| Subject: Re: ethanol |
Author:
Duncan7
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10:22:13 01/26/07 Fri
In reply to:
larry
's message, "Re: ethanol" on 08:45:45 01/26/07 Fri
Actually 5 times isn't that much of an increase. And to put all our efforts into just ethanol would be foolish. We need to get into all of it at one percentage or another and set a realistic targets. Putting all our eggs in one basket is typically what we do best. Apparently if you add to many dimensions to a problem people can't quite wrap their minds around a solution. What we could do with waste alone would be miles ahead of where we are right now. The debate over how much energy is used as opposed to what is expended isn't the whole picture and once you include the by products it's more then worth it to go in that direction. Not to mention the overall cleanup (superfund projects etc) dollars that are saved. Cancer and other medical related issues that could have less impact. I haven't seen one study that takes into account more then just a handfull of scenarios. when in fact there are probably thousands of issues that relate to this topic. The real problem is how we go about it, not rather we should or not. How many ideas have you seen bogged down in political and bureacratic nonsense to the point that they have no real value anymore? It's almost a joke to talk about the cost of something when you consider how much money gets wasted just by people who aren't qualified to make a proper determination, but think their opinion has the same value as people who actually deal with the technical problems of renewable energy. They waste money on a daily basis discussing issues that have no real bearing once the larger picture is considered. 70% of my transportation needs come from waste. That is not a small number. We are talking about 10's of thousands of gallons of material that get transported (that waste diposal also come with a cost) to dump sites and otherwise have no real value. When some scientist actually wants to do the real work and consider everything they can imagine that goes into the process of renewable energy we will be closer to a real understanding of what can actually be done. Unfortunately the scientists are to distracted by politics and their quest for grant money to actually be of any real benefit to this problem. I also think an accountant would be more suited to the task over a scientist anyway. Scientists are to easily distracted by social and political concerns. With an accountant the numbers are the numbers and you get what you get. Every value has to be considered before any real progress can be made. Apparently scientists aren't up to that task.
>
>href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2
>007/01/25/MNGAUNOPVN1.DTL">http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ar
>ticle.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/01/25/MNGAUNOPVN1.DTL
>
>Only one fuel -- ethanol -- can satisfy President
>Bush's plan to vastly expand America's use of gasoline
>substitutes, energy experts say.
>
>And that might not be a good thing, they say.
>
>In his State of the Union address Tuesday night, Bush
>said that within 10 years, he wants the United States
>to use five times as much alternative fuel as it does
>now. That step, coupled with tougher mileage standards
>on cars, would reduce gasoline usage by 20 percent, he
>said.
>
>Ethanol is the only alternative fuel that can be
>produced in large enough quantities to meet his
>mandate, many experts say. And, as it is made in the
>United States, ethanol has serious drawbacks.
>
>The vast majority of ethanol comes from corn. But
>diesel fuel powers the tractors that tend corn fields,
>natural gas runs the distilleries that produce
>ethanol, and more diesel is used to ship the finished
>product to market. The power you get out of corn
>ethanol, in other words, might just barely beat the
>power you put into it.
>
>Scientists have argued for years about how much of a
>net power gain corn ethanol provides, some insisting
>that it consumes more than it produces. The federal
>government, for its part, estimates that ethanol gives
>about 1.6 units of energy for every unit that goes in.
>But even some researchers who agree say that the fuel
>doesn't provide much benefit in the end and that the
>nation shouldn't rely too heavily upon it to the
>detriment of other biofuels.
>
>"That's really a step backward," said Daniel Kammen,
>an energy specialist and co-director of the Berkeley
>Institute of the Environment at UC Berkeley. "We know
>that not all biofuels are created equal."
>
>The relatively minor amount of ethanol now made --
>about 5 billion gallons per year -- already consumes
>about 12 to 15 percent of the nation's corn crop. At
>some point, producing more would force the country to
>balance its need for fuel with its need for food.
>
>Wholesale corn prices have roughly doubled in the last
>year, driven largely by ethanol demand. Corn also is
>one of the most important sources of farm animal feed.
>Economists worry that a range of farm commodities
>could become more costly if corn continues its rise.
>
>Silicon Valley engineers are trying to perfect a
>better way to make ethanol, distilling it from wood
>chips and crop waste. Bush even mentioned that
>technology, cellulosic ethanol, in his speech. But for
>all the attention and venture capital pouring into it,
>cellulosic ethanol isn't quite ready for the mass
>market.
>
>"This is still a technology that resides in
>laboratories and pilot projects," said Anthony Eggert,
>a research director with the UC Davis Institute of
>Transportation Studies.
>
>As a result, many in the world of alternative fuels
>worry that Bush's initiative could boost corn ethanol
>and stifle other, potentially better sources of power.
>
>"You're locking in corn ethanol," Kammen said. "This
>is how not to make policy."
>
>There's also the possibility that increasing the
>demand for corn ethanol so much, so quickly could
>drive up retail gasoline prices. Many states,
>including California, already blend ethanol into their
>gas. Ethanol's wild price swings in recent years have
>helped shove gas prices higher.
>
>Bush's address did not include many specifics on how
>the president plans to reach his goal of using 35
>billion gallons of alternative fuels a year by 2017.
>
>The vagueness of the proposal sent a thrill through
>some segments of the energy industry, a chill through
>others.
>
>Purveyors of natural gas, for example, said they could
>help the nation meet Bush's goal by using their fossil
>fuel to power cars, buses and trucks. That horrified
>California officials trying to reduce greenhouse gas
>emissions from vehicles. Ethanol and other biofuels
>come from plants that remove carbon dioxide from the
>atmosphere, they noted, while natural gas just adds to
>the problem.
>
>"We have a choice: we can look for alternative fuels
>with low carbon, or we can look for alternative fuels
>with high carbon," said Dan Skopec, undersecretary of
>the California Environmental Protection Agency.
>California is developing rules to limit the carbon
>emissions from transportation fuels, a step Bush has
>resisted so far.
>
>The president specifically mentioned biodiesel as one
>alternative that could help wean America off oil. The
>fuel, which has been around literally as long as
>diesel engines, is twice as energy efficient as corn
>ethanol and can be made from a wide variety of
>natural, renewable sources, such as new and used
>vegetable oils and animal fats. But its use in the
>United States remains small, despite recent growth.
>
>Federal estimates project that within 10 to 15 years,
>the country could churn out 10 billion gallons of
>biodiesel annually, compared to roughly 75 million
>gallons in 2005. But the nation now uses 60 billion
>gallons of petroleum diesel each year and will need
>far more in the future. Biodiesel, in other words,
>probably can't make the kind of big dent in oil
>consumption that Bush wants.
>
>Investors have been pouring money into biofuels in
>recent years, betting that cheap oil prices won't
>return. Venture capitalists sank $740 million into
>biofuel firms last year, compared with $110.5 million
>in 2005, according to the Cleantech Venture Network,
>which tries to boost investment in the field.
>
>Cleantech managing partner John Balbach said most of
>that money has gone into ethanol. But investors, he
>said, don't see corn ethanol as the solution to the
>fuel problem. They are funding startups in Silicon
>Valley and the Midwest pursuing cellulosic ethanol as
>well as more exotic fuels. Some, for example, are
>trying to make fuel from algae.
>
>"You'll see investors looking at ethanol as the first
>step in a series of steps," he said.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 