I am 100% dyed in the wool anti ethanol............ So I am hyper aware of the bogus figures used by the pro-ethanol crowd. Bias aside....... and I am obviously heavily biased.... the fact is that the figures quoted by the pro-ethanol crowd are completely false. They are figures designed to promote their agenda. With agriculture....... with which I am heavily involved, the energy costs of production can easily be manipulated to make things look better than they in fact are. The pro-ethanol folks look at only the most obvious first tier energy costs. There are studies that look more deeply into the total energy picture, and those invariably come up with negative or close to negative figures. It makes no sense whatsoever to burn / consume fossil fuel energy to produce ethanol. It is very easy for example to gloss over or completely ignore energy used in replacing equipment and consumables, and there are many consumables in agriculture, or to ignore things like the energy that goes into producing fertilizer, or the energy used in irrigation, or the replacement and maintenance costs in energy of that equipment. It's easy to say "they don't have to irrigate their cornfields"...... while ignoring the fact that crops that were grown on those fields are now displaced to other locations where irrigation is necessary....... that for example is a second or third tier energy cost, as is transporting replacement crops from overseas. They present an entirely false and bogus "feel good" picture of the energy efficiency. Looking at it honestly, you must look at all of these things........ and more, as they all are energy costs that wouldn't be there without ethanol production. Is the energy cost of production of piece of iron that is worn out in tilling the soil NOT a energy cost of production of ethanol? Is the energy cost of operating a service truck to work on a center pivot to irrigate an ethanol crop NOT an energy cost of production? Even the energy cost of running a school bus to farms out of town must be assigned to whatever is being produced on that land. A share of EVERY energy cost associated in any way with farming that land, be it maintenance of roads & utilities, school bus, fuel and electricity to light the homes of the farmers, etc........belongs on the debit side of the equation. It's easy to gloss all this over and say....... "but they'd be growing something else........", but the fact is that they are NOT growing something else........ somebody else somewhere else is growing that "something else", and accruing that energy cost. Honesty is NOT popular where people have an agenda, but to be truly honest one has to look at the larger picture.
Howard
Quote:
Originally Posted by elhigh
As opposed to my original and clearly wrong choice of words, "only slightly." This 60% vs 80% is considerably better than the numbers fronted by the anti-alcohol faithful.
I'm certain there are better efficiencies to be had, perhaps better enough to neutralize gasoline's delivered BTU advantage. That will be interesting to see.
|