Yeah, but it smells like french fries... I'd rather smell like a drunk.
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Zaphod Beeblebrox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 11:10 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Ethanol: More Or Less Efficient?

Biodiesel comes in and trumps them all!


On 6/9/06, Cameron Childress <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So:
>
> 1) Reports comparing Ethanol production efficiency to Petrol are 
> Apples vs Oranges.
> 2) Even those reports are conflicting, depending on who you listen to.
> 3) No matter what the reports say, the process of producing Ethanol is 
> destined to become more efficient one way or another, while Petrol 
> production is mature and unlikely to become more efficient.
>
> Winner - Ethanol!
>
> -Cameron
>
> On 6/9/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > THE NUMBERS GUY
> > By CARL BIALIK
> > Digging Into the Ethanol Debate
> > June 9, 2006
> >
> > President Bush announced in his State of the Union address in 
> > January that he backed funding for research into producing ethanol 
> > from corn and other farm products, with the goal of making a viable 
> > fuel alternative to gasoline for automobiles. Since then, Congress 
> > has wrangled over how to implement the idea.
> >
> > Critics, meanwhile, have blasted the viability of ethanol. A central 
> > argument is that corn-based ethanol, the most-common form today, is 
> > literally a waste of energy. Detractors say that it takes more fuel 
> > to make ethanol -- growing the corn, bringing it to a processing 
> > plant and converting it to fuel -- than would be saved by using it.
> >
> > That criticism has received attention in articles in the Washington 
> > Post, the Louisville Courier-Journal and Cox News Service (all of 
> > which also included the pro-ethanol side). In April, Larry Kudlow 
> > said on his CNBC show, "So many experts believe it costs more energy 
> > to turn corn into ethanol-related gasoline than [is] actually produced."
> >
> > Two prominent researchers are chiefly responsible for the 
> > energy-efficiency claim: Cornell University's David Pimentel and Tad 
> > Patzek of the University of California, Berkeley. In a co-written 
> > paper published last year in Natural Resources Research, Profs.
> > Pimentel and Patzek wrote, "Ethanol production using corn grain 
> > required 29% more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel produced." By 
> > comparison, production of gasoline or diesel uses about 20% more 
> > fossil energy than the fuels produce. (For automobiles, ethanol is 
> > generally blended with gasoline in either 90-10 or 85-15 
> > proportions, but the studies focused on the energy content of the 
> > ethanol itself.)
> >
> > But the analysis stacks the deck against ethanol in a number of ways.
> > Perhaps most important: The researchers attributed a wide array of 
> > energy costs to ethanol production, including the energy required to 
> > produce tractors used in cornfields and even all forms of energy 
> > consumed by workers for things such as food, transportation and 
> > police protection. Equivalent factors generally aren't included in 
> > comparable analyses of rival fuels like gasoline. Also, researchers 
> > didn't take into consideration the value of ethanol by-products, 
> > which can be used in cattle feed.
> >
> > What's more, the skeptical analysis was based on all technology in 
> > use at the time, including old plants. Ethanol has become a hot 
> > business and a target of venture capitalists. There is reason to 
> > believe that ethanol production is only going to become more 
> > efficient, possibly at a faster rate than the more-mature petroleum 
> > industry. The newest plants incorporate technology to streamline the 
> > process and save energy and money. Researchers are also looking at 
> > methods to get ethanol from sugar cane and switchgrass, which appear 
> > to be more energy-efficient than those for corn. "There are a lot of 
> > new technologies," said Hosein Shapouri, an agricultural economist 
> > for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. "It's going to continue to 
> > improve the yield, and also lower the energy."
> >
> > The Bush administration says ethanol is more energy efficient than 
> > the critics claim. Department of Energy spokesman Craig Stevens told 
> > me in an email, "Based on the vast majority of research and 
> > analysis, the department believes that the energy delivered by 
> > ethanol is greater than the fossil energy put into its production."
> >
> > Other researchers have disagreed with Profs. Pimentel and Patzek.
> > Michael Wang, a vehicle fuel-system analyst at Argonne National 
> > Laboratories in Lemont, Ill., calculates numbers that are frequently 
> > cited for the efficiency of producing petroleum and diesel fuel. He 
> > said those numbers don't include the energy needed for labor and to 
> > produce the equipment -- in large part because there aren't 
> > reliable, up-to-date estimates for that energy -- and therefore, 
> > neither should the ethanol numbers.
> >
> > By his reckoning, it takes 0.74 BTU of fossil fuel to create 1 BTU 
> > of ethanol fuel, compared with a ratio of 1.23 BTUs to 1 BTU for 
> > gasoline
> > -- that's 66% more than ethanol. (Dr. Wang's calculations are 
> > contained in a rather dense set of appendices to this report; the 
> > conclusions are presented in a more user-friendly format in this
> > brochure.)
> >
> > Prof. Pimentel defended his work in an interview. "I don't see how 
> > you could or should eliminate the labor of the farmer," he said. "He 
> > eats, sleeps, uses the highways, depends on the police force, 
> > fireman, and so forth."
> >
> > Prof. Pimentel added that he's studied the issue for over 20 years, 
> > and has no bias against ethanol -- quite the contrary: "I'd really 
> > like to support ethanol being a viable solution for our liquid-fuel 
> > needs, because I am an agriculturalist and a biologist. But I'm a 
> > scientist first."
> >
> > His co-author on the study, Prof. Patzek, didn't respond to my 
> > requests for an interview.
> >
> > There remain major challenges for ethanol. Among them: The high 
> > price of natural gas may force some plants to switch to coal, 
> > harming their environmental profile; the fuel has yet to prove its 
> > market viability for cars without subsidies; and the costs to revamp 
> > fuel stations for ethanol blends is steep.
> >
> > When prompted by their students to investigate biofuels, Berkeley 
> > energy and resources professors Dan Kammen and Alex Farrell 
> > discovered the sharp disagreements among researchers. "It became 
> > pretty clear to us, as we were getting up to speed on ethanol, that 
> > there are a large number of divergent studies in literature, and 
> > it's not clear why they are divergent," Prof. Farrell told me. They 
> > attempted to reconcile disputing studies by comparing them side by 
> > side, tracing the numbers back to their original sources and 
> > converting everything to standard units. Their conclusion, published 
> > in Science in January, was largely in line with Dr. Wang's. (So was 
> > an analysis of published studies that appeared in March in 
> > Environmental Science & Technology, and funded in part by the 
> > environmental organization Natural Resources Defense
> > Council.)
> >
> > It can be disorienting to discover that reputable researchers can so 
> > seriously disagree on a single number. In an article last month, the 
> > Toledo Blade counted studies, as if that might help settle things. 
> > The newspaper noted Prof. Pimentel's work, and added, "Five other 
> > researchers have done studies and agree. Thirteen other studies, 
> > including one paid for by the Department of Energy, show the 
> > opposite."
> >
> > A drawback of all the commonly cited numbers is that they generally 
> > rely on data from USDA surveys of farmers and ethanol producers. 
> > Such surveys are a few years old. That's not an unusual lag time for 
> > federal government surveys, but they don't capture the impact of new 
> > plants in the fast-evolving ethanol industry.
> >
> > Broin Cos., based in Sioux Falls, S.D., has pioneered a method to 
> > convert corn to ethanol at 90 degrees, rather than the previous 230 
> > to 250 degrees, improving energy efficiency by 10% to 12%, according 
> > to co-founder and Chief Executive Jeff Broin. And E3 Biofuels LLC is 
> > finding ways to get more out of all parts of the corn, by building 
> > plants near dairy farms and feeding cows the byproducts of ethanol 
> > processing, then using energy from the animal waste to help power 
> > the plants. "Wastes are converted to valuable products, such as 
> > biogas and biofertilizers, which replace fossil fuels and their
derivatives,"
> > David Hallberg, president and chief executive of Omaha-based E3, 
> > wrote me in an email.
> >
> > Vinod Khosla, a partner in the Menlo Park, Calif., venture-capital 
> > firm Khosla Ventures, has invested in several ethanol technologies 
> > and is an advocate for their promise. He said arguments against 
> > ethanol focus unjustly on older plants. "It's like saying, a power 
> > plant built in the '50s is very polluting, so all power plants are 
> > very polluting," Mr. Khosla told me.
> >
> > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114970102238673892.html
>
> 



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:208710
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5
Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54

Reply via email to