Posted on 07/17/2005 4:09:40 PM PDT by Graybeard58
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- Farmers, businesses and state officials are investing millions of dollars in ethanol and biofuel plants as renewable energy sources, but a new study says the alternative fuels burn more energy than they produce.
Supporters of ethanol and other biofuels contend they burn cleaner than fossil fuels, reduce U.S. dependence on oil and give farmers another market to sell their produce.
But researchers at Cornell University and the University of California-Berkeley say it takes 29 percent more fossil energy to turn corn into ethanol than the amount of fuel the process produces. For switch grass, a warm weather perennial grass found in the Great Plains and eastern North America United States, it takes 45 percent more energy and for wood, 57 percent.
It takes 27 percent more energy to turn soybeans into biodiesel fuel and more than double the energy produced is needed to do the same to sunflower plants, the study found.
"Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, the economy, or the environment," according to the study by Cornell's David Pimentel and Berkeley's Tad Patzek. They conclude the country would be better off investing in solar, wind and hydrogen energy.
The researchers included such factors as the energy used in producing the crop, costs that were not used in other studies that supported ethanol production, said Pimentel.
The study also omitted $3 billion in state and federal government subsidies that go toward ethanol production in the United States each year, payments that mask the true costs, Pimentel said.
Ethanol is an additive blended with gasoline to reduce auto emissions and increase gas' octane levels. Its use has grown rapidly since 2004, when the federal government banned the use of the additive MTBE to enhance the cleaner burning of fuel. About 3.6 billion gallons of ethanol were produced last year in the United States, according to the Renewable Fuels Association, an ethanol trade group.
The ethanol industry claims that using 8 billion gallons of ethanol a year will allow refiners to use 2 billion fewer barrels of oil. The oil industry disputes that, saying the ethanol mandate would have negligible impact on oil imports.
Ethanol producers dispute Pimentel and Patzek's findings, saying the data is outdated and doesn't take into account profits that offset costs.
Michael Brower, director of community and government relations at SUNY's College of Environmental Science and Forestry, points to reports by the Energy and Agriculture departments that have shown the ethanol produced delivers at least 60 percent more energy the amount used in production. The college has worked extensively on producing ethanol from hardwood trees.
Biodiesel can be used in any diesel engine with few or no modifications. It is often blended with petroleum diesel to reduce the propensity to gel in cold weather.
Only hundreds of square miles? Try thousands of square miles, and then you'll have the enviroweenies screaming that it's causing global warming/cooling/whatever the malaise-of-the-weak is.
I guarantee that Kentucky bourbon uses corn, as does moonshine.
I stand corrected.
If we use American coal (or better yet, nuke) to generate electricity, and convert a bunch of houses from using oil heat to using electric heating, we displace even more foreign oil
Yup---dig more coal, build more nukes (including breeder reactors), and make more biofuels for transportation uses with those sources as "prime mover" energy providers.
Just more stooges for big oil and on big oil's payroll putting out their phony line. University of California-Berkeley says it all.
Link : http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1859
Depends on the year and the region, but generally pretty good, even if we are talking "two-buck Chuck".
"Institute for Local Self-Reliance, National Office"
This sounds like a pro-ethanol group that did the study?
Ethanol is like Jason in Halloween. No matter how many times you slay the myth, it just keeps getting back up.
The counter productivity of ethanol was shown in the mid 70's. Although I blame the efforts of the ethanol industry ($$$), let's be realistic. In spite of their lobbying, we could end it for good *if* the enviro-wackos weren't so much in favor of it. That makes it popular with the MSM.
"Burning" is a rather unscientific word for rapid oxidization. I suppose when you are talking about burned hydrogen you are referring to water (H2O) which is in fact hydrogen which has been oxidized.
But to say that water is our only abundant source of hydrogen is far from accurate. It is true that we are running low on economically cheap supplies of many of the preferred hydrogen-carbons like oil and various natural gasses which represent "unburned hydrogen". But we have an incredible amount of a hydrocarbon called COAL and the energy stored in the hydrogen-carbon bond can be released from it in various economical ways. One possibility is the traditional method of burning it. Another is steam reformation which strips off the hydrogen which could be used in a fuel cell and leaves CO2 as a byproduct. Coal reformation is basically the process the Nazis used to turn coal into synthetic gasoline during WWII so it is old technology.
You are correct that to reverse the oxidization (or burning) process for hydrogen that exists as part of the elemental makeup of water requires the input of energy. Most of us probably saw water electrolyzed into hydrogen and oxygen in elementary school. The trick is getting lots of cheap electricity. Some small amount may be supplied by solar but we really need to get serious about building fission reactors and also try to figure out fusion.
I have full confidence we are going to figure it out. The market is a powerful force. In the meantime we should let the market decide if bio-fuels are a good idea by ending the subsidies immediately.
Yes, my populist roots like the looks of HEMP...
not the smok'n kind but the tougher'n nails kind.
The fact that they found a lot of oil offshore might have something to do with it.
The ethanol is sold side by side with gasoline at local stations, the cost is 30 to 40 per cent less than gas.
Is the lower price due to the market or to government incentives?
Acre for acre, cane from the tropics can convert more solar energy to fuel than corn from the temperate zones.
Source?
This sounds outstanding! I can't imagine that anything this wonderful and efficient is not incredibly profitable. Can we end the subsidies now?
Please
Is there no very basic science being taught in America any more?
Maybe so, maybe not, but I know what the sole of my foot or the seat of my pants feels like between the different types of gas!
I'm not sure what you mean by that.
I've discussed Pimental and Patzek elsewhere:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1430073/posts?page=100#100
Their research is biased and fundamentally flawed. Their conclusions have been disproved (repeatedly).
Now I'm not saying ethanol is the panacea wonder fuel that some from the Big Corn lobby would have us believe, but neither is it the boondoggle that Pimental and Patzek would have us believe.
My tractor runs on ethanol.
By all means, let's look at industrial hemp:
Hemp (Cannabis sativa) 305 kg oil per hectare
Now lets look at soy:
Soybean (Glycine max) 375 kg oil per hectare
Or rapeseed (canola):
Rapeseed (Brassica napus) 1000 kg oil per hectare
Or the avacoda
Avacado (Persea americana) 2217 kg oil per hectare
The lesson here is that just because the government has been unjustly and unconstitutionally suppressing a particular crop does not mean it's a cure all wonder weed.
Guacamoleum anyone?
The feasability of biofuels depends extremely heavily upon the crops from which they are derived. Ethanol from corn is barely feasable. Ethanol from sugarcane is a lot more productive. BioDiesel from soy is also barely feasable. BioDiesel from Rapeseed in imminently do-able (not that you see anything about it in any study by Pimental or Patzek - they prefer to only study expensive to grow, harvest, and press crops from borderline farmland). And BioDiesel from algae grown in wastewater ponds in the middle of the infertile desert wasteland is a damn good idea. Hemp, despite it's legal troubles and value in the fiber market, just doesn't compare as an energy crop.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.