|
|
More on ethanol for the peak-oil freaksBelow is a plain-English summary from “Science” magazine followed by the abstract of one of the two papers mentioned. It is impressive that even using the moronic corn-sugar route, ethanol production has a positive energy balance. With half a dozen co-authors of the paper, however, it is pretty amazing that none of them seem to be aware of the enormously cheaper and more environmentally friendly method of producing ethanol directly from sugarcane. With fossil-fuel supplies steadily waning, recent research has focused on using plant-derived materials as a renewable substitute (see the Editorial by Koonin). Ragauskas et al. (p. 484) review progress in this area, ranging from plant genetics research for enhancing supply to enzymatic and other catalytic methods for breaking down the biomass into practical fuels and fine chemical precursors. Some of the economic challenges and benefits of changing the production infrastructure on such a large scale are also addressed. Ethanol is a renewable resource already in use as a liquid fuel, but its production from corn and cellulose is energy intensive, and some analyses have found that the overall process uses more energy than it creates. Farrell et al. (p. 506) rigorously analyzed a variety of relevant investigations, and found that the studies reporting negative net energy values are flawed. All of the studies show that current corn ethanol technologies reduce petroleum use significantly relative to gasoline. However, new production methods are needed if fuel ethanol is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly. Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals Alexander E. Farrell, Richard J. Plevin, Brian T. Turner, Andrew D. Jones, Michael O’Hare, Daniel M. Kammen To study the potential effects of increased biofuel use, we evaluated six representative analyses of fuel ethanol. Studies that reported negative net energy incorrectly ignored coproducts and used some obsolete data. All studies indicated that current corn ethanol technologies are much less petroleum-intensive than gasoline but have greenhouse gas emissions similar to those of gasoline. However, many important environmental effects of biofuel production are poorly understood. New metrics that measure specific resource inputs are developed, but further research into environmental metrics is needed. Nonetheless, it is already clear that large-scale use of ethanol for fuel will almost certainly require cellulosic technology. Posted by jonjayray on Thursday, January 26, 2006 at 09:18 PM in Economics & Finance Comments:2
Posted by Søren Renner on January 27, 2006, 02:07 PM | # JJR is engaged in a polemic against the “peak oil” theory. Thus, his cheerleading for ethanol as a substitute for gasoline. We are fortunate that he isn’t flogging zero-point energy too. ZPE has the disadvantage, relative to ethanol, of total mythicality, but if it existed, it might solve our energy problem, which ethanol cannot. Although, if it existed, a ZPE weapon might follow . . . Next entry: The latest statistics on race in Britain Previous entry: Rational Treatment of Ethno Secessionism vs Multicultural Accessionism? |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Rizireepreode commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 10:06 AM. (go) (view) Bill commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 10:05 AM. (go) (view) webyLibeNeerb commented in entry 'Hart Attack' on 02/09/12, 09:29 AM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 09:00 AM. (go) (view) Dan Dare commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 08:37 AM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 08:10 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 08:05 AM. (go) (view) Helvena commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 08:04 AM. (go) (view) The Socal group scam commented in entry 'Yo! Cop = Scum Cow!' on 02/09/12, 07:16 AM. (go) (view) The Socal group scam commented in entry 'The Moral high ground?' on 02/09/12, 06:50 AM. (go) (view) Hyman commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/09/12, 05:47 AM. (go) (view) RES commented in entry 'Who caused the 2008 housing bubble to burst in the U.S.?' on 02/09/12, 05:44 AM. (go) (view) Robert Reis commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 04:07 AM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/09/12, 12:27 AM. (go) (view) anon commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 11:18 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 10:51 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 10:28 PM. (go) (view) Silver commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 09:48 PM. (go) (view) J Richards commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 09:48 PM. (go) (view) Mary commented in entry 'Anti-white ideology is like anti-biotic overuse' on 02/08/12, 09:24 PM. (go) (view) J Richards commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 09:04 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 08:15 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 08:09 PM. (go) (view) Guessedworker commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 07:52 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 07:48 PM. (go) (view) jamesUK commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 07:36 PM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 07:10 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 06:49 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 06:45 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 06:27 PM. (go) (view) marloe commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 06:21 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 06:17 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 06:08 PM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 06:07 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 06:03 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by onetwothree on January 26, 2006, 10:02 PM | #
Has the problem of turning over hundreds of thousands of acres of land to ethanol production EVER been addressed by the proponents of this? Gasoline is a trivial part of my budget, while housing is significant. Land is NOT renewable.
And why all the cheerleading? If the market says it’s good, then it’s good. The only reason you would push, push, push for something is if you want the central committee to force the matter.