Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [energyresources] Re: Patzek rants against cellulosic ethanol

Expand Messages
  • Milton Maciel
    Evidently this so low 3:1 ratio does not apply for ethanol from sugar cane in Brazil, where three times that ratio is common and four times that ratio is
    Message 1 of 17 , Jun 30, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Evidently this so low 3:1 ratio does not apply for ethanol from sugar cane in Brazil, where three times that ratio is common and four times that ratio is average for organic sugar cane ethanol.

      Milton Maciel

      Tom Robertson <t1r@...> wrote:
      ~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

      Regarding biomass fuels:

      The Energy Returned on Energy Invested of gasoline and diesel is at least
      10:1 and most often many times that ratio, while the best the ethanuts can
      come up with their "solution" is somewhere around 3:1 (and even then, you
      would not want to touch their books with bare hands.)

      We need analysis that lets us know what is most likely to work, not advocacy
      for what some folks see as a seat on some unsustainable gravy train.

      ~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~


      -----Original Message-----
      From: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:energyresources@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of halc10n
      Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 8:23 AM
      To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [energyresources] Re: Patzek rants against cellulosic ethanol

      I'm not Tom, but some pointers nevertheless:

      Summary of USDA criticism on Pimentel studies (up to 2002, see pate 11)
      http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/aer-814.pdf

      Comparison of various Lifecycle / net energy balance studies is:

      Lifecycle Analyses of Biofuels
      http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/publications/2006/UCD-ITS-RR-06-08.pdf
      (also criticizing parts of Pimentel approach, but also comparing others)

      A meta-study of various ethanol energy balance studies, showing ranges and
      averages for various bio-ethanol processes (corn, lignocellulose, etc):

      ENERGY BALANCE OF BIOETHANOL: A SYNTHESIS
      http://www.eners.ch/downloads/eners_0510_ebce_paper.pdf

      (shows that all processes have an average energy balance ratio of ABOVE 1,
      with lignocellulose having a net energy balance ratio above 3).

      Whatever the exact number may turn out to be for each study - I think there
      is a lot of variance. As such, I think it is best not to blindly trust any
      single number (from Pimentel or from anybody else), unless they've been
      measured in practice over a fairly long period of real life ethanol
      production.

      My own personal summary for the time being is that:

      1) Lignocellulosic processes can have a net energy balance that looks worth
      the effort

      2) Some questions remains as to the overall energy production _system_ net
      energy
      balance (needs to be proven in practice), see Cleveland (encyclopedia of
      earth for
      more)

      3) Scaling issues may remain, regardless of net energy issues (this depends
      on geography,
      logistical arrangements and existing processes. I've seen numbers about
      wood
      residue collection in Finland and they are encouraging)

      Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
      Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@...
      Yahoo! Groups Links






      ---------------------------------
      Building a website is a piece of cake.
      Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • joedoves
      ... wrote: The Energy Returned on Energy Invested of gasoline and diesel is at least 10:1 and most often many times that ratio, while the best the ethanuts can
      Message 2 of 17 , Jun 30, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Robertson" <t1r@...>
        wrote:
        The Energy Returned on Energy Invested of gasoline and diesel is at
        least 10:1 and most often many times that ratio, while the best the
        ethanuts can come up with their "solution" is somewhere around 3:1 (and even then, you would not want to touch their books with bare hands.)--tr

        You clearly forgot about sugar cane ethanol that gets a minimum EROEI
        of about 8.3(11.2 with organic sugar cane) according to Milton Marcel
        (a farmer and our expert in sugar cane ethanol). I am certain that
        Milton got his EROEI from real energy bills,etc. from his own farm!
        At his site he gives 40.5 tons per acre productivity. Brazil produces
        around 28 billion tons of sugar cane per year.

        http://www.biofuelsnow.com/Ethanol%20From%20Sugar%20Cane.pdf

        If you don't like corn then remember, America produces 6 billion tons
        of sugar that could be turned into ethanol.
        Here's a site that Florida gives from 40 years ago a productivity of
        32.1 tons per acre and 95.5 tons per acre for Hawaiian sugar cane!

        http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/Crops/Sugar_cane.html

        But back to the sorry state of corn ethanol. It's true that corn is
        an expensive crop to turn into ethanol, requiring fertilizer and
        water. On the other hand corn can be made into hundreds of products
        including corn meal, corn starch, corn tortillas, meal for animals,
        bourbon, corn syrup as a sweetner 70% more intense than sucrose(so
        you need less of it), corn oil for inks,etc.
        OTH, the uses for sugar cane is pretty much just rum,
        molassas,sucrose and ethanol.
        Gasohol E10 was introduced in 1978 to raise gas octane rating after
        poisonous tetra ethyl lead additive was removed by the EPA. The
        industry needed subsidies to get started and at the time corn was the
        method of producing ethanol. In 1988 it was added along with MTBE(a
        natural gas product) as an oxygenate to reduce carbon monoxide
        emissions from cars. In 1998 states began banning MTBE after this
        toxic chemical began leaking out of gas station storage tanks
        poisoning the water table. This caused 25 states to ban MTBE as the
        federal government wouldn't take any action, except that Tom Delay
        sought to indemnify the oil companies against lawsuits brought by
        local governments suffering with poisoned ground water.

        Clearly, corn ethanol was always considered an additive and not a
        fuel.
        Even back in 1974, cellulosic ethanol was considered to be the
        replacement transportation fuel for oil, but we haven't yet seen that
        happen.

        The fact is we are still looking for a replacement for oil and the
        only ones we can use in our cars are bio-ethanol or Fischer Tropsch
        coal to liquids, both low EROEI fuels. It's no good moaning about
        it..its where we are! Really we should be putting our resources to
        raising the EROEI of the replacement fuels with new technology, not
        arbitrarily ruling them out.

        ~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

        Joe Doves, et al

        There are no EROEI equivalents to the primary energies we use today when you look at all options with a good means of assessing their relative merit via Energy Returned on Energy Invested analysis.

        And one methodology applied to one technology tells us nothing about the relative merit of all options.

        The real threat from this situatin comes from the fact that today, almost 35 years after Odum introduced the "net energy" concept in his 1973 Ambio paper (which is in the ERG Files section) there is still no universally credible and accurate means of measuring same.

        We are flying unnecessarily blind, and unless this situation is not corrected, will pay a very high price for our willful ignorance.

        (PS, If Brazil sugar cane ethanol has an EROEI of 8.2 : 1, then conventional gasoline measured with the same methodology would probably be in the order of a minimum of 20 : 1.)

        Tom Robertson, Moderator, EnergyResources Group
        (39°53'N 76° 59'W)

        ~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~
        >
        > We need analysis that lets us know what is most likely to work, not
        > advocacy for what some folks see as a seat on some unsustainable
        > gravy train.
        >
        > ~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~
        >
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
        > [mailto:energyresources@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of halc10n
        > Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 8:23 AM
        > To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [energyresources] Re: Patzek rants against cellulosic
        ethanol
        >
        > I'm not Tom, but some pointers nevertheless:
        >
        > Summary of USDA criticism on Pimentel studies (up to 2002, see
        pate 11)
        > http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/aer-814.pdf
        >
        > Comparison of various Lifecycle / net energy balance studies is:
        >
        > Lifecycle Analyses of Biofuels
        > http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/publications/2006/UCD-ITS-RR-06-08.pdf
        > (also criticizing parts of Pimentel approach, but also comparing
        others)
        >
        > A meta-study of various ethanol energy balance studies, showing
        ranges and
        > averages for various bio-ethanol processes (corn, lignocellulose,
        etc):
        >
        > ENERGY BALANCE OF BIOETHANOL: A SYNTHESIS
        > http://www.eners.ch/downloads/eners_0510_ebce_paper.pdf
        >
        > (shows that all processes have an average energy balance ratio of
        ABOVE 1,
        > with lignocellulose having a net energy balance ratio above 3).
        >
        > Whatever the exact number may turn out to be for each study - I
        think there
        > is a lot of variance. As such, I think it is best not to blindly
        trust any
        > single number (from Pimentel or from anybody else), unless they've
        been
        > measured in practice over a fairly long period of real life ethanol
        > production.
        >
        > My own personal summary for the time being is that:
        >
        > 1) Lignocellulosic processes can have a net energy balance that
        looks worth
        > the effort
        >
        > 2) Some questions remains as to the overall energy production
        _system_ net
        > energy
        > balance (needs to be proven in practice), see Cleveland
        (encyclopedia of
        > earth for
        > more)
        >
        > 3) Scaling issues may remain, regardless of net energy issues
        (this depends
        > on geography,
        > logistical arrangements and existing processes. I've seen
        numbers about
        > wood
        > residue collection in Finland and they are encouraging)
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
        > Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@...
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
      • Frank Holland
        ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugarcane#Production gives about 1 billion for world production, Brazil at 423 million. -- Frank 53.22N 2.07W
        Message 3 of 17 , Jul 2 6:23 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 06:04 +0000, joedoves wrote:
          > Brazil produces
          > around 28 billion tons of sugar cane per year.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugarcane#Production gives about 1 billion
          for world production, Brazil at 423 million.


          --

          Frank
          53.22N 2.07W
        • Milton Maciel
          Dear Joedoves, Just a small correction, in order to help: Total Brazilian sugar cane (in stalks) production in 2006 = 476 MILLION tons in 2006 (presentation in
          Message 4 of 17 , Jul 2 7:19 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Joedoves,

            Just a small correction, in order to help:
            Total Brazilian sugar cane (in stalks) production in 2006 = 476 MILLION tons in 2006
            (presentation in my site, slide 4).

            Milton Maciel

            joedoves <joedoves@...> wrote:
            --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Robertson" <t1r@...>
            wrote:
            The Energy Returned on Energy Invested of gasoline and diesel is at
            least 10:1 and most often many times that ratio, while the best the
            ethanuts can come up with their "solution" is somewhere around 3:1 (and even then, you would not want to touch their books with bare hands.)--tr

            You clearly forgot about sugar cane ethanol that gets a minimum EROEI
            of about 8.3(11.2 with organic sugar cane) according to Milton Marcel
            (a farmer and our expert in sugar cane ethanol). I am certain that
            Milton got his EROEI from real energy bills,etc. from his own farm!
            At his site he gives 40.5 tons per acre productivity. Brazil produces
            around 28 billion tons of sugar cane per year.

            http://www.biofuelsnow.com/Ethanol%20From%20Sugar%20Cane.pdf

            If you don't like corn then remember, America produces 6 billion tons
            of sugar that could be turned into ethanol.
            Here's a site that Florida gives from 40 years ago a productivity of
            32.1 tons per acre and 95.5 tons per acre for Hawaiian sugar cane!

            http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/Crops/Sugar_cane.html

            But back to the sorry state of corn ethanol. It's true that corn is
            an expensive crop to turn into ethanol, requiring fertilizer and
            water. On the other hand corn can be made into hundreds of products
            including corn meal, corn starch, corn tortillas, meal for animals,
            bourbon, corn syrup as a sweetner 70% more intense than sucrose(so
            you need less of it), corn oil for inks,etc.
            OTH, the uses for sugar cane is pretty much just rum,
            molassas,sucrose and ethanol.
            Gasohol E10 was introduced in 1978 to raise gas octane rating after
            poisonous tetra ethyl lead additive was removed by the EPA. The
            industry needed subsidies to get started and at the time corn was the
            method of producing ethanol. In 1988 it was added along with MTBE(a
            natural gas product) as an oxygenate to reduce carbon monoxide
            emissions from cars. In 1998 states began banning MTBE after this
            toxic chemical began leaking out of gas station storage tanks
            poisoning the water table. This caused 25 states to ban MTBE as the
            federal government wouldn't take any action, except that Tom Delay
            sought to indemnify the oil companies against lawsuits brought by
            local governments suffering with poisoned ground water.

            Clearly, corn ethanol was always considered an additive and not a
            fuel.
            Even back in 1974, cellulosic ethanol was considered to be the
            replacement transportation fuel for oil, but we haven't yet seen that
            happen.

            The fact is we are still looking for a replacement for oil and the
            only ones we can use in our cars are bio-ethanol or Fischer Tropsch
            coal to liquids, both low EROEI fuels. It's no good moaning about
            it..its where we are! Really we should be putting our resources to
            raising the EROEI of the replacement fuels with new technology, not
            arbitrarily ruling them out.

            ~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

            Joe Doves, et al

            There are no EROEI equivalents to the primary energies we use today when you look at all options with a good means of assessing their relative merit via Energy Returned on Energy Invested analysis.

            And one methodology applied to one technology tells us nothing about the relative merit of all options.

            The real threat from this situatin comes from the fact that today, almost 35 years after Odum introduced the "net energy" concept in his 1973 Ambio paper (which is in the ERG Files section) there is still no universally credible and accurate means of measuring same.

            We are flying unnecessarily blind, and unless this situation is not corrected, will pay a very high price for our willful ignorance.

            (PS, If Brazil sugar cane ethanol has an EROEI of 8.2 : 1, then conventional gasoline measured with the same methodology would probably be in the order of a minimum of 20 : 1.)

            Tom Robertson, Moderator, EnergyResources Group
            (39°53'N 76° 59'W)

            ~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~
            >
            > We need analysis that lets us know what is most likely to work, not
            > advocacy for what some folks see as a seat on some unsustainable
            > gravy train.
            >
            > ~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~
            >
            >
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
            > [mailto:energyresources@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of halc10n
            > Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 8:23 AM
            > To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: [energyresources] Re: Patzek rants against cellulosic
            ethanol
            >
            > I'm not Tom, but some pointers nevertheless:
            >
            > Summary of USDA criticism on Pimentel studies (up to 2002, see
            pate 11)
            > http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/aer-814.pdf
            >
            > Comparison of various Lifecycle / net energy balance studies is:
            >
            > Lifecycle Analyses of Biofuels
            > http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/publications/2006/UCD-ITS-RR-06-08.pdf
            > (also criticizing parts of Pimentel approach, but also comparing
            others)
            >
            > A meta-study of various ethanol energy balance studies, showing
            ranges and
            > averages for various bio-ethanol processes (corn, lignocellulose,
            etc):
            >
            > ENERGY BALANCE OF BIOETHANOL: A SYNTHESIS
            > http://www.eners.ch/downloads/eners_0510_ebce_paper.pdf
            >
            > (shows that all processes have an average energy balance ratio of
            ABOVE 1,
            > with lignocellulose having a net energy balance ratio above 3).
            >
            > Whatever the exact number may turn out to be for each study - I
            think there
            > is a lot of variance. As such, I think it is best not to blindly
            trust any
            > single number (from Pimentel or from anybody else), unless they've
            been
            > measured in practice over a fairly long period of real life ethanol
            > production.
            >
            > My own personal summary for the time being is that:
            >
            > 1) Lignocellulosic processes can have a net energy balance that
            looks worth
            > the effort
            >
            > 2) Some questions remains as to the overall energy production
            _system_ net
            > energy
            > balance (needs to be proven in practice), see Cleveland
            (encyclopedia of
            > earth for
            > more)
            >
            > 3) Scaling issues may remain, regardless of net energy issues
            (this depends
            > on geography,
            > logistical arrangements and existing processes. I've seen
            numbers about
            > wood
            > residue collection in Finland and they are encouraging)
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
            > Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@...
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >






            ---------------------------------
            Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
            Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Tom Wayburn
            Joe, Frank, Milton, Tom, et al., Milton Maciel is uniquely positioned to render an extremely useful service to Energy Resources and energy resources
            Message 5 of 17 , Jul 2 3:08 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Joe, Frank, Milton, Tom, et al.,



              Milton Maciel is uniquely positioned to render an extremely useful service
              to Energy Resources and energy resources technology. If he would report the
              energy in kind spent directly on his farm, a list of material goods,
              services rendered to the farm, farm equipment and farm maintenance supplies
              if maintenance is done on-site or all relevant data if not, the energy
              budgets of himself and his employees including a list of material goods
              obtained by them and services rendered to them in the course of a typical
              year, the embodied energy of the farm itself so that it can be suitably
              amortized, taxes and debt service if relevant ,and any other data I may have
              forgotten, … I say, if this raw data is supplied – and it is the minimum we
              can get by on, then we can begin to get a handle on the energy invested per
              unit of energy returned. We must use raw data to estimate the energy
              embedded in material, in services rendered, in debt service, and in taxes,
              as well as in all commercial expenses concomitant with the farm’s business
              and the business of its employees and other stakeholders. It’s a formidable
              task and it’s just the beginning of a huge undertaking to get the energy
              embodied in everything that must be charged to the production of alcohol.
              Also, and this is tricky, we must assign embodied energy to all by-products
              of the farm - in fact, anything that leaves the farm and carries energy
              away. We must assign negative values to such environmental damage as is
              bound to occur in even those enterprises run with the best practices and the
              best intentions.



              This would be the first energy balance around an industrial enterprise that
              is sufficiently complete to satisfy me that a reasonable EROI has been
              computed. Otherwise, I can’t accept anyone’s figures unless they have made
              a partial accounting of energy invested that exceeds the energy returned.



              But, only Milton - of anyone I know - is positioned to even embark upon such
              a difficult and important task. When others in other industries have done
              the same, we shall have an encyclopedia of emergies that will facilitate all
              further energy analysis. (Finally, I used the word “emergy” and I’m not at
              all sorry.)



              Tom







              Tom Wayburn, PhD in chemical engineering
              Houston, Texas
              http://dematerialism.net/ where I am asking the reader to peruse only four
              web pages after this homepage:
              http://dematerialism.net/wiki.htm
              http://dematerialism.net/ne.htm
              http://dematerialism.net/demise.htm
              http://dematerialism.net/Mark-II-Economy.html









              --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "joedoves" <joedoves@...> wrote:

              >

              > --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Robertson" <t1r@>

              > wrote:

              > The Energy Returned on Energy Invested of gasoline and diesel is at

              > least 10:1 and most often many times that ratio, while the best the

              > ethanuts can come up with their "solution" is somewhere around 3:1 (and
              even then, you would not want to touch their books with bare hands.)--tr

              >

              > You clearly forgot about sugar cane ethanol that gets a minimum EROEI

              > of about 8.3(11.2 with organic sugar cane) according to Milton Marcel

              > (a farmer and our expert in sugar cane ethanol). I am certain that

              > Milton got his EROEI from real energy bills,etc. from his own farm!

              > At his site he gives 40.5 tons per acre productivity. Brazil produces

              > around 28 billion tons of sugar cane per year.

              >

              > http://www.biofuelsnow.com/Ethanol%20From%20Sugar%20Cane.pdf

              >

              > If you don't like corn then remember, America produces 6 billion tons

              > of sugar that could be turned into ethanol.

              > Here's a site that Florida gives from 40 years ago a productivity of

              > 32.1 tons per acre and 95.5 tons per acre for Hawaiian sugar cane!

              >

              > http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/Crops/Sugar_cane.html

              >

              > But back to the sorry state of corn ethanol. It's true that corn is

              > an expensive crop to turn into ethanol, requiring fertilizer and

              > water. On the other hand corn can be made into hundreds of products

              > including corn meal, corn starch, corn tortillas, meal for animals,

              > bourbon, corn syrup as a sweetner 70% more intense than sucrose(so

              > you need less of it), corn oil for inks,etc.

              > OTH, the uses for sugar cane is pretty much just rum,

              > molassas,sucrose and ethanol.

              > Gasohol E10 was introduced in 1978 to raise gas octane rating after

              > poisonous tetra ethyl lead additive was removed by the EPA. The

              > industry needed subsidies to get started and at the time corn was the

              > method of producing ethanol. In 1988 it was added along with MTBE(a

              > natural gas product) as an oxygenate to reduce carbon monoxide

              > emissions from cars. In 1998 states began banning MTBE after this

              > toxic chemical began leaking out of gas station storage tanks

              > poisoning the water table. This caused 25 states to ban MTBE as the

              > federal government wouldn't take any action, except that Tom Delay

              > sought to indemnify the oil companies against lawsuits brought by

              > local governments suffering with poisoned ground water.

              >

              > Clearly, corn ethanol was always considered an additive and not a

              > fuel.

              > Even back in 1974, cellulosic ethanol was considered to be the

              > replacement transportation fuel for oil, but we haven't yet seen that

              > happen.

              >

              > The fact is we are still looking for a replacement for oil and the

              > only ones we can use in our cars are bio-ethanol or Fischer Tropsch

              > coal to liquids, both low EROEI fuels. It's no good moaning about

              > it..its where we are! Really we should be putting our resources to

              > raising the EROEI of the replacement fuels with new technology, not

              > arbitrarily ruling them out.

              >

              > ~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

              >

              > Joe Doves, et al

              >

              > There are no EROEI equivalents to the primary energies we use today when
              you look at all options with a good means of assessing their relative merit
              via Energy Returned on Energy Invested analysis.

              >

              > And one methodology applied to one technology tells us nothing about the
              relative merit of all options.

              >

              > The real threat from this situatin comes from the fact that today, almost
              35 years after Odum introduced the "net energy" concept in his 1973 Ambio
              paper (which is in the ERG Files section) there is still no universally
              credible and accurate means of measuring same.

              >

              > We are flying unnecessarily blind, and unless this situation is not
              corrected, will pay a very high price for our willful ignorance.

              >

              > (PS, If Brazil sugar cane ethanol has an EROEI of 8.2 : 1, then
              conventional gasoline measured with the same methodology would probably be
              in the order of a minimum of 20 : 1.)

              >

              > Tom Robertson, Moderator, EnergyResources Group

              > (39°53'N 76° 59'W)

              >

              > ~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~

              > >

              > > We need analysis that lets us know what is most likely to work, not

              > > advocacy for what some folks see as a seat on some unsustainable

              > > gravy train.

              > >

              > > ~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~

              > >

              > >

              > > -----Original Message-----

              > > From: energyresources@yahoogroups.com

              > > [mailto:energyresources@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of halc10n

              > > Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 8:23 AM

              > > To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com

              > > Subject: [energyresources] Re: Patzek rants against cellulosic

              > ethanol

              > >

              > > I'm not Tom, but some pointers nevertheless:

              > >

              > > Summary of USDA criticism on Pimentel studies (up to 2002, see

              > pate 11)

              > > http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/aer-814.pdf

              > >

              > > Comparison of various Lifecycle / net energy balance studies is:

              > >

              > > Lifecycle Analyses of Biofuels

              > > http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/publications/2006/UCD-ITS-RR-06-08.pdf

              > > (also criticizing parts of Pimentel approach, but also comparing

              > others)

              > >

              > > A meta-study of various ethanol energy balance studies, showing

              > ranges and

              > > averages for various bio-ethanol processes (corn, lignocellulose,

              > etc):

              > >

              > > ENERGY BALANCE OF BIOETHANOL: A SYNTHESIS

              > > http://www.eners.ch/downloads/eners_0510_ebce_paper.pdf

              > >

              > > (shows that all processes have an average energy balance ratio of

              > ABOVE 1,

              > > with lignocellulose having a net energy balance ratio above 3).

              > >

              > > Whatever the exact number may turn out to be for each study - I

              > think there

              > > is a lot of variance. As such, I think it is best not to blindly

              > trust any

              > > single number (from Pimentel or from anybody else), unless they've

              > been

              > > measured in practice over a fairly long period of real life ethanol

              > > production.

              > >

              > > My own personal summary for the time being is that:

              > >

              > > 1) Lignocellulosic processes can have a net energy balance that

              > looks worth

              > > the effort

              > >

              > > 2) Some questions remains as to the overall energy production

              > _system_ net

              > > energy

              > > balance (needs to be proven in practice), see Cleveland

              > (encyclopedia of

              > > earth for

              > > more)

              > >

              > > 3) Scaling issues may remain, regardless of net energy issues

              > (this depends

              > > on geography,

              > > logistical arrangements and existing processes. I've seen

              > numbers about

              > > wood

              > > residue collection in Finland and they are encouraging)



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • joedoves
              Milton (and Frank), Mea culpa! Sloppy--I thought I googled that number okay. At least someone reads my posts!:) For those who want to see more entertaining
              Message 6 of 17 , Jul 2 3:42 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                Milton (and Frank),

                Mea culpa! Sloppy--I thought I googled that number okay.
                At least someone reads my posts!:)


                For those who want to see more entertaining vitriol from Professors
                Patzek and Pimental. (Pimental's proof that Brazilian ethanol is
                failing is that Brazil, which has very rich offshore oil deposits is
                using more petroleum! I suppose the fact that drilling a giant oil
                gusher has a higher EROEI than planting hundreds of thousands of
                acres! Well duh!)

                http://cutoilimports.blogspot.com/2006/07/my-objections-to-pimentalpatzek-2005.html

                Why is it that YOU of all people would soft-pedal ethanol?
                In a world of falling EROEI everywhere would it make sense to compare
                ancient EROEI with the state of reality? You undoubtably have the
                documentation showing what your energy costs are and could prove the
                EROEI numbers you claim.

                What will people do when all the gushers are gone, reminisce about
                the 'good old days' of EROEI 10.5 for oil?
                EROEI's change with technology which is why we need to invest in
                cellulosic ethanol technology, not 'prove' it can't work using old
                figures the way Professors P-P do.

                ~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

                EROEI of 10.5:1 for oil?

                Is that all?

                The fact is, we really have no real idea of the EROEI of our energy choices. (And I would bet that the EROEI for much of the oil we burn is humongus, mainly because of now sunken--or ignored--costs. Then there are the hidden costs of energy-associated conflict...

                Its just a whole lot more fun playing advocacy games, while the real EROEI of the whole energy supply system slips out from underneath our societies--and we are having virtually no problem finding ways of increasing the amount of money we fluff into circulation. (Today, the Financial Times said something about how investment organizations are borrowing money to pay for the difference between investment earnings and the expectations of their clients--or somelthing like that.)

                ~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~
              • joedoves
                ~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~ EROEI of 10.5:1 for oil? Is that all?---tr LOL, I just gave this reference about a week ago for your benefit
                Message 7 of 17 , Jul 2 5:12 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  ~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

                  EROEI of 10.5:1 for oil?
                  Is that all?---tr

                  LOL, I just gave this reference about a week ago for your benefit in
                  particular, Tom!!!

                  The reference is from Anton Dammer, who runs the US oil shale program.
                  Who better to give EROEIs for oil shale, tar sands, etc! look on page
                  24 of 45.

                  http://dels.nas.edu/besr/docs/Dammer.pdf

                  The fact is, we really have no real idea of the EROEI of our energy
                  choices. (And I would bet that the EROEI for much of the oil we burn
                  is humongus, mainly because of now sunken--or ignored--costs. Then
                  there are the hidden costs of energy-associated conflict...tr

                  Huh?
                  Either EROEI is a useful, calculable concept or it isn't. You
                  CONVINCED me it was useful....am I wrong?

                  ~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

                  Joe:

                  No you are not wrong. In fact EROEI is a critical element in the process of understanding the energy systems available to support our lives. (Ever hear of a business not interested in net monetary profit? The same applies to physical accounting in energy terms. In the end, those gaining the most net energy profit over time will tend to be the "winners," while those doing less so, will simply drift away.)

                  The problem is, the subject of EROEI anlysis is so loaded with implications that over the past thirty or so years, while such analysis has been (increasingly) needed, there has been little real interest in or funding available for accurate and objective EROEI analysis.

                  So we unnecessarily stumble around in a quagmire of promoted energy ideas, with no real understanding of 1) the real decline (in EROEI terms) of the primary energies currently powering our society, and 2) the much lower relative merit of the energies we will be forced to call upon to deal with powering a future with increasingly less energy.

                  We are essentially caught in an interesting cultural trap.

                  Abundant available energies created a mind-set that could see no limitations in future capabilities. As that once abundant energy and other resource availability could no longer be sustained, that mind-set tends to perpetuate the idea that we have all we need in perpetuity.

                  It is also worth noting that the most successful competitors in the future will be those who recognize their energy realties in advance of "the others" and begin to shape their lives accorgingly--all tending to result in a world that competes on the basis of effective efficiency, effective sharing of increasingly less resources, and consequently less conflict.

                  ~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~

                  >
                  > Its just a whole lot more fun playing advocacy games, while the
                  real EROEI of the whole energy supply system slips out from
                  underneath our societies--and we are having virtually no problem
                  finding ways of increasing the amount of money we fluff into
                  circulation. (Today, the Financial Times said something about how
                  investment organizations are borrowing money to pay for the
                  difference between investment earnings and the expectations of their
                  clients--or somelthing like that.)
                  >
                  > ~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~
                  >
                • Milton Maciel
                  OK, Tom Wayburn, you gave me enough motivation to face the task. Available time will be my only problem, but it is my problem and it won t imped this work.
                  Message 8 of 17 , Jul 2 7:03 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    OK, Tom Wayburn, you gave me enough motivation to face the task. Available time will be my only problem, but it is my problem and it won't imped this work.

                    I'll show you all something better than just ethanol: a closed loop system of a ZERO OIL FARM producing ethanol, biodiesel, food, feed and animal protein. From this we can appropriate net energy data for ethanol only. And also for biodiesel.

                    This is by far the most efficient agrienergy model I know, something I've been developing for years to apply in Africa, besides Brazil.

                    It will be very interesting to see its very favorable comparison with standard large scale ethanol production in Brazil. And also with data from other, large scale, ethanol from organic sugar cane findustries in Sao Paulo.

                    Milton Maciel in Brazil


                    Tom Wayburn <twayburn@...> wrote:
                    Joe, Frank, Milton, Tom, et al.,

                    Milton Maciel is uniquely positioned to render an extremely useful service
                    to Energy Resources and energy resources technology. If he would report the
                    energy in kind spent directly on his farm, a list of material goods,
                    services rendered to the farm, farm equipment and farm maintenance supplies
                    if maintenance is done on-site or all relevant data if not, the energy
                    budgets of himself and his employees including a list of material goods
                    obtained by them and services rendered to them in the course of a typical
                    year, the embodied energy of the farm itself so that it can be suitably
                    amortized, taxes and debt service if relevant ,and any other data I may have
                    forgotten, … I say, if this raw data is supplied – and it is the minimum we
                    can get by on, then we can begin to get a handle on the energy invested per
                    unit of energy returned. We must use raw data to estimate the energy
                    embedded in material, in services rendered, in debt service, and in taxes,
                    as well as in all commercial expenses concomitant with the farm’s business
                    and the business of its employees and other stakeholders. It’s a formidable
                    task and it’s just the beginning of a huge undertaking to get the energy
                    embodied in everything that must be charged to the production of alcohol.
                    Also, and this is tricky, we must assign embodied energy to all by-products
                    of the farm - in fact, anything that leaves the farm and carries energy
                    away. We must assign negative values to such environmental damage as is
                    bound to occur in even those enterprises run with the best practices and the
                    best intentions.

                    This would be the first energy balance around an industrial enterprise that
                    is sufficiently complete to satisfy me that a reasonable EROI has been
                    computed. Otherwise, I can’t accept anyone’s figures unless they have made
                    a partial accounting of energy invested that exceeds the energy returned.

                    But, only Milton - of anyone I know - is positioned to even embark upon such
                    a difficult and important task. When others in other industries have done
                    the same, we shall have an encyclopedia of emergies that will facilitate all
                    further energy analysis. (Finally, I used the word “emergy” and I’m not at
                    all sorry.)

                    Tom

                    Tom Wayburn, PhD in chemical engineering
                    Houston, Texas
                    http://dematerialism.net/ where I am asking the reader to peruse only four
                    web pages after this homepage:
                    http://dematerialism.net/wiki.htm
                    http://dematerialism.net/ne.htm
                    http://dematerialism.net/demise.htm
                    http://dematerialism.net/Mark-II-Economy.html

                    --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "joedoves" <joedoves@...> wrote:

                    >

                    > --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Robertson" <t1r@>

                    > wrote:

                    > The Energy Returned on Energy Invested of gasoline and diesel is at

                    > least 10:1 and most often many times that ratio, while the best the

                    > ethanuts can come up with their "solution" is somewhere around 3:1 (and
                    even then, you would not want to touch their books with bare hands.)--tr

                    >

                    > You clearly forgot about sugar cane ethanol that gets a minimum EROEI

                    > of about 8.3(11.2 with organic sugar cane) according to Milton Marcel

                    > (a farmer and our expert in sugar cane ethanol). I am certain that

                    > Milton got his EROEI from real energy bills,etc. from his own farm!

                    > At his site he gives 40.5 tons per acre productivity. Brazil produces

                    > around 28 billion tons of sugar cane per year.

                    >

                    > http://www.biofuelsnow.com/Ethanol%20From%20Sugar%20Cane.pdf

                    >

                    > If you don't like corn then remember, America produces 6 billion tons

                    > of sugar that could be turned into ethanol.

                    > Here's a site that Florida gives from 40 years ago a productivity of

                    > 32.1 tons per acre and 95.5 tons per acre for Hawaiian sugar cane!

                    >

                    > http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/Crops/Sugar_cane.html

                    >

                    > But back to the sorry state of corn ethanol. It's true that corn is

                    > an expensive crop to turn into ethanol, requiring fertilizer and

                    > water. On the other hand corn can be made into hundreds of products

                    > including corn meal, corn starch, corn tortillas, meal for animals,

                    > bourbon, corn syrup as a sweetner 70% more intense than sucrose(so

                    > you need less of it), corn oil for inks,etc.

                    > OTH, the uses for sugar cane is pretty much just rum,

                    > molassas,sucrose and ethanol.

                    > Gasohol E10 was introduced in 1978 to raise gas octane rating after

                    > poisonous tetra ethyl lead additive was removed by the EPA. The

                    > industry needed subsidies to get started and at the time corn was the

                    > method of producing ethanol. In 1988 it was added along with MTBE(a

                    > natural gas product) as an oxygenate to reduce carbon monoxide

                    > emissions from cars. In 1998 states began banning MTBE after this

                    > toxic chemical began leaking out of gas station storage tanks

                    > poisoning the water table. This caused 25 states to ban MTBE as the

                    > federal government wouldn't take any action, except that Tom Delay

                    > sought to indemnify the oil companies against lawsuits brought by

                    > local governments suffering with poisoned ground water.

                    >

                    > Clearly, corn ethanol was always considered an additive and not a

                    > fuel.

                    > Even back in 1974, cellulosic ethanol was considered to be the

                    > replacement transportation fuel for oil, but we haven't yet seen that

                    > happen.

                    >

                    > The fact is we are still looking for a replacement for oil and the

                    > only ones we can use in our cars are bio-ethanol or Fischer Tropsch

                    > coal to liquids, both low EROEI fuels. It's no good moaning about

                    > it..its where we are! Really we should be putting our resources to

                    > raising the EROEI of the replacement fuels with new technology, not

                    > arbitrarily ruling them out.

                    >

                    > ~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

                    >

                    > Joe Doves, et al

                    >

                    > There are no EROEI equivalents to the primary energies we use today when
                    you look at all options with a good means of assessing their relative merit
                    via Energy Returned on Energy Invested analysis.

                    >

                    > And one methodology applied to one technology tells us nothing about the
                    relative merit of all options.

                    >

                    > The real threat from this situatin comes from the fact that today, almost
                    35 years after Odum introduced the "net energy" concept in his 1973 Ambio
                    paper (which is in the ERG Files section) there is still no universally
                    credible and accurate means of measuring same.

                    >

                    > We are flying unnecessarily blind, and unless this situation is not
                    corrected, will pay a very high price for our willful ignorance.

                    >

                    > (PS, If Brazil sugar cane ethanol has an EROEI of 8.2 : 1, then
                    conventional gasoline measured with the same methodology would probably be
                    in the order of a minimum of 20 : 1.)

                    >

                    > Tom Robertson, Moderator, EnergyResources Group

                    > (39°53'N 76° 59'W)

                    >

                    > ~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~

                    > >

                    > > We need analysis that lets us know what is most likely to work, not

                    > > advocacy for what some folks see as a seat on some unsustainable

                    > > gravy train.

                    > >

                    > > ~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~

                    > >

                    > >

                    > > -----Original Message-----

                    > > From: energyresources@yahoogroups.com

                    > > [mailto:energyresources@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of halc10n

                    > > Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 8:23 AM

                    > > To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com

                    > > Subject: [energyresources] Re: Patzek rants against cellulosic

                    > ethanol

                    > >

                    > > I'm not Tom, but some pointers nevertheless:

                    > >

                    > > Summary of USDA criticism on Pimentel studies (up to 2002, see

                    > pate 11)

                    > > http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/aer-814.pdf

                    > >

                    > > Comparison of various Lifecycle / net energy balance studies is:

                    > >

                    > > Lifecycle Analyses of Biofuels

                    > > http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/publications/2006/UCD-ITS-RR-06-08.pdf

                    > > (also criticizing parts of Pimentel approach, but also comparing

                    > others)

                    > >

                    > > A meta-study of various ethanol energy balance studies, showing

                    > ranges and

                    > > averages for various bio-ethanol processes (corn, lignocellulose,

                    > etc):

                    > >

                    > > ENERGY BALANCE OF BIOETHANOL: A SYNTHESIS

                    > > http://www.eners.ch/downloads/eners_0510_ebce_paper.pdf

                    > >

                    > > (shows that all processes have an average energy balance ratio of

                    > ABOVE 1,

                    > > with lignocellulose having a net energy balance ratio above 3).

                    > >

                    > > Whatever the exact number may turn out to be for each study - I

                    > think there

                    > > is a lot of variance. As such, I think it is best not to blindly

                    > trust any

                    > > single number (from Pimentel or from anybody else), unless they've

                    > been

                    > > measured in practice over a fairly long period of real life ethanol

                    > > production.

                    > >

                    > > My own personal summary for the time being is that:

                    > >

                    > > 1) Lignocellulosic processes can have a net energy balance that

                    > looks worth

                    > > the effort

                    > >

                    > > 2) Some questions remains as to the overall energy production

                    > _system_ net

                    > > energy

                    > > balance (needs to be proven in practice), see Cleveland

                    > (encyclopedia of

                    > > earth for

                    > > more)

                    > >

                    > > 3) Scaling issues may remain, regardless of net energy issues

                    > (this depends

                    > > on geography,

                    > > logistical arrangements and existing processes. I've seen

                    > numbers about

                    > > wood

                    > > residue collection in Finland and they are encouraging)

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                    ---------------------------------
                    Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Abernethy, Virginia Deane
                    The phrase, the embodied energy of the farm itself so that it can be suitably amortized, taxes and debt service if relevant makes me wonder if one wouldn t
                    Message 9 of 17 , Jul 2 7:06 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      The phrase, "the embodied energy of the farm itself so that it can be suitably
                      amortized, taxes and debt service if relevant" makes me wonder if one wouldn't be in danger of double-counting the inputs.

                      Quite an accounting problem, enough to keep poor Milton so busy figuring that he couldn't be a farmer.
                      V.

                      ________________________________

                      From: energyresources@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Tom Wayburn
                      Sent: Mon 7/2/2007 5:08 PM
                      To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [energyresources] Re: Patzek rants against cellulosic ethanol



                      Joe, Frank, Milton, Tom, et al.,

                      Milton Maciel is uniquely positioned to render an extremely useful service
                      to Energy Resources and energy resources technology. If he would report the
                      energy in kind spent directly on his farm, a list of material goods,
                      services rendered to the farm, farm equipment and farm maintenance supplies
                      if maintenance is done on-site or all relevant data if not, the energy
                      budgets of himself and his employees including a list of material goods
                      obtained by them and services rendered to them in the course of a typical
                      year, the embodied energy of the farm itself so that it can be suitably
                      amortized, taxes and debt service if relevant ,and any other data I may have
                      forgotten, ... I say, if this raw data is supplied - and it is the minimum we
                      can get by on, then we can begin to get a handle on the energy invested per
                      unit of energy returned. We must use raw data to estimate the energy
                      embedded in material, in services rendered, in debt service, and in taxes,
                      as well as in all commercial expenses concomitant with the farm's business
                      and the business of its employees and other stakeholders. It's a formidable
                      task and it's just the beginning of a huge undertaking to get the energy
                      embodied in everything that must be charged to the production of alcohol.
                      Also, and this is tricky, we must assign embodied energy to all by-products
                      of the farm - in fact, anything that leaves the farm and carries energy
                      away. We must assign negative values to such environmental damage as is
                      bound to occur in even those enterprises run with the best practices and the
                      best intentions.

                      This would be the first energy balance around an industrial enterprise that
                      is sufficiently complete to satisfy me that a reasonable EROI has been
                      computed. Otherwise, I can't accept anyone's figures unless they have made
                      a partial accounting of energy invested that exceeds the energy returned.

                      But, only Milton - of anyone I know - is positioned to even embark upon such
                      a difficult and important task. When others in other industries have done
                      the same, we shall have an encyclopedia of emergies that will facilitate all
                      further energy analysis. (Finally, I used the word "emergy" and I'm not at
                      all sorry.)

                      Tom

                      Tom Wayburn, PhD in chemical engineering
                      Houston, Texas
                      http://dematerialism.net/ <http://dematerialism.net/> where I am asking the reader to peruse only four
                      web pages after this homepage:
                      http://dematerialism.net/wiki.htm <http://dematerialism.net/wiki.htm>
                      http://dematerialism.net/ne.htm <http://dematerialism.net/ne.htm>
                      http://dematerialism.net/demise.htm <http://dematerialism.net/demise.htm>
                      http://dematerialism.net/Mark-II-Economy.html <http://dematerialism.net/Mark-II-Economy.html>

                      --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com <mailto:energyresources%40yahoogroups.com> , "joedoves" <joedoves@...> wrote:

                      >

                      > --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com <mailto:energyresources%40yahoogroups.com> , "Tom Robertson" <t1r@>

                      > wrote:

                      > The Energy Returned on Energy Invested of gasoline and diesel is at

                      > least 10:1 and most often many times that ratio, while the best the

                      > ethanuts can come up with their "solution" is somewhere around 3:1 (and
                      even then, you would not want to touch their books with bare hands.)--tr

                      >

                      > You clearly forgot about sugar cane ethanol that gets a minimum EROEI

                      > of about 8.3(11.2 with organic sugar cane) according to Milton Marcel

                      > (a farmer and our expert in sugar cane ethanol). I am certain that

                      > Milton got his EROEI from real energy bills,etc. from his own farm!

                      > At his site he gives 40.5 tons per acre productivity. Brazil produces

                      > around 28 billion tons of sugar cane per year.

                      >

                      > http://www.biofuelsnow.com/Ethanol%20From%20Sugar%20Cane.pdf <http://www.biofuelsnow.com/Ethanol%20From%20Sugar%20Cane.pdf>

                      >

                      > If you don't like corn then remember, America produces 6 billion tons

                      > of sugar that could be turned into ethanol.

                      > Here's a site that Florida gives from 40 years ago a productivity of

                      > 32.1 tons per acre and 95.5 tons per acre for Hawaiian sugar cane!

                      >

                      > http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/Crops/Sugar_cane.html <http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/Crops/Sugar_cane.html>

                      >

                      > But back to the sorry state of corn ethanol. It's true that corn is

                      > an expensive crop to turn into ethanol, requiring fertilizer and

                      > water. On the other hand corn can be made into hundreds of products

                      > including corn meal, corn starch, corn tortillas, meal for animals,

                      > bourbon, corn syrup as a sweetner 70% more intense than sucrose(so

                      > you need less of it), corn oil for inks,etc.

                      > OTH, the uses for sugar cane is pretty much just rum,

                      > molassas,sucrose and ethanol.

                      > Gasohol E10 was introduced in 1978 to raise gas octane rating after

                      > poisonous tetra ethyl lead additive was removed by the EPA. The

                      > industry needed subsidies to get started and at the time corn was the

                      > method of producing ethanol. In 1988 it was added along with MTBE(a

                      > natural gas product) as an oxygenate to reduce carbon monoxide

                      > emissions from cars. In 1998 states began banning MTBE after this

                      > toxic chemical began leaking out of gas station storage tanks

                      > poisoning the water table. This caused 25 states to ban MTBE as the

                      > federal government wouldn't take any action, except that Tom Delay

                      > sought to indemnify the oil companies against lawsuits brought by

                      > local governments suffering with poisoned ground water.

                      >

                      > Clearly, corn ethanol was always considered an additive and not a

                      > fuel.

                      > Even back in 1974, cellulosic ethanol was considered to be the

                      > replacement transportation fuel for oil, but we haven't yet seen that

                      > happen.

                      >

                      > The fact is we are still looking for a replacement for oil and the

                      > only ones we can use in our cars are bio-ethanol or Fischer Tropsch

                      > coal to liquids, both low EROEI fuels. It's no good moaning about

                      > it..its where we are! Really we should be putting our resources to

                      > raising the EROEI of the replacement fuels with new technology, not

                      > arbitrarily ruling them out.

                      >

                      > ~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

                      >

                      > Joe Doves, et al

                      >

                      > There are no EROEI equivalents to the primary energies we use today when
                      you look at all options with a good means of assessing their relative merit
                      via Energy Returned on Energy Invested analysis.

                      >

                      > And one methodology applied to one technology tells us nothing about the
                      relative merit of all options.

                      >

                      > The real threat from this situatin comes from the fact that today, almost
                      35 years after Odum introduced the "net energy" concept in his 1973 Ambio
                      paper (which is in the ERG Files section) there is still no universally
                      credible and accurate means of measuring same.

                      >

                      > We are flying unnecessarily blind, and unless this situation is not
                      corrected, will pay a very high price for our willful ignorance.

                      >

                      > (PS, If Brazil sugar cane ethanol has an EROEI of 8.2 : 1, then
                      conventional gasoline measured with the same methodology would probably be
                      in the order of a minimum of 20 : 1.)

                      >

                      > Tom Robertson, Moderator, EnergyResources Group

                      > (39°53'N 76° 59'W)

                      >

                      > ~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~

                      > >

                      > > We need analysis that lets us know what is most likely to work, not

                      > > advocacy for what some folks see as a seat on some unsustainable

                      > > gravy train.

                      > >

                      > > ~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~

                      > >

                      > >

                      > > -----Original Message-----

                      > > From: energyresources@yahoogroups.com <mailto:energyresources%40yahoogroups.com>

                      > > [mailto:energyresources@yahoogroups.com <mailto:energyresources%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of halc10n

                      > > Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 8:23 AM

                      > > To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com <mailto:energyresources%40yahoogroups.com>

                      > > Subject: [energyresources] Re: Patzek rants against cellulosic

                      > ethanol

                      > >

                      > > I'm not Tom, but some pointers nevertheless:

                      > >

                      > > Summary of USDA criticism on Pimentel studies (up to 2002, see

                      > pate 11)

                      > > http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/aer-814.pdf <http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/aer-814.pdf>

                      > >

                      > > Comparison of various Lifecycle / net energy balance studies is:

                      > >

                      > > Lifecycle Analyses of Biofuels

                      > > http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/publications/2006/UCD-ITS-RR-06-08.pdf <http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/publications/2006/UCD-ITS-RR-06-08.pdf>

                      > > (also criticizing parts of Pimentel approach, but also comparing

                      > others)

                      > >

                      > > A meta-study of various ethanol energy balance studies, showing

                      > ranges and

                      > > averages for various bio-ethanol processes (corn, lignocellulose,

                      > etc):

                      > >

                      > > ENERGY BALANCE OF BIOETHANOL: A SYNTHESIS

                      > > http://www.eners.ch/downloads/eners_0510_ebce_paper.pdf <http://www.eners.ch/downloads/eners_0510_ebce_paper.pdf>

                      > >

                      > > (shows that all processes have an average energy balance ratio of

                      > ABOVE 1,

                      > > with lignocellulose having a net energy balance ratio above 3).

                      > >

                      > > Whatever the exact number may turn out to be for each study - I

                      > think there

                      > > is a lot of variance. As such, I think it is best not to blindly

                      > trust any

                      > > single number (from Pimentel or from anybody else), unless they've

                      > been

                      > > measured in practice over a fairly long period of real life ethanol

                      > > production.

                      > >

                      > > My own personal summary for the time being is that:

                      > >

                      > > 1) Lignocellulosic processes can have a net energy balance that

                      > looks worth

                      > > the effort

                      > >

                      > > 2) Some questions remains as to the overall energy production

                      > _system_ net

                      > > energy

                      > > balance (needs to be proven in practice), see Cleveland

                      > (encyclopedia of

                      > > earth for

                      > > more)

                      > >

                      > > 3) Scaling issues may remain, regardless of net energy issues

                      > (this depends

                      > > on geography,

                      > > logistical arrangements and existing processes. I've seen

                      > numbers about

                      > > wood

                      > > residue collection in Finland and they are encouraging)

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Milton Maciel
                      Joedoves, please see my response to Tom Wayburn. We are near to the start of a new agricultural yearly cycle for sugar cane in Southern Brazil. Well, I took
                      Message 10 of 17 , Jul 3 6:03 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Joedoves,

                        please see my response to Tom Wayburn. We are near to the start of a new agricultural yearly cycle for sugar cane in Southern Brazil. Well, I took the challenge suggested by
                        Tom W. and so I'll be accomplishing what you also suggest: to present my actual ethanol EROEI numbers, for a production under ZERO OIL farming conditions.

                        However, as this is very advantageous as net energy gain, being the best case design, I will also supply the numbers, for both raw and calculated data, referring to conventional chemical sugar cane and organic sugar cane, as base for ethanol production in Brazil. It will take some time, as I will use documented data for this new cycle (Planting starts in September and soil preparation starts this August).

                        I decided to produce a film, a documentary that will show each and every step of the whole agricultural and industrial process, with individual computing of the respective energy expenditure and generation. Emphasis will be in net energy. There are several steps of energy capture/conversion/generation in this closed loop process.

                        As a side comment, Brazilian ethanol production is not failling, of course, but increasing (In billion liters: 2005 -15; 2006 - 17.8; 2007 - 20.3 estimates at least).

                        Evidently production of oil is also increasing, that is the natural result of a well conducted prospection and drilling work. It resulted in oil self-sufficiency in late 2006, but Brazil is GASOLINE self-sufficient and exporter for years, thanks to ethanol use.

                        So both oil AND ethanol production grow in a constant and non-excluding way, forming a sinergy of perfect integration. Petrobras, the largest oil producer, is also a great ethanol trader and builds pipelines and cargo ships specially for ethanol transportation. Then neither oil, nor ethanol are failling in Brazil.

                        Milton Maciel

                        joedoves <joedoves@...> wrote:
                        Milton (and Frank),

                        Mea culpa! Sloppy--I thought I googled that number okay.
                        At least someone reads my posts!:)

                        For those who want to see more entertaining vitriol from Professors
                        Patzek and Pimental. (Pimental's proof that Brazilian ethanol is
                        failing is that Brazil, which has very rich offshore oil deposits is
                        using more petroleum! I suppose the fact that drilling a giant oil
                        gusher has a higher EROEI than planting hundreds of thousands of
                        acres! Well duh!)

                        http://cutoilimports.blogspot.com/2006/07/my-objections-to-pimentalpatzek-2005.html

                        Why is it that YOU of all people would soft-pedal ethanol?
                        In a world of falling EROEI everywhere would it make sense to compare
                        ancient EROEI with the state of reality? You undoubtably have the
                        documentation showing what your energy costs are and could prove the
                        EROEI numbers you claim.

                        What will people do when all the gushers are gone, reminisce about
                        the 'good old days' of EROEI 10.5 for oil?
                        EROEI's change with technology which is why we need to invest in
                        cellulosic ethanol technology, not 'prove' it can't work using old
                        figures the way Professors P-P do.

                        ~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

                        EROEI of 10.5:1 for oil?

                        Is that all?

                        The fact is, we really have no real idea of the EROEI of our energy choices. (And I would bet that the EROEI for much of the oil we burn is humongus, mainly because of now sunken--or ignored--costs. Then there are the hidden costs of energy-associated conflict...

                        Its just a whole lot more fun playing advocacy games, while the real EROEI of the whole energy supply system slips out from underneath our societies--and we are having virtually no problem finding ways of increasing the amount of money we fluff into circulation. (Today, the Financial Times said something about how investment organizations are borrowing money to pay for the difference between investment earnings and the expectations of their clients--or somelthing like that.)

                        ~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~







                        ---------------------------------
                        We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
                        (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Tom Wayburn
                        Virginia Abernethy writes: The phrase, the embodied energy of the farm itself so that it can be suitably amortized, taxes and debt service if relevant makes
                        Message 11 of 17 , Jul 3 4:18 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Virginia Abernethy writes:

                          The phrase, "the embodied energy of the farm itself so that it can be
                          suitably amortized, taxes and debt service if relevant" makes me wonder if one wouldn't be in danger of double-counting the inputs.

                          Quite an accounting problem, enough to keep poor Milton so busy figuring that he couldn't be a farmer.

                          V.

                          Fortunately, Virginia, Milton doesn't feel that way. He wrote:

                          OK, Tom Wayburn, you gave me enough motivation to face the task. Available time will be my only problem, but it is my problem and it won't impede this work.

                          I'll show you all something better than just ethanol: a closed loop system of a ZERO-OIL FARM producing ethanol, biodiesel, food, feed and animal protein. From this we can appropriate net energy data for ethanol only.

                          And also for biodiesel.

                          This is by far the most efficient agro-energy model I know, something I've been developing for years to apply in Africa, besides Brazil.

                          It will be very interesting to see its very favorable comparison with
                          standard large scale ethanol production in Brazil. And also with data from other, large scale, ethanol from organic sugar cane industries in Sao Paulo.

                          Milton Maciel in Brazil

                          P.S. to Virginia: We will be careful to avoid double counting.

                          I wrote the following off list to Milton:

                          Milton,

                          This is just great. Your chemical engineering background will prove
                          invaluable. We can close the energy balance. The trickiest part, though, is dividing the output among the main product and the full slate of by-products. In ttp://www.dematerialism.net/emergyunit.htm, I discuss emergy calculations for various types of processes. I discussed possibilities for handling by-products of a manufacturing process. I believe we can adapt this easily to the case of a fuel as the principal product with other fuels and non-fuel products as by-products. I will help you in any way that I can. I believe this is the most important item on my agenda.

                          Tom

                          After which Milton wrote the following to the list:

                          Joe Doves,

                          Please see my response to Tom Wayburn. We are near to the start of a new agricultural yearly cycle for sugar cane in Southern Brazil. Well, I took the challenge suggested by Tom W.; and so, I'll be accomplishing what you also suggest: to present my actual ethanol EROEI numbers, for a production under ZERO-OIL farming conditions.

                          However, as this is very advantageous as net energy gain, being the best case design, I will also supply he numbers, for both raw and calculated data, referring to conventional chemical sugar cane and organic sugar cane,
                          as base for ethanol production in Brazil. It will take some time, as I will use documented data for this new cycle. (Planting starts in September and soil preparation starts this August.)

                          I decided to produce a film, a documentary that will show each and every step of the whole agricultural and industrial process, with individual computing of the respective energy expenditure and generation. Emphasis will be in net energy. There are several steps of energy capture/conversion/generation in this closed-loop process.

                          As a side comment, Brazilian ethanol production is not failing, of course, but increasing (In billion liters: 2005 -15; 2006 - 17.8; 2007 - 20.3 estimates at least).

                          Evidently production of oil is also increasing, that is the natural result of a well conducted prospecting and drilling work. It resulted in oil self-sufficiency in late 2006, but Brazil is GASOLINE self-sufficient and exporter for years, thanks to ethanol use.

                          So both oil AND ethanol production grow in a constant and non-excluding way, forming a synergy of perfect integration. Petrobras, the largest oil producer, is also a great ethanol trader and builds pipelines and cargo ships specially for ethanol transportation. Then, neither oil nor ethanol is failing in Brazil.

                          Milton Maciel

                          This was even better!

                          Tom

                          Tom Wayburn, PhD in chemical engineering
                          Houston, Texas
                          http://dematerialism.net/ where I am asking the reader to peruse only four
                          web pages after this homepage:
                          http://dematerialism.net/wiki.htm
                          http://dematerialism.net/ne.htm
                          http://dematerialism.net/demise.htm
                          http://dematerialism.net/Mark-II-Economy.html
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.