7 Deadly Sins: Comments
Yeah, I've pretty much decided that Pimentel has simply made a particularly vapid and beside-the-point statement of the second law of thermodynamics -- of course the energy efficiency of ethanol production is less than 100%.
The 90-degree production temps are interesting -- I wonder what that means as far as using solar power? I mean ethanol production is just a more-precisely engineered variation on a pile o biomass rotting on a hot day. And while hot days are not free in a thermodynamic sense (the sun is burning out and will be exhausted in a coupla hundred million years), they are free in an economic sense.
Sun? What sun? There's too much air pollution!
Keep up the good fight, Sinner!
Say, did you see our E85 awareness survey? It's on the www.cleanairchoice.org site.
Thanks Bob, I am on my way!
Pricecheck!
Regular is 2.79/gal right now.
So I want a fuel that has less btu content, requires a special car, and costs more than regular?
I'll pass.
Biodiesel makes more sense because much of the feedstock can come from second use WTO.
There is one setback to E85 as it is now priced- right now Flexfuel vehicles get about 3/4 the gas milage when using it, so until the cars become more efficient using it or the price goes down, unfortunately it's still costs less to use the ole E10.
Here in Minnesota, where the Ethanol industry is heavily subsidized and running strong, the producers are making profits at a clip that exponentially exceed their subsidies. (As in they no longer need the subsidies, although they are still getting them...)
Looks like it's becoming a sustainable business to produce the stuff. That's a great thing.
Sinner,
No one has yet proved Pimental and Patzek (P and P) wrong with a practical demonstration.
If P and P are wrong, and making corn ethanol actually returns more enrgy than it consumes, then corn farmers and ethanol plants would have no need to use natural gas, diesel fuel, and coal to grow corn and turn it into ethanol.
If the corn ethanol cartel wanted to really prove P and P wrong, all they would have to do is set up a demonstration farm and ethanol plant that could successfully make ethanol without using any fossil fuel inputs. If they did that and proved making ethanol needs no external energy inputs, they would instantly quiet the naysayers and settle the debate.
But Big Ethanol and industrial corn farming have never even attempted such a demonstration. Why?
It is far easier for Big Ethanol to wave around paper studies from the USDA and the Argonne Labs, and make personal attacks against P and P rather than to knuckle down and attempt a practical experiment and demonstration that would conclusively prove making corn ethanol actually has a positive energy balance.
But a failed demonstration would also mean their industry would instantly wither. Big Ethanol and agribusiness know too well the likely outcome -- they will never risk such a demonstration failing and having those results become known.
Everyone should challenge the ethanol industry to attempt a practical demonstration to prove ethanol has a positive energy balance. I predict they will never take up the challenge because too much would be riding on the results. If they really believed making ethanol returns more energy than it consumes, they would have attempted such a demonstration long ago.
That they haven't speaks volumes about how they must really feel about the net energy balance of corn ethanol.
Best regards,
Gary Dikkers
Just getting back in town, so sorry for the lateness of the following snark...
Johnmc,
You say:
So I want a fuel that has less btu content, requires a special car, and costs more than regular?Then advocate Biodiesel. Isn't that a bit strange? I agree biodiesel is a better option, but it still requires a "special car" and usually costs more than regular.
I'll pass.
Gary,
First, good to see you again, I was wondering if I got off your list!
I see your point and would agree, if energy balance meant a hill of beans. I direct you to the comment directly after the first blockquote
This is all well and good, but as regular readers know, I dismiss the energy balance issue as not relevant and likely to evaporate in the face of new research and technology.I am also pretty sure that you and I have had this discussion before.
It's funny that when ethanol detractors are confronted by a sound argument that does dismisses the energy balance issue, they run out of things to say. Even people that start out their posts debunking PandP, always seem to come back to energy balance as the only argument.
I am not saying there isn't a good. non-balance argument to be made, I just have not heard it.
Commenting by HaloScan
