On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:23:34 GMT, "Brian Bartz"
<nasacpa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Corn ethanol is bad news. When you figure out the amount of energy that
>goes into getting the ethanol, the deal doesn't make much sense.
===============
Indeed, from a strictly "up front" or current effeciency/economic
standpoint it does not, however not everything is [or should be]
evaluated on the factors of current "efficiency" and "economics."
First: from a national defense perspective, ethanol production is
domestic under US control, and establishes a secure fuel supply.
Second: the money generated stays and circulates in the US
economy rather than contributing to the current account trade
deficit/debt.
Third: much of the apparent cost is simply the transfer of
existing sup****t payments for not growing corn to subsidy
payments for growing corn, and the production of alcohol.
Fourth: more of the apparent additional cost is simply the
transfer of rural economic development funding and other costs to
a productive activity such as corn [and other crop production]
and fermentation.
FWIW -- the reason we are not seeing *BIG* reductions in the
agricultural sup****t payments is political, not market. Most of
the people receiving the bulk of the funds are absentee owners,
have never and never intend to produce a single ear of corn, but
are experts in "milking the system" [but not the cows].
Fifth: the fermentation infrastructure is basic to the
bio-generation of other commodities such as plastics and other
precursors currently produced from petroleum from renewable
resources such as corn and soya.
Sixth: the implementation of the current single stage process
establishes the first part of the more efficient two step
process, and avoids the indefinite delay of attempting to find
the "perfect" solution. As noted in many engineering courses
"the better is the enemy of the good." conversion of the single
state fermentation process can be greatly improved by
implementation of a two stage process which uses a fungus to
decompose the cellulose and starches to sugars, and yeast to
convert the sugars to alcohol. This will allow the use of high
cellulose crops and agricultural wastes, with much higher
efficiencies and lower costs.
Seventh: extensive ethanol fermentation and other
bio-generation provides a very significant "vent for value" of
currently grossly undervalued US assets such as farmland,
agricultural equipment, and possibly most critical the
agricultural expertise of our farmers.
Eighth: extensive energy and precursor feed stock production by
fermentation of renewable resources can reverse the depopulation
of the countryside with the concurrent [cancerous] growth of the
large metro areas with excessive operating costs/cost-of living
and [highly] toxic life styles/environments [e.g. drug culture].
Much of small-town and rural America still has very affordable
housing and under-utilized infrastructure such as schools, as
well as a much healthier social environment and higher "quality
of life" factors.
Ninth: Yeast fermentation provides an area where your home
brewing skills and knowledge [e.g. the im****tance of sanitation,
yeast culture, temperature control] can be applied if you wish to
do so. Saki fermenters are already familiar with the two stage
fungus/yeast process.
There are a number of other good reasons but this is an
excessively long response already. What do the other posters
suggest?
|
