|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > January 2006 > Energy needed for Ethanol production
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Energy needed for Ethanol production
|
|
| harry k 2006-01-10, 12:21 am |
| Looks like my understaning of the subject needed updating. I had
thought that there was a net loss of energy. This site claims 24% gain
using corn.
Harry K
| |
| Tony Wesley 2006-01-10, 12:21 am |
|
harry k wrote:
> Looks like my understaning of the subject needed updating. I had
> thought that there was a net loss of energy. This site claims 24% gain
> using corn.
"This site" is which?
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2006-01-10, 1:21 am |
| harry k wrote:
> Looks like my understaning of the subject needed updating. I had
> thought that there was a net loss of energy. This site claims 24% gain
> using corn.
It all depends on how you do things. It can go either way.
Anthony
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| harry k wrote:
> Tony Wesley wrote:
>
>
>
> Oops, had in the OP but must have deleted before sending. Trying again:
>
> http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer721/
>
> Harry K
>
"We conclude that the net energy value of corn ethanol has become
positive in recent years due to technological advances in ethanol
conversion and increased efficiency in farm production."
So were those who claimed all along (before the "technological
advances") that the energy balance was positive lying, or just
mistaken?
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
| |
| mike wilcox 2006-01-10, 1:21 pm |
| harry k wrote:
> Tony Wesley wrote:
>
>
>
> Oops, had in the OP but must have deleted before sending. Trying again:
>
> http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer721/
>
> Harry K
>
I don't know why they are so centered on corn, its coversion ratio sucks
compared to other crops.
| |
|
| mike wilcox wrote:
> harry k wrote:
>
> I don't know why they are so centered on corn, its coversion ratio sucks
> compared to other crops.
Cite? Why would that be so?
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
| |
| harry k 2006-01-10, 7:21 pm |
|
CJT wrote:
> harry k wrote:
>
> "We conclude that the net energy value of corn ethanol has become
> positive in recent years due to technological advances in ethanol
> conversion and increased efficiency in farm production."
>
> So were those who claimed all along (before the "technological
> advances") that the energy balance was positive lying, or just
> mistaken?
>
> --
> The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
> minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
I would say they were using creative math and assumptions then.
I got lost in the article so maybe it is mentioned. I wonder if the
energy cost of producing and transporting the fertilyzer needed to grow
corn (and it is a lot) was figured in on the 24% gain.
Harry K
| |
| Steve Spence 2006-01-10, 8:21 pm |
| harry k wrote:
>
> I would say they were using creative math and assumptions then.
> I got lost in the article so maybe it is mentioned. I wonder if the
> energy cost of producing and transporting the fertilyzer needed to grow
> corn (and it is a lot) was figured in on the 24% gain.
>
> Harry K
>
The fertilizer comes from the cow barn. Not a lot of energy needed to
spread it.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| mike wilcox 2006-01-10, 8:21 pm |
| CJT wrote:
> mike wilcox wrote:
>
>
>
> Cite? Why would that be so?
>
Corn is very cost and labor intensive to grow, it needs heavy use of
pesticides and fertilizer and its sugar content is lower than many other
crops.
| |
| SolarFlaire 2006-01-10, 8:21 pm |
| That is quite nieve. What about the increased
amortization costs on the money borrowed because you
couldn't pay the mortgage as fast as you wanted when
you didn't sell the manure to the garden centre?
Nothing is free, except denial.
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in
message news:43c44141_3@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> The fertilizer comes from the cow barn. Not a lot of
energy needed to
> spread it.
>
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Windsun 2006-01-10, 10:21 pm |
| Green Trust is not unbiased either.
Ethanol is just barely better than break even - the best independent sources
say around 10-15%. But some methods of production are net losers, and are
viable only because of government subsidies.
| |
| mike wilcox 2006-01-10, 10:21 pm |
| Steve Spence wrote:
> harry k wrote:
>
>
> The fertilizer comes from the cow barn. Not a lot of energy needed to
> spread it.
>
>
Right.... Monsanto has cows? Pull the other one ;~0
| |
| Steve Spence 2006-01-10, 11:21 pm |
| SolarFlaire wrote:
> That is quite nieve. What about the increased
> amortization costs on the money borrowed because you
> couldn't pay the mortgage as fast as you wanted when
> you didn't sell the manure to the garden centre?
>
> Nothing is free, except denial.
What are you talking about. The stuff isn't sold to a garden center,
it's 100k gallon slurry ponds, pumped onto the fields.
There's usually no mortgage on a 100+ year family farm.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
|
|
| Steve Spence 2006-01-10, 11:21 pm |
| Windsun wrote:
> Green Trust is not unbiased either.
>
True, our bias is towards science and truth, not commercial smoke and
mirrors. We have no financial interest in the results of scientific
research. In fact, we are one of your biggest fans, and promote you,
with no expectation of remuneration.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| SolarFlaire 2006-01-11, 12:21 am |
| Do you start every weak defence with "What are you
talking about?"
You spend your whole life trying to save a few pennies
and could save more money getting a part time job at
the corner store.
I bet you have a lot more fun though.
Nothing is free, except denial
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in
message news:43c46e0e_3@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> SolarFlaire wrote:
you[color=darkred]
when[color=darkred]
>
>
> What are you talking about. The stuff isn't sold to a
garden center,
> it's 100k gallon slurry ponds, pumped onto the
fields.
>
> There's usually no mortgage on a 100+ year family
farm.
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| SolarFlaire 2006-01-11, 12:21 am |
| But what do the cows eat when your burn the corn?
Nothing is free, except that denial again.
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in
message news:43c46e8d_3@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> mike wilcox wrote:
assumptions then.[color=darkred]
mentioned. I wonder if the[color=darkred]
fertilyzer needed to grow[color=darkred]
gain.[color=darkred]
of energy needed to[color=darkred]
>
> There is no Monsanto around here, just independent
corn farmers.
>
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| mike wilcox 2006-01-11, 12:21 am |
| Steve Spence wrote:
> SolarFlaire wrote:
>
>
>
>
> What are you talking about. The stuff isn't sold to a garden center,
> it's 100k gallon slurry ponds, pumped onto the fields.
>
> There's usually no mortgage on a 100+ year family farm.
>
Most farmers are always in hock, shows how much you know about farming.
| |
| mike wilcox 2006-01-11, 1:21 am |
| Steve Spence wrote:
> mike wilcox wrote:
>
>
>
> There is no Monsanto around here, just independent corn farmers.
>
>
Right.... Corn requires liquid fertilizers such as 10-34-0, 4-10-10,
3-18-18 in concentrations in the five -ten gallons per acre range.
| |
| nick pine 2006-01-11, 10:21 am |
| harry k wrote:
>This site claims 24% gain using corn.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer721/
Burning the corn looks more efficient...
Hosein Shapouri writes:
>... In 2001, To produce a bushel of corn about 50,000 BTU of energy was used.
>Corn has on average 15 percent moisture. So a bushel of corn on dry basis is
>about 47 pounds. Direct combustion of corn could generate about 6000 btu per
>bushel. Therefore, the net energy balance of burning corn is positive and equal
>47*6000-50000=232,000
(I think he meant 6K Btu/lb.)
>... I am sure that net energy balance of burning soybeans is more positive than
>corn per pound. Soybean production requires very little nitrogen fertilizer.
| |
| Steve Spence 2006-01-11, 11:21 am |
| SolarFlaire wrote:
> But what do the cows eat when your burn the corn?
>
> Nothing is free, except that denial again.
>
You don't burn the corn, you squeeze it for oil and ferment it for ethanol,
then feed the dried distillers grains to the cows.
A good education isn't free. You should have paid.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Steve Spence 2006-01-11, 11:21 am |
| mike wilcox wrote:
> Steve Spence wrote:
>
> Most farmers are always in hock, shows how much you know about farming.
LOL, yeh, ok.
The equipment is it's own guarentee, you never mortgage the land. I grew
up on a farm, and I still work with farmers on renewable energy
products. Things like biodiesel, ethanol, and methane digestion.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Steve Spence 2006-01-11, 11:21 am |
| mike wilcox wrote:
> Steve Spence wrote:
>
> Right.... Corn requires liquid fertilizers such as 10-34-0, 4-10-10,
> 3-18-18 in concentrations in the five -ten gallons per acre range.
and that liquid fertilizer comes from the slurry pond. We work with
organic farmers, who don't but chemicals. There's enough nutrients in
manure, and soil building regimes so you don't have to burn out poor
quality soil with chemicals.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| harry k 2006-01-11, 12:21 pm |
|
Steve Spence wrote:
> mike wilcox wrote:
>
> and that liquid fertilizer comes from the slurry pond. We work with
> organic farmers, who don't but chemicals. There's enough nutrients in
> manure, and soil building regimes so you don't have to burn out poor
> quality soil with chemicals.
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
I have plowed through all your BS down to here so far. Show me any
modern farm growing corn as a cash crop that also has enough livestock
to provide fertilyzer for it. There may be a few isolated organic
farmers around that do but you aren't going to find any big farmer
doing it. I also grew up on a farm back in the 40/50s growing wheat
and a herd of cows and pigs. The output from the livestock wouldn't
cover the fertilyzer needs of more than a minor fraction of the
acreage. The only farms I know of that have a major organic output are
dairy farms, not grain farms. The days of diversified commercial
farming died 50 years ago.
Harry K
| |
| Steve Spence 2006-01-11, 12:21 pm |
| harry k wrote:
>
> I have plowed through all your BS down to here so far. Show me any
> modern farm growing corn as a cash crop that also has enough livestock
> to provide fertilyzer for it. There may be a few isolated organic
> farmers around that do but you aren't going to find any big farmer
> doing it. I also grew up on a farm back in the 40/50s growing wheat
> and a herd of cows and pigs. The output from the livestock wouldn't
> cover the fertilyzer needs of more than a minor fraction of the
> acreage. The only farms I know of that have a major organic output are
> dairy farms, not grain farms. The days of diversified commercial
> farming died 50 years ago.
>
> Harry K
>
Keep plowing through the truth. No BS. The slurry and dry manures come
from both the 1000 head of milk cows plus the 1500 head calf operation
down the road.
Once you build your soil, crop rotation and beneficial organisms (the
ones you kill off with your chemicals) turn the manures into very good
plant food.
Please don't expect your local experiences to be valid everywhere else.
diversified commercial farming is alive and well.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| mike wilcox 2006-01-11, 12:21 pm |
| Steve Spence wrote:
> mike wilcox wrote:
>
>
>
> and that liquid fertilizer comes from the slurry pond. We work with
> organic farmers, who don't but chemicals. There's enough nutrients in
> manure, and soil building regimes so you don't have to burn out poor
> quality soil with chemicals.
>
The farmers you work with are in the extreme minority. Growing corn is a
very chemical intensive operation requiring support from petrochemical
corporations.
| |
| Steve Spence 2006-01-11, 1:21 pm |
| In-Reply-To: <gS9xf.14228$W03.495855@news20.bellglobal.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: nictel-dsl-65-212.slic.com
Message-ID: <43c52e6c$1_5@newsfeed.slurp.net>
X-Trace: newsfeed.slurp.net 1136995948 65.172.242.212 (11 Jan 2006 11:12:28 -0500)
Lines: 19
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.172.242.212
Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!newsfeed.slurp.net!not-for-mail
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.energy.homepower:123435
mike wilcox wrote:
> The farmers you work with are in the extreme minority. Growing corn is a
> very chemical intensive operation requiring support from petrochemical
> corporations.
Can be, not has to be. Anything can be done badly. You make it sound
like corn won't grow without chemicals. I prefer not to eat those
chemicals, or eat beef that has. A lot of our cancers and asthma's came
about after we let that genie outr of the bottle. The organic industry
is a fast growing one. Smart folks are valuing their health and life
expectancy over a $0.15 difference at the grocery. Corn grew for
thousands of years before chemicals were invented.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| ghostwriter 2006-01-11, 1:21 pm |
| Let me think about this, I hate BTU so I am going to convert to
Joules.
6000 BTU at 1.054 kJ per BTU is 6.3 MJ per pound thats only 13.9
GJ/ton, your assumtion is a rather low. But I will use it in the
interest of underestimating.
At 150 bushels to the acre, thats about 3.2 metric tons per acre for a
net energy of 45GJ per acre. Burning elephant grass gives 3 times that
energy yeild and is a lot easier to grow.
Soybeans are a bad comparison since they get nowhere near the yeild
levels that corn does.
So for heat it makes no sense to burn corn, but ethanol is cheap to
make from corn and that makes sense for low capital production of
automotive fuel.
Ghostwriter
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2006-01-11, 1:21 pm |
| ghostwriter <ghostwriter25@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>At 150 bushels to the acre, thats about 3.2 metric tons per acre for a
>net energy of 45GJ per acre. Burning elephant grass gives 3 times that
>energy yeild and is a lot easier to grow.
I suppose it has to be pelletized, unlike corn kernels.
>Soybeans are a bad comparison since they get nowhere near the yeild
>levels that corn does.
I believe corn has a higher yield, if we also burn the stalks (stover),
but soybeans (18% oil) have a higher yield if we only burn corn kernels
with 3-4% oil.
>So for heat it makes no sense to burn corn...
It makes a lot more sense than burning corn ethanol.
Nick
| |
| ghostwriter 2006-01-11, 1:21 pm |
| Grinding would make home use easier, but it would hardly cost 66% of
the energy in the material to do it.
I can also imagine a auger based feed system similar to what was used
for coal that wouldnt require grinding.
Burning corn ethanol for heat makes about as much sense as resitance
heating using electricity.
Ghostwriter
| |
|
|
<nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message news:dq3dul$66n@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
> ghostwriter <ghostwriter25@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> I suppose it has to be pelletized, unlike corn kernels.
>
>
> I believe corn has a higher yield, if we also burn the stalks (stover),
> but soybeans (18% oil) have a higher yield if we only burn corn kernels
> with 3-4% oil.
>
>
> It makes a lot more sense than burning corn ethanol.
>
> Nick
>
It can make some sense, because I can not put an ear of corn,
nor a lump or coal in my gas tank.
| |
| butch burton 2006-01-11, 6:21 pm |
| "So for heat it makes no sense to burn corn, but ethanol is cheap to
make from corn and that makes sense for low capital production of
automotive fuel."
Cornell Univ did a study and they found it 129 BTU of input energy to
produce 100 BTU's of ethanol. So what that means is this - ethanol is
wasteful - I am surprised it is only a 29% loss. Cornell people added
up all of the energy inputs, diesel, fertilizer, transport fuel and
energy to convert the corn to ethanol.
Ethanol only makes sense when the Ag lobby buys our pols. Every time I
drive by a field and see a farmer driving his 300K harvester, his 250K
tractor - I think - boy our taxpayers sure buy some nice hardware for
people to play with. Not only are we wasting our money on these Ag
transfer payments, it so disrupts the markets for 3rd world countries.
Mexican farmers now grow very little corn - those people now import
corn from El Norte for their tortilas.
End of rant - we have the best politicans money can buy.
| |
| Steve Spence 2006-01-11, 7:21 pm |
| Cornell's research was paid for by oil interests. It's bogus. All the
other research that exists shows 1.5 to 2.5 more btu out than input.
http://www.green-trust.org/2005/07/...ustainable.html
butch burton wrote:
> "So for heat it makes no sense to burn corn, but ethanol is cheap to
> make from corn and that makes sense for low capital production of
> automotive fuel."
>
> Cornell Univ did a study and they found it 129 BTU of input energy to
> produce 100 BTU's of ethanol. So what that means is this - ethanol is
> wasteful - I am surprised it is only a 29% loss. Cornell people added
> up all of the energy inputs, diesel, fertilizer, transport fuel and
> energy to convert the corn to ethanol.
>
> Ethanol only makes sense when the Ag lobby buys our pols. Every time I
> drive by a field and see a farmer driving his 300K harvester, his 250K
> tractor - I think - boy our taxpayers sure buy some nice hardware for
> people to play with. Not only are we wasting our money on these Ag
> transfer payments, it so disrupts the markets for 3rd world countries.
> Mexican farmers now grow very little corn - those people now import
> corn from El Norte for their tortilas.
>
> End of rant - we have the best politicans money can buy.
>
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
|
|
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message news:43c588bc$1_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Cornell's research was paid for by oil interests. It's bogus. All the
> other research that exists shows 1.5 to 2.5 more btu out than input.
>
> http://www.green-trust.org/2005/07/...ustainable.html
>
That is correct. 1.5 for corn, 2.0 for cellulose and sugar cane more.
I will find the document links and post them. Brazil with sugar cane
has even more that 2.0, they presently burn the cane stalks as heat
for the process, but soon may use the stalks for cellulose ethanol and
burn the lignin that is left, getting even more energy from the cane.
> butch burton wrote:
>
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| SolarFlaire 2006-01-11, 10:21 pm |
| Yeah but then we invented people and the crop
production was so low that the chemical fertilizer
development became a necessity.
These natural farmers will be weeded out when their
family money wears out and they have to invest real
dollars they will never have.
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in
message news:43c52e6c$1_5@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Corn grew for
> thousands of years before chemicals were invented.
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| harry k 2006-01-11, 10:21 pm |
|
Steve Spence wrote:
> harry k wrote:
>
>
> Keep plowing through the truth. No BS. The slurry and dry manures come
> from both the 1000 head of milk cows plus the 1500 head calf operation
> down the road.
>
> Once you build your soil, crop rotation and beneficial organisms (the
> ones you kill off with your chemicals) turn the manures into very good
> plant food.
>
> Please don't expect your local experiences to be valid everywhere else.
> diversified commercial farming is alive and well.
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
And how many acres are devoted to raising food for the animals and then
how many acres asre devoted to producing grain for export off the farm?
In other words, how many grain acres can one cow fertilize keeping in
mind that some of her output has to go back on the acres producing her
food? Have a cite to paper or two on the subject? I am so far out of
the farming thing I am way behind.
Harry K
Harry K
| |
| Steve Spence 2006-01-11, 11:21 pm |
| SolarFlaire wrote:
> Yeah but then we invented people and the crop
> production was so low that the chemical fertilizer
> development became a necessity.
>
> These natural farmers will be weeded out when their
> family money wears out and they have to invest real
> dollars they will never have.
>
>
We over produce to make fat people. When we start tightening our belts
when the price of food skyrockets over high fuel costs, we will need to
produce less food, and the local organic guy will win over the outfit
that has to truck food in 1500 miles. The organic folks are making
money, not losing it.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Windsun 2006-01-12, 12:21 am |
| No, it does not HAVE to be - but without all those chemicals the price of
corn, and thus the price of Ethanol goes up, a catch-22 situation.
And this remark: "A lot of our cancers and asthma's came about after we let
that genie outr of the bottle" is simply untrue.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:43c52e6c$1_5@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> mike wilcox wrote:
> Can be, not has to be. Anything can be done badly. You make it sound like
> corn won't grow without chemicals. I prefer not to eat those chemicals, or
> eat beef that has. A lot of our cancers and asthma's came about after we
> let that genie outr of the bottle. The organic industry is a fast growing
> one. Smart folks are valuing their health and life expectancy over a
> $0.15 difference at the grocery. Corn grew for thousands of years before
> chemicals were invented.
| |
| Beachcomber 2006-01-12, 9:21 am |
| On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 00:09:39 GMT, "SJC" <sjc_paul_1@yahoo.com> wrote:
[color=darkred]
>
>"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message news:43c588bc$1_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> That is correct. 1.5 for corn, 2.0 for cellulose and sugar cane more.
>I will find the document links and post them. Brazil with sugar cane
>has even more that 2.0, they presently burn the cane stalks as heat
>for the process, but soon may use the stalks for cellulose ethanol and
>burn the lignin that is left, getting even more energy from the cane.
>
Ethanol is an interesting substance to play around with if you are an
amateur chemist. Just don't start drinking it or you could drink
yourself to death.
Ethanol has burns hot and has a high heat content per unit of weight.
(Not as much as gasoline, but its still pretty high).
Buy a bottle of Ever Clear 95% grain alcohol. (One of the nearest
legal equivalents to Moonshine...) and pour off just 4 oz. of the
stuff into an alcohol stove.
The stove will burn "Hot" for at least a half hour or so. It is an
amazing length of time for so little an amount. In addition, it is a
very clean burn where the products of combustion are just about all
converted to H20 and CO2.
The "energy" required to make Ethanol is used in the distillation
process as the fermented liquid with a low alcohol concentration is
"boiled" to distill and concentrate the Ethanol to a maximum of 95%
concentration. Fortunately the boiling point of Ethanol is lower
(173F) than water (212F) to make this possible.
Beachcomber
| |
| ghostwriter 2006-01-12, 11:21 am |
| Actually ethanol makes sense because we as a nation have to have a
secure food supply. That is of pimary importance, in order to do that
corn prices are hugely subsidized. Do you honestly believe that if we
taxpayers didnt buy the corn at inflated prices that the mexican farmer
would be able to compete? You need a refresher on supply and demain.
We can produce 150 bushels to the acre on tracts of land the size of
small states, for a total of 300million tons of grain a year. A small
farmer would be far wiser to grow vegatables that have much higher
profit margins and respond better to individual care.
Ethanol can potentially eat the surplus production and raise the price
of corn naturly. If food, animal fodder, and ethanol are competing for
corn the price goes up, with less artifical assistance. I wont hold my
breath waiting for the agra-corps to allow the subsidies to be rolled
back but it might help. I also wont lament meat (the primary use of
corn) having to increase production costs, we Americans could use a
little less meat in our diets.
As far as energy efficiency goes, you realize that corn is already
being grown and sold at market price(forcing the government to buy it
to keep the price up, or else pay for it not to be grown). So the
production costs have already been paid, anything we get out of is pure
profit.
Ghostwriter
| |
| Windsun 2006-01-12, 11:21 am |
| So the justification for subsidizing methanol is that we are already
subsidizing corn farmers that over-produce because of the farm lobby?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"ghostwriter" <ghostwriter25@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1137075890.811304.291900@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Actually ethanol makes sense because we as a nation have to have a
> secure food supply. That is of pimary importance, in order to do that
> corn prices are hugely subsidized. Do you honestly believe that if we
> taxpayers didnt buy the corn at inflated prices that the mexican farmer
> would be able to compete? You need a refresher on supply and demain.
>
> We can produce 150 bushels to the acre on tracts of land the size of
> small states, for a total of 300million tons of grain a year. A small
> farmer would be far wiser to grow vegatables that have much higher
> profit margins and respond better to individual care.
>
> Ethanol can potentially eat the surplus production and raise the price
> of corn naturly. If food, animal fodder, and ethanol are competing for
> corn the price goes up, with less artifical assistance. I wont hold my
> breath waiting for the agra-corps to allow the subsidies to be rolled
> back but it might help. I also wont lament meat (the primary use of
> corn) having to increase production costs, we Americans could use a
> little less meat in our diets.
>
> As far as energy efficiency goes, you realize that corn is already
> being grown and sold at market price(forcing the government to buy it
> to keep the price up, or else pay for it not to be grown). So the
> production costs have already been paid, anything we get out of is pure
> profit.
>
> Ghostwriter
>
| |
| ghostwriter 2006-01-12, 1:21 pm |
| Subsidizing ethanol could allow us to roll back some of the corn price
assistance programs. The idea being get a market based price assistance
going in place of the current artificial one. That might be
unrealistic given the power of the farm lobby but certainly I would
like to see that excess production used rather than dumped on the world
market or stashed in a government silo to rot. The production costs
both in energy and money have already been paid, so anything we can get
out of it in the form of energy is wonderful.
It doesnt make the farm subsidies a good idea, but it is the lesser of
two evils.
Allowing the bottom to fall out of grain prices is proably a bad idea,
since then a larger percentage of our food production will be handled
by a small number of companies.
Ghostwriter
| |
|
| ghostwriter wrote:
> Subsidizing ethanol could allow us to roll back some of the corn price
> assistance programs. The idea being get a market based price assistance
> going in place of the current artificial one. That might be
> unrealistic given the power of the farm lobby but certainly I would
> like to see that excess production used rather than dumped on the world
> market or stashed in a government silo to rot. The production costs
> both in energy and money have already been paid, so anything we can get
> out of it in the form of energy is wonderful.
>
> It doesnt make the farm subsidies a good idea, but it is the lesser of
> two evils.
>
> Allowing the bottom to fall out of grain prices is proably a bad idea,
> since then a larger percentage of our food production will be handled
> by a small number of companies.
>
> Ghostwriter
>
I don't think they're "farm subsidies" so much as "agri-business
subsidies."
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
| |
|
| ghostwriter wrote:
> Subsidizing ethanol could allow us to roll back some of the corn price
> assistance programs. The idea being get a market based price assistance
> going in place of the current artificial one. That might be
> unrealistic given the power of the farm lobby but certainly I would
> like to see that excess production used rather than dumped on the world
> market or stashed in a government silo to rot. The production costs
> both in energy and money have already been paid, so anything we can get
> out of it in the form of energy is wonderful.
>
> It doesnt make the farm subsidies a good idea, but it is the lesser of
> two evils.
>
> Allowing the bottom to fall out of grain prices is proably a bad idea,
> since then a larger percentage of our food production will be handled
> by a small number of companies.
>
> Ghostwriter
>
Whatever happened to the free market arguments that were trotted out in support
of WTO, NAFTA, etc.?
--
I did not have financial or personal relations with that man, Jack Abramoff.
| |
|
|
"Elmo" <DoNoSpam@NoSpam.org> wrote in message news:dq63p1$1gl2$2@f04n12.cac.psu.edu...
> ghostwriter wrote:
> Whatever happened to the free market arguments that were trotted out in support
> of WTO, NAFTA, etc.?
>
> --
> I did not have financial or personal relations with that man, Jack Abramoff.
Right now, there is so much corn that it can not be stored and sits on the ground.
We could make ethanol with it, but there are not enough processing plants. But, if
we use corn stalks for cellulose to make ethanol, we can have corn for food and
fuel for cars. It seems like maybe the money should go to ethanol processing plants
and not to growing it.
| |
| Jim Ledford 2006-01-12, 3:21 pm |
| Windsun wrote:
>
> So the justification for subsidizing methanol is that we are already
> subsidizing corn farmers that over-produce because of the farm lobby?
how about we do away with all lobbies.
one vote for each person. one voice for each voter.
I am a Farmer who has always said and thought government
handouts to the Farmer is a misuse of tax payer funds.
| |
|
| Jim Ledford wrote:
> Windsun wrote:
>
>
>
> how about we do away with all lobbies.
> one vote for each person. one voice for each voter.
>
> I am a Farmer who has always said and thought government
> handouts to the Farmer is a misuse of tax payer funds.
I think many farmers feel the way you do, and that the problem is with
agri-businesses seeking corporate welfare.
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
| |
| Dean Hoffman 2006-01-12, 4:21 pm |
| In article <l5xxf.24640$em5.19679@trnddc05>,
"SJC" <sjc_paul_1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Right now, there is so much corn that it can not be stored and sits on the
> ground.
> We could make ethanol with it, but there are not enough processing plants.
> But, if
> we use corn stalks for cellulose to make ethanol, we can have corn for food
> and
> fuel for cars. It seems like maybe the money should go to ethanol processing
> plants
> and not to growing it.
It's not unusual to use on the ground storage right around harvest
time. That's been going on for years. Lack of rail cars is usually the
reason.
The problem has be exacerbated this year due to Hurricane Katrina.
The port at New Orleans was shut down for awhile. I haven't heard if
it's up and running yet.
A bushel of corn used for ethanol production still maintains its feed
value. It doesn't really disappear like it might if used for other
things.
Dean
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
|
|
"Dean Hoffman" <dh0496@i*neb%&rsinvalid.com> wrote in message news:dh0496-F1E39F.13341912012006@news.inebraska.com...
> In article <l5xxf.24640$em5.19679@trnddc05>,
> "SJC" <sjc_paul_1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> It's not unusual to use on the ground storage right around harvest
> time. That's been going on for years. Lack of rail cars is usually the
> reason.
> The problem has be exacerbated this year due to Hurricane Katrina.
> The port at New Orleans was shut down for awhile. I haven't heard if
> it's up and running yet.
> A bushel of corn used for ethanol production still maintains its feed
> value. It doesn't really disappear like it might if used for other
> things.
>
> Dean
That is true. Like Steve said, distillers grain for animal feed as an output
product of ethanol manufacturing should be included in the energy payback,
but some studies have not done so. They say that back in the 70s when Carter
first asked ADM if they could produce ethanol in sufficient quantities for fuel,
there was a negative energy budget. But with todays farming and distillers
grain markets, there seem to be at least a 35% gain.
>
> ----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
|
| SJC wrote:
>
> "Dean Hoffman" <dh0496@i*neb%&rsinvalid.com> wrote in message
> news:dh0496-F1E39F.13341912012006@news.inebraska.com...
>
>
>
> That is true. Like Steve said, distillers grain for animal feed as an
> output
> product of ethanol manufacturing should be included in the energy payback,
> but some studies have not done so. They say that back in the 70s when
> Carter
> first asked ADM if they could produce ethanol in sufficient quantities
> for fuel,
> there was a negative energy budget. But with todays farming and distillers
> grain markets, there seem to be at least a 35% gain.
Distillers grains actually concentrate the protein (by removing starches and
sugars). On a dry matter basis, corn is about 8-10% protein and the corn
distillers dried grains are a bit more than double that. The quality of the
protein is also modified slightly so that when fed to cattle more of it will
bypass the rumen unmodified which is an important factor to consider when
formulating feeds for dairy cows.
[color=darkred]
>
--
I did not have financial or personal relations with that man, Jack Abramoff.
| |
| Windsun 2006-01-12, 7:21 pm |
| And, oddly enough, I think we are the only solar business in the world that
is not for the government subsidies on solar.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Solar Discussion Forum: http://www.wind-sun.com/smf/index.php
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Jim Ledford" <jimled@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:43C69E69.9BDE9097@bellsouth.net...
> Windsun wrote:
> how about we do away with all lobbies.
> one vote for each person. one voice for each voter.
>
> I am a Farmer who has always said and thought government
> handouts to the Farmer is a misuse of tax payer funds.
| |
| SolarFlaire 2006-01-12, 8:21 pm |
| Not "untrue" ! It is as true as it is a lie.
Debatable would be correct.
"Windsun" <wind-sun@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:D0kxf.1653$Hd4.217@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> No, it does not HAVE to be - but without all those
chemicals the price of
> corn, and thus the price of Ethanol goes up, a
catch-22 situation.
>
> And this remark: "A lot of our cancers and asthma's
came about after we let
> that genie outr of the bottle" is simply untrue.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
--------------------
> "Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in
message
> news:43c52e6c$1_5@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
You make it sound like[color=darkred]
eat those chemicals, or[color=darkred]
asthma's came about after we[color=darkred]
industry is a fast growing[color=darkred]
expectancy over a[color=darkred]
thousands of years before[color=darkred]
>
>
| |
| Jim Ledford 2006-01-12, 9:21 pm |
| CJT wrote:
> Jim Ledford wrote:
>
> I think many farmers feel the way you do, and that the problem is with
> agri-businesses seeking corporate welfare.
some people need some help every now and then and
there is nothing wrong with helping those in true need.
the [agri-businesses seeking corporate welfare] nails it
down to exactly my complaint.
hum, something interesting happened on that trip to the
dictionary. look at these two words:
complaint
and
compliant
| |
| Sheldon Harper 2006-01-12, 10:21 pm |
| Jim Ledford <jimled@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:43C69E69.9BDE9097
@bellsouth.net:
> Windsun wrote:
[color=darkred]
> how about we do away with all lobbies.
> one vote for each person. one voice for each voter.
> I am a Farmer who has always said and thought government
> handouts to the Farmer is a misuse of tax payer funds.
I question the truthfulness of the statement that you are a farmer.
How many acres are you farming and what are the crops you harvest?
Can you demonstrate that it is your land or are you simply a hired
hand on someone else's land, perhaps on a prison farm?
Note the limited use of caps in Jimmy's post. He uses a capital "I"
and the "F" in farmer so they appear to be important to him where
nothing else is.
| |
| Roger & Lorraine Martin 2006-01-14, 6:21 pm |
|
"harry k" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136865797.980546.242030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Looks like my understaning of the subject needed updating. I had
> thought that there was a net loss of energy. This site claims 24% gain
> using corn.
>
> Harry K
>
With so many people starving in the world, you've got to wonder
at the morality of turning potential food stuff into an auomotive
fuel.
And with so many industrial waste streams containing some of the
basic building blocks for ethanol production - yeasts, sugars, why
not solve ethanol production and waste stream minimisation problems
at the same time?
| |
| Jim Baber 2006-01-29, 6:21 pm |
|
ghostwriter wrote:
>Actually ethanol makes sense because we as a nation have to have a
>secure food supply. That is of pimary importance, in order to do that
>corn prices are hugely subsidized. Do you honestly believe that if we
>taxpayers didnt buy the corn at inflated prices that the mexican farmer
>would be able to compete? You need a refresher on supply and demain.
>
>We can produce 150 bushels to the acre on tracts of land the size of
>small states, for a total of 300million tons of grain a year. A small
>farmer would be far wiser to grow vegatables that have much higher
>profit margins and respond better to individual care.
>
>
Snipped
>Ghostwriter
>
>
>
Jim Baber wonders:
All well and good, but are not all the recent major weather
disturbances causing major losses in agricultural production? Many
major scientists believe these hurricanes and droughts are caused by the
very problem of CO2 emissions that we are attempting to cure by the use
of alternate fuels. It seems to be somewhat foolish to me that we
should count on optimal use of farm products to maintain our economy
when it is likely that the first victims of the fuel shortages and
economic results will be the farmers themselves.
| |
| Dean Hoffman 2006-01-29, 7:21 pm |
| In article <RKqdnZMQeq9epEDeRVn-qQ@comcast.com>,
Jim Baber <jim@baber.org> wrote:
> ghostwriter wrote:
>
> Snipped
>
> Jim Baber wonders:
> All well and good, but are not all the recent major weather
> disturbances causing major losses in agricultural production? Many
> major scientists believe these hurricanes and droughts are caused by the
> very problem of CO2 emissions that we are attempting to cure by the use
> of alternate fuels. It seems to be somewhat foolish to me that we
> should count on optimal use of farm products to maintain our economy
> when it is likely that the first victims of the fuel shortages and
> economic results will be the farmers themselves.
There haven't been any major losses in production so far. That
might change if the dry areas extend into Iowa and points east where
irrigation isn't the normal practice. Bad conditions make crops more
valuable usually. South America is getting to be a big competitor for
US exports.
There is an article here saying that ethanol might be a better deal
than previously believed.
http://www.livescience.com/environm...nol_better.html
The link to the actual study is near the bottom of the page.
The denizens of sci.energy seem to think biodiesel from pond algae
would be a better bet. We just don't have enough acres to produce the
fuel we need from other bio sources. An article here about the pond
scum: http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
Dean
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
|
| Dean Hoffman said (on or about) 01/29/2006 17:45:
> In article <RKqdnZMQeq9epEDeRVn-qQ@comcast.com>,
> Jim Baber <jim@baber.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> There haven't been any major losses in production so far. That
> might change if the dry areas extend into Iowa and points east where
> irrigation isn't the normal practice. Bad conditions make crops more
> valuable usually. South America is getting to be a big competitor for
> US exports.
>
> There is an article here saying that ethanol might be a better deal
> than previously believed.
> http://www.livescience.com/environm...nol_better.html
> The link to the actual study is near the bottom of the page.
>
> The denizens of sci.energy seem to think biodiesel from pond algae
> would be a better bet. We just don't have enough acres to produce the
> fuel we need from other bio sources. An article here about the pond
> scum: http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
>
> Dean
>
> ----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
And the boys at Berkeley and Cornell are feuding over whether or not
it's energy-effective (again).
http://wwww.npr.org/templates/story...storyId=5173420
Berkeley (Dan Kammen http://rael.berkeley.edu/ ) says yes there
is an energy gain but not a very big one. Cornell (David Pimentel
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories...costly.ssl.html )
says -- no it takes 70% more energy to make a gallon of ethanol than
what you get out of it.
| |
|
|
| Gordon Richmond 2006-01-30, 12:21 am |
| And the other guy is NOT saying what ADM is paying him to say?
Really, Steve, you've got to drop this conspiracy theory/shoot the
messenger shtick of yours. It really diminishes your true
accomplishments.
Gordon Richmond
| |
| Gunnar 2006-01-30, 1:21 am |
|
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:43dd76af$1_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Elmo wrote:
>
>
> Pimental says what the oil companies pay him to say.
>
>
How do you know that?
(if he is doing research with grants from the oil companies I would be more
sceptical as well)
Gunnar.
> --
> Steve Spence
> Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
> Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
> http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| ghostwriter 2006-01-30, 8:21 am |
| It all comes down to assumptions, 70% more energy is a very high
number compared to every other study out so I would take it with a
grain of salt. At least this article acknowledges that fact that
ethanol plants can make use of ineffienct biomass style energy sources
(manure in this case) which is something that is not being discussed
enough IMO.
My working assumtion is that with corn it is a zero sum game so the
sources of energy inputs are what will determine how sustainable the
net result is. Sugarcane and the like are far better sources of
ethanol but dont grow anywhere near as well in large areas of the US.
Anyone know the energy balance on sweet sorgum?
Ghostwriter
| |
|
| Steve Spence said (on or about) 01/29/2006 21:18:
> Elmo wrote:
>
>
>
> Pimental says what the oil companies pay him to say.
>
>
I doubt that oil companies would give a crap one way or the other.
If it required more of their products to produce the ethanol they
could consider that a profit potential rather than a demand inhibitor.
| |
|
|
| Steve Spence 2006-01-30, 12:21 pm |
| Elmo wrote:
> Steve Spence said (on or about) 01/29/2006 21:18:
>
> I doubt that oil companies would give a crap one way or the other.
> If it required more of their products to produce the ethanol they
> could consider that a profit potential rather than a demand inhibitor.
>
>
>
But it doesn't. That's the whole point. ADM and Cargill are going to be
the new Oil Companies.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Steve Spence 2006-01-30, 12:21 pm |
| Gordon Richmond wrote:
> And the other guy is NOT saying what ADM is paying him to say?
Correct. NREL and McGill are not financed by ADM.
>
> Really, Steve, you've got to drop this conspiracy theory/shoot the
> messenger shtick of yours. It really diminishes your true
> accomplishments.
>
> Gordon Richmond
It's not a "conspiracy theory/shoot the messenger shtick". It's the
truth. Pimental is the only one who claims ethanol is an energy sink,
and his work has been discredited by many credible sources. He ignores
the co-products and assumes the worse case scenario of pesticides
fertilizers, and irrigation, making the numbers much worse than they
are. I'm sorry if the truth bothers you, but ethanol gives back at least
2x the fossil input in growing it.
http://www.green-trust.org/2005/07/...ustainable.html
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
|
|
|
| Steve Spence said (on or about) 01/30/2006 10:54:
> Elmo wrote:
>
>
> But it doesn't. That's the whole point. ADM and Cargill are going to be
> the new Oil Companies.
>
What's the difference if its ADM/Cargill or Exxon-Mobil/BP/Chevron-Texaco?
Either way the fedgov will subsidize them to increase the amount of fuel
burned instead of finding ways to burn less fuel.
| |
| Steve Spence 2006-01-30, 2:21 pm |
| Elmo wrote:
> Steve Spence said (on or about) 01/30/2006 10:54:
>
>
> What's the difference if its ADM/Cargill or Exxon-Mobil/BP/Chevron-Texaco?
> Either way the fedgov will subsidize them to increase the amount of fuel
> burned instead of finding ways to burn less fuel.
The difference is that the fuel is carbon neutral, it's renewable and
the money stays in this country, not causing wars in others.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Gunnar 2006-01-30, 4:21 pm |
|
"Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:43de35aa_3@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Gunnar wrote:
> Steve Spence:
> http://www.green-trust.org/2005/07/...ustainable.html
http://www.b100fuel.com/archives/20...on_the_fla.html
"The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) disputes a study conducted by
Cornell University's David Pimentel and university of California, Berkeley,
professor Tad Patzek that states ethanol has a net energy balance loss of 29
percent. In fact, ethanol has a substantial net energy gain of at least 67
percent, according to one study."
Yes, there seems to be some controversy
Now, NCGA of course has a vested interest in selling their corn/soy
beans/etc for ethanol production... So studies supported by them should be
scrutinized as well, of course.
As with all studies, reader better be informed as to whose interests are
served.
Gunnar.
| |
| Gordon Richmond 2006-01-31, 7:21 am |
| You really think so?
Big Oil could buy Big Agro out of pocket change.
Maybe it's just because people in the oil industry, like you and me,
are taxpayers. And, as taxpayers, they see corn>ethanol as a money
sink that has to be subsidized by, wait for it, ...taxpayers.
The oil companies are not about to fall into the same trap that
(allegedly at least) befell the buggy-whip manufacturers. As their
prime raw material becomes scarcer and harder to produce, thay are
motivated to find alternatives. I'm sure that Exxon-Mobil or Royal
Dutch Shell would buy out ADM in a heartbeat if they thought that
would gain them a leg up in the energy marketplace. The fact that they
don't appear to be pursuing that option speaks volumes, IMHO.
Of course, I AM in the oil industry, so maybe that makes my entire
viewpoint tainted. I sure don't see corn>ethanol as threat to my
well-being, though. Honestly, I think oilseeds>diesel fuel makes more
sense from an energy balance standpoint.
But, suppose for a moment, that corn>ethanol were to become the motor
fuel of choice. Who do you think would become the prime marketer of
the product? Who else but the oil companies have real industrial
experience with bulk distillation of raw material to make marketable
product? Who else would have the capital to make the necessary
investments in infrastructure?
Big Oil is looking to the future. They are in fact looking at
unconventional resources. If corn>ethanol has a part to play in future
energy markets, it's a safe bet that they will have a piece of it.
Gordon Richmond
| |
| ronwagn 2006-01-31, 10:21 am |
| The latest study analyzes the best past studies, and corrects their
errors.It is based on corn kernel ethanol. The new cellulosic ethanol
figures will be far better.
Biomass is the next future in energy. Until something better comes
along.
One important factor to realize and remember is that ethanol can be
made by anyone with a some space and some time. An ethanol economy
cannot be monopolized like nuclear , petroleum, and natural gas.The
same is true for biomass heating as in corn, and pellet heating.
Biomass can also be used to generate electricity without converting to
ethanol.
Local competitive forces are vital to get out of our present
subservience.
All the best,
Ron Wagner
| |
| Harry Chickpea 2006-01-31, 10:21 am |
| Gordon Richmond <richmond@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>But, suppose for a moment, that corn>ethanol were to become the motor
>fuel of choice. Who do you think would become the prime marketer of
>the product? Who else but the oil companies have real industrial
>experience with bulk distillation of raw material to make marketable
>product? Who else would have the capital to make the necessary
>investments in infrastructure?
I kinda like the idea of Jack Daniels fuel. :-)
Seriously, corn isn't anywhere near as good as good as sugar cane for
ethanol production. It is a little known fact that the U.S. has been
price supporting the major south Florida sugar cane growing family for
years, supposedly to thwart foreign competition. I can see the free
market economic forces that could quickly change that family's sugar
cane production output towards ethanol.
The ecological impact (carbon cycle) is minimal. An interesting
factoid about the Everglades and sugar production is that in both
cases, the vegetation gets burned back to ashes on a regular basis.
In the Everglades, the vegetation grows lush in the wet season, and
gets whacked by lightning in the dry season. Fires with 200 foot tall
flames are not uncommon when the local fire departments have been
zealous about putting out small fires for a year or two. In the sugar
fields, either the field is burned in place or cut and burned as fuel
in the processing plant. In short, if it grows in south central
Florida, it is going to get burned.
Couple the technology that converts cellulose to ethanol with the
existing capabilities of sugar cane, and large amounts of fuel can be
harvested. Add to the mix the orange groves that have been ravaged by
citrus canker and need to be converted to other crops, and Florida can
make even more ethanol.
|
|
|
|
|