On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:34:28 -0600, The Artist Formerly Known as
Kap'n Salty <mikey666@[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."
>[snip]
>
>Interesting -- but aren't there crops significantly 'denser' in energy
>than corn? I'm thinking specifically of sugar cane here. Or is corn king
>because we have more suitable land for growing corn than cane?
==============
Indeed there are, but again "the better is the enemy of the
good."
There are several potential high cellulose crops that
should/would be better for two stage fermentation process [e.g
fungus for cellulose/starch => sugar and yeast for sugar =>
alcohol] in that these will grow on marginal land where corn will
not.
Other improvements are the use of solar power to distill the
alcohol.
Alcohol will not fully substituent for the existing gasoline
supplies, but in an embargo situation will allow critical
services such as the emergency services [police/fire/medical],
armed forces, and essential trans****tation of items such as
medical supplies and food to be maintained.
Another point is that the CO2 generated by alcohol combustion [if
any] has been captured in large part from the atmosphere, and
should not increase the greenhouse g***** (if this is really a
factor).
We can wait and wait and wait some more for a perfect solution
with no downside [which will never arrive], or we can go with
what we know works, and improve it as we go along. Waiting for
the perfect solution, which will never arrive, will result in the
emergency imposition of some form of syn-fuels, with minimal
op****tunity for planning, review/evaluation and cost containment.
|
