Re: Energy Cost of Ethanol


jmfbahciv@xxxxxxx wrote:
In article <44A68F0D.2050506@xxxxxxx>, Greg Hansen <glhansen@xxxxxxx> wrote:


jmfbahciv@xxxxxxx wrote:
In article <earle.jones-CB4E33.15464430062006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Earle Jones <earle.jones@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <44A01C02.4060002@xxxxxxx>,
Greg Hansen <glhansen@xxxxxxx> wrote:


Reviving the topic of Habshi's subject line, and hoping to avoid the
topic of the content, what is the energy cost of producing ethanol?
Does anyone have some solid references?

*
If you Google on 'energy from ethanol' you'll get a lot of data.

I would tend to discount the obviously biased sources -- for
example, the Iowa Corn Farmers Association, Archer Daniels Midland
Corporation, etc. -- just use your head.


Wonderful. You are eliminating the knowledge of people who
do this business.

Biased sources, obviously.

Of course. All of our research and development was concentrated
on computing and finding ways to deliver more computing services/
jiffy. The poster wanted to throw out all of this kind of
"bias" purely because it was biased.

NOw, I'm getting weary of people throwing the bias word around
willy-nilly because it's a loaded word; it implies blatant lying.


But useful precisely because they work so
hard for you to research that particular angle.

They know what work is involved. Nobody else does. Once
upon a time, experience counted for something. It no longer
does.

They'll summarize the
pro's and provide a bibliography for more in-depth discussion. And then
go to an anti-ethanol source to find out about its impact on food
prices, water and land resources, and other factors. And google around
or visit the university library to fill in the gaps on your own. It
depends on what you're researching. Just keep in mind that biased
sources aren't telling the whole story, and then go right ahead and use
them to get part of it.

But they're not supposed to tell the whole story. That would
take forever. Did you tell the whole physics story every time
you wrote a paper?

They won't even tell everything that's relevant to the point they're
making. If they want you to adopt ethanol, they're not going to tell
you about farmers tapping essentially non-renewable aquifers, topsoil
depletion, price of food, and so on. But they don't have to do that in
order to be a valuable source of information. You just shouldn't
expect to get all of your information in one place.


It has also been figured that fueling large parts of the American
economy with corn-based ethanol would suck up half of the nation's
viable farmland as it raised the price of groceries.
The energy saved by serious conservation


And this (serious conservation) is a fucking pipe dream. How
do these people intend to enforce it long-term? The answer
is government subsidies and/or socialism. When you get
the government dictating economic socialism, you have
[fill in the blank].

Long term? Not a problem. Supply and demand-- prices.

Sigh! You have not considered the problem of no supply. You
are assuming all this is happening in a peacetime. It is not
a peace time.

I don't see how that negates economics. We're still importing oil,
people are still buying gasoline.


When the price
of gasoline doubles, people use less of it.

Not yet.

They did.


When it triples, fuel
efficiency and public transportation will look more attractive.

Not yet.

More
expensive alternative fuels will make economic sense to develop.

A person who knew economics told me that the price has to get
to ~$12/gallon before alternatives will become "cheaper".

Now that's hard to interpret. Especially '"cheaper"'. Ethanol is
already cheaper than that. The price of conversion would be high if it
is a choice of a car that can only run on gasoline, or a car that can
only run on ethanol. Flex fuel cars eliminate most of that price
barrier. They can run any mix of gasoline and ethanol, and you can
have a mechanic convert your car, if you like. Ethanol didn't really
take off in Brazil until flex fuel came along. But, in Brazil, they
get more miles per dollar with ethanol than with gasoline.


Maybe
they will and maybe they won't become very cheap with R&D and economies
of scale, but they only have to become cheaper than the rest. When farm
land and water resources become too valuable to grow fuel, it will be
used to grow food,

But it's not. Land is being used to grow million dollar shacks
with an ugly monoculture surrounding it.

Because it's still so cheap. Because people can afford long commutes
to large lots "away from it all".


and other fuel sources will be developed, and
lifestyles will be rearranged, e.g. living closer to work. (And I'm not
sure it would be a bad thing to cut the number of people commuting a
hundred miles in their SUVs to The City from their four acre lot on the
edge of the 'burbs.)

Government subsidies and/or socialism is for short-term enforcement.

The fact is that, once something is subsidized, it never goes
away because that would be transferring power from politicians
to regular people. The more controls a government has over
what people are allowed to spend and their choices, the more
these people will cheat to get around the imposed rules. The
more people cheat, the more rules will be put in place to solve
the cheating problems. There will always be ways to beat the
system because the politicians will have little back doors
to cover their asses so they can get around the rules.


measures will far
outpace any energy gained through subsidized, uneconomical
technologies. Even those that seem as natural as pouring corn in the
gas tank.

*****


Now take a good look at how well this (conserving) worked from 1970
to 1999.

/BAH

Well, take a good look at how well gasoline at $2.99 per gallon worked
out. People drove less,

No, they didn't. People have too much money.

Yes, they did, if I can believe what I've read in the papers. People
have cut recreational driving, took vacations closer to home, in the
Washington, DC area ridership on public transportation jumped by a few
percent. In polls taken, people have generally said that the price of
gas is a real economic hardship for them. My brother, living close to
work and driving a Volkswagon, said he didn't really notice.


and ridership on public transportation
increased a few percentage points.

For how long? This won't last. AS soon as people get used to
three bucks, they'll start going back to driving because no
public transportation system caters to each individual.

Some areas are better than others. Some people take the subway even
when they have a car of their own. E.g. the DC area has a lot of park
and ride lots where you can drive your car to the station, park it, and
take the train to work. And the parking lots are full, and they're
trying to expand their capacity to meet demand. Busses aren't as
popular there, but the metro is part of the culture.


It hasn't motivated people to
replace fuel hogs, but when it's time to buy a new car, fuel efficiency
will cross their minds as they decide.

I don't think so. I had to spend time in my car doctor's waiting
room so I took a look at what they were selling. Every one of
the new cars had less mileage than the car I have. I'm unhappy
with my mileage because I no longer get the 40+miles/gallon I had
with the model I drove in the early 80s. You cannot
buy a stripped down car/truck without all the doodads that use power
as if it's air and infinite.

40+ miles/gallon is pretty darn good.

From what I've read in the paper, the more fuel-efficient foreign cars
are doing some good business, and the American companies plan to shiftt
their offerings to the high mpg end. You wouldn't see them in the lots
yet. I said long term, what you see at the dealer now is short term.


It's the same story as the water conservation devices that had been
installed in an apartment complex I'd lived at-- water meters, and
residents are now charged based on useage. When they have to pay for
it, government involvement won't be needed to enforce conservation.

Until somebody decides that the "poor" need to have help paying
for what they use. Eventually the aid will creep up the economic
ladder because every person who has a reality filter (my latest
estimate is 95% have one in their hardware) believes that they
are poor; their politicans tell them so.

Take a good look at what happened when the price increased a little
bit. There were screams for using up all the country's oil
reserve. These people think that everything is an infinite
resource; all they have to do is flash their credit card and
somebody else will take care of the reality of paying for it.

Notice the attitude of the cranks here. They was unlimited, free
energy delivery services. The politicians are promising this.
I keep hearing speeches foaming out of their mouths that assume
all one has to do is hit RESET and one can start all over.

The oil reserve can run the nation for a few weeks, it can't have much
of an effect on the price of gasoline. The amount of oil that could be
produced in Alaska couldn't even begin to compare with world
production, drilling there would have negligible effect on the price
(but the people who drill there would sure rake in some dough).
Spouting without thinking. What were you saying about the cranks?


Sorry, I didn't intend to spout. I listened to CSPAN last night.



/BAH

.

Loading