| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Energy Forum » China, Not Ethanol, Stupid
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Bob Eld |
 Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
China, not ethanol, stupid
Posted: April 15, 2008, 6:09 PM by Diane Francis
Canadian Politics, Energy, U.S. Politics, Middle East
Blaming biofuels for food price spikes is like shooting the messenger. But
that's how ignorant the British Prime Minister is. His message was stop
growing energy and food prices will drop.
This betrays a frightening mentality on the part of a person who is CEO of a
rather large, but fading, economy. A resource-challenged one too, now that
the North Sea oil is running out.
The boom in foodstuffs follows the boom in all "real" things, or commodities
and is not about market distortions caused by ethanol subsidies in North
America (some $4 billion a year or about as much as Americans spend on
chocolate bars). Besides that, ethanol subsidies only affect corn and the
cost of everything is going up.
China and Asia's mega-boom
The reason is that the world is now in the midst of one of the greatest
economic boom in history. The first was electrification, then it was the
Marshall Plan after the Second War War, or rebuilding of Europe and
urbanization of North America. Now it is Asia's export wealth which is now
being invested in cities and infrastructure and is the equivalent of a
Marshall Plan every two years.
Led by China, Asians are buying oil, gas, cement, steel, coking coal and
everything necessary to urbanize their populations. The Chinese economy is
converting from an export-based, low labor nation to the creation of a
gigantic internal economy providing goods and services and highways and
urbanscapes for its 1.3 billion people.
Right now, 44% of China lives in crowded cities. In a generation, 66% are
expected to leave the impoverished rural regions for its bursting cities.
This is an irreversible and is behind the spike in commodity prices of all
kinds. India lags but is undertaking the same thing.
The two will create ten New York Citys in the next ten years. Estimates are
that China alone will build 30,000 skyscrapers in a decade and 50 nuclear
plants.
This is why everything from rice to scrap metal (non-exchange traded metals
have tripled in six months worldwide), gold, silver, copper, base metals,
potash, coking coal and uranium have jumped and will continue to do so.
So ignore dummies who don't get it and buckle up. And if you can, cash in on
the wildest ride in ten lifetimes.
by petejc
Apr 16 2008
11:03 AM Yes please do some research.
Fact:
It takes 3 gallons of water to refine a gallon of ethanol. It takes 40
gallons of water to refine a gallon of gas.
Fact:
Ethanol production contributes about 6% to the rise in the cost of
food. The rest is growing Asian and Indian markets, droughts, cost of labor,
packaging, marketing, transportation, and energy to produce the food plus a
weak US dollar. There is about 6 cents USD of corn used in a box of corn
flakes.
Fact:
Only the starch from the corn is extracted to make ethanol. The
resulting corn mass is called distillers grains and is an animal feed. In
fact there was such a surplus of distillers grains produced in the US hat it
had to be exported.
This article is spot on. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ivan |
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Bob Eld wrote:
Quote: China, not ethanol, stupid
Posted: April 15, 2008, 6:09 PM by Diane Francis
Canadian Politics, Energy, U.S. Politics, Middle East
snipped for brevity
This article is spot on.
Basically then Bob AIUI cutting to the chase the article is saying that that
from now on we will all have to get used to living in a world of finite
resources and ever increasing demand?
However I would say that for the moment at least, the overwhelming majority
of people in the first world are blissfully content in their assumption that
science is bound to come up with solutions, I mean after all it always has
done in the past.. what's your own (and others) take on this? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| tscottme |
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bob Eld" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%%pNj.4330$iK6.1656@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
Quote: China, not ethanol, stupid
Posted: April 15, 2008, 6:09 PM by Diane Francis
Canadian Politics, Energy, U.S. Politics, Middle East
Blaming biofuels for food price spikes is like shooting the
messenger. But
that's how ignorant the British Prime Minister is. His message was
stop
I heard you Canadians saying US is fucked by their own assholes. Can
you elaborate a bit more for us why you say that?
--
Scott
Who better to unite the political and racial divides of America than
a corrupt, racist radical? Obama '08 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| adm |
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 3:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:66mqk0F2l8bp3U1@mid.individual.net...
Quote: Bob Eld wrote:
China, not ethanol, stupid
Posted: April 15, 2008, 6:09 PM by Diane Francis
Canadian Politics, Energy, U.S. Politics, Middle East
snipped for brevity
This article is spot on.
Basically then Bob AIUI cutting to the chase the article is saying that
that from now on we will all have to get used to living in a world of
finite resources and ever increasing demand?
No shit.
Which is why it's important to develop an economy that is more reliant on
renewable energy and less on fossil fuel. It's nothing to do with global
warming and simply the fact that in a world of finite supply, more wars will
be fought over control of those dwindling resources.
Unless you want to see your grandchildren slaughtered so other people can
drive V8 SUVs, it's about time to put the shoulder to the wheel.
Quote: However I would say that for the moment at least, the overwhelming
majority of people in the first world are blissfully content in their
assumption that science is bound to come up with solutions, I mean after
all it always has done in the past.. what's your own (and others) take on
this?
Maybe a good solution would be to use less resources per capita in the first
place, and to try and ensure that those that are used are renewable?
Sadly, that's a tough call and most likely means that many of us will have
to downgrade our expectations. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ivan |
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
adm wrote:
Quote: "Ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:66mqk0F2l8bp3U1@mid.individual.net...
Bob Eld wrote:
China, not ethanol, stupid
Posted: April 15, 2008, 6:09 PM by Diane Francis
Canadian Politics, Energy, U.S. Politics, Middle East
snipped for brevity
This article is spot on.
Basically then Bob AIUI cutting to the chase the article is saying
that that from now on we will all have to get used to living in a
world of finite resources and ever increasing demand?
No shit.
Well you know that, I know that but show me a single politician who will at
least publicly acknowledge that the planet may be heading towards economic
problems of catastrophic proportions, other of course than trying to
convince the gullible voters that half of England has got to be buried under
new airports because in 30 years' time we will doubtless be carrying
millions of extra fare paying passengers to destinations anywhere around the
world for around £20 quid a time... Maybe I'm totally wrong, but being a
born pessimist I just don't share our politicians optimism of an unfettered
infinitely expanding world economy ever coming to fruition.
Quote:
Maybe a good solution would be to use less resources per capita in
the first place, and to try and ensure that those that are used are
renewable?
Sadly, that's a tough call and most likely means that many of us will
have to downgrade our expectations. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| adm |
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:66n9t2F2kk635U1@mid.individual.net...
Quote: adm wrote:
"Ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:66mqk0F2l8bp3U1@mid.individual.net...
Bob Eld wrote:
China, not ethanol, stupid
Posted: April 15, 2008, 6:09 PM by Diane Francis
Canadian Politics, Energy, U.S. Politics, Middle East
snipped for brevity
This article is spot on.
Basically then Bob AIUI cutting to the chase the article is saying
that that from now on we will all have to get used to living in a
world of finite resources and ever increasing demand?
No shit.
Well you know that, I know that but show me a single politician who will
at least publicly acknowledge that the planet may be heading towards
economic problems of catastrophic proportions, other of course than trying
to convince the gullible voters that half of England has got to be buried
under new airports because in 30 years' time we will doubtless be carrying
millions of extra fare paying passengers to destinations anywhere around
the world for around £20 quid a time... Maybe I'm totally wrong, but
being a born pessimist I just don't share our politicians optimism of an
unfettered infinitely expanding world economy ever coming to fruition.
I agree with you. Unless of course we suddenly develop an ultra low cost,
faster than light star drive. Then there's a whole new resource pool opened
up.
I'm not holding my breath for it though.....
Quote:
Maybe a good solution would be to use less resources per capita in
the first place, and to try and ensure that those that are used are
renewable?
Sadly, that's a tough call and most likely means that many of us will
have to downgrade our expectations.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ivan |
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
adm wrote:
Quote: "Ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:66n9t2F2kk635U1@mid.individual.net...
adm wrote:
"Ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:66mqk0F2l8bp3U1@mid.individual.net...
Bob Eld wrote:
China, not ethanol, stupid
Posted: April 15, 2008, 6:09 PM by Diane Francis
Canadian Politics, Energy, U.S. Politics, Middle East
snipped for brevity
This article is spot on.
Basically then Bob AIUI cutting to the chase the article is saying
that that from now on we will all have to get used to living in a
world of finite resources and ever increasing demand?
No shit.
Well you know that, I know that but show me a single politician who
will at least publicly acknowledge that the planet may be heading
towards economic problems of catastrophic proportions, other of
course than trying to convince the gullible voters that half of
England has got to be buried under new airports because in 30 years'
time we will doubtless be carrying millions of extra fare paying
passengers to destinations anywhere around the world for around £20
quid a time... Maybe I'm totally wrong, but being a born pessimist
I just don't share our politicians optimism of an unfettered
infinitely expanding world economy ever coming to fruition.
I agree with you. Unless of course we suddenly develop an ultra low
cost, faster than light star drive. Then there's a whole new resource
pool opened up.
I'm not holding my breath for it though.....
IMO it's getting uglier by the day, but all I see on TV is endless parades
of businessmen and politicians in sharp suits informing us that 'when we get
over the blip everything's going to be back to normal'.. And then it all
becomes very clear why more than 40% of the population just can't even be
arsed to vote.
Quote:
Maybe a good solution would be to use less resources per capita in
the first place, and to try and ensure that those that are used are
renewable?
Sadly, that's a tough call and most likely means that many of us
will have to downgrade our expectations. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dean Hoffman |
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 9:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Bob Eld wrote:
Quite a lot snipped.
Quote: Fact:
Ethanol production contributes about 6% to the rise in the cost of
food. The rest is growing Asian and Indian markets, droughts, cost of labor,
packaging, marketing, transportation, and energy to produce the food plus a
weak US dollar. There is about 6 cents USD of corn used in a box of corn
flakes.
Article here about the drought in Oz:
http://tinyurl.com/6ghnjf
I think Australia is normally the 2nd largest exporter of wheat
also.
Dean
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Fran |
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 18, 4:11 am, nospamplease <nospample...@nospamplease.org>
wrote:
Quote: Bob Eld wrote:
..snip
Fact:
It takes 3 gallons of water to refine a gallon of ethanol. It takes 40
gallons of water to refine a gallon of gas.
...snip
You forgot the next step. It takes a gallon of
fuel to grow the corn. So it took 43gal of water
to make the gallon of ethanol. Now if you use the
ethanol to power the process, you can consume food
and drinking water with no output. Political
perfection.
The figures here would be possible only in the very worst instances of
corn farming, but putting that aside ....
Here's what you get in a pop tart:
Strawberry filling: corn syrup, dextrose, high fructose corn syrup,
crackermeal, water, modified wheat starch, partially hydrogenated
soybean oil, dried strawberries, citric acid, caramel color, red #40,
xanthan gum, soy lecithin
pastry: enriched wheat flour, sugar, partially hydrogenated soybean
oil, corn syrup, water, dextrose, high fructose corn syrup, salt,
leavening (baking soda, sodium acid pyrophosphate, monocalcium
phosphate, calcium sulfate), gelatin
topping: sugar, rice flour, corn starch, partially hydrogenated
soybean and cottonseed oil, gum arabic, xanthan gum, natural and
artificial flavor, mono- and diglycerides, red #40 lake, blue #1 lake
How much crude oil, water etc do you suppose went into that? How much
nutrition out?
If ethanol from corn is bad (it is), then junk food from food crops is
even worse.
According to Hess et. al in "The Taste of America", in 1945, each
calorie of energy nput into growing corn yielded 3.7 calories out. In
1970, this was 1:2.8 -- and that doesn't include the massive cost of
processing corn (and other food staples) into junk food. According to
another source quoted, industrial food system now require 5 to 10
calories of fuel energy to produce 1 calorie of output.
Moreover, something like 25% of all food fails to get from the grower
into the mouths of food consumers, and as the obesity epidemic shows,
much of what does probably shouldn't.
Fran |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| nospamplease |
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Bob Eld wrote:
Quote: ..snip
Fact:
It takes 3 gallons of water to refine a gallon of ethanol. It takes 40
gallons of water to refine a gallon of gas.
...snip
You forgot the next step. It takes a gallon of
fuel to grow the corn. So it took 43gal of water
to make the gallon of ethanol. Now if you use the
ethanol to power the process, you can consume food
and drinking water with no output. Political
perfection. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Fran |
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 18, 11:27 am, Jesse <jess225107nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: nospamplease wrote:
Bob Eld wrote:
..snip Fact:
It takes 3 gallons of water to refine a gallon of ethanol. It
takes 40
gallons of water to refine a gallon of gas.
...snip
You forgot the next step. It takes a gallon of fuel to grow the corn. So
it took 43gal of water to make the gallon of ethanol. Now if you use the
ethanol to power the process, you can consume food and drinking water
with no output. Political perfection.
He also forgot the water it takes to grow the corn.
Energy out about equal to energy in makes no sense no matter what the
global situation..it's a waste of time, effort and resources.
Ultimately, I agree that corn-to-ethanol is a waste of time, effort
and resources, because there are better fuels than ethanol (butanol
for example) and any number of better ways than corn of producing the
feedstock.
However, the EROEI balances associated with corn has been exaggerated
to serve the fossil fuel industry. They are a case of GIGO, because
nobody in their right mind would produce corn ethanol this way.
Moreover. EROEI is not the only consideration.
If, for argument's sake, the energy inputs were all/mostly renewable
-- e.g. from wind, solar, hydro, geothermal or similar, then from a
fossil fuel POV, you'd be way ahead of where you were if they weren't.
Indeed, if all of the fertilizers were produced using energy from
nuclear, then the fuel automatically becomes a lot more GHG friendly.
Additionally, if you were in favour of energy independence, you might
think not importing as much crude was a good thing, so assuming your
EROEI didn't have a substantial crude oil component, you might still
think the game worth the candle.
As I said, I don't believe that this game is worth the candle because
there are far better things you could do, and ultimately the
infrastructure you'd need to set up to do corn-to-ethanol on the kind
of scale that would make an impact would be hideously expensive
relative to other methods.
Fran |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jesse |
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
nospamplease wrote:
Quote: Bob Eld wrote:
..snip Fact:
It takes 3 gallons of water to refine a gallon of ethanol. It
takes 40
gallons of water to refine a gallon of gas.
...snip
You forgot the next step. It takes a gallon of fuel to grow the corn. So
it took 43gal of water to make the gallon of ethanol. Now if you use the
ethanol to power the process, you can consume food and drinking water
with no output. Political perfection.
He also forgot the water it takes to grow the corn.
Energy out about equal to energy in makes no sense no matter what the
global situation..it's a waste of time, effort and resources. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Fran |
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 1:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 21, 6:03 am, Larry Caldwell <firstnamelastinit...@peaksky.com>
wrote:
Quote: In article <e2d0e868-1cc0-4f65-a47e-041e0a2fcb02
@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Fran.B...@gmail.com (Fran) says...
As I said, I don't believe that this game is worth the candle because
there are far better things you could do, and ultimately the
infrastructure you'd need to set up to do corn-to-ethanol on the kind
of scale that would make an impact would be hideously expensive
relative to other methods.
It is already having an impact. Ethanol is the most environmentally
friendly octane enhancer that we have for gasoline.
You're confusing different things.
There are two key questions here:
1. Can ethanol contribuite substantially to replacing gasoline in any
major crude oil market?
2. Can ethanol from corn, soybeans or other conventional agriculture
do so?
The first is arguable, the second, fanciful.
Quote: When they
discovered that MTBE was an environmental disaster, ethanol became the
only game in town.
Butanol? Biodiesel?
Quote: Ethanol also oxygenates gasoline and reduces
emissions, resulting in improved air quality. It is more of an fuel
additive than a fuel replacement. E10 has already become the standard
fuel in the USA. That's a pretty damned big impact.
It's a marginal impact. Really, the only serious prospects for
realising 1 above revolve around waste biomass algae and prairie grass
feedstock. In the short run, the US should abandon all subsidies for
ethanol production from conventional crops and abandon price support
for sugar. They could then import Brazilian ethanol or produce their
own from cane juice, or better yet, produce butanol from the same
source.
Biodiesel from waste and algae (and butanol too) would be the second
string to this strategy.
Fran |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Larry Caldwell |
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <e2d0e868-1cc0-4f65-a47e-041e0a2fcb02
@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Fran.Beta@gmail.com (Fran) says...
Quote: As I said, I don't believe that this game is worth the candle because
there are far better things you could do, and ultimately the
infrastructure you'd need to set up to do corn-to-ethanol on the kind
of scale that would make an impact would be hideously expensive
relative to other methods.
It is already having an impact. Ethanol is the most environmentally
friendly octane enhancer that we have for gasoline. When they
discovered that MTBE was an environmental disaster, ethanol became the
only game in town. Ethanol also oxygenates gasoline and reduces
emissions, resulting in improved air quality. It is more of an fuel
additive than a fuel replacement. E10 has already become the standard
fuel in the USA. That's a pretty damned big impact.
--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Larry Caldwell |
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <66mqk0F2l8bp3U1@mid.individual.net>,
ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk (Ivan) says...
Quote: Basically then Bob AIUI cutting to the chase the article is saying that that
from now on we will all have to get used to living in a world of finite
resources and ever increasing demand?
Pretty much. How that will affect affluence is a separate question. We
have made almost no attempt to improve resource efficiency. Certainly
some segments of the economy will die, while other areas will boom.
Sell Freightliner, and buy rail stock.
--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Oct 12, 2008 3:52 pm
|
|