This just came to me.... and while reading it- i had a random thought....

Has anyone done the math to look at how much gas and diesel the WORLD (not just the US) uses in a year, and the required acreage to grow enough biofuel to replace it?  This seems like a very worthwhile exercise to me!  

One would think that if the numbers supported it, the enviromentalists…  would tell us… all about it…  but then again, there is that word…. You know, MENTALISTS!

Can't we just buy up a bunch of land with that $425,000 we're all getting?

Oh, never mind...bwaahahaaahaaa

than it used to be.  I had the pleasure of visiting it in '93.  Truly a brutal place. Haiti's people really had a rough time.  Anything that can help them deserves a chance.

Don't even think about the amount of water. A scarce commodity in many parts of the world. Grow enough for biofuels for cars, no water for people.

A fantastic trade off indeed.

T Boone Pickins...  and many many others... to get suckered into the greatest swindle snake oil scheme of all time.

The solutions lie in a multitude of not yet worked out technologies... - including geothermal, wind and solar...  as well as better solutions to the use of agricultural waste...  bagass... is one that could be considered.  But stangely is not.

the problems are fairly straight forward on most of these, solvable with existing technology, but require a rethink of how we distribute and use energy....   but hey, that would actually require thought... which C- boy can't quite seem to master....

and I saw something I haven't seen in a long time, a gas station that advertised proudly

"Our gasoline contains no ethanol"

I loved it and I will make it a point to patronize that station whenever I am in the area.

Accroding to 'How Stuff Works' 97% of the United States land mass is required to produce the U.S's need for auto fuel. Still lot's of assumptions buried in there. Gives an order of magnitude to the answer though.

I'm pretty sure the above does not include the energy production requirements to convert the corn into ethanol. That efficiency seems very much in dispute.

-- Modified on 10/2/2008 5:30:33 PM

26 pounds corn to make one gallon ethanol
Gasoline has 1.5 X higher energy content than ethanol
39 pounds corn to make one gallon gasoline equivalent

Based on adjusted standard of 15.5% moisture. . .
1 bushel corn weighs 56 pounds
Gives 0.7 bushels corn per gallon gas equivalent
2007 U.S. corn crop 13.1 billion bushels (near record)
13.1 billion / 0.7 = 18.7 billion gallons gas equivalent

U.S. gasoline consumption
9 million barrels per day (4 million barrels/day for diesel
378 million gallons per day
138 billion gallons per year

138 / 18.7 = 7.4
We use 7.4 TIMES more gasoline than the entire U.S. 2007 corn crop could produce. This does not account for the energy requirements to make the ethanol. I haven’t found consistent efficiency figures for ethanol plants.

Modified to fix conversion errors


-- Modified on 10/2/2008 8:00:20 PM

but how does 9 million barrels a day translate into 315 million gallons? There are 42 gallons to a barrel which would make 378 million gallons not 315.

Aside from that, the exercise is futile. Considering the energy expended to make ethanol, the entire planet could not grow enough corn to supply the US with the gasoline equivalent to run this country.

I couldn't remember the 42 gallons so I googled it and got 35 gallons (except it was UK gallons)

Revised numbers are above.

I knew it was pointless before I started. No argument from me. I was simply trying to keep BSD happy. You know how moody he gets, LOL.

I can't find consistent numbers on ethanol plant efficienices. Could be because there are so many different sizes and styles of plants. And that they are new. No accepted practices.

Ethanol from grasses seems to be far more efficient. Problem is the enzymes make it far more expensive.

-- Modified on 10/2/2008 8:08:13 PM

Use 97% land mass to produce whatever for biofuel. Rocket them to Mars for processing and shoot it back.

For what and to whom, I have no CLUE.

NO - count-em NO Zero environmentalist tree huggers have weighed in with numbers of figures to support their position..... NONE!  Where are they?

However, the advancements in biodiesel from oil-algae will change the math on this exponentially in the next few years... Anyone trying to make biofuel out of corn should be fucked with corncobs until dead! it's the most ineffecient and harmful way to produce a motorfuel that there is (less than 60 gal. per acre!)... Which is probably why most Dems supported it... It "felt good" but was illogical... traditional biodiesel will never be a mainstream fuel, especially made from soybean oil,(too inefficient 80 gal.per acre return) However I've run on it for years for free (waste cooking oil) but now the used oil is worth cash to rendering companies that have recieved huge grants to do this, so the days of free fuel are gone... (now I run on propane, which is equivalent to paying $2.11 for gasoline when compared to miles traveled v/s dollars spent)

Nope, methane WILL be the fuel of the future! it is made from composting shit and we all know that AMERICA IS FULL OF SHIT! Thus we'll be able to fuel ourselves into eternity if we ever wake up and pull our heads out of our collective asses!

Mr. Fuzzy - and got a fuzzy answer...

yea, Corn was a pretty dumb idea...  I've seen a couple of things that make me sit up and go - wow...
1) 90% more efficient solar cell... but the devil is in production.
2) direct conversion from microorganims to electricity... but that is WAY WAY early...
3) Raw cellulose conversion to sugar - then to ethanol... in short- chew up the stalks of corn, grass clippings, waste paper... anything with cellulose baby, anthing.
4) Geothermal... we all sit on Magma...

All those are viable... and not likely to "run out"!

detailing 60 gal per acre? Maybe its due to the 40 bushels per acre you guys get in MinnySOWta, up there in the great white north, LOL.

My numbers did not include ethanol plant efficiencies.

I can't find consistent info on ethanol plant efficiencies. Not even whether it's greater or less than ONE.

When I look into the CHEMISTRY of all this, what I find is shocking... the efficiency of the oxidation of ethanol compared to the efficiency of complete oxidation of octane is less... Why? because ethanol is already partially oxidized and you get less energy output from completing an incomplete reaction that from completing the whole reaction.

I suspect that how you would calculate this, and present it in a logical manner is well beyond the likes of a Katie Couric, Al Gore, John McCain, Peter Jennings, Rush Limbaugh, or even a Michael Savage... lets face it - most of our politicians are not rocket scientists.... and most of our journalists are not even politicians...

Go figure.  I've come to the conclusion that the answer has been calculated, and it turns up short, but has been buried in the academic conflict of interest morass - why?  because to report it would mandate cutting off funds for research in to biofuel generation.... and that is what scares me...

Academic cesspools... supposed to be indepentant bastions of truth and enlightenment - are now just another "BIG BUSINESS"

How else would you explain their endowments and the skyrocked tuitions they "charge?"

I can also tell you that oil-sunflowers can produce over 100gal per acre, and that a second squeezing of the press-cake of most any oil-seeds will yield 20-30% more oil that's too bitter for food-grade but will make good fuel... This is rarely done in the current food-to-fuel racket that's under way in this country.
 BTW, if you're lucky enough to get 60gal. per acre out of corn as fuel-grade whiskey, that's STILL only a gross-yield, it does not take into account and deduct the diesel-fuel required to plant and harvest the corn, natural gas or propane to dry the corn to the right moisture-content, more diesel to ship it by truck elevtors, electricity to load it into the elevators, more diesel to ship it to the ethanol plants, electricity and natural gas required to prosess it into ethanol, the 15% GASOLINE then added to "denature" it so alcoholics can't get drunk for 2.50 a gallon, and to keep it under the fuel-tax requirements of the damn government! (E85)

Not only that, but the gallon-equivalent to other motor-fuels is less due to the low BTU-per-unit and the fact that it requires a richer air/fuel ratio in an engine to to run on the shit!

When looked at in the scope of the "whole picture", I'm not sure it's even a zero-sum-gain! We probably are losing ground nationally from an energy-perspective!

Algae on the other hand shows great promise... Thousands of gallons of biodiesel can be produced per acre, per growing season, and it thrives in natural or man-made growing-ponds on otherwise unusable land. And now with the new "vertical-farming" of growing it in above-ground plastic tubes, the sky is the limit, LITERALLY!

making ethanol is so wasteful on so many levels. we'd be energy-ahead if we just let bacteria decompose the corn int methane and pump/blend it into our nation's natural-gas distribution network!
 I still think the fumes from our shit will power our nation into the future we deserve (metaphorically and literally! LMFAO!)

my long term goal would be to go into a bioenergy business... but hey I just do not have the funds... and from the perspective of VC funding these days?  Bwahahaha.... there isn't any money... none  so sad... when we truly need private money, the government took it all!