The public term "renewable energy" is misleading.

http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-57/iss-7/p47.html

Is renewable energy all that renewable??

Our basic choices are limited. Nature's energy resources are confined to two categories: Earth−stored fossil residues and nuclear isotopes, whose economic utility is limited by the finite amounts that exist on Earth, and the radiation flux of solar energy, whose economic utility is limited by the finite rate at which we can capture the Sun's energy and by the land areas that societies can dedicate to harness it.

The longevity of the fossil energy supply and the net rate of solar energy availability are both reduced by the energy consumed through their conversion to a suitable energy form and the technologies that accompany that conversion: storage, delivery, maintenance, and repair of environmental damage. Solar−derived consumer energy, whether as electricity, biomass, or wind, represents a clean, alternative energy form. It is important to understand a basic law of nature: Energy, once used, is not regenerable. So the public term "renewable energy" is misleading.

The following analysis examines the magnitudes of the world's energy supplies and the basic constraints on our ability to support in the long term society's demands using those finite supplies. To put those magnitudes into a human context for policymakers and the public, the longevity of our resources will be expressed on the scale of a human lifespan (where 1 human lifespan is approximately 75 years).

.....CNN did a report recently (don't have a link handy) about a corn based fuel (no oil, natural gas, coal involved) for cars. This has been developed in another country as I remember and the reporter doing the story asked the question, "Why can't this be done in America". Corn is indeed renewable because it is planted and harvested every year.

It's true, however, that some people use the term renewable/alternative interchangeably when referring to fuels.

. . . is where the fertilizer comes from. All petro-based, No? Not to mention the various other chemicals used in agriculture - most if not all petro-based. Not really renewable in the long run unless farming practices are changed.

. . . but now the vast majority of fertilizer is petro based. A lot easier to spread than poop. Poop also needs to be composted before putting on fields which is a fairly long process involving a lot of labor (and petro-fuel to power the spreaders, tractors, skip loaders, etc.)

Here's more on coal and ethanol: http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/33969/

.....any number of other uses besides just cars. It's a matter of someone like a Kennedy setting this country on its ear and saying Now GET IT DONE and it could be done without using up all our water, or at the very least using salt water. I'm not saying every bit of the needed technology exists at this moment I'm saying we need a Gore or Kerry to give the country an assignment and then oversee the progress.

My god, what pat of the technology already exists and can be adopted further is so hard to understand? It's not like we don't have the scientists to do it, it's just that they aren't being given a free hand to take everything a step or two further.

Oil is energy that has already been created. Ethanol is energy that has to be created and it takes more to manufacture it than you get out of it. Even if you improve the technology you are not going to get more out of it than you put into it.

Alcohol has about 20% less energy in it than gasoline.

.....expanded on. So what part of that is so hard to deal with. If this ame attitude of "can't do this, can't do that" before the wheel where would be be today?:eyes: :shrug: :wtf:

You cannot get more energy out of anything than you put into it. Oil is stored energy that has already been created and refining it makes it usable for our needs.

You cannot get more energy out of corn alcohol than you put into it. Physics 101 states that you cannot get more energy out of anything than you put into it.

With oil, it is stored energy and the only energy used is to refine it and you still get more more energy out than you put into it. Much different than corn alcohol or any other alcohol which takes a lot of energy to manufacture.

.....if this country would devote resources to furthering that technology the energy crisis could have a potential solution.:eyes: What part of that is so hard to accept and understand??:shrug:

Now, I'm tired of going over and over and over this.:wtf:

The earth isn't a closed system. There is a poster on the peak oil forum I post at (MonteQuest) who keeps ranting on about the second law of thermodynamics, people keep have to reminding him that the 2nd law only applies in a closed system, we get energy from the sun that powers our solar and wind power stattions and allows photosynthesis for the plants grown for biofuels.

does it take to fertilize, work the ground, irrigate, harvest, and convert it into a usable fuel??

Sure it stores energy from the sun but the energy that it takes to harvest that energy is more than what you reap. Also cars will run on alcohol but not as efficient as gasoline.

I am afraid we are stuck with fossil fuels for a long time. Enclosed is a link that might explain it better than I can....

http://wardsautoworld.com/ar/auto_dont_oversell_ethanol/

Corn barely breaks even energy-wise. The energy ROI of switchgrass is a respectable 4.

And I'm sure there are other possible sources of alcohol, although I don't know the logistics. What about wood alcohol, if efficient enough while economically and environmentally feasible?

There is a thread on the subject there, I can't rember the thread though.

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/3/7/03949/82426

Everything you wanted to know about switchgrass and why its not the next energy source thats going to run America..


As a final note, there is sensitivity to energy prices in this analysis. However, it appears to go the wrong way for switchgrass. In 2000, the Iowa Crop Cost document states that at 6 tons/acre the cost of switchgrass was $52/ton, rising to $66/ton in 2006, an increase of 27% as the price of diesel doubled. Corn, on the other hand, cost $2.89/bushel in 2000 to produce and $3.40/bushel in 2006, an increase of 17%. This suggests that corn may become more competitive with switchgrass as time moves forward and energy costs rise, exactly the opposite interpretation most people would have anticipated. I attribute this to increased corn yields with time, which makes corn production progressively more efficient.

What's the moral in all of this? If corn ethanol is marginal on an energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) basis, it is very difficult to argue that biomass grown to make ethanol will be any better. To be blunt, if there are concentrated stocks of waste biomass in place, such as at lumber mills, then biomass ethanol probably makes sense. Otherwise, it appears to be more or less equivalent to corn based ethanol - in other words, a wash.

Where do you think the stored energy in oil came from? It was mostly plant material at one time.

Corn based ethanol is the biggest waste of corn that's known to man.

Currently, 13% of all the corn grown in this country produces about 4 billion gallons of ethanol or 1% of our total petroleum usage!! 1 PERCENT!

So even if you used the whole crop of corn, you would get less than 10% of our total petroleum needs!!

And aslo remember that technology and oil depletion are two different subjects..

So where do we get all this corn??

It's a by-product of recovering natural gas.

One of the reason why it's so critical is involved with a different climate issue, topsoil runoff, which has reached breakneck proportions. As desertification progresses, runoff becomes increasingly worse. Ammonium nitrate is required to "amend" the soil so that crops can contain enough proetin. "Organic"-source fertilizer isn't enough to replace the lost nitrogen and nutrients in mosts areas. This is one part of the ecological system that demands attention.

Even full-scale composting wouldn't produce quite enough. New (and sometimes old) agricultural techniques are required. This, too, is a crisis, but with so many crises to keep track of, it's not being covered quite as well.

--p!

...and processing the corn for energy than the benefits that you get in return for it and don't forget the chemicals and pesticides used in it's harvesting that also harm the environment long term. The public is getting hugely hyped and misinformed when it comes to these types of energy sources. It still keeps the demand for petroleum fuels up while blowing smoke into the average consumer's eye's who thinks he's doing something good for the environment.

Just like in second Batman movie. The villian creates a power plant that actually sucks energy away from Gotham City rather than supplying it.

.....that if corn based fuel could be used in cars now then eventually it could replace ALL FOSSIL FUELS. :eyes:

..Midland Corporation. Tax breaks and price supports for rich businessmen.

I will post the link,if anyone is interested

water.

Much of US corn is grown with fossil water, i.e. water being pumped out of an aquifier faster than the acquifier is recharged.

http://www.npwd.org/Ogallala.htm

We need to add to this equation the effects of global climate change. Droughts do indeed have an effect on crop yields.

The dream that stills in the mid west or biodiesel plants will "solve" our problem are wishful thinking mostly. Biofuels can ameliorate a small part of our problem, but they are not enough; neither are they necessarily really "renewable."

The amount of energy in the universe is fixed. There are quantum fluctuations that exist for micro seconds, but the rest is all there is.

were to replace coal (50% of our electricity) with nuclear. But he doesn't mention world-wide nuclear reserves, nor does he mention the possibility of breeder reactors. Both possible sources of additional uranium (or thorium) are certainly debatable as to their feasibility, but he doesn't mention them. I've seen analyses that claim that a complete breeder fuel cycle in nuclear power would allow it to be used for tens of thousands of years. (Of course, existing efforts to make breeder reactors are less than convincing.)

But his article does make it clear that we are in big trouble, when some of our most important energy sources (petroleum and natural gas) are not going to be produced at current levels for more than half a human lifespan.

The problem is that breeder reactors increase the possibility -- and the fear -- of increasing the availability of nuclear material, which could potentially be used to build bombs. It's not a problem of technology so much as one of politics, and not a trivial problem at that.

However, most of our problems are non-trivial. This is why I support all kinds of energy development, including nuclear.

It's also why I'm pessimistic, because it will require a world effort even greater in kind that that which was required to subdue Hitler and the Fascist political movement in the 1940s. It will take some serious pain before our leaders can be persuaded to pull their heads out of their asses and get to work.

--p!

discounts or ignores a few of the newer technologies. Still, it puts things into perspective. And, yes, the concept of "renewable" is subject to wide interpretation-- the common ones not being all that useful.

Elsewhere, I've seen the calculation that the coal, gas, and oil we use annually is about 400 years worth of dead plants and animals, so trying to replace fossil fuels with biofuels would require more arable land than exists on the planet. I'm not sure that calculation is accurate, and haven't worked it out myself, but even if it's way off it still bodes ill for the future of our energy consumption. Biodeiesel, ethanol... completely replacing petroleum with them would not be possible.

Within the next generation or two, everyone is going to be in shock as our lifestyles will be forced to change drastically. Something tells me whoever is around at the time won't handle it all that well.

I'm sorry to be so realistic here but the more you read about the upcoming energy crisis and knowing there are no viable alternatives to oil, one has to realize how screwed our children are..