He never claimed that ethanol could replace more than a small fraction of the demand for oil; even if cellulosic ethanol came on line. His data supposedly took into account the fuel needed to produce the corn.
I got him into this sort of thing back on the early 70s when I was working on this subject. On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 07:03:17PM -0700, Paul Phillips wrote: > 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 > > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com
