UPDATE: A Grand Opening

Ethanol from corn is a joke.

It is welfare for rich folks who get agricutural subsidies, and allows automakers to cheat on fuel economy.

PLEASE, don't try to buy us off with this boondogle. For national security, we need real fuel economy leadership from GM.

Wonderful effort to get this valuable fuel source into other areas of the country. Instead of sending dollars to the mid east send those dollars to the mid west.

In her FYI blog A grand opening Beth Lowery asked, “What do you think?”

Well Beth, you asked, so here’s what I think: There are so many comments in your blog requiring a response I have trouble knowing where to start.

Response One – Ethanol isn’t actually renewable

In your list of the advantages of E85 you say, “It is a renewable fuel, unlike gasoline.”

This is counterintuitive Beth, so stay with me, but ethanol – particularly corn ethanol – is far from renewable. The fact that farmers can grow a new crop of corn each year doesn’t mean corn ethanol is renewable.

At every step of production from growing corn to milling, fermenting, and distilling it, making corn ethanol requires the constant consumption and depletion of unrenewable fossil fuels in the form of natural gas, diesel fuel, petroleum, and coal.

A motor fuel such as corn ethanol that is dependent on the continued depletion of unrenewable fossil fuels cannot correctly be considered a “renewable” fuel.

If you really believe corn ethanol is renewable, I invite you to do the following: Contact the Iowa corn growers you cited in your blog and ask them how much corn one of their members could grow for ethanol if they were not allowed to consume any energy in the form of fossil fuels. Also do the same with the ethanol industry. Ask them how much ethanol they could make if they were not allowed to burn fossil fuels at their distilleries.

The ultimate test proving that corn ethanol is actually a renewable fuel will be when farmers and ethanol plants used only the ethanol they make as their energy source for making more ethanol. But so far, no farmer or ethanol plant in the United States is capable of doing that. Corn ethanol is not a renewable fuel.

Response Two – The E85, flex-fuel loophole for computing CAFE

In your blog you didn’t mention the primary advantage of flex-fuel vehicles for General Motors: The E85 loophole for computing CAFE. If you were totally honest, shouldn’t you actually admit that as the primary reason GM builds flex-fuel vehicles?

For those readers who don’t know how the flex-fuel loophole works, here is an example:

The CAFE loophole: Although E85 in fact gets poorer fuel economy than gasoline, for CAFE purposes, the government counts only the 15-percent gasoline content of E85. That means the CAFE rating of an E85 capable Tahoe goes from 20.1 mpg to 33.3 mpg, even though the Tahoe actually gets only about 15 mpg when burning E85.

For GM, the real advantage of the CAFE loophole is that it allows you to avoid millions of dollars in penalties you would have to pay for not otherwise achieving the CAFE standard, even though in truth there is an actual increase in energy consumption when burning E85.

Response Three – Corn ethanol and the price of food

You cavalierly dismiss the possibility that the new, robust demand for corn to make into ethanol is driving up the price of food by quoting the Iowa Corn website. Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse that is about the last organization you would expect to admit the demand for corn is driving up food prices and creating a food shortage for those in the world with lesser means. Why do you selectively report only one side of the fuel v. fooddebate, when there are numerous examples in the media that fuel v. food is an item of serious and growing concern?

Here is just one report from the unbiased professional journal Foreign Affairs you might have used to show the other side of the story: How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor

Response Four – The E85 supply structure

You reported,

“We’ve been working with a number of companies who are building the supply infrastructure that will make getting E85 easier than ever. Increasing the use of ethanol – and building the infrastructure to support it – is one of many steps we can take to create a greener future in our own communities.”

The truth is that E85 use can never be widespread as it would be physically impossible.

If we were to take all of the corn grown in the U.S. and convert it to ethanol, we would end up with a volume equal to only a bit more than 12% of the current U.S. annual motor fuel consumption. Note: That’s 12% by volume. If we compute that by energy content instead of volume, that would be only enough corn ethanol to replace about 8% of the energy we consume annually in motor fuels. (A gallon of pure ethanol has only 66% the energy content of a gallon of gasoline.) That means if we converted all our corn to ethanol each year, we would have trouble even making all our fuel E10, let alone E85.

The hard truth is that if every fuel station in the U.S. had an E85 pump, we would be woefully short of ethanol with which to supply them. This counters what you’d like to believe, but believe it, there will never be enough corn ethanol to make all the motor fuel in this country E85.

Oil companies have good reason for being reluctant to invest tens of thousands of dollars at each of their fuel stations to build the separate infrastructure they would need for a nationwide E85 capability. If they did, the vast majority of those pumps would have to sit unused without any ethanol.

Response Five – Burning E85 actually increase overall energy use

You stated that,

It helps reduce our dependence on petroleum and creates alternatives for our nation’s energy supply.

That is one of those urban myths that must to be debunked. The truth is that burning E85 in a flex-fuel vehicle actually increases overall energy consumption. Using the EPA figures for a GM flex-fuel 4WD Chevy Tahoe I found the following:

Knowing that, now let's imagine a hypothetical trip of 210 miles in that flex-fuel Tahoe.

Now the big question — how much energy does burning 14 gallons of E85 consume? More, less, or the same as the energy in 10 gallons of gasoline?

How much energy was consumed making those 11.9 gallons of ethanol?

The EROEI of making corn ethanol

The generally accepted value for the energy return on energy invested (EROEI) of making ethanol is now about 1.2 to 1. (That means a farmer and ethanol plant get back 120 units of energy in the form of ethanol for an investment of 100 units of fossil fuel energy.) To make the 11.9 gallons of ethanol in those 14 gallons of E85; someone had to invest energy equivalent to 9.9 gallons of fossil fuels. (11.9 /1.2 = 9.9).

Now here's the kicker: If a Tahoe burned 14 gallons of E85 on that hypothetical trip, it would have actually burned 2.1 gallons of gasoline plus the energy of the 9.9 gallons of fossil fuel used to make that 11.9 gallons of ethanol.

Summary

Making ethanol has a positive return on energy invested of about 120%. Unfortunately, fuel mileage using E85 is only 71% that of using straight gasoline. That means the EROEI of ethanol would have to be 140% just to break even.

Response Six – Corn ethanol is good for agribusiness

You said,

It supports the domestic agriculture industry (from corn to cellulosic).

This is one of the few things I can’t dispute. There is little question the politically induced demand* for corn ethanol has provided a boost for farmers and agribusiness. But the big question is whether that boost is worth the many drawbacks of corn ethanol in terms of the unrenewable resources consumed, and the adverse effect on the world economy of turning food into motor fuel.

Best regards,

Gary Dikkers

* Politically induced demand: The increased demand for corn ethanol has been a result of political mandates, Federal and state subsidies, tax credits, and protective tariffs.

Sorry Beth I was not able to respond sooner but I did have a chance to respond to your blog post at FYI.

The amazing progress ethanol producers are having with cellulosic ethanol is astounding and if anyone wants to follow the breakthroughs I beg them to go to...

ethanolnews.newslib.com

article dated June 27, 2007

"POET to Produce Cellulosic Ethanol From Corn Cobs at Emmetsburg, IA Plant"

"By adding cellulosic production to an existing grain ethanol plant, POET will be able to produce 11 percent more ethanol from a bushel of corn, 27 percent more from an acre of corn, while almost completely eliminating fossil fuel consumption and decreasing water usage by 24 percent."

Just one company, just one breakthrough, just one article just one day in ethanol's amazing journey to becoming a more viable energy alternative.

While others doubt some are making it happen.

This article is for you Gary Dikkers...

ethanol-news.newslib.com

article dated July, 1, 2007

"E3 Biofuels Launches Nations First Closed-Loop Ethanol Plant in Mead, NE"

Typical energy units produced for every energy input is 3:1 in an ethanol factory. Their new efficient system brings the energy ration to 46:1. And the energy input they use is called biogas a combination of cow manure and plant fiber waste. No fossil fuels are used in this process.

The process takes care of manure which is the #1 contributer to water contamination in the U. S. It takes care of methane gas 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide in causing greenhouse gases. This article is amazing but typical of the amazing things that are happening every single day with ethanol advancement.

I challenge anyone to read the article and all the articles at ethanol-news.newslib.com and see the breakthroughs that are happening every single day especially this article.

And I challenge you to say you are still skeptical and doubt ethanol's viability.

In Brazil they already are having the opposite problem, too much ethanol and not enough cars to feed.

Thanks Gary. At least you know that SOMEONE is listening, even if it's only me.

Again, in Los Angeles County, there is exactly one E85 pump. The next closest is in San Diego.

God knows how many thousand Tahoes and Suburbans are running around SoCal with Flex Fuel badges on the tailgates. Every time I see one now, I shake my head and grit my teeth.

The power of propaganda, PR and spin is pervasive in our world.

Just a question on Gary Dickers comment...
You assume that the energy equivalent for alcohol production using fossil fuels, but your calculations dismisses the fact that fossil fuels are also used to get gasoline to our filling stations, would not the apples to apples comparison in the virtual 210 mile trip have to include the fossil fuels used to make the gasoline available to the public also, from the time the crude is pumped out, refined, transported etc...?

Edward Hayes said:

I challenge anyone to read the article and all the articles at ethanol-news.newslib.com and see the breakthroughs that are happening every single day especially this article. And I challenge you to say you are still skeptical and doubt ethanol's viability.

Edward,

I’m aware of the closed-loop ethanol distillery at Mead, and that is of course good news. However, that means the score is now 114 fossil-fueled ethanol stills, to one closed-loop still. The vast majority of ethanol plants will still be consuming unrenewable fossil fuels to operate.

As I’m sure you are also aware, a closed-loop still doesn’t change the necessity of corn farmers to consume valuable, unrenewable fossil fuels to grow and transport corn. (Did you ever ask yourself why even the companies that haul corn to ethanol plants don’t use ethanol as their fuel of choice? Also, have you ever noticed that the tanker trucks that haul ethanol don’t even use the fuel they haul? All they would have to do is run a line from their tank to the engine, yet they prefer burning diesel fuel. Why do you think that is?)

Did you also notice the closed-loop ethanol plant at Mead needs a 28,000 head confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) next to it?

There are now about 114 ethanol plants in the U.S. with scores more under construction or in the planning stages. Do you think there should be a 28,000 head CAFO at each one of those in order to make them all closed-loop systems?

There are four ethanol stills operating within a 50-mile radius of where I live. All were built on the edge of small towns and cities with easy access to railroad tracks and major roads. (Proximity to a rail line seems to be one of the siting criteria for an ethanol still.) Do you think any of those four small communities will stand for a 28,000 head CAFO built next to the ethanol plants on the edges of their towns? (The answer to that question would be a forceful, “No.” Would you want to live in a small Midwest town with a 28,000 head CAFO next door?)

CAFOs have their own issues

Locating a CAFO near an ethanol still is only a partial solution, because CAFOs have their own problems:

In my opinion, locating CAFOs next to ethanol plants is really no solution. There may be a few existing CAFOs that might make good sites for ethanol plants, but the majority of corn ethanol stills will still operate by consuming unrenewable fossil fuels.

The Ogallala Aquifer

You may not be aware of this, but Mead is at the eastern edge of the Ogallala Aquifer.

For decades we have been depleting the Ogallala faster than it can be renewed. The centuries-old water in the Ogallala is just another of the unrenewable resources the corn ethanol industry is rapidly depleting -- particularly in Nebraska, Kansas, South Dakota, the Texas Panhandle, and eastern Colorado and Wyoming.

Even with a CAFO/ethanol plant closed-loop system, calling corn ethanol a “renewable” fuel is an extreme stretch of the meaning of renewable.

I stand by my statement that it is incorrect to call corn ethanol a renewable fuel.

Hope you are having a safe and sane Fourth of July,

Gary Dikkers

Edward said:

In Brazil they already are having the opposite problem, too much ethanol and not enough cars to feed.

Edward,

Interesting that you'd mention Brazil and ethanol. Here's part of the reason for the Brazilian ethanol boom:

The slave trade behind the ethanol boom

Regards,

Gary

I will let the two articles on ethanol speak for themselves.

Sam asked:

Just a question on Gary Dikkers comment... You assume that the energy equivalent for alcohol production using fossil fuels, but your calculations dismisses the fact that fossil fuels are also used to get gasoline to our filling stations, would not the apples to apples comparison in the virtual 210 mile trip have to include the fossil fuels used to make the gasoline available to the public also, from the time the crude is pumped out, refined, transported etc...?

The EROEI for corn ethanol

Yes, that is included in the comparison. As I stated in my example, the current best value for the EROEI (energy return on energy invested) for corn ethanol is about 1.2 to 1.

The EROEI for gasoline

The current EROEI for gasoline is about 5 to 1, and that takes into account exploration, drilling tens of thousands of feet, transportation, and refining.

When oil was first discovered the EROEI of gasoline was as high as 100 to 1. However, that was when oil came out of the ground under its own pressure, and when wildcatters didn't have to drill very deep to tap into underground pools.

It's true the EROEI of gasoline will continue to drop as it becomes more difficult to find oil and we have to drill deeper to get at it. All of the easy to find underground pools have already been tapped into.

Why fossil fuels have an EROEI advantage

The reason motor fuels from petroleum have such an advantage is because Mother Nature did all of the heavy lifting to convert organic biomass into oil. Over 150 million years or so, nature provided high heat and intense pressure (all absolutely free of charge) to turn carbon-rich dead algae and phytoplanktons into oil. No one had to provide added energy to do that -- all we had to do was find those underground pools and tap into them.

On the other hand, to convert corn into a motor fuel, someone has to invest heavily in energy in the form of natural gas, diesel fuel, and coal to do what nature provided free for petroleum.

It is expensive both in terms of money and energy expended to turn corn into motor fuel in just a few months, instead of waiting 150 million years for nature to do it free of charge.

The smartest way to convert corn to a motor fuel would be for farmers to bury their corn and then sit back and wait 150 million years. Obviously that would be absurd, so the alternative is to spend money and energy to speed up the process. That works, but not without added costs compared to petroleum.

Best regards,

Gary Dikkers

Gary had me until the slave trade piece. Such goofy tirades (and silly arguments) remind me typical of left-wing dribble. That's a lie--Gary never had me. I look forward to seeing an E85 station in California...whenever that is.

Mr. Dikkers: Please get some help. No one actually cares about those long columns. There are plenty of good therapists in this country.

Contrary to some myths going around these days, ethanol production for fuel is a net positive. More fuel energy comes out than goes into making it. It's not a huge net positive, but the whole "more energy is used in making ethanol" argument just isn't true, even with today's state of the art.

André said:

Mr. Dikkers: No one actually cares about those long columns.

André,

Unfortunately, the thermodynamics of corn ethanol is complicated and can't be condensed to a five-second sound bite or a 3x5 index card.

I apologize for the length, but sometimes you will just have to suck it up and take the time to read a detailed explanation to understand a complicated issue.

Best,

GLD

-------------------------------------

Mike said:

Contrary to some myths going around these days, ethanol production for fuel is a net positive. More fuel energy comes out than goes into making it.

Mike,

I didn't say making corn ethanol consumed more energy than it produced. I said that burning E85 in one of GM's flex-fuel vehicles would consume more energy than would burning straight gasoline.

I then went on to prove it. However, since the proof was lengthy, I won't repeat it as I realize not everyone has the attention span or time necessary to read it.

Cordially,

Gary Dikkers

All this talk of corn has me hungry. Think I'll throw a few ears of corn on the grill tonight before you bozo's try to turn it all into gas.

Get a life.

No renewable source of energy is ever going to compare to the EROI of fossil fuels, unless those 150 million years of energy absorption and processing are taken into account.

In grade school I calculated the maximum amount of solar energy available during the "Coal Age," whittled away at this figure by calculating processing and other losses (reflectivity of cloud cover, for example), and came up with a finite number for the theoretical maximum amount of energy stored in fossil fuels. I was 11. It's a real pity our political leaders aren't capable of that kind of advanced math.