Re: Oil potpourri-Mistake

From: "Al Koop" <koopa@gvsu.edu>

> Looking up the energy return of sugarcane vs. corn in Odum and Odum
> (the only place I was able to find it): A Prosperous Way Down, 2001;
> ethanol from corn has a energy return/energy input of 1.10 and from
> sugar cane is 1.14 according to Odum and Odum, so sugarcane is
> comparable to corn as an energy source in their estimation. The actual
> energy return vs energy input is very difficult to nail down for almost
> any energy source and subject to all sorts of controversey. In the
> estimation of Odum and Odum the 9000 gallons of ethanol per acre would
> require about 7900 gallons of input for a gain of 1100 gallons per acre
> per year, but you would then have to include any nonenergy costs on top
> of that as well.

Cane yields sugar which ferments directly. Corn starch has to be broken into
sugar with an enzyme, an additional step. I don't know offhand what the
energy cost of producing the enzyme is, but it has to be something. Much
enzyme would be needed.

> Numerous people who make estimates similar to those of Odum and Odum
> obviously think that energy production from corn and sugarcane is not
> efficient and never will be. Politicians giving subsidies to Midwestern
> corn farmers either don't understand this, don't know about it, don't
> agree with it, or don't care if it gets them votes.

Subsidies imply control. It gives the govt more control. But for whatever
reason, there is no concerted effort to replace oil because the
Anglo-American Power Elite still have too much of a vested interest in oil.
John D. Rockefeller Sr. said "Competition is a sin." The Bush faction, for
instance, is heavily into oil.

This same group is also heavily interested in global population reduction,
and not merely by attrition. Energy depletion would figure into that goal.

Dennis Feucht
Received on Wed Aug 25 14:26:48 2004