[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
The Enviro-Nazis are right on this one.
More fossil fuel is used to create bio fuel per BTU created.
Just confirmed this with my energy sector analysts.
[/quote]
No, you are wrong. There is one study that I know of out there that came to that conclusion, and it used flawed assumptions and data.
here are some links
[quote]mark57 wrote:
And count me amoung the :environmentalists" who would strongly oppose strip mining 250,000 square miles of the western US to get to it. Wholesale destruction of natural resources for profit and cheap gas just isn’t an energy policy, no matter how much you like Bush.
If Shell has come up with an in situ recovery method that is viable then I’m all for it.
[/quote]
Your ignorance is showing. Go check out some of the coal strip mines that have been operating for decades in western CO & WY. They practice a thing called reclaimation. After the extract the coal, they fill in the hole, replant the vegitation, and within 2 or 3 years, it’s as if the mine was never there. Wholesale destruction of natural resources? Not hardly.
Magyar: Down with Blue, go Big Red.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
The Enviro-Nazis are right on this one.
More fossil fuel is used to create bio fuel per BTU created.
Just confirmed this with my energy sector analysts.
[/quote]
Actually it depends on who you ask. There is research showing it does in fact produce more energy then is used. Then there was the university guy who showed that it uses more then it produces. (Can?t remember all the info right now.) But some argued he was using old data, and outdated farming techniques in his data.
One of the best ways to figure out how much energy is involved is the cost. As I said on another thread it costs about $1.80 to produce a gallon of ethanol. That equals the human, and energy costs involved.
Money is kind of a form of stored energy. And as such is a great measure of the energy involved to create the ethanol.
But anyway, the coalition for ethanol says it takes 35,000 btu to turn a bushel of corn into ethanol, which will provide 77,000 btu of energy, which is a positive energy balance.
Granted this is from the American Coalition for Ethanol, so they could be biased, but then again what benefit is it to be in an industry that uses more energy then it produces? Even with government subsidies it would not be worth it.
Here is the study you are talking about.
The author used old data back from the 70’s when farming was inefficient. He also made a number of assumptions(very high ethanol refining costs) that lead him to his conclusions.
It’s unfortunate that this study has received so much attention. It has been strongly refuted by other more reputable studies, yet I still keep hearing it brought up as fact.
[quote]Soco wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
The Enviro-Nazis are right on this one.
More fossil fuel is used to create bio fuel per BTU created.
Just confirmed this with my energy sector analysts.
No, you are wrong. There is one study that I know of out there that came to that conclusion, and it used flawed assumptions and data.
here are some links
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer721/
http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html
[/quote]
Those studies do not take into accout that fertilizer and tending to the corn uses liquid fuel. When you add that into the equation you are wrong.
I confirmed this with a Chemical Engineer that has worked in the energy industry for decades and recently became and analyst 5 years ago.
Bio-fuels take more energy to produce than they provide.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Soco wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
The Enviro-Nazis are right on this one.
More fossil fuel is used to create bio fuel per BTU created.
Just confirmed this with my energy sector analysts.
No, you are wrong. There is one study that I know of out there that came to that conclusion, and it used flawed assumptions and data.
here are some links
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer721/
http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html
Those studies do not take into accout that fertilizer and tending to the corn uses liquid fuel. When you add that into the equation you are wrong.
I confirmed this with a Chemical Engineer that has worked in the energy industry for decades and recently became and analyst 5 years ago.
Bio-fuels take more energy to produce than they provide.[/quote]
What about spoiled corn or stuff that isn’t fit for human consumption? DOes any stuff like this ever get used?
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Those studies do not take into accout that fertilizer and tending to the corn uses liquid fuel. When you add that into the equation you are wrong.
I confirmed this with a Chemical Engineer that has worked in the energy industry for decades and recently became and analyst 5 years ago.
Bio-fuels take more energy to produce than they provide.[/quote]
The first one I posted clearly does take fertilizer energy into account.
read on down and you can see that they estimate this as part of the total farm inputs.
Here is one sample
“Energy used for manufacturing nitrogen fertilizer, potash, and phosphate is based on information provided by the Fertilizer Institute. It requires 22,159 Btu to produce a pound of nitrogen, 1,245 Btu for a pound of potash, and 4,175 Btu for a pound of phosphate. More than 90 percent of the energy in the applied fertilizer is in the form of nitrogen, which is manufactured almost completely from natural gas. The energy embodied in phosphate includes 47 percent electricity, 27 percent diesel, and 26 percent natural gas. The energy invested in potash is 42 percent electricity, 31 percent diesel fuel, and 27 percent natural gas. Energy used for producing lime is 620 Btu/lb (Blankenhorn et al.).”
[quote]Garrett W. wrote:
What about spoiled corn or stuff that isn’t fit for human consumption? DOes any stuff like this ever get used?[/quote]
Not sure. Here is one website that might be useful.
Obviously the group’s goal is to promote biodiesel, but the data they present is factual.