07-06-2015, 04:47 PM
Gentlemen,
One other item to consider. When developing energy resources to power the nation one of the most important factors is "energy yield". This is the net addition in energy after all energy expenditures required to produce the fuel or electricity for end users. When oil is refined into gasoline the net energy yield is about 84%. In other words, for every 100 BTUs produced by refined gasoline, 16 BTUs are of energy are consumed in the production of that gasoline. You can think of your personal employment the same way. You might have a job that requires an expenditure for dry-cleaning your business suits, cell phone bills, commuting, etc. If you spent $16 on such expenditures for every $100 that the job paid you, your job (leaving taxes out to keep this simple) would yield 84% of your take-home pay that you could actually spend on non-work related items.
Ethanol has a net energy yield of less than 20%. For every 100 BTUs produced by refined ethanol, approximately 82 BTUs are consumed in it's production, most of that energy being used in farming and the transportation prior to refining. In many cases the net energy yield producing ethanol is actually negative.
The cleanest fuel currently available to power automobiles is hydrogen. When hydrogen is burned in an internal combustion engine the only byproduct is water. How cool is that? So why aren't we powering all of our automobiles and trucks with hydrogen? The answer is negative energy yield. It requires nearly 5 times as much energy to produce hydrogen as that hydrogen will yield while powering a vehicle. 100 BTUs of hydrogen requires approximately 500 BTUs to produce it. This would be like spending $500 a day on expenses to perform a job that paid you $100 a day.
Oil, coal, natural gas, and uranium are efficient, pre-existing fuel sources that require a minimal expenditure of energy to extract and refine them. If vast piles of corn existed somewhere and did not need to be farmed, planted, fertilized, watered, harvested, and transported then ethanol might have a net energy yield similar to that of oil. But the tremendous amount of energy required to perform all of the steps prior to the refining process makes ethanol marginal at best and a net loser at worst when it comes to lessening this nation's dependence upon fossil fuels. Hydrogen would be a dream fuel if there was a way to produce it cheaply.
Currently, the only efficient energy sources are those that do not need to be produced. Oil, natural gas, coal, and uranium don't need to be produced, they are pre-existing and can be found and extracted with minimal energy expenditure. Producing an energy source on the other hand, whether it's ethanol, hydrogen, or Duracell batteries, uses a ton of energy in the production process resulting in slim or negative net energy yields. All the best.
Chip
One other item to consider. When developing energy resources to power the nation one of the most important factors is "energy yield". This is the net addition in energy after all energy expenditures required to produce the fuel or electricity for end users. When oil is refined into gasoline the net energy yield is about 84%. In other words, for every 100 BTUs produced by refined gasoline, 16 BTUs are of energy are consumed in the production of that gasoline. You can think of your personal employment the same way. You might have a job that requires an expenditure for dry-cleaning your business suits, cell phone bills, commuting, etc. If you spent $16 on such expenditures for every $100 that the job paid you, your job (leaving taxes out to keep this simple) would yield 84% of your take-home pay that you could actually spend on non-work related items.
Ethanol has a net energy yield of less than 20%. For every 100 BTUs produced by refined ethanol, approximately 82 BTUs are consumed in it's production, most of that energy being used in farming and the transportation prior to refining. In many cases the net energy yield producing ethanol is actually negative.
The cleanest fuel currently available to power automobiles is hydrogen. When hydrogen is burned in an internal combustion engine the only byproduct is water. How cool is that? So why aren't we powering all of our automobiles and trucks with hydrogen? The answer is negative energy yield. It requires nearly 5 times as much energy to produce hydrogen as that hydrogen will yield while powering a vehicle. 100 BTUs of hydrogen requires approximately 500 BTUs to produce it. This would be like spending $500 a day on expenses to perform a job that paid you $100 a day.
Oil, coal, natural gas, and uranium are efficient, pre-existing fuel sources that require a minimal expenditure of energy to extract and refine them. If vast piles of corn existed somewhere and did not need to be farmed, planted, fertilized, watered, harvested, and transported then ethanol might have a net energy yield similar to that of oil. But the tremendous amount of energy required to perform all of the steps prior to the refining process makes ethanol marginal at best and a net loser at worst when it comes to lessening this nation's dependence upon fossil fuels. Hydrogen would be a dream fuel if there was a way to produce it cheaply.
Currently, the only efficient energy sources are those that do not need to be produced. Oil, natural gas, coal, and uranium don't need to be produced, they are pre-existing and can be found and extracted with minimal energy expenditure. Producing an energy source on the other hand, whether it's ethanol, hydrogen, or Duracell batteries, uses a ton of energy in the production process resulting in slim or negative net energy yields. All the best.
Chip