[extropy-chat] cheap alcohol

[Robert Lindauer]

Eugen Leitl wrote:

>On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 08:46:05PM -1000, Robert Lindauer wrote:
>
>  
>
>>>Not clean.
>>>      
>>>
>>really, what are the by products of which you are afraid?  Water, 
>>carbon-dioxide?
>>    
>>
>
>Please read
>http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/patzek/CRPS416-Patzek-Web.pdf
>  
>

Please read:

http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm

Not your researcher says that there is a net loss of about 30% whereas 
the official government estimates and others rate ethanol at about the 
opposite, production 130% of the energy required to produce it due to 
the metabolic energy of the yeast.  There are ultra-efficient 
distillation methods being developed and since the temperature for 
distilling alcohol from mash is around 170f, it's much more efficient 
than higher-temperature (e.g. boiling) methods.  This has been well 
known now for more than 10 years.  The debate was effectively settled by 
the department of energy.

http://www.usda.gov/oce/oepnu/aer-813.pdf

Again, still based on corn.

Growing sugar cane or sugar beet is much, much more efficient per acre 
than growing corn for the production of alcohol, roughly 14% of 
sugar-beet biomass is directly convertible to alcohol (as opposed the 
the 4% for corn). 

Sugar beet grows anywhere corn will and is much, much more efficient.  
In areas where a natural crop is sugar cane, not only is cane renewable 
and clean to grow, you can grow several crops per year (about .66/year 
per crop). 



>I haven't done any fact-checking on it, but this looks like a reasonably
>sound analysis of most relevant factors.
>  
>
Maybe you should have done some fact-checking.

> 
>  
>
>>>>readily available and renewable energy resource for which we currently
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Not readily available.
>>>      
>>>
>>In every climate except suitable for growing anything, the ability to 
>>grow sugar-rich crops is abundant.
>>    
>>
>
>Patient: Doctor, it hurts if I do that!
>Doctor: Then don't do that.
>
>Why do you insist to ruin a perfectly good fuel option by limiting
>your choices to the sweet crops, and even throw away the rest? 
>  
>

Who said throw away the rest?  However, the byproduct of sugar cane and 
sugar beet (and corn, for that matter) production of alcohol is 
feed-grade protein-rich mash suitable for either fertilizer (which is 
necessary for the sustainability), heating the distillation process or 
for other food-purposes (pigs, cows, chickens, sheep, dogs, horses, etc.)

> 
>  
>
>>>>have sufficient technology to continue producing it cheaply and
>>>>effectively, it's not perfect.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Not cheaply, and effectively.
>>>      
>>>
>>In Brazil, alcohol averages about $.90/gallon.
>>    
>>
>
>I never said bioethanol doesn't make sense -- in Brazil.
>  
>

It also makes sense here in Hawaii.  It -could- make sense anywhere you 
can grow sugar beet or sugar can and even makes sense using the corn 
method given current government subsidy levels.  HOWEVER, even without 
the subsidies, corn remains a renewable source of high-volume sugar and 
carbohydrate making it much preferable to fossil fuels (unless you think 
that you can hit a rock and it will bleed oil).

>>Or perhaps in the US where many, many corporations are investing 
>>heavily in ethanol production.
>>    
>>
>
>Are you familiar with the political process? How agribusiness
>works, and how to lobby to obtain subsidies for something that
>makes no sense?
>  
>

Sure, the same process fuels the current nonsensical war-for-oil 
process.  I estimate that if we were to take our entire military budget 
and redirect it at developing alternative energy resources we would 
completely obviate any need for foreign oil and simultaneously suck the 
funding and motivational fuel from under the "muslim fundamentalist 
movements" which are -supposedly- fueling this fire.  No need for 
Saudi/Iraqi/Iranian oil, no money for terrorists, no need for western 
presence in their countries, no terrorists attacking the friendly united 
states.

>>>It is even considerably worse than biodiesel.
>>>      
>>>
>>In what way, in that biodiesel produces the same waste in its use as 
>>regular plain ol' diesel and costs much more to produce and produces 
>>harmful byproducts in its production?
>>    
>>
>
>I never said biodiesel was a good idea. It only looks good if you
>compare it with bioethanol.
>  
>

Apparently that depends on reading old studies.

>I suggest you reread the URLs I posted earlier in that thread,
>and come back with more informed opinions about their comparative
>merits, or rather, lack thereof.
>
>  
>

I think that the -old- statistics on ethanol aren't applicable and the 
myth that ethanol production uses more energy than it produces is long 
since dispelled and that studies based on corn-ethanol production aren't 
really relevant for cane-ethanol or sugar-beet-ethanol methods.

>>>No, I don't think you do.
>>>      
>>>
>>I should have said "I get you."
>>    
>>
>
>In Communist Russia, the point gets you.
>  
>

Again, still living in the '80s?

Robbie Lindauer