Sue wrote on Jan 4, 2010 1:38 PM:

" Not sure where BIll got his numbers, probably from anti-ethanol Cornell entomologist (bug scientist) David Pimental. Unlike Bill, I will give my sources: In June 2004, the U.S. Department of Agriculture updated its 2002 analysis of the issue and determined that the net energy balance of ethanol production is 1.67 to 1. For every 100 BTUs of energy used to make ethanol, 167 BTUs of ethanol is produced. In 2002, USDA had concluded that the ratio was 1.35 to 1. The USDA findings have been confirmed by additional studies conducted by the University of Nebraska and Argonne National Laboratory.

These figures take into account the energy required to plant, grow and harvest the corn—as well as the energy required to manufacture and distribute the ethanol.

The net energy balance of ethanol production continues to improve because ethanol production is becoming more efficient. For example, one bushel of corn now yields 2.8 gallons of ethanol—up from 2.5 gallons just a few years ago.
http://ncga.com/killing-myths-ethanol

Bill also says grain prices are artificially high due to ethanol. Grain prices are just above break even for farmers. You can get $3.60 per bushel today, compared to prices up to $8 a bushel in the summer of 2008 when speculators ran up the price on corn shortage fears spread by grocery manufacturers and others (it was the 2nd largest harvest in history). We had record ethanol production in 2009, but corn prices are down. So how do you figure that ethanol is artificially inflating corn prices? It is true that farmers wanted the ethanol industry to expand so they would have a bigger market and a more stable price for their corn. What is wrong with that? They just want to stay in business. "

---

Pyotr wrote on Jan 4, 2010 3:14 PM:

" Bill: Do your own homework before listening to other professors. No one should know better than you that all professors have a political agenda.

Any farmer worth his salt rotates crops. This is how our farmers minimize use of fertilizer and maintain fertility. With continuing yield increases, the corn has to go somewhere. If it weren't for ethanol, we would be piling up corn in every street in the heartland. There certainly is no shortage of corn in the USA.

If underdeveloped nations are starving, stop sending free grain to them so that their own farmers will have an incentive to grow their own. Local African farmers have been driven out of the grain business by free handouts.

I recommend you relax and enjoy retirement in peace and tranquility rather than sharing drivel about a subject which is unfamiliar to you. "

---

Jesse wrote on Jan 4, 2010 3:47 PM:

" I have to agree with Sue. I am tired of folkes saying ethanol has a negative energy output when they fail to give any sources.
Inflated prices? My father farms, trust these prices are not inflated but break even as Sue describes.
I am not sure why people are so against E 15. According to the University of North Dakota, moving from E 10 to E 15 would provide 136,000 new jobs. E 15 would replace 900,000 barrels of oil per day. The use of E 15 would remove emissions equivalent to more than 4 million vehicles from the road each year. As EPA itself indicated, the scientific data to date has demonstrated no ill-effects of increased ethanol use in any vehicle currently on the road. The increase in ethanol in conventional fuel will also help create a market for future generation biofuels. "

---

james thurber wrote on Jan 4, 2010 4:33 PM:

" Even accepting that 100 units of energy used to produce ethanol yields 167 units of energy, corn ethanol production is not economically viable, nor does it significantly reduce fossil fuel use.

Last year approximately 9 billion gallons of ethanol were produced in the U.S. This is the gross energy equivalent of approximately 6 billion gallons of gasoline, as a gallon of ethanol contains only about 2/3 the amount of energy as a gallon of gasoline.

When we take into account the energy from fossil fuels (primarily gasoline, diesel, and natural gas) that is used to produce corn ethanol, then the new energy generated is the equivalent of about 2.5 billion gallons of gasoline. This means that the net energy yield from corn ethanol is equivalent to only about 1.5% of the national annual consumption of gasoline and diesel of 190 billion gallons.

As for the impact on grain price, it is true that the corn price is down from the high of 2008, but prices are still much higher than they were before the increases in corn ethanol production that were mandated in 2007. At that time, the price of corn was only $1 to $2 per bushel versus $3.60 today.

It is also true that the economics of growing corn, even at today's elevated prices, are only marginal. That is because the cost of land rental (the greatest single cost of corn farming) has increased as corn prices increased. Thus, the grower does not benefit from the elevated prices that the consumer pays.

The bottom line is that corn ethanol does not significantly reduce fossil fuel consumption, nor does it save the consumer money, nor does it enrich farmers. It is simply a rather deceitful and environmentally damaging way to confiscate tens of billions of dollars from American consumers and taxpayers and to funnel them to agricultural landowners and agricultural service companies like ADM and Monsanto. "

---

Jesse wrote on Jan 4, 2010 5:11 PM:

" james, How much money do you think is stolen fromt the tax payers to protect United States oil interests in the middle east? Seriously, the facts are in front of you and it's like you can't read. The postive energy return already has the energy it takes to produce corn, ethanol, etc. figured into it. What part of "E 15 would replace 900,000 barrels of oil per day" dont you understand? Ethanol burns much cleaner and the plants grown to produce it obsorb any carbon that was put into the enviornment by the ethanol. Home-grown, renewable fuels or foreign oil? The answer should be pretty simple. "

---

McIntiler wrote on Jan 4, 2010 5:20 PM:

" As a cash crop farmer and ethanol plant investor, I was pleased to read the positive response to this article. Nobody ever provides the 'net energy balance' for the production of gasoline (if I remember right it is close to 140 units to produce 100) Everyone conveniently forgets that ethanol is an oxygen enhancer that leads to more complete combustion and because of its addition to gas, the carcinogenic MTBE could be removed. I might address to food for fuel myth - a co-product of ethanol production is dried distillers grain (DDG). This is a high protein livestock food (by the way professor - no human eats corn directly).
I have learned that there are more urban myths surrounding ethanol than you can shake the proverbial stick at.. After 8 years of being a supporter, negative news is all entertainment "

---

Scott wrote on Jan 4, 2010 6:04 PM:

" James, the equation that shows ethanol having a positive net engery gain already has those factors figured in. Stealing from tax payers? Have you ever wondered how much has been spent to protect Big Oil interests compared to helping a young renewable energy get established. "

---

Jetty wrote on Jan 5, 2010 9:24 AM:

" Great comments on the energy balance issue. After all considerations there is still a 1.6+ to 1 energy gain. Gasoline has a .7 to 1 energy loss. I would like to comment on subsidies. In 2007 the blenders (not the ethanol producers) received about $4 billion for blending ethanol into the fuel supply. The ethanol industry generated $8 billion in federal income taxes. The estimated savings in the farm program because there was a market for corn was $8 billion. Americans saved about $40 billion at the pump because of the replacement of oil based gasoline. Seems like the $4 billion was a pretty good investment for the American tax payer. "

---

Jesse wrote on Jan 5, 2010 3:43 PM:

" Big Oil received over $70 billion in subsidies over the last seven years compared to corn ethanol's $16 billion. The anti-ethanol folks can cry about something else.
http://www.eli.org/pdf/Energy_Subsidies_Black_Not_Green.pdf "

---

Seth wrote on Jan 5, 2010 6:14 PM:

" These numbers do not come from Argonne National Laboratory. Please check: http://www.transportation.anl.gov/modeling_simulation/GREET/

Seth Snyder
Argonne National Laboratory "

---

Shuma wrote on Jan 5, 2010 6:50 PM:

" Great dialogue guys, keep it up, and go to www.alcoholcanbeagas.com for more research and citations than you would ever want, more facts about the horrors of the oil industry, more hope, direction and truth than any of us is used to. Ethanol, even with its very few, problems, is waaaaaaay better than oil any day on any planet, especially ours. "

---

Ron wrote on Jan 6, 2010 5:47 AM:

" James is essentially right. None of the biofuels defending the energy balance of ethanol are citing the numbers correctly. What the numbers measure is the ratio of energy outputs to fossil-fuel inputs, not ENERGY inputs. That is to say, the balances do not count the energy value of the corn feedstock itself. (By contrast, the numbers for fossil fuels DO count the energy value of the feedstock crude oil and, contrary to McIntiler's claim, everybody who measures the net benefit energy balance of ethanol also measures the net energy balance of gasoline, which is more like 1.2, not 1.4.) If the energy value of the feedstock were counted also, then the energy balance of corn ethanol would look much worse: on the order of 1.5 to 1.6 units of input for every unit of output.

Of course, the corn lobby will defend not counting the energy value of the corn itself, as if it is an infinitely free gift. It is not. There is an oportunity cost to that energy: either it goes to protein for animals, or it can be used (and some of it is, in specially designed fireplaces) directly for heat. Yes, all of the protein is conserved, but livestock, particularly hogs and poultry require more than just protein, they also depend on the carbohydrates in grain.

Where James is partially wrong is saying that the ethanol policy does not benefit farmers. That is certainly true for livestock farmers and farmers that grow crops other than corn, and corn farmers who rent their land. But owners of arable land on which corn can be grown have made out like bandits: just look at the prices of farmland in Iowa over the last several years.

It is always amusing when ethanol boosters accuse anybody who disagrees with them as having "an agenda", as if the biofuel industry does not. Theirs is to hang onto the taxpayer teat. Most of the critics are interested in cost-effective environmental and energy solutions.

Consider this: almost no environmental groups or economists endorse corn ethanol. The only defenders of corn ethanol left are corn farmers, the biofuel industry itself, and the politicians that depend on their votes. "

---

Ron wrote on Jan 6, 2010 9:51 AM:

" Correction: That shood be "None of the bioFOOLS defending the energy balance of ethanol are citing the numbers correctly." And "There is an oportunity cost to that energy: either it goes to protein AND CARBOHYDRATES for animals". "

---

Jesse wrote on Jan 6, 2010 4:32 PM:

" Ron, Ethanol's Positive Net Engery Return number's are coming from the United States Dept. of Ag. Where are yours coming from?
Gasoline actually has a net energy loss of .7 to 1.
Interesting to see how defensive you are about BIG OIL having an "agenda," perhaps you are a part of team fossil fuel. bioFOOLS....OMG LOL... good one. "

---

Jack wrote on Jan 6, 2010 7:44 PM:

" I that I am in agreement with everything Ron has stated.

Basically, we pay for the construction of the ethanol plants (with tax dollars), we pay more for fuel that gives us less MPG, you pay more for food while the ethanol producers generate more emissions producing ethanol then you can save by addiing it to your fuel.

Yes the corporations such as ADM, the biofuel industry are making a fortune off of this + the politicians are getting votes.

They have the average citizen believing that he is helping his country and environment while actually he is lining their pockets at the expense of the environment, our economy and our country.

Everyone is a winner here except the citizens of the US. "

---

Ron wrote on Jan 7, 2010 10:29 AM:

" Jesse, mine are coming from the same sources. There have been numerous groups that have produced estimates of energy balances for gasoline (and diesel). Here is a nice graphical summary from a well-known and respected meta-study by Alex Farrell et al:

http://rael.berkeley.edu/EBAMM/summary.html

(The ethanol industry loved this study when it came out, by the way.)

Note that the units are either Net Fossil Inputs (MJ of fossil energy needed for each MJ of final fuel) or its invers, Net Fossil Ratio (MJ of final fuel produced for each MJ of fossil-fuel input). The Net Fossil Inputs for gasoline are around 1.2 -- i.e., counting the energy in the gasoline itself, another 20% is needed to produce it. The Net Fossil Inputs for energy are 0.774.

But, again, I stress: what is being measured on the input side is FOSSIL energy, not total energy. You and your friends here keep talking about an ENERGY ratio. If one counts the energy of the corn itself, the Net Energy Ratio for corn ethanol comes out more like 1.6.

For a more extensive and more up-to-date review of the literature, see this study from a year ago, "Energy Balance & Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Biofuels from a Life-Cycle Perspective":

http://cip.cornell.edu/DPubS?service=UI&version=1.0&verb=Display&handle=scope/1245782005

I am not defending BIG OIL's agenda, I am saying that the majority of those taking a public stance against current biofuel policies (including yours truly) have nothing to do with the oil industry. But, no surprise, you seem to automatically assume that I am "part of team fossil fuel". I guess that it could never occur to you that there is a third way: reducing the demand for transport and for liquid fuels in the first place.

As for BIG OIL's agenda, it doesn't seem that different from BIG ETHANOL's agenda: keep the nation dependent on liquid fuels for transport. In that regard, the biofuels industry and the petroleum industry are working hand in glove ... or in some other part of each others' anatomy. "

---

ForrestGump wrote on Jan 7, 2010 11:06 AM:

" Math is easy for the people that leave numbers out of the equation.

Stupid is as stupid does. "

---

Ron wrote on Jan 7, 2010 11:14 AM:

" Correction: "The Net Fossil Inputs for corn ethanol are 0.774." "

---

Pete wrote on Jan 7, 2010 2:17 PM:

" Sue, the source you cite is obsolete. Back in 2006 a study was published in Science that gathered up all available corn ethanol energy studies to date and put them into a single spreadsheet and made consistent with up to date inputs. The conclusion:

"…only 5 to26% of the energy content is renewable. The rest is primarily natural gas and coal…"

"…reduces GHGemissions only moderately, by about 13%…."

Source: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/311/5760/506.pdf

The study did not include the energy in the corn, indirect land use, or the latest values for nitrogen oxide released from fields because that data was not published in peer reviewed literature until later. That's how science works.

Here is a chart showing historic annual corn prices. Note that they started to ramp up along with ethanol production and note that the price for 2009 remains about twice as high as the previous ten year averages ($2 to $4 is a 100% increase in price) are expected to remain that high through 2010:

http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/Graphics/img30.gif

For more corn ethanol myth debunking see:

http://biodiversivist.blogspot.com/2009/05/biofuel-myths.html "