The first one I ran into was one of my professors when I was in
college during the 70s. The most prominent now are 1) David
Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell and 2) Tad
W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at the
University of California at Berkeley. These scientists have no
financial stake in a particular outcome and their findings are
published in peer-reviewed journals. When you google them, you'll
find not just synopses of their findings, but also zillions of people
reviling them for their findings.
On the other side are many people associated with ethanol producers,
agricultural agencies, and various political movements. I don't, in
general, question their motives, but certainly the vast majority a)
have a vested interest in the outcome b) their claims have not been
subjected to peer review.
Some more comments:
1) An increasing number of scientists and economists are coming out
against ethanol for reasons other than the energy balance. These are
primarily ozone pollution, deforestation, CO2 levels, and
(increasingly) food prices and other macro-economic concerns.
2) The energy balance has improved over the years as various ethanol
"refining" technologies have advanced. Depending on what is and what
is not counted, it is now possible to calculate a positive energy
return for ethanol and several scientists have done so. To the best
of my knowledge, none of them have considered details I feel should
be included such as the energy necessary to construct the required
ethanol plants, farm equipment, and transportation equipment, etc.
3) I don't know why people capable of honest debate (and possibly
even respecting opinions other than their own?) would stoop to
denigration, smear tactics, and disingenuous argumentation. Jim
denigrates scientists not supporting ethanol by putting quotes around
the word "scientists" -- implying these professors are not actually
scientists. In your response, you present absolutely nothing
opposing my statements or supporting your (apparently different)
opinion -- but you do find time to suggest that I am "regurgitating"
bad television and engaging in "fear mongering". Is it your position
that anyone holding an opinion different than your own must be an
alarmist incapable of critical thought?
4) I would not describe the UDSA as an unbiased observer, but there
is much good science and clear statements of assumptions and
differences in these reports.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AER721/ and
<http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/aer-814.pdf>http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/aer-814.pdf.
Both find a positive balance for ethanol, but they also refers to
some of Dr. Pimentel's work and explain why they reach such different
conclusions. Not surprisingly, ethanol proponents claim that Dr.
Pimentel's facts are out of date because technology has improved
efficieny while Dr. Pimentel argues that economic/political
considerations have led proponents to use unrealistically optimistic
numbers, include inappropriate factors, omit certain inconvenient
facts. My take is that there is probably truth to be found in both
sides' arguments.
5) Late breaking news -- I just tumbled onto this guy:
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/03/how-reliable-are-those-usda-ethanol.html
. He says pretty much exactly what I've been trying to say here, but
much better than I ever could. (Don't read just the linked article
-- most all his writings are interesting and pertinent.)
At 01:02 PM 8/7/2008, Flash. wrote:
Finally, there is what the author conveniently failed to mention: Many
> scientists calculate that it takes as much or more energy to
produce ethanol
> as can be obtained from it. The result, then, is no net energy
savings, but
> enormous (and awful) unintended environmental and economic consequences.
>
I have heard this time and time again but I have seen NO SUBSTANTIATED
STUDIES OR METRICS TO SUPPORT IT. Are you regurgiatating what you saw
on the [H]ysteria channel and simply fear-mongering or do you have
data to satisfy this claim? I would be VERY interested in reading it.
The other challenge is this -- Most farmers aren't using Diesel or
Gasoline as we know it anyway to farm their land, Are they?
_______________________________________________
Miatapower mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.miatapower.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/miatapower
