This is just bullshit. I don't know how they calculated this... If you have a problem with the numbers, why not go to Wikipedia and dispute them / change them there? I haven't seen you present ANY valid counter sources other than your own ideas. They have a pretty good explanation with links to their sources. Wikipedia is one of the most widely used recourses on the net (although it is not infallible). If you feel so strongly about it, I imagine it would be more worth your time and impact a lot more people to place your efforts there. The problem is, you will HAVE to present your counter sources in order for your changes to be accepted.
According to the latest 2007 stats (EIA, us govt), Brazil now produces more oil than it consumes.. That is pretty much 100% independent.. It may or may not import a small amount of oil (for geographical/economic reasons, etc), but it doesn't HAVE to like we do.
[Wikipedia] Brazil has the largest and most successful bio-fuel programs in the world, involving production of ethanol fuel from sugar cane, and it is considered to have the world's first sustainable biofuels economy.[35][36][37] In 2006 Brazilian ethanol provided around 20% of the country's road transport sector fuel consumption needs, and more than 40% of fuel consumption for the light vehicle fleet.[38][39] [36] As a result of the increasing use of ethanol, together with the exploitation of domestic deep water oil sources, Brazil, which years ago had to import a large share of the petroleum needed for domestic consumption, in 2006 reached complete self-sufficiency in oil supply.
>>rtechie
>>Ethanol is snake-oil sold by the corn and sugar lobbies. It costs more energy to produce corn ethanol than you get out of it. Sugar cane is only marginally more efficient (not 4-5 times, Is there 4-5 times the amout of sugar in cane than corn by weight? No, it's closer to 1.5.)
The increase in efficiency of sugar vs corn is due to multiple reasons.. What are your sources for your numbers? I dispute the statement that it takes more energy to produce ethanol from sugar cane than it produces. I also dispute the assertion that corn/cane are even close in energy production. You can also plant much more sugar cane per acre than corn. See below.
[Wikipedia] Brazil's sugar cane-based industry is far more efficient than the U.S. corn-based industry. Brazilian distillers are able to produce ethanol for 22 cents per liter, compared with the 30 cents per liter for corn-based ethanol.[73] Sugarcane cultivation requires a tropical or subtropical climate, with a minimum of 600 mm (24 in) of annual rainfall. Sugarcane is one of the most efficient photosynthesizers in the plant kingdom, able to convert up to 2% of incident solar energy into biomass. Ethanol is produced by yeast fermentation of the sugar extracted from sugar cane.
Sugarcane production in the United States occurs in Florida, Louisiana, Hawaii, and Texas. In prime growing regions, such as Hawaii, sugarcane can produce 20 kg for each square meter exposed to the sun. The first three plants to produce sugar cane-based ethanol are expected to go online in Louisiana by mid 2009. Sugar mill plants in Lacassine, St. James and Bunkie were converted to sugar cane-based ethanol production using Colombian technology in order to make possible a profitable ethanol production. These three plants will produce 100 million gallons of ethanol within five years.[74]
U.S. corn-derived ethanol costs 30% more because the corn starch must first be converted to sugar before being distilled into alcohol. Unfortunately, despite this cost differential in production, in contrast to Japan and Sweden, the U.S. does not import much of Brazilian ethanol because of U.S. trade barriers corresponding to a tariff of 54-cent per gallon - a levy designed to offset the 51-cent per gallon blender's federal tax credit that is applied to ethanol no matter its country of origin.[75] One advantage U.S. corn-derived ethanol offers is the ability to return 1/3 of the feedstock back into the market as a replacement for the corn used in the form of Distillers Dried Grain.[51]. . .
All biomass goes through at least some of these steps: it needs to be grown, collected, dried, fermented, and burned. All of these steps require resources and an infrastructure. The total amount of energy input into the process compared to the energy released by burning the resulting ethanol fuel is
In my opinion, there is no reason why we can't have a vibrant economy AND an environmental economy as well. (However, I do have a personal problem with our "disposable/consumption" based economy.) The real problem is that there are far too many filthy rich living off the OLD economy (oil, greed, cronyism).
Germany is now the world leader in solar energy even though they have a lot less sun, land and people than the US.. Germany accounts for over HALF of the world's solar production! They made a political decision to do that, and the production of solar panels and other research is HELPING their economy by allowing them to gain a dominant position in a huge area of economic growth. Currently their solar production industries employ over 55,000 people and it's growing by leaps and bounds. They simply can't keep up with demand for solar panels. In a decade or two from now, it will be a huge contributor to their economy. 75 years ago, who would have thought that entertainment, IT/software, and pharmaceuticals would be the mega-businesses they are now in the US? Do we want a piece of the new economies that are emerging -- that happen to be environmentally friendly?
The sad truth is that there is pretty much NOTHING that can be done to reduce gasoline prices in the next few years. The world market (including India, China, etc) controls prices, and if prices go down/up, it's just the laws of supply and demand.
Even if the oil companies could do whatever they wanted, "shale oil" production (which really isn't oil at all) would not help gas prices. "Shale Oil" production is extremely expensive and the technology is really not yet ready for large scale use. It also doesn't produce the gasoline that our cars run on, and it's extremely damaging to the environment -- much much worse than oil wells. It wasn't until gas prices became so ludicrous that anyone really gave it much thought. If prices went back to $2.00 per gallon, the oil companies will not bother to strip mine for "shale oil" (it wouldn't be profitable). Besides, they are so profitable now, what's really in it for them to get prices down?
The fact is that the US only has 2% of the world's proven oil reserves. Our oil production peaked in the 70's and has been declining ever since. If we pumped out EVERY DROP of oil we know about in the USA and didn't import any oil, it would only last us around 3 YEARS and then it would be ALL GONE.
I personally believe we need to start a "man on the moon" style project for alternative fuels and higher efficiency. It's necessary for the environment, stable gas prices, and independence from foreign counties.
Brazil is 100% independent of foreign oil. Why? Mainly because 30 years ago they started a crash program of Ethanol production from SUGAR CANE. Today virtually all of the cars in Brazil run on ethanol that is produced from sugar cane grown in their own country. All of their gas stations sell ethanol. There was an excellent special on CNN showing how "We were warned' several times -- most notably in the 70s when there was an oil embargo from the middle east and people had to wait for hours to get gas in lines that went around the block.
By the way, compared to corn, it is 4-8 times more efficient and cost effective to convert sugar cane into ethanol. However, the US is pushing corn because of politics. We even have a HUGE TARIFF on imported ethanol (so Brazil can't compete). We tax foreign countries for selling us clean burning ethanol, but we don't tax foreign countries a dime for oil! It doesn't make economic sense, but it is what it is.
Slashdot Mirror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_energy_balance
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/10/biofuels/biofuels-interactive (click the ENERGY BALANCE tab)
>>Brazil imports foreign oil.
According to the latest 2007 stats (EIA, us govt), Brazil now produces more oil than it consumes.. That is pretty much 100% independent.. It may or may not import a small amount of oil (for geographical/economic reasons, etc), but it doesn't HAVE to like we do.
>>rtechie
>>Ethanol is snake-oil sold by the corn and sugar lobbies. It costs more energy to produce corn ethanol than you get out of it. Sugar cane is only marginally more efficient (not 4-5 times, Is there 4-5 times the amout of sugar in cane than corn by weight? No, it's closer to 1.5.)
The increase in efficiency of sugar vs corn is due to multiple reasons.. What are your sources for your numbers? I dispute the statement that it takes more energy to produce ethanol from sugar cane than it produces. I also dispute the assertion that corn/cane are even close in energy production. You can also plant much more sugar cane per acre than corn. See below.
[Wikipedia] Brazil's sugar cane-based industry is far more efficient than the U.S. corn-based industry. Brazilian distillers are able to produce ethanol for 22 cents per liter, compared with the 30 cents per liter for corn-based ethanol.[73] Sugarcane cultivation requires a tropical or subtropical climate, with a minimum of 600 mm (24 in) of annual rainfall. Sugarcane is one of the most efficient photosynthesizers in the plant kingdom, able to convert up to 2% of incident solar energy into biomass. Ethanol is produced by yeast fermentation of the sugar extracted from sugar cane. Sugarcane production in the United States occurs in Florida, Louisiana, Hawaii, and Texas. In prime growing regions, such as Hawaii, sugarcane can produce 20 kg for each square meter exposed to the sun. The first three plants to produce sugar cane-based ethanol are expected to go online in Louisiana by mid 2009. Sugar mill plants in Lacassine, St. James and Bunkie were converted to sugar cane-based ethanol production using Colombian technology in order to make possible a profitable ethanol production. These three plants will produce 100 million gallons of ethanol within five years.[74] U.S. corn-derived ethanol costs 30% more because the corn starch must first be converted to sugar before being distilled into alcohol. Unfortunately, despite this cost differential in production, in contrast to Japan and Sweden, the U.S. does not import much of Brazilian ethanol because of U.S. trade barriers corresponding to a tariff of 54-cent per gallon - a levy designed to offset the 51-cent per gallon blender's federal tax credit that is applied to ethanol no matter its country of origin.[75] One advantage U.S. corn-derived ethanol offers is the ability to return 1/3 of the feedstock back into the market as a replacement for the corn used in the form of Distillers Dried Grain.[51] .
.
.
All biomass goes through at least some of these steps: it needs to be grown, collected, dried, fermented, and burned. All of these steps require resources and an infrastructure. The total amount of energy input into the process compared to the energy released by burning the resulting ethanol fuel is
In my opinion, there is no reason why we can't have a vibrant economy AND an environmental economy as well. (However, I do have a personal problem with our "disposable/consumption" based economy.) The real problem is that there are far too many filthy rich living off the OLD economy (oil, greed, cronyism).
Germany is now the world leader in solar energy even though they have a lot less sun, land and people than the US.. Germany accounts for over HALF of the world's solar production! They made a political decision to do that, and the production of solar panels and other research is HELPING their economy by allowing them to gain a dominant position in a huge area of economic growth. Currently their solar production industries employ over 55,000 people and it's growing by leaps and bounds. They simply can't keep up with demand for solar panels. In a decade or two from now, it will be a huge contributor to their economy. 75 years ago, who would have thought that entertainment, IT/software, and pharmaceuticals would be the mega-businesses they are now in the US? Do we want a piece of the new economies that are emerging -- that happen to be environmentally friendly?
INVEST IN THE FUTURE, NOT THE PAST.
The sad truth is that there is pretty much NOTHING that can be done to reduce gasoline prices in the next few years. The world market (including India, China, etc) controls prices, and if prices go down/up, it's just the laws of supply and demand.
Even if the oil companies could do whatever they wanted, "shale oil" production (which really isn't oil at all) would not help gas prices. "Shale Oil" production is extremely expensive and the technology is really not yet ready for large scale use. It also doesn't produce the gasoline that our cars run on, and it's extremely damaging to the environment -- much much worse than oil wells. It wasn't until gas prices became so ludicrous that anyone really gave it much thought. If prices went back to $2.00 per gallon, the oil companies will not bother to strip mine for "shale oil" (it wouldn't be profitable). Besides, they are so profitable now, what's really in it for them to get prices down?
The fact is that the US only has 2% of the world's proven oil reserves. Our oil production peaked in the 70's and has been declining ever since. If we pumped out EVERY DROP of oil we know about in the USA and didn't import any oil, it would only last us around 3 YEARS and then it would be ALL GONE.
I personally believe we need to start a "man on the moon" style project for alternative fuels and higher efficiency. It's necessary for the environment, stable gas prices, and independence from foreign counties.
Brazil is 100% independent of foreign oil. Why? Mainly because 30 years ago they started a crash program of Ethanol production from SUGAR CANE. Today virtually all of the cars in Brazil run on ethanol that is produced from sugar cane grown in their own country. All of their gas stations sell ethanol. There was an excellent special on CNN showing how "We were warned' several times -- most notably in the 70s when there was an oil embargo from the middle east and people had to wait for hours to get gas in lines that went around the block.
By the way, compared to corn, it is 4-8 times more efficient and cost effective to convert sugar cane into ethanol. However, the US is pushing corn because of politics. We even have a HUGE TARIFF on imported ethanol (so Brazil can't compete). We tax foreign countries for selling us clean burning ethanol, but we don't tax foreign countries a dime for oil! It doesn't make economic sense, but it is what it is.