<The Slow Movement MovementThe Oil DrumSaudi production laid bare>
<DrumBeat: March 18, 2007DrumBeatDrumBeat: March 20, 2007>

126 comments on DrumBeat: March 19, 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Robert Rapier on March 19, 2007 - 8:53am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

Science shows ethanol good for America

It is amazing that such drivel gets published. From the essay:

Suddenly in America, a multitude of so-called experts have become vocal in their attacks on renewable fuels - fuels that just might break the stranglehold that oil-producing countries have on us.

What’s the difference between a “so-called expert” and an actual expert? Well, that seems to depend on your perspective. If you are an ethanol promoter like this guy, the “so-called experts” are those who are suggesting that ethanol is not a panacea. Your “true experts” are those like Vinod Khosla who made their name in the computer industry, therefore know all about ethanol.

More drivel from the article:

Using a weighted balance of 1, ethanol has an energy balance of 1.3 to 1.8 while gasoline has an energy balance of .8. The same rules were applied to both sources by comparing transportation, refinery costs and handling.

Complete nonsense. The same rules were not applied. That’s why you got the answer you did, and why you should be careful of which experts you listen to.

With the wise use and advancement of ethanol production, a 90 percent reduction in the use of gasoline is possible.

This guy has no earthly idea what he is talking about. None.

Therefore, the cost of extracting a gallon of ethanol is significantly lower than extracting a gallon of gasoline from crude oil.

Yes, that must be why the spot price of ethanol has been higher than that for gasoline for over 25 years in a row.

Somebody needs to dispel the myth that there won't be enough land to produce this source of alternate fuel.

Maybe you should just state that it is true. Won’t that make it true?

I shudder to think that people are reading stuff like that and being influenced by it.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
radlafari on March 19, 2007 - 9:50am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

ethanol good for America

Wasn't there that saying "What is good for General Motors is good for America"? Reminds me of that one ..

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
treeman on March 20, 2007 - 2:57am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

My father always used a saying that applies to Khosla. " Figures don't lie, but liars figure."

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
DIYer on March 19, 2007 - 9:56am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Other sources of energy were also compared, among which was electricity, which was four times more energy intense than gasoline to create. Anyone giving up electricity soon?

<sarcasm>
Apparently it takes four times as much corn to generate electricity.
</sarcasm>
It isn't even wrong. Who was it that used to say that? Some early 20th century German physicist I think...

And you are a "so-called expert", Robert. That would be anyone whose opinion differs from the "experts" working for Mr. Khosla. I was about to post a "what orifice did they pull those figures from" rant, but I see that you already have, thanks.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
JoulesBurn on March 19, 2007 - 10:28am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Wolfgang Pauli wrote: "This isn't right. It's not even wrong" on a student's paper.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
RBM on March 19, 2007 - 10:27am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Re; the weighted balance remark:

What's he talking about ?
RR: "The same rules were not applied."

Where's a source document ?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert Rapier on March 19, 2007 - 11:52am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Re; the weighted balance remark:

What's he talking about ?

You noticed that, too? I think if you asked him, he would defer to someone else. It is quite clear that he is just parroting things he heard. The weighted balance remark is nonsensical.

RR: "The same rules were not applied."

Where's a source document ?

I have written about this a number of times. I have gone back to the original source documents, and even challenged Michael Wang, the originator of this claim, on them. What they are doing is comparing a true EROEI for ethanol to an efficiency for gasoline. The efficiency can't actually be over 100%, but the EROEI can be over 1.0. That's how they get 0.8 for gasoline and 1.3 for ethanol. The EROEI of gasoline is actually 5 or 6, versus 1.3 for ethanol (when you throw in the animal feed products as BTUs).

I have addressed this claim in more detail here:

Energy Balance For Ethanol Better Than For Gasoline?

I think that will clear things up.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
RBM on March 19, 2007 - 1:15pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Thanks RR,
your link(s) me helped a lot.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
tstreet on March 19, 2007 - 10:30am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Khosla is a total charlatan. "Science" also used to say tobacco is good for you and some "science" still says that global warming is not a problem. As long as so called "science" is behind an allegation, no further thought is required of the casual reader. Yes, there is plenty of land for ethanol. Unfortunately, we won't be able to eat once we have used up all that land for ethanol. Or, perhaps, they are talking about another planet.

If we could just reduce our liquid fuels consumption by 90%, then ethanol could provide all our needs. Further, given the alleged EROEI of gasoline, it clearly makes no sense to produce any more gasoline. Just think of all the oil that will save.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
sendoilplease on March 19, 2007 - 11:04am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

(GOD) Shows Ethanol Good for America

Vinod, appeals to the modern peasant's diety in hopes of winning the PR battle...

I wonder if he has a ranch in paraguay too ?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ckaupp on March 19, 2007 - 2:35pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

hehehehehe...LOL :-)

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
cyclelicious on March 19, 2007 - 12:02pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Re: Science shows ethanol good for America

Where do you even start with a fact-free essay like that? What kind of "expert" is the author of this piece from Aberdeen, South Dakota? The Aberdeen American News says the author is a "retired educator, coach, commercial pilot and farmer," but he apparently still believes half the middle east is mad at Americans because they're not prosperous.

Speaking of Vinod, did you all see the news that's he's putting up cash for ethanol in Brazil?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dryki on March 19, 2007 - 12:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

From "Paying the Price for Biofuels", in Leanan's selection today, after you get past Kosla and Gates:

This paper, published in the July 25, 2006 edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that ethanol production and use offers a modest net energy gain of 25 percent over oil, resulting in 12 percent less greenhouse gases than an equivalent amount of gasoline.

We are saved!

cfm in Gray, ME

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
DIYer on March 20, 2007 - 8:20am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

However, the other study concludes that every domestic biofuel source -- those currently in use as well as those under development -- produces less energy than the amount consumed in growing and processing the crops.

Published in July 2005 in the journal Natural Resources Research, this study found that, on balance, making ethanol from corn requires 29 percent more fossil fuel than the net energy produced, and biodiesel from soy results in a net energy loss of 27 percent. Other crops (switchgrass, wood biomass, and sunflowers, for example), promoted as solutions to the apparent inefficiency of current methods, offer even worse results.

If you're a hillbilly distilling a mess of rotten apples (over a wood fire you would have burned anyway), it's energy positive. If you have to run tractors and spray chemicals and operate a large distillery, maybe not.

That and the fact that our entire corn crop could never replace more than a smallish percentage of our liquid fuel usage, makes ethanol biofuel an idea that only a politician could love.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BaSE on March 21, 2007 - 1:22am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hi Robert,

It is clear to me that ethanol won't reverse the tide of peak oil. It is also clear to me that we have waited altogether too long to address the problems posed by peak oil. It is reasonable to try to save the oil resources as much as possible through conservation, industry, and transportation changes. But these will not be enough. If peakoil is upon us within 5 years, then people are going to die, and probably a lot of them. I understand that corn is probably the worst source of ethanol, and I won't rehash old arguments. I know you believe in some form(s) of ethanol production but are against corn ethanol.

Aren't your efforts better spent promoting those form(s) of ethanol you believe in rather than poopooing the entire industry. I believe (calm down Pit the Elder) the coming hard times will be devastating. I want to hold them off as long as possible. I can only guess that you don't have children.

Regards, Ben

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.