• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Ethanol might not be the answer to fuel hunger....

iroast

Golden Member
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060619/ap_...0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MzV0MTdmBHNlYwM3NTM-

By JIM PAUL, Associated Press Writer Mon Jun 19, 1:55 AM ET

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. - City officials in Champaign and Urbana took notice when they heard that an ethanol plant proposed nearby would use about 2 million gallons of water per day, most likely from the aquifer that also supplies both cities.
ADVERTISEMENT

"There was concern about impacting a pretty valuable resource," said Matt Wempe, a city planner for Urbana. "It should raise red flags."

The proposal for a 100 million gallon-per-year ethanol plant is just one of many that have popped up in the past several months across Illinois, which already has seven operating plants and is the nation's No. 2 ethanol producer after Iowa.

High oil prices and support from Washington have inspired such interest in the corn-based gasoline additive that the Illinois Corn Growers Association now says at least 30 plants are in various stages of planning across the state.

All will use a lot of water.

It would take about 300 million gallons of water for processing the product and cooling equipment to make 100 million gallons of ethanol each year, according to the Renewable Fuels Association.

While water scientists in Illinois and Iowa say they're concerned about the impact of that much demand, they're not sending out alarms yet.

"On a statewide scale, it's not a huge amount of water," says Allen H. Wehrmann, director of the Center for Groundwater Science at the Illinois State Water Survey. "Illinois is a fairly water-rich state, so I don't think this is going to drain us."

The demand for water by the two dozen operating ethanol plants in Iowa has not damaged water sources or supplies, said Monte Shaw, executive director of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association. Improving technology means new plants use as much as 80 percent less water than plants built just five years ago, and most plants recycle their water so it has more than one use, he said.

Still, the draw on Midwest water supplies is a concern.

"It's an issue that is certainly at the forefront of our minds," said Paul VanDorpe, a scientist at the Iowa Geological Survey in Iowa City. But he does not perceive as much concern among the public, he said.

The possibility of a new ethanol plant is one reason the city of Aberdeen, S.D., decided to seek new water sources, perhaps from deeper wells, Mayor Mike Levsen said.

"We felt that for the current demand we had plenty of water to supply them, but that would begin to run us up to our limit," he said.

Many industries use more than a million gallons of water each day, still far less than the 23 million gallons per day used by Champaign and Urbana or the 500 million gallons per day that Chicago pumps from Lake Michigan.

The Mahomet Aquifer, along which several ethanol plants are proposed, has plenty of water. Running across the midsection of the state from the Indiana line to the Illinois River, it supplies an estimated 250 million gallons of water per day to municipalities, industry, farms and homes.

That is a pittance given the estimated 13 trillion gallons of water in the aquifer, Wehrmann said. It would take more than a century to pump the aquifer dry even if no water returned through rainfall and other natural recycling, which amounts to about 40 million gallons per day, he said.

Even so, there can be a cumulative effect as demand is added.

"When you get down to the local level, there will be impact," Wehrmann said. "You can't take the water out of the ground without lowering water to some degree. Other well owners may see water levels fall. In some cases their pumps may go out of the water, and that may mean lowering a well or pump."

That bothers Dan Meyer, a retired food processing company worker who lives near Lincoln. A proposed plant near there would tap the aquifer, and he worries not only about supply, especially if there is a long drought, but also about the risk of groundwater contamination.

"If the Mahomet Aquifer gets contaminated, we'll be buying our water in 500 gallon tanks," he said. "I'm extremely nervous because of the numbers and where they're located. Your subdivisions, your towns are going to be affected."

But ethanol proponents say there is virtually no risk ethanol will contaminate groundwater, and there is almost no wastewater from its production.

"The water that comes out of the plant may be cleaner than was pumped into it," said Matt Hartwig, a spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association.

Ethanol supporters also say there is more danger of running out of corn than there is of using too much water, and that will wind up limiting the number of plants in a particular area.

"Corn generally comes from a 50-mile radius around an ethanol plant, so there's only so many plants you can put in and get the corn you need to operate them," said Phil Shane, marketing director for the Illinois Corn Growers Association

As for the plant near Champaign, the city and Urbana lifted their objections after the company proposing it agreed to study the potential impact on the Mahomet Aquifer before moving ahead. The Champaign County Board voted last month to allow ethanol plants as a special use in heavy industry zones.

 
IT takes more energy to get a gallon of ethanol for fuel than you get out of it. IT HAS NEVER MADE SENSE!
 
Originally posted by: 0
IT takes more energy to get a gallon of ethanol for fuel than you get out of it. IT HAS NEVER MADE SENSE!

The fuel efficiency isn't there either (correct me if I am wrong). I thought I had heard that you only get about 75% mpg than you do of traditional gasoline blends.
 
Originally posted by: 0
IT takes more energy to get a gallon of ethanol for fuel than you get out of it. IT HAS NEVER MADE SENSE!

well, it does considering we can't wait a few hundred million years for hydrocarbon and of course, the price.
 
Especially when regular 87 oct unleaded costs the freaking same as 89 oct unleaded plus and gives higher mileage (I get around ~5mpg more!) :|
 
Originally posted by: Queasy

The fuel efficiency isn't there either (correct me if I am wrong). I thought I had heard that you only get about 75% mpg than you do of traditional gasoline blends.
You take about a 20% hit in mileage with E85. The emissions are lower I think and it's renewable, which is the big advantage. Around here, E85 isn't cheap enough to make it worth using over gasoline because of the reduction in mileage you get. If gas gets stupidly expensive and ethanol maintains its price, it will be a more viable alternative.

I don't know why they're making a big deal about the water usage in that artle. Most of it is going back into the storm drains. Heat exchangers use water and return it in nearly exactly the way it was pumped out of the ground. There's some water required for processing, but EPA regulations make sure it isn't hazardous when it's discharged.
 
Originally posted by: 0
IT takes more energy to get a gallon of ethanol for fuel than you get out of it. IT HAS NEVER MADE SENSE!
Yep, if you use 30 year old, incorrect data. It never made sense why you and others like you keep using outdated data. And it does not make sense why you ignore advances in technology: farming, crops, fertilizers, tractors, ethanol plant improvements, etc.
 

Did you not read the first paragraph in the article you posted?

In Brazil, ethanol fuel is produced from sugar cane which is a more efficient source of fermentable carbohydrates than corn as well as much easier to grow and process. Brazil has the largest sugarcane crop in the world, which, besides ethanol, also yields sugar, electricity, and industrial heating.
 
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: 0
IT takes more energy to get a gallon of ethanol for fuel than you get out of it. IT HAS NEVER MADE SENSE!

The fuel efficiency isn't there either (correct me if I am wrong). I thought I had heard that you only get about 75% mpg than you do of traditional gasoline blends.

check the wiki, the enegry content is significantly less as opposed to gasoline.
 

Brazil's geographical location (closer to the equaitor) is suited much better for growing better feedstock (sugar cane in this case) for more efficent ethanol production. They also burn the waste products to supply heat/power for the ethanol plants (which would likely run afoul of envionmental laws here).

There are better feedstocks that can be grown in the US, but the Corn/Soy lobby is very strong.
 
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: 0
IT takes more energy to get a gallon of ethanol for fuel than you get out of it. IT HAS NEVER MADE SENSE!
Yep, if you use 30 year old, incorrect data. It never made sense why you and others like you keep using outdated data. And it does not make sense why you ignore advances in technology: farming, crops, fertilizers, tractors, ethanol plant improvements, etc.

ok please post a link of new data.

even the news outlets say it.
 
Originally posted by: Ktulu
Originally posted by: MathMan

Did you not read the first paragraph in the article you posted?

Yes I did, the point is that ethanol can work, we just suck at it.


No, that's not the point.

The point is that they are using sugar cane, which they have in abundance, and is cheaper to convert to ethanol than corn.

It has nothing to do with us "sucking at it".
 
Originally posted by: MathMan

Did you not read the first paragraph in the article you posted?

In Brazil, ethanol fuel is produced from sugar cane which is a more efficient source of fermentable carbohydrates than corn as well as much easier to grow and process. Brazil has the largest sugarcane crop in the world, which, besides ethanol, also yields sugar, electricity, and industrial heating.

we need some sugar based ethanol plants down here on the gulf coast
 
Originally posted by: waggy
ok please post a link of new data.

even the news outlets say it.
There have been a dozen studies. Some give a net gain, a few are energy neutral, and one person: Pimentel has dedicated his life to manipulating data to fight against ethanol resulting in his work saying it is a net loser.

I could post links to the studies but since you asked for news, here is news.
The new findings support earlier research that determined ethanol has a positive net energy balance, according to the National Corn Growers Association. That research was conducted by USDA, Michigan State University, the Colorado School of Mines, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and other public and private entities. A USDA study released in 2004 found that ethanol may net as much as 67% more energy than it takes to produce.
...
In the last 10 years, only two studies, both of which were conducted by Cornell University entomologist David Pimentel, have found the net energy balance of ethanol to be negative. Many economists have argued Pimentel used outdated data in his methodology.

In the last 30 years, corn yield per unit of chemical inputs has gone up significantly. At the same time, energy use by ethanol production plants has gone down significantly, Argonne has found in the past.
 
Originally posted by: 0
IT takes more energy to get a gallon of ethanol for fuel than you get out of it. IT HAS NEVER MADE SENSE!

Depends on what the fuel source is that you're using to make it. If you're using coal, or solar or nuclear energy, which can't be used directly in a car, then it makes some sense to use more of that energy source to create a fuel you can use in a car.
 
Originally posted by: K1052

Brazil's geographical location (closer to the equaitor) is suited much better for growing better feedstock (sugar cane in this case) for more efficent ethanol production. They also burn the waste products to supply heat/power for the ethanol plants (which would likely run afoul of envionmental laws here).

There are better feedstocks that can be grown in the US, but the Corn/Soy lobby is very strong.

Bagasse burning is environmentally friendly compared to other fuels like oil and coal. Its ash content is only 2.5% (against 30-50% of coal), and it contains no sulfur. Since it burns at relatively low temperatures, it produces little nitrous oxides.
(From wikipedia)
 
Originally posted by: Lonyo
Originally posted by: K1052

Brazil's geographical location (closer to the equaitor) is suited much better for growing better feedstock (sugar cane in this case) for more efficent ethanol production. They also burn the waste products to supply heat/power for the ethanol plants (which would likely run afoul of envionmental laws here).

There are better feedstocks that can be grown in the US, but the Corn/Soy lobby is very strong.

Bagasse burning is environmentally friendly compared to other fuels like oil and coal. Its ash content is only 2.5% (against 30-50% of coal), and it contains no sulfur. Since it burns at relatively low temperatures, it produces little nitrous oxides.
(From wikipedia)

Let this be a lesson to the rest of you, RTFA (read the fvcking article).

😱
 
There were three oil executives on Meet the Press the other day. While they largely spewed nonsense, one of the executives did bring up one major thing. Our current form of ethanol is garbage. We need to invest in second generation ethanol - biomass ethanol.

Unfortunately, our government is filled with idiots who are largely paid by lobbyists.
 
does it get lower emissions? but how much emissions/waste does the processing cause? I'm pretty sure that ADM does ethanol processing in Peoria and it smells horrible.
 
Back
Top