Posted on 01/30/2006 4:41:53 PM PST by Paul Ross
This study slices and dices all the politicized studies trying to pooh-pooh ethanol.
In the colder Northern states, there will always be some need for a "two-fuel" engine, as the current ethanol designs require the engine warm up first with gas before the engine switches over to the ethanol. But it is still a lot better than total dependancy on the Marxists and Jihadists.
>>>This study slices and dices all the politicized studies trying to pooh-pooh ethanol.<<<
Can't believe this came out of UC-B.
Give it time - the FR 'He-man Ethanol Haters Club' will be along soon to tell you you're full of crap, and so is the study you posted.
Ping...
--more-lots more--
How many gallons of fuel does it require to produce and distill a gallon of ethanol?
Only biodiesel gives you more energy back than the fuel and oil based energy expended to make it - to the tune of 1.40:1
Unfortunately, they offer no realistic solutions.
We need real solutions.
Great! Where can I fill my tank up?
Don't want to drive 100 miles either.
BullHockey.
You're probably relying on decades old, flawed data for your conclusion - and assume that corn grown for ethanol processing yields only 1 product - the ethanol - another false assumption.
I AM A RETIRED FARMER WHO RAISED CORN, SOY WHEAT, OTHER STUFF.
THIS GUY IS ALL WET.
WHY?
IT TAKES THREE GALLON OF DIESEL FUEL TO PRODUCE TWO GALLON OF ETHANOL.
THIS IS A VERY GOOD TRADE? daadaaddddddddddddd
The Truth About Ethanol – Addressing the Myths of the Pimentel/Patzek Study
Recent media reports about a dubious study on the net energy balance of ethanol have garnered considerable national attention. The study, conducted by David Pimentel of Cornell University and Tad Patzek of the University of California-Berkeley, alleges ethanol production requires more fossil energy than the resulting ethanol fuel contains. Despite a wealth of research to the contrary, Pimentel has repeatedly made this same assertion in the past.
To set the record straight, the National Corn Growers Association has compiled the following information that questions Pimentel’s and Patzek’s credibility as well as the oil industry’s influence on these studies. We have also provided government and university studies that demonstrate ethanol’s positive energy balance.
http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/debunking/BehindStudy.htm
http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/pdfs/OilConnection.pdf
http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/pdfs/ShapouriEnergyBalance2004.pdf
http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/pdfs/Wang2005.pdf
http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/pdfs/KimDale2002.pdf
http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/pdfs/StudySummary.pdf
http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/debunking/NEVcomparisonChart95-05.pdf
You're the one who's been out in the rain too long.
Your assumption might be correct if and only if all corn grown was used to produce ethanol, and the only product resulting from the process was the ethanol.
Nah. Brazil is in the hands of another Marxist. Forget that. No, the cost estimates are cleary over-estimating what it would be if we got serious, and within five years, we can easily beat the Brazilian price using the enzymes for the other feed stocks that are vastly cheaper.
The only reason for ethanol or any other hydrocarbon fuel is that the world has locked itself into otto/diesel engines. What we REALLY need are small electric vehicles retailing for under $10,000. The problems there are high energy density electric batteries, for greater range than 60 miles with 1000# of lead acid batteries; and crash-safety. EV-street legal machines would go far to solving most of the transport problems. My EV supplier says that Lithium ion or metal hydride are 10 to 15 times as expensive as lead acid(10w-h/#)and range from 40w-h/# to 80w-h/# = a losing proposition price/energy density-wise. He says it's a catch 22 situation. Battery mfgrs say : show us the MARKET and we'll develop the battery you need, EVers say : show us the battery we need and we'll make the EV market you need... So, here you have the solution to foreign oil and its problems, and no real leadership to DO IT....
The UC Berkley study takes the negative studies apart.
"The key, according to Farrell, is properly accounting for the byproducts of ethanol production, which include corn oil and animal feed. With that factored in, he said, "you gain about 20% more energy in the ethanol than you required in fossil energy to produce it.""
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/in_news/archives/20060127.shtml
Considering all the land, work and investment that goes into growing the ethanol (beside the input of fossil fuel), that isn't very impressive. We won't be able to drop the 4 billion dollar a year subsidy any time soon.
The study does mention possible new methods that may make ethanol attractive one day.
Nope.
Too heavy. Too clunky. Ethanol gives us the potential of just as much range, and reasonably lower price...into perpetuity. Not to mention horsepower. Also, vastly greater life-cycle endurance for the mechanicals than forseeable batteries offer.
>>>The UC Berkley study takes the negative studies apart.<<<
That is does.
And was I right about the 'He-man ethanol haters club' around here - just look look at 'em...spouting off, so ill-informed...it's almost amusing.
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.