<Request for Drupal helpThe Oil DrumKoppelaar: Peak Oil, Separating Facts from Fiction>
<DrumBeat: October 24, 2006DrumBeatDrumBeat: October 26, 2006>

206 comments on DrumBeat: October 25, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Telumehtar on October 25, 2006 - 1:45pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
because ethanol is coming and in a few years

I'll believe it when I see it.  The EROEI studies I've seen so far only make this worthwhile for Sugar in Brazil(Maybe).  I've yet to see the data for corn ethanol or other North American crop that says this will be an energy positive investment.  Consider also that crops rely heavily on oil/NG to plow, harvest, fertilize and pesticide their crops, I find it convenient that most Ethanol studies I've seen ignore the energy inputs of those actions.

it will be mostly sustainable

Either it is, or it isn't, its kind of the same problem when people say, they're almost not pregnant.  Mostly sustainable is another way to say not sustainable.  You might argue it will take a long time for the degradation of the process to catch up with itself, but ultimately it is not sustainable if its only "mostly sustainable".

You clearly favor oil company subsidies as you refuse to talk about them on this blog.

And you apparently clearly favor Ethanol without fair consideration to oil and how it impacts the ability of Ethanol to be viable.  But hey, Kettle meet Pot.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
pstarr on October 25, 2006 - 8:13pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Sugar ethanol studies promoting 8:1 energy return are published by the Brazilian government and are not peer-reviewed. Unlike Pimentel's work in the US on other biofuels.

I find it difficult to believe that one particular woody plant (sugar cane) growing on this planet earth and receiving similar solar radiation could be 4X as productive as corn, soy, etc. converting said radiation to similar mass.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mwilbert on October 25, 2006 - 10:41pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I don't think anyone claims that sugarcane is "4 times as productive" but rather that the overall energy cost of producing it and turning it into a given amount of ethanol is (perhaps) 4 times less.  That is a big difference.

Corn produces some protein and some oil, which don't get turned into ethanol. Reasonable corn yields require huge amounts of fertilizer, which requires a lot of energy to produce.  Harvesting corn in the US is fairly energy-intensive also.

Sugarcane, on the other hand, produces carbohydrates with very little protein or fat, with less fertilizer input, and it is harvested with fewer energy inputs as well, at least in Brazil.

So while you may well be correct that the Brazilian numbers are inadequately documented, I don't think it is hard to believe that one crop might be vastly superior to another by this metric (EROEI) for ethanol production.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jack on October 25, 2006 - 11:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Pstarr has been making this sort of post frequently and rarely responds to any conterpoint. My impression is that he is so religiously opposed to ethanol, he thinks that it is essential that he combat any assertion that there could be anything good about any kind of ethanol.

While I suspect the root of this oppositionalism is a well justified concern over the broader impacts of biofuels, I think perpetrating falsehood about ethanol EROEI is the wrong way to deal with the real potential problems of biofuels.

Here are several links that all cite figures of positive 8-10 EROEI for ethanol from sugar cane, none of which come from the Brazilian government. I have posted these for pstarr several times, but he continues to ignore them or attempt to discredit them, without opening the documents. The studies address EROEI, land use, environmental and climate impacts and other issues in detail.

There are good points and bad points to ethanol and biofuels. Potential deforestation from biodiesel is so bad as to justify a halt to all palm-based fuel immediately. The article linked at the top of this thread has several other links that discuss these very real issues. But his willfully inaccurate assault on the EROEI of sugar cane-based ethanol is not helping this cause.

Here are three studies
IEA Automotive Fuels for the Future
http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/1990/autofuel99.pdf

IEA: Biofuels for Transport
http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2004/biofuels2004.pdf

Worldwatch Institute & Government of Germany: Biofuels for Transport  (Link to register - study is free)

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4078

Potential for Biofuels for Transport in Developing Countries

http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2006/01/05/000090341_20060105 161036/Rendered/PDF/ESM3120PAPER0Biofuels.pdf

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
pstarr on October 26, 2006 - 1:43am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
you keep repeating these same studies (Macedo et. al. )but none are peer-reviewed and I am starting to doubt their veracity. I am sorry that you find my sceptism upsetting. I find your repetition boring.

The truth will win out.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Telumehtar on October 26, 2006 - 9:03am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I find it difficult to believe that one particular woody plant (sugar cane) growing on this planet earth and receiving similar solar radiation could be 4X as productive as corn, soy, etc. converting said radiation to similar mass.

I admit I'm a skeptic too, but then I also readily admit I'm not a biologist of biofuels expert, hence the "(Maybe)" I appended to my statement about Brazilian sugar cane.  But sugar cane in relation to US demand is inconsequential, as A) we can't grow sugar cane like the Brazilians can, and B) Even if we could, several people have stated we would still need to curb our appetite for liquid fuels as it can't replace current oil consumption.  

So we are left with Corn, which currently is in the middle of a firestorm of debate about its viability.  Not saying we shouldn't explore corn ethanol at all, but pending our futures on an untested "maybe" doesn't seem smart to me, when we do know of models which could allow us to maintain a modern standard of living albeit a different looking one.  Mainly accomplished by bussing/trolley systems, light rail, heavy rail, and an effort to bolster and improve our electricity grid along with localizing electricity generation via solar, wind,

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.