Hmmm...well as always the devil is in the details. Having read a lot of
these studies, or more accurately articles about the studies, it becomes
difficult for the layman to follow the argument when the details become
esoteric. It does conjure an interesting thought experiment that cuts out
the details. It requires imagining an impenetrable transparent dome (think
Stephan King novel). Take two domes on farm land. Populate each with the
same things: people, cows, chickens, equipment, gasoline, diesel (you get
the point), all in equal quantities. Enclose both groups and set one rule:
in one dome they will make etoh out of corn that they grow; in the other ,
they can do anything they want except grow corn for etoh. After a year's
time, open the domes and gather everything organic left over (unfortunately
this includes humans) and burn it all in two bomb calorimeters. I think we
would have our answer.
Charlie
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I have read a number of studies over the years (Science, Scientific
> > American, The Economist, etc.) authored by diverse groups of people
> ranging
> > from engineers, physical scientist, economists, etc. and I have yet to
> see
> > an article that comes up with anything than a negative energy return or,
> at
> > the most, a very small positive return. Given your opinion of these
> > studies, I would love to see any to the contrary; can you post any links?
>
> Almost without exception, those studies have two howlers in them:
>
> 1. Failure to properly account for secondary use of the grain for feed.
>
> 2. Inclusion of ancilliary energy negatives without accounting for
> them in other energy sources.
>
> As to the first point, without the secondary use of the grain, the
> energy gain is not all that great. It is a gain, but we're probably
> better off putting our resources elsewhere. Unfortunately, the studies
> then use a worse-case transportation cost for secondary use instead of
> the normal use. The bulk of the secondary use is kept within 50 miles
> of the facility. It's not uncommon to have a major feedlot within five
> miles of the ethanol plant now that uses most if not all of it up. The
> studies assume no increase in efficiencies, but static normalized
> distribution. On the sourcing side of things, again, transportation
> costs kick in and the studies are biased with using a normalized
> average transportion distance, not taking into account that most of
> these facilities source their grain close whenever possible to reduce
> transportation costs. These studies fail to recognize that bean
> counters run the business and if there is any way to shave beans they
> will.
>
> The ancilliary energy use items are the big ones. You'll see stupid
> stuff like R&D applied to ethanol, but not added to other energy uses.
> If the same criteria was used for gasoline, you'd see that
> oil/gasoline is almost a net negative too. Especially, when you factor
> in that to protect those big oil tankers going through the oceans, we
> have to have a huge navy. We spend a trillion dollars a year keeping
> the oil flowing from countries that hate us. I've even seen studies
> that factored in traffic jam time for the cars consuming ethanol! Huh?
>
> It doesn't stop with ethanol. I see the same thing applied to solar
> and wind energy. I listened to a Yale lecture by some pointy-headed
> intellectual who did a launch into his anti-wind energy rant. The
> assumptions he was making made my head spin. The best one was how you
> can only place towers so close to each other because they suck all the
> wind energy out and there's nothing left for the next one in line.
> Sorry, but the math did NOT support his theories and assumed perfect
> alignment (which most wind farms don't have unless you are in
> Germany). In worse case, you do get a little bit of wind energy
> decline, (mostly from dispersion caused by turbulance from older style
> blade design) but that assumes a lot of stuff in order for it to be a
> real problem. Solar energy? My house is a energy negative according to
> the studies. Oh well, I guess my monthly utility bill is lying to me.
>
> Ethanol vs., straight gasoline (if you can even find it anymore,
> thanks to oxegenization requirements). With some exceptions, you will
> see a slight mileage decline with ethanol, but the price differential
> usually accounts for it--if your local suppliers factor in the
> blender's credit instead of just pocketing it. That's the problem out
> east/west, your local supplier is ripping you off by not passing the
> credit on.
>
> Oh, BTW, a major fuel change here lately. Instead of using a base of
> 87 octane, they're now using 85 octane and using ethanol to boost it
> up to 87. For most engines that barely function on 87 octane (lower
> altitudes), this is like putting water in the tank.
>
> As to mileage differences, I don't see too much, but I do see
> performance differences. The ignition computer is adjusting the timing
> for the fuel.
>
>
> --
> Ken Norton
> ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.zone-10.com
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|