Ethanol grief was for naught

Kevdon22

Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2012
RO Number
32964
Messages
337
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/21/ouch-corn-biofuel-could-generate-more-greenhouse-gases-than-gasoline/#more-107877 Study casts doubt on climate benefit of biofuels from corn residue

The fuel could generate more greenhouse gases than gasoline

Corn+Gas+Tank[1]

Lincoln, Neb., April 20, 2014 - Using corn crop residue to make ethanol and other biofuels reduces soil carbon and can generate more greenhouse gases than gasoline, according to a study published today in the journal Nature Climate Change.

The findings by a University of Nebraska-Lincoln team of researchers cast doubt on whether corn residue can be used to meet federal mandates to ramp up ethanol production and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Corn stover - the stalks, leaves and cobs in cornfields after harvest - has been considered a ready resource for cellulosic ethanol production. The U.S. Department of Energy has provided more than $1 billion in federal funds to support research to develop cellulosic biofuels, including ethanol made from corn stover. While the cellulosic biofuel production process has yet to be extensively commercialized, several private companies are developing specialized biorefineries capable of converting tough corn fibers into fuel.

The researchers, led by assistant professor Adam Liska, used a supercomputer model at UNL's Holland Computing Center to estimate the effect of residue removal on 128 million acres across 12 Corn Belt states. The team found that removing crop residue from cornfields generates an additional 50 to 70 grams of carbon dioxide per megajoule of biofuel energy produced (a joule is a measure of energy and is roughly equivalent to 1 BTU). Total annual production emissions, averaged over five years, would equal about 100 grams of carbon dioxide per megajoule - which is 7 percent greater than gasoline emissions and 62 grams above the 60 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as required by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act.

Importantly, they found the rate of carbon emissions is constant whether a small amount of stover is removed or nearly all of it is stripped.
 
"The fuel could generate more greenhouse gases than gasoline"

There are many who have been saying this all along. The "ethanol program" is NOT driven by "a plan to reduce carbon", nor is it about fuel independence or "renewable energy".

It does, however, resemble a power and/or money grab...
 
If Iowa = Corn

And If Iowa = Votes

Then Corn = Votes

Mathematically sound.
 
How can the title of this thread be Ethanol was for naught?
They are saying the study isn't objective and the last time I checked we are still having this fuel shoved down our tanks?
Bill
 
It is simply another example of our flawed way of governance. Corn = votes pretty much sums it up in this case. Money = votes is the general formula behind all politics. A principled approach died long ago, if it ever even existed.
 
Ethanol is also less powerful than gasoline, so it takes more to go the same distance, and it costs more to make than gasoline. If it wasn't "subsidized" the cost would be prohibitive
 
I thought the push for Ethanol was to minimize our dependence on foreign fuel . . . oh wait, it is now.

IT was NEVER cost effective (more $$$/gal), and produces less energy (less BTU/gal). Other than that . ....
 
quote:

Originally posted by Good Grief

I thought the push for Ethanol was to minimize our dependence on foreign fuel . . . oh wait, it is now.

IT was NEVER cost effective (more $$$/gal), and produces less energy (less BTU/gal). Other than that . ....





It's driven up food prices in too many ways to even write about it. Other than that it's the perfect fuel, yea right! I think NOT!
Bill
 
BillyIII
You raise a good point as we are still stuck with ethanol in our tanks.
The intended point was that all the environmental claims for either cellulosic ethanol or corn ethanol are totally without merit, no benefit. The taxpayer has footed the multi million $$$ bill that was a total waste yet still subsidizes cellulosic ethanol development for zero gain.
Significant quantities of cellulosic ethanol has been mandated in our gasoline and the blenders pay a fine if it is not included in your fuel. Unfortunately the technology to make commercial quantities cellulosic ethanol is non existent and the blenders have to take the EPA to court every year.
Remember the EPA was recently pushing 15% ethanol?

Of course "they" will claim that the study was flawed so that they can continue to push their agenda. A MIT professor has shown for years that Ethanol does not make any sense but politics rules.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Kevdon22

BillyIII
You raise a good point as we are still stuck with ethanol in our tanks.
The intended point was that all the environmental claims for either cellulosic ethanol or corn ethanol are totally without merit, no benefit. The taxpayer has footed the multi million $$$ bill that was a total waste yet still subsidizes cellulosic ethanol development for zero gain.
Significant quantities of cellulosic ethanol has been mandated in our gasoline and the blenders pay a fine if it is not included in your fuel. Unfortunately the technology to make commercial quantities cellulosic ethanol is non existent and the blenders have to take the EPA to court every year.
Remember the EPA was recently pushing 15% ethanol?

Of course "they" will claim that the study was flawed so that they can continue to push their agenda. A MIT professor has shown for years that Ethanol does not make any sense but politics rules.





I agree with you 100% and then some is that possible? Yes only with our Federal Government!.....
Bill
 
More info on the ethanol mandate below. The problem is that numerous organizations have accepted government subsidies on the promise that they would supply the mandated cellulosic ethanol which gasoline blenders would be forced to mix with their gasoline in ever increasing quantities. It is hard to find a Government program that has failed so miserably because all of these ventured failed, unable to produce commercial quantities, wasting tax dollars. The government denies these failures and keeps subsidizing to this day.
"The proposed 2014 mandate for the Renewable Fuel Standard Program demonstrates that the RFS is irreparably broken and should be scrapped. Until Congress repeals the entire RFS, EPA should lower the total ethanol mandate and set the advanced ethanol and cellulosic ethanol mandate to zero. Despite years of trying, EPA has proven incapable of setting ethanol volumes that correspond in any way to reality, especially cellulosic ethanol. Furthermore, in the name of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, keeping the advanced biofuel standard leads to the environmentally and economically absurd practice of importing Brazilian sugarcane ethanol and then exporting U.S. corn ethanol back to Brazil to replace the sugarcane ethanol. This is what happens when government tries central planning, and that is what the RFS is."

"The RFS is fundamentally flawed because it is based on the belief that the White House or Congress or EPA can accurately project overall gasoline and diesel demand years in advance, as well as ethanol production and demand. After their projections have proven woefully wrong year after year, it is time to end the RFS and empower everyday Americans to make food and fuel choices, instead of bureaucrats and politicians."

For 2013 the ethanol mandate was for 6 million gallon while actual production was circa 217,000 gallons and 17 million gallons for 2014. Check out the graph below to visually see how far the mandate is from reality. The fuel blenders have had to go to court the force the EPA to act to avoid fines and the problem is dumped on them.

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/EPACellulosicGraph.png
The overall report can be seen here:
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2013/11/15/epa-ignores-reality-with-2014-ethanol-mandate

As others have posted there is so much more to the corruption associated with Ethanol subsidies and politics.
 
Actually the EPA has moved to lower the ethanol mandate. Got a lot of support from refiners and blow-back from the farm and biofuels lobby.
 
April 7th, 2014 update on EPA dragging their feet.

"(Reuters) - Federal judges on Monday pressed the Obama administration to explain delays that have plagued its implementation of the U.S. biofuel mandate, as the government attempted to fend off an oil industry challenge to renewable fuel use targets.

In a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for Washington D.C., the American Petroleum Institute and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers argued the 2013 biofuel use targets should be thrown out because the administration acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" when it issued the targets nearly nine months after its legislative deadline.

The Environmental Protection Agency, which administers the biofuel mandate, "exacerbated the negative effects of its tardiness" by basing the targets on a new estimate of total transportation use that increased compliance burdens for refiners, the industry groups said.

Judge Thomas Griffith called EPA's delays "egregious."

"At some point, don't these deadlines mean something?" Judge Griffith asked at the hearing.

The ruling on the 2013 targets could have broad implications for the biofuel mandate going forward. The EPA's final 2014 quotas are due out in June, about seven months behind schedule.

The Renewable Fuel Standard requires increasing amounts of biofuels to be blended into U.S. gasoline and diesel supplies each year through 2022 and was designed at a time fuel demand was also expected to rise."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/07/usa-court-ethanol-idUSL2N0MZ0V120140407
 
I think someone mentioned the millions and millions of our tax money spent. I thought I read it was $17 billion last year alone?
Perhaps I didn't comprehend what I read?
Bill
 
I think someone mentioned the millions and millions of our tax money spent. I thought I read it was $17 billion last year alone?
Perhaps I didn't comprehend what I read?
Bill
 
All of this was about Al Gore getting the corn vote as David pointed out earlier. He should be tried for treason and hung.
 
Back
Top