|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
They must love oil and hate alternatives.
It actually takes 10 to 15 gals of water.
I believe they are slickly talking about the amount of water a crop takes
to grow. And corn and some others supposedly do take about 2000 gals of
water per crop.
The problems with their view is, that water would be used and put back into
the soil anyway, wheter one was making ethanol or Pepsi.
Just a slick way to take a great idea and make it look bad to the ones that
don't know. Like many things we read. It will never change.
With solar, they would take about the amount of sun being used.
With wind, they would take about the wind being used.
With nucleor, they would only take about the waste.
Tha is on the above, if they were against them. They will talk their view
and try to think for others.
But then again their view is correct. So what can one say.
----- Original Message -----
From: "jack zaner" <jz@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Gary Fritz" <fritz@xxxxxxxx>; <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: RES: stock to buy- GPRE
I read today in the San Diego Union Tribune that it takes up to 2000 gal.
of water to produce 1 gal. of ethanol. The point of the editorial was that
the ethanol experiment is a failed one and that the quicker we admit it the
faster we can shift assets toward more productive endeavors. All in all,
the ROI is not good so far.
Jack.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Fritz" <fritz@xxxxxxxx>
To: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: RES: stock to buy- GPRE
>The Brazilian ethanol production is 8x more energy efficient than corn
>ethanol.
Interesting, I didn't know that. I wonder what's different about
growing and harvesting corn that makes sugar cane more economical?
I believe there are several factors:
* Growing sugar cane is a less energy-intensive process than growing
corn.
* Sugar cane contains more sugar than corn. :-) The ethanol process
converts sugar into ethanol, so a high-sugar source is more efficient.
Corn
contains starches that must first be converted into sugars, and this cuts
the
efficiency by about 30%.
I observe, also, that the whole political push behind ethanol is
based on the idea of U.S. energy independence. We rely on the
middle east now for oil; switching to relying on Brazil for ethanol
doesn't really solve the dependency problem.
I don't think we could. Brazil consumes most of its ethanol production
and
still consumes 2,000,000bbl/day of oil. Even so, it exports about 1
billion
gallons (not barrels) of ethanol a year -- still a drop in the bucket
compared
to the US energy demand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil has more info,
including a
claim that Brazillian ethanol production has an energy balance of 8-10.
Not
sure how accurate the "up to 35x" claim is.
I suppose the U.S. could ramp up its sugar cane production, though it
would be at the expense of other crops.
I believe efficient cane production requires tropical or subtropical
conditions,
which are not well met in the US other than Hawaii and maybe Florida. We
can grow sugar beets but I suspect that suffers from the same expensive
growing process that corn does.
Gary
---
avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 080703-0, 07/03/2008
Tested on: 7/3/2008 11:33:17 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2008 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 080703-0, 07/03/2008
Tested on: 7/3/2008 12:54:42 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2008 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
|