The Problem with Alternative Energy “Sources”
Cross-posted to Random Fate.
—
I’ve always been a big advocate of efficiency in resource use and minimal generation of pollution because it’s not simply poor form to crap in your own bed, in the long term it is deadly, regardless of what those who would like to think otherwise say.
On the face of it, increased use of ethanol seems very promising in reducing at least some of the petroleum usage of the United States along with improving some aspects of the pollution generated by cars. Unfortunately, when you look deeper, the cost-benefit ratio is not so clear.
Oil, what we like to call the organic liquid mixture more properly termed petroleum, has many benefits that have created the worldwide economy we have now.
What is it about oil that makes it so special?
For one, it is a true energy source, very little energy is needed relative to the amount of energy gained to pump oil out of the ground, transport it, and refine it to forms more useful to us. For the case of ethanol, we have to grow the source material, whether it be cellulose from trees or sugars from corn or other plants, then we have to convert the raw materials into ethanol using any of a variety of processes that while they do not consume more energy than is contained in the product, it is certainly not as high yielding as the oil-based system.
In short, petroleum is a source of energy that has a low energy cost to convert to a useful, easily transportable form (such as gasoline among other products) whereas ethanol is a complicated method of converting the energy of sunlight into another form of energy, using water and other precursors (not to mention the energy costs associated with growing the raw materials and transporting those bulk solids to a conversion facility) to make the useful, easily transportable form of chemical energy.
I am not trying to argue against ethanol or any other alternative ways of transporting chemical energy (for that is what gasoline, ethanol, or other alternative energy sources are, ways of transporting chemical energy that is released through burning), but we must understand the energy economics of the cycle we are proposing along with the monetary economics.
Ultimately, true practical sources of energy involve either sunlight, uranium or other fissile material, fossil fuels, or in limited amounts geothermal. Other “sources” are merely converting these fundamental sources into a different form. For example, hydroelectric power, in addition to requiring dams that are not exactly environmentally friendly, is merely a way of converting the sunlight that evaporated the water that fell in the watershed as rain into electricity.
Ethanol burners, hybrids, not even fuel cell cars will avoid these fundamental energy economics, because the power has to come ultimately from somewhere. The true solution to the oncoming crisis of petroleum lies in understanding how to harness the fundamental energy sources, not short-term slogans that proclaim that ethanol or some other quick fix is the panacea.
9 Responses to “The Problem with Alternative Energy “Sources””
The corn lobby will not be denied.
One problem with ethanol is that it puts people and their cars in competition for the same fuel source. Every bushel of corn converted to ethanol is a bushel not sold as feed for cattle or direct to market. Every acre dedicated to subsidized ethanol is also taken out of production for food crops.
Dairy farmers are already feeling the effects, the price of feed corn is going up rapidly and is harder to get.
There is no one solution. Every possible energy source will have to be harnessed and increased efficiency in transmission and usage will also be necessary. That having been said MikeF said
While the only viable source of ethanol is corn this partially true. The reason it is only partially true is that if production of corn meant only for ethanol (It doesn’t have to have the appearance or tastiness of corn grown for food.) is undertaken there are millions of acres in the U.S. that have gone out of production in the last few decades because farming wasn’t profitable any longer that could come back into production. In addition if cellulose based ethanol is improved enough to become viable it will be able to grow on land that is unsuitable for food crops.
The more I learn the more I get depressed about alternate energy sources providing enough energy. Fortunately, I also get more optimistic that we can reduce our energy consumption for far cheaper than it will cost to try to switch completely to alternative energy.
For example, while geothermic technology won’t ever produce a whole lot of electricity, it can be used to drastically reduce heating and cooling energy use. The industry website says: “According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, geoexchange systems save homeowners 30-70 percent in heating costs, and 20-50 percent in cooling costs, compared to conventional systems.” The Dept of Energy website says that the cost of installing a pump is recovered in 5-10 years and will last “50+ years.”
Also green (but stylish) architecture has really advanced in the last couple decades. Making buildings more energy efficient is (theoretically) getting to be a lot cheaper and I’m aghast that it’s still considered a niche industry. I never thought I’d say this, but Walmart is actually making a big push to make its stores much more energy efficient and I hope other major companies follow.
The problem is that the two politically chosen things are very expensive and not that effective from a scientific standpoint. A few years ago some economists looked at fuel cells and said it’d be cheaper and better for the environment to have drastic increase in fuel efficiencies now, forget about fuel cells and wait until something else comes along.
Also genetic engineering will really help out a lot in raising crop yields and hopefully making cellulose ethanol viable.
Actually, one of the major issues with ethanol that doesn’t get a lot of coverage is that you can’t pump it through pipelines – it has to be transported by truck or train.
The big issue as it relates to efficiency of the fuel is how the transportation in the supply chain is planned. A way around this would be to regionalize, or decentralize the production of ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol would allow this to happen as it uses a variety of biomass feedstocks as opposed to the majority of US ethanol production which relies on corn.
The biggest hurdle the cellulosic ethanol producers face at the moment is the cost of the enzyme needed to breakdown the cellulose into a sugar. While everyone from private industry to the US govt is throwing money at these research projects, we have yet to hear how they are going. I posted last week on this topic specifically in the article, Cellulosic Enzyme Cost Reduction is still a WIP”.
Taking away our dependence from corn requires a different ethanol strategy. One way to go about this is to empower local communities to produce ethanol from the best available feedstock. I wrote a long article yesterday on the benefits of decentralizing, or “regionalizing” alternative energy as it relates to ethanol production.
Not only does this support the local economy, but it reduces the strain on major ethanol crops like corn.
I frequently write about the business side of alternative energy on: Energy Spin: Alternative Energy Blog for Investors-Served Daily
Cheers,
Francesco DeParis
Francesco: what did you think about Al Gore’s call for creating a energy network for anyone could act as buyer or seller and energy companies would just be one supplier/buyer?
A good common sense post, Jack, but you’re only focusing on one issue (net energy from a particular source). That’s a valid point but it’s not the only salient one. There are other reasons to consider substituting ethanol for gasoline, including the geopolitical situation surrounding petroleum and the fact that we may have already reached Peak Oil or if we haven’t, we will soon. There may not be enough time to develop alternative fuels before oil supplies bottom out, so we may need a stopgap in order to prevent domestic and global economic crisis.
The problem with the problem with alternative energy sources is that we can’t wait for the perfect solution.
In fact, it’s probably better to admit that there is no one perfect solution and to go ahead and experiment, improve effieciency on what is available and pursue many different alternative sources.
Waiting for perfection keeps us in a rut, while remaining dependent on foreign oil keeps us at risk.