New Study: Corn Ethanol Reduces GHG Emissions by 37-40% Compared to Fracking and Tar Sands

[Bill USA]

http://www.ethanolrfa.org/news/entry/new-study-corn-ethanol-reduces-ghg-emissions-by-37-40-compared-to-fracking-/
(emphases my own)

(January 15, 2014) WASHINGTON — A comprehensive new study (with appendix) conducted by Life Cycle Associates found that the carbon footprint of corn ethanol continues to shrink, while the carbon impacts associated with crude oil production continue to worsen as more marginal sources are introduced to the fuel supply. According to the report, “As the average carbon intensity of petroleum is gradually increasing, the carbon intensity of corn ethanol is declining. Corn ethanol producers are motivated by economics to reduce the energy inputs and improve product yields.”

The study, commissioned by the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), found that average corn ethanol reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 32% compared to average petroleum in 2012. Importantly, this estimate includes prospective emissions from indirect land use change (ILUC) for corn ethanol [font size="4" color="red"]*[/font].When compared to marginal petroleum sources like tight oil from fracking and oil sands, average corn ethanol reduces GHG emissions by 37-40%.

As more unconventional crude oil sources enter the U.S. oil supply, and as corn ethanol production processes become even more efficient, the carbon impacts of ethanol and crude oil will continue to diverge. By 2022, average corn ethanol reduces GHG emissions by 43-60% compared to petroleum, the study found.

“The majority of unconventional fuel sources emit significantly more GHG emissions than both biofuels and conventional fossil fuel sources,” according to the study. “The biggest future impacts on the U.S. oil slate are expected to come from oil sands and fracking production.” In the absence of biofuels, “…significant quantities of marginal oil would be fed into U.S. refineries, generating corresponding emissions penalties that would be further aggravated in the absence of renewable fuel alternatives.”

[font color="red"]*[/font] [font color="blue"](note the inclusion of ILUC in the calculated GHG emissions reductions for corn based ethanol is for purposes of comparison to the Dept of Energy's calculated number for GHG reductions for Corn Ethanol which does include ILUCs. Note that there has not been any empirical evidence presented to support the hypothosis that the making of corn ethanol produces any Indirect Land use changes. In fact the deforestation of Brazilian rainforest - the area most cited by the Corn-Ethanol ILUC faithful - from 2004 to 2013 decreased about 80% - during which time Ethanol production has gone up almost fourfold_Bill USA)[/font]

[indie9197]

1. What is "tight" oil?

Regardless I hate using ethanol in my engines.

[Bill USA]

6. basically, oil obtained by Fracking.

[Bill USA]

7. IF they made FFVs to take advantage of Alcohol's higher octane you would get better MPG

with ethanol than with gasoline.

Ethanol Vehicle Challenge - 1998 (sponsored by the Dept of Energy) - the best teams of College Engineering students optimized the Chevy Malibus provided to them achieved 13% to 15% better mpg than the stock Malibu got using gasoline. And that was without downsizing of the engine!

then their is the Ethanol enabled Direct Injection engine designed by three MIT scientists that gets 30% better fuel effiiciency than gasoline in a conventional ICE.

Direct Injection Ethanol Boosted Gasoline Engines: Biofuel Leveraging For Cost-Effective Reduction of Oil Dependence and CO2 Emissions.
http://www.ethanolboost.com/LFEE-2005-01.pdf

[kristopher]

2. Yeah, but what if they use a nuclear reactor to get the tar sand oil out?

"World Nuclear Assoc. - Representing the people and organizations of the global nuclear profession"
Alberta Tar Sands
Nuclear Power in Canada Appendix 2
(Updated February 2010)
In Canada, notably northern Alberta, there is major production of synthetic crude oil from bitumen extracted from tar sands. Alberta's tar sands are one of the largest hydrocarbon deposits in the world. Production from them is expected to grow strongly, but may limited by the amount of greenhouse gases emitted during extraction and upgrading of the bitumen. Open pit strip mining remains the main extraction method, but two in situ techniques are likely to be used more in future: cyclic steam stimulation (CSS) and steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD). These methods inject steam into the formation to heat the bitumen, allowing it to flow and be pumped to the surface.

<snip>

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/Appendices/Nuclear-Power-in-Canada-Appendix-2--Alberta-Tar-Sands/

Ethanol has a place in a carbon free energy infrastructure, but using it to "clean up" our personal transportation fleet is an idea on a par with "cleaning up" tar sands by using nuclear for the extraction process.

[Bill USA]

5. the idea is to use ethanol instead of Tar Sands oil. Comparison to nukes is well, bizarre. The idea

is to use ethanol instead of the nasty Tar Sands oil which is where it seems we are headed.

The other good feature to ethanol (or methanol from biomass) is that - if we would really commit to using it and increase production of methanol from biomass as rapidly as possible (which can be done faster than increasing ethanol production - limited to farmers annual yield increase of about 4% per yr) we would be getting GHG reductions in much less time than other alternatives such as hybrids an PHEVs which will take a couple decades to reach GHG reductions of appreciable amounts (this is with a fairly benign economic developments in the future. If less than benign conditions obtrude for part of that future the adoption rate of hybrids and PHEVs will be even slower). Unfortunately, because GW is accelerating, in 20 to 30 years the GHG reductions that will be needed to produce an appreciable impact on GW will be larger in absolute amounts than GHG reduction amounts achieved earlier. This seems to be the critical fact of combating GW that hasn't sunk in yet with some people.

Unfortunately, I don't think we will do this (rapidly increase production of methanol from biomass). While I still try to enlighten people, I don't think we are going to do the things necessary to restrain GW. Thawing of the permafrost and loss of snow cover means GW will be beyond our ability to haul it back. We may slow it some, but not enough, soon enough. We will get to a point where even if we eliminated ALL our GHG emissions it won't make any difference. GW will be on its way by then. Those who are going to be around 30 to 50 years from now are heading for a very unenviable situation.

Maybe in the future they will design electric cars to float, and operate as a boat. That might help...

[hunter]

3. Oh, swell, better than Hitler.

Better than gasoline from coal.

It's a pretty low bar to jump over.

No, I am not afraid to violate "Goodwin's Law."

Turning food into fuel will always be a bad thing when people (even orangutan people) are hungry or displaced.

I've yet to see a biofuel (or Fight Club soap) project beyond rancid fry-oil or liposuction waste that interests me.

[Bill USA]

8. see link...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112762876#post5

[Bill USA]

9. the Renewable Fuel Standard & Why It Is Good 4 the Climate- Center for American Progress

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112762949

[4dsc]

4. so what

ethanol and other biofuels will never replace oil to any great extent. Then add the fact that food for fuel in immoral.

[Bill USA]

10. which is why I think we should start producing methanol from biomass to add to ethanol. Methanol at

Last edited Tue Jan 28, 2014, 08:37 PM - Edit history (1)

up to about 10% or 20% of the fuel supply could be achieved much more quickly than ethanol can. Increasing ethanol production is limited to the rate at which farmers have historically been increasing their yields - about 4% per year. It would take about 10 years to increase current ethanol production roughly 50%. We currently manufacture quite a bit of methanol although it is made from natural gas. For methanol to be a renewable fuel we would need to make it from biomass. Making Methanol from biomass also makes complete replacement of gasoline possible. This would of course, require engines with components designed for a blend of, or even 100%, methanol. But what is required is known and it is not that difficult to do (been done in racing for several decades). IT actually would not be necessary to entirely replace gasoline to achieve very significant reductions to the GHG emissions of gasoline.

But if we we're serious about using alcohol fuels as renewable substitute for gasoline we should require all cars made with ICEs be alcohol capable, that is: FFVs. -- And we would publicize and promote the manufacture of the MIT - Ethanol enabled Direct Injection engine (30% better fuel economy than gasoline powered ICE) and perhaps provide a tax incentive for the purchase of cars with these new engines (as we do for PHEVs) and for the purchase of cars equipped with the High Efficiency Alcohol engine with Rankine cycle exhaust recovery which can achieve up to 50% better fuel economy than gasoline in conventional ICE. The engine that gets 30% better fuel efficiency would about double the GHG reduction of ethanol -34% in the current FFVs to 66%. The Alcohol engine with Rankine cycle exhaust gas recovery would do even better. Then there was the results of the Ethanol Vehicle Challenge of 1998 sponsored by the Dept of Energy. Several teams of engineering students competed in optimizing Malibu FFvs for ethanol operation. The three top teams produced cars that got 135 to 15% BETTER fuel efficiency than the stock Malibus got with gasoline.

All this information is known to the experts but it is ignored and won't be acted upon as the Oil industry has influence in the Government, specifically at EPA and Dept of Energy. It's interesting to note that the Dept of Energy and EPA on their websites officially state that the GHG reduction of Ethanol is 19%. The link they provide is to the Argonne National Laboratory's report for 2007 which shows ethanol's GHG reduction at 19% and states "On average, corn ethanol reduces GHG emissions by 19% now and by 21% in 2010."

What they do not have is a link to is the Argonne National Laboratory's 2012 report which goes into a little more detail, pointing out that the 19% is the 10th Percentile of the Ethanol fuel distribution (ethanol is made at more than 100 plants and they vary in efficiency. Thus the statistical methodology). But ANL also, for the first time, showed that at the 50th percentile (i.e. the median: which is pretty much universally recognized as more representative than the 10th percentile of any distribution) the GHG emissions reduction for ethanol is 34% (see Table 7). Actually, the GHG reduction for ethanol was no doubt known to be 34% in 2007 but only the 10th percentile number (19%) was deemed appropriate for public consumption. And this information somehow doesn't make its way to the official position on Ethanol's GHG emissions/reductions vs gasoline. (LOL)