|
|
"The Phantom" <phantom@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ercod1do64rqeedsrhn0ejq6797osj7jh5@xxxxxxxxxx
>
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002387520_ethanol18.html
A very misleading article that is not particularly clear nor does it have
exact comparison numbers to actually get a real handle on the situation. It
is deliberately written to create the impression that it takes more fossil
energy to make these various fuels than one gets out of them and therefore
bio-fuels are no good and actually are wasteful of petroleum.
In the case of ethanol they claim that it takes 29% more fossil energy to
make ethanol than one gets out of it. I take that to mean that it takes 129
BTU's input to get 100 BTU's of ethanol output. I don't know
if that is an accurate number or not, but taking it at face value, what if
the 129 BTU's came from ethanol or other bio-fuels to net 100 BTU's of
ethanol product. Would not the yield be 100/129 X 100% = 77.5%. In
otherwords, using their numbers and using green fuels to power the process,
the yield of ethanol is 77.5%. That sounds pretty damn good to me. I'll bet
it is as good or better than gasoline from petroleum using the same
rational.
We must be very careful with the numbers and what they mean. In the case of
wood, they claim 57% more fossil energy needed which makes no sense
whatsoever. We went through most of the 19th century and before burning only
wood as a fuel. No oil, coal or gas. Yet, not one BTU of fossil energy was
required to power our nation on wood. So it's not clear what they mean with
the 57% number. Similar misleading statements are made about sawgrass and
soybeans. One gets the feeling that the whole article is nothing but
anti-biofuel propaganda without merit.
Bob
|
|