On 19 Aug 2004 02:42:42 GMT, (StellaStar) wrote:

Without
subsidies a fuel that takes more energy to produce than it produces is
going to be expensive.

True, but the data's old, 20 years or so on the cost of production. A study
from this year says you're about 30% ahead producing ethanol. And it's on
dryland (non-irrigated) corn so that leaves out at least one rather costly
input.

http://ianrnews.unl.edu/static/0403220.shtml

I think he's more than a bit optimistic.
he makes one statement that their data mainly comes from their own
fields but others around the country get similar yields, but that is
an open ended statement. Certainly *some* do, but I seriously doubt
that most do.

In general, yields here in Michigan are much higher than in most other
non irrigated areas. Wheat yields are considerably higher than in the
major wheat growing states. Corn is also a high yield crop and great
strides have been made in both the quality (amount of starch) and
yield versus the amount of fertilizer required.

Still... The chemicals for the crop must come from somewhere. Higher
yield means more of something is taken out of the soil (and air). That
means more has to be put back in the form of fertilizer or crop
rotation and plowing down. Greater utilization of Nitrogen certainly
makes a difference as does rotating corn with legumes (Nitrogen
fixing) plants such as clover.

I note his last statement "I'm confident we're still in positive
energy balance," looks positive, but to me when it is taken in context
sounds more of a hopeful statement.

They may have finally reached the positive side, but as I said in a
previous post, they can only do it when taking byproducts into
account. Whether the fuel is a byproduct, or the byproducts of making
the fuel are enough to tip the scales is still unproven. His
confidence doesn't really prove anything until you see the figures
he's using to determine his conclusions.

I certainly hope they have reached the positive side of the energy
balance, but to be practical they need to be well past neutral and
have a lot of useful byproducts.

Much like our recycling industry. Most of it is hype, but a little of
it actually works. If it works they pay you for the materials to
recycle. If you have to pay them you can be fairly certain it's more
of a "make work", or PC type of project.

An example, recycled Aluminum saves money. Recycled paper costs
money and takes more resources than are saved.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


I'm no fan of miracle energy schemes but it seems sensible to cheer on folks
hoping to make energy out of renewable sources and eliminate total dependence
on petroleum, especially when so many dicey third-world governments control its
production...