Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
4) How ethanol is a NET ENERGY LOSER


Care to elaborate further?

[/ QUOTE ]
http://tinyurl.com/aque9


and from journals

http://tinyurl.com/duygt


[/ QUOTE ]

Originally ethanol production may have been a net loser, older plants that used oil and coal may have been. Newer ethanol plants are much more energy efficient, I think that it is a misconception that all ethanol is produced at a net energy lose. If various forms of ethanol production increases because of demand, overall production will continue to become more effective.

Current research prepared by Argonne National Laboratory (a U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory), indicates a 38% gain in the overall energy input/output equation for the corn-to-ethanol process. That is, if 100 BTUs of energy is used to plant corn, harvest the crop, transport it, etc., 138 BTUs of energy is available in the fuel ethanol. Corn yields and processing technologies have improved significantly over the past 20 years and they continue to do so, making ethanol production less and less energy intensive.


granted this link is to an ethanol site
many links against ethanol production are related to oil industry such as this one


[ QUOTE ]

You lazy bum. Maybe you should work for Fox News. :-P Oh well, atleast you are asking questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

no need for name calling [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
Either the system you advocate is producing results counter to what you claim it will, or the technology you advocate is not performing well enough to satisfy those whom you seek to force it upon. Which is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Try neither. The ROI on oil for stockholders is much higher right now and will continue to be so a while at the cost of the economy, the americans, and the environment.

[ QUOTE ]
Because all it shows is that government can use force to distort results. We don't need a "challenge" to show that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great comeback! *sarcasm*

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

Ok, so I was slightly innacurate with the ethanol. It is possible for it to be +EV in some situations in fact, in many situations. I've even posted links about that in the past where conola is 0.8 input/output ratio as shown in this link:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-hgm092705.php

But many are -EV or simply not scalable. Even in situations where it is +EV, the difference isn't anything to get excited about in cost or ROI energy value. I have said in the past that biodiesel will be helpful especially with algae but corn simply isn't the answer.

That original post was long and I spend too much time here as is and was pissed off when I made this post..... sorry about the error. I'm trying to balance time and failing misersably.

Guh... short on time.... Gots to go.

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

I'm not opposed to the idea of government funded R&D for energy, but I don't really think that technology is the primary barrier to adopting alternative energy. We know how to build wind turbines, photovoltaic cells, solar thermal energy generators, nuclear fission reactors and we have apretty good idea how to do ocean thermal energy. We also know how to make fuel cells. Why aren't we using these (except nuclear fission) to any significant degree? One very simple reason: Fossil fuel is cheaper. I submit that the barriers to using renewable energy are more economic than technological. That is going to change in the next few decades (mayber soon).

Wacki is absolutely right about hydrogen. Hydrogen is not an energy source. Hydrogen is one possible means of energy storage and transport. It may not even be the best means. The cheapest way to make hydrogen right now is from fossil fuels. Hydrogen can also be made by electolyzing water, with electricity coming from renewable sources or nuclear energy (fission or fusion, assuming we ever make fusion work). The fuel cell problem is not necessarily a show stopper. Hydrogen can also be burned. A car with a hydrogen-burning internal combustion engine may not be as efficient as a fuel cell car, but it will work, and produces minimal pollution (some NOx), and will likely be much cheaper to manufacture than a fuel cell car.

I think govenment funding might be better directed to things like fusion, where the payoff is uncertain but potentially huge, than to refining existing, but currently non-cost-effective technologies. I think the private sector will work the kinks out of renewable energy, once the price of fossil fuels becomes high enough to make it profitable. I also think the conversion from fossil fuel to renewables may happen much faster than many people imagine, once the economic factors favor it.

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think govenment funding might be better directed to things like fusion, where the payoff is uncertain

[/ QUOTE ]

Most physicists think ITER is very low risk. It just requires time and money. Money isn't an issue, it's waiting the 20 years it takes to build and calibrate one of these things that is the problem. So, nobody wants to put forth the effort when your term in office is only 4 years and patents don't last that long.

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

its cool, overall your OP was well written, thanks for the insight and info.

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]

All I know is we are capable of finding a way out of our predicament but aren't doing anything about it. The status quo is [censored] and it's time for our leaders to step up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally I think the status quo is pretty awesome. Oil, a product that almost everyone on the planet uses in large quantities, only costs $2.50 a gallon. How cool is that?

You know why we aren't using any alternative energy sources at the moment? It's because oil is cheap. When hydrogen fuel cells become cost effective, then people will use them. Same for wind, solar, whatever.

Will

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Either the system you advocate is producing results counter to what you claim it will, or the technology you advocate is not performing well enough to satisfy those whom you seek to force it upon. Which is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Try neither. The ROI on oil for stockholders is much higher right now and will continue to be so a while at the cost of the economy, the americans, and the environment.

[/ QUOTE ]

And why is the ROI higher for oil? Because of government intervention or because consumers find more value in it?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because all it shows is that government can use force to distort results. We don't need a "challenge" to show that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great comeback! *sarcasm*

[/ QUOTE ]

Dismiss it with flippant one-liners instead of actual logic. The fact that government noses in on things and things still happen does nothing to prove that centralized funding is superior to privitized funding (for-profit or non-profit).

Look in your college textbook and count up how many people have been killed by governments compared to private criminals.

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
Personally I think the status quo is pretty awesome. Oil, a product that almost everyone on the planet uses in large quantities, only costs $2.50 a gallon. How cool is that?

You know why we aren't using any alternative energy sources at the moment? It's because oil is cheap. When hydrogen fuel cells become cost effective, then people will use them. Same for wind, solar, whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh

Re: The heat is on. Fox News special review
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

All I know is we are capable of finding a way out of our predicament but aren't doing anything about it. The status quo is [censored] and it's time for our leaders to step up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally I think the status quo is pretty awesome. Oil, a product that almost everyone on the planet uses in large quantities, only costs $2.50 a gallon. How cool is that?

You know why we aren't using any alternative energy sources at the moment? It's because oil is cheap. When hydrogen fuel cells become cost effective, then people will use them. Same for wind, solar, whatever.

Will

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree to a point. I think the issue made earlier rested on developing an alternate source that is commercially viable BEFORE the price of oil screws the world.

We're caught in a Catch-22 - the alternatives aren't cheap enough so no one uses them and since no one uses them they aren't developed enough to be cheap.

The oil companies are the ones making the money right now AND they have a pretty good handle on Washington D.C. - so the government really has no motivation to develop alternative fuels. Actually, their policy seems to encourage oil consumption...

I would think that the oil companies themselves would be working very hard at the next energy source because whoever figures it out, is gonna make Bill Gates look poor. They have all the resources required. Also, when Peak Oil does arrive and we have the alternate source, China is gonna be our bitch.

-Aqua