[extropy-chat] cheap alcohol

Eugen Leitl eugen at leitl.org
Thu Sep 22 20:25:43 UTC 2005


On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 07:22:01AM -1000, Robert Lindauer wrote:

> >Please read
> >http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/patzek/CRPS416-Patzek-Web.pdf
> 
> Please read:
> 
> http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm

Did you notice the Shapouri, Duffield and Wang (2002) and
Shapouri, Gallagher and Graboski (2002) references cited in Patzek (2004,2005)?
I suggest you reread that article. While far from being scripture, I don't think 
you're doing it justice.
 
> 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 

What, please, is "metabolic energy of the yeast"? Whether it's a net
loss, or 130%, or a 250% win, that doesn't really matter. That energy 
balance is frankly awful.

I'm refusing the job of arguing the part of advocatus diaboli,
but compare that energy balance with http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/DSI/MASGC.pdf
"Miscanthus for renewable energy generation: European Union experience and
projections of Illinois".

> 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

Um, did you notice that very study was cited in Patzek? This is getting
ridiculous. If this is the level at which the general public is perceiving
the issue, we can kiss our collective asses good-bye. 
 
> 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). 

You're, again, kindly offer us the choice between the plague, and cholera. 
Clearly, cholera is vastly preferrable to the plague, in the age of IVs and
antibiotics. But, I'd rather have a lazy afternoon at the beach, with a 
banana daiquiri, please.
 
> 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). 

Please read above Miscanthus study. Look at sustainability, and MJ/ha
specifically (17-21 MJ/kg isn't at all shabby).
 
> >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.

Maybe you should actually read what you're citing. 

Again, I don't give a damn about biomass. It's a low-tech stop-gap measure.
My closest candidate to a longer-term solution is organic/polymer (nanodot hybrid)
PV, and electrochemical energy sources. Long-term is deep-space, and completely
incomputable to human primates. If we're producing bullshit, let us strive to 
produce dayglo, scented brand of bullshit.
 
> 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 

If Hawaii is effectively a developing country (no chemical industry,
no domestic engineers, lots of land, no issues with agriculture and 
environment) it might make marginal sense there. 

> 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).

There's no scarcity in coal, though not necessarily domestic.
 
> >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.

August 14, 2005 update on a paper from Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 
23(6):519-569 (2004) is old?
 
> >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.

I remain thoroughly unconvinced, but: I'm not actually giving a damn. 
Biofuel is somebody else's, colicky baby.
 
> >In Communist Russia, the point gets you.
> 
> Again, still living in the '80s?

That'd be 1960s/70s for you. People were enthusiastic about technology and
future, back then. Science was a prestigious career. I sure would have
some aspects of it back, today.

I, for one, welcome our time-travelling overlords.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050922/b214c255/attachment.bin>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list