Sorry, I was busy.
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Ethanol producers dispute Pimentel and Patzek's findings, saying the data is outdated and doesn't take into account profits that offset costs.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.
Hey, Genius. Do you think those tractors are just sitting idle unless they're producing corn for ethanol? Naw. I reckon they're out there in the fields burning fuel whether they're producing corn for livestock feed or for feeding SUVs.
Gladly. You'll notice I didn't say anything about "shutting down the Arabs." I don't care what the rest of the world does. But if the US could become independent of Arab oil, then fewer AMERICAN dollars would enrich a bunch of thieving Bedouins.
All that would happen is we would buy from the Norwegians or Russians and the the Arabs would sell to them.
You slept a lot during math class, didn't you?
Tell everyone how that will shut down the Arabs.
Naw, you go ahead. That's YOUR thesis, not mine.
The only pockets that will get hurt will be ours as we would pay even higher prices for imported oil.
Was Econ right after math?
Well, yes and no. Ethanol, without by-products, from corn is barely feasible. The value of the gluten or DDG's (as well as the existence of cash and futures markets in corn) make corn ethanol quite feasible.
Sorry, I was busy.
THANKS FOR THE RESPONSE. TIMELY.
The Arab countries produce only two things: oil and terrorists. They import everything else, including food (to feed terrorists), cloth (to hide suicide bomb belts on terrorists), industrial chemicals (to make suicide bomb belts for terrorists), and manufactured goods (such as AK47's to arm terrorists).
Only one of their exports, the oil, can be considered a trade good with a market value (they provide the terrorists to the rest of the world gratis). That makes oil their only source of income to use in exchange for the products they import (such as food, cloth etc).
When a major oil comsumer like the United States develops viable alternatives to Arab Oil, regardless of whether it's Arctic Wildlife Refuge Oil, or BioDiesel, or Wind Power, or Nuclear, or whatever, the worldwide consumption of oil decreases. The lower international demand means a lower price for oil on the international market, meaning less money flows into Arab countries for them use to to buy food, cloth, etc. for raising, equipping, and exporting terrorists.
hmmm. I thought it was the evil professors at the liberal universities that we weren't supposed to side with. I guess I was wrong.
Do you believe everything you read?
Ever listen to Dr. Bill Wattenberg on KGO San Francisco? He has reasoned for years that ethanol is a waste of energy, as well as solar power. He testified to the California legislature about the carcinogenic effect of MTBE before they made it mandatory in gasoline. He's been working in the energy and defense fields for decades; he is a scientist armed with facts, not prejudice. I trust what he says. He is an advocate of nuclear power, in fact, he has worked on the building and disposing of waste from the plants. Check out his show's website at pushback.com.
The numbers I have for oil production from industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa) result from similar amounts of fertilization, irrigation, pesticides, and whatnot as the other crops. Hemp will grow without fertilizer, irrigation, pesticides, and whatnot (like all plants), but not nearly as well and with a massively reduced yield (especially seed oil yield).
USED FOR COTTON.
But we are not discussing cotton or other fiber crops. We are discussing energy crops. Industrial hemp is a very good fiber crop. If you want to make cloth or paper, industrial hemp would be a very good idea (if it were legal). However, industrial hemp is a poor energy crop. If you want to fuel your car, grow rapeseed or something better.
THE MULTIPLE USE FACTOR FOR FUEL OIL IS JUST ONE OF THE PLUS ITEMS.
Now if you're talking about taking the extra seed byproduct from growing hemp for fiber and putting it into a general oil seed feedstock for producing energy, then there's nothing wrong with your position. However, the low oil energy per acre output for hemp (especially compared to it's high fiber per acre output) means it will never be more than a tiny blip in any renewable energy economy.
If you're advocating growing hemp specifically as an energy crop, there are many significantly better energy crops out there.
No, it was right after "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face".
And much better renewable fuels then Ethanol.
If a farmer is looking to maximize his subsidy income, growing corn for Ethanol is a good idea for him. If he is looking to maximize his BTU production, growing rapeseed (or another oil crop) for BioDiesel is a much better idea.
Farmers pay the bills with dollars, not BTUs, so they grow corn for Ethanol.
"No, YOU misunderstood IronJack's meaning. Whether or not ethanol takes more energy to produce than it gives off as a fuel (kind of disproven by Bommer's posting), IF we use American coal as the source of fossil energy for the distillation process (the biggest "energy hit" during production), this displaces a large amount of foreign crude oil--far more than just the ethanol produced."
Then you both are a little dim, because you might as well crack the coal to begin with instead of creating a massive farm welfare state. Unless that's the goal, in which case we might as well go back to burning wood in steam engines because that would certainly create more work.
And if you are going to all this trouble, why not just go nuclear in the first place. I think you guys are just Rube Goldberg wannabees.
"There's no term in a thermodynamics equation that includes a financial term. "
Sure there is, it is a stand in for free energy costs which contain an entropy term. So you don't know what you are talking about.
"When a major oil comsumer like the United States develops viable alternatives to Arab Oil, regardless of whether it's Arctic Wildlife Refuge Oil, or BioDiesel, or Wind Power, or Nuclear, or whatever, the worldwide consumption of oil decreases. "
Not really, it simply flows elsewhere in the world. This increases production in those countries, which at first subsidizes them because of the lower cost, however more production leads to - more production, So the long term use of oil and profits to the Arabs is not much reduced, and may be paradoxically increased.
But maybe if the Government spent a few hundred million (not suggesting that anybody should spend any of their money) to build an ethanol pipeline infrastructure to transport the fuel we could cut this down to only 20 percent?
Then again, how about we just let the market forces decide. Historically speaking the market has a pretty good track record.
Good idea, although I would be happier if it were off Martha's Vinyard. Good tag line!
You are making one false assumption. You are assuming that if the United States reduces or eliminates it's demand for Arab Oil, that demand will be taken up by other countries so that the worldwide demand for Arab Oil will remain the same.
Which is patently untrue.
Sure, other countries may increase their Arab Oil consumption of prices decline because of the elimination of the U.S. demand, but in no way would such an increase be sufficient to match the eliminated U.S. demand. We consume a LOT of oil, and industries can only expand at a limited rate. Countries consume the oil they can afford, or their economies and industries require. They do not purchase oil just to waste it (despite what the Anti-SUV tree hugger crowd might say).
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.