[XCSSA] (no subject)

[xcssa@xcssa.org]

I probably cannot do a presentation this month.

Meanwhile, I've found this great site about energy issues:

http://www.theoildrum.com

Contributors are generally very knowledgeable, and discussions are at  
a pretty high level of technical detail.

For example, here's a debuking of grain ethanol as "the answer" to  
peak oil:

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/7/24/202222/351

The author of this piece, Robert Rapier, is an oil company chemist  
who did his thesis on cellulosic ethanol, which he thinks now is  
quite promising, using technology announced very recently.  However,  
it must be remembered that cellulosic ethanol technology is very very  
experimental and most if not all such efforts to bring it online may  
be failures.  RR also likes the idea of electricity from renewable  
sources and better batteries as at least one part of the  
transportation solution.

Studies show that the energy return on grain ethanol, such as ethanol  
from corn, isn't that good.  Some studies by Pimental show that it's  
a net energy loss; you put more fuel into making the ethanol (running  
farm machinery, distillers, etc.) than you get out of it.  Put in one  
energy unit of normal diesel fuel, get 0.9 units of energy out in the  
form of ethanol.  If there is no drought.  Others studies show that  
there's a very small net gain.  Even if it's a small gain, like 1.2  
units of energy out for each 1 unit of energy in, is that worth all  
the externalities (such as: rising prices for food, people going  
hungry, reducing water supply, clearing more forests for farmland,  
etc.) just for that marginal increase in energy?

I think it's worse than a boondoggle because it's diverting attention  
and resources from real solutions.  And giving some people a false  
sense of security, and others a false sense of accomplishment.

But in the US we keep on subsidizing this stuff to the tune of  
billions a year.

An argument could be made that it's priming the pump for much more  
efficient ways of producing ethanol such as cellulosic.  I won't be  
holding my breath.  Meanwhile, it looks like food cost rises and  
shortages will be getting a lot more attention; they're already  
making headlines.

Here's some stuff RR wrote about the CAFE (fuel efficiency standards)  
loopholes.  There's the infamous "light truck" loophole.  And now  
they have the "E85" loophole, and even bigger boondoggle as it turns  
out.  One E85 vehicle can cancel out the bad gas mileage of 7 other  
cars as far as the law is concerned!  Even when it actually requires  
MORE oil.  And most E85 vehicle drivers will never even see an E85  
pump, there are only 600 of them in the country.  E85 is 85% ethanol,  
so CAFE only counts 15% of fuel usage as "gasoline usage".  This is a  
recent change.  There isn't even enough ethanol to bring E10 to  
everyone.

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/9/24/12353/0529

BTW, "energy return on energy invested" (EROEI) is a very important  
concept.  With oil, we got several units of energy out for each unit  
of energy in.  (It takes energy to extract the stuff, transport it,  
and refine it.)  There's a problem with most post-carbon energy  
sources is that EROEI isn't very good.  So they will cost more.

Charles




On Jun 15, 2007, at 10:45 AM, xcssa-admin@xcssa.org wrote:

> Charles.. You wanting to do another presentation?
>
> I would love to hear about all the latest news..  Since toady (the  
> 15th) in
> the public comments cutoff.. and out meeting is THIS Monday. :)
>
> Tweeks
>