Guest the_blogologist Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 Joe <mnb@fgh.com> wrote: > the_blogologist wrote: > > <anonymous@dizum.com> wrote: > > > >> There is a mad rush for U.S. farmers to grow more corn > >> for ethanol as a fuel. However, according to an agricultural > >> expert speaking on BNN, Canada's TV business news network, > >> it takes more fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol than > >> the resulting ethanol will provide. > > > > It used to be that way. It's improved. Today it costs 1 unit of fuel to > > produce 1.2 of ethanol from corn. In brazil they use sugar cane which is > > much more efficient, costing 1 unit of fuel to produce 8. Bush's ethanol > > requirement is basically corporate welfare for corn growers. > > > > How hard would it be for them to switch to sugar cane? Is the climate > and soil suitable in corn growing regions? > > If I might ask, where did you get the 1 to 8 ratio of fuel in to fuel > out? That would be worth taking a look at. I got it from a discovery channel special: 44 min into this documentary, 46 min for the exact quote. "Green: The New, Red, White and Blue" The quote is "John Door" who backed amazon.com and google. He's also into Brazil's bio-fuel which is highly successful. He said surgar cane returns 8 times the fuel out for the amount in while corn returns 1.2 times. I downloaded this documentary from alt.binaries.multimedia.documentaries If your newserver has enough retention it might still be there. Decoded to 1.98 gigs. Quote
Guest Joe Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 the_blogologist wrote: > Joe <mnb@fgh.com> wrote: > >> the_blogologist wrote: >>> <anonymous@dizum.com> wrote: >>> >>>> There is a mad rush for U.S. farmers to grow more corn >>>> for ethanol as a fuel. However, according to an agricultural >>>> expert speaking on BNN, Canada's TV business news network, >>>> it takes more fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol than >>>> the resulting ethanol will provide. >>> It used to be that way. It's improved. Today it costs 1 unit of fuel to >>> produce 1.2 of ethanol from corn. In brazil they use sugar cane which is >>> much more efficient, costing 1 unit of fuel to produce 8. Bush's ethanol >>> requirement is basically corporate welfare for corn growers. >>> >> How hard would it be for them to switch to sugar cane? Is the climate >> and soil suitable in corn growing regions? >> >> If I might ask, where did you get the 1 to 8 ratio of fuel in to fuel >> out? That would be worth taking a look at. > > I got it from a discovery channel special: > 44 min into this documentary, 46 min for the exact quote. > > "Green: The New, Red, White and Blue" > > The quote is "John Door" who backed amazon.com and google. He's also > into Brazil's bio-fuel which is highly successful. He said surgar cane > returns 8 times the fuel out for the amount in while corn returns 1.2 > times. > > I downloaded this documentary from alt.binaries.multimedia.documentaries > If your newserver has enough retention it might still be there. Decoded > to 1.98 gigs. > Found it, saw it. Thanks! http://www.guba.com/watch/2000971116 Quote
Guest sleeper Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 anonymous@dizum.com waxed rhapsodic in news:aU7ni.137358$mZ7.23878@fe01.news.easynews.com: > There is a mad rush for U.S. farmers to grow more corn > for ethanol as a fuel. However, according to an agricultural > expert speaking on BNN, Canada's TV business news network, > it takes more fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol than > the resulting ethanol will provide. it's currently an additive that the government requires in gasoline to reduce air pollution. it has been - at a ratio of 10-15% depending on where you live - for quite some time. it is heavily subsidised with your tax dollars - a little gift to big agri- business. -- http://www.kexp.org listener-powered and commercial-free. Quote
Guest Shrikeback Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 On Jul 17, 12:38 pm, "The People's Party" <DrugAdd...@Crawfordl.net> wrote: > "Server 13" <i...@casual.com> wrote in message > > news:f7j3u6$lan$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu... > > > > > <anonym...@dizum.com> wrote in message > >news:aU7ni.137358$mZ7.23878@fe01.news.easynews.com... > >> There is a mad rush for U.S. farmers to grow more corn > >> for ethanol as a fuel. However, according to an agricultural > >> expert speaking on BNN, Canada's TV business news network, > >> it takes more fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol than > >> the resulting ethanol will provide. > > > Yes, lots of portable energy sources are like that. > > > What's your suggestion for a substitute? > > a republican burning engine. That sounds like the Volk's Party all right. And the fillup station could be equipped with showers, for ease of transport. Quote
Guest kingssman1@hotmail.com Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 On Jul 17, 1:29 pm, anonym...@dizum.com wrote: > There is a mad rush for U.S. farmers to grow more corn > for ethanol as a fuel. However, according to an agricultural > expert speaking on BNN, Canada's TV business news network, > it takes more fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol than > the resulting ethanol will provide. Or we could just make a mad rush at using more oil and once its all dried up and it becomes $300 for a barrel of oil. Then everybody will be like "Oh Snap! we should have researched ethanol more for the past 50 years instead of putting it on the back burner due to political pride" Quote
Guest Fran Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 On Jul 18, 4:29 am, anonym...@dizum.com wrote: > There is a mad rush for U.S. farmers to grow more corn > for ethanol as a fuel. However, according to an agricultural > expert speaking on BNN, Canada's TV business news network, > it takes more fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol than > the resulting ethanol will provide. Nonsense. If you do it right, it can be very energy-positive. Withoiut a cite, it's unclear if the BNN report is relying on that shoddy and probably fraudulent study undertaken by Pimental all those years ago. If you do it using intensive conventional agriculture, then the EROEI could be modest. If you combine c3 and c4 pathway crops fertiliser use is minimal. It's also worth noting that ethanol can be made to run vehicles more fuel economically and with equal power to gasoline powered vehicles, though Pimental did not consider this. Fran Quote
Guest Fran Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 On Jul 18, 7:07 am, Joe <m...@fgh.com> wrote: > Bert Hyman wrote: > > m...@fgh.com (Joe) wrote in > >news:fB9ni.11180$rL1.569@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net: > > >> James McGill wrote: > >>> Funny you should mention that. I just took a trip in one of our > >>> fleet cars, which are not only ethanol-fueled, but the university > >>> makes the fuel. > >> Do you know what powers the process used to produce the ethanol? > > > What powers the process used to produce gasoline? > > Fossil fuels power the process used to produce gasoline, for the most > part, depending on where the refinery is located. Some refineries use > electrical power that is partly produced by hydro-electric plants. > > The difference between "using fossil fuels to produce ethanol from > biomass" and "using fossil fuels to produce gasoline from fossil fuels" > is that "using fossil fuels to produce gasoline from fossil fuels" > produces much more energy that it consumes i. But this is only because > the energy that is stored in fossil fuels is very much greater per unit > of weight compared to the energy stored in unprocessed biomass such as > corn or hemp. That's true, but misleading. In the case of ethanol for example, its heating value per gallon is only 2/3 that of "super". However, it has a far higher research octane number, meaning that pre-ignition does not occur until much later and thus the ignition can be advanced and a far higher compression ratio used, which radically improves the thermal efficiency of the otto cycle engine. Each stroke pushes the car further. In the old days, high octane fuels were more expensive, but ethanol is cheaper, allows your engine to run cooler and extends engine life. The need to avoid engine knock (pre-ignition) and the reality that fuel sources (and thus content and thus octane rating) are variable and the abandonment of lead in petrol, inclined manufacturers to opt for less fuel efficient low compression engines with more carbon intensive fuels. The result is an engine that leaves behind carbon monoxide and benzene and sulphur and all sorts of other nasties and which allows engines to build up deposits that impair it. Given that ethanol can be harvested from waste biomass which would decompose to GHGs anyway, there's a strong case especially for using these sources. But interplanting switchgrass and soybeans and rye with corn and miscanthus and wheat could give a farmer an excellent range of options for producing both food and biofuel crops with pretty much zero need for the energy intensive Ammonia-based fertilisers that people assume. Fran Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.