Posted on 02/25/2006 7:51:26 AM PST by Rakkasan1
When discussing economic policies it is important to not let rhetoric overpower reality. That happened in a recent, much-reprinted New York Times article that argued "endless fields of corn in the Midwest can be distilled into endless gallons of ethanol … that could end any worldwide oil shortage … and free the United States from dependence on foreign energy." The story went on to discuss how much energy goes into producing ethanol. But it failed to substantiate its lead assertion of "endless gallons of ethanol" that might "free the United States" from oil imports. The United States is an agricultural powerhouse, but even common crops like corn are not endless. In 2004, we harvested just under 12 billion bushels of corn, the most in several years. One bushel of corn yields about 2.7 gallons of ethanol. So if we processed all the corn we produce, we would have 32 billion gallons of fuel alcohol.
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
Thanks for the comments. Good for you. I'm not a tree hugger by any stretch of the imagination. I'm the original red-neck on these subjects. Still, there are things that just make sense. I don't like having the Middle-East's boot on my nation's neck.
There are a myriad of things that could be done to help make most homes nearly self-reliant. With a crash effort, we could do this within ten to fifteen years. My question is, why not?
Celluosic?
Was it ever written that this would be the case?
I don't care if we've got to burn cow patties, as long as we don't have to buy them from a gang of murdering rug-riders.
Spoken by people who couldn't plant a single ear of corn if their lives depended on it. "Somebody else will do it. It's not my job."
According to this article, one bushel of corn yields about 2.7 gallons of ethanol. An acre of land can yield over 200 bushels of corn. It doesn't take a minute or two to roll over an acre of land with a tractor to plant and fertilize or combine to harvest.
If the farmer began using biodiesel, all the better.
Keep in mind that getting fossil fuel out of the ground, to the refinery, refined, and to the marketplace burns alot of energy too.
Point is, we have to start somewhere.
I would love to see a some sort of national campaign to do just that perhaps similar to the "Help Us Win the War" programs of WWII. If energy prices get much higher it should be easy to get the public to buy into it.
If you search you will find results all over the place. I have found them as low as 40% of the energy produced must be consumed to over 100%.
However, on http://www.ethanol.org a Pro-Ethanol web site they link to a study on energy balance.
http://www.ethanol.org/pdfs/energy_balance_ethanol.pdf
It states:
Production of corn-ethanol is energy efficient, in that it yields 34 percent more energy than it takes to produce it, including growing the corn, harvesting it, transporting it, and distilling it into ethanol.
As long as we just accept that petroleum is the cost-effective answer, we will be in a world of hurt when we have no real alternative, import most of our oil (already there), and the mid-east/Venezuelan/Nigerian oil industry/governments cut us off/collapse.
We must focus on pushing current alternative fuel technologies, expanding domestic oil supplies (ANWR), and be ready for the inevitable crash-weaning from foreign oil.
I will have little problem moving to Montana and living off the land - armed to the teeth - when I must. Although I believe we will probably have to do something like this in the next century, I want my sons to have a shot at a full, meaningful life.
If we aren't willing to take over and annex Saudi Arabia, we have to have other alternatives for when they fail us.
100 percent agree. If we use coal to make liquid fuels, it doesn't matter if there is a net energy loss.
http://www.jackherer.com/
LOL - You might have something there.
Probably a thimble full of diesel.
I would also like to see some research into small solar collectors driving steam driven generators.
Because the Green Weenies block any/all attempts to use our own energy resources, current and potential. Such people are at the root cause of many national and international problems. If we were able to exploit our domestics energy without the endless envioro-studies and legal challenges the problems could probably be resolved within five years. Can you imagine how the space program would have turned out if all the environmental whacos had existed in those early days?
I pray for the souls of the middle-easterners but I don't have to support their murderous anti-Christian/Jew/west religion through oil.
The US Army sent me to Kuwait/S.A. twice: once as a private in the Gulf War and again as a platoon sergeant in '97. The area is the arm pit of the world.
If there was no oil under that sand, that region would still be stuck in the dark ages.
I agree.
Your analysis is 100% correct. The solution is to use ALL our resources. The third world despots would be left holding the bag and go back to living in tents and caves. Then they would not have the finances to support terrorist.
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.