[Rhodes22-list] Corny energy source

[Roger Pihlaja]

Rummy, et al,

It all depends where you "draw the box" around the ethanol from corn process
to tally up the energy costs.  The studies that come up with a net negative
energy production from turning corn into alcohol are penalizing the ethanol
process for the energy required to mine the iron ore, turn it into steel to
make the farm equipment, make the fertilizer, pesticides, etc in addition to
all the energy associated with actually planting, watering, weeding,
harvesting, fermenting, and distilling the alcohol.  If you do a more
realistic energy balance around just the farm and the alcohol plant, current
practices produce about 1.3X more energy than the process consumes & about
1.8 X is fairly easily achievable by widely applying the best available
technology on the farm and in the alcohol plant.  But, the fact is that all
energy sources are not created equal.  Liquid fuels, like gasoline and
alcohol, that can be burned efficiently in today's internal combustion
engines & handled by the existing liquid fuel infrastructure are more
valuable to society than say wind power or solar power or electricity from
coal that require huge stationary power plants, electric distribution
networks, and electricity storage systems.  Yes, in a self-sustaining energy
economy, we're going to need all those sources of energy & maybe a few more
like fusion & fission nuclear.  But, there will always be a need for a high
energy density, clean burning fuel for use in transportation, construction,
and farm machinery.  Hydrogen burned in either internal combustion engines
or fuel cells could serve the same purpose, but there are tremendous
technical & safety problems and the technology is not there yet.

Roger


----- Original Message -----
From: "Kroposki" <kroposki at innova.net>
To: "'The Rhodes 22 mail list'" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 10:33 AM
Subject: [Rhodes22-list] Corny energy source


> Ron, Rummy,
> If you use current dollars and expense this out, yes it cost
> more to produce energy from corn, or other organics.  But, ad in the
> what ifs and future costs and reliability factors, then it becomes a
> concern of national interest.
> If you have a rudimentary system in place to provide alternative
> energy in the event of a problem, then you do not have to start from
> zero.  So nationally, it is an appropriate investment for research.  You
> develop the knowledge base and skills to deal with a problem.
> History has shown that 'pure' research often filters down into
> practical applications.  While the present costs are higher, who is to
> say that Roger's idea, research, and applying the results, might not be
> the thing that makes it cost effective?  Once the cost are about equal
> then the economies of scale might kick in.
> An important factor is jobs and opportunity.  Under the current
> system the United States is using (wasting) economic wealth.  Anyway you
> look at it, the money spent buying oil or any manufactured item overseas
> is wealth in their pocket.  Even if they reinvest their wealth in
> American stocks, bonds, etc, the wealth belongs to them, not us.
> The current Republican argument is for free trade.  But this is
> really transferring an important part of wealth away from us.  While
> free trade may provide a cheaper product, the income of that item that
> created the wealth is transferred to someone else.
> This analogy can now be applied to General Boats.  Initially,
> Stan made many of the elements of the Rhodes22.  He added other items
> and manufactured a new item thereby creating a thing of new value, a new
> wealth creation.  Now, Elton will use the market and skills learned with
> the Rhodes 22 to sell the Seaward 26.  This no longer has the wealth
> creation aspect (except to Hake Yachts).  It reselling may make money
> for the intermediary, but no intrinsic wealth creation to the country.
> Ed K
>
> To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org
> I just saw an article on this.  A Cornell prof. who analysed ethanol
> Production initially claimed that 70% more energy is used to produce
> ethanol than it contains.  After some back and forth with industry
> consultants he revised the number to 29%.  It's a high stakes political
> game, as the recent energy bill showed.
> A bill with many provisions distasteful to the Democrats was supported
> by
> the Democratic representatives from the farm states.
>
> Ron
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <R22RumRunner at aol.com>
> To: <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>
> > Roger,
> > Question? Is alcohol made from corn a viable energy source? It seems
> to me
> > that it takes more energy to produce the stuff than is realized from
> it's
> > production. Figuring in the costs of the farmer in energy to plant and
> harvest (not
> > to mention the gov't subsidies to plant it) and dry and store and then
> turn it
> > into alcohol, it seems like a losing battle.
> >
> > Rummy
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>