> From: AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>> Exactly! The same goes for ethanol, which by various studies
>> appears to have an energy gain of unity or less -- it may take
>> more energy (from fossil fuel) to produce than it contains.
>
> Those particular "various studies" have long since been
> debunked...
"Debunked" is arguably too strong a word.
There's lots of money -- and corn-state votes -- behind ethanol, and
the smear machine has geared up accordingly. It's easy to google a
number of ad-hominem attacks on David Pimentel, the Cornel researcher
who originally came up with the negative energy return figures, but
there are peer-reviewed independent verifications from University of
Minnesota and UC Berkeley.
On the other hand, the USDA claims as much as 2.8 times return. And
The Government never lies. :-)
So I think the most fair thing to say is that there are a lot of
different numbers out there, but an emerging consensus is that ethanol
as a fuel, using conventional methods, is pretty much a way to get
farm state votes and to drive up the price of corn, without really
doing much about imported oil. Any blip in oil imports will effect
ethanol as much as it does gasoline.
Pimentel and the other "less than unity" researchers specifically
looked at conventional practices, using corn. Brazil seems to show net
energy gain using sugar cane, but at a cost as rainforest is mowed
down to make way for cane plantations. And despite all the hoopla and
hype, not a single switchgrass-ethanol plant has opened nor even been
planned -- it's lab-only at this point.
We do live in interesting times.
:::: The amount of ethanol needed to fill a big four-wheel-drive SUV
just once uses enough grain to feed one person for an entire year. --
Gwynne Dyer ::::
:::: Jan Steinman, Communication Steward, EcoReality
http://www.VeggieVanGogh.com
::::
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|