Comments on: General Clark's Ethanol March

By: Fred Linn

Fred Linn — Sun, 09 May 2010 03:58:20 +0000

Growing corn does not produce GHG. Burning petroleum does.

According to the Argonne National Labratory, it takes 1.23 BTUs of energy in crude oil to produce 1 BTU of energy as gasoline. Whether it is produced in California, or anywhere else. It only takes .73 BTUs to produce 1 BTU of energy with corn ethanol.

When ethanol is produced from corn, every bushel of corn(56 lbs) has a final product of about 32 lbs of DDG(dried distillers grain)----high protein, high grade animal feed, and three gallons of ethanol. Dent Field Corn(98% of the corn grown in the US, humans can not eat Dent Corn, it is raised to feed meat, egg and dairy animals) is 2-4% protein, DDG is 25-30% protein.

When you refine crude oil you get fuel.

When you produce ethanol from corn, you get food and fuel. If you put the animal waste that you get back from the animals you fed the DDG to into an anaerobic digester---you get methane(biogas)----and what remains is fertilizer.

The same corn produces animal feed, ethanol, methane, fertilizer------and the stover(all none grain parts of the plant) can be pelletized and used directly as a biomass fuel. There will be several hundred pounds of stover for every bushel of corn produced.

The answer to GHG being produced when corn is grown and ethanol is produced-----don't use petroleum, then there is no GHG.

By: Bobbi

Bobbi — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:00:28 +0000

That Chronicle article didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.

By: Ronald Adamowicz

Ronald Adamowicz — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:38:23 +0000

The truth is cellulosic ethanol is currently backed by billions in investments, the industry will survive and grow. Verenium and BP are currently partnered to build a 36 million gallons a year cellulosic ethanol plant in Highlands Florida. The Highland Ethanol LLC Plant will use waste Energy Crops for feedstock.

The White House connection:

Dr. Steven Chu is now the new Secretary of Energy, his past research is celluloisc ethanol, he worked side by side with a company called Diversa (now Verenium). He will guarantee cellulosic ethanol moves forward very quickly with funding from DOE.

By: Anon Imus

Anon Imus — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 02:44:11 +0000

the caption under the photo should read
“General Clark shows the world the size of his integrity”

By: Anon Imus

Anon Imus — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 02:41:10 +0000

Disappointing to see General Clark become a lobbying corporate shill, selling his good name to the highest bidder. I wonder how much they’re paying him to publicly soil himself over a lost cause. I guess it was either this or do ads for Clark bars. Very sad.

By: Samie

Samie — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:50:31 +0000

Scott

I would love to see those studies and who actually funds them. Also calculating transportation and the energy used to grow and harvest stock would be nice to see. The rate of combustion I know at least with corn is lower compared to petroleum resulting in less MPGs. You only focus on one part of the issue, hypothetically speaking if GHG was less so what there are many more issues besides GHG to deal with in ramping up production of ethanol.

By: Freeranger

Freeranger — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:21:18 +0000

Does ethanol make sense? Here's the ultimate test. End the mandates, end the tariffs, end the tax credits, end the blenders credit and see how much ethanol is produced...I thought so.

Beyond the tiny amount needed to replace MTBE, ethanol makes no sense whatsoever.

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:45:41 +0000

Careful what you use as “fact” — such as the “fact” that ethanol increases more GHG as compared to gasoline. There are sevearal studies that show ethanol (corn-based) is an overwhelming GHG winner compared to gasoline – even considering land use change. Do you only choose the set of “facts” you like best? Keep an open mind.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 02:23:54 +0000

Is clark now an expert? Give the tax payers a break. Die ethanol die die die!!!!!

By: Samie

Samie — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 22:28:32 +0000

E85, ethanol, & biofuel are all short-term ideas that get us nowhere! No that's not popular to say many disagree without looking at land consequences, pubic markets (imports & futures), total energy production/consumption, global geopolitical issues, government waste (w/ long-term special interest groups), or being stuck with another fuel source. Wonder why some in Washington like this?

"Their study (California Air Resources Board) confirmed what others have already concluded: that there is a net increase in greenhouse gases when ethanol is substituted for gasoline. The finding has come under heavy protest from the industry." Short-term ideas/quick get rich schemes are not what it takes to develop long-term solutions.