From: dizzy
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 01:59:57 GMT
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
(dishonestly-sniped context restored)
LOL. Right.
dizzy wrote:
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
For example, E85 is running about 80 cents per gallon less than regular unleaded locally.
There's no freaking way it's that much cheaper, unless it's heavily
subsidized. In fact, I'd be surprised if it was cheaper at all, and
I've read that it takes more energy to produce the alcohol than what's
in the alcohol.
Surprize! It is that much cheaper.
Nope. No way. And then consider the energy content/dollar, and
you'll look even sillier.
Um, I showed you a picture of fuel prices at the pump (which you
snipped and then called *me* dishonest). You do know how to read a
picture, don't you?
http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html
From that article:
"In the US most ethanol is made from corn (maize). A US Department of
Agriculture study concludes that ethanol contains 34% more energy than
is used to grow and harvest the corn and distill it into ethanol."
LOL 34% more, huh? Wow, I can see where the huge cost savings is!
The benefit of petroleum is that it is one of the most compact sources
of fuel available. No argument here on that. As the 'easy' sources dry
up we are left with two options: continue to import from the middle
east, or extract from shale or other less efficient sources. The less
efficient extraction option will consume more energy to produce.
Further, It is dishonest to not include a comparable percentage of
energy to produce gasoline. I cannot find data on what the exact energy
ratio is currently to pump the crude, get it to port, load it on a
supertanker, ship it across the ocean, remove it at port, transport it
to a refinery, and then refine it. It cannot be more than 100%. So
where is it, one wonders? It seems it's at about .80, resulting in a
net energy LOSS of about 20% for petroleum vs. a 34% net energy GAIN
for ethanol.
The only reference that I could find was from the report that you
quoted above:
***Begin quote***
Ethanol versus Gasoline
A United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research
Service Report number 814 titled "Estimating The Net Energy Balance Of
Corn Ethanol: An Update " was published in July of 2002. The Conclusion
states in part: "Corn ethanol is energy efficient, as indicated by an
energy ratio of 1.34; that is, for every Btu dedicated to producing
ethanol, there is a 34-percent energy gain." A similar study done in
1995 indicated only a 1.24 energy ratio. The increase is accounted for
by an increase in corn yields and greater efficiencies in the ethanol
production process. As a result, energy efficiency in the production of
ethanol is increasing.
The concept of "input efficiencies for fossil energy sources" was
introduced as a component of the study. This was meant to account for
the fossil energy used to extract, transport and manufacture the raw
material (crude oil) into the final energy product (gasoline).
According to the study, gasoline has an energy ratio of 0.805. In other
words, for every unit of energy dedicated to the production of gasoline
there is a 19.5 percent energy loss.
In summary, the finished liquid fuel energy yield for fossil fuel
dedicated to the production of ethanol is 1.34 but only 0.74 for
gasoline. In other words the energy yield of ethanol is (1.34/0.74) or
81 percent greater than the comparable yield for gasoline.
http://www.mda.state.mn.us/ethanol/balance.html
***End quote***
This is interesting, too:
http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/pdfs/MichaelWang1.pdf
Once again we relearn the lesson that simple statistics can be
misleading.
And we are in agreement: I can see where the cost savings are too.