*Menu
Search
Submit
McCook Gazette
Editorial

Study boosts viability of ethanol

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Ethanol isn't the only answer, and wind and solar are getting more attention under the Obama administration, but the corn-based fuel should be able to hold its own, according to a new study by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

That's because farmers and manufacturers are better at doing their jobs more efficiently while producing less greenhouse gas, according to the new report in the Journal of Industrial Ecology.

 According to the UNL research:

* The entire process of growing corn in the field to burning it in gas tanks generates an average of 51 percent less greenhouse gas than the production and use of gasoline, significantly less than previous studies indicated.

* Ethanol from energy-efficient plants generates from 1.5 to 1.8 units of energy for every unit of energy consumed. The best plants can produce as much as 2.2 units of energy per unit consumed -- much better than the previous estimate of 1.2 units of energy.

* At least 60 percent of U.S. ethanol is being produced in high-efficiency plants, a rate that should grow to at least 75 percent by the end of the year.

Ironically, the recent downturn in the ethanol industry, which saw the nation's No. 2 producer, VeraSun Corp., seek bankruptcy protection last year, might help improve the industry's overall efficiency, by forcing less efficient plants to upgrade or go out of business.

And unlike other alternative energy sources, ethanol is already available to reduce the amount of energy we are forced to import.

Ethanol will never replace gasoline -- as a University of Minneota report pointed out, diverting the entire U.S. corn crop into ethanol would displace only 10 to 15 percent of the gasoline used every year.

But it remains an important tool for us to use to build our energy future.

Comments
View 6 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

  • This is a very good article and it is nice to see somebody show some support for the ethanol industry. The down turn in the ethanol industry and the many plant that have closed was not a product of inefficient plant design. It was a product of high corn prices and that rediculous food vs. fuel propaganda. It was pure market speculation that drove the corn prices through the roof, the price of corn was skyrocketing and yet there was piles of it lying around all over the place. The ethanol industry grinds less than 22% of the corn that was originally grown for cattle feed. NONE of the corn that is used for ethanol production was ever meant to be used for human consumption. Yet the food industry was quick to point the finger, meanwhile the grocery manufacturing industry were posting record profits. The ethanol industry can be very good for rural communities by generating a few good jobs, it is good for agriculture because, with good support of the industry, the corn price can rise to the point that a farmer can turn a good profit on it, and with good ethanol prices the ethanol producer can make money as well. Ethanol will never replace gasoline, but it is a darn good start, and it is renewable. The reduction in greenhouse emissions are icing on the cake. We will run out of fossil fuels, and once they are gone we need to be prepared. Ethanol and the related research are a darn good platform to get us prepared.

    -- Posted by seentoomuch on Tue, Jan 27, 2009, at 4:30 PM

  • Sounds to me like this is written by a farmer or maybe ConAgra. It is a known fact it takes almost as much if not more energy to produce ethanol than it will produce. What about all the contaminated waste water from the process. Are you going to put in the ground and contaminate more drinking water? Sounds like more greed to me.

    -- Posted by georgeangermeir on Wed, Jan 28, 2009, at 9:04 PM

  • It doesn't matter if the corn used was not meant to be used for human consumption, really I'm not sure if this is correct but say it is. What was it grown for then? Has seentoomuch heard of supply and demand? If you have a million bushels of corn but buyers for 75% the price will be set but if you add 22% to the 75% you then have effectively demand for 97% so guess what, the price goes up.

    -- Posted by georgeangermeir on Wed, Jan 28, 2009, at 9:09 PM

  • For anyone interested in the amount of water Ethanol Plants use go to the website solveclimate and search water or Ethanol. It also has a scarey article about our Ogallala Aquifer.

    -- Posted by georgeangermeir on Thu, Jan 29, 2009, at 10:39 AM

  • Sounds to like comments from some people that have never been in an ethanol plant. First of all, the majority of the operating ethanol plant out there are zero discharge plants, this means that nothing that has contacted the process is discharged, its is recycled back to the process. And yes, I do know how much water the process uses, it takes about 3 gallons of water to distill 1 gallons of ethanol, most of which is recycled water. It also takes about 6 gallons of water to refine 1 gallon of gasoline. Look that one up if you care to.

    If you care to look into the whole supply and demand thing. The corn that is used by ethanol plants is the corn that was originally grown for animal feed, the corn is simply process to remove the starch and returned as animal feed at a pretty good ratio. The feed has been protien enriched by the fermentation process and makes a much better feed, and can be fed at a much lower inclusion rate. It is also less expensive than feeding with corn. The corn that ends up in the grocery store is mostly sweet corn and does not have anything to do with the ethanol industry.

    Ethanol does provide more energy than it takes to distill it in a modern ethanol plant, the energy ratio is not as good as gasoline, but ethanol is renewable, gasoline is not. Ethanol is also more environmentally friendly than gasoline as well. I did say that ethanol is not the answer, but it is a good basis to get to something better. Or we can all just sit around and wine about it until the planet runs out of fossil fuels, then we will really see how dependant we are on foreign oil.

    Contaminated drinking water? Anaerobic Digester; the same piece of equipment used to treat city waste water, most modern ethanol plants have one. Nearly the same process is used to produce the alchol your buy from the liquor store, the only difference is that fuel alcohol is denatured with unleaded gasoline before shipping, rubbing alcohol, enzymes, corn syrup, starch all use the same fermentation process and nearly the same inputs. Modern ethanol plants are kept clean to food industry standard, with less bacteria than a cheese factory I might add, nothing is put into the process that will contaminate the ground water in the first place. I can provide exact numbers if needed by the way.

    georgeangermier is might do you well to at least have a clue before commenting on this subject.

    -- Posted by seentoomuch on Fri, Jan 30, 2009, at 12:08 PM

  • Two things:

    1. georgeangermeir. You should not try to belittle someone when you yourself don't understand the point you are trying to make. You bring up valid points but your support is off base. As a student of agricultural economics I feel obligated to make clear supply and demand. The fact that demand will increase is true but not to the extent that you argue it will. It should also be noted that the United States is a net exporter of corn indicating that current market conditions allow us to produce more corn than we consume domestically. If consumption of corn in the US increases, demand will shift out leading to changes in consumer behavior. Livestock farmers will substitute the high priced corn with other feed inputs. The amount is determined by the marginal rate of substitution clearly described in any microeconomics text book. So while your argument, while mathematically sound, excludes the substitution effect.

    2. seentoomuch. You obviously have experience with the ethanol industry and you clarify many important points. Opposition to ethanol is supported by many reputable agricultural economists and I would argue with the label "propaganda". Along with the point made by georgeangermeir, ethanol is not competitive at current prices (inclusive of the tax credit), increased demand leads to higher agricultural prices through land use changes, and arguable net energy benefit and GHG reduction figures.

    I will conclude by supporting the point that ethanol is one of many steps to clean renewable energy. The industry should not be demonized for attempting to contribute to a common national goal.

    -- Posted by jbayham on Tue, Feb 10, 2009, at 5:26 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: