Is ethanol a promising future alternative fuel?

Natorgator · Post by **Natorgator** » 2006-02-01 01:05pm

I read an article about ethanol a few days ago, and then Bush happened to mention it last night. Supposedly Brazil has made a big switch to ethanol for their cars, and they're running like an 85/15 mixture of ethanol to gasoline in their cars. In addition, supposedly current cars in the US can pretty easily be retrofitted to accept such fuels (and in fact, many already do.) It looks pretty promising because Brazil has ended a lot of its oil dependence; perhaps the US will end up the same way in a generation or so.

Then this morning I heard a caller on a wackjob conservative show (Neal Boortz) claim that ethanol is a net loss because it doesn't produce as many BTUs as gasoline and it costs more to make in terms of energy. Is this accurate?

Post by **Edi** » 2006-02-01 01:08pm

Yes, it's accurate. That's because all the pesticides and other chemicals neded to produce the crops that will be turned to ethanol are already oil based, and when you get the lower yield per unit compared to gasoline, it is indeed a net loss. Brazil has an advantageous climate and far less consumption than the US does, so they can do it on a large scale. You can't, so you're dependent on oil.

Edi

The Dude · Post by **The Dude** » 2006-02-01 01:38pm

Whether or not it's a net loss is controversial, but it's not a realistic total replacement for gasoline in any case; North America and Europe are simply incapable of growing enough corn (or sugarcane).

It may find use as a way to alleviate pollution in some large cities (combining a small drop in total pollution and a shift of the emissions away from urban areas).

Natorgator · Post by **Natorgator** » 2006-02-01 02:31pm

Edi wrote:Yes, it's accurate. That's because all the pesticides and other chemicals neded to produce the crops that will be turned to ethanol are already oil based, and when you get the lower yield per unit compared to gasoline, it is indeed a net loss. Brazil has an advantageous climate and far less consumption than the US does, so they can do it on a large scale. You can't, so you're dependent on oil.

Edi

I was under the impression that that information was outdated and based on the fact that ethanol production used to be basically on the same scale as moonshine. Brazil definitely has a comparative advantage over the US in sugarcane to corn production, but it can't be THAT wide.

drachefly · Post by **drachefly** » 2006-02-01 02:35pm

Why not? They have a factor of nearly ?2 in radiant input per land area just from being on the equator rather than at 40° latitude.

Lord of the Abyss · Post by **Lord of the Abyss** » 2006-02-02 02:53pm

Every bit of land devoted to growing crops for fuel is a bit of land not growing something else. That's an economic cost all by itself.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2006-02-02 03:21pm

Every bit of land devoted to growing crops for fuel is a bit of land not growing something else. That's an economic cost all by itself.

Not in the US. The US suffers from a massive glut of overproduction and it has proven politicly unfeasible to let the market correct it. If something viable can be grown that Uncle Sam doesn't have to subsidize the economy makes out like a bandit.

The big problem is the US cannot grow enough sugar cane; which makes less energy intensive ethanol. What seems like it would work, would be for the US to drop its sugar protections and import direct from more tropical climates.

Post by **Edi** » 2006-02-02 03:31pm

As far as I know, the agricultural sector in the US relies heavily on oil-based pesticides and otehr chemicals, and also suffers from the problem of having massive farms on what under normal circumstances would be non-arable land (where the energy cost of raising crops is even greater). Cut off the subsidies and let the market correct itself and I guarantee that there would be a stupendous downgrading and cut in production. But it's not going to happen anywhere in the near term.

That and the sugar cane problem Tharkun points out make it completely not feasible. Never mind the amount you would need for current levels of oil consumption. There would be nowhere left toi grow food.

Edi

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2006-02-02 03:42pm

As far as I know, the agricultural sector in the US relies heavily on oil-based pesticides and otehr chemicals, and also suffers from the problem of having massive farms on what under normal circumstances would be non-arable land (where the energy cost of raising crops is even greater). Cut off the subsidies and let the market correct itself and I guarantee that there would be a stupendous downgrading and cut in production. But it's not going to happen anywhere in the near term.

The market would correct itself, though I doubt the massive farms would be the onese being corrected. Economies of scale still apply. The family farm would likely be the one hardest hit, especially if they cannot service a niche market. I think the government still pays farmers not to grow anything in some instances.

Post by **Edi** » 2006-02-02 04:41pm

Big coporations would also take a hit in areas where the "arable" land has been created almost solely by irrigation and massive use of fertilizers out of arid terrain. Without subsidies, the cost effectiveness of those woulddrop enough to more than justify axing them in favor of operations in more suitable places. Not disagreeing with you otherwise.

Edi

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2006-02-02 04:48pm

Big coporations would also take a hit in areas where the "arable" land has been created almost solely by irrigation and massive use of fertilizers out of arid terrain. Without subsidies, the cost effectiveness of those woulddrop enough to more than justify axing them in favor of operations in more suitable places. Not disagreeing with you otherwise.

I'd suspect they just go back to cattle and sheep instead of folding; if you already own the land it is relatively cheap to graze on it. Small farms on the other hand have neither the liquid assets nor the credit ratings to convert.

Sriad · Post by **Sriad** » 2006-02-02 08:39pm

Switchgrass is VASTLY more efficient that corn for converting to ethanol (projected to yield about 300% energy gain vs 30% for corn, partly because you use the entire plant and partly because it's a lot easier to grow), but it uses a different conversion process which needs development before it's ready for massive implamentation.