THE GOOD AND BAD OF ETHANOL
If you read this blog at all, you know that I spend way too much time thinking about global warming and what we can do to slow it down (much less stop it all together). As you can imagine, the subject of ethanol is frequently raised in these kinds of discussions, and there are no lack of opinions on this (bio) matter. If you didn't know, Santa Barbara County is actually considering the development of an ethanol plant in the Santa Maria area. A recent article from KCOY on the topic got me wondering if this is really a good idea. Here's what I think ...
PLUSES
Initially, I LOVED ethanol. There are many great ideas floating around out there for more fuel efficient vehicles, but in my humble opinion, it doesn't make sense to focus on things that are 10 to 20 years down the line. Hydrogen, for example, is a solid idea that can't be realized any time soon. I've always felt this way, and I was happy to hear on Tim Russert's CNBC show yesterday that Lee Iacocca agrees with me. Global warming needs big solutions that we can implement quickly, and it just seemed to me that ethanol was perfect:
- Firstly, it doesn't require a significant change to our infrastructure: many cars are already built to use E85, and those that aren't can be altered without much cost.
- Second, there are a number of E85 filling stations around the nation, so this isn't something we have to construct from scratch.
- Finally, we can boost the farming economy. This isn't my area of expertise, but don't we pay farmers not to grow things? Wouldn't this be a great way to get back all those small farms that have been forced out by big conglomerates? I was definitely liking the possibilities.
MINUSES
Now that I've sung the praises of ethanol, I have to come "clean" and admit that my mind is slowly being changed. Where I once saw a cure all, I now see a boatload of side effects:
1) Additional Pollution - It's been pointed out to me that the equipment we use to farm (like tractors for example) are very dirty. So, more farming obviously means more greenhouse gasses. Plus, there's clearly pollution produced by the ethanol conversion process itself. And if that's not bad enough, according to the KCOY article, existing "railroad tracks would be used to transport huge quantities of Midwestern corn that would be fermented to produce ethanol..." That can't be good for the cause. The Average Man wants to clean up the environment, but he wants solutions that work.
2) Corn - It's generally accepted that corn is not the most efficient way to produce ethanol: switch grass and sugar beets are better (just ask Brazil). Yet, the corn lobby has stepped in to make sure that corn is the primary source for ethanol in the US. This brings with it many negative issues. One such problem is the fact that using more corn for ethanol could mean less corn for food. That in turn, could mean that corn prices would go up. This could have a very bad snowball effect, because corn is a staple in much more of our food than you might think, and it is the primary way many farmers feed their livestock.
3) Land - There was a recent New York Times Editorial that pointed out another bad potential result from ethanol production: an increase in farming means an increase in land use. There are many areas of federally protected land that should remain that way. But the need for more ethanol could encourage politicians to open up that land for farming.
4) Not Enough - The general thinking is that, even if we were seriously committed to ethanol, we could only produce about 20% of our national energy needs this way.
Okay, so back to the original question ... Is an ethanol plant a good idea for Santa Barbara County? On the whole, I would give it a weak thumbs up. As Al Gore has stated, there is no silver bullet for this thing. Rather, there are many small fixes, and I think ethanol is one of them. Despite all the cons I've listed above, my gut feeling is that we need to urgently address the sheer volume of greenhouse gas producing vehicles on the road. This is more important than any other climate change issue, and adding ethanol into the mix -- as it were -- is a plus.
Labels: ethanol, santa barbara
posted by Trekking Left @ 4:14 PM
16 comments
16 Comments:
Mandating smaller cars would be a start. Ethanol is a silver BB. Too bad we have everything arranged around the "freeways".
No. The one thing that people aren't talking about in terms of ethanol production is the huge amount of water required to make it.
Southern California isn't getting the usual allotment of Colorado River water (per Federal Law) and it is not getting the usual allotment of NoCal water (lack of snow, lawsuits, etc.)
The choice boils down to do we want water to make ethanol or do we want water to drink. I'm not sure that we have enough for both.
Why does it make sense to ship corn from the midwest by train to Santa Maria to turn it into ethanol? Wouldn't it make more sense to build the plants in the midwest and then ship the ethanol to California? I don't get it.
Also, what emissions are expected from the plant?
Corn ethanol isn't even energy positive. We are doomed the way they do it now. If they used solar and wind to make ethanol from trash I would be okay with it. Face it, we're screwed.
Geez, Mort -- every post you make ends with "...and the world sucks and we're all going down the tubes". Just the fact that we're all discussing these things and looking for solutions is reason for hope, I think.
Might be a good time to take a minute, step outside and notice what a lovely day it is. Just for a minute or two, then you can go back to being grouchy.
Hope is little tweeting bird in tree which smells bad. If I had the answer to all of Earth's problems the PTB would kill me and throw my idea into an active volcano. I did go outside earlier, it was lovely. :-)
Water is the key to ethanol, if the plant is built in santa maria, it is an AG area, use it to produce sugar beets. you cannot make ethanol and ship it by pipeline, because it is a sponge. it will absorb any moisture it comes in contact with and any other contaminates. so it needs to be made close to its point of use. in brazil they use cane sugar which has an energy index of 1.7. corn is about 1.1 to 1.2. i am unsure what idex of sugar beets are but they cant be worse than corn.
karl
I like the idea of burning alchol but there are draw back no one has touched on yet, It takes twice as much alchol as gas to generate the same power! On alchol burning race cars I have had to jet the carb to flow more than double the volume than gas would require. Making alchol in a still as I currently do does not yield the volumes one would expect from the volume of fermented mash you start
with. Sugar helps the fermentation
process by allowing the mash to produce more alchol. With the price of sugar what it is, diminishing returns becomes obvious. The fermentation process
is similar to brewing beer with the mash being the same as wart in beer. The still only seperates the alchol from the mash, from seven
55 gallon barrels of mash one can expect about 10 gallons of alchol
of high enough proof to be used as fuel. each barrel contains 1 1/2 bushels of corn, 35-40 lbs. sugar
so the economics of this being a
realistic replacement for fossil fuel is unlikely. My setup is used
to fuel my race bikes and is quite small compared to what could be done but the basic ratio for the mash to alchol remains similar
no matter how big of a distillery
is employed! I am all for ethanol
fuel but until we make it from human waste it will not be cheap enough to give fossil fuel a run for its money! (even at current prices) Another benifit of alchol
is that it burns much cooler than gas, is very resistant to detonation(pinging)and because of this has a VERY HIGH OCTANE RATING. This resistantce to detonation is why it is mixed with
nitromethane which has a negative octane rating! Nitro detonates very easly when used as fuel so alchol buffers this problem so hp can be produced rather than broken parts! Mixing ethanol with fossil fuel is a great solution, very little is required as far as re-tuning and very little is lost hp wise. Fossil fuel is still being burned at roughly 1/2 the volume as previously, this is more likely
to be accepted by the general public due to little effort is required from them for the change over even with older vehicles.
And we all know every drop counts!
volume
Hey, thanks for the info, needed it for a project. Your website helped greatly! THX! Also, I support the use of Ethanol... once they work out the major gliches!
this helps me w/my science project a lot
Corn was just the start. I agree that corn isn't the long term answer, but sometimes you have to start the easy way, and subsidize it in order to get the ultimate solution.
The next step is using our landfills of trash (at $1.00 per gallon).
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=biofuels&id=18084&a=
I run my vehicle on E85 for this reason. The more I encourage the government and business that this is a good alternative, the more they work with it.
For the record, current conversion including farming time, etc., create a 3 to 1 BTU ratio. The new plants going online will create a 9 to 1 BTU ratio.
Something else to keep in mind: If the oil companies had to compete with E85 then prices would come down.
holy cow, that trash > fuel thing is genius.
good for you, doing what you can now. And I agree, taking steps in the right direction, even if they aren't perfect, is necessary.
The concept of making ethanol from garbage isn't new. Science has been experimenting with many diff things for years. If they would start using garbage instead of grain, or at least all grain, it would help solve a couple of problems. Less space for new, smelly, landfills and go a long way toward energy independence. The one big drawback is finding enough space to hide all the media people and pols so they aren't turned into ethanol with the rest of the garbage.
Ethanol is, at best, a poor stop gap when compared to the higher alcohols. Trouble is, so much emphasis is being placed on it that the better choices that need some work get overlooked. BioButanol is a prime example. It can be made from grass clippings, fallen leaves, old newspapers, food scraps, dairy waste and on... It is a direct replacement for gasoline, can be used in Diesels and Jet Aircraft and does not like to be mixed with water, so it can go through existing pipelines. It can be used in every gasoline engine on the road today in high concentration without modification... no re-jetting or new injectors or computer reprogram nesisary... WOW! Yet there is no political will to implement it.
well they say is takes three gallons of gas to make two gallons of ethanol.
Yeeeaaahhhhhhhhh! exactly what i needed for my project sir. i greatly appreciate it.
Post a Comment
<< Home