AutoblogGreen

1. I've read the "do you include the energy it took to make the tractor which harvests the corn?" arguement before. Seems to me you only include it if you included the energy it took to make the supertanker and pipelines to transport the oil in the oil comparison calculation. I mean, compare apples to apples.

If the calculation of how many BTUs it took to make a gallon of gasoline includes such things, include them in the calculation for ethanol. It doesn't seem that hard to me. Why such a hangup?

Next are they going to calculate how much energy it took to make the Wheaties the farm workers ate for breakfast in the calculation? You could go on seemingly forever with factors. Do you add in the energy it took to manufacture the batteries which are in the ground-penetrating RADAR which the oil explorers used in trying to locate the oil field in the oil calculation?

Posted at 12:42PM on Jul 10th 2006 by 1985 Gripen

2. How much energy does it take to fight a war in Iraq because some goof ball took oil money and started doing ill with it? How much energy does it take to rebuilt the World Trade Center?

Posted at 2:01PM on Jul 10th 2006 by Matt

3. You can't factor in the energy to run or manufacture the tractor or the energy to get the ethanol to distributors, unless you want to factor in the analogous energy for petroleum. Tractors can also be used for harvesting any crops for any reason, whereas oil derricks cannot; they are purpose-built.

The "it's immoral to use food stocks for fuel" argument falls down because we're talking surplus food stock that often sits to rot in giant piles now.

The real issues with ethanol are its miscibility with water (prevents running through pipelines as currently used) and its lower fuel-efficiency and increased wear on rubber parts. Personally, I think the political issues outweigh the initial hesitation about ethanol, but I'd still rather see butanol being explored as an option.

Posted at 3:37PM on Jul 10th 2006 by jwer

4. "Seems to me you only include it if you included the energy it took to make the supertanker and pipelines to transport the oil in the oil comparison calculation. I mean, compare apples to apples."

The comparisons made by Click and Clack are valid. Unlike the typically skewed "economics" of ethanol, the energy and effort involved in delivering a gallon of gasoline is fully reflected in the price of that gallon of gasoline. Part of the energy of effort of delivering a gallon of ethanol is hidden in my tax bill. You want a clear comparison? Get rid of ethanol subsidies.

The fact that ethanol producers use dinofuel in the process (because it is more economical!) is a giant DOH! in my book.

Posted at 3:43PM on Jul 10th 2006 by Howard Lee Harkness

5. LMFAO @ HOward.

Do you realize how much the US governemnt subsidises oil exploration for companies reporting profites in the SCORES of BILLIONS?

When you buy Gasoline, you have already given Big Oil a fat chunk of your taxes before being reamed at the pump. Please, take a long look at every energy bill passed by the senate since you were born my friend.

Heck, the subsidies for ethanol are paltry compared to the Oil subsidies in the 2005 and 2006 US energy budget. I don't disagree with this- Oil is a much larger piece of the US energy pie. However, don't you feel a little stupid subsidizing the oil companies from which you will eventually purchase gasoline at $3.65/gallon?

Do you think that exxon/mobil with $36,130,000,000 in profits should be subsidized by US taxpayers? Well, they were in 2005, and they have been since I was born in 1980.

But no, you're right. Why subsidize ethanol? I mean, how silly is that?

Posted at 1:29AM on Jul 11th 2006 by JcB

6. Interesting discussion. I did not listen to the NPR program, but can get the gist from the comments made here and the cartoon above. I would like to address Howard Lee Harkness's statement about ethanol producers using "dinofuel" to produce ethanol. I can't say what ADM uses in their plants for energy (though I'm guessing a fair amount of it is electricity and natural gas), but I own a part of a farm, a big part of which is growing corn for our local ethanol plant. For the last 10-15 years we have been slowly switching as much of our fuel consumption over to biofuels as possible. When MN was one of the first states to instantiate E10 gasoline blends, we immediately switched over. Newer vehicles have been flex-fuel capable where possible (all but our oldest field pickup now runs E85). We also switched to BioDiesel when it became available for all of our tractors, trucks, and combine. Almost none of this has shown a financial benefit to our operation, it just seems like the right thing to do and it's obviously in our best interests to set an example (not that anyone will notice out here in the middle of nowhere ;). My main point here is we may still use "dinofuel," but it's not really by choice, and we keep it to a minimum. If all of our machines could run with 100% biofuel and we could get it fairly economically, we would switch in a heart beat.

Another point about the energy shortfall that must be taken into consideration is the fact that an ethanol plant does not necessarily produce only ethanol. From what I understand, not all of the corn kernel is converted to ethanol and the leftover mash is used as feed (for cows, pigs, etc.). That would surely have to be figured into the calculation. Just my $.02

Posted at 10:28AM on Jul 11th 2006 by Giskard

7. it is not to save money BUT to reduce the amount of imported oil. the farmers are going to plant corn no matter what it is used for,cattle feed or E-85 and this is better that paying them NOT to plant corn. you city folks may not know this but the feds pays us country folk NOT to plant corn and other crops so the market does not become overloaded and cause a drop in price.

Posted at 2:09PM on Jul 11th 2006 by motorman

8. "Also, converting corn into ethanol creates various bi-products such as corn oil."

If that is true, could that corn oil be used in the production of Biodiesel?

Posted at 2:19PM on Jul 11th 2006 by ME

9. i remember when research was released debating the efficiency of building hybrid vehicles. over the life of the vehicle, a hybrid may actually incur more energy usage for manufacturing, cost-to-own, and dismantling vs their non-hybrid counterparts. they had to take in hundreds of variables on different operating costs and energy consumption, that churning out a definite answer may be the holy grail of their research. i think its the same with ethanol number crunching too, its a whole lot of factors, and not a lot of definite answers.

e85 is more seen (i think) as a renewable alternative to fossil fuels, not so much a clean-burning or energy-efficient alternative. and the gov't is paying the farmers to not grow corn (why do that if they were concerned about world hunger in the beginning), might as well let them farm it and put it to some use.

Posted at 3:19PM on Jul 18th 2006 by meGrimlock