A new study now suggests that the most important biofuel—ethanol, which is made from corn in the United States—is more energy efficient than previously thought.
Some prior studies have suggested that ethanol production may consume more energy—from nonrenewable sources—than is available in the resulting fuel.
But a reexamination of those studies show that current corn-ethanol production technologies are far less petroleum-intensive than gasoline, though both fuels have similar greenhouse gas emissions.
Of course, any change presumes logic and science will prevail. In the United States.
“Many things can and should be done to boost ethanol’s environmental performance, he says, including improving agricultural practices that require fewer energy inputs, such as less use of tractors, and lessen environmental impacts like soil erosion.”
Less use of tractors? Have these researchers ever done any farming?
Thanks for the info. From the article:
“By correcting for those factors, the scientists found that corn ethanol actually reduces petroleum use by about 95 percent per gallon of fuel, though it only reduces greenhouse gas emissions by about 13 percent.”
I was having trouble with getting my head around the older studies, especially since Willie Nelson himself has endorsed ethanol fuels.
On the other hand, I gotta admit that after calculating fuel densities and energy per unit volume, etc., I hunt down BP stations and others that sell gas with no ethanol for more bang for the buck.
Yea! They did it! Corn finally produces more energy than it yields! The hurdle has been cleared!
Grass may even be a better solution or co-solution:
http://www.westbioenergy.org/dec2002/01.htm
http://www.westbioenergy.org/july98/0798_01.htm
It’s exciting to read.
Ethanol from sugar cane: maybe. Ethanol from corn: pure ADM BS.
Of course, any change presumes logic and science will prevail. In the United States.
Um, just a casual follower, not an expert, but I wasn’t aware that the perceived “problem” was that ethanol use caused more net consumption of PETROLEUM. I don’t recall ever reading that claim, and wouldn’t expect it.
The problem was that it caused more net consumption of ENERGY than would be the case with the alternative, gasoline. (It takes electricity to run the plants that turn stuff into Ethanol, and most of that electricity comes from coal or natural gas, which are fossil fuels. It further consumes energy and resources to grow the corn, and to manufacture the capital equipment used in the ethanol plants, etc etc.)
I’m supposed to be excited that the corn ethanol process winds up delivering net energy? I’d freaking hope so. And I’ll take a wild guess that gasoline emphatically delivers a LOT of net energy, and that that was never in doubt.
The issue isn’t the cost and benefits of ethanol as an isolated item. The issue (of course) is how all that compares to those of the existing alternative – evil Bushitler gasoline. Frankly it’s such a challenging information problem to address all the hidden costs and factors, I don’t have much confidence that some academic can do respectable analysis at all. This National Geo article certainly doesn’t impress me — well, maybe it’s the reporter.
But of course to understand the issue fully and objectively instead of to dismiss it with hairbrained, uninformed comments would require logic and science. On this Blog.