Jimmy crack corn, and I don't care Jimmy crack corn, and I don't care Jimmy crack corn, and I don't care My master's gone away = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Posted on 07/17/2005 4:09:40 PM PDT by Graybeard58
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- Farmers, businesses and state officials are investing millions of dollars in ethanol and biofuel plants as renewable energy sources, but a new study says the alternative fuels burn more energy than they produce.
Supporters of ethanol and other biofuels contend they burn cleaner than fossil fuels, reduce U.S. dependence on oil and give farmers another market to sell their produce.
But researchers at Cornell University and the University of California-Berkeley say it takes 29 percent more fossil energy to turn corn into ethanol than the amount of fuel the process produces. For switch grass, a warm weather perennial grass found in the Great Plains and eastern North America United States, it takes 45 percent more energy and for wood, 57 percent.
It takes 27 percent more energy to turn soybeans into biodiesel fuel and more than double the energy produced is needed to do the same to sunflower plants, the study found.
"Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, the economy, or the environment," according to the study by Cornell's David Pimentel and Berkeley's Tad Patzek. They conclude the country would be better off investing in solar, wind and hydrogen energy.
The researchers included such factors as the energy used in producing the crop, costs that were not used in other studies that supported ethanol production, said Pimentel.
The study also omitted $3 billion in state and federal government subsidies that go toward ethanol production in the United States each year, payments that mask the true costs, Pimentel said.
Ethanol is an additive blended with gasoline to reduce auto emissions and increase gas' octane levels. Its use has grown rapidly since 2004, when the federal government banned the use of the additive MTBE to enhance the cleaner burning of fuel. About 3.6 billion gallons of ethanol were produced last year in the United States, according to the Renewable Fuels Association, an ethanol trade group.
The ethanol industry claims that using 8 billion gallons of ethanol a year will allow refiners to use 2 billion fewer barrels of oil. The oil industry disputes that, saying the ethanol mandate would have negligible impact on oil imports.
Ethanol producers dispute Pimentel and Patzek's findings, saying the data is outdated and doesn't take into account profits that offset costs.
Michael Brower, director of community and government relations at SUNY's College of Environmental Science and Forestry, points to reports by the Energy and Agriculture departments that have shown the ethanol produced delivers at least 60 percent more energy the amount used in production. The college has worked extensively on producing ethanol from hardwood trees.
Biodiesel can be used in any diesel engine with few or no modifications. It is often blended with petroleum diesel to reduce the propensity to gel in cold weather.
It's United States Agriculture. Therefore, by definition, it has everything to do with subsidies.
An acre of midwestern land will produce , what, five times as much corn as canola?
Possibly that much.
However, the corn from that acre will yield in Ethanol only a tiny fraction of the BTUs that the same acre would yield in BioDiesel made from Canola. We are discussing BTU's produced, not harvest weight.
Ethanol comes from fermenting sugar. BioDiesel comes from transesterifying vegetable oils. There is a lot more energy in oil and the resulting BioDiesel than in sugar and the resulting Ethanol. And a kernel of rapeseed contains a hell of a lot more oil than a kernel of corn contains sugar.
I've heard that $40/barrel production figure quoted before. I guess the energy companies are waiting to see if the current OPEC price is a new longterm price level. I think that it is, but then nobody is asking me to ante up the billions necessary to bring the Canadian oil sands into production.
And let's examine that for a moment. I recently had to move some furniture I inherited a considerable distance ( 935 miles). A friend helped me, and we used his gas guzzling Chevy Suburban and a trailer. On the trip, we averaged about 17 miles per gallon. For the whole trip, we consumed 110 gallons of unleaded.
My car gets 35 miles per gallon. That is more than twice the gas mileage of the gas guzzling Suburban. However, had I used it to move the furniture home I would have had to make 5 trips where the Suburban only needed one. I would have consumed 267 gallons of unleaded.
So which made more sense, from a conservation point of view? The gas guzzling 17 mpg Suburban, or the fuel efficient 35 mpg car?
And which would the enviro notjobs have wanted me to use?
Don't forget butanol.
May I guess that you've just gotten carried away with your poetic license? (or you've never really seen a rapeseed)
An average acre of #2 yellow corn will yield about 416 gallons of ethanol, while (from what I can find on line) an average acre of canola seed will yield about 127 gallons of oil....plus other by products such as gluten or DDG's. High extractable starch corn will do even better, but is generally only grown on contract.
The gluten or DDG's are a by product of the ethanol distillation process, not the canola oil extraction process.
The proto type of the Suburban with the metal side and frame was born in the 1930's. My Dad had the wooden side and frame one in the 1920's to haul his motorcycle, hunting, fishing, camping gear and dogs on the weekends, and he was a salesman during the week.
That's where I'm at. But apparently that puts us at risk of enriching those greedy Midwestern corn farmers.
Yeah. WE'RE dim. You wanna take a shot at how much energy is consumed in "cracking" the coal, compared to how much is used to produce the ethanol?
Here, you need this:
http://www.fortunecity.com/lavendar/poitier/135/thermo.wav
Agreed, by the way.
By the way, keep in mind that a large portion of the "subsidies" ethanol receives is simply the ABSENCE of federal and state taxes.
You mention another important point. The byproducts of ethanol production contain virtually the same protein levels as the original raw material. The substance Lucky refers to as DDG is Distiller's Dark Grain, a nutritious feedstuff for livestock.
So when it's all "boiled down" (heh heh), the corn is STILL fit to be used as animal food, even after the sugars are extracted. So ethanol corn serves a double purpose, reducing its overall energy cost even more.
Jimmy crack corn, and I don't care Jimmy crack corn, and I don't care Jimmy crack corn, and I don't care My master's gone away = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
yes, you burn 7% more for the same energy....
oh well, pork barrel politics
The distillation process not only generates ethanol, it also improves the protein value of the corn.
Neither, because they would have seized the furniture through the death tax they love, and then chastised you for moving 900+ miles from your relatives.
This Cornell professor that so many of our bethren on this board are willing to believe hung the moon is an environmental nut job of the first order. He real complaint with corn is that it feeds cows, cows feed people and that's bad.
mark
It's ALREADY happening. Check into what Konarka is doing. It looks like a major breakthrough in both efficiency and cost is quite close.
Verses what?
A study by Cornell's David Pimentel and Berkeley's Tad Patzek. They conclude the country would be better off investing in solar, wind and hydrogen energy.
So crack pot ethenol lobby or crack smoking solar, wind and hydrogen liberal professors? Funny hows there no mention of how much energy it takes to produce hydrogen!
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.