OT of an OT: Ethanol

[Renegade 13]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ethanol_fuel

For ethanol to contribute significantly to transportation fuel needs, it would need to have a positive net energy balance. To evaluate the net energy of ethanol four variables must be considered: the amount of energy contained in the final ethanol product, the amount of energy directly consumed to make the ethanol (such as the diesel used in tractors), the quality of the resulting ethanol compared to the quality of refined gasoline and the energy indirectly consumed (in order to make the ethanol processing plant, etc). Although a topic of debate, some research that ignores energy quality suggests it takes as much or more fossil fuel energy (in the forms of diesel, natural gas and coal) to create an equivalent amount of energy in the form of ethanol. In other words, the energy needed to run the tractors, produce the fertilizer, process the ethanol, and the energy associated with the wear and tear on all of the equipment used in the process (known as fixed asset depreciation to economists) may be more than the energy derived from burning ethanol. Two important flaws are cited in response to that argument: (1) the energy quality is ignored, which economic effects are large. Principal economic effects of energy quality comparison are the cleanup costs of soil contamination stemming from gasoline releases to the environment and medical costs from air pollution resulting from refining and burning gasoline. and (2) the inclusion of development of ethanol plants instills a bias against that product based strictly upon the pre-existence of gasoline refining capacity. The real decision should be based upon the long term economic and social returns. The first counter-argument, however, is specious, in that burning a gallon of cleaner ethanol is still pointless if it implicitly requires burning 2 gallons of dirty gasoline to create that ethanol in the first place.

Depending on the ethanol study you read, net energy returns vary from .7-1.5 units of ethanol per unit of fossil fuel energy consumed. For comparison, that same one unit of fossil fuel invested in oil and gas extraction (in the lower 48 States) will yield 15 units of gasoline, a yield an order of magnitude better than current ethanol production technologies, ignoring the energy quality arguments...It is suggested that an energy balance of 200%, or two units of ethanol per unit of fossil fuel invested, is needed before ethanol mass-production will become economically feasible.

According to a report by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, when taking into account the energy needed to extract, transport and refine crude oil into gasoline, the final energy product of gasoline has an energy ratio of 0.805. That means ethanol production is 81% more energy efficient than gasoline, without factoring in the energy qualtity considerations. A 2002 report by the United States Department of Agriculture concluded that corn ethanol production in the U.S. has a net energy value of 1.34, meaning 34% more energy was produced than what went in. This means that 75% (1/1.34) of each unit produced is required to replace the energy used in production. The study also concluded that the energy used to produce and convert the ethanol was from abundant domestic sources, with only 17% of the energy used coming from liquid fuels, therefore, for every 1 unit of energy from of liquid fuel used, such as gasoline or diesel fuel, there was a gain of 6.34 units of energy. MSU Ethanol Energy Balance Study: Michigan State University, May 2002. This comprehensive, independent study funded by MSU shows that corn ethanol production has a net energy value of 1.56: it produces 56% more energy per unit volume of ethanol than it consumes. Nevertheless, as noted earlier, these relatively small energy gains are problematic, for they imply that between 2.79 (assuming net energy value 1.56) and 3.94 (assuming net energy value 1.34) units of ethanol must be produced for each unit of ethanol that can be sold to consumers. Actual net energy values might be improved by measures such as burning corn stalks (which are not fermentable using current technology) to run some parts of the corn ethanol production process that currently consume petroleum, gas, or ethanol (similarly to the way bagasse is currently burned to produce energy to run the ethanol production facilities in Brazil). As of 2005, ethanol production from corn may require an increase in the cost of petroleum before to become economically viable without government subsidies. Although for periods in the year 2005 ethanol traded for less than gasoline and diesel before any subsidy.

[Baron Munchausen]

In the broad sense, Fyron is right. It's not that there is so much acreage needed to produce a few gallons of fuel as AT is claiming. It's the sheer quantity of fuel we use in this country. I don't have the latest statistics, but it's in the billions of gallons a year for gasoline alone, let alone diesel and then various sorts of fuel oil for heating and what not. Assuming this 'breakthrough' that will let them convert cellulose into alcohol actually works, making it possible for ethanol to have a positive energy balance -- which it doesn't right now (and saving us from having to grow food crops to produce fuel), you're still talking about vast areas of land to grow the millions of tons of plants to digest into alcohol.

Billions of gallons of alcohol will require many millions of acres of cropland even at a yield of several hundred gallons per acre. It will have a major effect on the agricultural economy, and perhaps not a good one. If petroleum really does become scarce soon we might be faced with having to choose between food and fuel. Just because ethanol is a convenient liquid that we can transport around and pour into vehicles like gasoline doesn't mean it's the best replacement for gasoline. We really need to think about lifestyle changes that reduce the need for everyone to have their own personal vehicle to drive to work every day, to drive to the grocery store, etc. Reducing usage is the only real soluton to the multiple converging crises around our petroleum use.

[Renegade 13]

Baron Munchausen said:
We really need to think about lifestyle changes that reduce the need for everyone to have their own personal vehicle to drive to work every day, to drive to the grocery store, etc.

I'm sorry, but that's dead wrong in a lot of cases, an idea predicated on everyone living in a city. I, and most other people not living in a city, have no choice about having a personal vehicle. Some examples; In Northern BC, there is no public transit. It takes about 40 minutes to travel to work, a distance of about 60km one way. The nearest grocery store is 20 minutes away, at 100km/hr. We, and everyone else who don't live in a city, have no choice in the matter.

Thermodyne said:
OK, so where are we? Alcohol cost too much and dumps more carbon into the air per unit of energy than just burning gas.

Inaccurate. There is no net release of carbon.

What if every new home had to have some form of solar power installed? It could be power cells or heat panels. In the Northern areas wind turbines could be substituted. 20k added to a 400k home is not that big of a deal over 30 years.

As you mentioned, in Northern areas this would not work. Winter isn't a great time of year for sunlight. I think wind turbines would be a lot more expensive than solar, and for that matter where would the average city-dwelling person put a wind turbine? You'd need a lot of them and a good, constant wind to be of any use. Wind is impractical in cities and solar is no good in Northern areas. So what do people in those positions do?

What if every new car or truck under 2 tons had a meaningful fuel tariff added to the price.
35mpg+ no tariff
35-28 $300
27-23 $500
22-18 $1000
Less than 18mpg $5000

Again, I do not like this idea. Those of us who need trucks for the 4x4 ability, just to get around in the spring/fall when the roads turn to slippery ****e, should we take a massive hit just because of our geographical location? I don't think so. Go for it with things like SUV's or something, those are totally luxury. Or have exemptions based upon locale. Then again, that's just more red-tape, so the money taken in through you tariffs would probably end up being eaten in beaurocracy.

Additionally, each state would collect additional fees based on the formula for tags. All collected funds go to energy research and mass transit. No use of these funds for roads.

Energy research, sure. Transit, no way. Again, everyone living in rural areas would pay in but experience no benefit whatsoever. Rural people already subsidize the mass transit systems for city people with our taxes (little of which is ever actually spent in rural areas....only a few votes in those areas after all...) No good making it worse than it already is.

Recreational fuel for boats, small aircraft, and such where it can be regulated surcharged and set at say 300%.

Again, many farmers/ranchers/etc use "recreational vehicles" such as 4-wheelers and snowmobiles to either get around their land or to, for example, chase cattle when the need arises. Taxing it will only hurt those least able to pay. And for that matter, should we all just kill every motorized sport there is, to save a wee bit of gas or to generate a bit of money? No thanks. I don't want that world.

And lastly, countries not adopting economy and environmental measures at least equal to those in the US will be subjected to stiff tariffs on their good imported into the US. If we are going to bite the bullet, then so should the rest of the world.

This the the part I hate the most. It's going to sound utterly rude, but your comment struck me as the stereotypical arrogant American attitude. We can do whatever the hell we want because of our God-given right to do whatever the hell we want. Sorry, but you put tariffs on Canada for not adopting what is essentially an American domestic policy, we'll be slapping tariffs on you right back. As will the rest of the world. Oh, and while you're at it, you'll have to kill NAFTA as well. And since the American economy is in the crapper unlike ours, guess who's going to be hurt the most from all the tariff's flying around? "If we are going to bite the bullet, so should the rest of the world" It's that kind of arrogance that, IMO, causes the opinion most of the world has of Americans. It's also just not practical.

I sincerely do apologize if I offend anyone with my comments towards the end, but I needed to say it. I hope we're all adult enough to accept differing viewpoints and some criticism of attitudes.

[Captain Kwok]

I understand your comments re: rural areas - but keep in mind in North America and most other developed nations over 80% of people live in urban areas - so it makes good sense to encourage the use of public transportation etc. as a general policy. A single bus at capacity can remove 20-25 cars on the road. My personal beef is with long-distance commuters and (beyond responsible) multi-car families. Also another beef I have is with the design of housing communities these days too - it pratically forces people into their cars for everything...

Fuel tariffs on new vehicles with poor fuel economy can also be configured based on rural vs. urban etc. For things like small vehicles, many snowmobiles etc. are already configured to run on pure ethanol fuel...

Also for the record, urban areas receive less back in services/infrastructure than what they pay for in taxes in comparison to rural areas.

Also, solar power is far more expensive than wind power. A wind turbine in a windy area costs about 3-5 cents/kwh, where solar power can range from 20-50 cents/kwh. The technology is still expensive and the return low. Wind turbines are a good bet for the windy northwest!

I do agree it would be difficult for the U.S. to impose tariffs based on fossil fuel products etc. when it is the U.S. that by far that uses the most per capita...

[Renegade 13]

Captain Kwok said:
I understand your comments re: rural areas - but keep in mind in North America and most other developed nations over 80% of people live in urban areas - so it makes good sense to encourage the use of public transportation etc. as a general policy. A single bus at capacity can remove 20-25 cars on the road. My personal beef is with long-distance commuters and (beyond responsible) multi-car families. Also another beef I have is with the design of housing communities these days too - it pratically forces people into their cars for everything...

Fuel tariffs on new vehicles with poor fuel economy can also be configured based on rural vs. urban etc. For things like small vehicles, many snowmobiles etc. are already configured to run on pure ethanol fuel...

Also for the record, urban areas receive less back in services/infrastructure than what they pay for in taxes in comparison to rural areas.

Also, solar power is far more expensive than wind power. A wind turbine in a windy area costs about 3-5 cents/kwh, where solar power can range from 20-50 cents/kwh. The technology is still expensive and the return low. Wind turbines are a good bet for the windy northwest!

I do agree it would be difficult for the U.S. to impose tariffs based on fossil fuel products etc. when it is the U.S. that by far that uses the most per capita...

Well, I'm always happy to have my ignorance exposed. After all, how else will I learn!??

I agree that with the sheer number of city dwellers that there are, it is sensible to encourage mass transit. Makes a lot of sense. But charging those who have no choice about travelling for how much they travel and putting it into the endless pit that is mass transit isn't a good idea, I think. But maybe that's just me.

I didn't realize urban areas didn't get as much back as compared to rural areas. But most of what is put into rural areas are for things like the Trans-Canada highway maintenance which doesn't specifically benefit any demographic, it benefits both rural and urban people equally when they travel across the country. In fact, roads are pretty much all that money gets spent on in rural areas. After all, what else can it be spent on!

Also didn't realize the economic comparison between wind and solar. Still would be difficult though to fit a wind turbine in the yard of the average city person!

What really needs to be looked at is energy generated from tidal turbines. Use waves and tidal action to generate power. Since neither the wind nor the moon are going away any time soon, it'd work well.

[Captain Kwok]

Wind and hydro are generally the cheapest forms of power. Programs that allow individuals (particularly in rural area) to purchase turbines and then sell the electricity to the local grid should be encourage even more!

Mass transit is not a money pit and has many tangible benefits - even for people in rural areas such as reducing smog emissions and things of that sort. In general, its road systems are more subsidized than transit by government.

The disparity with tax collection and service distribution between urban and rural areas is really just logical. Because people in rural areas require services like health care etc., but the tax base is usally too small to justify a 'locally' regional hospital. In the same kind of way, Ontario/Alberta/BC tend to subsidize some of the other lower populated provinces at the federal level. It's part of the price we pay to live in our society.

[Suicide Junkie]

I agree that with the sheer number of city dwellers that there are, it is sensible to encourage mass transit. Makes a lot of sense. But charging those who have no choice about travelling for how much they travel and putting it into the endless pit that is mass transit isn't a good idea, I think. But maybe that's just me.

Sounds to me like a great place for some of those exceptions and conditions and complex gyrations that the tax system is known for.

[Will]

re: requiring all newly built homes to have some kind of renewable energy capability built with it.
It's a good idea in theory. But, as always, the devil is in the details, and it would not be feasible to implement this as a federal law. The most that could be done is have a tax credit for builders making homes with this, or a grant to local governments if there are ordinances requiring such. This would give incentive to the private sector and municipal governments, respectively, to look into the renewable energy options. For both, the incentives alone aren't enough, but combined with increased value of the house, it pushes the return on the investment just that little bit higher to make it worthwhile. The value of the house would go up due to the improvements, which means developers can sell at a higher price, and the municipality can get more tax revenue from the property, and that's where the money really comes from.
Also, Renegade, you need not worry about the city folk needing to build turbines in their yard. You won't find a new house being built in the middle of a city, you'll find it being built on an empty plot outside of the city.

re: the company using TDP to turn agricultural and consumer waste into crude oil, methane, and minerals.
Sounds great, but the article is dated November 2003, and I haven't found any information on the company that goes beyond 2004. I'm going to guess that this particular venture, while still worth looking into after more research, is a bust.

re: Urban vs. Rural (and really, both vs. Sub-Urban) as far as taxes
I see nothing wrong with the fuel-efficiency tarrif, and I would add additional taxes on the price of gasoline as well. But I wouldn't implement it overnight, that is just asking for economic disaster. Even if people know increased costs are coming, it still costs a lot of money NOW to avoid those extra costs in the future. So if everyone had to pay more for it now, there would be problems. Have a 10-to-15 year plan, where the gas tax and fuel efficiency tax are slowly increased; by the end of the cycle, the majority of vehicles would be replaced anyway, and there is a good incentive along the way to encourage people to choose fuel-efficiency. So what if it ends up costing more for people who live 20km from the nearest place that could be called a town? The cost of living in rural areas are vastly smaller compared to urban and suburban areas, plus you can get a huge house for under $100,000, along with an acre or more of land around it. People choose to live there, and if the negligable costs comprared to cities is too much, they can move a little closer to the city.

And really, when you look at taxes, a disproportionate amount comes from urban areas, since that is where the majority of the wealth is created. A small part of that is invested back into cities as services, but most of it goes to... not rural areas. Rural areas in general recieve more money for services than is paid in those areas in taxes. A lot of that is in the form of Social Security, Medicare, etc., but also in education, safety (police and fire depts), military (a lot of bases are in remote areas), and transportation (especially if there is a significant route between larger cities). But rural areas only get a little bit more than they put in. The biggest chunk of tax dollars go to suburban areas. For example, the area I live in, Los Angeles County. LA and its five "satellite cities" comprise the largest industrial complex in the United States, has the largest international port on the West Coast, the largest financial center west of the Mississippi, etc. All of these are in urban parts of LA. And most of the tax income from these industries goes to... the Valley, and the southern part of the county bordering Orange, suburban areas. It's used to build new roads, new schools, new infrastructure, for a population that has been exploding since WWII.

re: tarrifs on imported goods unless certain policies are in place
I don't see the "stereotypical arrogant American attitude" in implementing tarrifs. It's simple economics. The point of all these little taxes and incentives is to guide the free market to make certain choices over what would otherwise be the most cost-effective choice. Most (or some would say all) rational people would agree that at some point, the developed world needs to stop using fossil fuels. If the US takes this view to heart, and implements these costs on American industry, then foreign products have a cost advantage. The tarrif isn't meant to change policy in other countries, but to offset the penalty that American products would inherently have. If, for example, Canada implemented similar taxes, then there would be no need to balance things out. And it wouldn't throw out NAFTA or any other trade treaty, since treaties supercede Acts of Congress in US law. Canada and Mexico would not be affected by the tarriff, and are free to do as they wish (however, reforms like this would be more likely to happen in Canada first, and right now the Mexican government is so weak, if the US does it, they probably could be coerced into doing the same soon after). Any country without a trade treaty that explicitly forbids tarrifs based on the country's policies would be subject to the tarrif.

[Renegade 13]

Will said:
So what if it ends up costing more for people who live 20km from the nearest place that could be called a town? The cost of living in rural areas are vastly smaller compared to urban and suburban areas, plus you can get a huge house for under $100,000, along with an acre or more of land around it. People choose to live there, and if the negligable costs comprared to cities is too much, they can move a little closer to the city.

Well this all depends on the size of the city you're talking about, but if you're talking a large city then yeah, cost of houses and land is considerably cheaper in rural areas. But take a look at the taxes for in a different light. People who live in rural areas are often farmers and ranchers. Namely, the people who need to fuel their tractors and other farm machinery. Add these taxes on when your fuel bill is already at a couple thousand (at least) per month, and you're going to be killing off a lot of small operations. Simple fix, exempt farms and ranches and the like from these new taxes, as they are already exempted from many taxes.

And really, when you look at taxes, a disproportionate amount comes from urban areas, since that is where the majority of the wealth is created.

I'm actually not sure about more going to rural than urban (though I am sure sub-urban gets more than both!). In Vancouver, billions are being spent on new rapid-transit systems. Billions extra, on top of the usual. All we get is cracks sealed on our highways, sometimes not even that. Can't cost more than a few dozen million per year. Of course, things you mentioned such as military bases etc. are for the benefit of all, not one single group, so it can't be counted in the equation. As are trans-continental highways and the like, since they're necessary for industry to occur in the cities as well, so they can't really be counted as solely rural either.

re: tarrifs on imported goods unless certain policies are in place
I don't see the "stereotypical arrogant American attitude" in implementing tarrifs. It's simple economics. The point of all these little taxes and incentives is to guide the free market to make certain choices over what would otherwise be the most cost-effective choice. Most (or some would say all) rational people would agree that at some point, the developed world needs to stop using fossil fuels. If the US takes this view to heart, and implements these costs on American industry, then foreign products have a cost advantage. The tarrif isn't meant to change policy in other countries, but to offset the penalty that American products would inherently have. If, for example, Canada implemented similar taxes, then there would be no need to balance things out. And it wouldn't throw out NAFTA or any other trade treaty, since treaties supercede Acts of Congress in US law. Canada and Mexico would not be affected by the tarriff, and are free to do as they wish (however, reforms like this would be more likely to happen in Canada first, and right now the Mexican government is so weak, if the US does it, they probably could be coerced into doing the same soon after). Any country without a trade treaty that explicitly forbids tarrifs based on the country's policies would be subject to the tarrif.

That's the thing, in a capitalist society the economy isn't supposed to be "guided" by the government. It's not capitalism then, it's closer to socialism. And yes, I think it is an arrogant attitude to think that the American idea is the best idea there is or can be! Tariffs for not doing as the States thinks is best is arrogant, since it's automatically dismissing the idea that other countries have the right to do as they wish with their own economic policy. If the States decides to implement such an idea, go for it, but don't try to force the rest of the world into doing what ONE country thinks is a wise measure. Of course, I'm sure I'll be disagreed with on this particular point.

[Suicide Junkie]

I don't see the "stereotypical arrogant American attitude" in implementing tarrifs.

It is not the idea itself, but the manner in which it is presented.

To me, it sounded aggressive; "if we're gonna do it, we're gonna hit you up for it too."
My impression is that Europe is way ahead of us slobs on this side of the pond.