"This article mentions no reason why the USDA would go to all the trouble of developing an alternative to corn-based ethanol with what appears to be an inferior source."

If, by "no reason", you mean "no reason, except for the one mentioned in the second sentence of the article", then I agree.

Apparently, barley can be grown in areas where corn doesn't grow well. Thus, potential ethanol production is increased. Once they get past the shortcomings of low starch and abrasive hulls...

As an avid homebrewer, I say keep barley for the noble purpose God intended: beer. Save the corn for fueling cars and feeding cattle.

Reply

↓↑report

If you want to read the real article, copy and paste.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/jul05/barley0705.htm

To answer your question, the brewing lobby is NOT that powerful. But, the farming lobby does hold some serious clout.

Barley isn't too far behind ethanol in starch content % wise; the real problem is the hardness of the barley hull. Also, the price of barley per bushel is relatively lower than corn.

Reply

↓↑report

"Is the brewing lobby in Washington really that powerful?"

What Adam said, the farming lobby is... way too powerful. They get ridiculous subsidies and trade protections. For example, corn costs about $3/bushel to grow before subsidies, but sells at market for $2/bushel.

And ethanol and biodiesel is a load of crap. The only reason we ever hear about it is because Iowa is first in line for primaries for both democrats and republicans. To prove how useless those fuels are, I point to a Cornell / UC Berkeley joint study that found that farming corn requires 29% more FOSSIL fuel than what is produced in ethanol, and farming soybeans requires 27% more fossil fuel than what is produced in biodiesel.

I can only imagine the inefficiencies involved in trying to make ethanol from barley... although it can't be much worse than sunflower plants, a much talked about supposed source for biodiesel- which requires 118% more in fossil fuel than is produced.

Reply

↓↑report

Don't mistake my words; I said the farm lobby holds some serious clout.

Any Washington lobbyist is overly powerful. I'm not singling out farming. The topic at hand here though, is related directly to farming.

Since the ethanol industry is blossoming, new technologies and efficiencies are being developed and implemented. I have no doubt in my mind that ethanol, which currently may or may not have a positive EREI, will continue to have a postive impact on pollution and reduction in foreign fuel required. From following the ethanol industry closely, it seems as though the entire production process is constantly being re-tooled and re-engineered for increased efficiency. For example, the wasted heat and steam from the fermentation process will soon be used to make electricity at ethanol plants.

The ethanol industry understands that to a be viable fuel alternative, they must 1) have a postive EREI and 2) must be able to be cost competitive in the event that tax subsidies slowly dried up at some point.

You have to understand, 80% of the people in Iowa fill with 10% ethanol. (It's not required here, unlike MN) 5-10% of the remaining gas users probably use premium. I wouldnt even consider using 100% dino gas since it problably sits in the underground tanks for quite awhile.

Reply

↓↑report

I live in illinois, and I'm pretty sure that a percentage is mandated. All the pumps have a sticker that say "up to 10% of content may be ethanol" or something to that effect, and theres no reason for stations to stock ethanol unless they are forced to (since its more expensive).

I'm sure there can be efficiency increases. I dont doubt that. But I do doubt the extent to which they are possible. Seeing as it currently takes 129 barrels of fossil fuel to create 100 barrels of ethanol, How efficient can it get? Even if you could over triple efficiency, requiring say 30 barrels of fossil fuel to make 100 barrels of oil... theres no way that burning 30 barrels of oil plus 100 barrels of ethanol is cleaner than just 100 barrels of oil. And theres no way its cheaper either. All those farming costs ($3 a bushel about, I have no fricken idea how many bushels would go into a barrel or gallon of ethanol- I'm guessing a lot), plus the cost of the ethanol conversion process.

And you have to admit, the closer we come to actually using ethanol to move cars on a wide scale, the closer we come to completely eliminating corn subsidies. It wouldnt be a matter of "if", but "when". At the incredible cost of billions of dollars that the subsidies already cost us, that only for EATING corn. Considering how much corn would be necessary to make ethanol on a wide scale... would could be talking on hundreds of billions a year in subsidy. That just isnt possible, not even with Iowa first on the primary lineup.

Reply

↓↑report

I always thought the point of subsidies was to keep the prices higher not lower to keep farmers from having really bad years and going out of business. I'm just a city boy that learns something every day :)

Reply

↓↑report

Don't forget that most of the stuff that goes into making the ethanol comes right back out and is resold as feed for cattle and pigs.

There are also two separate 'subsidies' that are in effect for ethanol, that I know of.

The first is provided by the federal government for farmers. It is there for national security in the event that our imported food supply would diminish. The second is either (may be both) a smaller per-gallon fuel excise tax for ethanol provided by either the feds or the state, which makes ethanol blend cheaper. Even without the per-gallon tax break, it's still cheaper. Regardless, the per-gallon tax rate should be less than that of gasoline, as the energy content is lower and a vehicle will travel less miles on one gallon of ethanol than on one gallon of gasoline (and subquently create less wear and tear on the roads).

Ethanol costs around $1.20 per gallon to produce. At a 10% mix in $2.00 gasoline, the price of E10 is $1.92. A 20% mix would be $1.84 and so on. E10 used to be just a few cents cheaper per gallon when prices were $1.70 around here. Currently, the price of 87 unleaded is around $2.30, and E10 usually goes for $.10 - $.15 less per gallon.

All food for thought. The ethanol industry is no longer a farmer-supported, home-grown industry it once was. Look up Acher Daniels Midland. They are a serious agri-business and produce a ton of ethanol.

Reply

↓↑report

"It is there for national security in the event that our imported food supply would diminish. "

LOL, do you buy that? Its just subsidies, plain and simple. Politicians have to spin it, of course, but corn is not a national security concern. Besides, where else in the world could grow corn more efficiently than our plains states? And what would it matter if we got our corn from, idk, New Zealand?

Reply

↓↑report

The problem with ethanol being cheaper is that you have to fill up your tank more often than you would with a gasoline car. So the real price of ethanol is really 3 dollars per gallon. Ethanol engines aren't as efficient as gasoline engines are.

Reply

↓↑report

"The problem with ethanol being cheaper is that you have to fill up your tank more often than you would with a gasoline car."

You started off decently enough. Ethanol does, indeed, have less energy content than gasoline.

You have to fill up an SUV more than a car, though.

"So the real price of ethanol is really 3 dollars per gallon."

How do you figure? Where are your supplemental facts? In comparison to equivalent BTUS, perhaps. But you'd have to do the math, instead of throwing out an arbitrary number.

"Ethanol engines aren't as efficient as gasoline engines are."

Pure BS. First off, there is no such thing as an 'ethanol' engine. Ethanol engines are *slightly* modified gasoline engines that can run on any combination of the two fuels. Hence the name 'flex fuel'.
Ethanol fuel is likely more efficient at making power than gasoline since the octane is much higher. At least 10 points.

Reply

↓↑report

You are both right and both wrong.
It is true that ethanol has a higher octane rating, but it's probably more than 10 points higher. It does not have a higher energy content, but with the higher octane more of its energy can be extracted with a higher compression engine. Ethanol only engines can probably run at 14 to 1 compression, whereas the gas limit is around 9 to 1. Most cars engines are below 9 to 1. The rub is that no one will be willing to run an entanol only engine until its available anywhere. When it is, a gallon of ethonal will take a car as far as a gallon of gas, maybe futher.

Reply

↓↑report

The Saab flex-fuel vehicle is turbocharged which enables it to dynamically change the compression ratio depending on the fuel being used. This enables it to boost 12.8 psi for E85 and 5.8 psi for gasoline. The Saab people claim that their flex-fuel gets 40 more HP, more torque, and the same MPG on E85.

The Oak Ridge National Lab, DOE, and USDA all have done studies on the energy balance for ethanol production. They find that it is positive and improving. However they also state that making ethanol from plant cellulose makes even more sense. The cellulose in crop waste and even prairie grass can be used. Switchgrass, a perennial prairie grass requiring much less energy imputs to raise, can produce twice as much ethanol as corn on the same acrage. You cut and bale it once a year. They claim a 10 to 1 energy ratio with switchgrass. Check out some of the government web sites like, http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/sugar_biorefineries.html . Oil men will tell you that oil is the only solution, but the DOE and USDA are working to prove them wrong.

Reply

↓↑report