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 probably talking about it's production from corn. It can be made from other materials, and that might make it's yield a little better. I'm not a big fan of ethanol, so it's not as though I'm protesting the results here. I think the study smacks of agenda and it wouldn't surprise me if the funding trail led to some rather nefarious sources. I think that using ethanol even as a 'trick in the bag' is kinda pointless. It still requires another fuel source that is unsustainable (petroleum) in order to be consumed. I'm sure you could make an engine that ran off of pure ethanol, but that's not the point. The pros are claiming its advantage as a 'tweener' that can be used with existing infrastructure to burn it cleaner. My hope would be to negate that all together.

I don't see a world where there would be no fossil fuels at all. After all, I still want to be able to drive my Lotus and ride my Ducati. But my main form of daily driving transportation should certianly be powered by a sustainable and ecologically friendly source. And more importantly, the energy I use in my home should be derived from sustainable and ecologically friendly sources (and I don't mean coal). Most of the benefit of alternative energy sources won't be derived from automotives. It'll be in grid power, industrial processing, and even farming. Those are far more massive and far more injurious to the environment than automotives.

RE: Study Says Ethanol Not Worth the Energy