While not normally a fan of posting wiki links...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested
Get ready for E15. The push is real...
- Thread starter wemay
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Shannow
jhellwig...here's US Department of agriculture.
https://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/2015EnergyBalanceCornEthanol.pdf
Average is 2.1 times as much energy in ethanol as it takes to make it...if you have a "byproduct credit"...the "4 times" are the outlying Iowa and Minnesota regions.
You are missing my point. He said ethanol in Iowa is better because it produces 4x as much energy as consumed where crude production consume 25% of energy produced. 4x = 25%. He stated that they consume the same amount of energy for product produced. That is the issue I see with the statement. You can’t say one is more efficient than the other when you say that they both have the same efficiency.
jhellwig...here's US Department of agriculture.
https://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/2015EnergyBalanceCornEthanol.pdf
Average is 2.1 times as much energy in ethanol as it takes to make it...if you have a "byproduct credit"...the "4 times" are the outlying Iowa and Minnesota regions.
You are missing my point. He said ethanol in Iowa is better because it produces 4x as much energy as consumed where crude production consume 25% of energy produced. 4x = 25%. He stated that they consume the same amount of energy for product produced. That is the issue I see with the statement. You can’t say one is more efficient than the other when you say that they both have the same efficiency.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Lets not forget the millions of acres and millions of tons of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers used every year to grow corn to make ethanol. The only green thing about ethanol is the money a few special interest make on it.
Don't forget 50 times that much area polluted by fracking.
Lets not forget the millions of acres and millions of tons of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers used every year to grow corn to make ethanol. The only green thing about ethanol is the money a few special interest make on it.
Don't forget 50 times that much area polluted by fracking.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: hatt
Lets not forget the millions of acres and millions of tons of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers used every year to grow corn to make ethanol. The only green thing about ethanol is the money a few special interest make on it.
Don't forget 50 times that much area polluted by fracking.
Source?
Even if your made up number was true how much petroleum use is ethanol cutting out in the US? Maybe 2-3%? The environmental impact of the petroleum industry is basically unaffected. Cutting out ethanol production is where the environmental gains are.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Lets not forget the millions of acres and millions of tons of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers used every year to grow corn to make ethanol. The only green thing about ethanol is the money a few special interest make on it.
Don't forget 50 times that much area polluted by fracking.
Source?
Even if your made up number was true how much petroleum use is ethanol cutting out in the US? Maybe 2-3%? The environmental impact of the petroleum industry is basically unaffected. Cutting out ethanol production is where the environmental gains are.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: hatt
Lets not forget the millions of acres and millions of tons of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers used every year to grow corn to make ethanol. The only green thing about ethanol is the money a few special interest make on it.
Don't forget 50 times that much area polluted by fracking.
Source?
Even if your made up number was true how much petroleum use is ethanol cutting out in the US? Maybe 2-3%? The environmental impact of the petroleum industry is basically unaffected. Cutting out ethanol production is where the environmental gains are.
You do realise that even if we did just stop using corn ethanol that is not going to affect the production of farm ground? Crops would be adjusted but the most efficient and effective use will be made of every acre.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: hatt
Lets not forget the millions of acres and millions of tons of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers used every year to grow corn to make ethanol. The only green thing about ethanol is the money a few special interest make on it.
Don't forget 50 times that much area polluted by fracking.
Source?
Even if your made up number was true how much petroleum use is ethanol cutting out in the US? Maybe 2-3%? The environmental impact of the petroleum industry is basically unaffected. Cutting out ethanol production is where the environmental gains are.
You do realise that even if we did just stop using corn ethanol that is not going to affect the production of farm ground? Crops would be adjusted but the most efficient and effective use will be made of every acre.
Originally Posted By: jhellwig
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: hatt
Lets not forget the millions of acres and millions of tons of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers used every year to grow corn to make ethanol. The only green thing about ethanol is the money a few special interest make on it.
Don't forget 50 times that much area polluted by fracking.
Source?
Even if your made up number was true how much petroleum use is ethanol cutting out in the US? Maybe 2-3%? The environmental impact of the petroleum industry is basically unaffected. Cutting out ethanol production is where the environmental gains are.
You do realise that even if we did just stop using corn ethanol that is not going to affect the production of farm ground? Crops would be adjusted but the most efficient and effective use will be made of every acre.
Millions of acres of idle/lower quality farmland was put back into production for the ethanol industry. Talk to a pheasant hunter.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: hatt
Lets not forget the millions of acres and millions of tons of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers used every year to grow corn to make ethanol. The only green thing about ethanol is the money a few special interest make on it.
Don't forget 50 times that much area polluted by fracking.
Source?
Even if your made up number was true how much petroleum use is ethanol cutting out in the US? Maybe 2-3%? The environmental impact of the petroleum industry is basically unaffected. Cutting out ethanol production is where the environmental gains are.
You do realise that even if we did just stop using corn ethanol that is not going to affect the production of farm ground? Crops would be adjusted but the most efficient and effective use will be made of every acre.
Millions of acres of idle/lower quality farmland was put back into production for the ethanol industry. Talk to a pheasant hunter.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: jhellwig
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: jhellwig
Originally Posted By: hatt
turtlevette said:
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: jhellwig
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: jhellwig
Originally Posted By: hatt
turtlevettequote=hatt said:
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Originally Posted By: hatt
Lets not forget the millions of acres and millions of tons of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers used every year to grow corn to make ethanol. The only green thing about ethanol is the money a few special interest make on it.
We have rice fields, corn fields, and oil fields … (some joined) …
But, the counties here have dug mile after mile of canals … and the state has dug a massive reservoir for the farmers … no one else … Oil producers have learned to do as much as they can (even frack work) with produced saltwater … which has no use to farmers … This occurs on some very nice spreads of land, and with directional drilling, the land owners work with the oil companies on where they can and cannot place equipment etc …
Not the conflict the NE news wants it to be …
Lets not forget the millions of acres and millions of tons of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers used every year to grow corn to make ethanol. The only green thing about ethanol is the money a few special interest make on it.
We have rice fields, corn fields, and oil fields … (some joined) …
But, the counties here have dug mile after mile of canals … and the state has dug a massive reservoir for the farmers … no one else … Oil producers have learned to do as much as they can (even frack work) with produced saltwater … which has no use to farmers … This occurs on some very nice spreads of land, and with directional drilling, the land owners work with the oil companies on where they can and cannot place equipment etc …
Not the conflict the NE news wants it to be …
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Problem is that if it's a mandate, it's not free market.
the consumer doesn't get to choose to purchase it or not if he's got no choice.
Why does Australia's biggest producer need to wine and dine Government leaders to "suggest" that it goes to 15% here too ?
In the states, it is only a mandate in individual states that require it without ethanol free also being made available. The Feds only mandate the total amount of ethanol being used. The EPA plays a hand somewhat in excepting some metro areas use oxygenated fuels like Ethanol. But the problem whether a person has a choice or not outside of those limited areas can be laid directly on the doorstep of one's state and local governments.
Down under, the situation could be different.
Problem is that if it's a mandate, it's not free market.
the consumer doesn't get to choose to purchase it or not if he's got no choice.
Why does Australia's biggest producer need to wine and dine Government leaders to "suggest" that it goes to 15% here too ?
In the states, it is only a mandate in individual states that require it without ethanol free also being made available. The Feds only mandate the total amount of ethanol being used. The EPA plays a hand somewhat in excepting some metro areas use oxygenated fuels like Ethanol. But the problem whether a person has a choice or not outside of those limited areas can be laid directly on the doorstep of one's state and local governments.
Down under, the situation could be different.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
jhellwig...here's US Department of agriculture.
https://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/2015EnergyBalanceCornEthanol.pdf
Average is 2.1 times as much energy in ethanol as it takes to make it...if you have a "byproduct credit"...the "4 times" are the outlying Iowa and Minnesota regions.
yet another dept of Agriculture report.....
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/bioenergy/pdfs/energy_balance_of_corn_ethanol.pdf
Here is a portion from the conclusion of this report.....
Corn ethanol is energy efficient, as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.34; that is, for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol there is a 34 percent energy gain
jhellwig...here's US Department of agriculture.
https://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/2015EnergyBalanceCornEthanol.pdf
Average is 2.1 times as much energy in ethanol as it takes to make it...if you have a "byproduct credit"...the "4 times" are the outlying Iowa and Minnesota regions.
yet another dept of Agriculture report.....
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/bioenergy/pdfs/energy_balance_of_corn_ethanol.pdf
Here is a portion from the conclusion of this report.....
Corn ethanol is energy efficient, as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.34; that is, for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol there is a 34 percent energy gain
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
yet another dept of Agriculture report.....
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/bioenergy/pdfs/energy_balance_of_corn_ethanol.pdf
Here is a portion from the conclusion of this report.....
Corn ethanol is energy efficient, as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.34; that is, for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol there is a 34 percent energy gain
Wow, so to get 134 gallon equivalent energy units of ethanol, you need to burn 100 gallon equivalents of something else.
That's bordering on digging holes and filling them in, and demonstrative of absolute waste of time, effort and energy for a boondoggle.
You surely can't be proud of that...but at least are more honest than claiming that the ratio is "4"...i.e. 400 gallon equivalents for the 100 gallons burned.
As to the other claim of no mandate...
https://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/RFS.html
Quote:
The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is a federal program that requires transportation fuel sold in the United States to contain a minimum volume of renewable fuels.
regardless of the "look over there, a bunny"...it's a mandate.
yet another dept of Agriculture report.....
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/bioenergy/pdfs/energy_balance_of_corn_ethanol.pdf
Here is a portion from the conclusion of this report.....
Corn ethanol is energy efficient, as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.34; that is, for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol there is a 34 percent energy gain
Wow, so to get 134 gallon equivalent energy units of ethanol, you need to burn 100 gallon equivalents of something else.
That's bordering on digging holes and filling them in, and demonstrative of absolute waste of time, effort and energy for a boondoggle.
You surely can't be proud of that...but at least are more honest than claiming that the ratio is "4"...i.e. 400 gallon equivalents for the 100 gallons burned.
As to the other claim of no mandate...
https://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/RFS.html
Quote:
The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is a federal program that requires transportation fuel sold in the United States to contain a minimum volume of renewable fuels.
regardless of the "look over there, a bunny"...it's a mandate.
Originally Posted By: jhellwig
That was going to happen regardless of ethanol. It was happening long before the ethanol boom. Anytime grain prices skyrocket land is pushed into production. Ethanol is a small portion of corn demand to begin with.
And the pheasant population has been increasing in the last 15 years.
On top of all that over the last 10 years companies that produced ethanol as a byproduct of corn syrup production actually cut ethanol production due to corn syrup demand.
Around 40% doesn't sound like "small portion of corn demand" to me. HFCS is another product that I have no use for. I'm sure lobbyists are working on a mandate there too.
That was going to happen regardless of ethanol. It was happening long before the ethanol boom. Anytime grain prices skyrocket land is pushed into production. Ethanol is a small portion of corn demand to begin with.
And the pheasant population has been increasing in the last 15 years.
On top of all that over the last 10 years companies that produced ethanol as a byproduct of corn syrup production actually cut ethanol production due to corn syrup demand.
Around 40% doesn't sound like "small portion of corn demand" to me. HFCS is another product that I have no use for. I'm sure lobbyists are working on a mandate there too.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
yet another dept of Agriculture report.....
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/bioenergy/pdfs/energy_balance_of_corn_ethanol.pdf
Here is a portion from the conclusion of this report.....
Corn ethanol is energy efficient, as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.34; that is, for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol there is a 34 percent energy gain
Wow, so to get 134 gallon equivalent energy units of ethanol, you need to burn 100 gallon equivalents of something else.
That's bordering on digging holes and filling them in, and demonstrative of absolute waste of time, effort and energy for a boondoggle.
You surely can't be proud of that...but at least are more honest than claiming that the ratio is "4"...i.e. 400 gallon equivalents for the 100 gallons burned.
As to the other claim of no mandate...
https://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/RFS.html
Quote:
The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is a federal program that requires transportation fuel sold in the United States to contain a minimum volume of renewable fuels.
regardless of the "look over there, a bunny"...it's a mandate.
The oil industry has to be in love with the ethanol industry.
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
yet another dept of Agriculture report.....
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/bioenergy/pdfs/energy_balance_of_corn_ethanol.pdf
Here is a portion from the conclusion of this report.....
Corn ethanol is energy efficient, as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.34; that is, for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol there is a 34 percent energy gain
Wow, so to get 134 gallon equivalent energy units of ethanol, you need to burn 100 gallon equivalents of something else.
That's bordering on digging holes and filling them in, and demonstrative of absolute waste of time, effort and energy for a boondoggle.
You surely can't be proud of that...but at least are more honest than claiming that the ratio is "4"...i.e. 400 gallon equivalents for the 100 gallons burned.
As to the other claim of no mandate...
https://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/RFS.html
Quote:
The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is a federal program that requires transportation fuel sold in the United States to contain a minimum volume of renewable fuels.
regardless of the "look over there, a bunny"...it's a mandate.
The oil industry has to be in love with the ethanol industry.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: jhellwig
That was going to happen regardless of ethanol. It was happening long before the ethanol boom. Anytime grain prices skyrocket land is pushed into production. Ethanol is a small portion of corn demand to begin with.
And the pheasant population has been increasing in the last 15 years.
On top of all that over the last 10 years companies that produced ethanol as a byproduct of corn syrup production actually cut ethanol production due to corn syrup demand.
Around 40% doesn't sound like "small portion of corn demand" to me. HFCS is another product that I have no use for. I'm sure lobbyists are working on a mandate there too.
To put it in engineering terms...
40% of corn demand being for ethanol means that prior to that demand, it was at level, lets say "x"...now, to be "only" 40% of demand mean that it was increased from "x" by 67%
Originally Posted By: jhellwig
That was going to happen regardless of ethanol. It was happening long before the ethanol boom. Anytime grain prices skyrocket land is pushed into production. Ethanol is a small portion of corn demand to begin with.
And the pheasant population has been increasing in the last 15 years.
On top of all that over the last 10 years companies that produced ethanol as a byproduct of corn syrup production actually cut ethanol production due to corn syrup demand.
Around 40% doesn't sound like "small portion of corn demand" to me. HFCS is another product that I have no use for. I'm sure lobbyists are working on a mandate there too.
To put it in engineering terms...
40% of corn demand being for ethanol means that prior to that demand, it was at level, lets say "x"...now, to be "only" 40% of demand mean that it was increased from "x" by 67%
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: jhellwig
That was going to happen regardless of ethanol. It was happening long before the ethanol boom. Anytime grain prices skyrocket land is pushed into production. Ethanol is a small portion of corn demand to begin with.
And the pheasant population has been increasing in the last 15 years.
On top of all that over the last 10 years companies that produced ethanol as a byproduct of corn syrup production actually cut ethanol production due to corn syrup demand.
Around 40% doesn't sound like "small portion of corn demand" to me. HFCS is another product that I have no use for. I'm sure lobbyists are working on a mandate there too.
Nice job using a number directly from a google search from an article that cites no sources and has a disclaimer at the bottom that it is an opinion.
Originally Posted By: jhellwig
That was going to happen regardless of ethanol. It was happening long before the ethanol boom. Anytime grain prices skyrocket land is pushed into production. Ethanol is a small portion of corn demand to begin with.
And the pheasant population has been increasing in the last 15 years.
On top of all that over the last 10 years companies that produced ethanol as a byproduct of corn syrup production actually cut ethanol production due to corn syrup demand.
Around 40% doesn't sound like "small portion of corn demand" to me. HFCS is another product that I have no use for. I'm sure lobbyists are working on a mandate there too.
Nice job using a number directly from a google search from an article that cites no sources and has a disclaimer at the bottom that it is an opinion.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
