[XCSSA] ROEI: Ethanol vs. ADM vs. Return on Energy Investment vs. PHILL

[xcssa@xcssa.org]

> All:
>
> Ethanol from corn?  Humm ... look at the players behind the
> scenes and how the Hegelian dialectic is being pushed/
> blitz via the media ...
>
> Eisenhower warned us -- in his Jan 1961 parting TV speach --
> about the dangers of the military industrial complex -- a
> pathelogical feedback loop of government contracts, contractors,
> and contractors buying laws from congress critters for more
> contracts.
>
> A similar algorithm/game-plan is playing out with the Ethanol
> crowd and the associated industries.  A recent policy analysis
> and energy discussion in SolarToday magazine addressed
> ethanol "ROEI" -- return on energy investment -- of converting
> to ethanol -- esp. ethanol from corn.  See:
>
>  http://www.solartoday.org/2007/may_june07/counterpoint.htm
>
> The big agri-biz concerns -- most notabily Archer-Danials-
> Midland (ADM) -- are a big buyers of congress critters and
> favorable law/subsidy treatments.  And ADM et. al. are
> also big buyers of ad time and media blitz pieces to "educate"
> the public toward their industrial sector needs/wants.
>
> The last thing ADM and their friends want to hear about is
> ethanol from SwitchGrass or other, more environmentally
> friendly ethanol feeder crops.  No Fed subsidy, no interest,
> active thwartation.  Just like the defense contracts feedback
> loop Eisenhower warned of in Jan 1961.
>
> SOLUTION?  Eventually the economy will re-assert is sovereign
> right to rule -- thru wild price manifestations -- and with or
> without the law/subsidy monkey biz of congress and their
> lobbiests.  With a little mutual education, smarter shopping,
> and change in buying/use habits, we can all make this economic
> transition more graceful -- if not on a national scale, then
> on a local scale for yourself or your family.
>
> An excellent, 2-5 year alternative to the ethanol feed-stock
> bias, you might look at natural gas powered car and a "PHILL"
> unit at your house.  See:
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-05-08-natural-gas-usat_N.htm
>
> And:
> http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2006-06-06-alternative-fuel-usat_x.htm
>
> Key quotes:
>
> "Natural gas creates so few emissions that Civic GX is the
>  cleanest internal-combustion powered car on the road. It's
>  greener than a Toyota Prius gasoline-electric hybrid and
>  tied with the Civic hybrid, according to the Energy
>  Department rankings for 2007 models."
>
> "Natural gas is about 50% cheaper than regular gasoline when
>  purchased at home. (At a refueling station, the savings are
>  about 25%.) Natural gas burns more cleanly than regular gas.
>  And buyers are eligible for a $4,000 tax break."
>
> Fuel for thought.
> --------------------------------------------
>
>>
>> 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.


I had done a research paper for a technical writing class over a year ago on the
subject of bio-diesel and dipped into the subject of ethanol and hybrid cars. I
believe I still have it in electronic form if anyone cares to read it with a
grain of salt. In doing the research, there were several concerns with corn
ethanol, including taking away feed sources for cattle since stripping corn for
the ethanol takes out a significant amount of nutritional value, basically
leaving the "shell" and little else.

One of the latest discoveries in bio-diesel was a certain strain of algae that
could clean emissions from factories' smoke stacks. IIRC, a 10 acre setup of
these rows of algae were fed the emissions from the nearby coal plant and the
algae cleaned it considerably. The surprising benefit was the high-oil algae
could be then harvested and the oil transformed into bio-diesel. Where
harvesting soy for biodiesel was only 1.5 to 2.0 on the energy return,
harvesting algae was around 15.0 times. Granted, I'm going off of memory on the
figures. :)

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

The bad part of bio-diesel right now is its high NOs emissions, something that
is being worked on with emission controls on vehicles. However, all other
emissions are significantly better, such as the sulfur content, and it has more
energy than petroleum diesel. It still remains unproven in the eyes of car
manufacturers, and some companies will void warranties if they find out you used
bio-diesel in your vehicle. With some huge bio-diesel plants opening each year,
I'm personally hoping to see that trend reverse.