Here in Australia we grow sugarcane on the narrow coastal strip in Queensland (the north-eastern state). Unlike Brazil, which only uses the first crush for crystal sugar, we try and get as much sugar out as possible, leaving the residual molasses that goes to stockfeed.  This cheap stuff is what the ethanol industry is based on.

CSIRO (government research) calculates an ERoEI of about 2,  so E10 (90% gasoline, 10% ethanol) only saves 5% of fossil CO2 emissions.

Total area of cane = 441,000 ha
Total molasses = 1,273,000 tonnes/year
Distillery conversion rate = 237.5 litres (ethanol) / tonne
Total ethanol from molasses = 302 MegaLitres / year
Australian gasoline consumption = 19,867 ML/year
Therefore maximum blend possible = E1.5

So talk of mandating E10 is impossible using only sugarcane molasses, even for a country that produces 6 times more sugar than it consumes.

ERoEI for ethanol from spoilt wheat is only about 1.2, but will that stop them ? No, its clean green energy from the sun and don't you dare say different.

Dave
www.peakoil.org.au

Hello TrueKaiser,

Yes, there is way too many people for us to continue this  easy-motoring, easy feeding Paradigm.  Please read and study the hundreds of pages at Dieoff.com, although the first graphics you encounter will reveal 90% of the info you need to know--that is why I barfed within seconds of the first time I clicked there.

Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

TrueKaiser, there are not too many people, but simply too high overall energy consumption. This is not the same thing.

We can only understand the role of the alternatives and renewables against the background of the overall global net energy production - the volumes and the EROEI. Basically, it is not the SUV driving Americans that are important, the world total energy is. If there were abundant, high EROEI energy other than oil available somewhere in the world, the Americans could import it (if it would be abundant and the EROEI high it would also be cheap - so no trade balance problems), make liquid fuels out of it and drive like mad (maybe we should worry for Climate Change, but not energy). But, unfortunately, there is no such energy source available.

Energy imports is no problem per se, most countries import most of their energy as they import many other things. The US never strived for autarchy.

The idea of energy independence and ideas that ethanol or some other alternative fuel could enable the Americans to keep their energy consumption level at present levels or even increase it are dangerous. They are too good to be true. The idea of energy independence or even curbing imports significantly is an old cry. All these programs have failed miserably. The reason is that nobody has not wanted to face the consequences of the very simple measures that could achieve this - tax oil heavily. This is the real test.

All energy indepedence schemes that do not envisage considerably lower consumption are doomed to fail. They only lead to the situation we have now - a try to grab the oil of others. The oil independence can mean also that the US oil companies produce oil in countries occupied by US troops and governed by US-minded puppet governments. This is of course the real "oil independence" program now. Annex Iran and Iraq and Saudi-Arbia and there will enough "domestic oil".  

Alan from Big Easy, you count it wrong. It is not only your own direct gasoline and electricity bill that tell how much energy you use. There is also all the infrastructure, all things you buy, all the services you use, all the environment you live in, all energy you use in your job and all the company or organization that provides the job is using, all the energy the administration is using, even all the energy your government is using in the wars you pay for.

But I agree that people can live very happily in a quite low-energy environment. Personal happiness is a diffeent question. But, unfortunately, we know that a sudden drop in energy use and the economic and social disruption connected with it do make people quite unhappy. The problem is mostly the change, not the level, as long as your most basic needs are satisfied.

Alan,
  This is your standard of a quality life. I work three weeks on three off and enjoy traveling all over the place.  I would go crazy staying in one place for an extended period of time.  

Your examples only apply to a few metro areas.  Light rail will not satisfy the transportation demands of the countryside.  So with limited transportation someone in a small town will not have the music and architecture etc.  Fine restaurants are great but how much will a shrimp dinner cost in Idaho five years after peak?

Everyone can't live in NOLA. (but everyone should visit at least once)