Posted on 05/27/2008 9:53:19 AM PDT by Winged Hussar
"In terms of renewable fuels, ethanol is the worst solution," Patzek says. "It has the highest energy cost with the least benefit."
Ethanol is produced by fermenting renewable crops like corn or sugarcane. It may sound green, Patzek says, but that's because many scientists are not looking at the whole picture. According to his research, more fossil energy is used to produce ethanol than the energy contained within it.
Patzek's ethanol critique began during a freshman seminar he taught in which he and his students calculated the energy balance of the biofuel. Taking into account the energy required to grow the corn and convert it into ethanol, they determined that burning the biofuel as a gasoline additive actually results in a net energy loss of 65 percent. Later, Patzek says he realized the loss is much more than that even.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
For later. Thanks.
Lower Ethanol Mileage Means Biofuel Users Buy More Gas
Isn’t it the case that whatever is used to make fuel will increase in price, at least in the short term? If there were a way to make cars run on milk, then milk prices would go up. What is the answer? Seems to me that there is going to be a cost increase somewhere no matter what an alternative fuel is made from. I don’t know if expensive gas or expensive food is worse, but isn’t there going to be some tradeoff for any fuel alternative?
Ah yes. Patzek. An adherent of Pimentel’s idea that the food that farmers eat is an “energy input” into corn production.
There are two names that simply are not credible on ethanol, corn or modern farm practices: Pimentel and Patzek.
“I’ve come to the conclusion that if we’re smart about it, nuclear power plants may be the lesser of the evils when we compare them with coal-fired plants and their impact on global warming,” he says.
Even this Bezerkely lib gets it.
Open up more areas to drilling for oil and natural gas!
Could you, you know, kinda back up your assertions with some evidence? You may be right, but I find it hard to accept someone’s bald comment without some solid evidence. Thanks in advance.
With the current plan we have both expensive gas AND expensive. Why do we have to have an alternative RIGHT NOW? The US is so rich in natural resources that we won't run out of coal for hundreds of years and we have more untapped reserves of natural gas and oil tar sands and underground oil than we could use in 3 lifetimes.
If Congress passed a bill to open ANWR and the coasts for drilling, the price of oil would plummet by $40 or more a barrel overnight. Let's get the price of gas down by drilling ANWR and off the coasts and work at a good pace to eliminate our dependence on oil.
Anyone you recommend as being credible?
Would have been helpful if how many units of energy are consumed to produce gasoline or diesel was included in article to compare.
Anyone know?
From a Cornell study (I believe in 2001):
You need about 140 gallons (530 liters) of fossil fuel to plant, grow and harvest an acre of corn. So, even before the corn is converted to ethanol, you're spending about $1.05 per gallon.
The energy economics get worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented. The corn has to be processed with various enzymes; yeast is added to the mixture to ferment it and make alcohol; the alcohol is then distilled to fuel-grade ethanol that is 85- to 95-percent pure. To produce ethanol that can be used as fuel, it also has to be denatured with a small amount of gasoline.
Example based on the above:
Toyota Camry makes trip LA – NYC: 2,774 miles
Gas - 30 mph @ $1.40 gal. (2001 price)
Ethanol - 20 mph @ $1.74 (2001 price)
= ½ acre of corn and cost of processing corn to make the above trip (26.1 lbs. of corn per gallon).
(1 gal. gas = 1.5 gallons ethanol).
The farmers aren’t buying it, either. I live in an area of Indiana that grew a HUGE amount of corn last year. There are literally thousands of acres that were knee-high in corn this time last year lying fallow. I drive past them every day.
bookmarking this thread for the answer
Yep. It will need to be a multi-facetted action plan. It is a real crisis and it is in our faces and ignorant government policy and inaction let it happen. The real solution lies in attacking the problem from various directions. Allow me to provide details...
Explore and drill, east and west coasts and Alaska. And yes, that includes YOU Californians. You ain`t nothing special, except maybe "special-ed." Besides, you need the money because your state is going bankrupt from all the illegal aliens you won't get rid of.
Develop the rather massive oil reserves contained in the Bakken Formation
Build modern technology refineries
Build modern technology Nuke power plants
Build modern technology clean-coal power plants
Open the clean coal deposits Klinton “closed” which contains 62 BILLION tons of environmentally safe low-sulfur coal from the Kaiparowits Plateau in Utah.
Slowly but steadily increase the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
Tax breaks to companies developing bio-diesel techniques that create fuel from cheap waste.
Tax breaks and investment perks for moderate temperature geothermal ORC power plant technology that operates off industrial waste heat / geothermal applications to generate power directly and run at 90% efficiency, without impacting oil and gas production.
At 400kW per unit you just line up as many as you need for a small community. Quiet and extremely clean.
Just how can we do this the simple, easy, smart way? How do we get away from the ignorance of ethanol? And from CORN no less?
The President must lead.
If the President were to announce this program tomorrow and clearly state that due to the necessity of averting a disaster to the economy and a threat to National Security he will emplace Executive Orders that will not only immediately initialize this overall program but exempt it from excessive or unnecessary environmental regulatory agencies rules where do you think the hedge fund speculators will go, thus dropping the market price of crude by roughly 50 bucks?
They will go straight to that new market of energy production and the companies that will build it, the new technologies that will emerge, as a well functioning "new energy industry" SHOULD be that inviting. Not only will the price start to drop immediately, the very nature of new industry gains and emerging technologies will keep the price down. And, as always, when other nations began to utilize the new and more efficient (higher profit margin) techniques the overall demand will slow.
BTW, as we move into the future and plan ahead we should think about how we use the energy source. Examples... All future power plants should be Nuke or Clean Coal. Reserve the natural gas for heating homes. That will allow more fuel oil to be used in diesel trucks because it is not heating houses. The natural gas can. You can heat a home with natural gas but you can not get the hauling capacity by trying to run the 18 wheeler on it.
Get the automakers together on a relatively cheap electric car and start building the new technology Nuke power plants to handle the extra overnight charging demand. And get the automakers off the shoebox on a roller-skate designs. Hello GM / Ford / Honda your designs are BUTT-UGLY.
Build these and we will buy.
However, you are going to have to give up on the $109,000 price tag. In return we will come off the 0-60mph in 3.9 seconds thing.
Ethanol, the Complete Energy Lifecycle Picture
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/program/ethanol_brochure_color.pdf
Iam sure NASA is working on it they have done so much.
I agree completely.
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.