The problem with alcohol as a fuel

Dave Shepard · June 24, 2007, 11:28:05 PM

DanG I was actually wondering what the differences in processing ethanol versus biodiesel. It seems that bio takes less energy and has more usable byproducts, but I could be wrong, as I am still learning about how each of these is made. Is ethanol favoured becuase there are more gasoline vehicles on the road?

I agree that we should get the KWs wherever we can. I think many households could generate some or all of their electricity with a fairly small investment. Perhaps it could be part of the original home design and be a complete turnkey package. A small investment up front that will make a huge difference over the long term. The flip side of investing in small scale electrical production, whether hydro, solar, or wind, is building homes that are more energy efficient. So many of the new homes I have worked at in the last 12 years have not taken this into consideration. The priority seems to be to be as wasteful as possible, and try to show up the neighbors. These homes are truly disgusting, IMO. I know of one that takes $170k per year to maintain, and the owners haven't visited in three years.

A good architect will build a house to suit the lay of the land, taking seasonal sun angles into consideration to take advantage of solar gain. Well, I have the feeling that the train is going round a sharp curve and is teetering on the brink of derailment, so I'll

now.

In my area there are dozens of old mill sites that could be generating some juice, but you could never get the permission of the environmental people to develop it. The last I heard we are losing 300 dams per year in the US. A friend of mine has done a lot of work with hydro, having installed several multi-megawatt hydro sites. The water is going downstream, whether we harness it or not.

Dave

DanG · June 25, 2007, 12:19:42 AM

Dave, I don't know that alcohol or bio-diesel are favored over one another, except by the people who can utilize them. Diesel folks don't give a rip about alcohol, and vice-versa. ;)

You are right on about conserving and being more efficient. I think we will eventually see a scaling back of our excessive lifestyle, but energy hasn't become expensive enough yet. Apparently, people have too much money to care about it. I happen to think that will come to a screeching halt in the near future.

Ron Wenrich · June 25, 2007, 06:01:13 AM

Let's not lay all the blame on environmentalists too hastily. Back during the '30s and '40s, a lot of towns had their own utility company. They produced their electricity on low head dams, some no higher than 10-12'. Along comes the major utility and bought all those places out and put the provision in that electricity could never be produced from those dams again.

Over the years, those dams have become worn out, so the best thing to do is to tear them down.

I have yet to see much scaling back. As long as people can or will borrow money, they will leverage it into a lifestyle that can't afford to maintain. The whole economy is devoted to consumption, not conservation or saving. We just keep on passing the expenses forward until someone borrows enough to maintain the consumption level. Eventually, everything goes -pop-.

Dave Shepard · June 25, 2007, 10:02:52 AM

Ron, I wasn't blaming the environmentalists for the old dams not being in use, but rather the inability to put in your own hydro sites. In my area you can't do anything anywhere near a puddle without a long term study. Also we have a conservation comission in each town, with members that often have no clue what they are talking about, and flat out refuse to let anyone put even a culvert over a ditch. Unless it is their ditch, then that's OK. :

I am not against the EPA, we don't need any more Brownfields sites around. ;) I have a small hydro site on my farm I'd like to develop, but I don't think you could even think about talking to the CC about it. :(

Dave

DanG · June 25, 2007, 10:35:29 AM

Fortunately, Dave, things are not like that everywhere. I know a number of people from your State, and they all seem to be reasonable people, but you guys seem to be badly outnumbered. :-\ Around here, you can still do some creative things without being bothered too much. When I first started thinking about putting in a little pond, I made some calls to make sure I wasn't causing trouble for myself. I called EPA, and they referred me to the State. So I called the Fla. Dept. of Environmental Protection(DEP) and their guy said they didn't worry about small farm ponds, but reccomended that I check with the Water Management District office. I called them and got the same response.

I think a lot of the problems in dealing with Govt agencies are more localized around the big population centers. Tom is only 200 miles from me, and in the same State, but he has a lot more trouble with them than I do. It must be that all the local officials are elected by "Townies" that have no clue what is going on outside the city.

Fla._Deadheader · June 25, 2007, 09:16:15 PM

More updates

Link

WDH · June 25, 2007, 09:52:56 PM

Technology will figure it out. Where there is a will, there is a way

. The world has always been on the brink of disaster.

Gary_C · June 26, 2007, 10:24:39 AM

Sorry I did not have time to read all this but I will offer what I know or believe. I do not know how the people determine the amount of energy it takes to produce ethanol or fossil fuels but I have always wondered if they take into account all the energy it takes to blast the crude out of the ground with steam, energy to pump it to tanks and ship it to refineries, and on and on. I suspect that is being ignored because it is just siphoning some of the product for production uses.

Also what makes cellulosic ethanol production attractive is after they break down the switchgrass or corn stover to remove the sugars and starches, the remaining fiber will be an excellent boiler fuel. Even now the remainder left after ethanol production is a very valuable feed for livestock, actually better in many ways than the original corn. It's called DDG's or dried distillers grains and contrary to some claims on that BS editorial, it is not a toxic waste.

Dave Shepard · June 26, 2007, 11:05:18 AM

Gary_C, you are right, our cows can't get enough distillers grains. We have used it at different times, when available.

I should have read that editorial a little better, probably shouldn't try to do much thinking that late at night. :

After rereading it it doesn't seem to have all of its facts in order.

DanG, I plan on using the Corely5 method when I build my hydro, better to ask for forgiveness than to ask permission. ;D

Dave

Ron Wenrich · June 26, 2007, 05:35:03 PM

So, if the by product is cattle feed, why are feed prices up? It seems to me that if you produce more corn for ethanol, wouldn't you have more feed? Or am I missing the point. (Probably)

Fla._Deadheader · June 26, 2007, 07:02:21 PM

What's the price of Cattle ??? If the price is low enough, more cattle = more feed.

Drought might affect crop, and more gets chopped for Silage ??? More exports ???

You don't get the same 56# per bushel of feed if you make alcohol first.

Fuel costs to grow the corn and ship it ???

DanG · June 26, 2007, 10:31:29 PM

I don't suppose the middlemen who buy all the corn and re-distribute it at their own price could be lieing about the supply/demand thing, could they? Nahhh! They wouldn't do that. :

If I remember correctly, I read that after extracting the oil from the germ, then making alcohol from the rest, there is 32 pounds of feed grain left from each bushel.

Now I have a question for you real farmers. When they speak of a bushel of corn, is that 56# of shelled corn like you get from a combine? If so, what about the rest of the plant? There is a load of sugar in a green corn stalk.

Dave Shepard · June 26, 2007, 10:48:21 PM

By the time corn is combined, the plant usually doesn't have much green left in it. The remaining stalk gets chopped up and spread on the ground, or in some cases baled for bedding. Some people have also tried using it in a mixed ration as well, but I don't know much about that.

Dave

Fla._Deadheader · June 26, 2007, 10:58:21 PM

I'm not a "real" farmer, but, you would have to reconstitute the dry fodder. There's not much goody left after the combine tears the ears off them stalks. It pretty much shreds the rest or chops it.

thurlow · June 27, 2007, 12:28:05 AM

I usta be a real farmer...........for 40-plus years; these guys are right. When you harvest the corn (56 # per bushel if shelled, adjusted for moisture), there's not much left of the stalk. There has been and will continue to be some baled for feed; in some instances, there is a net loss of energy when consumed by cattle, i.e., takes more energy to digest it than can be extracted from it. It's possible for livestock to starve to death with a full stomach. Silage/green chop is a whole 'nother matter; the whole stalk.........including ear.......... is fed and depending on what it's fed to, can be a complete ration.