America’s Oil Addiction and Other Thoughts
Here’s a really interesting article on ethanol and what future it holds as a fuel source. Jason Hill, a biologist with the University of Minnesota in St. Paul, recently published an article on how corn-grain ethanol is not environmentally friendly. From the article linked above:
According to the analysis, significantly less fertilizer and pesticide are required to grow soybeans than corn. In addition, soybean biodiesel produces 93 percent more energy than is expended in its creation. Corn-grain ethanol produces only 25 percent more. And when compared with fossil fuels, biodiesel produces 41 percent less greenhouse gas emissions, while ethanol produces 12 percent fewer.
What’s really interesting about the above numbers is that for a while everyone believed that ethanol had a negative energy gain, and was heavily subsidized by the government, which made it so cheap. Well yes it is heavily subsidized, but recent studies actually contradict David Pimentel’s study which found that corn ethanol requires 29 percent more energy to produce than the fuel generates. But Hill still argues that using ethanol as E85 is incredibly irresponsible. But I tend to disagree with him.
Now if ethanol came only from corn, than Hill has a point. But he needs to focus his statements. “Corn-grain ethanol” is environmentally irresponsible, but ethanol can come from a plethora of sources, there are soybeans, corn, and cellulosic sources such as grasses, woodchips, fats, and, animal feces. And corn doesn’t have to be used to actually create the ethanol. In other words, it would be really simple to design a closed-loop system where you grow corn and other plants for cows to feed on. Through a troth system, you collect the feces of the cow. The cow feces get sent to a refinery where the majority of it gets refined into methane which is used to power the plant that refines ethanol, and the leftover gets used as fertilizer for the crops that are fed to the cattle. This would solve Hill’s problem, and these little stations could be set up in many places throughout the country, not just the midwest. A similar system to the one I described is currently being run in New York state.
I do like how the article ends, on the notion that there is not one fuel type that will solve our problems. I couldn’t agree more. There needs to be multiple choices for consumers. It’s ridiculous that when we go to fill up our cars we only have one choice, gas. Why? This is what drives our addiction. You want to help solve the addiction, global warming, and the crisis in the middle east? Start making 5 fuel system cars like Volvo is currently doing, and put 5 fuel sources at each pumping station.
Welcome to my blog! Topics tend to focus on Science and Technology, but I throw in personal stuff too. I hope you enjoy!
(Got here googling “error 678″ which I didn’t get until...
August 12th, 2006 at 12:22 am
I don’t think you can say that the focus on corn-grain ethanol is a “problem” for the study. You have to realize that it comes from an institution in Minnesota, so corn and soybeans are the big producers for these two products. And with all the effort, money and controversy surrounding them, the study wasn’t meant to look at everything, just the ones that are most important to the local ecology AND economy. They’re only a few guys, with only so much time; they can’t do it all at once.
August 12th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
That’s fine and dandy, but then dont say that E85 is irresponsible. E85 can come from many sources as I have already pointed out. Those involved in the study seem to think that ethanol is a poor source of fuel. AS I STATED, CORN-GRAIN ETHANOL is a poor source. You have to make that distinction since not everyone knows about the other sources for ethanol. I am glad that studies like this are done, but don’t draw false conclusions and irrational assumptions. Especially when the “Big picture” has not been looked at.
August 16th, 2006 at 10:59 pm
Those involved in the study don’t think that ethanol is a bad source. AS THEY STATED in the study, it’s worthwhile looking into switchgrass and non-foodstock crops for it. But, they’re right in saying that Corn grain E85 isn’t a great fuel source. Maybe you should read the actual report…?
August 16th, 2006 at 11:23 pm
I am not sure what point your are arguing me on as it appears we are arguing in circles, but here is what Hill said in the article that I didn’t read and was something I brought up in my original post:
And here is another direct quote from the article I didn’t read and was something I also brought up in my original post:
Hmm… when you read that above quote it appears that Kammen is making a very similar statement to what I made. My point of all of this is that I did read the article and you for whatever reason are just trying to piss me off. If your not, please tell me on what issue you are arguing and we can have a civilized debate. But don’t try to defend Hill for no reason and say the article wasn’t showing ethanol in a negative light, because the title of the FRIGGIN ARTICLE IS: “Ethanol Not So Green After All?”
August 17th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
You’re both making the wrong point. The team never said ethanol itself was bad. As I said, if you (and Kammen) read the report, as in the thing that appeared in PNAS, you would see that they were positive on ethanol, and encouraged looking at nonfood sources, but negative on Corn Grain Ethanol. To most literate people, it’s abundantly clear in the PNAS and in most articles that the they’re referring to Corn Grain Ethanol. It isn’t the team’s fault if someless intelligent people write off switchgrass and nonfood ethanol becuase of it.
August 18th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Holy shit do I have to quote it again for you WOW! Look at my quote above. Geez even the writer of the article makes the same point. What the hell is wrong with you, are you just trolling blogs looking for people to argue with. My OPINION, which is the same as Kammen’s is that Hill’s study shows a slight bias to ethanol. Hill even stated, as I quoted above, that using E85 as a fuel source is irresponsbile. Again what point are you arguing me on. Hill’s study makes a rash assertion that E85 is irresponsible which it isn’t. Either have a point to argue me on or go troll someone elses blog.
August 18th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
I wonder if people like you are intentionally idiotic, or if you only have a third grade education.
You didn’t read the PNAS report. I doubt a moron like you would pay $10 to access the original off the PNAS site. If you had,there would be no mistaking any of my points. Prove to me that you did, and then MAYBE I’ll take your opinion seriously. E85 is irresponsible when it comes solely from corn. If you’re too stupid to see that, then there’s really no hope for you.
August 18th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
Hmm… that’s funny I don’t ever remember writing a post on the original PNAS report. In fact what I remember doing was writing a synopsis on the article I linked to into the post. But if you feel inadequate enough to keep calling me names go ahead.
This is exactly what I not only said in my post but also in my comments to you as well. I think you have not read a single thing I have wrote and have just come here to complain for whatever reason. If you want to get into a pissing contest over something stupid you came to the wrong place. Please again let me know with what point you want to argue me on, or would you rather just call me names and make yourself look like an idiot. Yea third grade HAH! I guess that’s why at the top of my website it say, “Life from a COLLEGE students perspective.
August 18th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Woah flamewar. Yeah, if you read the actual report, it’s not as anti-Ethanol as the papers are reporting. It’s lazy journalism.
Here’s a link to the real thing (costs $10): http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0604600103v1
August 18th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Also woah, stop being condescending and pretentious. She was trying to clarify the misconceptions of the report and you jumped right down her throat.
August 18th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
Hmm… that’s funny I don’t ever remember writing a post on the original PNAS report. In fact what I remember doing was writing a synopsis on the article I linked to into the post. But if you feel inadequate enough to keep calling me names go ahead.
Well, that’s funny. You commit a jounralistic faux pas by not checking your secondary source against the primary source, and then have the nerve to insult me by saying that in light of better information, you choose to listen to a garbled second-hand version of things. You could admit that you should have back-checked your source, read the original report (the report in the words of the team without National Geographic’s bias and out-of-context quoting) and then talk like a reasonable adult. But no, you choose the article over the correct version of the events. That’s the same reasoning that people who believe the war in Iraq is justified use; that’s the reasoning that creationists in this day and age use. But, hey, it’s fine when you do it, right?
August 18th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
When I get a chance I will read the article and maybe write a post on it. Unfortunately at the moment I am a broke college student, so that will have to wait. I apologize for my statements above, I was writing as I was studying for the certification test I recently posted on, and couldn’t sleep the night before the test and made some comments I now regret.
The original point of this post was to comment on an article. I don’t have access to all the resources necessary all the time to make a completely accurate post, so every once in a while I have to write about articles I read online. If the article is in some way flawed, then I am sorry, but I was original writing on the article. And I still would generally agree with Kammen’s point that he brings up in the original article. No one is really arguing based on replacing gasoline with E85. Instead supporters of E85 want to see it along side gasoline at the pump. And if nothing else, at least E85 production can be done completely within the US which will help to decrease our trade deficit and will stop giving money to oil rich nations that funnel money to radical groups.
I support E85 but with it being introduced along side 5 or so other sources of fuel. E85 should be a part of getting rid of the US oil addiction. Zoe if you disagree with this opinion how about we discuss it in a more civilized manner. I would be delighted to hear your opinion, and I promise I won’t be so rash and irresponsible.
August 19th, 2006 at 12:52 am
It’s cool; I’m sorry forreacting so bad, too. I agree with you; I definately support E85 as a fuel source, but it has to come from somewhere other than corn. Switchgrass, algae and agricultural waste are probably good places to start. Switchgrass and algae can be grown in a lot of places, some that are normally poor for corn growth, and god knows the US has a lot of agricultural waste; using AW would be a two-fold solution since it gets rid of it, and we get something out of it. I think Corn grain ethanol is great in smaller parts in fuel as an aerator, which is something else in a few articles (and from one of Steve Polasky’s speeches…he was the advisor on the research and gives really good talks on energy issues). I haven’t seen any really comprehensive full lifecycle studies on any of those sources, though, so it might turn out I’m barking up the wrong tree here (with respect to AW and switchgrass).
August 19th, 2006 at 8:45 am
I have actually heard good things about AW and switchgrass as well. It seems a lot of people are calling for use of them with E85, and it appears little is being done. For what ever reason it appears corn is still favored even though most studies are conclusive in the fact that it is a poor source. I also haven’t heard of any full lifecycle studies done, but I imagine they are probably in the making.
I think a good idea would be to set up E85 production plants around the states were you have a sort of closed-loop system, in that you produce say switchgrass and corn. Corn is used to feed cows, switchgrass is refined to ethanol. Cow crap is refined to methane, and used to power the refinery for making ethanol and some of it is used as fertilizer as well. I think it would be very feasible to set up many of these plants around the country.
August 19th, 2006 at 11:48 pm
I totally agree about the closed loop system. The only hard part is getting the politicians to agree to fund such things. I mean, one company can fund somuch, but to get this implimented on a large and highly effective scale is much harder. I don’t know much about economics, but I imagine it’s tough to get anything related to gasoline replacement off the ground.
The whole reason corn is favore seems to be favored for ethanol is the out dated opinion that not only is it a great resource, but it helps our boys down on the farm. I think once it becomes more apparant in the popular consious that corn isn’t great resource, and that local economies can benefit from non-corn ethanol, other forms will take off.
I’m sure we’ll hear a lot more in the next year, with groups like IREE and major universities pouring resources into non-food fuel sources as they are.
August 20th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
Man you couldn’t be more on, and unfortunately this is the problem with almost all American issues. What there really needs to be is a grass roots movement for farmes to step up and with a the federal funding they already get say, “I am going to do this cause it is the right thing to do!” But that’s also me living in my imaginary dream world. All I can hope for is a slow wake up call, which is still enough to revert the damage we have done. And it looks like the possibility of such a thing is coming closer to a reality.
I think it will happen something like this: Chinese keep doing more and more eco-friendly things and the US starts to get pissed off, because they fall behind a communist country. Something that could easily piss off an American politician. Negative press towards US policies that don’t do shit to help global warming eventually will win over money in the back pockets and new measures and federal funding will be instituted. And eventually eco-technology will take off just like internet startups did in the 90’s. The economy will have a boom under this, and whoever in office will look like a genius and probably get elected to a second term. Things will start to calm down and evironmentalist tree-huggers will go back to bitching about logging and other South American environmentalist issues. And other people that are environmentally friendly will go and work with eco-friendly things, and help out the eco-teechnology area.
August 22nd, 2006 at 3:28 pm
I think you’re right. America isn’t going to realize how important and profitable an industry environmentally friendly technology is, and how many jobs it holds until some other country-China, probably- has a boom in it, and the people see that America can indeed, fall behind and come in second.
This will be especially true when Mr. “Evironmental techbolgies hurt America and make YOU unemployed” Bush is out of office. Right now there is just so much stigma about any technology related to the environment, especially carbon emissions reduction (a stigma fueled largely by those in office), that America just needs to fall behind in order to realize it isn’t true at all.