You could, hypothetically, use petroleum to harvest corn, then turn the corn to alcohol and use the alcohol to harvest the next batch of corn...so, logically, the idea of corn being used as a biofuel is not, in and of itself, undoable. We actually use the corn to make a petro-fuel/alcohol mix (often E-85), so as long as you're using less energy to harvest/process the corn than you get from the corn, it's a net gain.
That, in a nutshell, is EROI- Energy Return on Investment. How much bang do you get for your buck. The problems with ethanol as a fuel are twofold:
1. Low EROI. Do you come out ahead? Yes, but not waaaaaaaaay far ahead like you do with petroleum. Despite the massive infrastucture and shipping costs associated with oil and gasoline, the EROI for gas is something like 40:1, or better. As in, for each watt of energy you sink into the process all along the way, from pulling it out of the ground to putting it in your car, you're getting 40 watts back. Ethanol has a lower EROI- a lot lower. That means that in order to generate the same amount of energy, you need a whole honkin bunch of corn.
Don't take my figues as golden...I'm speaking off the cuff, here.
2. Low energy density. In addition to requiring a lot of corn to make sufficient energy, corn itself takes up space. A field of corn is large. You need a lot of fields to make enough ethanol...it's not just an energy investment thing, it's a land value thing. Suddenly, there is not enough arable land to grow stuff on, and the stuff you are growing is now going to fuel machines instead of fuel people or livestock. Land values for farmland will rise. Food prices will rise. Prices for meat, in particular, will rise.
One thing that is a checkmark in the positive column, in my book, is the fact that if we do place an emphasis on ethanol, suburban sprawl will be cut down appreciably. Fields will suddenly be worth more as fields than they will has subdivisions.
Ethanol, by itself, is not the answer. Biofuels might very well be the answer, but it probably won't be from corn.
That, in a nutshell, is EROI- Energy Return on Investment. How much bang do you get for your buck. The problems with ethanol as a fuel are twofold:
1. Low EROI. Do you come out ahead? Yes, but not waaaaaaaaay far ahead like you do with petroleum. Despite the massive infrastucture and shipping costs associated with oil and gasoline, the EROI for gas is something like 40:1, or better. As in, for each watt of energy you sink into the process all along the way, from pulling it out of the ground to putting it in your car, you're getting 40 watts back. Ethanol has a lower EROI- a lot lower. That means that in order to generate the same amount of energy, you need a whole honkin bunch of corn.
Don't take my figues as golden...I'm speaking off the cuff, here.
2. Low energy density. In addition to requiring a lot of corn to make sufficient energy, corn itself takes up space. A field of corn is large. You need a lot of fields to make enough ethanol...it's not just an energy investment thing, it's a land value thing. Suddenly, there is not enough arable land to grow stuff on, and the stuff you are growing is now going to fuel machines instead of fuel people or livestock. Land values for farmland will rise. Food prices will rise. Prices for meat, in particular, will rise.
One thing that is a checkmark in the positive column, in my book, is the fact that if we do place an emphasis on ethanol, suburban sprawl will be cut down appreciably. Fields will suddenly be worth more as fields than they will has subdivisions.
Ethanol, by itself, is not the answer. Biofuels might very well be the answer, but it probably won't be from corn.
Reply
Leave a comment