Biofuels have direct, fuel-cycle GHG emissions that are typically 30-90% lower than those for gasoline or diesel fuels. However, since for some biofuels indirect emissions-including from land use change-can lead to greater total emissions than when using petroleum products, policy support needs to be considered on a case by case basis.
The IPCC has released a finalized draft of its Working Group III report. Sourced from Forbes, their analysis: that ethanol is worse than petroleum. The Working Group itself managed to say... Well, after a quick read-through of chapter 8, it appears they managed to keep any actual meaning occluded by a thick screen of political double-speak. So, I guess they said whatever you would like them to have said since nobody can prove any different.
(Score: 1) by geek on Monday April 21 2014, @08:33PM
"Well, after a quick read-through of chapter 8, it appears they managed to keep any actual meaning occluded by a thick screen of political double-speak. So, I guess they said whatever you would like them to have said since nobody can prove any different."
If I wanted stupid editorial narrative I'd still be on slashdot.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Monday April 21 2014, @08:39PM
I still read Slashdot. Why not receive the corporate view of things, at least from Dice's perspective?
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday April 21 2014, @08:41PM
On the other hand, this isn't the first study that indicated that Ethanol increases net energy cost , and decreases mileage while increasing pollution, and increasing food costs.
So regardless how they want to word it, the story is not new.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by captain normal on Monday April 21 2014, @08:55PM
I'd hardly call his comment "stupid". If you really can't stand any comment by any submitter or editor, you could bring this up in one of the forums. If you simply think his comment was wrong, you could point out why you think that is so.
I really try to avoid feeding the trolls, but as you are not AC, you probably are motivated to participate in a group discussion. Best way to get your point across is to avoid insulting and derogatory remarks.
"It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they have been fooled" Mark Twain
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 21 2014, @10:14PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by mendax on Monday April 21 2014, @08:36PM
It has been known for some time by those opposed to the use of ethanol that fermenting corn uses more fossil fuels than are saved. Probably the best way to produce ethanol is through the processing of waste products that need to be disposed of anyway. Ideally, the processing plant is close to the disposal site, not unlike the electrical plants sited next to garbage dumps that mine the methane produced.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 21 2014, @08:45PM
This is exactly what ethanol was supposed to do. Extra waste turned into fuel. Somehow it turned into 'we will grow our fuel with the same stuff we use for our food'. It was not meant to be efficient. Just a good way to get rid of waste.
I remember well the giant grain piles (grew up in the midwest) of the 70s. They literally could not give the corn away. Ethanol was supposed to give the farmers a 'last resort' market to sell into. I also remember well the buses in my city running on the stuff. Popcorn smell instead of burnt diesel as diesel engines can run on pretty much any oil that burns.
Then it became a political thing... 10% mandates ... etc...
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Monday April 21 2014, @09:19PM
The 10% ethanol in US gasoline is not a mandate as far as I recall. What I know is that it's a replacement for MBTE [wikipedia.org], the former anti-knock agent that is a water pollutant. The oil industry request the Federal government indemnify it from future lawsuits over yet-undiscovered health effects of MBTE, and Congress chose not to sign that particular blank check. So the oil industry switched to ethanol.
Where the stupidity creeps in is that the ethanol is made out of grain that would otherwise be food, instead of (as others have suggested) waste or grass or something else cheap. Since the sudden huge demand for ethanol was a giant windfall for big farmers (causing a spike in corn prices several years ago), you can expect a lot of political resistance to changing to a more sensible source for the ethanol.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 21 2014, @10:18PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Monday April 21 2014, @10:20PM
Your understanding of history is completely conflated on this issue and the MBTE issue which were completely separate and unrelated issues. Ethanol is not an anit-knock agent, and your car actually runs better without it.
In 2005, there was already [wikipedia.org] a requirement for biofuel mixture in gasoline, but it was somewhat voluntary. It did spawn the infamous "Flex Fuel" vehicles, that nobody wanted.
There was a industry wide discussion about the blend level, and congress was informed that the US fleet would not tolerate more than 10% without massive changes, hence in 2007 the timeline extension to 2022.
Then in 2007, the actual mandate was defined. It was written into TITLE II of the ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT OF 2007 [gpo.gov]. See section 202.
It has percentages of biofuel for each forward year. (Same act promulgated the death of Incandescent bulbs). See also the Wiki Article [wikipedia.org].
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday April 22 2014, @02:44AM
When I'm towing and expect to be climbing hills, I've found I get about 10% better fuel economy with straight gas, and don't lose power on long upslopes like I do with ethanol blend. There are still a few places in MT where I can buy straight gas, and when the truck is going to really work, it's worth the 1-2% higher price.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday April 22 2014, @07:46PM
I've found a 10% mileage hit using 10% ethanol. In fact my owners manual for the car states this clearly.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday April 22 2014, @08:05PM
Makes a person wonder how massaged the "fuel saving" economics were, eh?
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday April 22 2014, @08:23PM
Well, the push to ethanol was never about fuel saving, it was always about energy independence.
The sad bit about is that it appears to have failed to meet either goal.
Note also an interesting wiki artical on cellulosic ethanol [wikipedia.org]. It explains the various means of getting from plants to ethanol, as well as some research that is in the pipeline.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday April 22 2014, @08:28PM
Too bad that using cellulose didn't become a Thing back when we had mountains of used newspaper... wonder if disposable diapers are a prospect.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Monday April 21 2014, @09:19PM
Diesel engines can't run on alcohol, so that makes no sense. Did you mean corn oil?
(Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Monday April 21 2014, @08:54PM
SwitchGrass [uky.edu].
Switchgrass (cellulosic ethanol) delivers 540 percent of the energy used to produce it, compared with just roughly 25 percent more energy returned by corn-based ethanol.
It grows almost anywhere, and takes far less fuel to harvest and process.
Scientific American had a story about this [scientificamerican.com] as far back as 2008.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:08AM
Great links. The first one was very informative. I found it interesting that they also looked into who could purchase the switchgrass and for what reason.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday April 22 2014, @02:50AM
I've seen figures as negative as "5 gallons of diesel to produce 4 gallons of corn ethanol". I don't know how accurate that is, but kinda goes to show we shoulda looked somewhere else. -- Thanks for the article on switchgrass. There was someone in the eastern Antelope Valley growing it a few years ago... tho they let it die off after a couple years. Likely couldn't make it with the high cost to pump water in SoCal.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Tuesday April 22 2014, @07:42AM
Ah, yes, I was thinking about switchgrass when I was writing my comment but couldn't remember its name. Switchgrass appears to be a great source of ethanol and quite promising, assuming it goes anywhere. The corn and big oil lobbies in the inner ring of Hell (i.e., Washington) need to be overcome first to drop the subsidies. Hell will freeze over first before that happens.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @06:39PM
The problem with switchgrass (cellulosic) ethanol is that the enzymes needed to break down the cellulose into bacteria-digestible components are expensive. They are included for free in grains (that's what happens when grain is "malted") but this needs to be done synthetically in cellulose bases, unless you can wait many, many years for nature to take its course.
Not unsurmountable, but the cost is still high. When we get to reliably paying $5-6 (in 2014 dollars) a gallon gas in the USA, I believe we will be seeing more switchgrass ethanol.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @10:37PM
Sorry for the dumb question, but why ethanol from corn?
We make ethanol from sugar cane and it's a lot easier. What's the problem with sugar cane? Don't you have places hot enough to cultivate some low-temp tolerating variety?
It may be a dumb question, but people insist in producing ethanol from corn, when it clearly is not an adequate source... why?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday April 22 2014, @10:56PM
I'm not sure myself, other than the temperatures, field conditions, rain fall, and strong winters, may (combined) be more suitable for corn crops than cane crops in the central US.
Corn has the side benefit of being used for other purposes, (cattle/swine feed, beer, corn sugar, etc). Farmers already had the corn planting and harvesting equipment and corn handling infrastructure (silos, elevators, rail car systems, etc) were already in place in most of the US.
Some say the corn lobby was to blame, but I suspect it was climate and sheer industrial inertia. We had perennial surpluses of feed corn prior to the ethanol industry picking up.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @11:45PM
> I'm not sure myself, other than the temperatures, field conditions, rain fall, and strong winters, may (combined) be more suitable for corn crops than cane crops in the central US.
As a kid, I was interested in plants (simple curiosity) and planted beans and corn. We had a sugar cane plant (in my backyard... nothing serious). Corn needs a lot of sun or else it will grow weak with whitish underdeveloped cobs. Sugar cane is no different.
Usually where corn thrives, cane will, too. If not, one can always go back to the lab and artificially select some variety to work its magic faster and avoid the cold months... but I guess the USA South must get plenty of sun throughout the year, as cotton might need a lot of sun, too (I have no knowledge about cotton).
That funny grass mentioned is also an option -- but sugar cane and corn are all grasses, too.
> Corn has the side benefit of being used for other purposes, (cattle/swine feed, beer, corn sugar, etc).
I'm under the impression that being good for a lot of things probably makes something not so good at one specific use...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 23 2014, @12:13PM
I searched a little and saw (on Wikipedia) that cane can be planted, under favorable conditions, up to 33ºN. That would be a small area in the USA south (from half Texas to the entire Florida). I don't know if water is enough, maybe corn uses less.
A problem is sugar cane can be harvested up to 10 times (Wikipedia) while corn only once. The roots would never resist being frozen, which I think does not ordinarily happen (but last time it seems it snowed in Florida).
Well, you could always try to import ethanol from Mexico, as it seems they're in better shape to cultivate sugar cane, should they want to do it (I'm not Mexican).
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Monday April 21 2014, @10:14PM
I will have to disagree with this study.
I have noticed my emissions are much worse when I drink petroleum instead of ethanol!(not to mention the brutal hangovers!)
This is old news, and this study will change things about like all the similar studies have...not.
Until improvement and innovation take precedence over protecting entrenched business models, this will not change.
And this phenomenon is not confined to the 'energy industry', it is almost universal.