|
Ethanol?
In article ,
says... On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:17:54 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 11:35:58 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... Didn't Al Gore finally admit that turning our food source into fuel was a bad idea? Republican: Igor no like new technology. Igor scared. What new technology is there in fermenting grain? It has been going on for thousands of years. I rest my case.... The problem is that it is a very inefficient process, particularly when you start with starch like corn. Using cellulose is even worse. Sugar cane works better since you are starting with sugar but growing sugar in an ecological nightmare virtually everywhere they do it. The US can't even grow enough cane to supply ther national "table sugar" demand and environmentalists are trying to shut down that industry in Florida. Florida grows most of the sugar in the US ... in the drained areas of the Everglades ... nuff said? Brazil is having the same environmental holocaust around their sugar to fuel business ... but nobody cares, not even the global warming people. Gee, who was it here that said that it takes more energy to make ethanol than it produces? Wayne was first to say it in this thread and he is right if you are talking about corn ethanol, the only kind we make here for fuel. The real issue with corn may actually be water. We are pumping the Oglalla aquifer down and when that water is gone, it will not come back any time soon. (thousands of years if we stopped pumping today) We have a marginal fuel that uses more energy to produce than it supplies to the end user, competing with food. That is a bad mix. http://tinyurl.com/bqubef4 http://www.permaculture.com/node/490 http://tinyurl.com/cu7bq9g http://tinyurl.com/66mq73r ?It often seems that every article, every interview, every public discussion about our most used and visible biofuel, ethanol, starts, and sometimes ends, with the question, 'Doesn?t it take more energy to make ethanol than is contained in the ethanol?' In 1980, the short and empirical answer to this question was yes. In 1990, because of improved efficiencies by both farmer and ethanol manufacturer, the answer was, probably not. In 2005 the answer is clearly no? Several ethanol facilities are today beginning to use wood waste or, in the near future, corn stover, to replace natural gas to meet their thermal energy needs. The net energy ratio in that situation should be well over 2 to 1!? In 1980 that was true, but not now. But of course, BAR doesn't realize that strides have been made in the production of biofuel. |
Ethanol?
On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:17:54 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote: Gee, who was it here that said that it takes more energy to make ethanol than it produces? === I did, and it is true if you add in all of the agricultural energy such as fertilizer production, etc. |
Ethanol?
|
Ethanol?
|
Ethanol?
In article ,
says... On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:35:59 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... http://tinyurl.com/bqubef4 OK people with ties to agriculture like it, environmentalists question their bookkeeping. I don't trust the government on this at all, they are slaves to politicians. http://www.permaculture.com/node/490 I cited the article in Scientific American a few weeks ago that put corn ethanol very near the bottom of the EROEI http://tinyurl.com/cu7bq9g Ethanol.org??? Would you believe a study from Exxon? Yes, if if was scientifically done. Please prove the facts given by ethanol.org as false. http://tinyurl.com/66mq73r This guy is simply lying Please prove him wrong. Cite? *********** Myth No. 5: Cars get lower gas mileage with ethanol. OK, this one?s true. If you completely burn a gallon of gasoline and a gallon of E85, you?ll get 25 percent less energy from the E85. Flex-fuel cars that run on gasoline and ethanol see 25 percent less mileage with ethanol. However, a gallon of ethanol costs approximately 17 percent less than that of a gallon of gasoline. In some, but not all, regions, the fuel-economy deficit is recovered by cheaper fuel costs. As the market grows and matures, production optimization would further drive down ethanol costs. ****************** I bought E85 in North Dakota and it was about he same price as E10 WITH A HEFTY TAX PAYER SUBSIDY! They keep glossing over the most serious concern ... water. The last guy lied about how much water midwestern farmers use. Next time you fly, look at all the round green fields. Those are center point irrigators pumping a small town's worth of drinking water in a day. If you see a bright green field near by, that is just a different kind of irrigation. They all use it or it would be as brown as the fields in between. We are going to run out of water far sooner than we will run out of oil. That is unless we are willing to pay a whole lot more for it, putting that "cheap corn" totally out of reach. At the rate we are pumping the Ogalla aquifer USGS says we might be sucking air in most of the midwest in 25 years. You can replace oil but there is no good replacement for cheap water except expensive water reclaimed from the sea or piped in from very far away. Those far away people may then see seasonal water shortages. |
Ethanol?
|
Ethanol?
|
Ethanol?
On 4/27/13 4:45 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:17:54 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: Gee, who was it here that said that it takes more energy to make ethanol than it produces? === I did, and it is true if you add in all of the agricultural energy such as fertilizer production, etc. It was true, not anymore. --------------------------------------------- Well, halleluiah and praise be to the corn gods. Cheap perpetual energy. Oh, and by the way, the science community better get busy re-writing the laws of physics. I posit that "perpetual" energy really isn't relevant. If you were an early settler to this continent, and spent a day cutting down a tree and sawing it into firewood, you had a source of energy for your cooking and heating fires that would last a long, long time, and would certainly provide more energy in terms of BTUs and other measurements than you expended. |
Ethanol?
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 4/27/13 4:45 PM, Eisboch wrote: "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:17:54 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: Gee, who was it here that said that it takes more energy to make ethanol than it produces? === I did, and it is true if you add in all of the agricultural energy such as fertilizer production, etc. It was true, not anymore. --------------------------------------------- Well, halleluiah and praise be to the corn gods. Cheap perpetual energy. Oh, and by the way, the science community better get busy re-writing the laws of physics. I posit that "perpetual" energy really isn't relevant. If you were an early settler to this continent, and spent a day cutting down a tree and sawing it into firewood, you had a source of energy for your cooking and heating fires that would last a long, long time, and would certainly provide more energy in terms of BTUs and other measurements than you expended. --------------------------------- The energy expended by the settler is not all the energy involved. It's only that used in the harvesting of the tree. iBoater previously claimed that it takes less than a gallon of fossil fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol. He's now claiming that all the energy consumed in the growing, harvesting and production of the corn (or sugar) for a gallon of ethanol is less than the energy the gallon of ethanol will produce as a fuel. I say nonsense. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:45 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com