Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[Andrew Lowe]

Bob,
Due to work pressure it's taken a while for me to catch up on this 
thread - a pity really as if I had known that commenting on a blokes 
lack of dress sense would have fired up a good debate, I would have been 
in there a lot earlier. Anyway, Bob, you need to take a long deep breath 
and count to 10. You have read so much into my comments that are just 
not true and a total distortion of reality that thatOh I don't know, 
words fail me

I think a major problem is that you're a Yank and I'm an Australian. 
Just as you can't spell colour, humour, honour, aluminium etc, correctly 
our national senses of humour are different. In Australia we poke fun, 
take the piss, hang sh*t etc etc. Yes it may be ridicule but it is a 
national pastime here in Australia. Hold yourself up as THE WORD on a 
subject and someone will soon bring you back down to Earth. This is what 
I was doing - poking fun at Pimentel. If it had been Keith dressed like 
that with a similar expression on his face pumping biodiesel, I would 
have probably come up with a similar comment - the clothes and the look 
just screamed out mock me.

As to the blatant slander comment, Bob please, get your hand off it. 
Look at the context of the comment, mixed in with a reference to The 
Goodies and the Russian Politburo. If you took that as slander then I 
feel for your lack of training in comedy/humour.

By the way, Bob, I do understand the scientific process, being an 
Engineer and having had training in Chemistry and Physics. The problem 
you see is that Pimentel has made these comments before and every time 
has been shot down in flames as being so far off the mark and just down 
right wrong. He is like the boy who cries wolf. He has cried wolf so 
many times that people don't believe him, and unlike the fairy 
tale/fable, there really is no wolf, just bad scientific analysis and 
bad conclusions.

In closing, may I just say that in the future, if you are a badly 
dressed wind bag with bad posture, who has been shown to sprout dodgy 
figures to drive some hidden agenda, then I will make every attempt to 
show you to be the drongo that you are.

Regards in mindless ramblings,
Andrew


William Adams wrote:
 Andrew,
 
 I know you said it in jest, but the unfortunate effect of your sarcasm 
 regarding David Pimentel, one of the nations' outstanding scientists, is 
 to support the ignorant critics of good science who argue that, if I 
 believe in a proposition, then anyone who presents evidence that 
 contradicts my belief is a malicious fool and not to be believed.
 
 It is true that a few pseudoscientists acting as industry  shills will 
 (for a fee) produce a scientific study supporting any industry-desired 
 conclusion, but your implication that Pimentel is such an Exxon shill is 
 blatant slander, and I am ashamed to see it on the Biofuels site.
 
 I assume that you wish ethanol's EROEI (energy return over energy input) 
 to be positive, thus making it a useful energy source as we approach the 
 end of fossil fuels. So do I - and so would lots of other folks. I'm 
 sure also that David Pimentel shares that wish. The difference between 
 you and Pimentel is that as a scientist, he says, It's a great idea and 
 I hope it's true, but what if it isn't? So let's run the numbers and 
 seek the truth of the matter. If it turns out the EROEI  is negative, we 
 would be commiting a cruel and expensive hoax on the nation to propose 
 ethanol as an energy solution.
 
 I am as disappointed as you must be in his analysis showing a negative 
 EROEI. And I look forward to additional valid studies testing and 
 challenging his conclusion.  But to lampoon his work because you don't 
 like the color of - was it his socks? - is not a worthy act on your 
 part.  I'm sure you can do better. I hope you will.
 
 In all sincerity and hoping that your future jests will be more benign,
 
 Bob A.
 - Original Message - From: Andrew Lowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 4:15 AM
 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy 
 efficiencies
 
 
 Michael wrote:
 
 This press release below produced the AP story that follows it.

 July 5, 2005
 Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel 
 from corn and other crops is not worth the energy

 By Susan S. Lang



  Chris Hallman/University Photography

  Ecologist David Pimentel, shown here pumping gas, says that his 
 analysis shows that producing ethanol uses more energy than the 
 resulting fuel generates. Copyright © Cornell University

 [snip]
 
 Sorry for the late reply on this one, but with dress sense like what
 was shown in the picture how can anyone take this bloke seriously? I ask
 you. Also with that posture and the look on his face, has anyone checked
 for a pulse? It reminds me of an episode of The Goodies where they
 where

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[Tom Irwin]

Ello Andy,

It's good to know you Aussies haven't been infected with the politically correct disease. Hopefully you are all completely immune.

Still smilin,

Tom Irwin



From: Andrew Lowe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:43:24 -0300Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel,  hydrogen energy efficienciesBob,Due to work pressure it's taken a while for me to catch up on this thread - a pity really as if I had known that commenting on a blokes lack of dress sense would have fired up a good debate, I would have been in there a lot earlier. Anyway, Bob, you need to take a long deep breath and count to 10. You have read so much into my comments that are just not true and a total distortion of reality that thatOh I don't know, words fail meI think a major problem is that you're a Yank and I'm an Australian. Just as you can't spell colour, humour, honour, aluminium etc, correctly our national senses of humour are different. In Australia we poke fun, "take the piss", "hang sh*t" etc etc. Yes it may be ridicule but it is a national pastime here in Australia. Hold yourself up as THE WORD on a subject and someone will soon bring you back down to Earth. This is what I was doing - poking fun at Pimentel. If it had been Keith dressed like that with a similar _expression_ on his face pumping biodiesel, I would have probably come up with a similar comment - the clothes and the look just screamed out "mock me".As to the "blatant slander" comment, Bob please, get your hand off it. Look at the context of the comment, mixed in with a reference to The Goodies and the Russian Politburo. If you took that as slander then I feel for your lack of training in comedy/humour.By the way, Bob, I do understand the scientific process, being an Engineer and having had training in Chemistry and Physics. The problem you see is that Pimentel has made these comments before and every time has been shot down in flames as being so far off the mark and just down right wrong. He is like the boy who cries wolf. He has cried wolf so many times that people don't believe him, and unlike the fairy tale/fable, there really is no wolf, just bad scientific analysis and bad conclusions.In closing, may I just say that in the future, if you are a badly dressed wind bag with bad posture, who has been shown to sprout dodgy figures to drive some hidden agenda, then I will make every attempt to show you to be the drongo that you are.Regards in mindless ramblings,AndrewWilliam Adams wrote: Andrew,  I know you said it in jest, but the unfortunate effect of your sarcasm  regarding David Pimentel, one of the nations' outstanding scientists, is  to support the ignorant critics of good science who argue that, "if I  believe in a proposition, then anyone who presents evidence that  contradicts my belief is a malicious fool and not to be believed".  It is true that a few pseudoscientists acting as industry shills will  (for a fee) produce a "scientific study" supporting any industry-desired  conclusion, but your implication that Pimentel is such an Exxon shill is  blatant slander, and I am ashamed to see it on the Biofuels site.  I assume that you wish ethanol's EROEI (energy return over energy input)  to be positive, thus making it a useful energy source as we approach the  end of fossil fuels. So do I - and so would lots of other folks. I'm  sure also that David Pimentel shares that wish. The difference between  you and Pimentel is that as a scientist, he says, "It's a great idea and  I hope it's true, but what if it isn't? So let's run the numbers and  seek the truth of the matter. If it turns out the EROEI is negative, we  would be commiting a cruel and expensive hoax on the nation to propose  ethanol as an energy solution."  I am as disappointed as you must be in his analysis showing a negative  EROEI. And I look forward to additional valid studies testing and  challenging his conclusion. But to lampoon his work because you don't  like the color of - was it his socks? - is not a worthy act on your  part. I'm sure you can do better. I hope you will.  In all sincerity and hoping that your future jests will be more benign,  Bob A. - Original Message - From: "Andrew Lowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <BIOFUEL@SUSTAINABLELISTS.ORG> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 4:15 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy  efficiencies   Michael wrote:  This press release below produced the AP story that follows it. July 5, 2005 Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel  from corn and other crops is not worth the energy By Susan S. Lang Chris Hallman/University Photography Ecologist David Pimentel, shown here pumping gas, says that his  analysis shows that producing ethanol uses more energy than the  resulting fuel generates. Copyright © Cornell Unive

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[John Hayes]

 
benign,


Bob A.
- Original Message - From: Andrew Lowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 4:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen 
energy efficiencies



Michael wrote:


This press release below produced the AP story that follows it.

July 5, 2005
Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and 
biodiesel from corn and other crops is not worth the energy


By Susan S. Lang



 Chris Hallman/University Photography

 Ecologist David Pimentel, shown here pumping gas, says that his 
analysis shows that producing ethanol uses more energy than the 
resulting fuel generates. Copyright © Cornell University



[snip]

Sorry for the late reply on this one, but with dress sense like what
was shown in the picture how can anyone take this bloke seriously? 
I ask
you. Also with that posture and the look on his face, has anyone 
checked

for a pulse? It reminds me of an episode of The Goodies where they
where shown using the Russian Politburo as glove puppets - aahhh I see
it - if you squint at the part between  his left leg and the car I'm
sure I see an arm with an Exxon logo on it.. ;)

Yours in jest,
Andrew




___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
messages):

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/




--
John E Hayes, M.S.
Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215
Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences
University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[Hakan Falk]

Bob A,

Pimentels research might be a valid representation of the results from a 
very well defined process.  The problem is that it is a very narrow set of 
parameters and they look like they are chosen to get a predetermined result 
and an argument that benefit those that wants to limit ethanol use.


He is centering the investigation on Corn, who's sugar/starch content is on 
the limit of economic feasibility anyway. Even in his case sugar cane or 
potatoes, would give a different result. This means that with some 
assumptions, like growing process and choice/volume of fertilizers will 
have a large impact on the result. Also the choice/use of energy source for 
distilling process is critical, when choosing high grade petroleum instead 
of available plant waste. He is using the worst case parameters in all 
respect and will of course get a negative result or more like input equal 
to output. Why he really deserves criticism is that he present his narrow 
case research as having general validity and that is also why the 
suspicions about his objectivity have a very strong foundation.


For people that have some scientific knowledge, it is easy detected. For 
people that are producing ethanol, it does not related to their practical 
experiences. It is only for people without some knowledge/experience, and 
unfortunately decision makers/politicians are included in this group, that 
his research presentation have any general validity. The people with the 
background to judge his work, must come to the question why such a research 
is done at all and for them it looks like a waste of time and money. 
Pimentel is however head of a university research department and as such he 
must find grants/financing for his activities. All universities have this 
situation and they also accept grants/projects from the 
commercial/industrial private sector. I is a dream, with no connection to 
reality, that universities and their professors represent uncorrupted 
objectivity.


I do not understand why you defend the assumption that Pimentel must to be 
objective. He is obviously competent, otherwise nobody would take notice 
and he would not get the grants. It is nothing wrong in what he is saying, 
it is the way he is saying it.


Hakan


At 04:54 AM 8/4/2005, you wrote:

Andrew,

I know you said it in jest, but the unfortunate effect of your sarcasm 
regarding David Pimentel, one of the nations' outstanding scientists, is 
to support the ignorant critics of good science who argue that, if I 
believe in a proposition, then anyone who presents evidence that 
contradicts my belief is a malicious fool and not to be believed.


It is true that a few pseudoscientists acting as industry  shills will 
(for a fee) produce a scientific study supporting any industry-desired 
conclusion, but your implication that Pimentel is such an Exxon shill is 
blatant slander, and I am ashamed to see it on the Biofuels site.


I assume that you wish ethanol's EROEI (energy return over energy input) 
to be positive, thus making it a useful energy source as we approach the 
end of fossil fuels. So do I - and so would lots of other folks. I'm sure 
also that David Pimentel shares that wish. The difference between you and 
Pimentel is that as a scientist, he says, It's a great idea and I hope 
it's true, but what if it isn't? So let's run the numbers and seek the 
truth of the matter. If it turns out the EROEI  is negative, we would be 
commiting a cruel and expensive hoax on the nation to propose ethanol as 
an energy solution.


I am as disappointed as you must be in his analysis showing a negative 
EROEI. And I look forward to additional valid studies testing and 
challenging his conclusion.  But to lampoon his work because you don't 
like the color of - was it his socks? - is not a worthy act on your 
part.  I'm sure you can do better. I hope you will.


In all sincerity and hoping that your future jests will be more benign,

Bob A.
- Original Message - From: Andrew Lowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 4:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy 
efficiencies



Michael wrote:

This press release below produced the AP story that follows it.

July 5, 2005
Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel from 
corn and other crops is not worth the energy


By Susan S. Lang



 Chris Hallman/University Photography

 Ecologist David Pimentel, shown here pumping gas, says that his 
analysis shows that producing ethanol uses more energy than the 
resulting fuel generates. Copyright © Cornell University

[snip]

Sorry for the late reply on this one, but with dress sense like what
was shown in the picture how can anyone take this bloke seriously? I ask
you. Also with that posture and the look on his face, has anyone checked
for a pulse? It reminds me of an episode of The Goodies where they
where shown using the Russian Politburo

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[Appal Energy]

Still, all rather sad how ethanol has become the predominate alternative 
fuel of choice for gasoline applications when methanol yields far higher 
outputs per acre with far fewer inputs.


At 75% of the energy content as ethanol, the energy yield per acre (100 
gallons per ton of dry biomass) outstrips corn derived ethanol, even on 
a good day. The real crux of the matter would be to choose crops of high 
seasonal yield, inclusive of those suitable for pre- and post plantings 
of other crops in the same annular cycle.


My book makes ethanol a dinosaur within 20 years.

Todd Swearingen


Keith Addison wrote:


Hello Bob, Andrew

Normally I'd agree with you Bob, but not in Pimentel's case, that time 
was long ago, and now Andrew's response is not inappropriate. Pimentel 
merits little better than scorn and derision



Andrew,

I know you said it in jest, but the unfortunate effect of your 
sarcasm regarding David Pimentel, one of the nations' outstanding 
scientists, is to support the ignorant critics of good science who 
argue that, if I believe in a proposition, then anyone who presents 
evidence that contradicts my belief is a malicious fool and not to be 
believed.


It is true that a few pseudoscientists acting as industry  shills 
will (for a fee) produce a scientific study supporting any 
industry-desired conclusion, but your implication that Pimentel is 
such an Exxon shill is blatant slander, and I am ashamed to see it on 
the Biofuels site.


I assume that you wish ethanol's EROEI (energy return over energy 
input) to be positive, thus making it a useful energy source as we 
approach the end of fossil fuels. So do I - and so would lots of 
other folks. I'm sure also that David Pimentel shares that wish. The 
difference between you and Pimentel is that as a scientist, he says, 
It's a great idea and I hope it's true, but what if it isn't? So 
let's run the numbers and seek the truth of the matter. If it turns 
out the EROEI  is negative, we would be commiting a cruel and 
expensive hoax on the nation to propose ethanol as an energy solution.



Not so, sad to say. Pimentel has long been aware that the data he uses 
is outdated and wrong, but he keeps using it anyway. Implying that 
he's an Exxon-et al shill is not blatant slander, the question has to 
be asked why he continues doing this, and asked of his publishers too. 
This is peer review? I think not. It certainly is not science. It's 
propaganda.


I am as disappointed as you must be in his analysis showing a 
negative EROEI. And I look forward to additional valid studies 
testing and challenging his conclusion.



Those have been to hand for a long time, more and more of them, 
debunking every aspect of Pimentel's claims. Pimentel takes no notice, 
neither do his publishers.


But to lampoon his work because you don't like the color of - was it 
his socks? - is not a worthy act on your part.



Well, I don't know, I suppose we can take his socks about as seriously 
as the rest of him.


Nothing new here - we've been discussing Pimentel's repeated and 
rather successful disinformation campaign since early 2001. As John 
said when he posted this latest bout, he does it every year.


Please see these recent messages, to put it in perspective:

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg52605.html
Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel,  hydrogen energy efficien

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg52756.html
Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel,  hydrogen energy efficienc

Best wishes

Keith



I'm sure you can do better. I hope you will.

In all sincerity and hoping that your future jests will be more benign,

Bob A.
- Original Message - From: Andrew Lowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 4:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen 
energy efficiencies



Michael wrote:


This press release below produced the AP story that follows it.

July 5, 2005
Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel 
from corn and other crops is not worth the energy


By Susan S. Lang



   Chris Hallman/University Photography

   Ecologist David Pimentel, shown here pumping gas, says that his 
analysis shows that producing ethanol uses more energy than the 
resulting fuel generates. Copyright © Cornell University



[snip]

Sorry for the late reply on this one, but with dress sense like what
was shown in the picture how can anyone take this bloke seriously? I ask
you. Also with that posture and the look on his face, has anyone checked
for a pulse? It reminds me of an episode of The Goodies where they
where shown using the Russian Politburo as glove puppets - aahhh I see
it - if you squint at the part between  his left leg and the car I'm
sure I see an arm with an Exxon logo on it.. ;)

Yours in jest,
Andrew




___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel

RE: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[malcolm maclure]

Todd, I see what you're saying on the energy output side but the main
problem with methanol is that it has a tendency to attack the  castings in
carburettors. I know because I used methanol in my lawn mower, after a while
the jets became blocked with white stuff, I presume Aluminium oxide. So till
carbs are made from an alternative material, ethanol is the best choice.
 
Malcolm

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Appal Energy
Sent: 04 August 2005 14:36
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy
efficiencies

Still, all rather sad how ethanol has become the predominate alternative 
fuel of choice for gasoline applications when methanol yields far higher 
outputs per acre with far fewer inputs.

At 75% of the energy content as ethanol, the energy yield per acre (100 
gallons per ton of dry biomass) outstrips corn derived ethanol, even on 
a good day. The real crux of the matter would be to choose crops of high 
seasonal yield, inclusive of those suitable for pre- and post plantings 
of other crops in the same annular cycle.

My book makes ethanol a dinosaur within 20 years.

Todd Swearingen


Keith Addison wrote:

 Hello Bob, Andrew

 Normally I'd agree with you Bob, but not in Pimentel's case, that time 
 was long ago, and now Andrew's response is not inappropriate. Pimentel 
 merits little better than scorn and derision

 Andrew,

 I know you said it in jest, but the unfortunate effect of your 
 sarcasm regarding David Pimentel, one of the nations' outstanding 
 scientists, is to support the ignorant critics of good science who 
 argue that, if I believe in a proposition, then anyone who presents 
 evidence that contradicts my belief is a malicious fool and not to be 
 believed.

 It is true that a few pseudoscientists acting as industry  shills 
 will (for a fee) produce a scientific study supporting any 
 industry-desired conclusion, but your implication that Pimentel is 
 such an Exxon shill is blatant slander, and I am ashamed to see it on 
 the Biofuels site.

 I assume that you wish ethanol's EROEI (energy return over energy 
 input) to be positive, thus making it a useful energy source as we 
 approach the end of fossil fuels. So do I - and so would lots of 
 other folks. I'm sure also that David Pimentel shares that wish. The 
 difference between you and Pimentel is that as a scientist, he says, 
 It's a great idea and I hope it's true, but what if it isn't? So 
 let's run the numbers and seek the truth of the matter. If it turns 
 out the EROEI  is negative, we would be commiting a cruel and 
 expensive hoax on the nation to propose ethanol as an energy solution.


 Not so, sad to say. Pimentel has long been aware that the data he uses 
 is outdated and wrong, but he keeps using it anyway. Implying that 
 he's an Exxon-et al shill is not blatant slander, the question has to 
 be asked why he continues doing this, and asked of his publishers too. 
 This is peer review? I think not. It certainly is not science. It's 
 propaganda.

 I am as disappointed as you must be in his analysis showing a 
 negative EROEI. And I look forward to additional valid studies 
 testing and challenging his conclusion.


 Those have been to hand for a long time, more and more of them, 
 debunking every aspect of Pimentel's claims. Pimentel takes no notice, 
 neither do his publishers.

 But to lampoon his work because you don't like the color of - was it 
 his socks? - is not a worthy act on your part.


 Well, I don't know, I suppose we can take his socks about as seriously 
 as the rest of him.

 Nothing new here - we've been discussing Pimentel's repeated and 
 rather successful disinformation campaign since early 2001. As John 
 said when he posted this latest bout, he does it every year.

 Please see these recent messages, to put it in perspective:

 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg52605.html
 Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel,  hydrogen energy efficien

 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg52756.html
 Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel,  hydrogen energy efficienc

 Best wishes

 Keith


 I'm sure you can do better. I hope you will.

 In all sincerity and hoping that your future jests will be more benign,

 Bob A.
 - Original Message - From: Andrew Lowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 4:15 AM
 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen 
 energy efficiencies


 Michael wrote:

 This press release below produced the AP story that follows it.

 July 5, 2005
 Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel 
 from corn and other crops is not worth the energy

 By Susan S. Lang



Chris Hallman/University Photography

Ecologist David Pimentel, shown here pumping gas, says that his 
 analysis shows that producing ethanol uses more

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[Tom Irwin]

Hi All,

I don't think ethanol will be a dinosaur in 20 years but would appreciate why you think so if it is other than yields per hectare. Methanol has the capacity to produce some nasty tailpipe emmission (as does ethanol but less so) and is far more toxic to humans and animals than ethanol. Another component of sustainability is safety. I would not wish to see methanol filling stations. Most people have no concept how nasty it is. Yes, it can be handled safely by those who understand the dangers but most folks don't have that knowledge.

Tom Irwin



From: Appal Energy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 10:35:58 -0300Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel,  hydrogen energy efficienciesStill, all rather sad how ethanol has become the predominate alternative fuel of choice for gasoline applications when methanol yields far higher outputs per acre with far fewer inputs.At 75% of the energy content as ethanol, the energy yield per acre (100 gallons per ton of dry biomass) outstrips corn derived ethanol, even on a good day. The real crux of the matter would be to choose crops of high seasonal yield, inclusive of those suitable for pre- and post plantings of other crops in the same annular cycle.My book makes ethanol a dinosaur within 20 years.Todd SwearingenKeith Addison wrote: Hello Bob, Andrew Normally I'd agree with you Bob, but not in Pimentel's case, that time  was long ago, and now Andrew's response is not inappropriate. Pimentel  merits little better than scorn and derision Andrew, I know you said it in jest, but the unfortunate effect of your  sarcasm regarding David Pimentel, one of the nations' outstanding  scientists, is to support the ignorant critics of good science who  argue that, "if I believe in a proposition, then anyone who presents  evidence that contradicts my belief is a malicious fool and not to be  believed". It is true that a few pseudoscientists acting as industry shills  will (for a fee) produce a "scientific study" supporting any  industry-desired conclusion, but your implication that Pimentel is  such an Exxon shill is blatant slander, and I am ashamed to see it on  the Biofuels site. I assume that you wish ethanol's EROEI (energy return over energy  input) to be positive, thus making it a useful energy source as we  approach the end of fossil fuels. So do I - and so would lots of  other folks. I'm sure also that David Pimentel shares that wish. The  difference between you and Pimentel is that as a scientist, he says,  "It's a great idea and I hope it's true, but what if it isn't? So  let's run the numbers and seek the truth of the matter. If it turns  out the EROEI is negative, we would be commiting a cruel and  expensive hoax on the nation to propose ethanol as an energy solution." Not so, sad to say. Pimentel has long been aware that the data he uses  is outdated and wrong, but he keeps using it anyway. Implying that  he's an Exxon-et al shill is not blatant slander, the question has to  be asked why he continues doing this, and asked of his publishers too.  This is peer review? I think not. It certainly is not science. It's  propaganda. I am as disappointed as you must be in his analysis showing a  negative EROEI. And I look forward to additional valid studies  testing and challenging his conclusion. Those have been to hand for a long time, more and more of them,  debunking every aspect of Pimentel's claims. Pimentel takes no notice,  neither do his publishers. But to lampoon his work because you don't like the color of - was it  his socks? - is not a worthy act on your part. Well, I don't know, I suppose we can take his socks about as seriously  as the rest of him. Nothing new here - we've been discussing Pimentel's repeated and  rather successful disinformation campaign since early 2001. As John  said when he posted this latest bout, he does it every year. Please see these recent messages, to put it in perspective: http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg52605.html Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel,  hydrogen energy efficien http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg52756.html Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel,  hydrogen energy efficienc Best wishes Keith I'm sure you can do better. I hope you will. In all sincerity and hoping that your future jests will be more benign, Bob A. - Original Message - From: "Andrew Lowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <BIOFUEL@SUSTAINABLELISTS.ORG> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 4:15 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen  energy efficiencies Michael wrote: This press release below produced the AP story that follows it. July 5, 2005 Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel  from corn and other crops is not worth the energy By Susan S. Lang Chris Hallman/University Photography Ecologist David Pimentel, shown here pumpi

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[Tom Irwin]

Greeting all,

What would happen to the Cornell results if a crop like sugar beets was used instead of corn? 

Tom Irwin


From: Hakan Falk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 07:45:27 -0300Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel,  hydrogen energy efficienciesBob A,Pimentels research might be a valid representation of the results from a very well defined process. The problem is that it is a very narrow set of parameters and they look like they are chosen to get a predetermined result and an argument that benefit those that wants to limit ethanol use.He is centering the investigation on Corn, who's sugar/starch content is on the limit of economic feasibility anyway. Even in his case sugar cane or potatoes, would give a different result. This means that with some assumptions, like growing process and choice/volume of fertilizers will have a large impact on the result. Also the choice/use of energy source for distilling process is critical, when choosing high grade petroleum instead of available plant waste. He is using the worst case parameters in all respect and will of course get a negative result or more like input equal to output. Why he really deserves criticism is that he present his narrow case research as having general validity and that is also why the suspicions about his objectivity have a very strong foundation.For people that have some scientific knowledge, it is easy detected. For people that are producing ethanol, it does not related to their practical experiences. It is only for people without some knowledge/experience, and unfortunately decision makers/politicians are included in this group, that his research presentation have any general validity. The people with the background to judge his work, must come to the question why such a research is done at all and for them it looks like a waste of time and money. Pimentel is however head of a university research department and as such he must find grants/financing for his activities. All universities have this situation and they also accept grants/projects from the commercial/industrial private sector. I is a dream, with no connection to reality, that universities and their professors represent uncorrupted objectivity.I do not understand why you defend the assumption that Pimentel must to be objective. He is obviously competent, otherwise nobody would take notice and he would not get the grants. It is nothing wrong in what he is saying, it is the way he is saying it.HakanAt 04:54 AM 8/4/2005, you wrote:Andrew,I know you said it in jest, but the unfortunate effect of your sarcasm regarding David Pimentel, one of the nations' outstanding scientists, is to support the ignorant critics of good science who argue that, "if I believe in a proposition, then anyone who presents evidence that contradicts my belief is a malicious fool and not to be believed".It is true that a few pseudoscientists acting as industry shills will (for a fee) produce a "scientific study" supporting any industry-desired conclusion, but your implication that Pimentel is such an Exxon shill is blatant slander, and I am ashamed to see it on the Biofuels site.I assume that you wish ethanol's EROEI (energy return over energy input) to be positive, thus making it a useful energy source as we approach the end of fossil fuels. So do I - and so would lots of other folks. I'm sure also that David Pimentel shares that wish. The difference between you and Pimentel is that as a scientist, he says, "It's a great idea and I hope it's true, but what if it isn't? So let's run the numbers and seek the truth of the matter. If it turns out the EROEI is negative, we would be commiting a cruel and expensive hoax on the nation to propose ethanol as an energy solution."I am as disappointed as you must be in his analysis showing a negative EROEI. And I look forward to additional valid studies testing and challenging his conclusion. But to lampoon his work because you don't like the color of - was it his socks? - is not a worthy act on your part. I'm sure you can do better. I hope you will.In all sincerity and hoping that your future jests will be more benign,Bob A.- Original Message - From: "Andrew Lowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 4:15 AMSubject: Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficienciesMichael wrote:This press release below produced the AP story that follows it.July 5, 2005Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel from corn and other crops is not worth the energyBy Susan S. Lang Chris Hallman/University Photography Ecologist David Pimentel, shown here pumping gas, says that his  analysis shows that producing ethanol uses more energy than the  resulting fuel generates. Copyright © Cornell University[snip]Sorry for the late reply on this one, but with dress sense like whatwas shown in the picture how can anyone take this 

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[Appal Energy]

In general it's rather a simple problem of substitution, Malcolm.

It will become even more simple as times become more desperate.

malcolm maclure wrote:


Todd, I see what you're saying on the energy output side but the main
problem with methanol is that it has a tendency to attack the  castings in
carburettors. I know because I used methanol in my lawn mower, after a while
the jets became blocked with white stuff, I presume Aluminium oxide. So till
carbs are made from an alternative material, ethanol is the best choice.

Malcolm

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Appal Energy
Sent: 04 August 2005 14:36
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy
efficiencies

Still, all rather sad how ethanol has become the predominate alternative 
fuel of choice for gasoline applications when methanol yields far higher 
outputs per acre with far fewer inputs.


At 75% of the energy content as ethanol, the energy yield per acre (100 
gallons per ton of dry biomass) outstrips corn derived ethanol, even on 
a good day. The real crux of the matter would be to choose crops of high 
seasonal yield, inclusive of those suitable for pre- and post plantings 
of other crops in the same annular cycle.


My book makes ethanol a dinosaur within 20 years.

Todd Swearingen


Keith Addison wrote:

 


Hello Bob, Andrew

Normally I'd agree with you Bob, but not in Pimentel's case, that time 
was long ago, and now Andrew's response is not inappropriate. Pimentel 
merits little better than scorn and derision


   


Andrew,

I know you said it in jest, but the unfortunate effect of your 
sarcasm regarding David Pimentel, one of the nations' outstanding 
scientists, is to support the ignorant critics of good science who 
argue that, if I believe in a proposition, then anyone who presents 
evidence that contradicts my belief is a malicious fool and not to be 
believed.


It is true that a few pseudoscientists acting as industry  shills 
will (for a fee) produce a scientific study supporting any 
industry-desired conclusion, but your implication that Pimentel is 
such an Exxon shill is blatant slander, and I am ashamed to see it on 
the Biofuels site.


I assume that you wish ethanol's EROEI (energy return over energy 
input) to be positive, thus making it a useful energy source as we 
approach the end of fossil fuels. So do I - and so would lots of 
other folks. I'm sure also that David Pimentel shares that wish. The 
difference between you and Pimentel is that as a scientist, he says, 
It's a great idea and I hope it's true, but what if it isn't? So 
let's run the numbers and seek the truth of the matter. If it turns 
out the EROEI  is negative, we would be commiting a cruel and 
expensive hoax on the nation to propose ethanol as an energy solution.
 

Not so, sad to say. Pimentel has long been aware that the data he uses 
is outdated and wrong, but he keeps using it anyway. Implying that 
he's an Exxon-et al shill is not blatant slander, the question has to 
be asked why he continues doing this, and asked of his publishers too. 
This is peer review? I think not. It certainly is not science. It's 
propaganda.


   

I am as disappointed as you must be in his analysis showing a 
negative EROEI. And I look forward to additional valid studies 
testing and challenging his conclusion.
 

Those have been to hand for a long time, more and more of them, 
debunking every aspect of Pimentel's claims. Pimentel takes no notice, 
neither do his publishers.


   

But to lampoon his work because you don't like the color of - was it 
his socks? - is not a worthy act on your part.
 

Well, I don't know, I suppose we can take his socks about as seriously 
as the rest of him.


Nothing new here - we've been discussing Pimentel's repeated and 
rather successful disinformation campaign since early 2001. As John 
said when he posted this latest bout, he does it every year.


Please see these recent messages, to put it in perspective:

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg52605.html
Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel,  hydrogen energy efficien

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg52756.html
Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel,  hydrogen energy efficienc

Best wishes

Keith


   


I'm sure you can do better. I hope you will.

In all sincerity and hoping that your future jests will be more benign,

Bob A.
- Original Message - From: Andrew Lowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 4:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen 
energy efficiencies



Michael wrote:

 


This press release below produced the AP story that follows it.

July 5, 2005
Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel 
from corn and other crops is not worth the energy


By Susan S. Lang



  Chris

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[Appal Energy]

Dinosaur as a matter of necessity Tom. Economics may preclude or 
designate that necessity.


What I find peculiar is the fact that the toxicity of gasoline isn't 
mentioned here.


You also may care to take into consideration that energy farming will 
inherantly reduce other industrial toxicity as biomass becomes a 
constituent element within them. Mercury and sulfur reduction from the 
electricity generation industry comes to mind immediately


If you're going to conduct a cost/benefit analysis Tom, let's do so 
across the board and include all the benefits, rather than eluding to 
but one or two specific and unquantified disbenefits, perhaps even 
disbenefits that can be ameliorated or eliminated.


Todd Swearingen


Tom Irwin wrote:


Hi All,
 
I don't think ethanol will be a dinosaur in 20 years but would 
appreciate why you think so if it is other than yields per hectare. 
Methanol has the capacity to produce some nasty tailpipe emmission (as 
does ethanol but less so) and is far more toxic to humans and animals 
than ethanol. Another component of sustainability is safety. I would 
not wish to see methanol filling stations. Most people have no concept 
how nasty it is. Yes, it can be handled safely by those who understand 
the dangers but most folks don't have that knowledge.
 
Tom Irwin
 



*From:* Appal Energy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*To:* Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
*Sent:* Thu, 04 Aug 2005 10:35:58 -0300
*Subject:* Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel,  hydrogen
energy efficiencies

Still, all rather sad how ethanol has become the predominate
alternative
fuel of choice for gasoline applications when methanol yields far
higher
outputs per acre with far fewer inputs.

At 75% of the energy content as ethanol, the energy yield per acre
(100
gallons per ton of dry biomass) outstrips corn derived ethanol,
even on
a good day. The real crux of the matter would be to choose crops
of high
seasonal yield, inclusive of those suitable for pre- and post
plantings
of other crops in the same annular cycle.

My book makes ethanol a dinosaur within 20 years.

Todd Swearingen


Keith Addison wrote:

 Hello Bob, Andrew

 Normally I'd agree with you Bob, but not in Pimentel's case,
that time
 was long ago, and now Andrew's response is not inappropriate.
Pimentel
 merits little better than scorn and derision

 Andrew,

 I know you said it in jest, but the unfortunate effect of your
 sarcasm regarding David Pimentel, one of the nations' outstanding
 scientists, is to support the ignorant critics of good science who
 argue that, if I believe in a proposition, then anyone who
presents
 evidence that contradicts my belief is a malicious fool and not
to be
 believed.

 It is true that a few pseudoscientists acting as industry shills
 will (for a fee) produce a scientific study supporting any
 industry-desired conclusion, but your implication that Pimentel is
 such an Exxon shill is blatant slander, and I am ashamed to see
it on
 the Biofuels site.

 I assume that you wish ethanol's EROEI (energy return over energy
 input) to be positive, thus making it a useful energy source as we
 approach the end of fossil fuels. So do I - and so would lots of
 other folks. I'm sure also that David Pimentel shares that
wish. The
 difference between you and Pimentel is that as a scientist, he
says,
 It's a great idea and I hope it's true, but what if it isn't? So
 let's run the numbers and seek the truth of the matter. If it
turns
 out the EROEI is negative, we would be commiting a cruel and
 expensive hoax on the nation to propose ethanol as an energy
solution.


 Not so, sad to say. Pimentel has long been aware that the data
he uses
 is outdated and wrong, but he keeps using it anyway. Implying that
 he's an Exxon-et al shill is not blatant slander, the question
has to
 be asked why he continues doing this, and asked of his
publishers too.
 This is peer review? I think not. It certainly is not science. It's
 propaganda.

 I am as disappointed as you must be in his analysis showing a
 negative EROEI. And I look forward to additional valid studies
 testing and challenging his conclusion.


 Those have been to hand for a long time, more and more of them,
 debunking every aspect of Pimentel's claims. Pimentel takes no
notice,
 neither do his publishers.

 But to lampoon his work because you don't like the color of -
was it
 his socks? - is not a worthy act on your part.


 Well, I don't know, I suppose we can take his socks about as
seriously
 as the rest of him.

 Nothing new here - we've

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[Hakan Falk]

Tom,

If you look at Sweden, that uses sugar beets for alcohol production, it 
works quite well. At Cornell University, I do not know, guess that it 
depends on who it is, that gives the research grants.


Hakan

At 04:18 PM 8/4/2005, you wrote:

Greeting all,

What would happen to the Cornell results if a crop like sugar beets was 
used instead of corn?


Tom Irwin


--
From: Hakan Falk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 07:45:27 -0300
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel,  hydrogen energy 
efficiencies



Bob A,

Pimentels research might be a valid representation of the results from a
very well defined process. The problem is that it is a very narrow set of
parameters and they look like they are chosen to get a predetermined result
and an argument that benefit those that wants to limit ethanol use.

He is centering the investigation on Corn, who's sugar/starch content is on
the limit of economic feasibility anyway. Even in his case sugar cane or
potatoes, would give a different result. This means that with some
assumptions, like growing process and choice/volume of fertilizers will
have a large impact on the result. Also the choice/use of energy source for
distilling process is critical, when choosing high grade petroleum instead
of available plant waste. He is using the worst case parameters in all
respect and will of course get a negative result or more like input equal
to output. Why he really deserves criticism is that he present his narrow
case research as having general validity and that is also why the
suspicions about his objectivity have a very strong foundation.

For people that have some scientific knowledge, it is easy detected. For
people that are producing ethanol, it does not related to their practical
experiences. It is only for people without some knowledge/experience, and
unfortunately decision makers/politicians are included in this group, that
his research presentation have any general validity. The people with the
background to judge his work, must come to the question why such a research
is done at all and for them it looks like a waste of time and money.
Pimentel is however head of a university research department and as such he
must find grants/financing for his activities. All universities have this
situation and they also accept grants/projects from the
commercial/industrial private sector. I is a dream, with no connection to
reality, that universities and their professors represent uncorrupted
objectivity.

I do not understand why you defend the assumption that Pimentel must to be
objective. He is obviously competent, otherwise nobody would take notice
and he would not get the grants. It is nothing wrong in what he is saying,
it is the way he is saying it.

Hakan


At 04:54 AM 8/4/2005, you wrote:
Andrew,

I know you said it in jest, but the unfortunate effect of your sarcasm
regarding David Pimentel, one of the nations' outstanding scientists, is
to support the ignorant critics of good science who argue that, if I
believe in a proposition, then anyone who presents evidence that
contradicts my belief is a malicious fool and not to be believed.

It is true that a few pseudoscientists acting as industry shills will
(for a fee) produce a scientific study supporting any industry-desired
conclusion, but your implication that Pimentel is such an Exxon shill is
blatant slander, and I am ashamed to see it on the Biofuels site.

I assume that you wish ethanol's EROEI (energy return over energy input)
to be positive, thus making it a useful energy source as we approach the
end of fossil fuels. So do I - and so would lots of other folks. I'm sure
also that David Pimentel shares that wish. The difference between you and
Pimentel is that as a scientist, he says, It's a great idea and I hope
it's true, but what if it isn't? So let's run the numbers and seek the
truth of the matter. If it turns out the EROEI is negative, we would be
commiting a cruel and expensive hoax on the nation to propose ethanol as
an energy solution.

I am as disappointed as you must be in his analysis showing a negative
EROEI. And I look forward to additional valid studies testing and
challenging his conclusion. But to lampoon his work because you don't
like the color of - was it his socks? - is not a worthy act on your
part. I'm sure you can do better. I hope you will.

In all sincerity and hoping that your future jests will be more benign,

Bob A.
- Original Message - From: Andrew Lowe
To:
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 4:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy
efficiencies


Michael wrote:
This press release below produced the AP story that follows it.

July 5, 2005
Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel from
corn and other crops is not worth the energy

By Susan S. Lang



 Chris Hallman/University Photography

 Ecologist David Pimentel, shown here pumping gas, says

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[John Hayes]

 and 
rather successful disinformation campaign since early 2001. As John 
said when he posted this latest bout, he does it every year.


Please see these recent messages, to put it in perspective:

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg52605.html
Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel,  hydrogen energy efficien

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg52756.html
Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel,  hydrogen energy efficienc

Best wishes

Keith



I'm sure you can do better. I hope you will.

In all sincerity and hoping that your future jests will be more benign,

Bob A.
- Original Message - From: Andrew Lowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 4:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen 
energy efficiencies



Michael wrote:


This press release below produced the AP story that follows it.

July 5, 2005
Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel 
from corn and other crops is not worth the energy


By Susan S. Lang



   Chris Hallman/University Photography

   Ecologist David Pimentel, shown here pumping gas, says that his 
analysis shows that producing ethanol uses more energy than the 
resulting fuel generates. Copyright © Cornell University



[snip]

Sorry for the late reply on this one, but with dress sense like what
was shown in the picture how can anyone take this bloke seriously? I ask
you. Also with that posture and the look on his face, has anyone checked
for a pulse? It reminds me of an episode of The Goodies where they
where shown using the Russian Politburo as glove puppets - aahhh I see
it - if you squint at the part between  his left leg and the car I'm
sure I see an arm with an Exxon logo on it.. ;)

Yours in jest,
Andrew





___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[Michael Redler]

I think this whole discussion mightbe lessimportant if we didn't haveofficials in the current administration changing, misinterpreting and discrediting scientific reports thatdisagree with their agenda. What's worse is that some scientists are doing it for them!

Science has become politicized and commercialized (http://www.livescience.com/scienceoffiction/ap_050513_horner.html)as never before and the "proof of the pudding" as they say, doesn'texist by the virtue of ones peers, but by an aggressive campaign to make it "believable" or "unbelievable".

So here we are, discussing the how much Pimentel should be punished for reporting bad science. (IMO) If it were any other time, his academic peers would have voiced their concerns a little louder and the proper reprimand would have appeared in the appropriate journals. But, then again, maybe discussion groups like this have taken over that responsibility. Since the cross section of this list includes researchers and scientists (both professional and amateur), maybe we are his new peers and this is his review.

...my $.02

MikeJohn Hayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keith, Bob, Andrew et al.Respectfully, I need to disagree with Keith and go with Bob on this one.David Pimentel may rightfully deserve scorn for his repeatedly releasing skewed reports long after the errors have been pointed out.However, he should not be attacked for doing so, That is, science is self-correcting and already has a culture to deal with incorrect results, be they intentional or accidental. As noted by Carl Sagan, yet another iconic Cornell professor:"In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every
 day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion."Frankly however, with respect to Dr. Sagan, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for David Pimental to come around given his past intransigence. If Kuhn was right, we may have to wait another couple of decades for Pimental to stop publishing his misleading reports.Still, to blindly lambaste David Pimental (and frankly, any scientist we disagree with) is to move the discourse from the rational to the emotional. And that is simply unacceptable. "Junk science" is not a label to be capriciously applied to research that has implications we don't like. It's unacceptable whether we're talking about the right and climate change or the left and sustainability of biofuels.Instead, the best way to expose flawed calculations or conclusions is to refute the logic used to arrive at the conclusion and to rebut the argument on its merits. Problem
 is, that's tough to do as it requires in-depth knowledge and lots of time. Instead, its far easier just to blast the messenger, but that doesn't make it okay. The witch-hunt Congressman Barton is leading against Michael Mann is only one such egregious example.Malcolm Gladwell wrote Thomas Kuhn's legacy was that he taught "the process of science was fundamentally human, that discoveries were the product not of some plodding, rational process but of human ingenuity intermingled with politics and personality--that science was, in the end, a social process."Kuhn may be right, and science may be a flawed human process, but frankly, it's the best we've got. And personally, I'd rather put my faith it in.jh___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[John Hayes]

Tom Irwin wrote:
I don't think ethanol will be a dinosaur in 20 years but would 
appreciate why you think so if it is other than yields per hectare. 
Methanol has the capacity to produce some nasty tailpipe emmission (as 
does ethanol but less so) and is far more toxic to humans and animals 
than ethanol. Another component of sustainability is safety. I would not 
wish to see methanol filling stations. Most people have no concept how 
nasty it is. Yes, it can be handled safely by those who understand the 
dangers but most folks don't have that knowledge.


And gasoline isn't toxic and dangerous? The average Joe has been filling 
up with a flammable toxic liquid for almost 100 years. I don't see how 
methanol requires any retraining as opposed to gasoline.



jh

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[John Hayes]

Tom Irwin wrote:

Greeting all,
 
What would happen to the Cornell results if a crop like sugar beets was 
used instead of corn?


Please don't call it the Cornell results. That implies the entire 
university backs Pimentel's findings.


As to your question, I can't answer it directly, but you may want to 
read this article from the economist.


http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=3960775

jh

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[Keith Addison]

 intermingled with politics and personality--that science 
was, in the end, a social process.


Kuhn may be right, and science may be a flawed human process, but 
frankly, it's the best we've got. And personally, I'd rather put my 
faith it in.


Naive. Your view of the problem leaves out all the important bits.

Keith



jh





Keith Addison wrote:


Hello Bob, Andrew

Normally I'd agree with you Bob, but not in Pimentel's case, that 
time was long ago, and now Andrew's response is not inappropriate. 
Pimentel merits little better than scorn and derision



Andrew,

I know you said it in jest, but the unfortunate effect of your 
sarcasm regarding David Pimentel, one of the nations' outstanding 
scientists, is to support the ignorant critics of good science 
who argue that, if I believe in a proposition, then anyone who 
presents evidence that contradicts my belief is a malicious fool 
and not to be believed.


It is true that a few pseudoscientists acting as industry  shills 
will (for a fee) produce a scientific study supporting any 
industry-desired conclusion, but your implication that Pimentel 
is such an Exxon shill is blatant slander, and I am ashamed to 
see it on the Biofuels site.


I assume that you wish ethanol's EROEI (energy return over energy 
input) to be positive, thus making it a useful energy source as 
we approach the end of fossil fuels. So do I - and so would lots 
of other folks. I'm sure also that David Pimentel shares that 
wish. The difference between you and Pimentel is that as a 
scientist, he says, It's a great idea and I hope it's true, but 
what if it isn't? So let's run the numbers and seek the truth of 
the matter. If it turns out the EROEI  is negative, we would be 
commiting a cruel and expensive hoax on the nation to propose 
ethanol as an energy solution.




Not so, sad to say. Pimentel has long been aware that the data he 
uses is outdated and wrong, but he keeps using it anyway. Implying 
that he's an Exxon-et al shill is not blatant slander, the 
question has to be asked why he continues doing this, and asked of 
his publishers too. This is peer review? I think not. It certainly 
is not science. It's propaganda.


I am as disappointed as you must be in his analysis showing a 
negative EROEI. And I look forward to additional valid studies 
testing and challenging his conclusion.




Those have been to hand for a long time, more and more of them, 
debunking every aspect of Pimentel's claims. Pimentel takes no 
notice, neither do his publishers.


But to lampoon his work because you don't like the color of - was 
it his socks? - is not a worthy act on your part.




Well, I don't know, I suppose we can take his socks about as 
seriously as the rest of him.


Nothing new here - we've been discussing Pimentel's repeated and 
rather successful disinformation campaign since early 2001. As 
John said when he posted this latest bout, he does it every year.


Please see these recent messages, to put it in perspective:

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg52605.html
Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel,  hydrogen energy efficien

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg52756.html
Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel,  hydrogen energy efficienc

Best wishes

Keith



I'm sure you can do better. I hope you will.

In all sincerity and hoping that your future jests will be more benign,

Bob A.
- Original Message - From: Andrew Lowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 4:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen 
energy efficiencies



Michael wrote:


This press release below produced the AP story that follows it.

July 5, 2005
Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and 
biodiesel from corn and other crops is not worth the energy


By Susan S. Lang



 Chris Hallman/University Photography

 Ecologist David Pimentel, shown here pumping gas, says that 
his analysis shows that producing ethanol uses more energy than 
the resulting fuel generates. Copyright © Cornell University



[snip]

Sorry for the late reply on this one, but with dress sense like what
was shown in the picture how can anyone take this bloke seriously? I ask
you. Also with that posture and the look on his face, has anyone checked
for a pulse? It reminds me of an episode of The Goodies where they
where shown using the Russian Politburo as glove puppets - aahhh I see
it - if you squint at the part between  his left leg and the car I'm
sure I see an arm with an Exxon logo on it.. ;)

Yours in jest,
Andrew



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[Greg and April]

Still, thousands of people handle it on a daily 
basis, with no extra special effort and no problems. About the 
only problems I hear about is when methanol is mistaken for 
ethanol. IIRC I read of 17 fatalities and 55 non-fatal cases 
in 2002, involving methanol, which is better than ethanol's record of 693 
deaths, directly from ethanol poisoning (not to mention all the indirect 
deaths and injury's from drunk driving) in 2003.

OSHA Exposure limits:
Methanol 200 ppm 
Gasoline 300 ppm
Benzene ( as a component of gasoline ) 1 
ppm
Toluene ( as above ) 200 ppm
Xylene ( as above ) 100 
ppm

As can be seen, methanol is about as safe as 
gasoline, and in some cases, muchsafer than some of the components that 
make up gasoline.


Greg H.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Tom Irwin 

  To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org 
  
  Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 
8:07
  Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on 
  ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies
  
  Hi All,
  
  I don't think ethanol will be a dinosaur in 20 years but would appreciate 
  why you think so if it is other than yields per hectare. Methanol has the 
  capacity to produce some nasty tailpipe emmission (as does ethanol but less 
  so) and is far more toxic to humans and animals than ethanol. Another 
  component of sustainability is safety. I would not wish to see methanol 
  filling stations. Most people have no concept how nasty it is. Yes, it can be 
  handled safely by those who understand the dangers but most folks don't have 
  that knowledge.
  
  Tom Irwin
  
  

From: Appal Energy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: 
Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 10:35:58 
-0300Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel,  
hydrogen energy efficienciesStill, all rather sad how 
ethanol has become the predominate alternative fuel of choice for 
gasoline applications when methanol yields far higher outputs per acre 
with far fewer inputs.At 75% of the energy content as ethanol, the 
energy yield per acre (100 gallons per ton of dry biomass) outstrips 
corn derived ethanol, even on a good day. The real crux of the matter 
would be to choose crops of high seasonal yield, inclusive of those 
suitable for pre- and post plantings of other crops in the same annular 
cycle.My book makes ethanol a dinosaur within 20 years.Todd 
SwearingenKeith Addison wrote: Hello Bob, 
Andrew Normally I'd agree with you Bob, but not in 
Pimentel's case, that time  was long ago, and now Andrew's response 
is not inappropriate. Pimentel  merits little better than scorn and 
derision Andrew, I know you said 
it in jest, but the unfortunate effect of your  sarcasm 
regarding David Pimentel, one of the nations' outstanding  
scientists, is to support the ignorant critics of good science who 
 argue that, "if I believe in a proposition, then anyone who 
presents  evidence that contradicts my belief is a malicious 
fool and not to be  believed". It is 
true that a few pseudoscientists acting as industry shills  will 
(for a fee) produce a "scientific study" supporting any  
industry-desired conclusion, but your implication that Pimentel is 
 such an Exxon shill is blatant slander, and I am ashamed to see 
it on  the Biofuels site. I assume that 
you wish ethanol's EROEI (energy return over energy  input) to 
be positive, thus making it a useful energy source as we  
approach the end of fossil fuels. So do I - and so would lots of 
 other folks. I'm sure also that David Pimentel shares that 
wish. The  difference between you and Pimentel is that as a 
scientist, he says,  "It's a great idea and I hope it's true, 
but what if it isn't? So  let's run the numbers and seek the 
truth of the matter. If it turns  out the EROEI is negative, we 
would be commiting a cruel and  expensive hoax on the nation to 
propose ethanol as an energy solution." Not so, sad 
to say. Pimentel has long been aware that the data he uses  is 
outdated and wrong, but he keeps using it anyway. Implying that  
he's an Exxon-et al shill is not blatant slander, the question has to 
 be asked why he continues doing this, and asked of his publishers 
too.  This is peer review? I think not. It certainly is not science. 
It's  propaganda. I am as disappointed as you 
must be in his analysis showing a  negative EROEI. And I look 
forward to additional valid studies  testing and challenging his 
conclusion. Those have been to hand for a long time, 
more and more of them,  debunking every aspect of Pimentel's claims. 
Pimentel takes no notice,  neither do his 
publishers. But to lampoon his work because you don't 
like the color of - was it  his socks? - is not a worthy act on 
your part. Well, I don't know, I suppose we can take 
his socks about as

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[Tom Irwin]

act on your part. I'm sure you can do better. I hope you will.  In all sincerity and hoping that your future jests will be more benign,  Bob A. - Original Message - From: "Andrew Lowe" To: Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 4:15 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies   Michael wrote: This press release below produced the AP story that follows it.  July 5, 2005 Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel from corn and other crops is not worth the energy  By Susan S. Lang Chris Hallman/University Photography   Ecologist David Pimentel, shown here pumping gas, says that his  analysis shows that producing ethanol uses more energy than the  resulting fuel generates. Copyright © Cornell University [snip]  Sorry for the late reply on this one, but with dress sense like what was shown in the picture how can anyone take this bloke seriously? I ask you. Also with that posture and the look on his face, has anyone checked for a pulse? It reminds me of an episode of "The Goodies" where they where shown using the Russian Politburo as glove puppets - aahhh I see it - if you squint at the part between his left leg and the car I'm sure I see an arm with an Exxon logo on it.. ;)  Yours in jest, Andrew___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[Tom Irwin]

Hello Todd,

Let's forgo toxicity and byproducts for a moment and talk about efficiency. I could be mistaken but if I can take cellulose and biologically convert it to ethanol or methanol, I think I want the two carbon alcohol over the one carbon alcohol. If it is a question of biologically producing ethanol and chemically producing methanol, I think I still go for the biological process. I could be missing something, this is probably too simple an analysis.

Tom



From: Appal Energy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 11:36:44 -0300Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel,  hydrogen energy efficienciesDinosaur as a matter of necessity Tom. Economics may preclude or designate that necessity.What I find peculiar is the fact that the toxicity of gasoline isn't mentioned here.You also may care to take into consideration that energy farming will inherantly reduce other industrial toxicity as biomass becomes a constituent element within them. Mercury and sulfur reduction from the electricity generation industry comes to mind immediatelyIf you're going to conduct a cost/benefit analysis Tom, let's do so across the board and include all the benefits, rather than eluding to but one or two specific and unquantified disbenefits, perhaps even disbenefits that can be ameliorated or eliminated.Todd SwearingenTom Irwin wrote: Hi All,  I don't think ethanol will be a dinosaur in 20 years but would  appreciate why you think so if it is other than yields per hectare.  Methanol has the capacity to produce some nasty tailpipe emmission (as  does ethanol but less so) and is far more toxic to humans and animals  than ethanol. Another component of sustainability is safety. I would  not wish to see methanol filling stations. Most people have no concept  how nasty it is. Yes, it can be handled safely by those who understand  the dangers but most folks don't have that knowledge.  Tom Irwin   *From:* Appal Energy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] *To:* Biofuel@sustainablelists.org *Sent:* Thu, 04 Aug 2005 10:35:58 -0300 *Subject:* Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel,  hydrogen energy efficiencies Still, all rather sad how ethanol has become the predominate alternative fuel of choice for gasoline applications when methanol yields far higher outputs per acre with far fewer inputs. At 75% of the energy content as ethanol, the energy yield per acre (100 gallons per ton of dry biomass) outstrips corn derived ethanol, even on a good day. The real crux of the matter would be to choose crops of high seasonal yield, inclusive of those suitable for pre- and post plantings of other crops in the same annular cycle. My book makes ethanol a dinosaur within 20 years. Todd Swearingen Keith Addison wrote:  Hello Bob, Andrew   Normally I'd agree with you Bob, but not in Pimentel's case, that time  was long ago, and now Andrew's response is not inappropriate. Pimentel  merits little better than scorn and derision   Andrew,   I know you said it in jest, but the unfortunate effect of your  sarcasm regarding David Pimentel, one of the nations' outstanding  scientists, is to support the ignorant critics of good science who  argue that, "if I believe in a proposition, then anyone who presents  evidence that contradicts my belief is a malicious fool and not to be  believed".   It is true that a few pseudoscientists acting as industry shills  will (for a fee) produce a "scientific study" supporting any  industry-desired conclusion, but your implication that Pimentel is  such an Exxon shill is blatant slander, and I am ashamed to see it on  the Biofuels site.   I assume that you wish ethanol's EROEI (energy return over energy  input) to be positive, thus making it a useful energy source as we  approach the end of fossil fuels. So do I - and so would lots of  other folks. I'm sure also that David Pimentel shares that wish. The  difference between you and Pimentel is that as a scientist, he says,  "It's a great idea and I hope it's true, but what if it isn't? So  let's run the numbers and seek the truth of the matter. If it turns  out the EROEI is negative, we would be commiting a cruel and  expensive hoax on the nation to propose ethanol as an energy solution."Not so, sad to say. Pimentel has long been aware that the data he uses  is outdated and wrong, but he keeps using it anyway. Implying that  he's an Exxon-et al shill is not blatant slander, the question has to  be asked why he continues doing this, and asked of his publishers too.  This is peer review? I think not. It certainly is not science. It's  propaganda.   I am as disappointed as you must be in his analysis showing a  negative EROEI. And I look forward to additional valid studies  testing and challenging his conclusion.Those have been to hand for a long time, more and more of them,  debunking every aspect of Pimentel's cl

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[Appal Energy]

 I could be missing something, this is probably too simple an analysis.

Perhaps the process requires the entire equation to make sense? Maybe 
cradle to grave energy inputs on both sides as well as energy outputs 
are required to get an accurate perspective as to energy related 
cost/benefits of cradle-to-grave production?


The process of converting biomass to methanol requires pyrolization 
(thermochemical) reactors which convert the biomass to crude producer 
gases. (See 19th century gas street lighting and the process of charcoal 
production.) After washing the producer gas, primarily hydrogen and 
carbon monoxide, it is converted to methanol under high temperature and 
pressure in the presence of a catalyst.


The producer gasses can be used directly in the production of 
electricity (supplanting natural gas), powering engines (see gasifier 
tecnologies from the mid-20th century), whether they be stationary (low 
pressure feed) or mobile (high pressure storage).


The production of synthetic gasoline can also be implemented using 
methanol as a feedstock.

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf1991/zerbe91a.pdf

In any event, btu per gallon vs. btu per gallon, methanol has only 75% 
the energy value of ethanol.


http://www.leeric.lsu.edu/bgbb/7/ecep/auto/m/m.htm

That said, using 146 bushels of corn per acre,
http://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/articles.03/CornYldTrend2003.html
and an ethanol yield 2.5 gallons per bushel,
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/daco/bioenergy/2001/2001FactorsNFormulas.pdf
you gross approximately 365 gallons of ethanol per acre.

Subract the energy inputs to derive a net output.

Presuming 86 gallons of methanol per ton of dried biomass,
http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/forum/94fall.html
a dry ton/acre of 9 tons for hemp,
http://www.ratical.org/renewables/biomass.html#f12
or 5-8 tons/acre of non-irrigated willow,
http://www.esf.edu/willow/PDFs/2004%20esa_sustainability.pdf
you gross between 430 and 774 gallons of methanol per acre.

Some claims are made relative to 100 gallons of methanol per dry ton of 
cannabis hemp. If true, this would elevate per acre production of 
methanol to approximately 900 gallons.


Using an energy content multiplier of 0.75 yields numbers between 322 
and 675 units of equivalent energy when producing biofuel from methanol 
in comparison to ethanol.


The balance of the equation between methanol and ethanol lies in the 
energy input sector.


The input/output ratio for ethanol seems to slide somewhere between 
1.00:1.25 and 1.00:1.40. That would equate to a net energy gain between 
91 and 146 gallons per acre.


At present, I don't have access to the energy input information for 
methanol derived from dry biomass to complete the methanol side of the 
equation. That may or could be acquired from the Hawaii Natural Energy 
Institute, pursuant to their results on their 1995 subcontract with the 
U.S. Department of Energy, titled Hawaii Integrated Biofuels Research 
Program.


If someone can provide a link where this data can be obtained, the 
balance of the equation can be calculated.


All printed comments on energy inputs for thermochemical production of 
methanol from biomass indicate lesser energy inputs for methanol than 
than for ethanol. To compare apples to apples, this should include the 
energy used to produce the methanol biomass crop, inclusive of 
herbicide, pesticide, fertilizer, irrigation, sewing, tending, 
harvesting, transportation, pyrolysis and synthetic reformation (as the 
1:1.25 and 1:1.40 ethanol ratios include similar energy inputs).


If the generally expressed efficiency comments hold true, then methanol, 
perhaps synthetic gasoline from biomass derived methanol and certainly 
producer gasses from biomass are considerably more efficient pursuits 
than is ethanol.


Is anyone able to provide the missing link?

Todd Swearingen

Another link of interest:
http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/doeofd/94_95sum/biosyngs.html



Tom Irwin wrote:


Hello Todd,
 
Let's forgo toxicity and byproducts for a moment and talk about 
efficiency. I could be mistaken but if I can take cellulose and 
biologically convert it to ethanol or methanol, I think I want the two 
carbon alcohol over the one carbon alcohol. If it is a question of 
biologically producing ethanol and chemically producing methanol, I 
think I still go for the biological process. I could be missing 
something, this is probably too simple an analysis.
 
Tom
 



*From:* Appal Energy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*To:* Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
*Sent:* Thu, 04 Aug 2005 11:36:44 -0300
*Subject:* Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel,  hydrogen
energy efficiencies

Dinosaur as a matter of necessity Tom. Economics may preclude or
designate that necessity.

What I find peculiar is the fact that the toxicity of gasoline isn't
mentioned here.

You also may care to take

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[Hakan Falk]

 
Michael Mann is only one such egregious example.


Are you comparing us to Congressman Barton's witch-hunt against Michael 
Mann? I'd like an answer to that please. What's up with you, eh? Bad hair day?


Malcolm Gladwell wrote Thomas Kuhn's legacy was that he taught the 
process of science was fundamentally human, that discoveries were the 
product not of some plodding, rational process but of human ingenuity 
intermingled with politics and personality--that science was, in the end, 
a social process.


Kuhn may be right, and science may be a flawed human process, but 
frankly, it's the best we've got. And personally, I'd rather put my faith 
it in.


Naive. Your view of the problem leaves out all the important bits.

Keith



jh





Keith Addison wrote:


Hello Bob, Andrew

Normally I'd agree with you Bob, but not in Pimentel's case, that time 
was long ago, and now Andrew's response is not inappropriate. Pimentel 
merits little better than scorn and derision



Andrew,

I know you said it in jest, but the unfortunate effect of your sarcasm 
regarding David Pimentel, one of the nations' outstanding scientists, 
is to support the ignorant critics of good science who argue that, if 
I believe in a proposition, then anyone who presents evidence that 
contradicts my belief is a malicious fool and not to be believed.


It is true that a few pseudoscientists acting as industry  shills will 
(for a fee) produce a scientific study supporting any 
industry-desired conclusion, but your implication that Pimentel is 
such an Exxon shill is blatant slander, and I am ashamed to see it on 
the Biofuels site.


I assume that you wish ethanol's EROEI (energy return over energy 
input) to be positive, thus making it a useful energy source as we 
approach the end of fossil fuels. So do I - and so would lots of other 
folks. I'm sure also that David Pimentel shares that wish. The 
difference between you and Pimentel is that as a scientist, he says, 
It's a great idea and I hope it's true, but what if it isn't? So 
let's run the numbers and seek the truth of the matter. If it turns 
out the EROEI  is negative, we would be commiting a cruel and 
expensive hoax on the nation to propose ethanol as an energy solution.




Not so, sad to say. Pimentel has long been aware that the data he uses 
is outdated and wrong, but he keeps using it anyway. Implying that he's 
an Exxon-et al shill is not blatant slander, the question has to be 
asked why he continues doing this, and asked of his publishers too. 
This is peer review? I think not. It certainly is not science. It's propaganda.


I am as disappointed as you must be in his analysis showing a negative 
EROEI. And I look forward to additional valid studies testing and 
challenging his conclusion.




Those have been to hand for a long time, more and more of them, 
debunking every aspect of Pimentel's claims. Pimentel takes no notice, 
neither do his publishers.


But to lampoon his work because you don't like the color of - was it 
his socks? - is not a worthy act on your part.




Well, I don't know, I suppose we can take his socks about as seriously 
as the rest of him.


Nothing new here - we've been discussing Pimentel's repeated and rather 
successful disinformation campaign since early 2001. As John said when 
he posted this latest bout, he does it every year.


Please see these recent messages, to put it in perspective:

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg52605.html
Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel,  hydrogen energy efficien

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg52756.html
Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel,  hydrogen energy efficienc

Best wishes

Keith



I'm sure you can do better. I hope you will.

In all sincerity and hoping that your future jests will be more benign,

Bob A.
- Original Message - From: Andrew Lowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 4:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy 
efficiencies



Michael wrote:


This press release below produced the AP story that follows it.

July 5, 2005
Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel 
from corn and other crops is not worth the energy


By Susan S. Lang



 Chris Hallman/University Photography

 Ecologist David Pimentel, shown here pumping gas, says that his 
analysis shows that producing ethanol uses more energy than the 
resulting fuel generates. Copyright © Cornell University

[snip]

Sorry for the late reply on this one, but with dress sense like what
was shown in the picture how can anyone take this bloke seriously? I ask
you. Also with that posture and the look on his face, has anyone checked
for a pulse? It reminds me of an episode of The Goodies where they
where shown using the Russian Politburo as glove puppets - aahhh I see
it - if you squint at the part between  his left leg and the car I'm
sure I see an arm with an Exxon

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[Tom Irwin]

Greetings Hakan,

I feel fairly confident that biological degradation will have a lower energy cost than pyrolysis. All of the reactions from oxidation of the lignin to hydrolysis of the cellulose occur at or below 35 degrees C. The conversion to alcohol by biomass occurs at that temperature too. It is a question of the heat input for distilling the alcohol to 95% purity vs the pyrolysis heat input. There are ways of driving off the water from 3A molecular sieve used to get to 100% purity that do not require extremely high temperatures but do require significant time. I´ve never triedremoving the water from the sieve with a solar oven but it is an option. Of course both systems require lab infrastucture.Please keep in mind I´m strongly biased toward microbial systems as that is my background. I don´t rule out physical chemical methods. It´s just not part of my experience base.

TomIrwin


From: Appal Energy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 20:30:20 -0300Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel,  hydrogen energy efficiencies I could be missing something, this is probably too simple an analysis.Perhaps the process requires the entire equation to make sense? Maybe cradle to grave energy inputs on both sides as well as energy outputs are required to get an accurate perspective as to energy related cost/benefits of cradle-to-grave production?The process of converting biomass to methanol requires pyrolization (thermochemical) reactors which convert the biomass to crude producer gases. (See 19th century gas street lighting and the process of charcoal production.) After "washing" the producer gas, primarily hydrogen and carbon monoxide, it is converted to methanol under high temperature and pressure in the presence of a catalyst.The producer gasses can be used directly in the production of electricity (supplanting natural gas), powering engines (see gasifier tecnologies from the mid-20th century), whether they be stationary (low pressure feed) or mobile (high pressure storage).The production of synthetic gasoline can also be implemented using methanol as a feedstock.http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf1991/zerbe91a.pdfIn any event, btu per gallon vs. btu per gallon, methanol has only 75% the energy value of ethanol.http://www.leeric.lsu.edu/bgbb/7/ecep/auto/m/m.htmThat said, using 146 bushels of corn per acre,http://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/articles.03/CornYldTrend2003.htmland an ethanol yield 2.5 gallons per bushel,http://www.fsa.usda.gov/daco/bioenergy/2001/2001FactorsNFormulas.pdfyou gross approximately 365 gallons of ethanol per acre.Subract the energy inputs to derive a net output.Presuming 86 gallons of methanol per ton of dried biomass,http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/forum/94fall.htmla dry ton/acre of 9 tons for hemp,http://www.ratical.org/renewables/biomass.html#f12or 5-8 tons/acre of non-irrigated willow,http://www.esf.edu/willow/PDFs/2004%20esa_sustainability.pdfyou gross between 430 and 774 gallons of methanol per acre.Some claims are made relative to 100 gallons of methanol per dry ton of cannabis hemp. If true, this would elevate per acre production of methanol to approximately 900 gallons.Using an energy content multiplier of 0.75 yields numbers between 322 and 675 units of equivalent energy when producing biofuel from methanol in comparison to ethanol.The balance of the equation between methanol and ethanol lies in the energy input sector.The input/output ratio for ethanol seems to slide somewhere between 1.00:1.25 and 1.00:1.40. That would equate to a net energy gain between 91 and 146 gallons per acre.At present, I don't have access to the energy input information for methanol derived from dry biomass to complete the methanol side of the equation. That may or could be acquired from the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, pursuant to their results on their 1995 subcontract with the U.S. Department of Energy, titled "Hawaii Integrated Biofuels Research Program."If someone can provide a link where this data can be obtained, the balance of the equation can be calculated.All printed comments on energy inputs for thermochemical production of methanol from biomass indicate lesser energy inputs for methanol than than for ethanol. To compare apples to apples, this should include the energy used to produce the methanol biomass crop, inclusive of herbicide, pesticide, fertilizer, irrigation, sewing, tending, harvesting, transportation, pyrolysis and synthetic reformation (as the 1:1.25 and 1:1.40 ethanol ratios include similar energy inputs).If the generally expressed efficiency comments hold true, then methanol, perhaps synthetic gasoline from biomass derived methanol and certainly producer gasses from biomass are considerably more efficient pursuits than is ethanol.Is anyone able to provide the "missing link?"Todd SwearingenAnother link of interest:http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/doeofd/94_95sum/biosyngs.htmlTom I

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[Guag Meister]

Hi Hakan and All ;

Trying to get back into this.

 The process of converting biomass to methanol
 requires pyrolization 
 (thermochemical) reactors which convert the biomass
 to crude producer 
 gases. (See 19th century gas street lighting and the
 process of charcoal 
 production.) After washing the producer gas,
 primarily hydrogen and 
 carbon monoxide, it is converted to methanol under
 high temperature and 
 pressure in the presence of a catalyst.

Yes this is how it could be done, but has anyone
succeeded in doing it on a small scale and cost
effectively?  Tom Reed over on the gasification list
has spent many years and huge amounts of money and
succeeded in making 1 liter of methanol at great cost.

I think the reason why ethanol is so popular is that
people have been making it for thousands of years. 
Methanol is quite recent, only being discovered 100
years ago or so. There is a new patent for low
pressure (10 bar), low temperature (150 C), methanol
catalyst which is stable and easy to make.  I could
dig up the link if anyone wants.  Perhaps it is in the
JtF archives as well.  Hoping to see some
do-it-yourself articles in the public domain and then
methanol will begin to generate interest.

Best Regards,

Peter G.
Thailand





Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[William Adams]

Andrew,

I know you said it in jest, but the unfortunate effect of your sarcasm 
regarding David Pimentel, one of the nations' outstanding scientists, is to 
support the ignorant critics of good science who argue that, if I believe 
in a proposition, then anyone who presents evidence that contradicts my 
belief is a malicious fool and not to be believed.


It is true that a few pseudoscientists acting as industry  shills will (for 
a fee) produce a scientific study supporting any industry-desired 
conclusion, but your implication that Pimentel is such an Exxon shill is 
blatant slander, and I am ashamed to see it on the Biofuels site.


I assume that you wish ethanol's EROEI (energy return over energy input) to 
be positive, thus making it a useful energy source as we approach the end of 
fossil fuels. So do I - and so would lots of other folks. I'm sure also that 
David Pimentel shares that wish. The difference between you and Pimentel is 
that as a scientist, he says, It's a great idea and I hope it's true, but 
what if it isn't? So let's run the numbers and seek the truth of the matter. 
If it turns out the EROEI  is negative, we would be commiting a cruel and 
expensive hoax on the nation to propose ethanol as an energy solution.


I am as disappointed as you must be in his analysis showing a negative 
EROEI. And I look forward to additional valid studies testing and 
challenging his conclusion.  But to lampoon his work because you don't like 
the color of - was it his socks? - is not a worthy act on your part.  I'm 
sure you can do better. I hope you will.


In all sincerity and hoping that your future jests will be more benign,

Bob A.
- Original Message - 
From: Andrew Lowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 4:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy 
efficiencies



Michael wrote:

This press release below produced the AP story that follows it.

July 5, 2005
Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel from 
corn and other crops is not worth the energy


By Susan S. Lang



 Chris Hallman/University Photography

 Ecologist David Pimentel, shown here pumping gas, says that his 
analysis shows that producing ethanol uses more energy than the resulting 
fuel generates. Copyright © Cornell University



[snip]

Sorry for the late reply on this one, but with dress sense like what
was shown in the picture how can anyone take this bloke seriously? I ask
you. Also with that posture and the look on his face, has anyone checked
for a pulse? It reminds me of an episode of The Goodies where they
where shown using the Russian Politburo as glove puppets - aahhh I see
it - if you squint at the part between  his left leg and the car I'm
sure I see an arm with an Exxon logo on it.. ;)

Yours in jest,
Andrew

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
messages):

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/




___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[Keith Addison]

Hello Bob, Andrew

Normally I'd agree with you Bob, but not in Pimentel's case, that 
time was long ago, and now Andrew's response is not inappropriate. 
Pimentel merits little better than scorn and derision



Andrew,

I know you said it in jest, but the unfortunate effect of your 
sarcasm regarding David Pimentel, one of the nations' outstanding 
scientists, is to support the ignorant critics of good science who 
argue that, if I believe in a proposition, then anyone who presents 
evidence that contradicts my belief is a malicious fool and not to 
be believed.


It is true that a few pseudoscientists acting as industry  shills 
will (for a fee) produce a scientific study supporting any 
industry-desired conclusion, but your implication that Pimentel is 
such an Exxon shill is blatant slander, and I am ashamed to see it 
on the Biofuels site.


I assume that you wish ethanol's EROEI (energy return over energy 
input) to be positive, thus making it a useful energy source as we 
approach the end of fossil fuels. So do I - and so would lots of 
other folks. I'm sure also that David Pimentel shares that wish. The 
difference between you and Pimentel is that as a scientist, he says, 
It's a great idea and I hope it's true, but what if it isn't? So 
let's run the numbers and seek the truth of the matter. If it turns 
out the EROEI  is negative, we would be commiting a cruel and 
expensive hoax on the nation to propose ethanol as an energy 
solution.


Not so, sad to say. Pimentel has long been aware that the data he 
uses is outdated and wrong, but he keeps using it anyway. Implying 
that he's an Exxon-et al shill is not blatant slander, the question 
has to be asked why he continues doing this, and asked of his 
publishers too. This is peer review? I think not. It certainly is not 
science. It's propaganda.


I am as disappointed as you must be in his analysis showing a 
negative EROEI. And I look forward to additional valid studies 
testing and challenging his conclusion.


Those have been to hand for a long time, more and more of them, 
debunking every aspect of Pimentel's claims. Pimentel takes no 
notice, neither do his publishers.


But to lampoon his work because you don't like the color of - was it 
his socks? - is not a worthy act on your part.


Well, I don't know, I suppose we can take his socks about as 
seriously as the rest of him.


Nothing new here - we've been discussing Pimentel's repeated and 
rather successful disinformation campaign since early 2001. As John 
said when he posted this latest bout, he does it every year.


Please see these recent messages, to put it in perspective:

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg52605.html
Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel,  hydrogen energy efficien

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg52756.html
Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel,  hydrogen energy efficienc

Best wishes

Keith



I'm sure you can do better. I hope you will.

In all sincerity and hoping that your future jests will be more benign,

Bob A.
- Original Message - From: Andrew Lowe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 4:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen 
energy efficiencies



Michael wrote:

This press release below produced the AP story that follows it.

July 5, 2005
Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and 
biodiesel from corn and other crops is not worth the energy


By Susan S. Lang



   Chris Hallman/University Photography

   Ecologist David Pimentel, shown here pumping gas, says that his 
analysis shows that producing ethanol uses more energy than the 
resulting fuel generates. Copyright © Cornell University



[snip]

Sorry for the late reply on this one, but with dress sense like what
was shown in the picture how can anyone take this bloke seriously? I ask
you. Also with that posture and the look on his face, has anyone checked
for a pulse? It reminds me of an episode of The Goodies where they
where shown using the Russian Politburo as glove puppets - aahhh I see
it - if you squint at the part between  his left leg and the car I'm
sure I see an arm with an Exxon logo on it.. ;)

Yours in jest,
Andrew



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[Andrew Lowe]

Michael wrote:

This press release below produced the AP story that follows it.

July 5, 2005
Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel 
from corn and other crops is not worth the energy


By Susan S. Lang



 Chris Hallman/University Photography

 Ecologist David Pimentel, shown here pumping gas, says that his 
analysis shows that producing ethanol uses more energy than the 
resulting fuel generates. Copyright © Cornell University



[snip]

	Sorry for the late reply on this one, but with dress sense like what 
was shown in the picture how can anyone take this bloke seriously? I ask 
you. Also with that posture and the look on his face, has anyone checked 
for a pulse? It reminds me of an episode of The Goodies where they 
where shown using the Russian Politburo as glove puppets - aahhh I see 
it - if you squint at the part between  his left leg and the car I'm 
sure I see an arm with an Exxon logo on it.. ;)


Yours in jest,
Andrew

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[subramanian D.V]

Bravo Keith !
The ethanol game is hotting up. Very solid facts presented by you for Ethanol. 
Then how individuals can undo the disinformation campaign.  It's the media which makes or mars such people as Pimental -and their views, particularly if they are academics with a couple of alphabets prefixing  suffixing their names and backed by an otherwise famous university.
Finally what will the Govt decide ?

I amkeeping track of  the controversy and comments as its fallout will be world-wide

Regards,

Subramanian, D.V

Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Keith wrote:I think it will not die until it is deliberately killed. Pimentel is debunked again and again yet he takes no notice, he just does it again. He's wrong and he knows he's wrong yet he keeps making these destructive claims. Publishing rebuttals just doesn't work, the disinformation campaign continues. Those publishing the rebuttals don't know how to play the media game like Pimentel does. It's time he was confronted by his detractors in a public debate and discredited, and his new sidekick Patzek with him. Their publishers must be made to account for their obviously skewed peer review.Some earlier studies showed a negative energy balance for corn ethanol. Only Pimentel and Patzek still do so.In 1991 Pimentel stated the net energy balance of corn ethanol was -33,517 btu.In 1989, Ho had put it at -4,000 btu.In 1990, Marland and Turhollow put it at 18,154.In 1992, Keeney and DeLuca put it at
 -8,438.In 1995 Lorenz and Morris put it at 30,589.In 1995 Shapouri et al. put it at 20,436In 1999 Agri. and Agri-Food, CAN found it was 29,826.In 1999 Wang et al. put it 22,500In 2002, Kim and Dale put it at 23,886 to 35,463 btu.In 2001, 10 years after his first study, Pimentel found it was even less than the first time, -33,562.Make a chart of these figures. Why do Pimentel's analyses stand out?- His corn yields date from pre-1992.- His value for energy required to produce ethanol and the ethanol yield date from pre-1980.- His figures for energy to produce fertilizer are 1990 worldwide values, not recent U. S. values.- He assumes all corn is irrigated (only 16% is) - virtually no irrigated corn is converted to ethanol.- He does not properly assign an energy credit for the high protein DDGS co-product.U.S. corn yields increased steadily from 80 bushels per acre in 1970 to 130+ bushels per acre in
 2000.U.S. corn output per pound of fertilizer used increased from 0.33 bushels/lb. fertilizer in 1970 to 0.6 in 2000.Energy use intensity of ethanol plants has reduced by 40% in the case of the more common dry mills and about half that much for wet mills. Most ethanol in the U.S. is produced from dry mills.With his data 20 years out of date, Pimentel has republished his claims again and again since 2001, right up to now, joined a couple of years ago by Patzek. Pimentel must be asked why and on whose behalf he continues to ignore reality, and asked in a public forum for all to see.The data above and more come from the references cited here:http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.htmlIs ethanol energy-efficient?Best wishesKeith___Biofuel mailing
 listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
		 Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page ___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[Keith Addison]

In the article, Pimentel is shown pumping gas, most likely plain old 
regular unleaded gas...


And it crossed my mind, How much energy was used to provide a 
gallon of plain old regular unleaded gas, considering all the energy 
consumed, not only in drilling and pumping crude, cleaning, 
separating, transporting, etc., but how much energy did the dinosaur 
consume, in the way of food, how much energy did earth processes 
contribute, in the way of pressures and time frames, etc.  And how 
much energy would be consumed to convert a modern-day dinosaur (sort 
of in short supply) into that same gallon of gas?  Consider the food 
he'd be eating, the fossil fuel based pesticides I'd have to use on 
the food source for Dino, etc...  


Yeah, sort of silly, but probably worth a government grant to study.
doug swanson


:-)

Sorry to cavil, but dino-fuel is not made from dead dinosaurs as 
sometimes alleged. It comes from dead forests that grew in the same 
era, or round about then anyway.


Dinosaurs are not currently in short supply, Mike just named one, 
Monsanto, others would be ADM, Cargill, and ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and 
so on - Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Ag, and why not chuck in Big 
Government too, hey. There's a large meteorite headed their way 
though, so maybe they should all be on the endangered species list, 
only they've helped send so many other species there that I don't 
think there's any room left for them.


Regards

Keith


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[Hakan Falk]

Mike,

Maybe you found out the reason why they died out so fast, it is at least a 
logical explanation. LOL


Let us hope that Montsano also will join the list of destroyed species.

Hakan

At 03:21 AM 7/25/2005, you wrote:
In all likelihood, Monsanto would volunteer to provide the huge amount of 
vegetation for that dinosaur. So, that means it'll probably die of a blood 
disorder or kidney failure.


:-)

Mike

des [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the article, Pimentel is shown pumping gas, most likely plain old
regular unleaded gas...

And it crossed my mind, How much energy was used to provide a gallon of
plain old regular unleaded gas, considering all the energy consumed, not
only in drilling and pumping crude, cleaning, separating, transporting,
etc., but how much energy did the dinosaur consume, in the way of food,
how much energy did earth processes contribute, in the way of pressures
and time frames, etc. And how much energy would be consumed to convert
a modern-day dinosaur (sort of in short supply) into that same gallon of
gas? Consider the food he'd be eating, the fossil fuel based pesticides
I'd have to use on the food source for Dino, etc... 

Yeah, sort of silly, but probably worth a government grant to study.

doug swanson




___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[Hakan Falk]

The problem with Pimentel is that he does not really understand what he is 
talking about, or that he deliberately misinform, in order to support a 
hidden agenda.  Also the conversion of crude to gasoline, cost more energy 
than you get and have no real energy benefit either. Diesel is better than 
gasoline, but no real energy benefit either. He have a funny and irrelevant 
view on the issues. To suggest hydrogen, is even a worse energy solution 
and only show his complete ignorance.


If we apply Pimentels logic to its consequences, liquid fuel is very 
inefficient, and he has a point here. This has nothing really to do with 
energy efficiency, but rather with energy application. Unfortunately, we do 
not really have a viable alternative to the combustion engine.


Ethanol and biodiesel can be produced with no fossil energy input. The 
energy for the processes can come from biomass and this will give an 
equally reasonable energy transformation, or better, as conversion of crude 
oil to gasoline. The major part of energy use in the process, is heating 
and you do not distill Ethanol with Ethanol. If you do, then you will not 
get Ethanol to use for fuel. You will of course have a better conversion, 
if you heat with plant waste, that are not used for Ethanol distilling source.


The problem with Pimentel is not what he say, but the way he says it. He is 
using his position to make banalities to valid technical arguments. It is 
amazing that anyone with the slightest energy knowledge, take the time and 
energy to deal with him, that is the real waste. On the other hand, he is 
spreading a invalid argument to a public that do not understand the issues. 
Including ignorant politicians, who think that they can make educated 
energy decisions, based on Pimentel banalities.


Hakan


At 03:50 AM 7/24/2005, you wrote:

This press release below produced the AP story that follows it.

July 5, 2005
Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel from 
corn and other crops is not worth the energy


By Susan S. Lang



 Chris Hallman/University Photography

 Ecologist David Pimentel, shown here pumping gas, says that his 
analysis shows that producing ethanol uses more energy than the resulting 
fuel generates. Copyright © Cornell University


ITHACA, N.Y. -- Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into 
fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel 
generates, according to a new Cornell University and University of 
California-Berkeley study.


There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel, 
says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. 
These strategies are not sustainable.


Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental 
engineering at Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of the energy 
input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass and wood 
biomass as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower 
plants. Their report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 
14:1, 65-76).


In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol 
production, the study found that:


 a.. corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;

 b.. switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel 
produced; and


 c.. wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel 
produced.


In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel 
production, the study found that:


 a.. soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel 
produced, and


 b.. sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the 
fuel produced.


In assessing inputs, the researchers considered such factors as the energy 
used in producing the crop (including production of pesticides and 
fertilizer, running farm machinery and irrigating, grinding and 
transporting the crop) and in fermenting/distilling the ethanol from the 
water mix. Although additional costs are incurred, such as federal and 
state subsidies that are passed on to consumers and the costs associated 
with environmental pollution or degradation, these figures were not 
included in the analysis.


The United State desperately needs a liquid fuel replacement for oil in 
the near future, says Pimentel, but producing ethanol or biodiesel from 
plant biomass is going down the wrong road, because you use more energy to 
produce these fuels than you get out from the combustion of these products.


Although Pimentel advocates the use of burning biomass to produce thermal 
energy (to heat homes, for example), he deplores the use of biomass for 
liquid fuel. The government spends more than $3 billion a year to 
subsidize ethanol production when it does not provide a net energy balance 
or gain, is not a renewable energy source or an economical fuel. Further, 
its production and use contribute to air, water and soil pollution and 

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[Ian Hodgson]

Interesting read I thought maybe there is yet one more way to look at this? Hakan, 
I just posted this in my newsgroup 


Please note the first linePhotos available at the site:from ; http://www.aa.washington.edu/AERP/CRYOCAR/CryoCar.htmNote: Due to lack of funding, this research project at the UW is no longer active. We have left this website up for general information purposes only. If you have questions regarding any aspect of LN2 vehicle technology, please direct your inquiries to the researchers at the University of North Texas. Researchers at the University of Washington are developing a new zero-emission automobile propulsion concept that uses liquid nitrogen as the fuel. The principle of operation is like that of a steam engine, except there is no combustion involved. Instead, liquid nitrogen at –320° F (–196° C)
 is pressurized andthen vaporized in a heat exchanger by the ambient temperature of the surrounding air. This heat exchanger is like the radiator of a car but instead of using air to cool water, it uses air to heat and boil liquid nitrogen. The resulting high-pressure nitrogen gas is fed to an engine that operates like a reciprocating steam engine, converting pressure to mechanical power. The only exhaust is nitrogen, which is the major constituent of our atmosphere. The LN2000 is an operating proof-of-concept test vehicle, a converted 1984 Grumman-Olson Kubvan mail delivery van. The engine, a radial five-cylinder 15-hp air motor, drives the front wheels through a five-speed manual Volkswagen transmission. The liquid nitrogen is stored in a thermos-like stainless steel tank, or dewar, that holds 24 gallons and is so well insulated that the nitrogen will stay liquid for weeks. At present the tank is pressurized with
 gaseous nitrogen to develop system pressure but a cryogenic liquid pump will be used for this purpose in the future. A preheater, called an economizer, uses leftover heat in the engine's exhaust to preheat the liquid nitrogen before it enters the heat exchanger. Two fans at the rear of the van draw air through the heat exchanger to enhance the transfer of ambient heat to the liquid nitrogen. The design of this heat exchanger is such as to prevent frost formation on its outer surfaces. As with all alternative energy storage media, the energy density (W-hr/kg) of liquid nitrogen is relatively low when compared to gasoline but better than that of readily available battery systems. Studies indicate that liquid nitrogen automobiles will have significant performance and environmental advantages over electric vehicles. A liquid nitrogen car with a 60-gallon tank will have a potential range of up to 200 miles, or more than
 twice that of a typical electric car. Furthermore, a liquid nitrogen car will be much lighter and refilling its tank will take only 10-15 minutes, rather than the several hours required by most electric car concepts. Motorists will fuel up at filling stations very similar to today's gasoline stations. When liquid nitrogen is manufactured in large quantities, the operating cost per mile of a liquid nitrogen car will not only be less than that of an electric car but will actually be competitive with that of a gasoline car. The process to manufacture liquid nitrogen in large quantities can be environmentally very friendly, even if fossil fuels are used to generate the electric power required. The exhaust gases produced by burning fossil fuels in a power plant contain not only carbon dioxide and gaseous pollutants, but also all the nitrogen from the air used in the combustion. By feeding these exhaust gases to the nitrogen
 liquefaction plant, the carbon dioxide and other undesirable products of combustion can be condensed and separated in the process of chilling the nitrogen, and thus no pollutants need be released to the atmosphere by the power plant. The sequestered carbon dioxide and pollutants could be injected into depleted gas and oil wells, deep mine shafts, deep ocean subduction zones, and other repositories from which they will not diffuse back into the atmosphere, or they could be chemically processed into useful or inert substances. Consequently, the implementation of a large fleet of liquid nitrogen vehicles could have much greater environmental benefits than just reducing urban air pollution as desired by current zero-emission vehicle mandates. * Funding for this project has been provided by the U.S. Department of Energy.http://www.aa.washington.edu/AERP/CRYOCAR/CryoCar.htmfrom (link at the ame site) http://www.aa.washington.edu/AERP/CRYOCAR/CryoCar.htmCryogens are effective thermal storage media which, when used for automotive purposes, offer significant advantages over current and proposed electrochemical battery technologies, both in performance and economy. An automotive propulsion concept is presented which utilizes liquid nitrogen as the working fluid for an open Rankine cycle. When the only heat input to the engine is supplied by ambient heat 

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[des]

In the article, Pimentel is shown pumping gas, most likely plain old 
regular unleaded gas...


And it crossed my mind, How much energy was used to provide a gallon of 
plain old regular unleaded gas, considering all the energy consumed, not 
only in drilling and pumping crude, cleaning, separating, transporting, 
etc., but how much energy did the dinosaur consume, in the way of food, 
how much energy did earth processes contribute, in the way of pressures 
and time frames, etc.  And how much energy would be consumed to convert 
a modern-day dinosaur (sort of in short supply) into that same gallon of 
gas?  Consider the food he'd be eating, the fossil fuel based pesticides 
I'd have to use on the food source for Dino, etc...  


Yeah, sort of silly, but probably worth a government grant to study. 


doug swanson


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[Michael Redler]

"The energy for the processes can come from biomass"

I think you are right about that. I also think that since research into alternatives has stagnated since the seventies, we are still only scratching the surface ofwhat's possible on a large scale.IMO,each of the alternatives to fossil fuels that are(and will be) available, need to be seenas important, relative to their intendedapplication. I seehybrid car technology as a predictor of how we ultimately usebio, solar, wind, etc. for all our needs.The mind sethas to becomesuch thatall the alternatives are important and as long as the energy debate among the massestries to define one alternative as "better" than another (i.e. the so called "hydrogen economy"), irrespective ofits application, we'll know that we're not ready tomake the change.

Pimintel makes claims against these fuels irrespective of their potential applications. That alone should raise suspicions.

Mike
Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem with Pimentel is that he does not really understand what he is talking about, or that he deliberately misinform, in order to support a hidden agenda. Also the conversion of crude to gasoline, cost more energy than you get and have no real energy benefit either. Diesel is better than gasoline, but no real energy benefit either. He have a funny and irrelevant view on the issues. To suggest hydrogen, is even a worse energy solution and only show his complete ignorance.If we apply Pimentels logic to its consequences, liquid fuel is very inefficient, and he has a point here. This has nothing really to do with energy efficiency, but rather with energy application. Unfortunately, we do not really have a viable alternative to the combustion engine.Ethanol and biodiesel can be produced with no fossil energy input. The
 energy for the processes can come from biomass and this will give an equally reasonable energy transformation, or better, as conversion of crude oil to gasoline. The major part of energy use in the process, is heating and you do not distill Ethanol with Ethanol. If you do, then you will not get Ethanol to use for fuel. You will of course have a better conversion, if you heat with plant waste, that are not used for Ethanol distilling source.The problem with Pimentel is not what he say, but the way he says it. He is using his position to make banalities to valid technical arguments. It is amazing that anyone with the slightest energy knowledge, take the time and energy to deal with him, that is the real waste. On the other hand, he is spreading a invalid argument to a public that do not understand the issues. Including ignorant politicians, who think that they can make educated energy decisions, based on Pimentel
 banalities.HakanAt 03:50 AM 7/24/2005, you wrote:This press release below produced the AP story that follows it.July 5, 2005Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel from corn and other crops is not worth the energyBy Susan S. Lang Chris Hallman/University Photography Ecologist David Pimentel, shown here pumping gas, says that his  analysis shows that producing ethanol uses more energy than the resulting  fuel generates. Copyright © Cornell UniversityITHACA, N.Y. -- Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates, according to a new Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study."There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel,"
 says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. "These strategies are not sustainable."Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass and wood biomass as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants. Their report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76).In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that: a.. corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; b.. switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel  produced; and c.. wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel  produced.In terms of
 energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that: a.. soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel  produced, and b.. sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the  fuel produced.In assessing inputs, the researchers considered such factors as the energy used in producing the crop (including production of pesticides and fertilizer, running farm machinery and irrigating, grinding and transporting the crop) and in fermenting/distilling the ethanol from the water mix. Although additional costs are incurred, such as federal and state subsidies that are passed on to 

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[Michael Redler]

In all likelihood, Monsanto would volunteer to provide the huge amount of vegetation for that dinosaur. So, thatmeansit'll probably die of a blood disorder or kidney failure.

:-)

Mikedes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the article, Pimentel is shown pumping gas, most likely plain old regular unleaded gas...And it crossed my mind, "How much energy was used to provide a gallon of plain old regular unleaded gas, considering all the energy consumed, not only in drilling and pumping crude, cleaning, separating, transporting, etc., but how much energy did the dinosaur consume, in the way of food, how much energy did earth processes contribute, in the way of pressures and time frames, etc. And how much energy would be consumed to convert a modern-day dinosaur (sort of in short supply) into that same gallon of gas? Consider the food he'd be eating, the fossil fuel based pesticides I'd have to use on the food source for Dino, etc... "Yeah, sort of silly, but probably worth a government grant to study. doug
 swanson___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[MH]

 des wrote:
 In the article, Pimentel is shown pumping gas, most likely plain old
 regular unleaded gas...
 
 And it crossed my mind, How much energy was used to provide a gallon of
 plain old regular unleaded gas,

 Hi Doug.  Here's one posted to the list, 
 [biofuel] Another reason to get off petrol! 
 I remember reading about -- 


 Bad Mileage:  98 Tons to the Gallon 
 Burning Buried Sunshine:  Human Consumption of Ancient Solar Energy. 
 Source: University of Utah [Oct 28, 2003] 
 http://www.eurekalert.org/pub%5Freleases/2003%2D10/uou%2Dbm9102603.php 
 http://www.evworld.com/databases/printit.cfm?pageid=news281003-03 

 Oct. 27, 2003 – A staggering 98 tons of prehistoric, buried plant material
 – that's 196,000 pounds – is required to produce each gallon of gasoline we
 burn in our cars, SUVs, trucks and other vehicles, according to a study
 conducted at the University of Utah. 

 Can you imagine loading 40 acres worth of wheat  stalks, roots and all
 into the tank of your car or SUV every 20 miles? asks ecologist Jeff Dukes,
 whose study will be published in the November issue of the journal Climatic
 Change.

 But that's how much ancient plant matter had to be buried millions of years
 ago and converted by pressure, heat and time into oil to produce one gallon
 of gas, Dukes concluded.

 Dukes also calculated that the amount of fossil fuel burned in a single year
 – 1997 was used in the study – totals 97 million billion pounds of
 carbon, which is equivalent to more than 400 times all the plant matter
 that grows in the world in a year, including vast amounts of microscopic
 plant life in the oceans.

Every day, people are using the fossil fuel equivalent of all the plant
 matter that grows on land and in the oceans over the course of a whole
 year, he adds.

 In another calcultation, Dukes determined that the amount of plants that
 went into the fossil fuels we burned since the Industrial Revolution began
 [in 1751] is equal to all the plants grown on Earth over 13,300 years.

 Explaining why he conducted the study, Dukes wrote:  Fossil fuel consumption
 is widely recognized as unsustainable.  However, there has been no attempt to
 calculate the amount of energy that was required to generate fossil fuels,
 (one way to quantify the 'unsustainability' of societal energy use).

 The study is titled Burning Buried Sunshine: Human Consumption of Ancient
 Solar Energy.  In it, Dukes conducted numerous calculations to determine how
 much plant matter buried millions of years ago was required to produce the
 oil, natural gas and coal consumed by modern society, which obtains
 83 percent of its energy needs from fossil fuels.

 Fossil fuels developed from ancient deposits of organic material, and thus
 can be thought of as a vast store of solar energy that was converted into
 plant matter by photosynthesis, he explains.  Using published biological,
 geochemical and industrial data, I estimated the amount of
 photosynthetically fixed and stored [by ancient plants] carbon that was
 required to form the coal, oil and gas that we are burning today.

 Dukes conducted the study while working as a postdoctoral fellow in biology
 at the University of Utah.  He now works for the Carnegie Institution of
 Washington's Department of Global Ecology on the campus of Stanford
 University in California.

 HOW THE CALCULATIONS WERE DONE 

 To determine how much ancient plant matter it took to eventually produce
 modern fossil fuels, Dukes calculated how much of the carbon in the original
 vegetation was lost during each stage of the multiple-step processes that
 create oil, gas and coal.

 He looked at the proportion of fossil fuel reserves derived from different
 ancient environments: coal that formed when ancient plants rotted in peat
 swamps; oil from tiny floating plants called phytoplankton that were
 deposited on ancient seafloors, river deltas and lakebeds; and natural gas
 from those and other prehistoric environments.  Then he examined the
 efficiency at which prehistoric plants were converted by heat, pressure and
 time into peat or other carbon-rich sediments.

 Next, Dukes analyzed the efficiency with which carbon-rich sediments were
 converted to coal, oil and natural gas.  Then he studied the efficiency of
 extracting such deposits.  During each of the above steps, he based his
 calculations on previously published studies.

 The calculations showed that roughly one-eleventh of the carbon in the
 plants deposited in peat bogs ends up as coal, and that only one-10,750th of
 the carbon in plants deposited on ancient seafloors, deltas and lakebeds
 ends up as oil and natural gas.

 Dukes then used these recovery factors to estimate how much ancient plant
 matter was needed to produce a given amount of fossil fuel.  Dukes considers
 his calculations good estimates based on available data, but says that
 because fossil fuels were formed under a wide range of environmental
 conditions, each estimate is 

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[robert luis rabello]

Michael wrote:


This press release below produced the AP story that follows it.


	Grief!  This thing just WILL NOT DIE!  Pimental's work has more 
resurrections than the entire New Testament and the last 20 years of 
the North American soap opera television genre. . .



robert luis rabello
The Edge of Justice
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782

Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

[Keith Addison]

Michael wrote:


This press release below produced the AP story that follows it.


	Grief!  This thing just WILL NOT DIE!  Pimental's work has 
more resurrections than the entire New Testament and the last 20 
years of the North American soap opera television genre. . .


:-)

I think it will not die until it is deliberately killed. Pimentel is 
debunked again and again yet he takes no notice, he just does it 
again. He's wrong and he knows he's wrong yet he keeps making these 
destructive claims. Publishing rebuttals just doesn't work, the 
disinformation campaign continues. Those publishing the rebuttals 
don't know how to play the media game like Pimentel does. It's time 
he was confronted by his detractors in a public debate and 
discredited, and his new sidekick Patzek with him. Their publishers 
must be made to account for their obviously skewed peer review.


Some earlier studies showed a negative energy balance for corn 
ethanol. Only Pimentel and Patzek still do so.


In 1991 Pimentel stated the net energy balance of corn ethanol was -33,517 btu.
In 1989, Ho had put it at -4,000 btu.
In 1990, Marland and Turhollow put it at 18,154.
In 1992, Keeney and DeLuca put it at -8,438.
In 1995 Lorenz and Morris put it at 30,589.
In 1995 Shapouri et al. put it at 20,436
In 1999 Agri. and Agri-Food, CAN found it was 29,826.
In 1999 Wang et al. put it 22,500
In 2002, Kim and Dale put it at 23,886 to 35,463 btu.
In 2001, 10 years after his first study, Pimentel found it was even 
less than the first time, -33,562.


Make a chart of these figures. Why do Pimentel's analyses stand out?

- His corn yields date from pre-1992.
- His value for energy required to produce ethanol and the ethanol 
yield date from pre-1980.
- His figures for energy to produce fertilizer are 1990 worldwide 
values, not recent U. S. values.
- He assumes all corn is irrigated (only 16% is) - virtually no 
irrigated corn is converted to ethanol.
- He does not properly assign an energy credit for the high protein 
DDGS co-product.


U.S. corn yields increased steadily from 80 bushels per acre in 1970 
to 130+ bushels per acre in 2000.


U.S. corn output per pound of fertilizer used increased from 0.33 
bushels/lb. fertilizer in 1970 to 0.6 in 2000.


Energy use intensity of ethanol plants has reduced by 40% in the case 
of the more common dry mills and about half that much for wet mills. 
Most ethanol in the U.S. is produced from dry mills.


With his data 20 years out of date, Pimentel has republished his 
claims again and again since 2001, right up to now, joined a couple 
of years ago by Patzek. Pimentel must be asked why and on whose 
behalf he continues to ignore reality, and asked in a public forum 
for all to see.


The data above and more come from the references cited here:

http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html
Is ethanol energy-efficient?

Best wishes

Keith





robert luis rabello
The Edge of Justice
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782

Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/