Well, I keep saying it: no corn... only cellulose, preferably waste
cellulose, of which there's lots. So there's no question of starving. In
the ethanol manufacturing process, there's really only one main user of
energy, which is the distillation operation. In addition, because ethanol
forms an azeotrope, removing water from the last 2 - 3% of the
ethanol-water solution, could be another significant energy user... I don't
know about this, as I haven't gone into it...
We have to also distinguish between mobile (automotive) fuel usage and
static usage. Why use oil, a mobile fuel, as a fuel for another mobile
fuel, when other waste products as well as coal - static fuels - could do
the job.
Philip.
At 06:40 PM 3/9/2006 -0500, you wrote:
Philip Winestone wrote:
If all gasoline suppliers were to supplement their fuel with 10% ethanol,
that's simply 10% less gasoline used.
It is not that simple. The amount reduced would depend upon how much oil
is needed to produce the ethanol. That subject is sharply disputed, but as
far as I know even the industry flacks agree that a great deal of oil is
needed. The industry claims the overhead is 60%. Assuming that most of
that is oil, and not coal, the use of 10% ethanol would reduce oil
consumption by 5%.
I do not think there is a slightest chance we can ever supply 10% of
gasoline with ethanol. We would starve to death.
Of course you might run the ethanol production industry on ethanol itself,
reducing oil inputs to zero. But in that case the cost of a gallon of
ethanol would be $10 or so and the energy overhead would be outrageous. As
things now stand, no tractor or ethanol factory boiler is fired by
ethanol, or as all oil wells, refineries and tankers are powered by oil.
- Jed
