posted
heres why, IMO, corn based ethanol is not much more than a political shell game:
Corn-based ethanol's a flawed concept By Myra P. Saefong, MarketWatch Last Update: 7:34 AM ET Feb 16, 2007
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Ethanol as an alternative energy source is a flawed concept -- at least when corn is used to produce it. And the consequences of using corn to create ethanol are far-ranging - they even impact consumers and the price they pay for meat. So is it worth it? It depends who you ask. "There have been numerous studies completed regarding the energy efficiency of ethanol vs. its production," said John Eichberger, vice president of government relations for the National Association of Convenience Stores. "These range from a positive net energy return in excess of 30% to a negative net energy return of more than 30%," he said. "Researchers on both sides of the issue argue that the other research is significantly flawed." Even so, policymakers insist that ethanol is a "positive replacement product for crude-oil based fuels and have proceeded down a path to subsidize and mandate its use," said Eichberger, whose trade organization represents the convenience and petroleum-retailing industry. There's no doubt that renewable fuels are a good idea, said Darin Newsom, a senior analyst at Omaha, Nebraska-based DTN. "That means putting more research into more efficient ways" of making them. That said, "corn is a short-term end to the means." An easy-to-read measure of whether ethanol's economically viable can be derived from taking a look at its "energy return on energy invested," or EROI, according to Brodrick. "It is at the crux of why corn-based ethanol is a boondoggle," he said. EROI can be expressed as "net energy," he explains. The EROI for corn-based ethanol is 1.2:1, so the net energy is 0.2, he said. That means you put in 1 British thermal unit to get 1.2 BTUs from it, he said. "At EROI of 1.2 to 1, the 3.9 billion gallons that the U.S. produced in 2005 required 3.29 billion gallons of BTU energy input, resulting in a 'net energy' of 610 million gallons," he said. And that's being generous, he said. "There are some computations that show corn-based ethanol has a net energy of zero. Others show it as a net energy loser." http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/corn-based-ethanols-flawed-concept/story.a spx?guid=%7BEC55D7AD%2D6E1C%2D4AD8%2D912F%2DA2A0BD4D4299%7D&dist=TNMostRead
even at the high end of expectations? it is just a stop-gap, and will not help the long-term problem...
it is a start, but that's all..not a fix.. the Growers would love to see more corn consumption, and it will be good for their bottom line....
sugar cane? that's been the answer for Brazil... there are sugar cane "types" that grow in the US too...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. Thats the reason Sugarland Texas is so named.
There are vast numbers of acres in the U.S. that have grown sugar cane for hundreds of years.
However, even via sugar cane or other sources, ethanol is at most a stop gap approach. Might contribute for just a little while in weaning us from foreign oil supplies, but hardly more than scratches the surface in slowing global warming and otherwise protecting the environment.
what's your choice? The options are using up the worlds accessable supply of petoleum and using up the worlds supply of habitable world.
Do you think you will really give a hoot who supplied the oil from which your gasoline (or ethanol or alcohol or - - -) when you can't get a breath of air with enough oxygen in it to live or you can't burn enough coal to keep warm enough to survive in the winter of cool enough in the summer to just keep breating?
Burning ethanol in place of gasoline or diesel fuel still generates large amounts of CO and CO2, as does burning any sort of carbon containing compound.
What is needed is to get completely away from burning things to produce energy that result in greenhouse gasses being released into the ecosystem.
In other words, to start ignoring the engineering of the 16th and 17th century and learn a new way.
At the beginning of WWII, Poland had the best trained and best equiped horse cavalry in the world.
IP: Logged |
posted
is there any sort of energy source that doesnt require the burning of something carbon based for energy output? or are we getting into the realm of perpetual motion etc..?
-------------------- "Gentleman, you have come sixty days too late. The depression is over." Herbert Hoover 1930
IP: Logged |
posted
Why doesn't somebody who lives outside of Arizona ask John McCain why is he not promoting solar power and doing something about illegal immagration.
We are sick of telling the dumb moron what we want and would like him to get done.
The only time he ever listens to the people of Arizona is when he is up for election
IP: Logged |
posted
the obvious problem with alternate fuel sources is that they will not generate a huge profit for the oil industry. Unfortunately, this industry has a strong influence on both the democrats and republicans. What was especially bad was to elect an oil man to the whitehouse at this point and time. I would love to know what went on in Bush' 2001 energy task force meetings, but the Supreme Court said it was none of our business. It also doesn't help that Detroit thinks the only way to make money is to sell over sized SUV's. For what it's worth, I recommend the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car."
IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, dubya was never an "oil man", just a wanna be. He founded a couple of so-called "oil companies" that sold lots of stock, never drilled, never owned any equipment or wells, never made a dime, and were nothing more than stock scandles that he got away with because daddy was in power.
Though it may be true that there are, here and there, a democrat or two that is under the influence of the oil companies, the entire republican party is in debt to them and willing to sell out the country anytime if directed to by their handlers. (For any dime contributed to a democrat or any democratic effort, "Big Oil" grants thousands of dollars to individual republicans and thousands more to to the Republican Party.)
"Who Killed the Electric Car" is interesting but for an even better look at who determines what happens in American politics, look into the demise of the city trollies back in the 50s and 60s.
Mass transit of all kinds, local and long distance, in this Country was dealt a death blow via the lobbying efforts of mostly Ford Motor Company and the giant tire companies, to influence local governments to cease backing trollies.
After the trolleys were eliminated, then they turned against the local bus systems and essentially wiped them out too.
For any of you that are riding under the misguided notion put forth by the politicians that claim to be Washington outsiders, that this is something that developed only in the current generation and can be ended by "voting the b a s t a r d s out", I point to Teapot Dome and the necessary break-up of Standard Oil to counter that silly nonsense.
IP: Logged |
there was "Tucker, a man and his dream" also... Tucker: The Man and His Dream is a 1988 film directed by Francis Ford Coppola and starring Jeff Bridges which tells the story of Preston Tucker and his attempt to produce and market the Tucker '48.
quote:Originally posted by glassman: "Who Killed the Electric Car."
was pretty good..
the story isn't new tho..
there was "Tucker, a man and his dream" also... Tucker: The Man and His Dream is a 1988 film directed by Francis Ford Coppola and starring Jeff Bridges which tells the story of Preston Tucker and his attempt to produce and market the Tucker '48.
posted
No, I believe most of those proposing the development of ethanol as a fuel actually believe it would solve huge problems if not entirely eliminate dependence on foreign nations for fuel, clean the air and water, and stop global warming.
Those folks are wrong. Quite well meaning and honest, but wrong.
Even so, it would be a good intemediate step and would enlarge the window of opportunity for an actual attaack on global warming, energy independence, and polution.
Fuel cells, wind generators, solar cells, thermal energy, etc. would actually work, though.....and without the dangers posed by nuclear plants.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
