[solarguy]

Well Shovel, glad to hear you are actually doing something.

You imply that now, I'm bragging, and what does that have to do with anything? I'm glad you asked. I posted a modest sampling of what I have done to counter your contention that the rest of us here just don't seem interested in making any progress on the old energy front, and why don't we get with the program like you? That contention is just flat wrong. So, could you stop saying we're all opposed to progress???

So, what do you think the best possible EROEI is, for corn based ethanol? If you say 1.3, then biodiesel will produce six times as much energy per unit of energy invested, than ethanol. If you say 1.2:1, then biodiesel will produce 8.5 times as much energy per unit, than ethanol. If you say 1.1:1, then biodiesel will produce 17 times as much energy. If, in fact it's 1:1, then we're not making any progress at all. That could be true in many situations today where the farmers, the ethanol plants, and the distribution system, and the cars that burn it, are not all optimized for energy use. Studies that tout "best practices" are nice, except, we're not using these magic best practices right now.

"The other negative aspect of this inefficient fuel is that numerous studies have found that ethanol creates less energy than is required to make it. Other studies have found that ethanol creates "slightly" more energy than is used in its production. Yet not one of these studies takes into account that when E85 is used, the vehicle's fuel efficiency drops by at least 25% -- and possibly by as much as 40%. Using any of the accredited studies as a baseline in an energy-efficiency equation, ethanol when used as a fuel is a net energy waste. " That's from business week.

Scientific American says, if you count the energy value of the leftovers that is used as animal feed, the eroei could be as high as 1.2:1.

Between gas and diesel, we need roughly 200 billion gallons per year in the US alone.

We currently burn 400,000,000 gallons of gasoline PER DAY.

Current ethanol production is, 6-7 billion gallons per year from all feedstocks, corn + everything else, and we are importing some of that. So let's say 7 just to be generous, that's 7/200 = 0.035, or 3.5% of our current fuel needs, for transportation alone. Well, I guess 3.5% is not a trivial percentage, until you realize that 7 billion gallons of ethanol production required that we burn 5.83 billion gallons of petroleum, assuming an eroei of 1.2:1. So, in reality, we only displaced (7-5.83 =) 1.17 billion gallons, which makes 1.17/200 = 0.00585, or 0.6% of our current fuel use. So, if we grew 55 times the amount of corn, we could supply one third of our fuel use for transportation. Oh yeah, that's assuming the fuel economy is on par, which it isn't. So, adjust all the numbers to make ethanol look 10-35% worse.

Not gonna happen. We don't have that much land. Period. Not even close. Ethanol from corn will never make a noticeable dent in our petroleum use. Cellulose is still an open question. There are no viable profitable plants in the US making ethanol from any cellulose feedstock today.

Now, just for something completely different, how many members here have reduced their fuel consumption by a third, just by changing their driving habits?

Now that...that could happen. That could happen in a few years.

What if everybody just traded down one size on their car?

What if we replaced fifteen percent of the fleet with diesels? Just converting that many cars to diesel would make a substantial improvement. They can run on a fuel made from soybeans, which are nitrogen fixers, i.e., they don't need fertilizer.

The solution will be like death by a thousand paper cuts. No single solution. Not even ten separate solutions. Save a little here, save a little there. Move a little closer to where you work. Take a job that's a little closer to your house. Switch to working 4 ten hour days, and driving that much less.

Ethanol from corn is not THE way, it barely helps at all, if any.

Finest regards,

troy