![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
In defense of ethanol
Mar. 19th, 2006 12:17 pmA number of people, such as myself, have taken issue with one technical component of the approach to biofuels laid out by the Bush administration: the choice to support ethanol - or more correctly, E85 - over biodiesel as a replacement for gasoline in cars. The reasons are fairly straightforward: ethanol's positive energy delta, in the most recent and most advanced technologies, is a mere 30% - one unit of energy in yields 1.3 units of energy out over the production cycle. Indeed, sound arguments have been made that really, it's worse, and that if you count infrastructure build-out, it's below 1:1. Biodiesel is closer to 1:3 - one unit of energy in yields three units out1. Biodiesel also has higher energy-density than pure ethanol or E85.
As we're trying to replace (or at least cushion the shock of starting to lose) an energy source which is on the order of 1:10 - one unit in, ten units out, or a 900% recovery rate - I prefer the biodiesel approach, and, all other things being equal, I'm pretty sure we'll end up there regardless unless someone comes up with something else very surprising. I also imagine that the farm lobby had a lot to do with the choice of ethanol over biodiesel, as did the fact that ethanol (or, again, E85) is going to continue to include 15% gasoline for the next 15 to 20 years, and oil existing companies will therefore have an "in" on that action.
However, there is a defense for the choice of ethanol on a rational and apolitical basis. It rests first upon these four pieces of information:
1. The aforementioned E85 (ethanol 85%, gasoline 15%) exists as a well-understood standard already. Production of more E85 would certainly require more infrastructure than exists now, but there's an already-extant base from which to build.
2. There are a significant number of cars already on the streets which will run on E85 already. President Bush mentioned this in his State of the Union address. This was, in fact, something actually true. This feature is not advertised, as it has not been a selling point in the past. That may now change.
3. Most gasoline-only engines can be converted to run on E85, or even pure ethanol. They cannot be converted to run diesel, at least, not without a complete engine replacement. Fuel injection engines need their injectors bored and a few other changes made that I don't understand, as I'm not a car person. Carburetor vehicles require more work, but it can be done. (Again, the details are outside my knowledge.)
4. There are, on the other hand, relatively few diesel (and therefore biodiesel-compatible) passenger vehicles on the street now in the US.
These are all valid advocacy points for ethanol over biodiesel. All other things neutral, these advantages do not, in my mind, support ethanol as the better choice between the two. Indeed, I continue to suspect that this choice was significantly political, in an area where such choices should not be political.
However, there are two factors that, combined, could tilt the decision: if the build-out time needed to bring a new biodiesel infrastructure to the level of the small but existing E85/ethanol infrastructure is long (possible), and the Bush administration's estimate of time-to-peak is short (a reasonable conclusion), then eliminating this build-time lag could become vital to maintaining what we laughably call our national transportation infrastructure.
Assuming a rationalist but car-oriented decision-making process2, this would almost certainly indicate that the Bush administration strongly suspects that current total global oil production is likely not be sustained over even the five-year timeframe. This would put his administration in substantial agreement with the more pessimistic range of the US Army Corps of Engineers report I linked to earlier.
On a matter this important, I would argue that taking the more pessimistic view - as long as it is a legitimate scenario - is the more prudent path, given the biases involved3. If this bears out, than the Bush administration's choice to push E85 over biodiesel will likely prove to have been correct as a medium-term action.
1: These numbers are somewhat controversial. First, infrastructure build-out inclusion brings all these numbers sharply down - below 1:1 in some studies - but while that sounds fair on one hand, it's not necessarily an issue if that build out can be paid for at least in part by other forms of energy which cannot be used in the way that the fuels produced can be. In that sense, these fuels are arguably as much battery as anything else. I consider this a significant, but separate, issue. Secondly, I do not think it is reasonable to consider the solar energy involved in growing the plants as part of the total energy input. Doing so would also decrease the EROI - energy return on investment - numbers. The backers of this approach are essentially invoking the economic precept of opportunity loss, and would, by implication, be arguing that we would be better off with some other form of energy collector in the place of biodiesel crops. While they are not without a point here, there are many areas where other collectors are not practical, but growing crops is. This, to my mind, makes the opportunity-loss question irrelevant in most cases - though I would be the last to suggest we swap out desert solar collector arrays for piped-in-irrigation biodiesel crops!
2: Members of the Bush administration have stated their commitment to the continuation of automobile primacy in transportation, tho' not in quite so many words. This is not in any way unique to the Bush administration; no major political figures say anything else.
3: I continue to feel that other initiatives I have previously discussed would be significantly better uses of our time. Three important examples would be the reconstruction of the national rail system for greater capacity for freight, elimination of the various driving subsidies currently built in to the economy and government, and additional build-out of regional transit systems - a build out that, preferably, provide adequate redundancy that multiple private providers could share common inter-city track, much as airlines share airports and trucks share roads now. This market-inclusive goal should also be applied to the freight rail network.
As we're trying to replace (or at least cushion the shock of starting to lose) an energy source which is on the order of 1:10 - one unit in, ten units out, or a 900% recovery rate - I prefer the biodiesel approach, and, all other things being equal, I'm pretty sure we'll end up there regardless unless someone comes up with something else very surprising. I also imagine that the farm lobby had a lot to do with the choice of ethanol over biodiesel, as did the fact that ethanol (or, again, E85) is going to continue to include 15% gasoline for the next 15 to 20 years, and oil existing companies will therefore have an "in" on that action.
However, there is a defense for the choice of ethanol on a rational and apolitical basis. It rests first upon these four pieces of information:
1. The aforementioned E85 (ethanol 85%, gasoline 15%) exists as a well-understood standard already. Production of more E85 would certainly require more infrastructure than exists now, but there's an already-extant base from which to build.
2. There are a significant number of cars already on the streets which will run on E85 already. President Bush mentioned this in his State of the Union address. This was, in fact, something actually true. This feature is not advertised, as it has not been a selling point in the past. That may now change.
3. Most gasoline-only engines can be converted to run on E85, or even pure ethanol. They cannot be converted to run diesel, at least, not without a complete engine replacement. Fuel injection engines need their injectors bored and a few other changes made that I don't understand, as I'm not a car person. Carburetor vehicles require more work, but it can be done. (Again, the details are outside my knowledge.)
4. There are, on the other hand, relatively few diesel (and therefore biodiesel-compatible) passenger vehicles on the street now in the US.
These are all valid advocacy points for ethanol over biodiesel. All other things neutral, these advantages do not, in my mind, support ethanol as the better choice between the two. Indeed, I continue to suspect that this choice was significantly political, in an area where such choices should not be political.
However, there are two factors that, combined, could tilt the decision: if the build-out time needed to bring a new biodiesel infrastructure to the level of the small but existing E85/ethanol infrastructure is long (possible), and the Bush administration's estimate of time-to-peak is short (a reasonable conclusion), then eliminating this build-time lag could become vital to maintaining what we laughably call our national transportation infrastructure.
Assuming a rationalist but car-oriented decision-making process2, this would almost certainly indicate that the Bush administration strongly suspects that current total global oil production is likely not be sustained over even the five-year timeframe. This would put his administration in substantial agreement with the more pessimistic range of the US Army Corps of Engineers report I linked to earlier.
On a matter this important, I would argue that taking the more pessimistic view - as long as it is a legitimate scenario - is the more prudent path, given the biases involved3. If this bears out, than the Bush administration's choice to push E85 over biodiesel will likely prove to have been correct as a medium-term action.
1: These numbers are somewhat controversial. First, infrastructure build-out inclusion brings all these numbers sharply down - below 1:1 in some studies - but while that sounds fair on one hand, it's not necessarily an issue if that build out can be paid for at least in part by other forms of energy which cannot be used in the way that the fuels produced can be. In that sense, these fuels are arguably as much battery as anything else. I consider this a significant, but separate, issue. Secondly, I do not think it is reasonable to consider the solar energy involved in growing the plants as part of the total energy input. Doing so would also decrease the EROI - energy return on investment - numbers. The backers of this approach are essentially invoking the economic precept of opportunity loss, and would, by implication, be arguing that we would be better off with some other form of energy collector in the place of biodiesel crops. While they are not without a point here, there are many areas where other collectors are not practical, but growing crops is. This, to my mind, makes the opportunity-loss question irrelevant in most cases - though I would be the last to suggest we swap out desert solar collector arrays for piped-in-irrigation biodiesel crops!
2: Members of the Bush administration have stated their commitment to the continuation of automobile primacy in transportation, tho' not in quite so many words. This is not in any way unique to the Bush administration; no major political figures say anything else.
3: I continue to feel that other initiatives I have previously discussed would be significantly better uses of our time. Three important examples would be the reconstruction of the national rail system for greater capacity for freight, elimination of the various driving subsidies currently built in to the economy and government, and additional build-out of regional transit systems - a build out that, preferably, provide adequate redundancy that multiple private providers could share common inter-city track, much as airlines share airports and trucks share roads now. This market-inclusive goal should also be applied to the freight rail network.
