From Consumer Energy Report

This article deserves to be read in its entirety. It contains many graphs and much additional information. The author’s view seems fair and balanced: That there is a case for ethanol, just not one as strong as some would make it. The verdict depends so much on ones assumptions. I add that the inevitable increase in food costs is one assumption I never see factored in.

Fun with Numbers: The New USDA Report on Corn Ethanol
Posted by Robert Rapier on Wednesday, July 7, 2010

---

The EROEI of Ethanol
Over the past decade, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has published several papers in which they investigated the energy return of corn ethanol. The energy return on energy invested (EROEI) is simply the value of the energy outputs for a process divided by the energy inputs into the process. In simple terms, if a process required 1 BTU of energy to produce 2 BTUs of ethanol, the EROEI is 2.

However, in reality it is somewhat more complex than that. The way the energy inputs and outputs are allocated can have a very big influence on the answer. Just by changing the nature of the allocation – as I will show below – you can sharply change the EROEI value. . .
In 2002, the USDA published The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol. The authors estimated the energy inputs required to produce one gallon of ethanol. They calculated that across nine major corn producing states the average input was 77,228 BTUs to produce 83,961 BTUs of ethanol (the higher heating value, or HHV of ethanol).

If the outputs are 83,961 BTUs of ethanol plus 14,372 BTUs of byproducts and the inputs were 77,228, I would calculate the energy return as 1.27. However, the authors reported: “We show that corn ethanol is energy efficient as indicated by an energy output:input ratio of 1.34.” Why the apparent discrepancy? Because instead of adding the byproduct to the output side, they treated it as an offset to the energy inputs. In other words, they said “Since we got 14,372 BTUs of byproducts, our inputs were really 77,228 BTUs minus 14,372 BTUs, or 62,856 BTUs.” Using the lower input allowed them to report a higher energy balance of 1.34. However, 1.34 was NOT the actual output:input ratio. . . .

The 2004 Report: More Creativity
In an update two years later the authors of the 2002 report noted that the report had a number of critics:

It is argued that USDA underestimates energy used in the production of nitrogen fertilizer and the energy used to produce seed-corn, over estimating the energy allocated to produce corn ethanol byproducts. They also argued that USDA excludes energy used in corn irrigation and secondary energy inputs used in the production of corn, such as farm machinery and equipment and cement, steel, and stainless steel, used in the construction of ethanol plants. . .

The 2010 Update
Now in 2010, the USDA has released an update to their earlier reports. The new release is 2008 Energy Balance for the Corn-Ethanol Industry. One of the authors is Hosein Shapouri, who was the only author also listed on the previous two reports. The most interesting aspect of the report – which has gotten quite a bit of attention among ethanol proponents – was that the energy return for ethanol is now reportedly over 2 to 1. . .

. . . The 2004 report estimated 72,052 BTUs to produce a gallon of ethanol, but the latest report estimates 53,785 BTUs to produce a gallon of ethanol. They then allocate 20,409 BTUs to the byproduct in the 2010 report, once again subtracting that from the energy inputs. This inflates the energy return by pretending that only 33,375 BTUs were required to produce the ethanol.

. . . One final word about energy allocations for byproducts. If the idea is to find a scalable replacement for gasoline, consideration must be given to the amount of byproducts that result as the scale of fuel production is increased. At some point, the byproducts can saturate the market, which can cause other unintended consequences. This is the case with biodiesel and the glycerin byproduct that results; biodiesel producers often have a hard time getting rid of the byproduct.

---

Read it all here.

– Over at the Junk Science Forum we call these bicycle things “Road Lice”. Somehow I missed this when it was “Headline News” in the U.S. a month ago. Try to work out the rate of spending increase and predict how much we might be borrowing to pay for this in another twenty years.

From the Telegraph:
The Obama administration more than doubled spending on cycling and walking initiatives to $1.2 billion (£810 million) last year as it seeks to coax Americans out of their cars.
Published: 11:36PM BST 16 Jun 2010

---

“Spending on biking and walking projects rose from less than $600 million (£407 million) in 2008, according to the Federal Highway Administraion. Twenty years ago, the federal government was spending only $6 million a year on such projects.
The spending on biking and walking projects was scheduled to rise last year anyway, but the administration boosted it with $400 million in funds set aside under the economic recovery program.

The new focus on biking and walking represents a turnaround from the administration of President George W Bush. Mary Peters, transportation secretary under Bush, dismissed biking paths and trails as projects that “really are not transportation,” saying they had no place in federal transportation policy.

In March, Mr Obama’s transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, announced a policy “sea change” that gives biking and walking projects the same importance as automobiles in transportation planning and the selection of projects for federal money.

The new policy is an extension of the Obama administration’s livability initiative, which regards the creation of alternatives to driving – buses, streetcars and trains, as well as biking and walking – as central to solving the nation’s transportation woes.
Biking and walking is on the rise, according to the report, which is based on annual survey data. The number of reported walking trips has more than doubled since the first survey, from 18 billion in 1990 to 42.5 billion in 2009. Bicycling trips saw a similar increase, from 1.7 billion to 4 billion during the same period.

Together, the two modes account for 11.9 per cent of all reported trips by Americans. Biking is less than 1 per cent of the total.

“Americans want and need safe alternatives to driving,” Mr LaHood said in a statement. “By making biking and walking safer and more accessible, we’ll be able to provide Americans with more choices and help foster more active, liveable communities.”

---

In a comment comes this just to get the ball rolling Tdog says:

“this is the only thing this prezident has done that makes sense. this is long over due in the U.S.A. where people are fat and lazy and complacent. time to get on a bike or maybe even walk a little. but unfortunately, government spending never goes to where they say it is going.”

I think Tdog is sending a mixed message here. — Wes

Every time you see the word “Shrimp” replace it with “Libertarians” and you will get the sense of where I think the party is going wrong.

Shrimp Get High on Prozac as Antidepressants Flood British Waters, Study Finds

Published July 07, 2010 | NewsCore

Shrimps around the coasts of Britain are getting high on antidepressants, scientists said Wednesday.

As more Britons take drugs like Prozac, sea life were being exposed to potentially damaging amounts of the chemicals in the country’s waterways, researchers at southern England’s University of Portsmouth have discovered.

In tests, the small crustaceans were exposed to the same levels of fluoxetine — the agent in Prozac — as they found in British waste waters.

Scientists found shrimps were five times more likely to swim toward the light instead of away from it, making them more likely to be eaten by fish or birds. The change in behavior could potentially devastate the shrimp population. . . .

“It’s no surprise that what we get from the pharmacy will also be contaminating the country’s waterways,” said Ford, adding that some shrimps were taking on the excreted prescription drugs of whole towns. . . .

In 2002, there were 26.3 million antidepressant prescriptions handed out by doctors in England and Wales, yet the environmental effect of pharmaceuticals in sewage was largely unexplored.

This short story became an instant classic upon publication. Written by Tom Godwin it shows an aspect of reality that few people care to entertain and all too many choose to ignore.

The Old Dog Network is proud to reintroduce to a new generation of listeners — The Cold Equations.