scalarparty ([info]scalarparty) wrote,
@ 2006-02-05 08:00:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:biobased, biodiesel, cog_groov-e, new energy

one more ethanol piece....
three ethanol stories in a row then back to the madness....
govCanEth
's funny i used to not like ethanol, a lot. Especially the way megahuge agro- farm companies were sucking up government Pork to basically, well, to basically make more cash.... And when it's all made from corn, it goes from stupid and wasteful to evil (unless we have more food than we need, and no more 40,000 babies starving to death on the planet every day. Until then food turned into fuel is simply evil).

But now there's switchgrass, and as you will see below, a number of positive indicators that you can get more bang with ethanol than the lame corn based ethanol ever could... so that's pretty exciting. Now here's something that will make it even more exciting! it's called the "UW Madison Process" and here's the guy, Dr. George Huber:
drH
As is widely known, traditional ethanol production yields around 1.1 units of energy for every 1 that is put into the system. So sure, good reason to not like it very much...

But Dr. Huber and his colleagues at the University of Wisconsin in Madison (the midwest's version of Eugene OR), have found a way to double the output.

While its most likely going to be used as an additive for biodiesel, it shows great promise for ethanol as well; "It's a very efficient process," says Huber. "The fuel produced contains 90 percent of the energy found in the carbohydrate and hydrogen feed. If you look at a carbohydrate source such as corn, our new process has the potential to creates twice the energy as is created in using corn to make ethanol."

kinda neat, imnsho.... oh and hey, if you want to keep up to date with the whole biofuels issue, you might want to check out C. Scott Miller's BioconversionBlog. I didn't see much about the "UW-Madison Process" there but the guy is a bioconversion nut!

Advertisement

(Post a new comment)


(Anonymous)
2006-02-05 02:22 pm UTC (link)
Uninformed emotional responses do not solve the world hunger problem.

Many people - especially children do indeed go hungry in this world - every day. But - the hunger is not from a lack of food stuffs being grown or not being grown elsewhere. Each year somewhere in the world - grain crops, sweet potato crops, tuber crops of all kinds and many other crops go unharvested, or dumped on back the ground because there is no one buying the crop. The bottom line is that people go hungry because their country of some would be benevolent country does not have the money or will not spend the money to buy the food and import it. Or there is no money spent on transport of the food because the poor countries have no such or the transport system is near non existent.

In short poor people go hungry because the money is not spent - not because crops are not grown. These same people or their immediate ancestors went hungry also for the same reasons cited above BEFORE crops were used to make fuels.

And if someone magically stopped all crops from being used for fuel - the people would still go hungry and the crops in some affluent countries would still be dumped back on the ground. BECAUSE - no one will spend the money to buy and ship the crops to the poor people of the world - it is a DISTRIBUTION problem.

Crops grown to make fuels have not and will not take food out of the mouths of children nor anyone else. Your statements otherwise are nothing more than emotional outburst based on ignorance.

Joe-in-Texas

(Reply to this)(Thread)
oh and dont even let me get started on climate change.....
[info]scalarparty
2006-02-05 06:39 pm UTC (link)
Joe

Thank you for your input. and feel free to call it what you want.

You think i don't know that there's a distribution problem?? Fine. And yes, tubers and the rest go unharvested every year (those unifomed natives if only they were as smart as us!) -- And i also know that we dump/burn/let rot a lot of grain to keep prices high and protect investors. So yes, there is a distribution problem (and yes, there is a lack of funding to get them the excess food). But there is also a problem of avarice, and perhaps --while it isn't benefitting the bottom line-- there could be more benevolence.

ADM and Cargil have transportation networks around the world. both try to impress that they are doing the green thing (ADM with ethanol for years, now and Cargill with NaturworksPLA). They could easily do more than they are doing now. It could even be considered tax exempt. AND DONT FOR A SECOND THINK THAT ADM UNDER DWAYN ANDREAS DIDN'T MAKE TONS OF CASH IN FOOD AID. They had no problem doing it when there was a buck in it for them (and if you don't know about that-- perhaps inform yourself) ...and that is why ADM got int the greenfuels in the first place ..it wasn't an ernest desier to help the atmosphere.

I'm sorry that you take offence to me mentioning that there are 40,000 bbabies starving to death each day on our planet. And even for inferring that it's sick to make energy out of corn when people are starving. Personally, i also think its also sick that we waste so much of our resources on cattle feed (21:1 for beef 16:1 for pork). And sure, even if we all became vegetarians overnight we would still have the issue of how to get the excess back to places where its needed, but that at least would be a better position to be in than the one we are in.

And the gulf stream is starting to fail. When it does, forget about growing food in Europe. Most likely we will see food shortages all over the planet once the thermohaline conveyor breaks down-- so say i'm emotional and uninformed if you like; but it's my soapbox so i will stick to the fact that turning food into energy (especially at 1.1) is assinine. There are many other crops that yield higher and don't show a general malice toward the planet and other people. Sorry if that affects your business, somehow.

And you don't like those arguments? No problem. How about the simple argument that any process that gives you 1.1 return for every 1 you input (after getting millions from the government)is an inefficient boondoggle and a total cash grab?

And how about ultimately, you Joe In Texas, drop your emotionalism and your inability to see what is really being said. After all, my personal conjecture on my live journal, was only 1/2 of 1 paragraph of four; the other three about a technology breakthrough that doubles the energy output. If you have nothing better to say than defending our obese cash obsessive callousness, at the fault of missing what the real story is, feel free to do so---- but let me use your wording here; obfuscation and being an apologist "do not solve world hunger" nor do they solve the ecological issues we are facing or about to face

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
like taking candy from a baby...
[info]scalarparty
2006-02-11 12:06 am UTC (link)
oh and now it looks as if may actually hit us where it hurts. no more hersehy bars... sugarisn't a good food but a good indicator that FODD IS NOT A GOOD ENERGY SOURCE. WE EAT IT.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…