2008-05-11T23:26:46Z http://gog2g.com/comments/atom.aspx Quick Blog tag:gog2g.com,2008-04-25:1000866 Carl Brannen 2008-04-25T16:12:08Z 2008-04-25T15:43:06Z
Papers by the deep ecologists show that it is energy inefficient by saddling ethanol with energy costs that they do not saddle gasoline with. It also requires energy to make gasoline and move it around.

Re "more risky energy source than gasoline, due to large weather-induced variations in corn yields."

All it takes is a couple of missiles off the Iranian coast and this "more risky" statement will become obviously, in retrospect, silly. Oil is far more risky than corn. Anyone who doubts this should examine the price charts for oil and ethanol over the last 100 years.]]> tag:gog2g.com,2008-04-09:957411 edge 2008-04-13T17:39:17Z 2008-04-09T12:37:04Z tag:gog2g.com,2008-04-03:941611 Tom http://www.imesh.com 2008-04-03T21:09:38Z 2008-04-03T11:30:29Z
Nuclear, Solar, Wind - not Ethanol.

Ethanol is the reason I switched my vote from Hillary to McCain. The environment is more important than Iraq.]]> tag:gog2g.com,2008-03-07:877745 Eric 2008-03-10T00:02:17Z 2008-03-07T11:24:49Z tag:gog2g.com,2008-03-06:875767 Pat Foster http://wmnc.biz 2008-03-06T15:28:25Z 2008-03-06T12:34:29Z tag:gog2g.com,2008-02-29:862038 poetryman69 http://lovepoems.poetryman6969.com/ 2008-03-02T16:21:24Z 2008-02-29T08:19:42Z
No more Oil Wars!

Energy Independence Now!

Drill in Anwar.

Build more nuclear power plants

Use More coal.

Use more natural gas


Turn trash into energy


Double the efficiency of windmills and solar cells.



If France can do nuclear power so can we.


If Brazil can do biomass/ethanol power so can we.


If Australia can do LNG power so can we.


Domestically produced energy will end the recession and spur the economy.


Stop paying oil dollars to those who worship daily at the alter of our destruction.


Preserve our Civil Rights and defend our Freedom by ending dependence on foreign oil.]]> tag:gog2g.com,2008-02-21:845796 Hal Puchalski 2008-02-21T19:50:03Z 2008-02-21T15:25:09Z Unfortunately however,in spite of continued scientific and technological improvements in many areas of the ethanol industry, the oil supporters will continue to deem it "bad fuel" whose increased use is causing the worlds hungry to starve.
When will credit be given to those who see a serious problem...continued dependence on oil..and much worse foreign oil.. get the respect they deserve.]]> tag:gog2g.com,2008-01-25:788083 JJ 2008-01-25T13:12:52Z 2008-01-25T10:23:53Z
1. The first one is fuzzy because it involves politics and motive. This is the cost of military action in the midddle east and its relationship to oil. The argument that we invaded Iraq for the oil fails the reality check; the easiest solution would have been to warmly embrace Saddam as a secular dictator who opposes extremists (much as we have done with Musharaff), in the same way we warmly embraced him in the 1980's as a secular dictator who opposed Iran. A PR campaign rehabilitates his image, he apologizes and compensates Kuwait, and we get preferential oil deals. The average voter, I've discovered, has absolutely no idea that Saddam was considered a Reagan ally in the 80's and a supervillian in the 2000's. It is fairly easy to position a dictator as a friend or a threat depending on the storyline being fed to the press. So the short answer is I think we must assume the cost of military operations in the mideast has very little that can be attributed to oil production or consumption.

2. The second one should be easier to calculate. In calculating the 'oil cost of oil', we can't use just the dollar$ spend on oil production, but the oil component of the $ spend on oil production. This line of reasoning suggests that those workers who are building humvees or making drilling equipment or whatever would still be alive and consuming resources and working somewhere if not involved in the oil or military business. It should only be the oil component of the production of oil that factors in to oil efficiency.

Granted, the 'cost per barrel' definitely should include the economic non-oil cost of drilling equipment and possibly the cost of military support, but that is an economic issue and not an oil's-cost-of-oil issue.]]> tag:gog2g.com,2008-01-24:785741 Geoff http://energyoutlook.blogspot.com 2008-01-24T16:38:23Z 2008-01-24T11:31:53Z
There's also hope that as ethanol facilities improve--or when cellulosic ethanol finally becomes possible on a commercial scale--the EROEI of ethanol will increase from 1.3:1 toward 2:1 or beyond. The energy advantage of oil over ethanol will thus gradually erode.

The real issue, however, isn't whether ethanol might not be as much worse than oil as it looks, but that we really need an energy source with a higher EROEI to create the large energy surplus required to run our economy, without devoting a huge portion of it to this activity and crowding out the valuable uses of energy downstream.

I think the present engineering calculations on both sides are adequate to highlight that concern, without dragging in the geopolitical costs of oil (which aren't really expressed in energy, unless you want to start tallying the fuel burned in the tanks, ships and planes involved in the wars you cite) or the escalating food-competition costs of biofuels, which are affecting large numbers of low-income people, globally.]]> tag:gog2g.com,2008-01-03:741608 nick gogerty http://www.gogerty.com 2008-01-25T13:13:13Z 2008-01-03T17:10:39Z