Posted on 05/11/2008 5:29:41 PM PDT by paterfamilias
Crude oil has topped $110/barrel. Although our largest single supplier is (surprise?!) Canada, others aren't so favorably inclined or located. Gasoline prices soar to new highs, even when adjusted for inflation (1960's 31¢/gal. should equate to $2.21/gal. today — a real bargain).
Why don't we grow our own fuel? Biofuel.
Full article here: http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=36&article_id=6791&print_page=y
(Excerpt) Read more at roadandtrack.com ...
Okay, I’ll read it but if I don’t like it I’m coming back to demand a full refund....
It takes more oil to produce ethanol than it does to produce its gasoline equivalent. If biofuels were the better deal, there would be no need for subsidies.
....and drumroll please.....
(snip of above below)
“So, where did the claim that ethanol is more energy efficient originate? I believe it originates with researchers from Argonne National Laboratory, who developed a model (GREET) that is used to determine the energy inputs to turn crude oil into products (4). Since it will take some amount of energy to refine a barrel of crude oil, by definition the efficiency is less than 100% in the way they measured it. For example, if I have 1 BTU of energy, but it took .2 BTUs to turn it into a useable form, then the efficiency is 80%. This is the kind of calculation people use to show that the gasoline efficiency is less than 100%. However, ethanol is not measured in the same way. Look again at the example from the USDA paper, and lets do the equivalent calculation for ethanol. In that case, we got 98,333 BTUs out of the process, but we had to input 77,228 to get it out. In this case, comparing apples to apples, the efficiency of producing ethanol is just 21%. Again, gasoline is about 4 times higher.
OK, so Argonne originated the calculation. But are they really at fault here? Yes, they are. Not only did they promote the efficiency calculation for petroleum products with their GREET model, but they have proceeded to make apples and oranges comparisons in order to show ethanol in a positive light. They have themselves muddied the waters. Michael Wang, from Argonne, (and author of the GREET model) made a remarkable claim last September at The 15th Annual Symposium on Alcohol Fuels in San Diego (5). On his 4th slide , he claimed that it takes 0.74 MMBTU to make 1 MMBTU of ethanol, but 1.23 MMBTU to make 1 MMBTU of gasoline. That simply can’t be correct, as the calculations in the preceding paragraphs have shown.
Not only is his claim incorrect, but it is terribly irresponsible for someone from a government agency to make such a claim. I don’t know whether he is being intentionally misleading, but it certainly looks that way. Wang is also the co-author of the earlier USDA studies that I have critiqued and shown to be full of errors and misleading arguments. These people are publishing articles that bypass the peer review process designed to ferret out these kinds of blatant errors. I suspect a politically driven agenda in which they are putting out intentionally misleading information.
One of the reasons I haven’t written this up already, is that 2 weeks ago I sent an e-mail to Wang bringing this error to his attention. I immediately got an auto-reply saying that he was out of the office until March 31st. I have given him a week to reply and explain himself, but he has not done so. Therefore, at this time I must conclude that he knows the calculation is in error, but does not wish to address it. In the interim, ethanol proponents everywhere are pushing this false information in an effort to boost support for ethanol.
Look at the Minnesota Department of Agriculture claim again: "the energy yield of ethanol is (1.34/0.74) or 81 percent greater than the comparable yield for gasoline". If the energy balance was really this good for ethanol and that bad for gasoline, why would anyone ever make gasoline? Where would the economics be? Why would ethanol need subsidies to compete? It should be clear that the proponents in this case are promoting false information.”
* Cease all ethanol production. It requires more energy to make than it yields and the unintended consequence is higher food costs. Corn production shifted from feed-corn to subsidized corn for ethanol. Just say "no" to ethanol!
* Immediately create only ONE "blend" of gasoline and cease regional "boutique" blends which are stupid, costly, and meaningless. Even if this is the "cleanest" blend, just make it ONE and be done with it. Trucking custom blends around the country is wasteful.
* Lift the restrictions in order to drill for oil in Alaska, Gulf of Mexico, and other sites in the CONUS as a matter of national security.
* Encourage the petro industry to construct state-of-the-art refineries and/or retrofit current and dormant ones and crank up production for our newly-found oil in the CONUS.
* Make all “carbon credit” scams unlawful. Discrediting Algore should have been a slam-dunk a long time ago. Stop electing Reps who buy into the Global Warming Hoax.
* Construct SEVERAL, regional Pebble-Bed Reactors (or other similar modern designs) that are not considered "breeders", are rechargeable, and cleaner than any current nuclear generator design.
* Use the residual heat from the reactors above to process motor fuel from coal and/or shale. Even though Clinton "stole" some of the best coal reserves, we still have a lot to use.
* Become independent enough to make the cartels (i.e. OPEC) inconsequential.
* Convince local taxing bodies to lift or cap the sales tax on gasoline so that as gas prices go up, the local tax collectors don’t see a windfall revenue jump at the expense of the consumer. The Federal government could compel the states (and locals) to cap the fuel taxes.
to 3
liar.
it takes one gallon of petroleum,
to make 13 gallons of ethanol.
Oil has topped $125 per barrel. and the real answer is to start drilling within view of fancy neighborhoods and in animal reserves.
And it does take far more in total resources to make ethanol than ethanol is worth.
The only place I would seriously differ with you is in the “cease all methanol production part” I don’t like government mandates even when they are for something I agree with. Just eliminate all subsidies and mandates for production while removing barriers to imports of ethanol. I’m fine with it if the market demands it.
*I especially like the pebble bed reactors, the smaller versions of which would be especially suitable for providing energy for extraction operations in tar sands and shale.
*In my locality fuel taxes are levied on a “cents per gallon” basis and not as a percentage of the price so there is no “windfall” there. I don’t know if it is different in other areas or not, but the “cents per gallon” method seems sufficient for the goals you seem to be espousing.
—All in all, I’d say we could do much worse as a Nation than to take your proposal seriously. It makes more sense than 99% of what comes out of DC...
He’s the liar?
http://www.utbioenergy.org/TNBiofuelsInitiative/FAQs/
Does it take more energy to produce ethanol than you get out of it?
Net energy value (NEV) is the term most used to describe the energy of ethanol. The NEV is the amount of ethanol energy produced minus the amount of energy used in the process to make ethanol. Overall, research has shown that the NEV of ethanol is positive. Some research, however, contends that the balance is negative. As technology has developed, the overall average NEV across all studies has been increasingly positive.
Another way to look at the energy balance is to look at the fossil energy ratio. The fossil energy ratio is the ratio between the amount of fossil energy used to create ethanol. For example, producing one unit of gasoline energy requires the input of 1.25 units of fossil energy. The fossil energy ratio here would be 0.8, indicating that it takes more energy to make gasoline than we get out of it. Corn grain ethanol has a fossil energy ratio of about 1.6,
“liar.”
Ok, you wanna throw the “L” bomb, then I’m going to ask you for your credentials.
Whaddya got? PHD in Chemistry? Physics?
Here is an article that disputes your 1-13 ratio even further.
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002881.html
In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:
* corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
* switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and
* wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that:
* soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and
* sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
You really should have something to corroborate that statement. Calling somebody a “liar” and not supporting the accusation is very bad form. I would note that he used no corroboration either which means that you could have “won” the tread if you had simply sited your evidence. I was willing to read evidence from either of you but I’m not sure I’ll bother now.
Yes, I am being somewhat sarcastic but as my teachers used to say...”Always show your work or you don’t get credit”.
I'm calling Bulls** on that one. Balls in your court, where's the proof.
But first, the bad news about ethanol. Ethanol fires are evidently harder to control than gasoline fires.
Ethanol fires hard to controlHopefully, ways will be found to make controlling ethanol fires easier.
On the brighter side concerning ethanol, there's now evidence that people might get as much, or more, bang per buck for their gas dollars with gas / ethanol mixtures.
Gas-competitive gas / ethanol mixturesAlso, I was surprised by the introduction of a machine for making home-made ethanol.
EFUEL100But watch out for fines for violating biofuel regulations.
Fines for violating biofuel regulationsFinally, progress is being made in the development of non-corn ethanol production.
Non-corn ethanol
Nothing that promotes bio-fuels is balanced nor researched.
By themselves, bio-fuels are all harmful to the engine. Ethyl alcohol is highly hydroscopic, and thus promotes rust and corrosion throughout the engine, and causes many soft parts to prematurely fail. Bio-diesel represents a total rejection of all of the advantages of a diesel engine. Regular diesel fuel is an excellant upper engine lubricant, which permits a properly maintained engine to last 500,000 miles or more without major repair, but all forms of bio-diesel deposit massive amounts of varnish throughout the upper cylinder and pistons, reducing their life to 150,000 miles under the best of conditions, and more likely 80-90,000 miles in urban conditions.
All bio-fuels are also quite acidic in combustion.
The final blow is also well known now, as the world prices of grains have escalated, and deaths due to food battles are mounting. This can only get worse.
Bio-fuels are the far-left’s craziest idea yet.
here ya go
http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/PDF/03_28_05ArgonneNatlLabEthanolStudy.pdf
I direct your attention to the top-right
graph on page 2, where about one-tenth
gallon of liquid energy input, yields
one gallon of liquid energy output
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.