Both can have regenerative breaking etc. Down side of electric - much greater vehicle and infrastructure costs. Bill Brandon
Comment
27 of 40
April 21, 2011
Yes Mary, I understand what you are saying. And while under the natural circumstances you speak of are true, implementing a plant system that would replace fossil fuels is quite a different thing. The plants you speak of generally are long life plants that propagate at a much slower rate than algae, which is the current favorite, and algae is a non root plant. It is the rapid growth of this plant that makes it so attractive as a fuel source. Once you begin the high growth, and quick consumption the carbon sequestration is almost zero. (no roots in algae) Now, the good part of this is that while carbon neutral is not perfect, it is certainly better than carbon positive 100, or whatever as in fossil fuels. I cannot even imagine what kind of system it would take to replace fossil fuels, but that is a lot of algae! And it will not be cheap! And that is based on the question is it being grown naturally, and as of now, that is not the case. To maximize the output, growth incentives are introduced that draw again the question of zero impact. The issue here is to never take anything for granted, especially where people make financial gambles in science. The scientific datum becomes 'fudged' in order to protect the investor. Corn as a source for ethanol for example, it was sworn as the next great thing until the truth was found out. Does algae have any bad streaks? I do not know, but I will not sing its praises until I personally investigate it, and I would bet most who do praise it have not done their homework. But is it better than oil, pollution wise? Probably so, but maybe not cheaper, that's got to be one big farm and lots of water, and not just anywhere on the planet. Sunlight is very important, again restricting the viable growth sites.
Comment
28 of 40
April 22, 2011
I have a friend who makes his own fuel out of fryer oil he gets for free. All the vehicles on his farm run on it. I have another friend who buys or trades the finished fuel from a friend for .99 per gallon.

This is going to increase because the city is starting to charge even boutique restaurants for putting grease down the drain, and they are putting cameras in the sewer to enforce it. They say they are going to show pictures of the mess, somewhere, maybe on-line or maybe they are going to give it to the press.

So restaurants who do not have a grease-person now are going to have to get one.
Comment
29 of 40
April 22, 2011
Back to the topic of alcohol, it is now legal, according to David Blume when he spoke to Portland Peak Oil, to make 50 gallons of alcohol in your back yard.

If you think this would be hard to do, you have not been on permaculture tours or watched the now ubiquitous on-line videos.

Here is a sample of one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YYZTw_xBBs

I have been to this one in different seasons. Connie Van Dyke gets enormous production from this city lot, in a temperate climate. If you are used to monoculture, I can understand how it would seem impossible to get as much as you can get with healthy soil and many layers of plants, but even the UN is beginning to acknowledge this, as I found out on Systems Thinking World.

Connie Van Dyke teaches permaculture at Portland State University.

If you search agroecology UN, you will pull up the latest report that documents that small, non-toxic farms outproduce high-input monoculture.

The reporter probably uses the term agroecology to include bio-intensive and permaculture, because there are differences. Bio-intensives till, and most permaculture practitioners do not, but both farm organically and get very high production with few inputs, if they are experienced. There are other denominations of organic farming, but I am most familiar with permaculture.

My point is that to dismiss alcohol because big-ag screwed it up is to miss its potential and to miss what else is going on besides what big-ag decides to do, with its massive subsidies. Big ag is connected at the hip joint with big oil. They probably hang out in the fanciest D.C. lobbying bars with each other while figuring out angles on their deals and how best to appeal to the vanities of the bonvivants in congress.

Everyday U.S. people are going around those parts of the economy that are not paying attention to their needs. Local governments now represent the cronies/feds, not us.
Comment
30 of 40
Something somewhere is funny.True the plants will pick CO2 from the soil and from the air. True when you burn plant matter CO2 is released to the air, but when the next crop comes up it grabs the CO2 from the air and the decomposing plant matter, leaves bark and the roots return the CO2 to the soil.This had been going on for years. What fossil fuels does is to upset this equilibrium. Not only fossil fuels all the grasses used as feed stock for bio ethanol too does this.I do not agree that just because the subterranean sections send off over ground shoots as in sugar cane or in grasses, the natural equilibrium can be restored ( they are annuals.These plants have short life cycles. Long life cycle plants can help to retain the equilibrium
Comment
31 of 40
April 22, 2011
>, leaves bark and the roots return the CO2 to the soil ...

Yes, but not with algae, the primary focus today, there are no roots or bark. Watch the details, they are important! Its why the process is carbon neutral rather than providing carbon sequestration. Remember, raising this much algae is a huge expensive and continuous ongoing process.
Comment
32 of 40
April 22, 2011
--------" #27: 48% IC engine efficiency

Who, what, where, when, how?"-------

We've always been able to make internal combustion engines with high thermal efficiency using biofuels.

The key to thermal efficiency with internal combustion engines is compression ratio. The higher the compression ratio, the higher the power output/per unit of weight and the higher the thermal efficiency. The key to compression ratio is comparative octane rating. Biofuels have high ROV compared to petroleum fuels. The ROV of ethanol is ~115 compared to gasoline @ 85-87. This means you can achieve a compression ratio of 24: 1 with ethanol vs. about 9.5: 1 with gasoline before preignition begins to occur.

Diesel engines are durable and powerful compared to Otto cycle engines that use gasoline. That is because they are already high compression, about 16 or 18: 1 compared to about 9: 1. They also achieve their maximum torque and power points at much lower RPMs than lower compression engines, typically around 3,000 RPM vs. about 5,000 RPM----therefore they have much less wear and have a much longer useful life.

The first diesel engine Rudolf Diesel built in 1893 ran on peanut oil. Diesel engines can also run well on ethanol. Scania, the Swedish heavy duty industrial engine builder has been running a fleet of over 1,000 buses in Sweden and UK on ethanol for years. Scania diesels routinely return 40 to 45% thermal efficiency.

Thermal efficiency is not limited to diesel cycle engines running high compression. The fastest most advanced race cars in the world use Otto cycle engines with high compression. The Indy League Racing Circuit cars all use 100% pure ethanol fuel.

Watch the Indianapolis 500 next month to see what ethanol can do as a fuel.
No image available
Comment
33 of 40
Anonymous
April 22, 2011
TO #33 above - Who, what, where, when, how?" Ricardo engine run under constant torque as used in a hybrid. What fred #34 has stated is basically accurate. I believe Scania kicked up their compression ratio to to that 24:1 or better but backed off a bit to reduce wear and for life extension of the engine. ED95 is efficiently used many places. Brazil is starting to use it and Thailand has made a multi year commitment for 3000 ED95 busses. Compression ratio is not the primary thing that creates efficiency, it is absolute pressure in the cylinder which is achieved by both compression ratio and intake pressure. Intake pressure can be boosted by turbo charging. A variable rate turbo charger can optimize for both ethanol and gasoline. But also, you don't need to go to the expense of a combustion ignition engine to obtain these high efficiencies. The indy cars are spark ignition. E70 will be sufficent to obtain high thermal efficiencies in spark ignition engines. Spontaneous pre-ignition combustion is controlled by octane. This can quickly destroy an engine. But there is also something called post-ignition detonation. This occurs when the engine is under heavy load and the piston has a high resistance to moving. When using gasoline, the flame spread of the gas can 'catch up with' the piston so to speak, resulting in an explosion rather than an even burn. This is sometimes referred to as engine rattle. Under these conditions, ethanol will give a long even burn without exploding resulting in higher performance, even torque at low RPM and higher efficiency.

PS to #31 sugar cane and most grasses are perennials. Lets not mislead folks here. B Brandon
Comment
34 of 40
April 22, 2011
Somewhere above, I said I would provide a link regarding environmental services of eelgrass. The link below was the quickest read, but there were many more complicated scholarly citations for those who are interested.

http://www.coastkeeper.org/why-is-eelgrass-important/

I do not know whether carbon trading will happen in the U.S., but if it were to, this plant would get big points, and it grows deeper than some of the other sea grasses with other uses.

It also provides habitat and protection for sea creatures, in addition to providing oxygenation and some water-cleaning functions.
Comment
35 of 40
April 23, 2011
If you want to see what ethanol can do as a fuel, watch the Indianapolis 500 Memorial day weekend.

The Indy League Racing Circuit has the fastest, most advanced race cars in the world.

Indy racers use a 3L Honda V8 engine, smaller than most V6s on the road today. The typical Indy car will develop 1200 to 1600 bhp-----about the same amount of horsepower put out by 3 to 4 18 wheel OTR diesel rigs, and achieve lap speeds of 260 mph.

All Indy racers run on 100% ethanol, and have run on alcohol base fuels exclusively for the last 48 years.
Comment
36 of 40
April 24, 2011
Sometimes I feel unqualified to make remarks on this site, but on this thread I have no fear, after reading previous posts. Plants use CO2 and produce oxygen during photosynthesis. In the dark, plants require oxygen. So the CO2 capture is half right.
The main point that strikes me is that if all the cellulose waste was converted to ethanol it could make 30% of our gas needs.
This indicates a full effort, and we are 70% short of our goal!
That allows our imports to be reduced by one half, still leaving the problem unsolved. There was an article a few days ago showing input output ratio of 1.5 to 1 or less for biofuels. That is puny, and if one considers trucking all this waste to distilleries, and the preprocessing, what is left? Sounds like slightly more than busywork. The input output ratio for wind power was 50 to 1. We would be better off using electric vehicles. Farmers might well use the biofuels right at home, but solving our addiction to petroleum with one third of the supplies is not possible. We still have to make up another 70%.
Another point, using natural gas as a hydrogen source instead of catalyzing hydrogen from water also make little sense.
We can use ethanol and other biofuels, and will do well to make use of biomass that is considered waste, but it looks unlikely that we will solve the need for petroleum without more than biofuels.
No image available
Comment
37 of 40
Anonymous
April 24, 2011
TO #39 above - Even the 'experts' sometimes seem unqualified. It is a complicated subject. A few quick comments on energy ratios. The 2008 USDA report on energy balances of corn ethanol stated 1.42 to 1 when not accounting for the DDG feed bi-product. While DDGs tracks corn prices at about 91%, It has a much greater feed value than corn on a per pound equivalency. Credit is given for this, but the method of calculation is not agreed upon. The report gives a range of 1.87 - 2.29 to 1 energy ratio as an average. Newer facilities tend to be higher and the figure of 2 - 2.1 to 1 is commonly seen. Anyone quoting 1.5 to 1 or less is uninformed or biased.

It takes energy to make energy. The EPA bench mark for petroleum is average in 2005 production where 20% of every barrel of crude is consumed in extraction,refining, distribution etc. This is a 4 to 1 energy ratio. But newer oil is not this good. Deep water drilling adds another 5% (for 25%). Thermal recovery methods for old depleted wells (possibly as much as 50% of the total oil remaining) adds about 10% (for 30% total). Oil from shale doubles this base energy use to 40% which would be a 1.5 to 1 energy ratio. Thermal recovery and oil shale also consume huge amounts of water. Considering these facts, lowly corn ethanol doesn't look that bad. If we divide biofuel production into 'upstream' and 'downstream' components, it is unlikely that cellulosic ethanol will out preform corn or other starches on the downstream side (fermentation or refining). Their advantage will be on the upstream side, feedstock production. The days of exploiting cheap fossil fuels at a 4 to 1 energy ratio are over. Oil is getting worse and biofuels are getting better. The cross over point for the next barrel of fuel (the marginal resource value) has recently occurred and biofuels are better than petroleum. Bill Brandon
Comment
38 of 40
aligatorhardt: Thanks, before the Industrial revolution, it is said that the CO2 cycle worked very efficiently ie the production equalled capture. Which means that though plants use O2 in the night and release CO2, plants left on their own will find their own equilibrium.

On the question of Cellulosic ethanol, I disagree.As stated earlier there are many plants that can provide first generation ethanol where yields are much higher, they cause less environmental damage, in fact they could help the to reduce GHG and warming very drastically, within a matter of 8-10 years, ie if we start planting today majority of the climatic problems can be at least brought under control by the years 2021 not 2050.I have worked on some of these plants and water tables and can vouch for this statement.canopied perennial plants, actually a combination of plants will solve these problems. Incidentally a combination of plants will provide the fertilizer requirement of the plantation and also offset the use of fossil fuels in the refinery.


fred-linn-151968 refers to Indianapolis races.Do they use Methanol or ethanol? What ever it is, I have come across papers published which provide the solution to make ethanol to perform in par with gasoline.

aligatorhardt: refers to the energy input output ratio.The problem is that this discussion on EI and EO, had been led by people who had restricted their vision.If one accept the perennials as the source of feed stock and change the distillation system one can achieve a far more attractive EI/EO ratio, unbeliveble today's context

In fact one can expect bioethanol at the pump at least 50% cheaper than gasline or E85.

Algea may provide more biofuels, not solve the other problems.
Comment
39 of 40
April 24, 2011
If Lang Fang, China, can put into place a design for its valley, it will become a destination for those looking for systemic plans that cycle nutrients, water, and energy properly, in attractive and diverse loops that carry redundant functions and supports for necessities. Once necessities are handled, wants can be considered from a position of strength.
Comment
40 of 40
April 25, 2011
Upali-----the Indy race cars were switched to alcohol base fuels in 1963, after a massive wreck involving numerous vehicles and multiple fatalities. A complicating factor causing many chain reaction crashes, injuries and deaths was huge clouds of black smoke released by burning gasoline. This hampered firefighting efforts---visibility was zero, and oil fires can't be put out with water---it only spreads the fire. Alcohols burn with no smoke, and can be extinguished easily with water.

Methanol could be used, but very rarely was. Methanol has about the same characteristics as ethanol for volatility, combustion and temperature. Methanol however has only about 55,000 BTU per gallon compared to 67,000 for ethanol---you can get more energy in the tank with ethanol than methanol.

Methanol is also very highly toxic compared to ethanol, which is not toxic at all under these conditions. Mainly, methanol is readily absorbed by inhaling or exposure to skin, ethanol is not. Methanol is a highly active neurotoxin, ethanol is not. For this reason, methanol was banned in 2003. The rule change made no difference however, nobody was using methanol anyway---nor did anyone intend to.

The ethanol only rule was never challenged because gasoline powered engines can't even come close to generating the power from an equal size engine that ethanol can.

In racing power = speed = winning That is the only thing that matters. Survival of the fastest and strongest.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Growth Energy

View Growth Energy's Profile
About: Growth Energy represents the producers and supporters of ethanol who feed the world and fuel America in ways that achieve energy independence, improve economic ... more »
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters