preston39
Well-known member
What is the date of the article in that post? Did you conveniently leave it off? Looks old to me.
preston39":1xlzfs4n said:What is the date of the article in that post? Did you conveniently leave it off? Looks old to me.
preston39":1n20w707 said:What is the date of the article in that post? Did you conveniently leave it off? Looks old to me.
==========certherfbeef":22ymiswr said:preston39":22ymiswr said:What is the date of the article in that post? Did you conveniently leave it off? Looks old to me.
How old do you want Preston? This is pretty much the same article, date and source are left there for your convenience.
Monday, July 18, 2005
Study: Ethanol not worth the energy
Researchers say it takes more fossil power to turn corn into fuel than what gets produced.
By Mark Johnson / Associated Press
Comment on this story
Send this story to a friend
Get Home Delivery
ALBANY, N.Y. -- Farmers, businesses and state officials are investing millions of dollars in ethanol and biofuel plants as renewable energy sources, but a new study says the alternative fuels burn more energy than they produce.
Supporters of ethanol and other biofuels contend they burn cleaner than fossil fuels, reduce U.S. dependence on oil and give farmers another market to sell their produce.
But researchers at Cornell University and the University of California-Berkeley say it takes 29 percent more fossil energy to turn corn into ethanol than the amount of fuel the process produces. For switch grass, a warm weather perennial grass found in the Great Plains and eastern North America United States, it takes 45 percent more energy and for wood, 57 percent.
It takes 27 percent more energy to turn soybeans into biodiesel fuel and more than double the energy produced is needed to do the same to sunflower plants, the study found.
"Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, the economy, or the environment," according to the study by Cornell's David Pimentel and Berkeley's Tad Patzek. They conclude the country would be better off investing in solar, wind and hydrogen energy.
The researchers included such factors as the energy used in producing the crop, costs that were not used in other studies that supported ethanol production, said Pimentel.
The study also omitted $3 billion in state and federal government subsidies that go toward ethanol production in the United States each year, payments that mask the true costs, Pimentel said.
Ethanol is an additive blended with gasoline to reduce auto emissions and increase gas' octane levels. Its use has grown rapidly since 2004, when the federal government banned the use of the additive MTBE to enhance the cleaner burning of fuel. About 3.6 billion gallons of ethanol were produced last year in the United States, according to the Renewable Fuels Association, an ethanol trade group.
The ethanol industry claims that using 8 billion gallons of ethanol a year will allow refiners to use 2 billion fewer barrels of oil. The oil industry disputes that, saying the ethanol mandate would have negligible impact on oil imports.
Ethanol producers dispute Pimentel and Patzek's findings, saying the data is outdated and doesn't take into account profits that offset costs.
Michael Brower, director of community and government relations at SUNY's College of Environmental Science and Forestry, points to reports by the Energy and Agriculture departments that have shown the ethanol produced delivers at least 60 percent more energy the amount used in production. The college has worked extensively on producing ethanol from hardwood trees.
Biodiesel can be used in any diesel engine with few or no modifications. It is often blended with petroleum diesel to reduce the propensity to gel in cold weather.
------ On the Net: Renewable Fuels Association: http://www.ethanolrfa.org
preston39":3mw3w2dw said:Something is screwey.
preston39":2wkbkm4e said:http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/fuelfactsheets/default.shtm
Click on....benefits of biodiesel. I'll take the Bidiesel Board review.
preston39":3i4vd6ix said:==========certherfbeef":3i4vd6ix said:preston39":3i4vd6ix said:What is the date of the article in that post? Did you conveniently leave it off? Looks old to me.
How old do you want Preston? This is pretty much the same article, date and source are left there for your convenience.
Monday, July 18, 2005
Study: Ethanol not worth the energy
Researchers say it takes more fossil power to turn corn into fuel than what gets produced.
By Mark Johnson / Associated Press
Comment on this story
Send this story to a friend
Get Home Delivery
ALBANY, N.Y. -- Farmers, businesses and state officials are investing millions of dollars in ethanol and biofuel plants as renewable energy sources, but a new study says the alternative fuels burn more energy than they produce.
Supporters of ethanol and other biofuels contend they burn cleaner than fossil fuels, reduce U.S. dependence on oil and give farmers another market to sell their produce.
But researchers at Cornell University and the University of California-Berkeley say it takes 29 percent more fossil energy to turn corn into ethanol than the amount of fuel the process produces. For switch grass, a warm weather perennial grass found in the Great Plains and eastern North America United States, it takes 45 percent more energy and for wood, 57 percent.
It takes 27 percent more energy to turn soybeans into biodiesel fuel and more than double the energy produced is needed to do the same to sunflower plants, the study found.
"Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, the economy, or the environment," according to the study by Cornell's David Pimentel and Berkeley's Tad Patzek. They conclude the country would be better off investing in solar, wind and hydrogen energy.
The researchers included such factors as the energy used in producing the crop, costs that were not used in other studies that supported ethanol production, said Pimentel.
The study also omitted $3 billion in state and federal government subsidies that go toward ethanol production in the United States each year, payments that mask the true costs, Pimentel said.
Ethanol is an additive blended with gasoline to reduce auto emissions and increase gas' octane levels. Its use has grown rapidly since 2004, when the federal government banned the use of the additive MTBE to enhance the cleaner burning of fuel. About 3.6 billion gallons of ethanol were produced last year in the United States, according to the Renewable Fuels Association, an ethanol trade group.
The ethanol industry claims that using 8 billion gallons of ethanol a year will allow refiners to use 2 billion fewer barrels of oil. The oil industry disputes that, saying the ethanol mandate would have negligible impact on oil imports.
Ethanol producers dispute Pimentel and Patzek's findings, saying the data is outdated and doesn't take into account profits that offset costs.
Michael Brower, director of community and government relations at SUNY's College of Environmental Science and Forestry, points to reports by the Energy and Agriculture departments that have shown the ethanol produced delivers at least 60 percent more energy the amount used in production. The college has worked extensively on producing ethanol from hardwood trees.
Biodiesel can be used in any diesel engine with few or no modifications. It is often blended with petroleum diesel to reduce the propensity to gel in cold weather.
------ On the Net: Renewable Fuels Association: http://www.ethanolrfa.org
Thanks for posting. If that is the guiding analysis why is the congress currently passing legislation putting bucko bucks into the process. Something doesn't jive. My only point.
Another new bio-diesel plant is almost ready to be opened in NC...several more are in the works. We are doing this with plans to use 27% more energy to produce same/less product?
Something is screwey.
=======Wewild":507oeqx6 said:preston39":507oeqx6 said:http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/fuelfactsheets/default.shtm
Click on....benefits of biodiesel. I'll take the Bidiesel Board review.
Point out where it disputes the fact that it take more energy to produce than can be derived from an internal combustion engine.
Or just post it . I can't get anything but the home page up.
===========Wewild":22y1bhle said:preston39":22y1bhle said:http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/fuelfactsheets/default.shtm
Click on....benefits of biodiesel. I'll take the Bidiesel Board review.
Point out where it disputes the fact that it take more energy to produce than can be derived from an internal combustion engine.
Or just post it . I can't get anything but the home page up.
preston39":1bo3jqcz said:We are doing this with plans to use 27% more energy to produce same/less product? Something is screwey.
preston39":1bo3jqcz said:wewild,
I never said it disputed anything.....did I?
Wewild":1bo3jqcz said:preston39":1bo3jqcz said:Something is screwey.
I got an idea what that is.
Campground Cattle":1qkigawv said:.
MYTH #11
A diesel engine will run under water.
FACT
This isn't completely a myth. Like any internal combustion engine, a diesel needs access to fresh air in order to run. It must also have water-free fuel and be able to easily expel exhaust gases. If these conditions are met, technically a diesel could run under water, assuming its fuel management computer and wiring harness is watertight, and some military vehicles with raised air intakes and exhausts can run under shallow water. On the other hand, it's probably not a good idea to drive your diesel pickup through a river, pond, lake, creek, or the municipal swimming pool no matter how logical the idea seems at the time!
============Wewild":v7zhoc9q said:preston39":v7zhoc9q said:http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/fuelfactsheets/default.shtm
Click on....benefits of biodiesel. I'll take the Bidiesel Board review.
Point out where it disputes the fact that it take more energy to produce than can be derived from an internal combustion engine.
Or just post it . I can't get anything but the home page up.
.preston39":1rqtdt9i said:============Wewild":1rqtdt9i said:preston39":1rqtdt9i said:http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/fuelfactsheets/default.shtm
Click on....benefits of biodiesel. I'll take the Bidiesel Board review.
Point out where it disputes the fact that it take more energy to produce than can be derived from an internal combustion engine.
Or just post it . I can't get anything but the home page up.
Wewild,
Did you have doubts or were you just being critical? You will NOT BE THE ONLY ONE(campgroundcattle...are you reading this?)who needs to self educate before calling other folks names.......HUh?
Note;
The responses are lengthy...should anyone want the details just ask.