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: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com> >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: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com> > > >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 >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 and it are even more irrelevant >with > > > > >each new hybrid or fuel efficient Jetta, Geo or other auto > > >that > > > > >goes into circulation. > > > > > > > > > >Yet numerous people off-handedly accept Pimental's "study" > > > > >without much question. Why? Because he has a few letters > > >dangling > > > > >from his last name? > > > > > > > > > >As I said before [Snip], even a 1st year middle school >student > > > > >could legitimately poke holes in Pimental's work, which is > > > > >largely what has been occurring since it came out. > > > > > > > > > >Maybe you know of a person or two who would be interested >in a > > > > >gravy masters or doctoral thesis? > > > > > > > > > >Hope the perspectives help. It's time for me to "clock >back > > >in." > > > > > > > > > >Todd Swearingen > > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > > > >From: <[snip]> > > > > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > >Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 7:17 AM > > > > >Subject: ethanol economics > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Todd, > > > > > > > > > > > > Would you please review an article on a study by Prof. > > >David > > > > >Pimentel on the > > > > > > uneconomical use of ethanol as a fuel? The article is >at > > > > > > www.unisci.com/stories/20013/0813012.htm. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would please detail your response to the main >points > > >in > > > > >the article, > > > > > > I would greatly appreciate your expert viewpoints. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > > > > >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > > > > > > > > >Biofuels list archives: > > > > >http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > > > > > > > > >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 > > > > ADVERTISEMENT > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > > > > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > > > > > > > Biofuels list archives: > > > > http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > > > > > > > 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 the Yahoo! Terms of > > >Service. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > > >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > > > > >Biofuels list archives: > > >http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > > > > >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 > > ADVERTISEMENT > > > > > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > > > Biofuels list archives: > > http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > > > 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 the Yahoo! Terms of >Service. > > > > > > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Biofuels list archives: >http://archive.nnytech.net/ > >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 ---------------------~--> 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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/
