A new study of alternative energy strategies by Stanford professor Mark Jacobsen [via Green Car Congress] ranks corn-based and biomass ethanol as among the worst alternatives to fossil fuels. According to the study, “the Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.” These results were calculated by comparing wind-powered battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), wind-powered hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), concentrated-solar-powered-BEVs, geothermal-powered-BEVs, tidal-powered-BEVs, solar-photovoltaic-powered-BEVs, wave-powered-BEVs, hydroelectric-powered-BEVs, nuclear-powered-BEVs, coal-with-carbon-capture-powered-BEVs, corn-E85 vehicles, and cellulosic-E85 vehicles (listed in order of the study’s calculated impacts).
The study estimated “the comparative changes in CO2e emissions due to each of the 12 energy sources considered when they are used to power all (small and large) onroad vehicles in the US if such vehicles were converted to BEVs, HFCVs, or E85 vehicles.” Impacts were calculated for resource abundance, CO2e emissions, mortality, footprint, spacing, water consumption, effects on wildlife, thermal pollution, energy supply disruption and normal operating reliability. Wind-based BEVs and HFCVs ranked highest, solar, tide and geothermal-pwered BEVs were second, hydropower, nuclear and “clean coal” powered BEVs were third and bioethanol ranked last.
The study concludes, “whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide.”
Of course one has to keep in mind that studies always prove the point of those who paid for it :
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/10/29/big-oil-is-behind-ethanols-bad-press/
A study like this may play into the hand of Big Oil but for the car industry it’s not particularly helpful. Seems to prove that the ICE engine has no future under any condition. What to do…How to avoid those highly despised BEV’s now? I’m sure they’ll think of something…
Wouldn’t the results be the opposite way around if ‘real world practicality’ was considered?
It’s a heck of a lot easier to create ethanol than wind powered electric vehicles.
I had a picture of a Fusion with a windmill on the hood too, but I think they mean a plug in EV, and the power source was windpower.
And yeah, look at the study with some suspicion, but then again where is all the pro-ethanol info coming from? Doubt it is disinterested parties.
One of the assumptions of the study was that one of these alternative energy sources could power all vehicles in the US. Wind-powered-hydrogen-fuel-cells? Tidal-power? Coal-with-carbon-capture? These are high-cost, low-density alternative energy sources, all uncapable of even making a dent in America’s energy demands. The only scalable energy source, nulclear power, finshed behind E85.
A real list would include America’s top energy sources for comparison: regular coal-burning electric power plants and plain old gasoline. It would also compare costs, because consumers ultimately care about the bottom line more than CO2 emissions.
Come on TTAC, call out Green Car Congress for celebrating this half-assed study. I know you are invested in the whole E85 boondoggle premise, but there was not much Truth here.
How did nukes end up on the bottom? Methinks someone is overrating the nuclear waste problem.
Guys, the problems run much deeper than this study got into.
Let’s do this point by point:
#1. Ethanol is a terrible fuel, regardless of how you make it. It is hygroscopic (absorbs water from the surrounding air). It is more volatile that existing fuels (meaning more emissions and evaporative losses). It burns with a colorless flame (can you spell D-A-N-G-E-R?). It packs only 2/3rds of the energy of gasoline volume-wise. So you need 50% more of it (i.e. 3 gal of ethanol to replace 2 gal of gasoline). Real world evidence: you can produce synthetic ethanol from natural gas or oil. But, if you were trying to make a profit (as opposed to a handout from Uncle Sam) why would you?
#2. Of all the ways to produce ethanol, fermentation and distillation (BOTH corn ethanol and cellulosic) is the worst. Reasons include (but are not limited to):
2.1 Fermentation bugs (yeast, actually) will only convert sugar into ethanol. Apart from the obvious problem (how do I convert biomass into sugar?) it also sets you up for the inevitable food vs fuel debate (why waste valuable sugar making a liquid fuel?) Let’s remeber, in spite of $147/bbl this summer, a fuel is something of so little value that you just burn it to get its energy.
2.2 After fermentation, the resulting “beer” is really very dilute. Great for drinking. Terrible for energy-efficient fuel production.
2.3 Distillation require huge amounts of energy (just as tar sands do), thanks in part to 2.2. Despite all the research, you can’t beat the Laws of Thermodynamics. Congress, OTOH, seems to think these Laws can be repealed…
2.4 Scaling fermentation to the scale needed to replace oil (in any meaningful sense of the word) is expensive at best and impractical at worst.
#3. The goal (from both trade balance, environmental and security points of view) is to replace oil. Not gasoline and diesel. The ideal renewable fuel is gasoline or diesel (or at least something complete miscible) produced from a renewable feedstock.
#4. There is a feedstock that is widely available. Cost? Zero or less – people will pay you good money to take it off their hands. I’m referring to landfill waste (57% renewable, 83% organic). In spite of all the paper recycling you hear about, fully 25% of what goes into a landfill is some form of paper. A great fuel source just going to waste, just because their is no politically connected waste lobby…
We’ve got a long way to go. Few seem to even grasp the basics. And the closer you get to Washington DC, the worse it seems to get…
If he had included gasoline-powered cars, I’m guessing they would have come in just above E85 from an environmental standpoint. As was pointed out above, there is a missing ‘convenience’ factor that E85 has over the other fuels.
I agree ethanol is not perfect. Then again, neither is gasoline or diesel but they’re the best we have. Same with ethanol; it’s currently the best option for a long term alternative fuel. As we continue to research, that may change but until then I don’t think we should sit on our hands and wait for the perfect solution.
I agree that using waste seems to be the way to go. Living in a third-world country, I’ve seen firsthand the cascading effects of high fuel prices coupled with the demand for biofuels… food just gets expensive. When government-subsidized contracts buy your crops for fuel for more money than people will pay to eat the same crops, you have an awfully uncomfortable situation where you can decide, basically, whether to starve or drive. And people who drive have deeper pockets.
Growing crops for fuel is a perfectly good waste of land.
I love how the study seems to say Nuke is better than most, so they then have to point out how the study is wrong.
Brilliant.
What the study didn’t take into account is a potential future option to use bio methanol in fuel-cell powered EV’s:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patrick-takahashi/is-there-an-option-more-p_b_150824.html
Apparently:”However, and this defies common sense, one gallon of methanol has more accessible hydrogen than one gallon of liquid hydrogen.”
And:”methanol has only half the energy value of gasoline, but the fuel cell has at least twice the efficiency of the internal combustion engine, so there is a wash, here, regarding onboard storage.”
Come on let’s get real.
Ethanol is a fine fuel. So long as it is being burned in an optimized engine.
#1 Hygroscopic- People, realize your fuel tank is a closed system. It will not absorb moisture from the air unless you are still using a non-emission controlled car (pre 1974 I think). Ethanol burns with a colorless flame unless it is denatured with hydrocarbons, which all fuel ethanol is required to be. The lack of energy value can be made up with increasing compression ratio and advancing timing making the engine much more efficient (ethanol specific car). Ethanol from fossil fuels will someday run out.
#2.1 correct, but ignoring the by-products
2.2 Fuel is of so little value? Why do countries fight wars over it? I understand it is worth less than gold, but come on now.
2.3 using a vacuum still reduces the energy substantially. And by leaving the ethanol as 96% ethanol and 4% water (dedicated ethanol engine) energy to distill is cut by 33%.
2.4 It costs $1 for every gallon/year output to build an ethanol plant. We have spent over 500 billion in Iraq & 700 billion on Wall St. If we used that cash to build ethanol plants (ignoring the feedstocks)we would have the capacity to displace all the worlds gasoline.
#3 my goal would be to set up an energy system that no longer requires using fossil fuels that someday run out.
#4 I love ethanol from waste. We need more of it. We also need ethanol from as many other diverse feed stocks as possible. Weeds in the non agriculture land in the southwest are also a great source for ethanol.
About the study: No value was given to existing infrastructures. We have millions of cast iron engine blocks ready to burn ethanol. To replace all those with copper motors would be quite an energy challenge in itself.
PabloKoh,
That’s a fairly well reasoned reply and one worthy of further discussion.
#1: An ethanol only engine, while technically possible, would present a HUGE risk to both the maker and the buyer. How many of those would sell in the current market with gasoline significantly cheaper than ethanol? Where is the E100 infrastructure going to come from? Notice how well the E85 infestation is going. Who’s going to pay for it? In spite of our elected offistutes’ actions, Uncle Sam does not have unlimited funds.
#2.1: Interesting that you raise the issue of byproducts. I believe they are already beginning to export the byproducts, having saturated the US market for that kind of feed. We use a lot more fuel than food. Further increases in ethanol production will completely destroy the value of the byproducts, as has already happened for glycerol from biodiesel…
#2.2: I must have blinked. Who is fighting a war expressly over fuel? I know Dick Cheney has his ideas. But let’s not pretend the man is main stream.
#2.3: True, though it also takes energy to create a vacuum. If it’s so much cheaper, why aren’t the E85 producers doing it?
#2.4: Nobody is arguing Iraq was a wise thing to do. Personally, I never supported it. Likewise, I don’t support the bailout of Wall Street (or Detroit). But even if you did support all of those: four wrongs don’t make a right, any more than two do.
#3: I agree. We don’t need ethanol for that. In fact, I would say we can’t afford to waste precious resources on ethanol…
#4: But you can do so much better than ethanol from waste. And the technology is further developed that cellulosic ethanol, they just don’t know it in Washington (you’re not surprized, are you?):
4.1 Range Fuels is building a plant in Soperton, GA to convert forestry wastes into “mixed” alcohols (a mixture of ethanol, propanol, butanol and maybe a few others). For political reasons To qualify for the maximum federal subsidy Range Fuels is misnaming their technology cellulosic ethanol. It is nothing of the sort, as a visit to their technical page would show: no fermentation or distillation. The important part is this: once the subsidies run out and Range Fuels have to generate real profits, they will maximize the process to produce butanol (completely miscible in gasoline, pretty much same properties, can be transported in gasoline pipelines and used in unmodified vehicles). You wait and see…
#4.2: In Freiberg, Germany, CHOREN is building a plant that would convert forestry waste into diesel (that’s right, the self same fuel some of us use every day, except that it’s cleaner: no sulfur or aromatics, and of course, it’s renewable). Technically feasible. Don’t ask about the cost, now that oil is at ~$45/bbl…
#4.3: In Carthage, MO is a TDP plant that converts waste lipids (fats and oils) into clean diesel. It would help, obviously, if they stopped lying about it’s abilities (can only convert lipids into fuel, not all municipal waste; the product is not ready for your diesel engine, I apologize; nowhere close to 85% efficiency), but in loose terms the process works, as Discover magazine keeps reminding us (Note to Discover: ever noticed the limitations of this technology?). Apologies to the good people of Carthage about the odor. And hey, not that long ago $80/bbl looked like a steal…
As 4.1 shows, it is not (quite) impossible to replace gasoline and diesel, but you either need something that is significantly better (read: cheaper) or you need something that can be blended with the existing fuels (at all ratios) so that you take advantage of the existing infrastructure, that you mentioned, without the need to replace anything.