The following excerpt is from Sustainable Ethanol: Biofuels, Biorefineries, Cellulosic Biomass, Flex-Fuel Vehicles, and Sustainable Farming for Energy Independence
A Brief History of Ethanol
Internal Combustion and the First Fuel Alcohol Movement
While alcohol fuel was stymied by U.S. taxes in the middle of the 19th century, the same was not true in Europe. In 1860, German engineer Nikolas Otto used alcohol as the fuel for one of his “Otto Cycle” combustion engines.[i] Toward the end of the 1800’s, alcohol-fueled engines enjoyed a period of ascendancy in Europe as a response to worries over the long-term stability of petroleum supplies.[ii]
Back in North America, farmers were beginning to exploit the deep, rich soil of the Great Plains. Production spikes caused commodity prices to fall, a situation that would often plague America’s farmers. Despite the steep tax on alcohol, Henry Ford designed his first car, the Quadricycle, to run on pure ethanol in the 1896.[iii] The majority of Americans were farmers at the turn of the century, giving them strong political influence. With the help of President Theodore Roosevelt, the Civil War era alcohol tax was finally ended in 1906.[iv] The way was clear for America’s first farmer-driven fuel alcohol movement.
In 1908, Henry Ford equipped his “Model T” with engines capable of running on ethanol, gasoline, or a combination of the two.[v] The ability to use multiple fuels would later be termed “flex-fuel.” Other manufacturers made provisions for alcohol fuel as well. Despite the best efforts of power alcohol enthusiasts, however, alcohol was never able to seriously challenge less expensive gasoline as the dominant transportation fuel.
Around 1917 to 1918, Word War I triggered a surge in demand for industrial alcohol. Production reached 50–60 million gallons per year, marking the high point of America’s first fuel alcohol movement.[vi] After the war, proponents continued to preach the advantages of alcohol fuel, but demand dropped as inexpensive fossil fuels once again dominated the marketplace.
Around this time, ethanol missed out on a huge opportunity. Automotive engineers were looking for gasoline additives that would prevent engine knock at higher compression ratios for better fuel economy. Ethyl alcohol (today referred to as ethanol), already well known as a knock inhibitor, was a possible choice. It was discovered, however, that tetraethyl lead could also do the job. Radford University professor Bill Kovarik discovered documentation from the 1920’s indicating tetraethyl lead was originally intended as a stopgap solution until ethyl alcohol production could be ramped up. Tetraethyl lead became the dominant anti-knock additive for decades. Eventually, tetraethyl lead was recognized as a serious health hazard. In 1986, it was finally banned as a fuel additive.[vii] After World War I, prohibition dashed hopes for maintaining a robust fuel alcohol industry. Beginning in 1920, the 18th amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibited the "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes.”[viii] It was still legal to manufacture and use alcohol for fuel, but doing so must have attracted close scrutiny from authorities. Also, fuel alcohol had to be mixed with petroleum so it could not be used as a beverage.[ix] This requirement is still in effect today. Prohibition was eventually repealed by the ratification of the 21st amendment in 1933, marking a new period of opportunity for fuel alcohol.[x]
See chapter 1 of Sustainable Ethanol for the following additional topics:
Lamp Fuel and the First Oil Well
Chemurgy and the Second Fuel Alcohol Movement
Oil Embargoes and the Third Fuel Alcohol Movement
The Return of Cheap Oil
The End of Cheap Oil & the Rise of Ethanol
Figure 1-1. Fuel Ethanol Production, 1982–2006
Ordering options for Sustainable Ethanol include:
Direct from Prairie Oak Publishing
Information about ordering from Amazon
Notes
[i]. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Ethanol Timeline.”
[ii]. William Kovarik, “Henry Ford, Charles F. Kettering and the Fuel of the Future,” Automotive History Review 32 (Spring 1998): 7–27. Reproduced on the Web at http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/papers/fuel.html.
[iii]. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Ethanol Timeline.”
[iv]. Kovarik, “Henry Ford, Charles F. Kettering.”
[v]. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Ethanol Timeline.”
[vi]. Ibid.
[vii]. Kovarik, “Henry Ford, Charles F. Kettering.”
[viii]. The Constitution of The United States, The National Archives, http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/
charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html.
[ix]. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Ethanol History,” Energy Kid’s Page, http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/renewable/ethanol.html.
[x]. The Constitution of The United States, The National Archives.
Showing posts with label Chapter excerpts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chapter excerpts. Show all posts
2: Will Cheap Oil Return?
The following excerpt is from chapter 2 of Sustainable Ethanol: Biofuels, Biorefineries, Cellulosic Biomass, Flex-Fuel Vehicles, and Sustainable Farming for Energy Independence
Will Cheap Oil Return?
Oil price declines of the 1980’s put a damper on many renewable energy initiatives. Through the late 1980’s and 1990’s, oil was so cheap that ethanol and other biofuels found little room for growth. Oil has been more expensive recently, but will this last?
We believe a long-term collapse in oil prices is unlikely this century. Trillions of barrels of oil remain to be tapped, but these barrels will be more difficult to access and therefore more expensive. This should allow sustainable biofuels to compete more successfully. Shorter duration declines in oil prices are likely, however, and renewable energy industries need to be prepared for them. In addition, government policies should be designed to help renewable energy survive slumps in energy prices.
Easy Energy
The era of cheap oil was made possible by solar energy, photosynthesis, geologic processes, and time. The energy potential in living matter, originally spread through huge spans of time and space, was concentrated deep under the earth’s surface in the form of fossil fuels. This concentration of energy, resulting in a high energy density, is what makes petroleum so useful.
With ideal conditions, the energy required to extract crude oil is minimal in comparison to its energy potential. In other words, oil can have a very good energy returned on energy invested (EROEI). The earth itself has done the heavy lifting for us. But the earth works at a slow pace. We are cashing in on an investment made over millions of years. The problem is, easily exploited oil reserves are steadily declining. On average, the extraction of remaining oil reserves will result in a less favorable EROEI. With the production of biofuels, we attempt to densify organic biomass more quickly. Through the application of modern technology in cooperation with natural processes, it is possible to optimize the sustainable densification of plant-derived energy into biofuels suitable for existing automobiles. (continued below)
The Search for “Easy Oil”
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, only 63% of world crude oil and natural gas liquids production was replaced by new reserves from 2003 to 2005.[i] The area of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe was the only region where new reserves exceeded production.
Petroleum varies in quality. The vast majority used over the past century has been relatively light and sweet—easily refined into gasoline and other products. Recently, oil companies have turned to sour crudes high in sulfur as well as heavy, thick crudes that in some cases, such as the Canadian tar sands, do not flow until heated. The fact that companies are beginning to tap these unconventional reserves shows that conventional reserves are insufficient. Market forces compel companies to produce oil at the least possible expense. That is why lower quality, harder to produce oil is generally left in place until easily accessible reserves run low. A 2000 study by the U.S. Geological Survey identified possible areas of new oil production, but most are in areas with high production costs or environmental concerns. Untapped reserves are thought to exist in the high Arctic, the coasts of Greenland, and the ultra-deep waters off the coasts of North America, South America, Africa, and Asia.
See chapter 2 of Sustainable Ethanol for the following additional topics:
The Rise and Fall of Big Oil
Geopolitical Considerations
Growing World Oil Consumption
How Long will Oil Production Grow?
Figure 2-1. U.S. Crude Oil Spot Price, 1995–2007
Figure 2-2. Percentage of Proved World Oil Reserves by Region, 2005
Figure 2-3. World Oil Consumption, 1985–2005
Ordering options for Sustainable Ethanol include:
Direct from Prairie Oak Publishing
Ordering from Amazon
Note
[i]. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Performance Profiles of Major Energy Producers 2005, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/perfpro/tab08.htm.
3: Economic and Security Benefits
The following excerpt is from chapter 3 of Sustainable Ethanol: Biofuels, Biorefineries, Cellulosic Biomass, Flex-Fuel Vehicles, and Sustainable Farming for Energy Independence
Economic and Security Benefits
For too long, the price farmers received for their crops did not even cover the cost of production. Until recently, grain prices remained flat while the cost of other goods steadily rose. Thanks in part to biofuel production, grain prices are finally reaching the point where farmers and rural economies can survive without crop subsidies.
Farm Subsidies
With the rising price of corn in recent years, ethanol tax incentives are offset by lower farm subsidy payments. Under terms of a farm bill in effect from 2002 to 2007, Counter-cyclical payments for U.S. corn crops have gone from over 905 million dollars per year in 2005 to nothing in 2007 (USDA forecast).[i] Counter-cyclical payments are based on market prices. The price of corn is finally above the level that triggers counter-cyclical payments, thanks in large part to demand from ethanol producers.
See chapter 3 of Sustainable Ethanol for the following additional topics:
Economic Impact of Biorefineries
Tax Incentives for Ethanol and Oil
Growing Oil Imports
The Hidden Cost of Imported Oil
Hurricane Vulnerability
Cellulosic Diversification
Figure 3-1. Estimated Revenue Loss from Tax Incentives for Petroleum and Ethanol
Ordering options for Sustainable Ethanol include:
Click here to order directly from Prairie Oak Publishing
Click here for information on ordering from Amazon
Note
[i]. USDA Economic Research Service, Farm Income and Costs: 2007 Farm Sector Income Forecast, February 14, 2007, http://www.ers.usda.gov/; USDA, “Direct & Counter-cyclical Program,” Farm Bill Forum Comment Summary & Background, http://www.usda.gov/.
Economic and Security Benefits
For too long, the price farmers received for their crops did not even cover the cost of production. Until recently, grain prices remained flat while the cost of other goods steadily rose. Thanks in part to biofuel production, grain prices are finally reaching the point where farmers and rural economies can survive without crop subsidies.
Farm Subsidies
With the rising price of corn in recent years, ethanol tax incentives are offset by lower farm subsidy payments. Under terms of a farm bill in effect from 2002 to 2007, Counter-cyclical payments for U.S. corn crops have gone from over 905 million dollars per year in 2005 to nothing in 2007 (USDA forecast).[i] Counter-cyclical payments are based on market prices. The price of corn is finally above the level that triggers counter-cyclical payments, thanks in large part to demand from ethanol producers.
See chapter 3 of Sustainable Ethanol for the following additional topics:
Economic Impact of Biorefineries
Tax Incentives for Ethanol and Oil
Growing Oil Imports
The Hidden Cost of Imported Oil
Hurricane Vulnerability
Cellulosic Diversification
Figure 3-1. Estimated Revenue Loss from Tax Incentives for Petroleum and Ethanol
Ordering options for Sustainable Ethanol include:
Click here to order directly from Prairie Oak Publishing
Click here for information on ordering from Amazon
Note
[i]. USDA Economic Research Service, Farm Income and Costs: 2007 Farm Sector Income Forecast, February 14, 2007, http://www.ers.usda.gov/; USDA, “Direct & Counter-cyclical Program,” Farm Bill Forum Comment Summary & Background, http://www.usda.gov/.
4: Environmental Impact
The fowllowing is an excerpt from Sustainable Ethanol: Biofuels, Biorefineries, Cellulosic Biomass, Flex-Fuel Vehicles, and Sustainable Farming for Energy Independence
Environmental Impact
An energy system is unsustainable if it destroys our ecosystem. Experts often disagree about environmental impacts, perhaps because they are looking at different aspects of the issue. An examination of a broad range of issues shows that ethanol fuel is neither the one perfect solution (there is no such thing) nor a dead end. (continued below)
Measuring Environmental Impact
Practically any human activity impacts the environment in some way. Making and using ethanol is no exception. Ethanol can be considered beneficial if it does less damage than the fuel it replaces. Ethanol primarily replaces petroleum-derived gasoline in today’s North American transportation system. When we consider ethanol’s environmental impact, we must do so in comparison to gasoline. We need to begin with some assumptions established elsewhere in this book:
1. Over time, fossil fuel prices will probably remain high (see Chapter 2).
2. Ethanol enjoys a better net energy balance than gasoline (see Chapter 10).
High fossil fuel prices will affect the way we grow and refine ethanol feedstocks for the better. The increasing cost of fossil fuel-based herbicides, fertilizers, and process fuels creates a market force to minimize their use. The resulting improvement in energy balance and decrease in harmful chemical use will lessen environmental damage from ethanol.
Most scientists believe we derive more energy value from the use of ethanol than could be derived from the fossil fuels used in its production. Of thirteen major studies on the subject completed between 1998 and 2005, nine showed a positive energy balance for corn ethanol.[i] Ethanol may perform better than the energy balance studies indicate. They generally assume a lower fuel economy for ethanol based on its lower energy content. However, some car models already on North American roads actually suffer little or no loss in fuel economy on E10 (10% ethanol).[ii]
The numbers look even better for ethanol’s energy balance when compared to gasoline. Gasoline has a decidedly negative energy balance because of the fossil fuels required for extracting, transporting, and refining crude oil. The University of Chicago’s Argonne National Laboratory estimates gasoline has a negative 25% energy balance, while corn ethanol enjoys a positive energy balance of more than 25%.[iii] Ethanol’s energy balance has steadily improved over the years.[iv] This trend means less fossil fuel use and less environmental impact related to emissions, chemical contamination, and global warming. On the other hand, technology for refining gasoline is older and less likely to show as much improvement in efficiency.
See chapter 4 of Sustainable Ethanol for the following additional topics:
Greenhouse Gases
Brazilian Ethanol
Groundwater Pollution
Air Pollution
Feedstock Sourcing
Options for ordering Sustainable Ethanol include:
Click here for ordering directly from Prairie Oak Publishing
Click here for ordering information at Amazon
Notes
[i]. Michael Wang, “The Debate on Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts of Fuel Ethanol” University of Chicago Argonne National Laboratory, 2005, 24.
[ii]. KT Knapp, FD Stump, & SB Tejada, “The Effect of Fuel on the Emissions of Vehicles over a Wide Range of Temperatures,” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 43 (July 1998); American Coalition for Ethanol, Fuel Economy Study, 2005, http://www.ethanol.org/documents/ACEFuelEconomyStudy.pdf.
[iii]. Wang, “The Debate on Energy,” 23.
[iv]. Ibid., 24.
Environmental Impact
An energy system is unsustainable if it destroys our ecosystem. Experts often disagree about environmental impacts, perhaps because they are looking at different aspects of the issue. An examination of a broad range of issues shows that ethanol fuel is neither the one perfect solution (there is no such thing) nor a dead end. (continued below)
Measuring Environmental Impact
Practically any human activity impacts the environment in some way. Making and using ethanol is no exception. Ethanol can be considered beneficial if it does less damage than the fuel it replaces. Ethanol primarily replaces petroleum-derived gasoline in today’s North American transportation system. When we consider ethanol’s environmental impact, we must do so in comparison to gasoline. We need to begin with some assumptions established elsewhere in this book:
1. Over time, fossil fuel prices will probably remain high (see Chapter 2).
2. Ethanol enjoys a better net energy balance than gasoline (see Chapter 10).
High fossil fuel prices will affect the way we grow and refine ethanol feedstocks for the better. The increasing cost of fossil fuel-based herbicides, fertilizers, and process fuels creates a market force to minimize their use. The resulting improvement in energy balance and decrease in harmful chemical use will lessen environmental damage from ethanol.
Most scientists believe we derive more energy value from the use of ethanol than could be derived from the fossil fuels used in its production. Of thirteen major studies on the subject completed between 1998 and 2005, nine showed a positive energy balance for corn ethanol.[i] Ethanol may perform better than the energy balance studies indicate. They generally assume a lower fuel economy for ethanol based on its lower energy content. However, some car models already on North American roads actually suffer little or no loss in fuel economy on E10 (10% ethanol).[ii]
The numbers look even better for ethanol’s energy balance when compared to gasoline. Gasoline has a decidedly negative energy balance because of the fossil fuels required for extracting, transporting, and refining crude oil. The University of Chicago’s Argonne National Laboratory estimates gasoline has a negative 25% energy balance, while corn ethanol enjoys a positive energy balance of more than 25%.[iii] Ethanol’s energy balance has steadily improved over the years.[iv] This trend means less fossil fuel use and less environmental impact related to emissions, chemical contamination, and global warming. On the other hand, technology for refining gasoline is older and less likely to show as much improvement in efficiency.
See chapter 4 of Sustainable Ethanol for the following additional topics:
Greenhouse Gases
Brazilian Ethanol
Groundwater Pollution
Air Pollution
Feedstock Sourcing
Options for ordering Sustainable Ethanol include:
Click here for ordering directly from Prairie Oak Publishing
Click here for ordering information at Amazon
Notes
[i]. Michael Wang, “The Debate on Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts of Fuel Ethanol” University of Chicago Argonne National Laboratory, 2005, 24.
[ii]. KT Knapp, FD Stump, & SB Tejada, “The Effect of Fuel on the Emissions of Vehicles over a Wide Range of Temperatures,” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 43 (July 1998); American Coalition for Ethanol, Fuel Economy Study, 2005, http://www.ethanol.org/documents/ACEFuelEconomyStudy.pdf.
[iii]. Wang, “The Debate on Energy,” 23.
[iv]. Ibid., 24.
5: E10, E85, and Flex-Fuel Vehicles
The following is an excerpt from Sustainable Ethanol: Biofuels, Biorefineries, Cellulosic Biomass, Flex-Fuel Vehicles, and Sustainable Farming for Energy Independence
E10, E85, and Flex-Fuel Vehicles
You might already be using ethanol in your car. E10 (10% ethanol) is widely available and approved by automobile makers. You might even be driving a vehicle that can burn up to 85% ethanol (E85). E85 is formulated for flex-fuel vehicles. These vehicles look the same as other cars, trucks, and vans, but run perfectly on anywhere from 0% to 85% ethanol.
Ethanol, also known as ethyl alcohol or fuel alcohol, is a potent version of drinking alcohol with the molecular formula CH3CH2OH. The federal government requires fuel alcohol to be denatured by adding up to 5% gasoline or other denaturant, “poisoning” the brew to prevent human consumption.[i]
The “E” in E10 and E85 stands for ethanol, while the numbers indicate ethanol percentage. E10 is 10% denatured ethanol and 90% gasoline. E85 is 85% denatured ethanol and 15% gasoline. Because the ethanol is denatured, E85 and E10 actually have slightly less than 85% or 10% ethanol content. Ethanol percentage also varies on a seasonal basis. E85 can contain as little as 75% denatured ethanol during the winter to help with cold weather starting.[ii]
(continued below)
E10 Price and Fuel Economy
Due to tax breaks and sometimes lower production costs, ethanol is usually less expensive than gasoline. Not only is ethanol less expensive, but it also adds 2.5–3 octane points (a measure of engine knock resistance[xi]) to E10 gasoline.[xii] Ethanol can be an ingredient in low octane gasoline by using a low octane blendstock (base gasoline). More often, though, ethanol is used in higher-octane gasolines (mid-grade or premium).
During 2005, 2–4 cents was the normal discount for E10 according to Ron Lamberty of the American Coalition for Ethanol.[xiii] In Missouri during 2007, E10 could be had for as much as 10 cents less per gallon than the least expensive ethanol-free gasoline. Since E10 causes little or no loss in fuel economy in many vehicles, a lower price can mean actual savings. At the 10% level, the favorable combustion properties of ethanol more or less compensate for its lower energy density. A 1998 Study by the U.S. EPA showed an average 1.64% gain in miles per gallon for E10 as compared to ethanol-free gasoline. Tests were performed at 0°F and 75°F on 11 vehicles, model years 1977 to 1994.[xiv] The American Coalition for Ethanol conducted a fuel economy study of three passenger cars, model year 2005. They detected an average 1.47% lower fuel economy for E10 as compared to unleaded gasoline without ethanol.[xv] This translates to an average 0.41 fewer miles per gallon—less reduction than you would expect based on energy density alone.
See chapter 5 of Sustainable Ethanol for these additional topics:
Running on E10
E10 Availability
Running on E85
Flex-Fuel Vehicles
Purchasing a Flex-Fuel Vehicle
E85 Availability
E85 Cost and Fuel Economy
Figure 5-1. Same location U.S. National Average Retail Gasoline and E85 Prices, 2006-2007
Figure 5-2. Break-even Prices for Gasoline Alternatives Based on FuelEconomy Reduction
Ordering options for Sustainable Ethanol include:
Click here for ordering directly from Prairie Oak Publisbshing
Click here for ordering information from Amazon
Notes
[i]. U.S. DOE National Renewable Energy Laboratory & National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition, Handbook for Handling, Storing, and Dispensing E85, 2002, 2.
[ii]. Keith Reid, “Alcohol at the Pump,” National Petroleum News, (August 2005): 40.
[xi]. John D. Heywood, Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1988), 852.
[xii]. Reynolds, Gasoline Ethanol Blends, 3.
[xiii]. Nate Jenkins, “Buying E10 May Not Always Save Money,” Lincoln Star Journal, October 14, 2005.
[xiv]. Based on tests reported by KT Knapp, FD Stump, & SB Tejada, “The Effect of Fuel on the Emissions of Vehicles over a Wide Range of Temperatures,” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 43 (July 1998).
[xv]. Based on tests by the American Coalition for Ethanol, Fuel Economy Study, 2005, http://www.ethanol.org/documents/ACEFuelEconomyStudy.pdf.
E10, E85, and Flex-Fuel Vehicles
You might already be using ethanol in your car. E10 (10% ethanol) is widely available and approved by automobile makers. You might even be driving a vehicle that can burn up to 85% ethanol (E85). E85 is formulated for flex-fuel vehicles. These vehicles look the same as other cars, trucks, and vans, but run perfectly on anywhere from 0% to 85% ethanol.
Ethanol, also known as ethyl alcohol or fuel alcohol, is a potent version of drinking alcohol with the molecular formula CH3CH2OH. The federal government requires fuel alcohol to be denatured by adding up to 5% gasoline or other denaturant, “poisoning” the brew to prevent human consumption.[i]
The “E” in E10 and E85 stands for ethanol, while the numbers indicate ethanol percentage. E10 is 10% denatured ethanol and 90% gasoline. E85 is 85% denatured ethanol and 15% gasoline. Because the ethanol is denatured, E85 and E10 actually have slightly less than 85% or 10% ethanol content. Ethanol percentage also varies on a seasonal basis. E85 can contain as little as 75% denatured ethanol during the winter to help with cold weather starting.[ii]
(continued below)
E10 Price and Fuel Economy
Due to tax breaks and sometimes lower production costs, ethanol is usually less expensive than gasoline. Not only is ethanol less expensive, but it also adds 2.5–3 octane points (a measure of engine knock resistance[xi]) to E10 gasoline.[xii] Ethanol can be an ingredient in low octane gasoline by using a low octane blendstock (base gasoline). More often, though, ethanol is used in higher-octane gasolines (mid-grade or premium).
During 2005, 2–4 cents was the normal discount for E10 according to Ron Lamberty of the American Coalition for Ethanol.[xiii] In Missouri during 2007, E10 could be had for as much as 10 cents less per gallon than the least expensive ethanol-free gasoline. Since E10 causes little or no loss in fuel economy in many vehicles, a lower price can mean actual savings. At the 10% level, the favorable combustion properties of ethanol more or less compensate for its lower energy density. A 1998 Study by the U.S. EPA showed an average 1.64% gain in miles per gallon for E10 as compared to ethanol-free gasoline. Tests were performed at 0°F and 75°F on 11 vehicles, model years 1977 to 1994.[xiv] The American Coalition for Ethanol conducted a fuel economy study of three passenger cars, model year 2005. They detected an average 1.47% lower fuel economy for E10 as compared to unleaded gasoline without ethanol.[xv] This translates to an average 0.41 fewer miles per gallon—less reduction than you would expect based on energy density alone.
See chapter 5 of Sustainable Ethanol for these additional topics:
Running on E10
E10 Availability
Running on E85
Flex-Fuel Vehicles
Purchasing a Flex-Fuel Vehicle
E85 Availability
E85 Cost and Fuel Economy
Figure 5-1. Same location U.S. National Average Retail Gasoline and E85 Prices, 2006-2007
Figure 5-2. Break-even Prices for Gasoline Alternatives Based on FuelEconomy Reduction
Ordering options for Sustainable Ethanol include:
Click here for ordering directly from Prairie Oak Publisbshing
Click here for ordering information from Amazon
Notes
[i]. U.S. DOE National Renewable Energy Laboratory & National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition, Handbook for Handling, Storing, and Dispensing E85, 2002, 2.
[ii]. Keith Reid, “Alcohol at the Pump,” National Petroleum News, (August 2005): 40.
[xi]. John D. Heywood, Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1988), 852.
[xii]. Reynolds, Gasoline Ethanol Blends, 3.
[xiii]. Nate Jenkins, “Buying E10 May Not Always Save Money,” Lincoln Star Journal, October 14, 2005.
[xiv]. Based on tests reported by KT Knapp, FD Stump, & SB Tejada, “The Effect of Fuel on the Emissions of Vehicles over a Wide Range of Temperatures,” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 43 (July 1998).
[xv]. Based on tests by the American Coalition for Ethanol, Fuel Economy Study, 2005, http://www.ethanol.org/documents/ACEFuelEconomyStudy.pdf.
6: Improving Fuel Economy on Ethanol
The following is an excerpt from Sustainable Ethanol: Biofuels, Biorefineries, Cellulosic Biomass, Flex-Fuel Vehicles, and Sustainable Farming for Energy Independence
Improving Fuel Economy on Ethanol
One criticism of ethanol is that it replaces only a small portion of our gasoline use. But this is a poor reason to abandon ethanol. It would make no more sense than abandoning wind power because it can’t supply all our electricity. It is, however, a reason to work on conservation and energy efficiency just as intently as production. We use more energy than necessary, primarily because petroleum has historically been inexpensive. As cheap oil becomes scarce, we must find ways to curtail our use of transportation fuels.
Some ethanol critics cite its poor fuel economy compared to gasoline. Actually, ethanol can be an ally in energy conservation and better fuel economy. Preliminary studies show E10 already achieves better fuel economy than ethanol-free gasoline in some vehicles. E85 exhibits reduced fuel economy in today’s flex fuel vehicles, but critics often fail to acknowledge this situation can improve. Manufacturers could optimize vehicles for better fuel economy on E10 and E85. This would reduce our cost per mile driven. It would also improve ethanol’s energy balance, in turn benefiting our environment, energy security, and trade balance.
Ethanol’s energy density is low compared to gasoline, but energy density is not the only property affecting fuel economy. We must also consider how efficiently a vehicle uses energy. No technology is capable of converting 100% of available energy into useful work. Energy is lost to friction and heat. But vehicles optimized for ethanol are able to direct a greater percentage of available energy toward turning the wheels, offsetting lower energy content. This is possible thanks to ethanol’s high octane rating and other beneficial combustion properties. Ethanol optimization technologies already exist. Full implementation of these technologies could yield huge benefits through better fuel economy.
In these times of high fuel prices, we often hear of potential solutions such as hybrid vehicles, biofuels, hydrogen, and fuel cells. We need to resist the temptation to see these as competing alternatives. It is tantalizing to think some single “silver bullet” technology will solve all our energy problems. Realistically speaking, if we reject every energy alternative that can’t single-handedly replace oil, we will have nothing left. We need many different alternative fuels and most importantly, we need to combine fuels and technologies for maximum efficiency. Biofuels such as ethanol can be a valuable component of a highly efficient transportation system.
(continued below)
Fuel Economy on E10
E10 (10% denatured ethanol and 80% gasoline) works in nearly all gasoline-burning vehicles. In Chapter 5, we introduced two studies indicating little or no reduction in fuel economy on average for E10 as compared to ethanol-free gasoline.[i] The lower BTU content of E10 does not necessarily lead to worse fuel economy. Some cars achieved significantly better fuel economy on E10. Considering most North American ethanol use is currently in the form of E10, its favorable fuel economy redounds to the benefit of ethanol’s overall energy balance and cost effectiveness in our transportation system. Can fuel economy on E10 be improved still more? In both the EPA and American Coalition for Ethanol studies, fuel economy varied considerably among different car models. Some variability would be expected with real world conditions and among different drivers. These studies, however, were done under controlled conditions, indicating some real differences in the efficiency with which different vehicles burn E10.
Simply making E10 performance data available for new and used cars would allow motorists to make buying decisions based on E10 fuel economy. For used cars, the data might not be consistent because differing levels of engine deposits or other use factors might make a difference, but some trend lines might appear even there. New car performance on E10 should be more consistent and measurable.
See chapter 6 of Sustainable Ethanol for these additional topics:
Improving Flex-Fuel Vehicles
Ethanol and Hybrid Electric Vehicles
Ethanol Boosting with Direct Injection
Ethanol, Hydrogen, and Fuel Cells
Hydrated Ethanol
Figure 6-1. Change in Fuel Economy Using E10 Relative to Ethanol-free Gasoline
Ordering options for Sustainable Ethanol include:
Click here for ordering directly from Prairie Oak Publishing
Click here for ordering information from Amazon
Notes
[i]. KT Knapp, FD Stump, & SB Tejada, “The Effect of Fuel on the Emissions of Vehicles over a Wide Range of Temperatures,” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 43 (July 1998); American Coalition for Ethanol, Fuel Economy Study, 2005, http://www.ethanol.org/documents/ACEFuelEconomyStudy.pdf.
Improving Fuel Economy on Ethanol
One criticism of ethanol is that it replaces only a small portion of our gasoline use. But this is a poor reason to abandon ethanol. It would make no more sense than abandoning wind power because it can’t supply all our electricity. It is, however, a reason to work on conservation and energy efficiency just as intently as production. We use more energy than necessary, primarily because petroleum has historically been inexpensive. As cheap oil becomes scarce, we must find ways to curtail our use of transportation fuels.
Some ethanol critics cite its poor fuel economy compared to gasoline. Actually, ethanol can be an ally in energy conservation and better fuel economy. Preliminary studies show E10 already achieves better fuel economy than ethanol-free gasoline in some vehicles. E85 exhibits reduced fuel economy in today’s flex fuel vehicles, but critics often fail to acknowledge this situation can improve. Manufacturers could optimize vehicles for better fuel economy on E10 and E85. This would reduce our cost per mile driven. It would also improve ethanol’s energy balance, in turn benefiting our environment, energy security, and trade balance.
Ethanol’s energy density is low compared to gasoline, but energy density is not the only property affecting fuel economy. We must also consider how efficiently a vehicle uses energy. No technology is capable of converting 100% of available energy into useful work. Energy is lost to friction and heat. But vehicles optimized for ethanol are able to direct a greater percentage of available energy toward turning the wheels, offsetting lower energy content. This is possible thanks to ethanol’s high octane rating and other beneficial combustion properties. Ethanol optimization technologies already exist. Full implementation of these technologies could yield huge benefits through better fuel economy.
In these times of high fuel prices, we often hear of potential solutions such as hybrid vehicles, biofuels, hydrogen, and fuel cells. We need to resist the temptation to see these as competing alternatives. It is tantalizing to think some single “silver bullet” technology will solve all our energy problems. Realistically speaking, if we reject every energy alternative that can’t single-handedly replace oil, we will have nothing left. We need many different alternative fuels and most importantly, we need to combine fuels and technologies for maximum efficiency. Biofuels such as ethanol can be a valuable component of a highly efficient transportation system.
(continued below)
Fuel Economy on E10
E10 (10% denatured ethanol and 80% gasoline) works in nearly all gasoline-burning vehicles. In Chapter 5, we introduced two studies indicating little or no reduction in fuel economy on average for E10 as compared to ethanol-free gasoline.[i] The lower BTU content of E10 does not necessarily lead to worse fuel economy. Some cars achieved significantly better fuel economy on E10. Considering most North American ethanol use is currently in the form of E10, its favorable fuel economy redounds to the benefit of ethanol’s overall energy balance and cost effectiveness in our transportation system. Can fuel economy on E10 be improved still more? In both the EPA and American Coalition for Ethanol studies, fuel economy varied considerably among different car models. Some variability would be expected with real world conditions and among different drivers. These studies, however, were done under controlled conditions, indicating some real differences in the efficiency with which different vehicles burn E10.
Simply making E10 performance data available for new and used cars would allow motorists to make buying decisions based on E10 fuel economy. For used cars, the data might not be consistent because differing levels of engine deposits or other use factors might make a difference, but some trend lines might appear even there. New car performance on E10 should be more consistent and measurable.
See chapter 6 of Sustainable Ethanol for these additional topics:
Improving Flex-Fuel Vehicles
Ethanol and Hybrid Electric Vehicles
Ethanol Boosting with Direct Injection
Ethanol, Hydrogen, and Fuel Cells
Hydrated Ethanol
Figure 6-1. Change in Fuel Economy Using E10 Relative to Ethanol-free Gasoline
Ordering options for Sustainable Ethanol include:
Click here for ordering directly from Prairie Oak Publishing
Click here for ordering information from Amazon
Notes
[i]. KT Knapp, FD Stump, & SB Tejada, “The Effect of Fuel on the Emissions of Vehicles over a Wide Range of Temperatures,” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 43 (July 1998); American Coalition for Ethanol, Fuel Economy Study, 2005, http://www.ethanol.org/documents/ACEFuelEconomyStudy.pdf.
7: Food, Farming, and Land Use
The following is an excerpt from Sustainable Ethanol: Biofuels, Biorefineries, Cellulosic Biomass, Flex-Fuel Vehicles, and Sustainable Farming for Energy Independence
Food, Farming, and Land Use
We count on agriculture for a reliable and affordable food supply. American farmers have succeeded in this mission. In fact, farmers have been plagued with surplus production and low prices in recent decades. In 2005, farmers were being paid only around $2.00 per bushel of corn even though about 14% of the crop was put through ethanol biorefineries (USDA ERS data). At these incredibly low prices, it was impossible for most corn farmers to make a profit without government subsidies. While most other commodities rise in line with inflation, grain prices have remained low.
Prices are finally rising, but corn is still a bargain compared to non-food commodities. From the beginning, a major goal of the fuel ethanol movement was higher crop prices so farmers could make a living without government subsidies. That is exactly what is happening.
Growing up in America’s Corn Belt during the 1980’s, your authors witnessed mountains of corn left in the open many years because large crops overwhelmed grain storage capacity. Grain prices fell, profits evaporated, and many farmers lost land that had been in their families for generations. A few farmers decided it was time to bring back a fuel ethanol industry that could make use of surplus grain. Their hard work eventually paid off. The fuel ethanol industry is thriving while our food supply remains plentiful and relatively inexpensive. But how much can we expect from the land? Will energy production endanger our food supply? Other concerns are even more pressing. The rising price of fossil fuels threatens the profitability of farms reliant on petroleum-derived chemical fertilizers and pesticides. These challenges present opportunities for farmers. Integrated production of food, fuel, and fiber using sustainable farming methods can provide solutions for food and energy security while also improving farm profits and our environment.
(continued below)
Food Prices
Ethanol production did not seem to drive up U.S. food prices significantly through 2006. According to the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS), the consumer price index (CPI) for food increased at an average annual rate of 2.6% from 1996 through 2005.[i] In 2006, with record growth in ethanol production and sharply higher corn prices, the CPI for food went up only 2.3%. This is 0.3% below the average annual increase over the previous 10 years. The CPI for meats alone, which should be more sensitive to the price of corn, went up only 0.7% in 2006.[ii] What if corn prices continue to rise? A study by the Center for Agriculture and Resource Development at Iowa State University estimates a 30% increase in corn prices would boost overall average food prices by only 1.1%.[iii]
Corn prices have a minimal effect on the cost of food in part because grain prices are no longer a large component of food prices. The cost of labor is more important today. “Farm value has declined continuously as a percentage of total consumer expenditures, while labor has risen continuously,” explains USDA ERS. “Labor is by far the largest and most influential component of the consumer's food dollar. Higher labor costs reflect increased food industry employment stimulated by consumer demand for convenience foods that require significant processing.”[iv] We also tend to ship foods greater distances than in the past. As the cost of fuel for shipping goes up, so will food prices. Higher crude oil prices tend to boost the cost of goods across the board.
Food AND Fuel from Corn
Running corn through a biorefinery takes only part of it out of the food supply. Ethanol is made from the starch portion of the corn kernel. Starch is less likely than other components to be in short supply for human or animal food. Most of the protein, oil, and other nutrients are left after the starch is removed. These nutrients are available for livestock or human consumption.
About 1/3 of the corn used in dry-mill ethanol production (the most common process) is available in the form of coproduct feeds. This amounts to about 17 pounds of Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles (DDGS) per bushel.[v] DDGS has a greater feed value than the same amount of whole corn in a feed ration. One study showed DDGS has a 27% greater net energy value than dry rolled corn when fed to heifers on forage.[vi]
With continued growth in ethanol production, coproduct supplies could eventually exceed the amount needed for animal feed. Coproducts could then be used as fuel for powering ethanol biorefineries. Brazilian biorefineries use leftover portions of sugar cane for power production. Using DDGS this way would reduce the amount of natural gas or coal needed for powering ethanol biorefineries. Human consumption is another promising use for corn ethanol coproducts. Companies are developing processing techniques that yield corn oil, corn fiber, gluten, and proteins for human consumption, while also producing ethanol and even raw materials for biodegradable plastics. In addition to enhancing our food supply, these new processing methods could increase the profitability of ethanol biorefineries.
See chapter 7 of Sustainable Ethanol for these additional topics:
Ethanol and World Hunger
Fossil Fuels and Agriculture
Sustainable Farming
Land Use Issues
Diversifying Energy Crops
High-Diversity Grassland
Enhancing Food Production with Energy Farming
Figure 7-1. Average Price Paid U.S. Farmers per Bushel of Corn, 1980-2007
Figure 7-2. Corn Planted Since 1992 per Market Year
Ordering options for Sustainable Ethanol include:
Click here to order directly from Prairie Oak Publishing
Click here for ordering information from Amazon
Notes
[i]. USDA Economic Research Service, Food CPI, Prices, and Expenditures, March 26, 2007, http://www.ers.usda.gov/.
[ii]. USDA Economic Research Service, Food CPI, Prices, and Expenditures: CPI for Food Forecasts, March 26, 2007, http://www.ers.usda.gov/.
[iii]. Helen H. Jensen and Bruce A. Babcock, “Do Biofuels Mean Inexpensive Food Is a Thing of the Past?,” Iowa Ag Review Online 13 (Summer 2007).
[iv]. USDA Economic Research Service, Food Marketing and Price Spreads: Relationships between Price Spreads and Marketing Input Costs, April 25, 2002, http://www.ers.usda.gov/.
[v]. Keith Collins (Chief Economist, USDA), Statement before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, September 6, 2006, http://www.usda.gov/oce/newsroom/congressional_testimony/
Biofuels%20Testimony%209-6-2006.doc.
[vi]. G. E. Erickson, T. J. Klopfenstein, D. C. Adams, and R. J. Rasby, “General Overview of Feeding Corn Milling Co-Products to Beef Cattle,” in Corn Processing Co-products Manual (University of Nebraska Lincoln), January 2005, http://beef.unl.edu/byprodfeeds/manual_02_02.shtml.
Food, Farming, and Land Use
We count on agriculture for a reliable and affordable food supply. American farmers have succeeded in this mission. In fact, farmers have been plagued with surplus production and low prices in recent decades. In 2005, farmers were being paid only around $2.00 per bushel of corn even though about 14% of the crop was put through ethanol biorefineries (USDA ERS data). At these incredibly low prices, it was impossible for most corn farmers to make a profit without government subsidies. While most other commodities rise in line with inflation, grain prices have remained low.
Prices are finally rising, but corn is still a bargain compared to non-food commodities. From the beginning, a major goal of the fuel ethanol movement was higher crop prices so farmers could make a living without government subsidies. That is exactly what is happening.
Growing up in America’s Corn Belt during the 1980’s, your authors witnessed mountains of corn left in the open many years because large crops overwhelmed grain storage capacity. Grain prices fell, profits evaporated, and many farmers lost land that had been in their families for generations. A few farmers decided it was time to bring back a fuel ethanol industry that could make use of surplus grain. Their hard work eventually paid off. The fuel ethanol industry is thriving while our food supply remains plentiful and relatively inexpensive. But how much can we expect from the land? Will energy production endanger our food supply? Other concerns are even more pressing. The rising price of fossil fuels threatens the profitability of farms reliant on petroleum-derived chemical fertilizers and pesticides. These challenges present opportunities for farmers. Integrated production of food, fuel, and fiber using sustainable farming methods can provide solutions for food and energy security while also improving farm profits and our environment.
(continued below)
Food Prices
Ethanol production did not seem to drive up U.S. food prices significantly through 2006. According to the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS), the consumer price index (CPI) for food increased at an average annual rate of 2.6% from 1996 through 2005.[i] In 2006, with record growth in ethanol production and sharply higher corn prices, the CPI for food went up only 2.3%. This is 0.3% below the average annual increase over the previous 10 years. The CPI for meats alone, which should be more sensitive to the price of corn, went up only 0.7% in 2006.[ii] What if corn prices continue to rise? A study by the Center for Agriculture and Resource Development at Iowa State University estimates a 30% increase in corn prices would boost overall average food prices by only 1.1%.[iii]
Corn prices have a minimal effect on the cost of food in part because grain prices are no longer a large component of food prices. The cost of labor is more important today. “Farm value has declined continuously as a percentage of total consumer expenditures, while labor has risen continuously,” explains USDA ERS. “Labor is by far the largest and most influential component of the consumer's food dollar. Higher labor costs reflect increased food industry employment stimulated by consumer demand for convenience foods that require significant processing.”[iv] We also tend to ship foods greater distances than in the past. As the cost of fuel for shipping goes up, so will food prices. Higher crude oil prices tend to boost the cost of goods across the board.
Food AND Fuel from Corn
Running corn through a biorefinery takes only part of it out of the food supply. Ethanol is made from the starch portion of the corn kernel. Starch is less likely than other components to be in short supply for human or animal food. Most of the protein, oil, and other nutrients are left after the starch is removed. These nutrients are available for livestock or human consumption.
About 1/3 of the corn used in dry-mill ethanol production (the most common process) is available in the form of coproduct feeds. This amounts to about 17 pounds of Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles (DDGS) per bushel.[v] DDGS has a greater feed value than the same amount of whole corn in a feed ration. One study showed DDGS has a 27% greater net energy value than dry rolled corn when fed to heifers on forage.[vi]
With continued growth in ethanol production, coproduct supplies could eventually exceed the amount needed for animal feed. Coproducts could then be used as fuel for powering ethanol biorefineries. Brazilian biorefineries use leftover portions of sugar cane for power production. Using DDGS this way would reduce the amount of natural gas or coal needed for powering ethanol biorefineries. Human consumption is another promising use for corn ethanol coproducts. Companies are developing processing techniques that yield corn oil, corn fiber, gluten, and proteins for human consumption, while also producing ethanol and even raw materials for biodegradable plastics. In addition to enhancing our food supply, these new processing methods could increase the profitability of ethanol biorefineries.
See chapter 7 of Sustainable Ethanol for these additional topics:
Ethanol and World Hunger
Fossil Fuels and Agriculture
Sustainable Farming
Land Use Issues
Diversifying Energy Crops
High-Diversity Grassland
Enhancing Food Production with Energy Farming
Figure 7-1. Average Price Paid U.S. Farmers per Bushel of Corn, 1980-2007
Figure 7-2. Corn Planted Since 1992 per Market Year
Ordering options for Sustainable Ethanol include:
Click here to order directly from Prairie Oak Publishing
Click here for ordering information from Amazon
Notes
[i]. USDA Economic Research Service, Food CPI, Prices, and Expenditures, March 26, 2007, http://www.ers.usda.gov/.
[ii]. USDA Economic Research Service, Food CPI, Prices, and Expenditures: CPI for Food Forecasts, March 26, 2007, http://www.ers.usda.gov/.
[iii]. Helen H. Jensen and Bruce A. Babcock, “Do Biofuels Mean Inexpensive Food Is a Thing of the Past?,” Iowa Ag Review Online 13 (Summer 2007).
[iv]. USDA Economic Research Service, Food Marketing and Price Spreads: Relationships between Price Spreads and Marketing Input Costs, April 25, 2002, http://www.ers.usda.gov/.
[v]. Keith Collins (Chief Economist, USDA), Statement before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, September 6, 2006, http://www.usda.gov/oce/newsroom/congressional_testimony/
Biofuels%20Testimony%209-6-2006.doc.
[vi]. G. E. Erickson, T. J. Klopfenstein, D. C. Adams, and R. J. Rasby, “General Overview of Feeding Corn Milling Co-Products to Beef Cattle,” in Corn Processing Co-products Manual (University of Nebraska Lincoln), January 2005, http://beef.unl.edu/byprodfeeds/manual_02_02.shtml.
8: Ethanol Production
The following is an excerpt from Sustainable Ethanol: Biofuels, Biorefineries, Cellulosic Biomass, Flex-Fuel Vehicles, and Sustainable Farming for Energy Independence
Ethanol Production
We should evaluate the ethanol industry not by yesterday’s technology, but by the high-efficiency methods rapidly being implemented. Due to rising costs, producers are realizing the need to lessen dependence on corn kernels as a feedstock and natural gas as a process fuel. This chapter is about the production advances making ethanol make sense—making it less expensive and more environmentally friendly. Advances might even involve producing other biofuels such as butanol. These technologies will steadily improve the sustainability of biofuels.
(continued below)
Large Scale Ethanol Production
Ethanol is generally made like beverage alcohol—sugars are fermented and the resulting “beer” is purified by distillation. Another approach is the syngas (or thermochemical) platform. Cellulosic biomass is gasified, producing a synthesis gas which can be converted into ethanol or other useful substances through chemical catalysis.[i] Pyrolysis of cellulosic biomass also has potential. Pyrolysis oil can be upgraded to ethanol or other biofuels.
Ethanol can be made from just about any organic material. Simple sugars allow the easiest path to ethanol production. Feedstocks such as sugar cane, sweet sorghum, Jerusalem artichoke tops, and sugar beets contain readily fermentable sugars.
North America’s ethanol industry is currently based on starch feedstocks. Starch must be hydrolyzed, releasing sugars prior to fermentation. It can be stored for long periods, facilitating year-round biorefining. Field corn (not sweet corn) is the main starch crop for making ethanol in North America.
Cellulosic feedstocks are on the verge of commercialization. Cellulose and hemicellulose are more abundant than starch or free sugars. The use of cellulosic feedstocks could allow a huge expansion in biofuel production and divert waste streams from landfills. However, it is more difficult to liberate sugars from cellulosic materials than from starch. Cellulosic ethanol is being made on a pilot and demonstration scale. Until production costs come down, however, most North American ethanol will be made from the starch found in corn kernels.
See chapter 8 of Sustainable Ethanol for the following additional topics:
New Feedstocks
Ethanol from Sugar Feedstocks
Ethanol from Sweet Sorghum
Ethanol from Jerusalem Artichokes
Ethanol from Food Waste
On-Farm Ethanol from Waste Fruit
Ethanol from Beets
Ethanol from Corn Kernels
Adding Value to Coproducts
Ethanol from Field Peas
Ethanol from Grain Sorghum, Wheat, and Barley
Reducing Process Fuel Use
Reducing Water Use
Alternative Process Fuels
Combined Heat and Power
Ethanol-Livestock Integration
Small-Scale Ethanol Production
Ethanol Transportation & Pipeline Issues
Butanol: The Other Alcohol
Figure 8-1. Ethanol Production Paths
Figure 8-2. Ethanol Production by Feedstock, 2006
Figure 8-3. Estimated Ethanol Yield by Feedstock
Figure 8-4. Estimated Production Cost by Feedstock
Figure 8-5. Ethanol Production from Corn Kernels
Figure 8-6. Conventional vs. Combined Heat & Power
Ordering options for Sustainable Ethanol include:
Click here for ordering directly from Prairie Oak Publishing
Click Here for information on ordering from Amazon
Notes
[i]. USDA Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Biomass Program, Integrated Biorefineries, 2005, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/integrated_biorefineries.html.
Ethanol Production
We should evaluate the ethanol industry not by yesterday’s technology, but by the high-efficiency methods rapidly being implemented. Due to rising costs, producers are realizing the need to lessen dependence on corn kernels as a feedstock and natural gas as a process fuel. This chapter is about the production advances making ethanol make sense—making it less expensive and more environmentally friendly. Advances might even involve producing other biofuels such as butanol. These technologies will steadily improve the sustainability of biofuels.
(continued below)
Large Scale Ethanol Production
Ethanol is generally made like beverage alcohol—sugars are fermented and the resulting “beer” is purified by distillation. Another approach is the syngas (or thermochemical) platform. Cellulosic biomass is gasified, producing a synthesis gas which can be converted into ethanol or other useful substances through chemical catalysis.[i] Pyrolysis of cellulosic biomass also has potential. Pyrolysis oil can be upgraded to ethanol or other biofuels.
Ethanol can be made from just about any organic material. Simple sugars allow the easiest path to ethanol production. Feedstocks such as sugar cane, sweet sorghum, Jerusalem artichoke tops, and sugar beets contain readily fermentable sugars.
North America’s ethanol industry is currently based on starch feedstocks. Starch must be hydrolyzed, releasing sugars prior to fermentation. It can be stored for long periods, facilitating year-round biorefining. Field corn (not sweet corn) is the main starch crop for making ethanol in North America.
Cellulosic feedstocks are on the verge of commercialization. Cellulose and hemicellulose are more abundant than starch or free sugars. The use of cellulosic feedstocks could allow a huge expansion in biofuel production and divert waste streams from landfills. However, it is more difficult to liberate sugars from cellulosic materials than from starch. Cellulosic ethanol is being made on a pilot and demonstration scale. Until production costs come down, however, most North American ethanol will be made from the starch found in corn kernels.
See chapter 8 of Sustainable Ethanol for the following additional topics:
New Feedstocks
Ethanol from Sugar Feedstocks
Ethanol from Sweet Sorghum
Ethanol from Jerusalem Artichokes
Ethanol from Food Waste
On-Farm Ethanol from Waste Fruit
Ethanol from Beets
Ethanol from Corn Kernels
Adding Value to Coproducts
Ethanol from Field Peas
Ethanol from Grain Sorghum, Wheat, and Barley
Reducing Process Fuel Use
Reducing Water Use
Alternative Process Fuels
Combined Heat and Power
Ethanol-Livestock Integration
Small-Scale Ethanol Production
Ethanol Transportation & Pipeline Issues
Butanol: The Other Alcohol
Figure 8-1. Ethanol Production Paths
Figure 8-2. Ethanol Production by Feedstock, 2006
Figure 8-3. Estimated Ethanol Yield by Feedstock
Figure 8-4. Estimated Production Cost by Feedstock
Figure 8-5. Ethanol Production from Corn Kernels
Figure 8-6. Conventional vs. Combined Heat & Power
Ordering options for Sustainable Ethanol include:
Click here for ordering directly from Prairie Oak Publishing
Click Here for information on ordering from Amazon
Notes
[i]. USDA Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Biomass Program, Integrated Biorefineries, 2005, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/integrated_biorefineries.html.
9: Cellulosic Ethanol
The following excerpt is from Sustainable Ethanol: Biofuels, Biorefineries, Cellulosic Biomass, Flex-Fuel Vehicles, and Sustainable Farming for Energy Independence
Cellulosic Ethanol
Many supporters of renewable biofuels see cellulosic ethanol as our best hope in the next few decades. The attraction lies in the sheer volume of potential feedstocks. Cellulosic ethanol (or butanol) does not refer to a distinct end product. Ethanol made from cellulosic materials is the same as ethanol from corn or sugar cane. The distinction lies in the feedstocks. Cellulosic biofuels can be made from practically any organic material. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Biomass Program lists the following categories of cellulosic feedstocks:[i]
● agricultural residues (leftover material from crops, such as the stalks, leaves, and husks of corn plants)
● forestry wastes (chips and sawdust from lumber mills, dead trees, and tree branches)
● municipal solid waste (household garbage and paper products)
● food processing and other industrial wastes (black liquor, a paper manufacturing by-product)
● energy crops (fast-growing trees and grasses) developed just for this purpose
Diverse feedstocks will allow an expansion in ethanol output. The challenge is in liberating plant sugars from the grip of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. The following descriptions of these complex polymers are from the U.S. DOE:
See chapter 9 of Sustainable Ethanol for the following addtional topics:
Ordering options for Sustainable Ethanol include:
Click here for ordering directly from Prairie Oak Publishing
Click here for information on ordering from Amazon
Notes
[i]. U.S. DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Biomass Program, Information Resources, 2007, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/abcs_biofuels.html.
[ii]. Ibid.
Cellulosic Ethanol
Many supporters of renewable biofuels see cellulosic ethanol as our best hope in the next few decades. The attraction lies in the sheer volume of potential feedstocks. Cellulosic ethanol (or butanol) does not refer to a distinct end product. Ethanol made from cellulosic materials is the same as ethanol from corn or sugar cane. The distinction lies in the feedstocks. Cellulosic biofuels can be made from practically any organic material. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Biomass Program lists the following categories of cellulosic feedstocks:[i]
● agricultural residues (leftover material from crops, such as the stalks, leaves, and husks of corn plants)
● forestry wastes (chips and sawdust from lumber mills, dead trees, and tree branches)
● municipal solid waste (household garbage and paper products)
● food processing and other industrial wastes (black liquor, a paper manufacturing by-product)
● energy crops (fast-growing trees and grasses) developed just for this purpose
Diverse feedstocks will allow an expansion in ethanol output. The challenge is in liberating plant sugars from the grip of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. The following descriptions of these complex polymers are from the U.S. DOE:
● Cellulose is the most common form of carbon in biomass, accounting for
40%–60% by weight of the biomass, depending on the biomass source. It is a
complex sugar polymer, or polysaccharide, made from the six-carbon sugar,
glucose. Its crystalline structure makes it resistant to hydrolysis, the
chemical reaction that releases simple, fermentable sugars from a
polysaccharide.
● Hemicellulose is also a major source of carbon in biomass,
at levels of between 20% and 40% by weight. It is a complex polysaccharide made
from a variety of five and six-carbon sugars. It is relatively easy to hydrolyze
into simple sugars but the sugars are difficult to ferment to ethanol.
● Lignin is a complex polymer, which provides structural integrity in
plants. It makes up 10% to 24% by weight of biomass. It remains as residual
material after the sugars in the biomass have been converted to ethanol. It
contains a lot of energy and can be burned to produce steam and electricity for
the biomass-to-ethanol process.[ii]
See chapter 9 of Sustainable Ethanol for the following addtional topics:
- Commercializing Cellulosic Production
- Cellulosic Conversion Technologies
- Biochemical Methods
- Thermochemical Methods
- Biogas as a Transportation Fuel
- Waste & Coproduct Feedstocks
- Dedicated Cellulosic Energy Crops
- A Sticky Coproduct
- Harvest and Transportation of Feedstocks
- The Pyrolysis Route to Cellulosic Ethanol
- Regional Biomass Processing Centers
- Pipeline Transportation of Corn Stover Silage
- Economics of Cellulosic Ethanol
- How Much Ethanol Can We Make?
- Figure 9-1: The Biochemical Cellulosic Production Process
- Figure 9-2: Annual Biomass Potential from U.S. Forests and Agriculture
Ordering options for Sustainable Ethanol include:
Click here for ordering directly from Prairie Oak Publishing
Click here for information on ordering from Amazon
Notes
[i]. U.S. DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Biomass Program, Information Resources, 2007, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/abcs_biofuels.html.
[ii]. Ibid.
10: Energy Balance
The following is an Excerpt from Sustainable Ethanol: Biofuels, Biorefineries, Cellulosic Biomass, Flex-Fuel Vehicles, and Sustainable Farming for Energy Independence
Energy Balance:
Is Ethanol Renewable?
In order to convert matter or energy from one form to another or move it from one place to another, energy must be expended. This principle is behind the concept of energy balance or net energy ratio—energy obtained from a system divided by the energy put into a system. It’s supposed to help us compare different energy systems. Unfortunately, net energy ratio is not an ideal comparison tool because of the different qualities of various energy inputs and outputs.
All BTU’s are Not the Same
When computing net energy ratio, we need to assign some unit of energy to each energy carrier involved. Generally, energy in and out is measured in British Thermal Units (BTU’s). One BTU is the heat energy needed to raise the temperature of one pound of water from 60°F to 61°F at one atmosphere pressure.[i] The number of BTU’s for an energy carrier such as ethanol or gasoline, then, is a measure of how well it can heat water when burned. This is probably as good a common denominator as we could use, but it does not take some important factors into account. “All BTU’s are not created equal,” as Dr. Bruce Dale of Michigan State University puts it.[ii]
Different energy carriers are not interchangeable. A pile of coal with the same BTU content as a gallon of gasoline will not get you down the road if you put it in your car’s gas tank. A BTU worth of gasoline will cost you more than a BTU worth of coal because of our thirst for liquid transportation fuels. If we are going to make comparisons based on net energy ratio, we should do so in a way that reflects our goals—our reasons for wanting to replace gasoline with an alternative like ethanol. Dr. Dale proposes two such “metrics”—Fossil Energy Replacement Ratio and Petroleum Replacement Ratio.[iii]
(continued below)
Fossil Energy Replacement Ratio
It is the fossil energy inputs that are non-renewable and can cause pollution of water and air. That’s why most energy balance studies actually consider the Fossil Energy Replacement Ratio (FER) rather than the total energy ratio, whether they call it that or not. In order to calculate FER, energy delivered to the consumer is divided by fossil energy inputs.
The majority of recent studies looking at ethanol from corn kernels show a positive FER (over 1.0), meaning more BTU’s are available in the ethanol than in the fossil fuels that went into producing that same ethanol. Of the 13 major studies on the subject completed between 1998 and 2005, 9 showed a positive net energy balance for corn ethanol.[v] In 2001, the USDA calculated an industry average 1.7 net energy ratio for corn ethanol (19 state average).[vi] Dr. Dale uses the conservative 1.4 FER figure in his comparisons. This means 1.4 BTU’s are delivered to the end consumer for every 1 BTU of fossil fuel input into the corn ethanol production system.
Higher FER means less fossil fuels were consumed for each available BTU. In other words, an energy carrier with a higher FER displaces more fossil fuels. In calculating FER, BTU’s from direct solar energy are not counted against ethanol. We can be fairly certain the sun will continue to shine and plants will continue to convert sunlight into biomass from year to year. Input from sunlight is what gives ethanol a positive Fossil Energy Replacement Ratio. Sunlight also sustained the plant life that became fossil fuels, but that took millions of years.
Petroleum Replacement Ratio
Petroleum is often imported from potentially unstable sources and shipped through areas vulnerable to environmental damage. Most fossil fuel inputs for U.S. ethanol production, on the other hand, are sourced from within North America—mainly coal and natural gas. Petroleum Replacement Ratio (PRR) reflects the degree of reliance on petroleum for a given energy carrier. In order to calculate PRR, energy delivered to the customer is divided by petroleum inputs. It counts only the petroleum BTU input against the BTU’s delivered to the final customer. An energy carrier with a higher PRR displaces more petroleum. Dr. Dale calculates a PRR of 20 for ethanol from corn kernels. For every 20 BTU’s delivered to the consumer, only 1 petroleum BTU went into the corn ethanol production system. This number reflects the fact that corn ethanol production relies on petroleum to a very small extent, making it desirable for our economy and security.
See chapter 10 of Sustainable Ethanol for these topics:
Rating Cellulosic Ethanol
Comparing Ethanol and Gasoline
Fuel Economy and Energy Balance
Variables and Trends
Figure 10-1: Calculating Fossil Energy Replacement Ratio for Corn Ethanol
Figure 10-2: Calculating Petroleum Replacement Ratio for Corn Ethanol
Figure 10-3: Energy Balance Ratios for Ethanol and Gasoline
Figure 10-4: U.S. Natural Gas Wellhead Price, 1996–2007
Find out about ordering a copy of Sustainable Ethanol at:
Click here for ordering directly from Prairie Oak Publishing
Click here for ordering information from Amazon
Notes
[i]. U.S. DOE Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, Biomass Energy Data Book Glossary, http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb/glossary.shtml.
[ii]. Bruce E. Dale, “Biofuels: Thinking Clearly about the Issues,” Presented at the 4th Annual Life Sciences & Society Symposium at the University of Missouri, Columbia, March 14, 2007; Also see www.everythingbiomass.org.
[iii]. Ibid.
[v]. Michael Wang, “The Debate on Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts of Fuel Ethanol,” University of Chicago Argonne National Laboratory, 2005, 24.
[vi]. Hosein Shapouri, “Net Energy Balance of Biofuels,” Presented at the 4th Annual Life Sciences & Society Symposium at the University of Missouri, Columbia, March 15, 2007.
Energy Balance:
Is Ethanol Renewable?
In order to convert matter or energy from one form to another or move it from one place to another, energy must be expended. This principle is behind the concept of energy balance or net energy ratio—energy obtained from a system divided by the energy put into a system. It’s supposed to help us compare different energy systems. Unfortunately, net energy ratio is not an ideal comparison tool because of the different qualities of various energy inputs and outputs.
All BTU’s are Not the Same
When computing net energy ratio, we need to assign some unit of energy to each energy carrier involved. Generally, energy in and out is measured in British Thermal Units (BTU’s). One BTU is the heat energy needed to raise the temperature of one pound of water from 60°F to 61°F at one atmosphere pressure.[i] The number of BTU’s for an energy carrier such as ethanol or gasoline, then, is a measure of how well it can heat water when burned. This is probably as good a common denominator as we could use, but it does not take some important factors into account. “All BTU’s are not created equal,” as Dr. Bruce Dale of Michigan State University puts it.[ii]
Different energy carriers are not interchangeable. A pile of coal with the same BTU content as a gallon of gasoline will not get you down the road if you put it in your car’s gas tank. A BTU worth of gasoline will cost you more than a BTU worth of coal because of our thirst for liquid transportation fuels. If we are going to make comparisons based on net energy ratio, we should do so in a way that reflects our goals—our reasons for wanting to replace gasoline with an alternative like ethanol. Dr. Dale proposes two such “metrics”—Fossil Energy Replacement Ratio and Petroleum Replacement Ratio.[iii]
(continued below)
Fossil Energy Replacement Ratio
It is the fossil energy inputs that are non-renewable and can cause pollution of water and air. That’s why most energy balance studies actually consider the Fossil Energy Replacement Ratio (FER) rather than the total energy ratio, whether they call it that or not. In order to calculate FER, energy delivered to the consumer is divided by fossil energy inputs.
The majority of recent studies looking at ethanol from corn kernels show a positive FER (over 1.0), meaning more BTU’s are available in the ethanol than in the fossil fuels that went into producing that same ethanol. Of the 13 major studies on the subject completed between 1998 and 2005, 9 showed a positive net energy balance for corn ethanol.[v] In 2001, the USDA calculated an industry average 1.7 net energy ratio for corn ethanol (19 state average).[vi] Dr. Dale uses the conservative 1.4 FER figure in his comparisons. This means 1.4 BTU’s are delivered to the end consumer for every 1 BTU of fossil fuel input into the corn ethanol production system.
Higher FER means less fossil fuels were consumed for each available BTU. In other words, an energy carrier with a higher FER displaces more fossil fuels. In calculating FER, BTU’s from direct solar energy are not counted against ethanol. We can be fairly certain the sun will continue to shine and plants will continue to convert sunlight into biomass from year to year. Input from sunlight is what gives ethanol a positive Fossil Energy Replacement Ratio. Sunlight also sustained the plant life that became fossil fuels, but that took millions of years.
Petroleum Replacement Ratio
Petroleum is often imported from potentially unstable sources and shipped through areas vulnerable to environmental damage. Most fossil fuel inputs for U.S. ethanol production, on the other hand, are sourced from within North America—mainly coal and natural gas. Petroleum Replacement Ratio (PRR) reflects the degree of reliance on petroleum for a given energy carrier. In order to calculate PRR, energy delivered to the customer is divided by petroleum inputs. It counts only the petroleum BTU input against the BTU’s delivered to the final customer. An energy carrier with a higher PRR displaces more petroleum. Dr. Dale calculates a PRR of 20 for ethanol from corn kernels. For every 20 BTU’s delivered to the consumer, only 1 petroleum BTU went into the corn ethanol production system. This number reflects the fact that corn ethanol production relies on petroleum to a very small extent, making it desirable for our economy and security.
See chapter 10 of Sustainable Ethanol for these topics:
Rating Cellulosic Ethanol
Comparing Ethanol and Gasoline
Fuel Economy and Energy Balance
Variables and Trends
Figure 10-1: Calculating Fossil Energy Replacement Ratio for Corn Ethanol
Figure 10-2: Calculating Petroleum Replacement Ratio for Corn Ethanol
Figure 10-3: Energy Balance Ratios for Ethanol and Gasoline
Figure 10-4: U.S. Natural Gas Wellhead Price, 1996–2007
Find out about ordering a copy of Sustainable Ethanol at:
Click here for ordering directly from Prairie Oak Publishing
Click here for ordering information from Amazon
Notes
[i]. U.S. DOE Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, Biomass Energy Data Book Glossary, http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb/glossary.shtml.
[ii]. Bruce E. Dale, “Biofuels: Thinking Clearly about the Issues,” Presented at the 4th Annual Life Sciences & Society Symposium at the University of Missouri, Columbia, March 14, 2007; Also see www.everythingbiomass.org.
[iii]. Ibid.
[v]. Michael Wang, “The Debate on Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts of Fuel Ethanol,” University of Chicago Argonne National Laboratory, 2005, 24.
[vi]. Hosein Shapouri, “Net Energy Balance of Biofuels,” Presented at the 4th Annual Life Sciences & Society Symposium at the University of Missouri, Columbia, March 15, 2007.
11: Facing Our Energy Future
The following excerpt is from chapter 11 of Sustainable Ethanol: Biofuels, Biorefineries, Cellulosic Biomass, Flex-Fuel Vehicles, and Sustainable Farming for Energy Independence
Facing our Energy Future
Alcohol was used as a fuel well before the petroleum era. Over time, it came to be known as power alcohol, agricrude alcohol, gasohol, and finally ethanol. As the era of cheap oil comes to a close, ethanol and other biofuels will play an important role in our energy future. Just as William J. Hale’s 1930’s “agricrude”[i] terminology sounds odd to us, today’s biofuel technology will seem old-fashioned to future generations. We will find new ways to make, distribute, and use biofuels. Based on reasonably achievable advances, the future might include:
● sustainable farming of perennial energy crops
● additional biofuels such as biobutanol (a 4-carbon alcohol), bio-oil, and biogas joining ethanol and biodiesel
● transporting biofuels by pipeline
● super-efficient automobiles getting better fuel economy on biofuels than on petroleum
● “sugar cars” fueled by on-board conversion of sugars and starches to hydrogen[ii]
● replacing U.S. petroleum imports with domestic biofuels
Ramping up production and infrastructure will take time, while our appetite for liquid fuel continues to grow. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) predicts alternative technologies will displace the equivalent of only 4% of projected U.S. annual consumption of petroleum products by 2015.[iii] Such small numbers cause some skeptics to dismiss the whole idea of ethanol and other biofuels. This would be a mistake. Biofuels are not perfect, but they are better than the status quo. With technologies like cellulosic ethanol and biobutanol, biofuel market share will continue to grow. The DOE predicts alternative technologies could displace up to 34% of U.S. petroleum consumption in the 2025 through 2030 time frame, “if the challenges are met.”[iv]
Read more in Sustainable Ethanol, available at:
Direct from Prairie Oak Publishing, click here
from Amazon, click here
Notes
[i]. William J. Hale, Farmward March (New York: Coward-McCann, 1939).
[ii]. Researchers at Virginia Tech, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the University of Georgia are developing technology for the direct enzymatic production of hydrogen from sugars and water. If perfected, it could increase the efficiency with which we use biomass such as corn starch. Susan Trulove, “Novel sugar-to-hydrogen technology promises transportation fuel independence,” Virginia Tech news release, May 23, 2007, http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/story.php?relyear=2007&itemno=300; The Zhang Lab, http://filebox.vt.edu/users/ypzhang/research.htm.
[iii]. United States Government Accountability Office, CRUDE OIL: Uncertainty about Future Oil Supply Makes It Important to Develop a Strategy for Addressing a Peak and Decline in Oil Production, February 2007, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07283.pdf.
[iv]. Ibid.
Facing our Energy Future
Alcohol was used as a fuel well before the petroleum era. Over time, it came to be known as power alcohol, agricrude alcohol, gasohol, and finally ethanol. As the era of cheap oil comes to a close, ethanol and other biofuels will play an important role in our energy future. Just as William J. Hale’s 1930’s “agricrude”[i] terminology sounds odd to us, today’s biofuel technology will seem old-fashioned to future generations. We will find new ways to make, distribute, and use biofuels. Based on reasonably achievable advances, the future might include:
● sustainable farming of perennial energy crops
● additional biofuels such as biobutanol (a 4-carbon alcohol), bio-oil, and biogas joining ethanol and biodiesel
● transporting biofuels by pipeline
● super-efficient automobiles getting better fuel economy on biofuels than on petroleum
● “sugar cars” fueled by on-board conversion of sugars and starches to hydrogen[ii]
● replacing U.S. petroleum imports with domestic biofuels
Ramping up production and infrastructure will take time, while our appetite for liquid fuel continues to grow. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) predicts alternative technologies will displace the equivalent of only 4% of projected U.S. annual consumption of petroleum products by 2015.[iii] Such small numbers cause some skeptics to dismiss the whole idea of ethanol and other biofuels. This would be a mistake. Biofuels are not perfect, but they are better than the status quo. With technologies like cellulosic ethanol and biobutanol, biofuel market share will continue to grow. The DOE predicts alternative technologies could displace up to 34% of U.S. petroleum consumption in the 2025 through 2030 time frame, “if the challenges are met.”[iv]
Read more in Sustainable Ethanol, available at:
Direct from Prairie Oak Publishing, click here
from Amazon, click here
Notes
[i]. William J. Hale, Farmward March (New York: Coward-McCann, 1939).
[ii]. Researchers at Virginia Tech, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the University of Georgia are developing technology for the direct enzymatic production of hydrogen from sugars and water. If perfected, it could increase the efficiency with which we use biomass such as corn starch. Susan Trulove, “Novel sugar-to-hydrogen technology promises transportation fuel independence,” Virginia Tech news release, May 23, 2007, http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/story.php?relyear=2007&itemno=300; The Zhang Lab, http://filebox.vt.edu/users/ypzhang/research.htm.
[iii]. United States Government Accountability Office, CRUDE OIL: Uncertainty about Future Oil Supply Makes It Important to Develop a Strategy for Addressing a Peak and Decline in Oil Production, February 2007, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07283.pdf.
[iv]. Ibid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)