Don’t worry, just a little bump - $70 is just around the corner. Short traders just keep making those margin calls, mortgage the house if you have to. Fortunes await you! PO is for pansies and doomers. At $70 short some more ..... it is going back to $22 .... the world is awash with oil ........ reality has nothing to do with it, its all in those charts!!!!!!!!!!
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:24 pm Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
pstarr wrote:
What does that 60% NG savings mean to the entire energy cost of producing corn ethanol? If NG only accounts for 1% of all energy used, then you are still left accounting for the other 99.4% of the (diesel, electricity, etc.) energy used. You've saved practically nothing.
That is exactly my question.
What will be the new EROEI be?
We obviously know NG accounts for a lot more. Instead of just pulling numbers from your head which makes no sense at all with the 1% and 99.4%. I went and grab the numbers.
It looks like a rough reduction of 10-15% in energy invested.
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:53 pm Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
pstarr wrote:
It is like you have just discovered this magic source of farm energy that no one knew about until just now.
You seem to assume that dairy farmers or cattle-lot operators are complete idiots to have overlooked all this free energy on their stall floors.
Just sweep up the crap and drive the Escalante to the mall.
Sorry it does not work like this.
Are you talking to me? What did I write that makes you think I want cow dung as a solution?
I don't believe in cow dung.
What in the world make you think cow dung is free energy?
As for using cow dung to power electricity, they do have those. You can go look them up. I personally seen the one in Vermont. As for EROEI on cow dung, that is just stupid. It can never be above 1, unless you don't count the energy invested on the cow.
Hugo Chavez talks to Fidel Castro in the tv show "Hello Presidente"
Quote:
Castro: [Interrupting] Yes. You have been reading for a long while. You have great talent to keep it all in, to remember everything. The only thing you sometimes forget is figures.
Chavez: I forget numbers but not that much.
Castro: However, you have them all bookmarked and never miss one. It is not easy to keep up with you.
Chavez: Do you know how many hectares of corn are needed to produce one million barrels of ethanol?
Castro: To do what?
Chavez: To produce one million barrels of ethanol?
Castro: Ethanol. I believe you told me about that the other day. Somewhere around 20 million hectares.
Can biodiesel compete on price?
By Luke Timmerman Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Seattle Times business reporter
Some people like biodiesel because it is renewable and pollutes less than regular diesel fuel. Others are intrigued by its potential to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. That political and environmental allure has generated plenty of buzz this year.
What no one has demonstrated yet is whether biodiesel, as a business, can compete on the key factor for many consumers — price.
Imperium buys bulk soy oil from Iowa for about $2.70 a gallon, including about 25 cents per gallon for transportation by rail car, Plaza said. Taken together, raw materials and transportation account for more than 80 percent of Imperium's costs.
Since raw oil is crucial, Plaza said, the company wants to be sure it does not depend on a single source. That's partly why Imperium chose Grays Harbor. With an ocean port, it can import Malaysian palm oil for $2.07 a gallon, about 60 cents a gallon cheaper than Midwestern soy oil.
Interesting and fairly recent article on Biodiesel. Seems like Biodiesel now costs about $3 a gallon to make - minus any tax incentives. Granted there isn't enough farm land to provide a large supply of oil. But, you would think that the oil (dino-diesel) companies understand that biodiesel becomes (sort of) economically viable once diesel costs more than $3 a gallon. _________________ "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." Homer Simpson
“I think ([meat] consumers) will take the higher prices fairly well,” Plain said. “I’m not sure that there’s any price people are more conscious of than gas. My take is, Americans are willing to pay more for food if it is helping on the gas front. And I think it is.”
By David Tilman and Jason Hill
Sunday, March 25, 2007; Page B01
The world has come full circle. A century ago our first transportation biofuels -- the hay and oats fed to our horses -- were replaced by gasoline. Today, ethanol from corn and biodiesel from soybeans have begun edging out gasoline and diesel.
This has been hailed as an overwhelmingly positive development that will help us reduce the threat of climate change and ease our dependence on foreign oil. In political circles, ethanol is the flavor of the day, and presidential candidates have been cycling through Iowa extolling its benefits. Lost in the ethanol-induced euphoria, however, is the fact that three of our most fundamental needs -- food, energy, and a livable and sustainable environment -- are now in direct conflict. Moreover, our recent analyses of the full costs and benefits of various biofuels, performed at the University of Minnesota, present a markedly different and more nuanced picture than has been heard on the campaign trail.
Biofuels, if used properly, can help us balance our need for food, energy and a habitable and sustainable environment. To help this happen, though, we need a national biofuels policy that favors our best options. We must determine the carbon impacts of each method of making these fuels, then mandate fuel blending that achieves a prescribed greenhouse gas reduction. We have the knowledge and technology to start solving these problems.
_________________ "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." Homer Simpson
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 9:58 am Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
there is nothing nuanced about this article. It is more of the same smug techtopian advertiser-friendly business-as-usual claptrap.
Quote:
Today, ethanol from corn and biodiesel from soybeans have begun edging out gasoline and diesel.
Total production of ethanol in 2006 was estimated to be 5 billion gallons. We use that much gasoline in five days. Furthermore, most of that production was used a an fuel additive in response to the MTBE phaseout and also for traditional non-automotive purposes (pharmaceutical etc.), and not as a primary transport fuel. Virtually none of this ethanol replaced gasoline.
Quote:
This has been hailed as an overwhelmingly positive development that will help us reduce the threat of climate change and ease our dependence on foreign oil.
At this point only getting out of our automobiles will reduce the threat of climate change and ease our dependence on foreign oil.
Quote:
In political circles, ethanol is the flavor of the day, and presidential candidates have been cycling through Iowa extolling its benefits.
The first true thing written in this article. Ethanol is a tax-payer supported subsidy supported by the corn grower lobbies for the benefit of the large grain processors (cargil, ADM, etc.) The farmers will benefit in the short term from prices spikes until overplanting of their fields comes back to bite them when this scam tanks. They will be left holding the dead soil.
Quote:
Lost in the ethanol-induced euphoria, however, is the fact that three of our most fundamental needs -- food, energy, and a livable and sustainable environment -- are now in direct conflict.
got that right.
Quote:
Biofuels, if used properly, can help us balance our need for food, energy and a habitable and sustainable environment. To help this happen, though, we need a national biofuels policy that favors our best options. We must determine the carbon impacts of each method of making these fuels, then mandate fuel blending that achieves a prescribed greenhouse gas reduction. We have the knowledge and technology to start solving these problems.
they can't help themselves. This is just more of the same pap. "Biofuels will never help us balance our need for . . ." blah blah blah because biofuels is an oxymoron
It is impossible to power our industrial agriculture infrastructure with the fermented byproduct of that system. Corn juice is never going to power the farm tractors and ethanol fermenters, much less drive Mom and the kids to soccer practice. That would be thermodynamic voodoo _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Joined: Mar 19, 2007 Posts: 162 Location: Ontario, Canada
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 12:06 pm Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
pstarr wrote:
It is impossible to power our industrial agriculture infrastructure with the fermented byproduct of that system. Corn juice is never going to power the farm tractors and ethanol fermenters, much less drive Mom and the kids to soccer practice. That would be thermodynamic voodoo
If there were no other energy inputs than the fuel and fertilizers used in planting crops, we would not grow crops sufficient to replace the caloric value of the inputs.
It is not therdynamic voodoo precisely because there are more inputs than we add artificially. We're talking about the caloric input from the sun.
Plant growth stores the sunlight as biomass, as a conversion from energy to matter.
I haven't done the math, or research to determine exactly how much energy is stored, but I do know that you reap more than 1 ton of corn for every ton of seed you plant. If you didn't, agriculture would not be viable for food production.
What are the total energy inputs required for planting?
What are the requirements for harvesting?
What would the equivalent energy required be in gallons of alcohol?
What is the yield per ton of seed?
What percentage of your crop would be needed to produce the alchol needed?
Of course petroleum and carbon based fuels are "cheaper" and "more efficient" from a strictly monetary point of view.
This is only because we do not count the cost of replacing the fuel.
There is your thermodynamic voodoo.
All carbon based technologies are subtractive, all renewables additive.
Of course, I agree that it would be impractical to use food for liquid fuel to replace oil. What I don't agree with is the idea that agriculture does not produce a net gain in useable energy resources. _________________ If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research. ~A. Einstein
TANSTAAFL ~R.A.H.
The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The next best time is today. ~Chinese proverb
All energy values for all inputs are in BTU for the sake of making the math easier.
I have removed co-production credits (the value of products other than ethanol that are produced as a by-product).
We get an EROEI of 1.38:1 for industry average, to 1.908:1 for state of the art production.
If we were to use crop rotation to fix nitrogen, instead of adding petrochemical based nitrogen, the rate goes up, 1.235:1 to 1.908:1.
If we add the value of the co-generated products to the mix, the rate becomes 1.38:1 to 2.51:1 for petro based fertilizer, 1.64:1 to 2.73:1 for crop based fertilizing.
If you really want to make things efficient, try adding solar to the processing mix. Maybe heat generated in composting can be used. If you run a mixed farm, how about methane production through anaerobic digesters.
I still don't like the idea of corn as fuel, but the math does show that bio-fuels are not an oxymoron.
When you think about it, all animal life burns bio-fuel for energy.
Try sitting down to few meals of 10W30, and see how far you get. _________________ If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research. ~A. Einstein
TANSTAAFL ~R.A.H.
The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The next best time is today. ~Chinese proverb
Joined: Mar 19, 2007 Posts: 162 Location: Ontario, Canada
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:07 am Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
DavidFolks wrote:
We get an EROEI of 1.38:1 for industry average, to 1.908:1 for state of the art production.
Should read:
We get an EROEI of 1.037:1 for industry average, to 1.754:1 for state of the art production. _________________ If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research. ~A. Einstein
TANSTAAFL ~R.A.H.
The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The next best time is today. ~Chinese proverb
David Tilman, an experimental and mathematical ecologist at the University of Minnesota, will be online Monday, March 26, at 11 a.m. ET to talk about the Sunday Outlook article he wrote with applied economics researcher Jason Hill, which examines the pitfalls of food product-based biofuels -- and the promise hidden in the nation's prairies.
Submit your questions and comments before or during today's discussion.
While obviously down on corn for fuel, the article is somehwat positive on prairie grasses... It's like, if only we could find the right plant, we would be home free!
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:15 am Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
DavidFolks, The Institute for Local-Self Reliance article you linked to is not complete. It is self-published, not peer-reviewed, and omits the energy cost inherent in the facilities, farm tractors and fuel fermenters etc. This life-cycle analysis is an important component of biofuel energy return studies.
Though you could argue it also takes energy to build drill rigs, pipe lines, and refineries for petroleum production, you would not be correct in asssuming petroleum energy return is therefore comparable to biofuels. Petroleum has proven it positive value whilte we have never run a complex industrial society on alcohol.
Nitrogen fixing crops is not novel and many corn farmers do this as a matter of course. Anyway there is still an energy cost in managing the rotation crop. Same with solar. The panels cost energy. These permaculture techniques seem sustainable by themselves but applied to our industrial food production system they become must more overhead. Only in a small-scale localized powered-down economy based on human and animal labor and nutrient (of all kinds) recycling will such intensive energy and agriculture system makes sense. Today they will detract from, rather than add to, the already optimized (with petroleum) efficiencies of industrial agriculture.
Monocropped-farmed corn ethanol will never be a primary energy source. It requires to much complex expensive chemistry and heavy machinery to move the matter and make it grow. _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Joined: Mar 19, 2007 Posts: 162 Location: Ontario, Canada
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 1:53 pm Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
pstarr,
I agree in principle that bio-fuels can not compete effectively in an infrastructure that is optimized to use petroleum based fuels.
The original point of my posts was not that we can run our current oil dependant society on bio-fuels. The point was that the thought of a net gain in energy from corn crops was not "thermodynamic voodoo."
To state my position clearly, I believe that a system optimized to oil/coal/nulear energy is doomed to failure, as all these commodities are finite.
If we as a species are to exist long term, we must find ways to optimize our systems to use "renewable" energy resources.
Eventually, thermodynamics will optimize our systems for us.
I want to be one of the people who has optimized my energy requirements to renewable resources when that happens. If I am, then I have a skillset/knowledge base/commodity that will make me rich. That is the selfish part of my pursuit of renewables.
The noble part is that I want to find ways to harness all this energy so my fellow man doesn't suffer needlessly. And if I do it right, he'll be educated enough, and wise enough, to slow down, and live within the carrying capacity of the planet. Then, maybe, we won't be going to war with one another chasing dwindling resources.
Hold on a minute, I've got to polish the gunk off my rose coloured glasses. _________________ If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research. ~A. Einstein
TANSTAAFL ~R.A.H.
The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The next best time is today. ~Chinese proverb
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 11880 Location: zombie horde wonderland
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:59 pm Post subject: Re: The Mother of all Biofuels Debates (large scale)
Just don't waste your time reinventing the wheel if you don't need to, DavidFolks. Much has been written about how to set up low-energy ways of life. _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow..." - jboogy
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap 
