World-wide demand for petroleum is steadily increasing, most notably in the
two most populous countries, India and China, while production increases
cannot keep pace. Barring a global economic depression, these trends will
continue. In consequence, baseline (not speculative) crude oil prices are
reaching a new plateau in the $80/bbl range. Within a very few years, the
steady base price will hit $100/bbl. The true economics of ethanol--no
masking, no externalizing, of costs--will become sharply clearer. The big
corporate interests (aka "persons" with unlimited "rights" according to
the Roberts Gang of Five) will continue trying to brainwash us on the status
quo. Unless we non-corporate, natural persons reestablish "Of...by...and
for the People," as the central principle of governance, we are going to be
trapped in a country hell-bent on waste and war... until it all collapses,
and the rich retreat to their Swiss estates and their select US enclaves,
where they'll be guarded by private armies...and the rest of us battle to
survive.
BW
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Donna Buell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Isn't this looking at ethanol in a vacuum?
>
> The issue with biofuels is rarely the carbon burned in the fuel. The issue
> with biofuels is the carbon emissions in the process of growing the
> feedstocks, in the conversion of our land from carbon sinks to carbon
> emitters, in the inappropriately located, poorly regulated or excessively
> large biofuels facilities, etc. We need to take a full life cycle view of
> bio-energy.
>
> And on the bigger scale: This isn't about ethanol v. crude for autos.
> This is about more of the same v. transitioning our energy to truly
> renewable. This is about refusing to upgrade our cars because we can claim
> to use "renewable" ethanol instead of making more efficient cars. This is
> about Big Ag and Big Oil vying for their next big grab on our natural
> resources.
>
> If anybody opposes perennials for on-the-farm energy using pyrolsis or some
> other highly-efficient method of producing energy, please let me know....
> But FYI, directly from the new policy statement: "Sierra Club opposes
> further deployment of corn-based ethanol based on its extremely dubious net
> carbon benefits and its unresolved direct and indirect environmental
> impacts. The Club also opposes proposals to overuse agricultural waste and
> residue products (e.g., corn stover) without rigorous evidence that the
> material being used is surplus to the needs of soil health and fertility."
>
> Donna
>
>
>
> On Dec 9, 2010, at 5:23 PM, Ed Woolsey wrote:
>
> > Lee:
> > No worries. I always enjoy some discussion on the subject. This
> is
> > one of those topics where you’ve always needed to follow WHO pays for
> these
> > studies, and, the strings that come attached, attached to so many of our
> > academics today. With most of these AQ tests there were always
> “agendas”.
> > I fear that this is one of the main reasons that the enviro community is
> so
> > skeptical of ethanol.
> > Ethanol does not have the energy (btu’s) per gallon of gasoline.
> > 73,000 vs 115,000. or about 30% less…so Gerald…I’m not sure how you would
> > drop 10% or Lee…you would drop…30-40%. 9X115,000 plus 1x73,000 for
> > E10 and 10x115,000 for straight gasoline. I’m calling BS….ok…a little
> BS.
> > Gasoline is REFORMULATED for cold weather conditions. The use of
> lighter
> > components (volatile that start easier) would lower the total btu’s in
> your
> > winter blend. Or, gasoline companies would have an economic incentive to
> > dump lower grade gasoline and boost it more than 10%vol. Perhaps we
> need
> > to monitor the blends more.
> > Other related issue is the use of ethanol octane…110 vs gasoline’s 85 or
> a
> > little higher. Octane is an indicator of how efficiently the fuel
> combusts.
> > Because ethanol has a higher octane you can use it in the higher
> efficiency
> > engines. (diesel) Ethanol likes 16 to 1 and the current engines are
> about 8.5
> > to 1. Ethanol is short shifted big time. Boosting the compression ratio
> for the
> > fuel results is something like 25% greater fuel efficiency. (If anyone’s
> > interested they can look it up or I can find it somewhere) Oh, and the
> > reduced efficiency leads to what???? yes...more pollutants.
> > Short story long….what we should be using is about 80%ethanol 20% water
> > mixture in a higher compression engine…tuned for the fuel. Then lets see
> that
> > AQ study….ethanol will smoke any fossil. (pun intended) e
> >
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
> > Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
> > http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp
> >
> > Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship
> > e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's
> > latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent
> > editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
> http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp
>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]
Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp
|
