Slashdot Mirror

You are forgetting: there is a limited amount of oil in the world and one day it will all be gone.

There is also a limit to the amount of corn, switchgrass, sugar cane, etc. we can grow and convert into ethanol but we are nowhere near that limit and we can continue to produce ethanol in this manner indefinitely.

Recent research suggests corn ethanol has a net energy gain: http://ianrnews.unl.edu/static/0901220.shtml

Finally, the production of ethanol from corn causing higher food prices is a myth: http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/Food__Water_Watch_Sept_07.pdf
and probably more closely related to the cost of oil: http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/FOOD_PRICE_BACKGROUNDER.pdf

You are forgetting: there is a limited amount of oil in the world and one day it will all be gone.

There is also a limit to the amount of corn, switchgrass, sugar cane, etc. we can grow and convert into ethanol but we are nowhere near that limit and we can continue to produce ethanol in this manner indefinitely.

Recent research suggests corn ethanol has a net energy gain: http://ianrnews.unl.edu/static/0901220.shtml

Finally, the production of ethanol from corn causing higher food prices is a myth: http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/Food__Water_Watch_Sept_07.pdf
and probably more closely related to the cost of oil: http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/FOOD_PRICE_BACKGROUNDER.pdf

You are an idiot. Food/Resource shortages are real. I'm in agriculture, on the animal production side, and I can assure you that there is a finite amount of corn available, and corn based ethanol production is resulting in higher demand. We've always produced more corn than was needed domestically, and much of the excess was then shipped overseas. The current trends for corn production and domestic corn use for human food, animal food, and ethanol production are going to reach a point where we don't have enough corn to meet all 3 and still export any. That won't cause (much) starvation here, only among those that are already finding it hard to afford enough food to eat (a real problem that is getting worse even if it is better than in other countries). However, decreased exports will lead to food shortages in other countries that have become dependent on US grain to feed their populace. That the starvation won't be happening in your neighborhood, doesn't mean it won't be happening.

As much as I agree with the sentiment that waste is a real problem that needs to be addressed, it is not sufficient to solve the problem. Current projections that get trotted out at every agriculture related meeting I've attended in the last 5 years are that we are going to need to Double Global Food Production by 2050. Not just here in the US, but everywhere. Decreasing waste would help push that doubling deadline back, but we don't waste 50% of our food now, so even if we eliminated waste completely (which is impossible) we still would need to increase food production from the current levels.

Ideally, the necessary increases in food production would be coming from countries that are currently dependent on handouts from countries like the US. However, the underlying problems in those countries, which people have been trying to fix for decades, are not likely to be fixed overnight. The US feeds far more people than live within its borders. You may not like our policies (I don't like some of our policies), but that doesn't change the reality that 35% of domestic corn production in the 2008 to 2009 market year was used for ethanol production compared with only 21% in 2007. This 14-point increase is despite corn production during the 2008-2009 year being the second hightest ever. If we have a bad corn year, which will happen eventually, none of the industries that depend on corn are going to require any less and corn prices are going to skyrocket again. That will lead to increased food costs in stores, and increased hunger/starvation inside the US. We need to get away from using food for fuel and I'm glad to see that cellulosic ethanol is finally getting competetive.

Right now we can't even get breakeven with just harvesting the biofuel.

Bull. Look at http://www.ethanol.org/documents/NetEnergyBalancei ssuebrief_000.pdf#search=%22ethanol%20production%2 0efficiency%22 or http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/main/energy.htm or http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html. Sure, there are folks who say the net energy balance is negative, but the reputable ones say positive. My guess (which I don't have the resources to prove or disprove, could anyone help?) is that the ones who say the net balance is negative have a political axe to grind.

Of course, the net energy balance of ethanol production is negative, but only when you include the sunlight input, since the amount of sunlight over a field for the whole growing season is enormous. Thermodynamics says that no process will be more than 100% efficient, after all.

Good catch on the subsidies part, I was going to point that out as well.

This PDF talks about the cost and efficiencies of EXX fuels. They are basically the same as regular gas.

Most of the gas in the US is refined here (about 90% I believe). So its just the crude oil that we are missing. We also still produce roughly 1/2 of our own crude oil.

Oil is just a nasty commodity. It has become so entrenched in our economy that we wage wars over it to protect our economy from inflation.

If the government really wanted to save money on oil and tons of other things, reduce the work week to 4 days instead of 5. With the exception of holidays, the roads are always backed up and its called "rush hour" when people are driving to and from work.

I would prefer 3 day weekends by default, I'm not sure of anybody else that would object, but for some reason most people work 5 days a week. I guess its habit.

Check it out yourself.

http://www.biodiesel.org/

http://www.ethanolrfa.org/

http://www.ethanol.org/

http://www.e85fuel.com/

BZZT! Wrong Answer!

The correct answer is, "Ethanol has traditionally been more expensive than crude oil. However, with gas pricing rising, Ethanol blends have helped keep prices of gasoline down. Now the only issue remaining is to find a good method for phasing out gasoline rather than a direct cut over to Ethanol.

No. The answer is to change technologies to those that produce less CO2. Expensive, but less expensive than the consequences of global warming.

No. The answer is to produce more CO2 sinks.

You can't get rid of CO2 without causing thermodynamic problems for the machines that keep us safe, warm, and economically properous. (Which ultimately translates to well fed.)

Again, the solution is to change the world to meet our needs, not let the world make us extinct for being useless tool-users. :-)

Sure, here's a lot of links for you to read over :) .

Some links are by obviously biased parties (for example, NCGA is the National Corn Growers Association). Others are not. This is just a start, of course - I gathered these in about three minutes of searching. Again, if you can find a single "net negative" study done by anyone - university, corn-industry, government, environmental group, anyone really - that didn't have Pimental and his bad data involved, please let me know, because I've never found such a study.

We already do some of that!

http://www.ethanol.org/howethanol.html

The US Ethanol effort is a lot bigger than you imagine, especially here in the midwest, where the corn that is fermented to produce ethanol is grown. All of our gasoline fuels are now blended at 10% ethanol, and the major auto makers are making cars that will run on 85% ethanol, which is provided at various fueling stations.

Here is an interesting related interview. Also check out the specs for these ultracapacitors. The key benefit of capacitors over batteries is in deep discharge, near instantaneous bursts of current. It takes the load off your bulk storage supply, allowing them to operate more efficiently.

I still can't buy a hybrid flexible fuel vehicle, so I can shift my usage over to a more renewable source. This system opens up some options though. I like!

Aside: The regenerative braking aspect of all hybrids is a hidden bonus for the wear on the mechanical systems too. I've had my hybrid for almost two years now and the brake pads aren't anywhere near their first 10% worn-down state.

Like the fact that you burn more oil to create an equivianent amount of ethanol from corn.

The story you cite does not show this.

An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre, according to Pimentel's analysis. Thus, even before corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock costs $1.05 per gallon of ethanol.

Your (and the article's) point may be valid, but 328 gallons is still more than 140 gallons. (the difference in energy density doesn't quite make up the difference (9.7 kwh/l for gasoline, 6.1 kwh/l for ethanol)

I'm not an expert on this issue, but I found more information here, and a study with results showing that ethanol production does indeed produce more energy than we put into it can be found here.

-jim

Although NASA would like us to believe that President Bush made his historic announcement from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration building, a few blocks from the White House, those of you with sharp eyes may have noticed something unusual when a camera briefly panned upwards during his speech.

are you daft? Hydrogen is what gives fosil fuels their power. 1 liter of pure hydrogen has more energy than 1 liter of fosil fuels...fosil fules are called hydrocarbons for a reason.(and what do you think is used to lift the shuttle? Hydrogen plus Oxygen.

as for your comment about ethanol having 2/3s the energy of fosil fules, read it and weep:

"Ethanol production is extremely energy efficient, with a positive energy balance of 125%, compared to 85% for gasoline. Ethanol production is by far the most efficient method of producing liquid transportation fuels. According to USDA, each Btu used to produce a Btu of gasoline could be used to produce 8 Btus of ethanol."

source

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, ethanol produced from biomass feedstocks generates 6.8 Btu for every Btu of fossil energy consumed. The production of reformulated gasoline without ethanol generates only 0.79 Btu for every Btu of fossil energy consumed.

If you live in the Midwest, it's very feasable to use a conventional gasoline car, just fill it up with ethanol. It burns cleaner, hotter, and more effeciently than traditional gas. More importantly, you will be supporting a fuel source that can be grown out of the earth, and unlike oil, you won't be giving your money to a foreign dictator or Texas oil-baron.