Audi Invests In Synthetic Gasoline From Sugar

"Before any new fuel gets researched, do an nergy balance. becasue with corn ethanol we need to put in more energy (coal, natural gas) than we get out. Do we want to repeat that?" Well, that's ironic. You promote the idea of figuring out the energy balance for any new biofuel, then cite completely incorrect information about the energy balance of ethanol. The studies have been done, and the only ones that found a negative energy balance for corn ethanol were based on 1970s production practices and have been completely discredited. Best estimates for energy balance of grain ethanol as currently produced in the US is about +40%. See the work of Michael Wang, Argonne National Labs. More importantly, the energy being used is mostly coal and natural gas (as you rightly point out). Those things are in abundant domestic supply, whereas the fuel being produced (a replacement for liquid petroleum) is not so abundant domestically. The "liquid petroleum replacement value" of EtOH is about 8:1 with current systems. I am not a huge proponent of grain ethanol, but if you are going to argue against it at least get the facts right. Otherwise, you just look biased.

@YellowDuck Show your study. Why not just use CNG then without going through sugar. All the studies I've seen show you either just gain a tniy bit, or lose some (depending on who paid for the study). Oh yeah, because then the farm states couldn't get subsidies. Despite having 10 capita only, they still get 2 seanators. That is the real reason for all that "green" fuel. And dirty coal really is better than gasoline?

@HerrKaLeun The studies that show ethanol to be energy-negative conveniently ignore the fact that ethanol also produces edible byproducts. Corn ethanol is not particularly efficient and it has its drawbacks, but it's hard to make a good argument when you don't understand the basics. In any case, the Europeans have neither oil nor gas. They are highly dependent upon the Russians for their gas supplies. Forgive me for thinking that having ones energy future being determined by the Russians and Middle Eastern dictatorships isn't a particularly smart idea.

@HerrKaLeun Here's one study (of many). http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/2008Ethanol_June_final.pdf Note that the energy balance is about 1.4 *before* you apply a coproduct energy credit. That is, you don't produce just ethanol from corn, you also produce animal feed as dried distiller's grains. Depending on how much of the input energy you apply to the co-product (that is a philosophical decision to some extent) you can get an energy balance of upwards of 2:1. As for "just using the CNG"...well, that's not a bad option for sure, but its energy balance is less than 1 (since to extract, process and deliver the CNG you use significant energy), so it doesn't compare favorably to fuel ethanol simply on a fossil fuel energy balance basis. The difference of course is the "free" solar energy from photosynthesis in the corn production.

@YellowDuck I read through the study... but you realize it is from USDA, the same guys that profit from and spread the subsidies and are basically run by the industrial farming lobby? Excuse me if I'm skeptical...and the study is based on data provided by NAMA, the National Agribusiness Marketing Association. The fox guarding the hens? Do you have an independent study that actually takes all energy and environemntal impact into account? Preferrably that doesn't only rely on survey data. As far as the extraction cost of CNG goes, you are correct, fracking etc. also cost energy. but that is the same if you use the NG in an ICE, or to feed one of thsoe bio-reactors to make ethanol. and fertilizer for corn is also made with Natural gas. The study didn't include the tremendeous amounts of energy required for pumping water (if you don't know, there is a water crisis) or the fuel for the tractors etc., which is tremendeous. In Europe, where biodiesel is used, the energy balance is a bit better since the oil plants fare a bit better than corn. and if making energy from corn is so good, why does it need subsidies? If a "viable" business plan starts with "require subsidies, it is not viable.

@YellowDuck I am impressed that you read the study! Like I said, it is one of many. If you look at it more carefully you will see that the energy for fueling tractors and producing N fertilizers is indeed included. Less obviously in that particular report, the energy for pumping water is also included, but that is less important than you might think because only a small fraction of corn grown in the US is irrigated. Indeed, the farming part is not the real key at all, because over 2/3 of the energy consumption in producing EtOH occurs at the processing plant. Is it a complete accounting of all costs, including "environmental costs"? Absolutely not. I thought we were debating energy balance. Yes it is conducted by USDA scientists, but on the other and the underlying studies are all peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals. Just stating that you don't trust the source is not a very good argument, but you are right to be skeptical. We all should be.

@YellowDuck Even if we assume a factor of 1.4 is true, this seems a lot of effort for so little. And what about energy to produce and maintain the farm and plant eqipment? So we get closr to 1.0. And we cant really ignore other environmental factor, do you really want to destroy every animals habitat and use up all water? That water energy becomes huge as the water table drops. I realize oil, coal and NG mining also have huge impact..so I guess we need energy conservation no matter what.

@YellowDuck "you are right to be skeptical. We all should be." Skepticism should be supported by something with a bit of weight, such as, well, facts. In this case, we have people of a particular political persuasion who use "skepticism" as an excuse to be lazy and sloppy. No need to do research when being an opinionated skeptic who is oblivious to facts will suffice. Any study that ignores the food byproducts is inherently flawed. That's merely a factual statement -- food is energy, and food is a byproduct of ethanol production. Likewise, if we're going to assess the full chain of the cost of energy production, then one should also consider all of the resources that are required to get oil out of the ground, transported and refined. It's not as if gasoline just magically appears at the local gas station -- a lot of resources were committed to getting it there.

@YellowDuck PCH101: I can be skeptic based on assumptions and fears... what you mean is that facts are needed to disprove something. I'm not trying to diprove that sugar fuel experiment, I just ask questions and want to see actual scientific proof, not something based on surveys of people who benefit from the subsidies. I think my skepticism is based on reasonable knowledge. All I ask for that matter thoroughly researched before we waste more money (and destroy the environment even more). Subsidies may be necessary for startp technologies, but if over decades Billons of $ are needed, it is a boondoggle. If ethanol would make sense, it didn't need subsidies. I realize oil industry gets subsodies too, and disagree with those as well. Same way I'm skeptical off hydrogen (unless you find a natural source of such).

@YellowDuck If you don't know that ethanol production creates food byproducts that add to its energy balance, then you really don't know much about it at all.

@YellowDuck You know, I'm probably more on your side than youthink. But your brushing off ever skepticism is really off-putting. Good luck convincing someone who is in the opposite group. You can blame Republicans for denying science all day long, but you yourselves do a lot of science denial when it suits your argument.

@YellowDuck When "skepticism" is just a code word for being opinionated without bothering to do research, then it deserves to be trashed. If you don't know something about a given topic, then start by learning about it. Do the heavy lifting, read about it, analyze it and otherwise avoid forming an opinion until you know enough that your opinion is worthwhile. Rushing to judgment is just lazy and reactionary.

@Pch101 Actually, there are natural gas fields all over Europe. There's also North Sea oil, and Romanian oil. What Europe has a lot of is coal, and the technology to extract energy in gaseous and liquid form from coal is well developed. What Europe doesn't have a lot of is arable land to use growing corn or sugar cane. Any process they're developing must involve importing the raw material from elsewhere, maybe Russia, Brazil, Belarus, or Ukraine. If they don't want to dig up their own coal supplies and have to import the raw sugar-based materials, why not develop their energy from low sulfur American coal? Maybe the US is too unstable to be a reliable supplier?

@Pch101 "EU-27 dependency on energy imports increased from less than 40 % of gross energy consumption in the 1980s to reach 54.1 % by 2010...The highest energy dependency rates in 2010 were recorded for crude oil (85.2 %) and for natural gas (62.4 %)." http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Energy_production_and_imports Data trumps wishful thinking, day in and day out.

PCH101, irrelevant data (and links) are worthless. I didn't write that Europe had all the natural gas and oil they needed/consumed, I was responding to YOUR assertion that "In any case, the Europeans have neither oil nor gas." That's YOUR quote and I challenged it. You're wrong, they have a lot of energy resources, just not enough to be energy independent without going back to heavy coal use. Try to own up to your own statements, or clarify them if they caused misunderstanding, without getting testy with others.

@Pch101 The Europeans are obviously dependent upon imports. They couldn't survive without them. It seems that conservatives believe that there is some sort of conspiracy to disrupt our energy supplies. The reality is that advanced countries tend not to have enough of it, and they need to import it. North Sea oil is not going to save Europe, not by a longshot. It's incredibly naive to believe that Europe has any chance at all of ceasing its dependency on imported oil and gas without a drastic technological change.

@Pch101 As usual you are incorrect in your assumptions and biased opinions based on factless data. I could explain where your data is from. But I will be polite today to you. You see Pch101, the US is also dependent on the importation of resources. Most every country has some form of reliance on an import. Some are luckier than other, like Australia. http://www.thenational.ae/european-shale-oil-boom-wont-affect-global-energy-markets

No competition with land use... Have you seen strip mining and mountaintopremoval? And fracking also uses much land for the well, poisons the water, you need huge sand mining etc.

Most of the world's oil is controlled by state-owned oil companies. Oil is essentially a government-funded product. And those governments aren't generally among the nicer ones on the planet.