It is estimated that in 2009 4.2 Billion bushels of corn will be consumed in the manufacture of ethanol, while projected 2009 exports are 2.05 Billion. If the U.S. ceased to be a corn exporter, and we took the 2 Billion bushels and converted it to ethanol at 2.7 gallons per bushel... hmmm... 5.4 Billion gallons... divided by 42 (gallons per barrel)... 128 million barrels/365 = 352,000 additional barrels per day.
So I was off by half. Or 100%. Depending on which way you look at it. Max production of ethanol is somewhere around 1 million barrels per day. Said another way, with 9 million barrels of "blended gasoline" consumed each day, the U.S. might have the ability to replace 4% any future import decline with corn ethanol.
Of course, more corn production could be diverted toward ethanol at the expense of livestock feed, which would certainly have a deleterious effect on meat, milk, eggs, and foods processed from corn, though I doubt this will come to pass. Somewhere in there either the price of fuel brings down demand or the price of food brings down everything. Just kidding. I need to think on that some more, but there are certainly some unintended consequences.
---------------------------------------------
I was off a little on the export percentage, too. The U.S. is 61.4% of the world corn export market, not 2/3's (I was close). If the U.S.'s contribution to the world grain market for corn evaporated this list of importers would be most impacted.
In other words, ethanol has saved our bacon in 2008 and 2009 (with help from increased domestic production of crude in 2009), and it was a one off. There is little room in the system to increase ethanol production. This also explains why gasoline consumption did not decline year over year, while vehicle miles traveled is down almost 3% from the peak in 2006 (because ethanol has only 65% of the energy, and hence miles-per-gallon, of gasoline).
So which came first? The chicken, or the egg? Did the economy contract from lower petroleum availability, or did availability decline because the economy did not require it? Does it really matter? Nope. Not even a little bit. What matters is the Oil import picture for 2010-2011.
17 comments:
I think the USDA would say that the field corn I mentioned can be used for ethanol production AND high-protein feed for animals. It's not either-or. I think the ethanol industry has been screaming the same thing for years. There are different parts of the corn kernel, and they are used for different things. There is NO food problem here. People get fed, the animals get fed, and we also get our ethanol if we want it. Problem is .. everyone knows ethanol is a "lesser fuel," and prefer not to waste their time, and just get the gasoline.
But yes, we could grow twice as much corn tomorrow (which is unrealistic) and it still would not produce enough ethanol to displace gasoline (150 billion gallons per year) and diesel (60 billion gallons per year) in any meaningful quantity. Why do you think the ethanol industry is pushing E15? E85 is already a proven (albeit lesser) fuel. I've driven E85 cars for over 15 years. They work fine. But the corn industry knows there just isn't enough corn to fuel 250 million U.S. vehicles on E85. Period.
Personally I prefer grass fed beef; and cattle fattens up real nice on grass, although slightly slower. If you’ve ate beef outside of the US you’ve probably noticed the difference. It is healthier to boot. Chickens can eat bugs and the grain missed in the harvest. If we are using less pesticide then there will be more pests for them to eat. Although, it probably can’t be done in one of those awful commercial barns so it will be more labor intensive.
The big concern with corn is human consumption. It is one of the miracle crops from the new world, the other being the potato. Just this morning I had dent corn (grits) for breakfast and more dent corn (hominy) for supper and as I write this I am drinking liquid dent corn that is sweetening my coke. I have no idea what type of corn was used to make the bourbon I mixed with it, though I suspect it was dent corn also. Then tomorrow I will be using dent corn to make cornbread. Dent corn = field corn. The stuff is ubiquitous in the south. If it all gets made into gasohol I can adjust, but I’m not exactly poor either, I eat it out of habit and preference.
We may do it, but Coal Guy is right and there is no way around the dilemma- burning staple crops in a world of scarcity is morally repugnant.
Greg said:
"Did the economy contract from lower petroleum availability, or did availability decline because the economy did not require it? Does it really matter? Nope. Not even a little bit. What matters is the Oil import picture for 2010-2011."
I would think that there would be a great difference. If oil supply was driving this crash then there would be price increases AND shortages like in the 70s. A disastrous situation be cause of possibility of disruption of food delivery systems as an example. This was a crisis that somehow managed to destroy the economy without causing overt shortages thus creating a demand driven decrease in consumption. Of two scenarios this is a preferable one IMHO.
Strongly agree with you on feasibility of ethanol to take over oil supply problem. Not going to happen. In any case it is a derivative of oil because oil supplies the necessary inputs into the process of making it. And its not a very good net energy producer (I have seen two credible studies one by Pimentel that show that it is a net energy neutral to energy sink).
Best,
Chuck H.
I heard on the news that the early snow this year destroyed a quarter of USA's corn crop.
As the 2nd generation of ethanol develops we can start to make a significant dent in the displacement of Gasoline. No need to fully displace it- if we can get to 20-40 % of usage through blending and flex fuel vehicles it will go a long way towards our energy independence, american economy, and most importantly a viable option in the marketplace vs Gasoline.
There has been significant progress in stover and cellutostic process in the last year. We might not be able to displce all of it w/ corn byt once we get to industrial scale with the 2nd generation processes we will easily get to 30-40%
The main goal is to eliminate the monopoly in the marketplace and our dependence on a single option.
Dreamers abound ...
Dream #1: we can use "2nd generation" ethanol (whatever that is -- must be one of those Popular Mechanics fantasies) to replace 20-40% of the petroleum fuels. You'd have to double the BTU content of E85 today, have no droughts or any reduction in corn yields, and every single kernel of corn would be used in ethanol production. Suuuure.
Dream #2: cellulosic ethanol will finally be made at a profit after 30 years of trying. Science will find a way of turning trees into sugar. If that could be done easily, we'd have forests full of goo. Leave a bag of sugar in the rain overnight, and you break it down. Leave a 2x4 in the rain overnight, and you end up with ... a 2x4. Wood can be made into simple sugars and then ethanol, but not at a profit (so far).
Dream on!!! :)
I didn't say anything about wood-and a 2x4 is a pretty sad example.
Stover- switchgrass- algae will be the primary 2nd generation feedstocks.
http://www.poet.com/news/showRelease.asp?id=181
POET announced today that cost reductions achieved over the past year of operating their cellulosic ethanol pilot plant have exceeded expectations in their drive to commercialize the process. Reductions in energy usage, enzyme costs, raw material requirements and capital expenses have reduced POET’s per gallon cost from $4.13 to $2.35 over the course of the past year, and the company’s goal is to be below $2 by commercial plant start-up.
I have no faith in statements from folks with an agenda, like POET.
I might be completely wrong, but i have been bagged by these types enough over the years that I steer very clear of them until a couple of rounds of investors have gotten killed.
Cellulosic ethanol from trees, wood, brush, weeds, flowers, lawn grass, tumbleweeds, switchgrass, etc. etc. etc. is made from PLANTS!! And they don't break down anywhere near as easy as simple sugars, like corn and sugarcane. Plants have lignin, which is akin to tar, which is damn tough to easily break down. Also, nobody has said how you are going to get "mountains of hay" easily and cheaply to a processing center, not to mention where you are going to dump all the shit byproduct. You're still dreaming. :)
Bur:
Not to mention that "crop residue", leaf litter, etc...
is an absolute must for the soil. If we were to remove it all for ethanol, it would not be long before desertification sets in.
Wow, Bureaucrat and I totally agree on something!
The labor, machinery and energy required to scale up cellulosic ethanol, algae to fuels, and most of these other alternatives are grossly underestimated, or simply ignored.
The beauty of conventional oil is that NO CONVERSION at all is necessary. It is that fact that has allowed suburbia and human overpopulation to occur. That's why it's akin to the bucket of grain overturned in the field full of mice: the mice don't have to do any harvesting, hulling, or work other than opening their greedy little mouths.
Oil is pure energy. Nothing else comes close. Even a cave man could have soaked a branch in it and lit it like a torch... free energy was fun while it lasted.
Same problem with dumping crop waste into power plants. That stuff should go into the soil, not be mixed with coal ash and buried. Bio-fuels are a bad option all around. Fossil fuels are the way to go until solar, wind, nuke replace them. The idiots in Copenhagen have it ass backwards.
Regards,
Coal Guy.
Yes, Mr. Jeffers, I forget that point ... crop residue/waste is "plowed under" as fertilizer for the next year's crop. Remove all that crop "waste" to make cellulosic ethanol, and now your regular crops have no NPK fertilizer (nitrogen-phosphorus-potassium, the most common fertilizer) to make them grow. Less food. NOW you have a REAL food problem. :)
Anonymous @7:16AM,
Not to be redundant, but this point is too important to miss. I have to chime in, in agreement with Bur and all the others, about the importance of returning plant material to the soil. As a large scale gardener - small farmer of many years, I've seen first hand what happens if and when I don't return a healthy percentage of crops to the soil, plus maybe some imported compost as well. The soil simply dies, for all intensive purposes, after just a few years of such abusive treatment. With most veggie crops, one takes away a *small* percentage of the biomass (the actual fruit or veggie part) and returns the majority of the spent plant to the soil. It you *don't* do this, you rather quickly find you have to add something else, i.e. copious amounts of artificial fertilizer. Even then one has to add something to make up for the biomass harvested and hauled away.
If there's anything that years of gardening and farming has convinced me of, it's that any biofuel project that takes away, 20, 30, 50 or more percent of the biomass, instead of denying its return to the soil, is doomed to spectacular failure. I simply have to laugh when I hear "scientists" propose that can do this to soil in order to feed cellulosic biofuel plants (if the latter ever get built, which I doubt.)
Err, that last paragraph should say:
If there's anything that years of gardening and farming has convinced me of, it's that any biofuel project that takes away, 20, 30, 50 or more percent of the biomass, instead of RETURNING it to the soil, is doomed to spectacular failure. I simply have to laugh when I hear "scientists" propose that can do this to soil in order to feed cellulosic biofuel plants (if the latter ever get built, which I doubt.)
Anonymous @7:16AM,
Not to be redundant, but this point is too important to miss. I have to chime in, in agreement with Bur and all the others, about the importance of returning plant material to the soil. As a large scale gardener - small farmer of many years, I've seen first hand what happens if and when I don't return a healthy percentage of crops to the soil, plus maybe some imported compost as well. The soil simply dies, for all intensive purposes, after just a few years of such abusive treatment. With most veggie crops, one takes away a *small* percentage of the biomass (the actual fruit or veggie part) and returns the majority of the spent plant to the soil. It you *don't* do this, you rather quickly find you have to add something else, i.e. copious amounts of artificial fertilizer. Even then one has to add something to make up for the biomass harvested and hauled away.
If there's anything that years of gardening and farming has convinced me of, it's that any biofuel project that takes away, 20, 30, 50 or more percent of the biomass, instead of returning it to the soil, is doomed to spectacular failure. I simply have to laugh when I hear "scientists" propose that we do this to soil in order to feed cellulosic biofuel plants (if the latter ever get built, which I doubt.)
Couple of points missed out here. Biochar and Gengas, which can produce both fuel and fertiliser.
But nothing will replace Americans use of fossil fuels. At best you'll have to get by with 20 or 30% of what you use now. Get used to it.
Post a Comment