The United States is by far the global leader in biological and agricultural technology. To this, you can add the existence of our vast land resources and the strategic advantage of providing more of our own fuel. You would think that there would be little resistance to applying these advantages to our fuel shortage problem. However, like the horse drawn buggy manufacturers fighting the automobile, the fossil fuel based energy companies have fought tooth and nail to prevent renewable fuels from becoming a reality. They have done this with a vengeance that leads one to believe that John Rockefeller’s ghost has returned and is directing their operations.
As each myth is proven false, a new one is invented. The media gives each headlines, but neglects to report on the proven falsity of the previous one. Surprisingly the economic elite are eager to chug-a-lug the false kool aid while the average average person has more common sense. For the benefit of everyone, however, we will examine the facts behind each myth over the next few posts.
Today we will look at the negative energy balance myth. Following days, we will look at the claims of cost to the economy, ethanol performance in an internal combustion engine, and finally we will address the food versus fuel myth.
For quite some time the TV, newspapers, and selected think tanks have been awash with reports that the production of biofuels, especially ethanol from corn, consumed much more energy than was present in the resulting product. This was confusing because almost all studies showed just the opposite. The U. S Department of Energy initiated a study by the Argonne National Laboratory to examine all studies, resolve the difference and finally put an end to the controversy.
The final report was issued on January 7, 2005. The fossil energy to produce one million Btu of fuel was
Ethanol 740,000 Btu
Gasoline 1,230,000 Btu
That is right; it actually takes more fossil energy to produce one million BTU of gasoline than one million BTU of ethanol. Has anyone seen this in the mainstream media?
This is not surprising. The second law of thermodynamics states that it is always necessary to add energy to move from a lower to a higher energy state. It is the price you pay for upgrading a material to a new level. In the case of ethanol from corn, however, the energy comes from a free, renewable outside source-the sun. For gasoline, it comes from burning some of the other crude oil components.
The report used existing dry milling technology for ethanol and did not consider the rapidly improving technology for producing biofuels.
A summary of the study and links to the full report is found at:
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/files/DOE_Summary_of_Argonne.pdf
This report received essentially no publicity outside of the specialized ethanol sector. Reports of a mythical negative energy balance continue to in the media. One change I have noticed is that the “negative balance” has been changed to “barely positive” in some releases. I have yet to see a comparison with the energy to manufacture gasoline.
The next post will look at the overwhelming economic and strategic benefits of this “failed and expensive” movement
No comments:
Post a Comment