Unfortunately, however, the increase in corn yields is predicated on the use of
artificial fertilizer which is made from -- you guessed it -- natural gas.
According to (I think it was) Pfeiffer in his article "The oil we eat", 50% of
the cost of corn production is made up of fossil fuels. I think you only get
positive EROEI figures without looking at agricultural production costs in
terms of fossil fuels.
But even if the figures were -- the best I have seen is 1.3 to 1 -- it
would take more than the entire agricultural land in North America to produce
enough ethanol to replace fossil fuels. And in doing so, would use almost as
much fossil fuels as are now utilized for transportation since the efficiency
of ethanol is only about 85% that of petroleum for transportation. Furthermore,
there would be no land left to grow food or for people to live on.
Furthermore to the original posting, the increase in output from the tar
sands is about 2 million barrels a day (optimists say closer to 3 million but
at what cost?). The US consumption is about 25 million barrels a day. At the
same time, Canadian conventional crude is in sharp decline (having passed
Hubbert's peak)so that the increase in projected tar sands 'oil' will only
slightly offset the decline in conventional such that, at best, the net
increase in oil supply would supply perhaps 4 per cent of US demand which is
almost certainly less than the decrease in supply of conventional crude from US
sources.
The whole conventional/tar sands oil situation is a house of cards that is
falling down which Bush and co. understand, which is why they are in Iraq and
Afganistan and will soon be in Iran. But the house of cards is falling anyway
and the failure of the US to engage in any policy to deal with 'the end of oil'
is simply criminal. But what else is new?
Paul P
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, October 6, 2006 3:56 pm
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] better living through nukes
> I just heard an interview with Helen Caldicott, who claims that
> nukes use more fossil
> fuel than the energy they produce. Charles Kolmonoff did such a
> study a few decades
> ago. I don't know if she was relying on them or on newer studies.
>
> Yesterday, a terrific student of mine from 20 years ago visited
> the University. He
> is the point man in the Department of Agriculture for biofuels. I
> asked him about
> the energy balance regarding ethanol. He thought that it is now
> positive because
> corn yields have grown so much, but everything depends upon how
> much energy value you
> attribute to the byproducts.
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
> michaelperelman.wordpress.com
>
