RE: [biofuel] Ethanol is a net energy loser~Bigtime
No Todd, 345 is what oil companies consider is the average number of days that an oil well is actually producing per year, allowing for maintenance shut downs etc. Hanns -Original Message- From: Appal Energy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 11 August 2001 9:41 AM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] Ethanol is a net energy loser~Bigtime Hanns, I think you can trust me when I tell you that I am also at the top of the list in issuing all encompassing phrases and statements. Not trying to be a snit, but the 345 was a typo, yes? Anyway, it's been a terribly long week, and Monday starts all over again tomorrow. I do believe that I will taste a little amber malt before I recycle myself in the morning. Here's mud in yur eye! Todd Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Hanns B. Wetzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 10:44 PM Subject: RE: [biofuel] Ethanol is a net energy loser~Bigtime Todd, absolutely correct thta was kind'a toungue in cheek. The oil figures were yearly not daily, it was late and I read it too quickly. Divide by 345 to get the correct result. Hanns -Original Message- From: Appal Energy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 10 August 2001 6:06 AM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] Ethanol is a net energy loser~Bigtime No doubt ??? Absolutely ? Correct Todd Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] No doubt all what professor Pimentel has said is absolutely correct. But in 50 years time when world conventional oil production is down to 17 billion barrels per day and demand for oil equivalent in liquid fuels is 70 billion barrels per day, American motor vehicles are not going to be powered solely by ethanol produced from corn. There will be other far more efficient methods of producing energy for transportation. Enzymatic conversion of cellulosic feed stocks to sugars and alcohols will no doubt be one of them. If we already have the technology to clone stud animals today, then surely we will soon have the technology to genetically engineer plants that produce their own enzymes not only for cellulose-sugar conversion, but also sugar-alcohol conversion. We will simply mash up these plants, put them into a fermentation tank, add water, raise the temperature and distil the resulting beer. Deriving liquid fuels from natural gas, coal, shale, tar sands and methane hydrates etc. will not only be too expensive, but also create atmospheric, land and water pollution which by 2050 will no longer be politically acceptable in any part of the world. Therefore a combination of reduced demand for liquid fuels and cheap bio fuels produced from dedicated energy crops is the most likely long term scenario. In the meantime however, what if it takes 70% more energy to produce ethanol from corn that the ethanol produces? It is good for the atmosphere, it is good for the farmers, it makes cars run better and it boosts technology development. So the industry is subsidised. What would we rather do? Spend the tax dollar on something that is good for the rural GDP and good for the planet, or make OPEC wealthier, spew more CO2 into the atmosphere and have our economies run down a path of ever increasing environmental cost and diminishing resources. Sometimes one wonders what these so called scientists do for common sense. They are so busy investigating, analysing, and tabulating, that they loose sight of the practical world that we live in. Hanns Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Ethanol is a net energy loser~Bigtime
Hanns, I think you can trust me when I tell you that I am also at the top of the list in issuing all encompassing phrases and statements. Not trying to be a snit, but the 345 was a typo, yes? Anyway, it's been a terribly long week, and Monday starts all over again tomorrow. I do believe that I will taste a little amber malt before I recycle myself in the morning. Here's mud in yur eye! Todd Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Hanns B. Wetzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 10:44 PM Subject: RE: [biofuel] Ethanol is a net energy loser~Bigtime Todd, absolutely correct thta was kind'a toungue in cheek. The oil figures were yearly not daily, it was late and I read it too quickly. Divide by 345 to get the correct result. Hanns -Original Message- From: Appal Energy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 10 August 2001 6:06 AM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] Ethanol is a net energy loser~Bigtime No doubt ??? Absolutely ? Correct Todd Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] No doubt all what professor Pimentel has said is absolutely correct. But in 50 years time when world conventional oil production is down to 17 billion barrels per day and demand for oil equivalent in liquid fuels is 70 billion barrels per day, American motor vehicles are not going to be powered solely by ethanol produced from corn. There will be other far more efficient methods of producing energy for transportation. Enzymatic conversion of cellulosic feed stocks to sugars and alcohols will no doubt be one of them. If we already have the technology to clone stud animals today, then surely we will soon have the technology to genetically engineer plants that produce their own enzymes not only for cellulose-sugar conversion, but also sugar-alcohol conversion. We will simply mash up these plants, put them into a fermentation tank, add water, raise the temperature and distil the resulting beer. Deriving liquid fuels from natural gas, coal, shale, tar sands and methane hydrates etc. will not only be too expensive, but also create atmospheric, land and water pollution which by 2050 will no longer be politically acceptable in any part of the world. Therefore a combination of reduced demand for liquid fuels and cheap bio fuels produced from dedicated energy crops is the most likely long term scenario. In the meantime however, what if it takes 70% more energy to produce ethanol from corn that the ethanol produces? It is good for the atmosphere, it is good for the farmers, it makes cars run better and it boosts technology development. So the industry is subsidised. What would we rather do? Spend the tax dollar on something that is good for the rural GDP and good for the planet, or make OPEC wealthier, spew more CO2 into the atmosphere and have our economies run down a path of ever increasing environmental cost and diminishing resources. Sometimes one wonders what these so called scientists do for common sense. They are so busy investigating, analysing, and tabulating, that they loose sight of the practical world that we live in. Hanns Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] Ethanol is a net energy loser~Bigtime
No doubt all what professor Pimentel has said is absolutely correct. But in 50 years time when world conventional oil production is down to 17 billion barrels per day and demand for oil equivalent in liquid fuels is 70 billion barrels per day, American motor vehicles are not going to be powered solely by ethanol produced from corn. There will be other far more efficient methods of producing energy for transportation. Enzymatic conversion of cellulosic feed stocks to sugars and alcohols will no doubt be one of them. If we already have the technology to clone stud animals today, then surely we will soon have the technology to genetically engineer plants that produce their own enzymes not only for cellulose-sugar conversion, but also sugar-alcohol conversion. We will simply mash up these plants, put them into a fermentation tank, add water, raise the temperature and distil the resulting beer. Deriving liquid fuels from natural gas, coal, shale, tar sands and methane hydrates etc. will not only be too expensive, but also create atmospheric, land and water pollution which by 2050 will no longer be politically acceptable in any part of the world. Therefore a combination of reduced demand for liquid fuels and cheap bio fuels produced from dedicated energy crops is the most likely long term scenario. In the meantime however, what if it takes 70% more energy to produce ethanol from corn that the ethanol produces? It is good for the atmosphere, it is good for the farmers, it makes cars run better and it boosts technology development. So the industry is subsidised. What would we rather do? Spend the tax dollar on something that is good for the rural GDP and good for the planet, or make OPEC wealthier, spew more CO2 into the atmosphere and have our economies run down a path of ever increasing environmental cost and diminishing resources. Sometimes one wonders what these so called scientists do for common sense. They are so busy investigating, analysing, and tabulating, that they loose sight of the practical world that we live in. Hanns -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 9 August 2001 12:22 AM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: [biofuel] Ethanol is a net energy loser~Bigtime http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug01/corn-basedethanol.hrs.html [i]Ethanol fuel from corn faulted as 'unsustainable subsidized food burning' in analysis by Cornell scientist FOR RELEASE: Aug. 6, 2001 Contact: Roger Segelken Office: 607-255-9736 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -snip-- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Ethanol is a net energy loser~Bigtime
All this might be very true,but will we still using the infernal combustion engine in 50 years time,? I seriously doubt it. It is noisy polluting,grossly inefficient and dirty. The only reason we are still using it is because of the power of oil industry, take that away and we open the door to much more efficient cleaner technologies. The problem is not the technology it is the stranglehold the oil industry has over the fuel supply. There are much better ways to provide motive force to a vehicle than burning oil in it. Remember if you do the maths to include costs of extraction, refining and transport and distribution in to the equation. This is as well as maintaining the status quo with arms sales. Burning oil in a ICE is a criminal waste of a useful finite resource,as well as propping up some very iffy regimes in far off lands. Think of that next time you fill up. The problem is not technological it is political. Always has been always will be. Just think if you owned an oil company would you be any hurry to shoot yourself in the foot by promoting an alternative to your endless supply of gold. It would be a brave government who takes on organisations with so much clout. If we all made our own fuel legally and the profits started to drop,then we might have some progress. I somehow think if it got to that stage it would become illegal to make your own fuel. Off soap box back to making some bio-diesel. bob golding - Original Message - From: Hanns B. Wetzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 5:32 PM Subject: RE: [biofuel] Ethanol is a net energy loser~Bigtime No doubt all what professor Pimentel has said is absolutely correct. But in 50 years time when world conventional oil production is down to 17 billion barrels per day and demand for oil equivalent in liquid fuels is 70 billion barrels per day, American motor vehicles are not going to be powered solely by ethanol produced from corn. There will be other far more efficient methods of producing energy for transportation. Enzymatic conversion of cellulosic feed stocks to sugars and alcohols will no doubt be one of them. If we already have the technology to clone stud animals today, then surely we will soon have the technology to genetically engineer plants that produce their own enzymes not only for cellulose-sugar conversion, but also sugar-alcohol conversion. We will simply mash up these plants, put them into a fermentation tank, add water, raise the temperature and distil the resulting beer. Deriving liquid fuels from natural gas, coal, shale, tar sands and methane hydrates etc. will not only be too expensive, but also create atmospheric, land and water pollution which by 2050 will no longer be politically acceptable in any part of the world. Therefore a combination of reduced demand for liquid fuels and cheap bio fuels produced from dedicated energy crops is the most likely long term scenario. In the meantime however, what if it takes 70% more energy to produce ethanol from corn that the ethanol produces? It is good for the atmosphere, it is good for the farmers, it makes cars run better and it boosts technology development. So the industry is subsidised. What would we rather do? Spend the tax dollar on something that is good for the rural GDP and good for the planet, or make OPEC wealthier, spew more CO2 into the atmosphere and have our economies run down a path of ever increasing environmental cost and diminishing resources. Sometimes one wonders what these so called scientists do for common sense. They are so busy investigating, analysing, and tabulating, that they loose sight of the practical world that we live in. Hanns -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 9 August 2001 12:22 AM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: [biofuel] Ethanol is a net energy loser~Bigtime http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug01/corn-basedethanol.hrs.html [i]Ethanol fuel from corn faulted as 'unsustainable subsidized food burning' in analysis by Cornell scientist FOR RELEASE: Aug. 6, 2001 Contact: Roger Segelken Office: 607-255-9736 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -snip-- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA
Re: [biofuel] Ethanol is a net energy loser~Bigtime
there is great doubt as to what the good professor has said is correct. too much time in the lab,and none in the field. Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter: http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. -- - Original Message - From: Hanns B. Wetzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 12:32 PM Subject: RE: [biofuel] Ethanol is a net energy loser~Bigtime No doubt all what professor Pimentel has said is absolutely correct. But in 50 years time when world conventional oil production is down to 17 billion barrels per day and demand for oil equivalent in liquid fuels is 70 billion barrels per day, American motor vehicles are not going to be powered solely by ethanol produced from corn. There will be other far more efficient methods of producing energy for transportation. Enzymatic conversion of cellulosic feed stocks to sugars and alcohols will no doubt be one of them. If we already have the technology to clone stud animals today, then surely we will soon have the technology to genetically engineer plants that produce their own enzymes not only for cellulose-sugar conversion, but also sugar-alcohol conversion. We will simply mash up these plants, put them into a fermentation tank, add water, raise the temperature and distil the resulting beer. Deriving liquid fuels from natural gas, coal, shale, tar sands and methane hydrates etc. will not only be too expensive, but also create atmospheric, land and water pollution which by 2050 will no longer be politically acceptable in any part of the world. Therefore a combination of reduced demand for liquid fuels and cheap bio fuels produced from dedicated energy crops is the most likely long term scenario. In the meantime however, what if it takes 70% more energy to produce ethanol from corn that the ethanol produces? It is good for the atmosphere, it is good for the farmers, it makes cars run better and it boosts technology development. So the industry is subsidised. What would we rather do? Spend the tax dollar on something that is good for the rural GDP and good for the planet, or make OPEC wealthier, spew more CO2 into the atmosphere and have our economies run down a path of ever increasing environmental cost and diminishing resources. Sometimes one wonders what these so called scientists do for common sense. They are so busy investigating, analysing, and tabulating, that they loose sight of the practical world that we live in. Hanns -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 9 August 2001 12:22 AM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: [biofuel] Ethanol is a net energy loser~Bigtime http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug01/corn-basedethanol.hrs.html [i]Ethanol fuel from corn faulted as 'unsustainable subsidized food burning' in analysis by Cornell scientist FOR RELEASE: Aug. 6, 2001 Contact: Roger Segelken Office: 607-255-9736 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -snip-- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Ethanol is a net energy loser~Bigtime
Quick somebody notify Brazil. Ethanol isnt cost effective. Cheers, Cordain Dulles VA PS Sorry about the one liner, but if paid enough I can come up with a study that says are fears of dino-fuel shortage are unjustified. Also global warming is a myth. Those 80 degree days last december didnt happen. http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug01/corn-basedethanol.hrs.html [i]Ethanol fuel from corn faulted as 'unsustainable subsidized food burning' in analysis by Cornell scientist FOR RELEASE: Aug. 6, 2001 Contact: Roger Segelken Office: 607-255-9736 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ITHACA, N.Y. -- Neither increases in government subsidies to corn- based ethanol fuel nor hikes in the price of petroleum can overcome what one Cornell University agricultural scientist calls a fundamental input-yield problem: It takes more energy to make ethanol from grain than the combustion of ethanol produces. At a time when ethanol-gasoline mixtures (gasohol) are touted as the American answer to fossil fuel shortages by corn producers, food processors and some lawmakers, Cornell's David Pimentel takes a longer range view. Abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy- inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuel amounts to unsustainable, subsidized food burning, says the Cornell professor in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Pimentel, who chaired a U.S. Department of Energy panel that investigated the energetics, economics and environmental aspects of ethanol production several years ago, subsequently conducted a detailed analysis of the corn-to-car fuel process. His findings will be published in September, 2001 in the forthcoming Encyclopedia of Physical Sciences and Technology . Among his findings are: o An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 1,000 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre, according to Pimentel's analysis. Thus, even before corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock costs $1.05 per gallon of ethanol. o The energy economics get worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented. As many as three distillation steps are needed to separate the 8 percent ethanol from the 92 percent water. Additional treatment and energy are required to produce the 99.8 percent pure ethanol for mixing with gasoline. o Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. Put another way, Pimentel says, about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTU. o Ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline. That helps explain why fossil fuels -- not ethanol -- are used to produce ethanol, Pimentel says. The growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn't afford it, either, if it weren't for government subsidies to artificially lower the price. o Most economic analyses of corn-to-ethanol production overlook the costs of environmental damages, which Pimentel says should add another 23 cents per gallon. Corn production in the U.S. erodes soil about 12 times faster than the soil can be reformed, and irrigating corn mines groundwater 25 percent faster than the natural recharge rate of ground water. The environmental system in which corn is being produced is being rapidly degraded. Corn should not be considered a renewable resource for ethanol energy production, especially when human food is being converted into ethanol. o The approximately $1 billion a year in current federal and state subsidies (mainly to large corporations) for ethanol production are not the only costs to consumers, the Cornell scientist observes. Subsidized corn results in higher prices for meat, milk and eggs because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the United States Increasing ethanol production would further inflate corn prices, Pimentel says, noting: In addition to paying tax dollars for ethanol subsidies, consumers would be paying significantly higher food prices in the marketplace. Nickels and dimes aside, some drivers still would rather see their cars fueled by farms in the Midwest than by oil wells in the Middle East, Pimentel acknowledges, so he calculated the amount of corn needed to power an automobile: o The average U.S. automobile, traveling 10,000 miles a year on pure ethanol (not a gasoline-ethanol mix) would need about 852 gallons of the corn-based fuel. This would take 11 acres to grow, based on net ethanol production. This is the same amount of
Re: [biofuel] Ethanol is a net energy loser~Bigtime
pimentel is clueless. Not quite, would that he were. He does fairly sound work in other fields, for example, sustainable farming. Strange, therefore, that the possibilities of sustainable farming's low energy inputs find no place in his work on ethanol, which bears all the hallmarks of mis/disinformation. He seems to be rather good at it, it's quite effective. He knows he's talking BS. And it really sickens me to see this particular brand of BS from him (and others - he keeps dubious company), yet again: Corn should not be considered a renewable resource for ethanol energy production, especially when human food is being converted into ethanol. Abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy- inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuel amounts to unsustainable, subsidized food burning, says the Cornell professor The human food angle is a real red herring, and he knows it. This is true unsustainable, subsidized food burning: Thirty years ago, one-third of the world's grain was going to livestock; today it is closer to one-half... We're shrinking the world's food supply for one reason: The hundreds of millions of people who go hungry cannot create a sufficient 'market demand' for the fruits of the Earth. So more and more of it flows into the mouths of livestock, which convert it into what the better-off can afford. (Frances Moore LappĀ) Pimento knows that's true. burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn't afford it, either, if it weren't for government subsidies to artificially lower the price. No subsidies on fossil fuels, are there? What's the real cost - was it $100 a barrel? Etc etc etc. :-( Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Tokyo http://journeytoforever.org/ Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter: http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. -- - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 10:21 AM Subject: [biofuel] Ethanol is a net energy loser~Bigtime http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug01/corn-basedethanol.hrs.html [i]Ethanol fuel from corn faulted as 'unsustainable subsidized food burning' in analysis by Cornell scientist FOR RELEASE: Aug. 6, 2001 Contact: Roger Segelken Office: 607-255-9736 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ITHACA, N.Y. -- Neither increases in government subsidies to corn- based ethanol fuel nor hikes in the price of petroleum can overcome what one Cornell University agricultural scientist calls a fundamental input-yield problem: It takes more energy to make ethanol from grain than the combustion of ethanol produces. At a time when ethanol-gasoline mixtures (gasohol) are touted as the American answer to fossil fuel shortages by corn producers, food processors and some lawmakers, Cornell's David Pimentel takes a longer range view. Abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy- inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuel amounts to unsustainable, subsidized food burning, says the Cornell professor in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Pimentel, who chaired a U.S. Department of Energy panel that investigated the energetics, economics and environmental aspects of ethanol production several years ago, subsequently conducted a detailed analysis of the corn-to-car fuel process. His findings will be published in September, 2001 in the forthcoming Encyclopedia of Physical Sciences and Technology . Among his findings are: o An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 1,000 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre, according to Pimentel's analysis. Thus, even before corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock costs $1.05 per gallon of ethanol. o The energy economics get worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented. As many as three distillation steps are needed to separate the 8 percent ethanol from the 92 percent water. Additional treatment and energy are required to produce the 99.8 percent pure ethanol for mixing with gasoline. o Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. Put another way, Pimentel says, about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTU. o
