| |
Study Says Ethanol Not Worth the Energy
by flynn23 at 1:11 pm EDT, Jul 18, 2005 |
Farmers, businesses and state officials are investing millions of dollars in ethanol and biofuel plants as renewable energy sources, but a new study says the alternative fuels burn more energy than they produce.
Idiots. ALL energy processing will yield less than what it takes to produce. That's called physics. The points are: 1) Is the source sustainable, renewable, or non-destructive to the environment?
2) Is the yield sufficiently high enough to make it worthwhile, GIVEN #1 above is true. Petroleum has been proven time and time again to be massively inefficient as a source of energy. It takes trillions invested to get it out of the ground, transport it, process it, distribute it, and then consume it. All the while, it is unsustainable, contributes mightily to the destruction of our environment, and is the second leading source of instability in the world (only to fundamentalist religion). Even if it was 2x more 'efficient' than other techniques, it would still SUCK ASS because of these attributes. I predict the transition to renewable sources of energy will be mired in spin, FUD, and political stonewalling the likes of which we haven't seen even in the movie/music industry. Meanwhile, people, plants, and animals will suffer and die all in the name of circumventing progress. |
| |
RE: Study Says Ethanol Not Worth the Energy
by Decius at 2:14 pm EDT, Jul 18, 2005 |
flynn23 wrote:
Idiots. ALL energy processing will yield less than what it takes to produce. That's called physics.
Its not that simple. They aren't counting the sun input to the corn. They are really talking about fuel accounting. Really fossil fuel accounting. There is a debate about ethanol replaces more fossil fuel then it consumes in production. If it doesn't, then its really not a sustainable energy source that the environmentalists are looking for. In fact it would make the problem worse rather then better. The author of the cited study is the leading advocate of the idea that it doesn't. The devil is in the details. People talking about energy issues always seem to use the words energy, fossil fuels, and oil interchangably as if they were the same thing. If I can use coal to produce ethanol, then I can power today's automobiles off of a fuel that is mined domestically and has a 400 year present supply. Furthermore, if I can use coal I can use nukes. Ethanol might be a better energy storage medium then hydrogen. However, its impossible to tell from this press coverage exactly what contributed to the "29% fossil fuel" drain, which fossil fuels are referenced, and whether they might be replacable. Is ethanol inefficient because we're still burning gasoline in the cars that are used to ship the stuff, or is there simply some fundamental barrier to making this stuff without using all of that fossil fuel that can not be resolved over time. One would have to dig into the study. I predict that:
1. I don't have time to do so.
2. No one else does either.
3. In the near future this study will be used as a talking point by someone in group 2 in the course of a discussion about energy policy. It will be held up as further evidence that there is no solution and we must convert to a socialist economy immediately to avoid the coming eco-cataclysm. |
|
| | |
RE: Study Says Ethanol Not Worth the Energy
by flynn23 at 11:27 am EDT, Jul 19, 2005 |
Decius wrote: flynn23 wrote:
Idiots. ALL energy processing will yield less than what it takes to produce. That's called physics.
Its not that simple. They aren't counting the sun input to the corn. They are really talking about fuel accounting. Really fossil fuel accounting. There is a debate about ethanol replaces more fossil fuel then it consumes in production. If it doesn't, then its really not a sustainable energy source that the environmentalists are looking for. In fact it would make the problem worse rather then better. The author of the cited study is the leading advocate of the idea that it doesn't. The devil is in the details. People talking about energy issues always seem to use the words energy, fossil fuels, and oil interchangably as if they were the same thing. If I can use coal to produce ethanol, then I can power today's automobiles off of a fuel that is mined domestically and has a 400 year present supply. Furthermore, if I can use coal I can use nukes. Ethanol might be a better energy storage medium then hydrogen.
No, I understand that. But the point is that it will always be a zero sum game (or actually a less than zero sum game) because you can't process, distribute, and consume for less than it took to create (or harvest) the energy in the first place. This is the same argument I have with hippies all the time when they talk about wind and solar as being 'perfect'. They're not 'perfect'. There's considerable pollution and waste in manufacturing the piece parts for solar or wind tools. Even if the entire world was solar right now, there's still waste and pollution being generated in the materials selection and processing to make solar panels. What *does* make solar attractive is that there is LESS waste and pollution generated compared to petroleum or even coal. That's probably not the case with nuclear, but there are other risks there that we're all familiar with if you were alive in 1986. However, its impossible to tell from this press coverage exactly what contributed to the "29% fossil fuel" drain, which fossil fuels are referenced, and whether they might be replacable. Is ethanol inefficient because we're still burning gasoline in the cars that are used to ship the stuff, or is there simply some fundamental barrier to making this stuff without using all of that fossil fuel that can not be resolved over time. One would have to dig into the study. I predict that:
1. I don't have time to do so.
2. No one else does either.
3. In the near future this study will be used as a talking point by someone in group 2 in the course of a discussion about energy policy. It will be held up as further evidence that there is no solution and we must convert to a socialist economy immediately to avoid the coming eco-cataclysm.
Agreed. I can't tell either, but I would surmise that they're proba... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ] |
|
|
|
