Can Ethanol ever Comletely replace petroleum based fuels?

[ronthepon]

Hey people, long time.

Anyway, I happen to be doing a project on analyzing the viability of ethanol as a energy carrier and a replacement fuel.

Having checked out a big deal on where ethanol production is flawed, and where it has place for improvement, I'd come to the conclusion that ethanol has a bright-er future.

I'd come to believe that ethanol might actually get cheaper than petrolem at a point of time, and replace it completely. Then came a big problem:

We use ~76 million barrels of gasoline per day.

Why is that a problem? Because I've come to believe that (for cellulosic ethanol) a ton of biomass yeilds a few gallons.(link)Check out Germany's achievement. We probably wont multiply that by ten or something even in the future.

Switchgrass, gives us like 11-12 tonnes of biomass per year per acre on an average. So we need like...(*grabbing calculator) uh... 2-3000 million acres of land area to fulfill the complete replacement scenario. Remember that the total land surface area is like 36000 million acres. We'd be needing like 8% of the total land area for switchgrass or Miscanthus giganteus. Dunno if it'll be available easily. EDIT: Oh and did I forget to mention? Total cultivated land is like 12% of the land area.

The waste may take care of around 300-400 million barrels of the around 30,000 million barrels that we'll need worldwide per year. (My calculation. Seem flawed to me, Please correct me)

Does anyone have any definite data on what is the actual scale of possible ethanol production? (throw in 400,000 acres of switchgrass cultivated areas in the US if nessecary).

[Ganoderma]

Switchgrass, gives us like 11-12 tonnes of biomass per year per acre on an average. So we need like...(*grabbing calculator) uh... 2-3000 million acres of land area to fulfill the complete replacement scenario. Remember that the total land surface area is like 36000 million acres. We'd be needing like 8% of the total land area for switchgrass or Miscanthus giganteus. Dunno if it'll be available easily. EDIT: Oh and did I forget to mention? Total cultivated land is like 12% of the land area.

that's one reason i think it will never happen....oil is underground and takes little space to obtain.

honestly, i don't think combustion energy is the way to go

[ronthepon]

Comustion of ethanol ain't all that bad. The carbon-di-oxide that is released comes from atmospheric CO2 in the first case. It recycling CO2 and using solar energy. Still, ethanol can be used in fuel cells.

[Ganoderma]

i am not so much thinking of pollution. i am thinking more of realistic availability and usability.

I have to admit, i am one of the electricity people. I think in terms of convertibility. how many things can we use with electricity? how many of the those same things can we use with combustion type energies (not counting burning for electricity)?

everything fire moves, so can electricity...but electricity can do more, and is in many cases safer and more user friendly (how many people can fix their toaster compared to fix their lawnmower)...maybe that one is stretching it a bit.

also so many things we can gather electricity from: Sun, wind, rain, water, GRAVITY*** etc....."combustion energies" are often limited in availability (gas) OR require large land mass and man power to produce and *seem* to have more environmental impacts than electrical sources.

[Eclipse Now]

In all humility I submit my ethanol page. I'm not a scientist, but have more of an arts/argument/history/welfare brain.

So I've collected the material on my page that refers to some fairly convincing arguments and data.
Eclipse Now: Biodfuels, biodiesel and ethanol

The problem is one of scale. I'm convinced that biofuels will play an important part in our post-oil world, but only a niche. Have you looked at the ERoEI of the various fuels? It's not just the $ economics, but the energy economics.

This 12 minute video on "Energy Budgetting" or ERoEI is THE most important concept to get one's head around when dealing with biofuel issues, because many of them are not actually "sources" of energy. (They take so much energy to grow and process that they're basically fossil fuels in disguise anyway).

Crash Course Chapter 17b: Energy Budgeting | Chris Martenson

I'm also a fan of electricity, but not cars. I think the SAFEST way we can negotiate peak oil and global warming is to:-
1. Rezone our cities and start building around New Urbanism
2. RAIL (in all it's forms, intercity electric trains, and intra-city trolley buses and trams)
3. Refuel on renewable electricity.
(There are other "Radical R's" on my site, but that will do for now).

Maybe I have those around back to front. Apparently if one builds a good rail system, New Urbanism automatically creeps in around the rail. It will take a generation, but with compounding benefits economically, socially, and environmentally. People living in walking distance communities that are just plain TRENDY tend to talk to each other, be fitter (they walk and cycle), and be less stressed.

However, if we HAVE to have some cars, I think EV's are the way to go... but many of the "rare earths" our modern electronics and batteries rely on are also about to be used up.


The latest news on biofuels can be found at:
Biofuels | Energy Bulletin

Global Public Media | Public Service Broadcasting For A Post Carbon World

Cheers, and let me know what you think about the sound bytes I've collected on my summary page.

[ronthepon]

Direct Ethanol Fuel Cells

Electricity can be generated without actually burning ethanol.

Ethanol is easier to store and transport to random places than bare electricity.

But that's moving away from the topic. Anyway, I've checked and rechecked. We need to devote around 5-13% of our total land surface area to ethanol if it is to replace petroleum for fuel.
What I do note is that due to the carbon sequestering and habitat providing abilities of say- switchgrass, or miscanthus(the afro-eur-asian candidate) we can sacrifice pastures and grassland area.

What do you think about growing these plants in places where no farming has ever done earlier. I.e. forest and pastures?

[ronthepon]

Originally Posted by Eclipse Now

In all humility I submit my ethanol page. I'm not a scientist, but have more of an arts/argument/history/welfare brain.

So I've collected the material on my page that refers to some fairly convincing arguments and data.
Eclipse Now: Biodfuels, biodiesel and ethanol

I like the page. In my study of the matter, I've come to believe that corn or sugarcane aren't as efficient in land usage. (which I think will eventually be the limiting factor)
Having done considerable internet digging and research, the conclusion has been: Cellulosic ethanol is the way to go. Of course, cellulases must be made cheap. (Deja-vu)

#2 Yes food to fuel is criminal (I'm assuming it is, so we can overcome the problem) so we do garbage and indigestible fibre to fuel.

It can be BAD for Global Warming!

Cellulosic ethanol should in principle, derive all it's carbon from the atmosphere! Voila, no nett CO2 release.

Originally Posted by Eclipse Now

The problem is one of scale. I'm convinced that biofuels will play an important part in our post-oil world, but only a niche. Have you looked at the ERoEI of the various fuels? It's not just the $ economics, but the energy economics.

This 12 minute video on "Energy Budgetting" or ERoEI is THE most important concept to get one's head around when dealing with biofuel issues, because many of them are not actually "sources" of energy. (They take so much energy to grow and process that they're basically fossil fuels in disguise anyway).

Crash Course Chapter 17b: Energy Budgeting | Chris Martenson

Ethanol, and for that matter any biofuel, is merely a means to store solar energy until we burn it away. If we reduce energy input to a minimum (what I've been focussing on to achieve) we make it an ultra simple and biological solar energy harvesting system.

The solar panels are plants, BTW.

The rest of it is pretty much beyond my scope. othr than inclusion of fuel cells and FFV technology in vehicles, anyway.

[Eclipse Now]

Sugar cane has a rumoured ERoEI of about 6:1 which is better than corn's 1:1. There is no scientific or ecological reason to turn corn into fuel.

However, the reason some biofuels can be "bad" for global warming is quite simple: forest clearing for more fuel-lands. The old growth forest is far more effective at soaking up Co2 than the hypothetical displacement of fossil fuel burning. If the wrong crops are grown, it still takes energy to suck Nitrogen out of the air and turn it into fertilizer, and mine and process and then transport and distribute the Phosphorus and Potassium as well. And Fertilizing the crop is only part of the problem, then there's pumping water, plowing, planting, reaping, threshing, and finally fermenting or cooking up the biomass.

Some biofuels can serve dual purposes: feed fertiliser into various fast growing grasses and other types of 'weedy' crops and we get our sewerage cleaned, some fuel, and if we process the pulp just right fertilizer! It breaks the one way nutrient cycle we are currently using which is sending all our phosphorus out to see.

Lastly, my favourite: Biochar. Words cannot tell you how much I love this process. It's not just one product, but a whole integrated process of systems thinking that is beautiful.
Eclipse Now: Replenish the soil

Combine it with some of the bio-farming techniques like grazing cattle on a field for 5 years and then getting 3 years of crops out of it "for free" (no energy intensive fertilizer inputs), and we have a winner! (See "The Omnivore's dilemma" book for more on these integrated farming methods... I haven't actually read that one yet but hear a lot of good stuff about it.)

[ronthepon]

Originally Posted by Eclipse Now

However, the reason some biofuels can be "bad" for global warming is quite simple: forest clearing for more fuel-lands. The old growth forest is far more effective at soaking up Co2 than the hypothetical displacement of fossil fuel burning.

Do you have any data on to what extent forest growth is more efficient? Any definitive source? I'd need it to figure what degree of compromises might be required.

[ronthepon]

I notice the biochar technique also involved drawing energy deposits out of biomass. However, we might not be able to find enough biomass to satisfy all out fuel needs on a yearly basis.

And that happens to be the goal I'm looking at. Perhaps growing easy-to-grow-biomass may supply enough, but we need to be sure that the fuel we are producing is:

1. Easily usable
2. Highly efficient in production

An improved and optimized ethanol producing system happens to satisfy both of these.

Look at me, I'm sounding like a salesman. I have spent a good deal of time looking at the options and developing a compiled methodology on what should be done for efficient ethanol production.