The Energy Debit Of Making Ethanol

Or . . .we can use the cereals that are currently shipped overseas (some of which aren't used at all) to make ethanol, replacing a small amount of our fuels with renewable resources, and cause a rise in the world price of grains so African farmers can get a better price for thier crops and try to end their cycle of poverty. (and at no additional production costs)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/200610061548213">http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/200610061548213</a><br />
<br />
The above calculations also assume that the corn will only be used to make ethanol, where in reality the used corn goes into animal feed which makes full use of it's calorific value. Alternatively, we can use the ethanol unprocessed and use it directly in H2 fuel cells, and skip the step in the second paragraph of the above article, making the process more efficient.<br />
<br />
Or, we can get our ethanol from switchgrass, and skip all the fertilizers, and soil maintainence and fuel associated with it.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=38601">http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=38601</a><br />
<br />
The whole renewable energy thing is just so complicated, and everyone has their own calculations as to why the other person's ideas won't work. It's pretty rare to find a study where the actual energy costs are determined, instead of assumed.<p>---<br>"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden<br />

We could get hydrogen from splitting water using electricity generated by windmills or temperature differential electrical generators too, but that isn't being considered anymore than using switchgrass is.

Good post Ed.

---

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
(Albert Einstein)

To cut the cost of distilling ethanol made out of switchgrass, hemp or any other non-food plant, would it be possible to use a solar still? Ethanol boils off at 74 C. and I know you can cook food with solar heat from a parabolic mirror...

It is true that in the states Ethanol is primarily produced from corn in order to prop up the corn monopoly (they also use it to produce sugar for the same reason). However, other here (at least at the Lloydminster plant) Ethanol is produced mainly from the left overs from other crops. This mean that instead of wasting energy growing a crop just for ethanol production, we are maximizing the full energy potential of our crops.

Or better yet, concentrate on Mr. Diesel's original intention for his engine:<br />
<a href="http://vintagecars.about.com/od/historygreatmoments/a/hannah_diesel.htm">http://vintagecars.about.com/od/historygreatmoments/a/hannah_diesel.htm</a><br />
and skip the distillation part.<p>---<br>"Son, if you wanna get ahead in this world, never work for another man as long as you live."

Get rid of 90% of military aircraft and airliners, rebuild
the railways and there won't be any fuel shortage.

As I wrote in the past, as I'm watching up to 10-15 daily overflights by B52s over our house, during the time I can see one, it uses enough fuel to run my truck, tractors and all my small engines for 5 years.

Then there's the incredible amount of fuel wasted on communting to collectivized jobs and worthless office towers, that could be eliminated by energy efficient locally based economies, but it can not be done under the present. criminal economic theory that survives and thrives on the fraudulent benefits of waste, by calling it GDP. The vast majority of office work could be done with home computers, without commuting.

I sent the article to a world class scientist friend, presently lecturing in Egypt and here's his answer.
--------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Ethanol waste

And I think it gets worse, if we add the other costs due to corn monoculture.

Best from the pyramids.
-----------------------------------------------

Ed Deak.

Very true Ed! When you think about it, probably half of all economic activity is waste. If wealth (and therefore energy) was not squandered on military nonsence, mega projects, idiot suburbs, idiot mono-crop chemical agribusiness, and we made products designed to last, we would probably have enough petroleum for the next 100 years

<P>Seems that all the wars of the 20th century have been over security of oil sources. Ever since the navies of the world switched from coal.........</P> And yes, I would say <B>MOST</B> of the energy consumed today is for frivolity. But, in the de facto marketplace, energy is just another drug, and the best ploy in the world is to start off cheap, until the pigeon is hooked, then ramp up the price. How long will it be until gas stations are being knocked off for fuel, or B&E's committed so enough cash can be scraped together for a "fix"? How long before this "drug" is made illegal as well? Or if not illegal, then by "prescription" (rationing)?<p>---<br>"Son, if you wanna get ahead in this world, never work for another man as long as you live."

I well remember the days of fuel rationing in Europe and England, where it hit me personally. We were living 5 miles from Cambridge and at first I used to commute to my classes by bicycle.

Then in 1949 I graduated to my first motorcycle, a 1933 Ariel, and requested extra gas to go to college, as we had no suitable bus service.

I received 1 extra gallon per week and was in heaven with all that gas, which gave me all the freedom from pedaling.

Now thw idiots are building the NAFTA superhighway for a million trucks, after they tore up the railways, because "trucks are more efficient"

Ed Deak.

If you don't build all those super highways, how are you going to expropriate all that land at firesale prices from people who don't want to sell? It is part of the the last gasp of the criminally insane ruling class and their myopic agenda to retain their rule and restrain our awakening from the daymare they have inflicted on us since time immemorial.

---

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
(Albert Einstein)

We could split water using nuclear power too, but many fear what they don't understand.

Transporting hydrogen in it's pure liquid form is a royal pain too. To get hydrogen to compress to liquid, the gas has to be chilled to -134C first. When it is in liquid form, it is still less dense than water and extremely pressurized, making it difficult to store.

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

Only an ignorant civilisation would use a technology which created a deadly by product for which there was no sane use and no way to dispose of it other than burying it or incorporating it into consumer products. Never mind the increased rates of cancer, we just won't mention it in our mainstream media.

You don't have to turn hydrogen into its liquid state, you have to envision a transformation of global economic activity into avenues which support ecologically intelligent designs.

Yes, H2 gas is less dense than CH4 gas and so it packs less of a punch per unit of volume. Sounds like a totally insolvable bottleneck, I guess we will just have to die from pollution suicide or design a way around this problem.

---

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
(Albert Einstein)

"Only an ignorant civilisation would use a technology which created a deadly by product for which there was no sane use and no way to dispose of it other than burying it or incorporating it into consumer products."<br />
<br />
Like Oil? Industrial chemical factories are far more scary than any nuclear plant.<br />
<br />
Like I said, people fear what they don't understand. France's energy is 70% provided by nuclear reactors; and when was the last time anyone heard of the slightest hint of an accident from there? Japan uses breeder reactors to re-process waste back into usable fuel, but that isn't allowed in North America.<br />
<br />
"Never mind the increased rates of cancer, we just won't mention it in our mainstream media."<br />
<br />
Since there very little measurable radiation leakage from nuclear reactors and fairly substantial radioactivity from coal plant, wouldn't it be safe to assume coal plants that release uranium into the atmosphere likely be the cause of increasing cancer rates?<br />
<br />
"You don't have to turn hydrogen into its liquid state, you have to envision a transformation of global economic activity into avenues which support ecologically intelligent designs."<br />
<br />
I agree, and the easiest and economically feasable way to do that is to use existing infrastructure, such as liquid fuel stations, and power transmission lines.<br />
<br />
"Yes, H2 gas is less dense than CH4 gas and so it packs less of a punch per unit of volume."<br />
<br />
See my post in the forumns.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?forum=22&showtopic=17096">http://www.vivelecanada.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?forum=22&showtopic=17096</a><br />
<br />
New ways are being developed to increase the energy density of hydrogen storage.<br />
<br />
"Sounds like a totally insolvable bottleneck, I guess we will just have to die from pollution suicide or design a way around this problem."<br />
<br />
That's kind of the whole crux of this type of discussion. Both sides become so polarized that discussion ends. Some refuse to consider Nuclear power and will not see it's benefits and safety of the modern design, citing Chernyobl and Three Mile Island, (events which cannot occurr in the modern reactor design). Some also refuse to look at other cleaner technologies, like wind power, citing environmental concerns which can stifle that side of the debate. (Wind turbines can avoid migratory bird deaths by being larger. Larger propellers turn slower.)<br />
<br />
We have the technology to clean up the environment from dirty coal and dwindeling natural gas, and hydro changes the environment far more radically than any of them. Solar uses a huge amount of energy to produce the solar panels, and the energy has to come from somewhere, so why not nuclear?<br />
<br />
So, we end up being at an impasse. <p>---<br>"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden<br />