Re: [biofuel] Re: ethanol economics
Dear Todd, Not much to add, other than that I like what you said. I hope others paid attention also. Hakan At 01:07 PM 8/29/2002 -0400, you wrote: >Hakan, > >In the process of shredding Pimental's vastly flawed mathematics, >a person does have to take note of one (1) very valid and correct >line of thought, although he only alludes to it. Present-day, >monoculture, factory farming poses considerable environmental >risks to the planet. I would even go so far as to suggest that by >and large it is not sustainable. Coupling present-day, mindless, >energy consumption patterns with contemporary farming practices, >biomass in the global scheme may not be as renewable a >possibility as many would like to believe. > >Essentially what this means is that both energy farming and >energy consumption must be rethought and the new axioms applied, >or else we will be facing the same finite resource problem that >presently exists with fossil fuels. In other words? Put an end to >our gluttonous energy consumption and develop land "management" >techniques that are conducive to reduced energy inputs, soil >degradation and other problems inherant to mono-culture factory >farming. > >By and large most people become aware of this after giving it the >first contemplative thought. Yet if only reviewed superficially >these same persons see energy farming as a greater good without >giving much consideration to the long term dis-benefits. > >For renewables in general to supplant fossil fuels in a >sustainable manner, not only must production volume be sufficient >and production processes undergo drastic evolution, but the >entire human mindset necessarily must undergo reconstruction as >to how energy is used. Whether we like it or not, we must develop >a smaller energy footprint with each new day. Simply increasing >biomass production and substituting it for present day fossil >fuel consumption is a losing proposition of and by itself and >hangs the concept of sustainability and the use of biomass out on >the same rack as non-renewable energy production. > >Sooner or later politicos will be forced to admit this, rather >than trying to avoid the issue by simply supplanting partial >fossil fuel consumption with biomass to temporarily appease the >public. > >Todd Swearingen > >- Original Message - >From: Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: >Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 6:01 AM >Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: ethanol economics > > > > > > Dear Todd, > > > > It is number games, only to size the problems and to > > understand them. It is logical that we have a mix and > > we are already there. What ever way you play the > > numbers, it show that renewable are feasible and > > doable even for US. It will however take space and > > manpower that are of considerable size. It becomes > > more a timing challenge of a social/political solution > > than technical solutions. > > > > The mix of energy sources requires very deliberate > > decisions, based on correct scientific understanding. > > Already now the solutions are in the hands of the > > political leaders and they procrastinate. > > > > For many, energy sources seems to be a choice > > between technologies and a search for silver bullets. > > It is however much more complicated than that and > > diversity must be maintained. We do not want to > > create an "energy fame" that is comparable with > > the famous Irish "potato fame", but on a much > > grander scale. > > > > I am dealing with energy saving, which should be > > technically easier and a prerequisite to renewable. > > Even here the solutions are in the hands of the > > political leaders and they procrastinate. > > > > Hakan > > > > > > > > At 09:54 PM 8/28/2002 -0400, you wrote: > > >I guess that means that when the last drop of fossil oil is > > >visible on the horizon, we had better have some rather high > > >combined fuel economy and numerous alternative energies in the > > >mix. It's either that, or we'll have to choose between eating >and > > >driving and everyone with a weak back or timid heart will have >to > > >migrate to Florida every winter. > > > > > >Todd Swearingen > > > > > >- Original Message - > > >From: Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >To: > > >Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 9:38 PM > > >Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: ethanol economics > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Todd, > > > > > > &g
Re: [biofuel] Re: ethanol economics
Hakan, In the process of shredding Pimental's vastly flawed mathematics, a person does have to take note of one (1) very valid and correct line of thought, although he only alludes to it. Present-day, monoculture, factory farming poses considerable environmental risks to the planet. I would even go so far as to suggest that by and large it is not sustainable. Coupling present-day, mindless, energy consumption patterns with contemporary farming practices, biomass in the global scheme may not be as renewable a possibility as many would like to believe. Essentially what this means is that both energy farming and energy consumption must be rethought and the new axioms applied, or else we will be facing the same finite resource problem that presently exists with fossil fuels. In other words? Put an end to our gluttonous energy consumption and develop land "management" techniques that are conducive to reduced energy inputs, soil degradation and other problems inherant to mono-culture factory farming. By and large most people become aware of this after giving it the first contemplative thought. Yet if only reviewed superficially these same persons see energy farming as a greater good without giving much consideration to the long term dis-benefits. For renewables in general to supplant fossil fuels in a sustainable manner, not only must production volume be sufficient and production processes undergo drastic evolution, but the entire human mindset necessarily must undergo reconstruction as to how energy is used. Whether we like it or not, we must develop a smaller energy footprint with each new day. Simply increasing biomass production and substituting it for present day fossil fuel consumption is a losing proposition of and by itself and hangs the concept of sustainability and the use of biomass out on the same rack as non-renewable energy production. Sooner or later politicos will be forced to admit this, rather than trying to avoid the issue by simply supplanting partial fossil fuel consumption with biomass to temporarily appease the public. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 6:01 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: ethanol economics > > Dear Todd, > > It is number games, only to size the problems and to > understand them. It is logical that we have a mix and > we are already there. What ever way you play the > numbers, it show that renewable are feasible and > doable even for US. It will however take space and > manpower that are of considerable size. It becomes > more a timing challenge of a social/political solution > than technical solutions. > > The mix of energy sources requires very deliberate > decisions, based on correct scientific understanding. > Already now the solutions are in the hands of the > political leaders and they procrastinate. > > For many, energy sources seems to be a choice > between technologies and a search for silver bullets. > It is however much more complicated than that and > diversity must be maintained. We do not want to > create an "energy fame" that is comparable with > the famous Irish "potato fame", but on a much > grander scale. > > I am dealing with energy saving, which should be > technically easier and a prerequisite to renewable. > Even here the solutions are in the hands of the > political leaders and they procrastinate. > > Hakan > > > > At 09:54 PM 8/28/2002 -0400, you wrote: > >I guess that means that when the last drop of fossil oil is > >visible on the horizon, we had better have some rather high > >combined fuel economy and numerous alternative energies in the > >mix. It's either that, or we'll have to choose between eating and > >driving and everyone with a weak back or timid heart will have to > >migrate to Florida every winter. > > > >Todd Swearingen > > > >- Original Message - > >From: Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: > >Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 9:38 PM > >Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: ethanol economics > > > > > > > > > > Dear Todd, > > > > > > I agree with you on the number game, I wrote earlier, > > > > > > With 25 barrels per hectare, the current > > > annual oil consumption would need more than 11 giga hectars of > >land. > > > The yield would be a rounded 2,500 barrel per square km and > >annual > > > oil consumption would need 11,699,000 square km. This is more > >than > > > the land mass of USA. For US internal consumption (25% of > >world), it > > > would need to grow sapium sebiferum on one quarter of its land > >mass, > > > or approximately on all it
Re: [biofuel] Re: ethanol economics
Dear Todd, It is number games, only to size the problems and to understand them. It is logical that we have a mix and we are already there. What ever way you play the numbers, it show that renewable are feasible and doable even for US. It will however take space and manpower that are of considerable size. It becomes more a timing challenge of a social/political solution than technical solutions. The mix of energy sources requires very deliberate decisions, based on correct scientific understanding. Already now the solutions are in the hands of the political leaders and they procrastinate. For many, energy sources seems to be a choice between technologies and a search for silver bullets. It is however much more complicated than that and diversity must be maintained. We do not want to create an "energy fame" that is comparable with the famous Irish "potato fame", but on a much grander scale. I am dealing with energy saving, which should be technically easier and a prerequisite to renewable. Even here the solutions are in the hands of the political leaders and they procrastinate. Hakan At 09:54 PM 8/28/2002 -0400, you wrote: >I guess that means that when the last drop of fossil oil is >visible on the horizon, we had better have some rather high >combined fuel economy and numerous alternative energies in the >mix. It's either that, or we'll have to choose between eating and >driving and everyone with a weak back or timid heart will have to >migrate to Florida every winter. > >Todd Swearingen > >- Original Message - >From: Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: >Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 9:38 PM >Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: ethanol economics > > > > > > Dear Todd, > > > > I agree with you on the number game, I wrote earlier, > > > > With 25 barrels per hectare, the current > > annual oil consumption would need more than 11 giga hectars of >land. > > The yield would be a rounded 2,500 barrel per square km and >annual > > oil consumption would need 11,699,000 square km. This is more >than > > the land mass of USA. For US internal consumption (25% of >world), it > > would need to grow sapium sebiferum on one quarter of its land >mass, > > or approximately on all its current agriculture land. If US > > average can be lowered to the current consumption for >California, it > > only need 14% of its land mass. On Swedish consumption level, >it > > will need 8% of its land mass. > > > > Your calculations confirm the above when you expand it to all >crude > > oil usage. For transport only and with corn, we will end up >with almost > > the same numbers. For transport only, SVO and sapium sebiferum, >you > > only need a few percent of US landmass. > > > > Hakan > > > > > > > > At 08:50 PM 8/28/2002 -0400, you wrote: > > >The following is response to an off-list inquiry made about an > > >article based upon David Pimental's representations as to > > >ethanols dis-economics. It might make better sense to read the > > >original inquiry first, then the response. > > > > > >Todd Swearingen > > >. > > > > > >Dear [snip], > > > > > >First, I would care to enquire as to what your relationship >and > > >interest to the study, Pimental and any other researchers may >be. > > > > > >Second, a person need not be expert in any particular field to > > >discern that Pimental's study is largely lacking in multiple > > >areas. Due diligence is sufficient to reveal many of the >flaws. > > >You can take one look at the article, make one call to your > > >nearest ag agent, put pen to paper and determine that his > > >calculations are all too frequently derived from inflated > > >assumptions, perspectives and allocations. > > > > > >One could start with the premise that the average gasoline > > >powered automobile in the US only achieves a fuel economy of > > >~11.74 miles per gallon. That is gravely erroneous. > > > > > >One could continue with the premise that it takes 11 acres to > > >grow enough ethanol to propel same vehicle 10,000 miles each > > >year. At a national average of ~120 bushels of corn/acre, > > >yielding almost exactly 2.5 gallons per bushel, Mr. Pimental > > >suggests that it will take 7.16 acres to grow enough fuel to > > >produce the 852 gallons that will be derived from the >remaining > > >2.84 acres. This in itself does not jibe with Mr. Pimental's > > >energy input/output ratios. &g
[biofuel] Re: ethanol economics
Bravo, Todd, nicely done! There's a lot more Pimentel debunking here: http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html Is ethanol energy-efficient? New report: "Corn ethanol is energy efficient... For every BTU dedicated to producing ethanol there is a 34 percent energy gain," the study said. "Only about 17 percent of the energy used to produce ethanol comes from liquid fuels, such as gasoline and diesel fuel. For every 1 BTU of liquid fuel used to produce ethanol, there is a 6.34 BTU gain," the researchers added. http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17186/story.htm From stalk to fuel tank, ethanol a net energy gain Here's the RNA's report on the study: http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pr020801b.html ... "Only Dr. Pimentel disagrees with this analysis. But his outdated work has been refuted by experts from entities as diverse as the USDA, DOE, Argonne National Laboratory, Michigan State University, and the Colorado School of Mines. While the opponents of ethanol will no doubt continue to peddle Pimentel's baseless charges, they are absolutely without credibility." The full study is here - alas, more web-clutter, yet another pdf file, the kudzu of the Internet (5225kb): http://www.usda.gov/oce/oepnu/aer-813.pdf Best Keith >The following is response to an off-list inquiry made about an >article based upon David Pimental's representations as to >ethanols dis-economics. It might make better sense to read the >original inquiry first, then the response. > >Todd Swearingen >. > >Dear [snip], > >First, I would care to enquire as to what your relationship and >interest to the study, Pimental and any other researchers may be. > >Second, a person need not be expert in any particular field to >discern that Pimental's study is largely lacking in multiple >areas. Due diligence is sufficient to reveal many of the flaws. >You can take one look at the article, make one call to your >nearest ag agent, put pen to paper and determine that his >calculations are all too frequently derived from inflated >assumptions, perspectives and allocations. > >One could start with the premise that the average gasoline >powered automobile in the US only achieves a fuel economy of >~11.74 miles per gallon. That is gravely erroneous. > >One could continue with the premise that it takes 11 acres to >grow enough ethanol to propel same vehicle 10,000 miles each >year. At a national average of ~120 bushels of corn/acre, >yielding almost exactly 2.5 gallons per bushel, Mr. Pimental >suggests that it will take 7.16 acres to grow enough fuel to >produce the 852 gallons that will be derived from the remaining >2.84 acres. This in itself does not jibe with Mr. Pimental's >energy input/output ratios. > >One could also take into consideration the negative impact that >Pimental gives to agricultural subsidies while attributing no >weight to fossil fuels subsidies and the costs resulting from >them. This is an uneven and inappropriate tactic. Apples to >apples is the appropriate method, not pears to squirrels. > >One could point out that Mr. Pimental makes no effort to >ameliorate the production cost of ethanol by including the >principal co-products of corn-based ethanol manufacture - oil, >soap stock, lecithin and brewers' grains. In fact, Mr. Pimental >would like to leave anyone who reads his "study" or articles >based upon his "study" believing that only ethanol is produced >from corn, therefore all costs and energy inputs/outputs should >be assessed soley against the ethanol fraction. > >This is bogus, which any statistician, bean counter, economist >or 1st year middle school student knows. > >The declaration also is made that it takes 11 acres to feed seven >Americans. It is obvious by such a claim that Mr. Pimental is at >best deriving his numbers from a heavily impalanced, factory >farmed, meat centered diet where the majority of the acreage is >used to produce grains and other feed for livestock, not humans. >This in itself shows a severe bias towards inflated numbers and >gives one cause to question if total exports of agricultural >products were subtracted from his equations prior to their >concoction. > >Throw in this "whopper" for good measure. Total US dry land mass >is 3,536,278 square miles, or 2,263,217,920 acres. Pimental's own >numbers and those from the article include that the average auto >travels 10,000 miles, consuming 852 gallons of ethanol (if E-100 >powered), that the average acre produces 126.96 bushels of corn, >that the average yield of ethanol per bushel is 2.58 gallons, >that the energy ratio is 1.70 to 1.0 (2.70 total gallons of >ethanol per gallon produced) and that 97% of the US land mass >would have to be planted in corn to meet this demand. (That's >total land mass, not just arable land.) > >(2,263,217,920 x 126.96 x 2.58) / (832 x 2.7) = 330,009,090 >"average" automobiles traversing the US, at 10,000 miles each. > >Oddly, the poplulation of the US is ~281,421,9
Re: [biofuel] Re: ethanol economics
I guess that means that when the last drop of fossil oil is visible on the horizon, we had better have some rather high combined fuel economy and numerous alternative energies in the mix. It's either that, or we'll have to choose between eating and driving and everyone with a weak back or timid heart will have to migrate to Florida every winter. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 9:38 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: ethanol economics > > Dear Todd, > > I agree with you on the number game, I wrote earlier, > > With 25 barrels per hectare, the current > annual oil consumption would need more than 11 giga hectars of land. > The yield would be a rounded 2,500 barrel per square km and annual > oil consumption would need 11,699,000 square km. This is more than > the land mass of USA. For US internal consumption (25% of world), it > would need to grow sapium sebiferum on one quarter of its land mass, > or approximately on all its current agriculture land. If US > average can be lowered to the current consumption for California, it > only need 14% of its land mass. On Swedish consumption level, it > will need 8% of its land mass. > > Your calculations confirm the above when you expand it to all crude > oil usage. For transport only and with corn, we will end up with almost > the same numbers. For transport only, SVO and sapium sebiferum, you > only need a few percent of US landmass. > > Hakan > > > > At 08:50 PM 8/28/2002 -0400, you wrote: > >The following is response to an off-list inquiry made about an > >article based upon David Pimental's representations as to > >ethanols dis-economics. It might make better sense to read the > >original inquiry first, then the response. > > > >Todd Swearingen > >. > > > >Dear [snip], > > > >First, I would care to enquire as to what your relationship and > >interest to the study, Pimental and any other researchers may be. > > > >Second, a person need not be expert in any particular field to > >discern that Pimental's study is largely lacking in multiple > >areas. Due diligence is sufficient to reveal many of the flaws. > >You can take one look at the article, make one call to your > >nearest ag agent, put pen to paper and determine that his > >calculations are all too frequently derived from inflated > >assumptions, perspectives and allocations. > > > >One could start with the premise that the average gasoline > >powered automobile in the US only achieves a fuel economy of > >~11.74 miles per gallon. That is gravely erroneous. > > > >One could continue with the premise that it takes 11 acres to > >grow enough ethanol to propel same vehicle 10,000 miles each > >year. At a national average of ~120 bushels of corn/acre, > >yielding almost exactly 2.5 gallons per bushel, Mr. Pimental > >suggests that it will take 7.16 acres to grow enough fuel to > >produce the 852 gallons that will be derived from the remaining > >2.84 acres. This in itself does not jibe with Mr. Pimental's > >energy input/output ratios. > > > >One could also take into consideration the negative impact that > >Pimental gives to agricultural subsidies while attributing no > >weight to fossil fuels subsidies and the costs resulting from > >them. This is an uneven and inappropriate tactic. Apples to > >apples is the appropriate method, not pears to squirrels. > > > >One could point out that Mr. Pimental makes no effort to > >ameliorate the production cost of ethanol by including the > >principal co-products of corn-based ethanol manufacture - oil, > >soap stock, lecithin and brewers' grains. In fact, Mr. Pimental > >would like to leave anyone who reads his "study" or articles > >based upon his "study" believing that only ethanol is produced > >from corn, therefore all costs and energy inputs/outputs should > >be assessed soley against the ethanol fraction. > > > >This is bogus, which any statistician, bean counter, economist > >or 1st year middle school student knows. > > > >The declaration also is made that it takes 11 acres to feed seven > >Americans. It is obvious by such a claim that Mr. Pimental is at > >best deriving his numbers from a heavily impalanced, factory > >farmed, meat centered diet where the majority of the acreage is > >used to produce grains and other feed for livestock, not humans. > >This in itself shows a severe bias towards inflated numbers and > >gives one cause to question if total exports of ag
Re: [biofuel] Re: ethanol economics
Dear Todd, I agree with you on the number game, I wrote earlier, With 25 barrels per hectare, the current annual oil consumption would need more than 11 giga hectars of land. The yield would be a rounded 2,500 barrel per square km and annual oil consumption would need 11,699,000 square km. This is more than the land mass of USA. For US internal consumption (25% of world), it would need to grow sapium sebiferum on one quarter of its land mass, or approximately on all its current agriculture land. If US average can be lowered to the current consumption for California, it only need 14% of its land mass. On Swedish consumption level, it will need 8% of its land mass. Your calculations confirm the above when you expand it to all crude oil usage. For transport only and with corn, we will end up with almost the same numbers. For transport only, SVO and sapium sebiferum, you only need a few percent of US landmass. Hakan At 08:50 PM 8/28/2002 -0400, you wrote: >The following is response to an off-list inquiry made about an >article based upon David Pimental's representations as to >ethanols dis-economics. It might make better sense to read the >original inquiry first, then the response. > >Todd Swearingen >. > >Dear [snip], > >First, I would care to enquire as to what your relationship and >interest to the study, Pimental and any other researchers may be. > >Second, a person need not be expert in any particular field to >discern that Pimental's study is largely lacking in multiple >areas. Due diligence is sufficient to reveal many of the flaws. >You can take one look at the article, make one call to your >nearest ag agent, put pen to paper and determine that his >calculations are all too frequently derived from inflated >assumptions, perspectives and allocations. > >One could start with the premise that the average gasoline >powered automobile in the US only achieves a fuel economy of >~11.74 miles per gallon. That is gravely erroneous. > >One could continue with the premise that it takes 11 acres to >grow enough ethanol to propel same vehicle 10,000 miles each >year. At a national average of ~120 bushels of corn/acre, >yielding almost exactly 2.5 gallons per bushel, Mr. Pimental >suggests that it will take 7.16 acres to grow enough fuel to >produce the 852 gallons that will be derived from the remaining >2.84 acres. This in itself does not jibe with Mr. Pimental's >energy input/output ratios. > >One could also take into consideration the negative impact that >Pimental gives to agricultural subsidies while attributing no >weight to fossil fuels subsidies and the costs resulting from >them. This is an uneven and inappropriate tactic. Apples to >apples is the appropriate method, not pears to squirrels. > >One could point out that Mr. Pimental makes no effort to >ameliorate the production cost of ethanol by including the >principal co-products of corn-based ethanol manufacture - oil, >soap stock, lecithin and brewers' grains. In fact, Mr. Pimental >would like to leave anyone who reads his "study" or articles >based upon his "study" believing that only ethanol is produced >from corn, therefore all costs and energy inputs/outputs should >be assessed soley against the ethanol fraction. > >This is bogus, which any statistician, bean counter, economist >or 1st year middle school student knows. > >The declaration also is made that it takes 11 acres to feed seven >Americans. It is obvious by such a claim that Mr. Pimental is at >best deriving his numbers from a heavily impalanced, factory >farmed, meat centered diet where the majority of the acreage is >used to produce grains and other feed for livestock, not humans. >This in itself shows a severe bias towards inflated numbers and >gives one cause to question if total exports of agricultural >products were subtracted from his equations prior to their >concoction. > >Throw in this "whopper" for good measure. Total US dry land mass >is 3,536,278 square miles, or 2,263,217,920 acres. Pimental's own >numbers and those from the article include that the average auto >travels 10,000 miles, consuming 852 gallons of ethanol (if E-100 >powered), that the average acre produces 126.96 bushels of corn, >that the average yield of ethanol per bushel is 2.58 gallons, >that the energy ratio is 1.70 to 1.0 (2.70 total gallons of >ethanol per gallon produced) and that 97% of the US land mass >would have to be planted in corn to meet this demand. (That's >total land mass, not just arable land.) > >(2,263,217,920 x 126.96 x 2.58) / (832 x 2.7) = 330,009,090 >"average" automobiles traversing the US, at 10,000 miles each. > >Oddly, the poplulation of the US is ~281,421,906 (year 2000 >census, excluding service men and women overseas). Equally as odd >is that US automobile insurers rate the average driver at ~10,000 >miles annually. Subtracting from the population those youth not >yet of driving age (under 16 years old) leaves you with >217,149147 persons old en
[biofuel] Re: ethanol economics
The following is response to an off-list inquiry made about an article based upon David Pimental's representations as to ethanols dis-economics. It might make better sense to read the original inquiry first, then the response. Todd Swearingen . Dear [snip], First, I would care to enquire as to what your relationship and interest to the study, Pimental and any other researchers may be. Second, a person need not be expert in any particular field to discern that Pimental's study is largely lacking in multiple areas. Due diligence is sufficient to reveal many of the flaws. You can take one look at the article, make one call to your nearest ag agent, put pen to paper and determine that his calculations are all too frequently derived from inflated assumptions, perspectives and allocations. One could start with the premise that the average gasoline powered automobile in the US only achieves a fuel economy of ~11.74 miles per gallon. That is gravely erroneous. One could continue with the premise that it takes 11 acres to grow enough ethanol to propel same vehicle 10,000 miles each year. At a national average of ~120 bushels of corn/acre, yielding almost exactly 2.5 gallons per bushel, Mr. Pimental suggests that it will take 7.16 acres to grow enough fuel to produce the 852 gallons that will be derived from the remaining 2.84 acres. This in itself does not jibe with Mr. Pimental's energy input/output ratios. One could also take into consideration the negative impact that Pimental gives to agricultural subsidies while attributing no weight to fossil fuels subsidies and the costs resulting from them. This is an uneven and inappropriate tactic. Apples to apples is the appropriate method, not pears to squirrels. One could point out that Mr. Pimental makes no effort to ameliorate the production cost of ethanol by including the principal co-products of corn-based ethanol manufacture - oil, soap stock, lecithin and brewers' grains. In fact, Mr. Pimental would like to leave anyone who reads his "study" or articles based upon his "study" believing that only ethanol is produced from corn, therefore all costs and energy inputs/outputs should be assessed soley against the ethanol fraction. This is bogus, which any statistician, bean counter, economist or 1st year middle school student knows. The declaration also is made that it takes 11 acres to feed seven Americans. It is obvious by such a claim that Mr. Pimental is at best deriving his numbers from a heavily impalanced, factory farmed, meat centered diet where the majority of the acreage is used to produce grains and other feed for livestock, not humans. This in itself shows a severe bias towards inflated numbers and gives one cause to question if total exports of agricultural products were subtracted from his equations prior to their concoction. Throw in this "whopper" for good measure. Total US dry land mass is 3,536,278 square miles, or 2,263,217,920 acres. Pimental's own numbers and those from the article include that the average auto travels 10,000 miles, consuming 852 gallons of ethanol (if E-100 powered), that the average acre produces 126.96 bushels of corn, that the average yield of ethanol per bushel is 2.58 gallons, that the energy ratio is 1.70 to 1.0 (2.70 total gallons of ethanol per gallon produced) and that 97% of the US land mass would have to be planted in corn to meet this demand. (That's total land mass, not just arable land.) (2,263,217,920 x 126.96 x 2.58) / (832 x 2.7) = 330,009,090 "average" automobiles traversing the US, at 10,000 miles each. Oddly, the poplulation of the US is ~281,421,906 (year 2000 census, excluding service men and women overseas). Equally as odd is that US automobile insurers rate the average driver at ~10,000 miles annually. Subtracting from the population those youth not yet of driving age (under 16 years old) leaves you with 217,149147 persons old enough to drive. Subtracting the population older than 80 years of age leaves you with ~207,964,163 persons capable of driving the requisite 10,000 miles per year. That makes Pimental's numbers incredulously inflated by 36.98% - a rather large margin of miscalculation. Couple that with an obviously errant average fuel economy of 11.74 mpg when 20 mpg is closer to realistic. That's an approximate 41.32% total consumption error, bringing the total land mass "necessarily" covered by maize down to ~40.08%. Multiply that times the ~63.02% of actual drivers, rather than Pimental's 36.98% inflated number, and you come up with ~25.26% of the total land mass covered by corn, not the 97% that is mis-represented. (I wonder if Pimental would consider the difference "significant?") Couple all of these errors made by Pimental with fuel economy constantly being on the rise and you begin to see even more monumental reductions in Pimental's mis-representations. Aside from the fact that Pimental was heavily in error when he first presented his "study," he a
