User login
Contact
- anz at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Archives
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
This is an unremarkable conclusion, IMO, given its source.
For the most part the report pushed by the free-market Howard Administration favors buying ethanol (if necessary) from Brazil, but
isn't sure that ethanol is even needed
as an oxygenate. This puts them ideologically in step with American
conservatives(John McCain, Ron Paul) who reject ethanol as a wasteful government program(hand-out).
Queensland is a big producer of sugar cane and I would guess that the sugar cane made in Australia, the world's 8th largest sugar cane producer ahead of the USA, would not be less economical than sugar cane made in Brazil. One authority (Rabobank) says that Queensland's sugar region is 'stable' and shouldn't be extended, whereas the Australian grain industry supports the biofuel E10( especially sorghum-Australia is not a big corn producer) and bio-diesel.
I don't know how many times I've heard corn ethanol opponents admit that while Brazilian sugar cane worked corn ethanol in the US would never work because of EROEI.
A Brazilian farmer has stated that in Brazil 'organic' sugar cane give ethanol an EROEI of 12!
http://www.biofuelsnow.com/Ethanol%20From%20Sugar%20Cane.pdf
Maybe that's because sugar cane doesn't grow in the U.S. the way it does in Brazil??
majorian, I see you've been a member of TOD for about 4 days. And your fellow ethanol booster kdolliso showed up just today...both of you citing far-out stats with little backup in this and the previous topic. Any relation? What's your background with ethanol? Got any industry connections?
majorian, kdolliso Hmmm Thanks for that ChrisN I'm going to take a guess and say that they are from an American Univerity/Agribusiness group. Another bunch of baby boomers desperat;y trying to maintain the American dream, ie two swimming pools and three BMW SUV's in every suburban home, you know them, we;ll save the world by praying and turning back the clock 50 years.
Chris,
I AM an ethanol booster but of course I'm not connected with the ethanol industry in any way. I'm interested in new sources of energy that can replace to a small extent vanishing petroleum which I firmly believe in. I've been investigating the claims about ethanol and
think it can help provide a clean, renewable fuel, (especially for agriculture) as we head into the coming energy famine.
I live in a city and I think I would starve without food from highly efficient
industrial scale agriculture which is dependent of liquid fuels. Ethanol cannot save our current civilization from Peak Oil but it will be vital in keeping the food system operating. That would keep our cities alive and our civilization as a whole alive.
I think I did address the topic in both cases which was ethanol.
I notice that there are two kinds of ethanol opponents.
One is the rightwing folks(cornucopians) who oppose ethanol as a government program, they think the market will magically find more oil and cure all problems.
The other group are the confirmed doomers who furiously attack ethanol in every conceivable way; not clean enough, not green enough, not renewable enough, not big enough, etc.
Ethanol threatens their extremely pessimistic world view. I don't think ethanol can cure our car culture or save our way of life, but I believe it can keep agriculture from collapsing and keep humanity to reverting to the world of 4000 BC( without all the ensuing chaos and death).
So I offer some balance to the prevailing
groupthink offered here.
I came to TOD because you folks like to talk about energy. And there's a lot to talk about!
I notice that there are two kinds of ethanol opponents.
Sorry, but I don't fall into either of your categories. I oppose it because I don't think it actually accomplishes anything except to waste time and money, while real solutions are pushed to the side because of the false promises of ethanol. Furthermore, I think we are going to seriously regret strip mining our topsoil in order to recycle natural gas into ethanol.
RR, you're really good at false analogies. Strip mining our top soil in order to recycle natural gas! In no way is strip mining comparable to corn farming where nutrients are regularly replaced and solar energy is added to produce the corn. As far as recycling natural gas, I don't remember any complaints when natural gas was used to make MTBE oxygenate. When methane (natural gas) is used to make MTBE it is OK right? But if the same natural gas is used in ethanol production we are going seriously regret it? I doubt it. Watch the money folks. The loss of the market for natural gas when ethanol was substituted for MTBE is a partial reason behind the virulent opposition to ethanol.
The loss of the market for natural gas when ethanol was substituted for MTBE is a partial reason behind the virulent opposition to ethanol.
Hilarious. Demand for natural gas - driven by ethanol producers, is higher than it has ever been. Here they are discussing the situation:
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/08/ethanolalternative-fuel-faq.html...
Nice try, though.
Something's wrong with that calculation.
http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm
According to this 1995 ethanol study, it takes
6 pounds of coal, 11 cubic feet of natural gas and 1/10 a gallon of petroleum products to make a gallon of ethanol.
To make a barrel of oil equivalent ethanol(63 gallons) would take 378 pounds of coal,693 cubic feet of natural gas and 6.3 gallons of petroleum products.
If the US produces 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol, that would require 82.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas. The US consumes
21000 billion cubic feet of natural gas a year, so the amount of natural gas used would be a tiny .4% of US natural gas consumption.
It would also take 22,500,000 tons of coal.
What would be a truly insane waste of natural gas would be GTL 'clean diesel' being rabidly promoted by the oil companies, which produces a barrel of clean diesel from 10,000 cubic feet of gas.
Compare these; 693 cubic feet of natural gas makes a equivalent barrel of oil in ethanol(63 gallons) versus 10000
cubic feet of natural gas to make a barrel of Exxon's 'clean diesel'.
Which one is wasting natural gas more?
According to this 1995 ethanol study, it takes
6 pounds of coal, 11 cubic feet of natural gas and 1/10 a gallon of petroleum products to make a gallon of ethanol.
That natural gas number is way off, unless they have a coal-fired cogen plant next door and are taking their steam. Most don't, and so that natural gas usage - as reported from USDA plant surveys - is 3 to 4 times that number you reported. Which incidentally falls right in line with what Ethanol Producer Magazine was saying about the level of increased demand as ethanol production ramped up.
What would be a truly insane waste of natural gas would be GTL 'clean diesel' being rabidly promoted by the oil companies, which produces a barrel of clean diesel from 10,000 cubic feet of gas.
That process is only viable, though, with stranded natural gas. So you are comparing apples and oranges. Domestic natural gas won't be used to make commercial diesel. It won't ever go beyond pilot stage.
majorian, I'm glad you stated your bias up-front:
You're very interested in solutions that can preserve your current mode of existence.
Now take that away, and take a cold look at the numbers and the trends, and ask yourself if you honestly believe--not hope--that biofuels can save the day. That's the essence of scientific inquiry. I suspect you need to get that bias out of the way if you're going to see things aright. You're hardly offering an alternative to the "groupthink" you think you perceive here on TOD; you're just representing the groupthink of the status quo. You have plenty of company in the BAU crowd, but that doesn't make them right.
Methinks you mis-spelled "strawman".
This puts them ideologically in step with American
conservatives(John McCain, Ron Paul) who reject ethanol as a wasteful government program(hand-out).
Don't forget Hillary Clinton. Before her run for president, she was on record saying exactly the same thing (and voting that way).