most of the arguing over the productivity of ethanol has been limited to data almost 10 years old, while the ethanol industry has been changing rapidly. Here is a peer reviewed study which availed itself of the latest data which includes the performance of the latest ethanol plants which are much more efficient than those we were limited to in the mid 90's. As the study points out about 60% of the current production of ethanol is coming from the more modern plants built in the last few years.
http://ianrnews.unl.edu/static/0901220.shtml
UNL Research: Corn Ethanol Emits 51 Percent Less Greenhouse Gas Than Gasoline
LINCOLN, Neb. — Corn ethanol directly emits an average of 51 percent less greenhouse gas than gasoline, as much as three times the reduction reported in earlier research, thanks to recent improvements in efficiency throughout the production process, University of Nebraska-Lincoln research shows.
A Journal of Industrial Ecology article (available online) outlines the research, conducted by an interdisciplinary team of UNL researchers, which evaluated dry-mill ethanol plants that use natural gas. Such plants account for nearly 90 percent of current production capacity.
This research is the first to quantify the impact of recent improvements throughout the corn-ethanol production process, including crop production, biorefinery operations and co-product use, said Ken Cassman, UNL agronomist who was part of the research team. Previous studies, which found ethanol to have a much smaller edge over gasoline in GHG emissions, relied on estimates based on corn production, ethanol plant performance and co-product use as they were seven years ago.
"Critics claim that corn ethanol has only a small net energy yield and little potential for direct reductions in GHG emissions compared to use of gasoline," Cassman said. "This is the first peer-reviewed study to document that these claims are not correct."
More recently built – and more efficient – plants now represent about 60 percent of total ethanol production and will account for 75 percent by the end of 2009, Cassman added. These newer biorefineries have increased energy efficiency and reduced GHG emissions through the use of improved technologies. Also, many are located near cattle feeding or dairy operations, which allows efficient use of the co-product distillers grains as cattle feed. For example, the distillers grains don't have to be dried to facilitate long-distance travel; drying uses up to 30 percent of total energy use in the ethanol plant.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121647166/abstract">Link to abstract
Full report in PDF
Direct effect GHG emissions were estimated to be equivalent to a 48% to 59% reduction compared to gasoline, a twofold to threefold greater reduction than reported in previous studies. Ethanol-to-petroleum output/input ratios ranged from 10:1 to 13:1 but could be increased to 19:1 if farmers adopted high-yield progressive crop and soil management practices.
An advanced closed-loop biorefinery with anaerobic digestion reduced GHG emissions by 67% and increased the net energy ratio to 2.2, from 1.5 to 1.8 for the most common systems. Such improved technologies have the potential to move corn-ethanol closer to the hypothetical performance of cellulosic biofuels.
Since it will take about 20 - 25 years for electric cars to produce a significant impact on gasoline usage (in 20 years hybrids may reduce gasoline consumption 15% - 20%) this news could be significant - if anybody pays attention. Figuring out that you can produce a reduction in fossil fuel use much quicker by replacing the fossil fuel rather than replacing the cars that use the fossil fuel - would be helpful - IF this realization is achieved in time to make effective (i.e. timely) action feasible. Unfortunately, (here I'll make a prediction) this won't be realized by enough people (to produce the political will) in time to make a difference. People might figure this out in about 10 years from now when they see how gradual an impact on gasoline consumption the introduction of hybrid vehicles will have.
We could, with a serious mobilization of resources boost ethanol production (from all available sources not just corn, but sugar from Mexico and ethanol from Brazil - assuming Japan doesn't buy it all) up to 12% to 20% (of the fuel supply) in perhaps 8 - 12 years (as I said, this would require a serious mobilization and commitment on our part). (deployment of the ethanol direct injection engine being built by Ford which achieves 25% to 30% mpg improvement while using 5% ehtanol and 95% gasoline, at a price of $600 - $1,000 per engine, could also produce a timely impact on gasoline consumption). This would help the situation until electric cars could start to help out in 20 years. But if people wait 10 years before starting a crash program to boost ethanol production it will most likely be too late by then (note it takes a few years to accomplish the increase so starting 10 years from now the boost wouldn't be achieved for another 6 to 9 years or 16 to 17 years from now - by then it won't matter). I figure if we don't take significant steps (not JUST a crash program boosting ethanol production but investing in mass transit, efficiency improvements and conservation efforts too) starting within a couple of years we will not get the reductions in CO2 production in time to stop the runaway furnace effect.
Melting glaciers will begin disappearing in 15 - 20 years, meaning catastrophic water shortages for hudndreds of millions of people. Acidification of the oceans will at some point (nobody is sure how soon but it's much too close foto gamble) mean a crash in sea food output meaning mass food shortages around the world. Might as well not kid oursselves, we are approaching the greatest environmental calamity the world has seen since the meteor impact that wiped out the dinosaurs. Now, there will still be people around, but the world's population will be undr enormous pressure. The poor nations will be facing starvation. But this will significantly affect the quality of life even for those of us lucky enough to live in the wealthier nations. NOnbody can say how bad it will get. I think the sci-fi movies that have been forecasting a dark future for planet Earth, may prove to have underestimated how bad it could get.
Meanwhile, people will hold out for the most elegant solutions to be fully deployed sometime in the future (assuming we have the wealth to fund them). Who knows we might achieve the perfect solution. But we just may have electric cars but nobody to drive them.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
