David Pimenthal and Ethanol

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

David Pimenthal and Ethanol

Postby kermujin » Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:37 pm

Hi all,<br><br>I know there's an energy forum, but I noticed that no one's posted there for a while, and I'm trying to get a sense of this sooner than later.<br><br>My question is, does anyone know much about David Pimenthal (Cornell prof who's done research on ethanol and organic vs. conventional agriculture)?<br><br>His position is that the production of ethanol produces a net energy loss, and that the only real winners in this equation are Big Oil. I've heard (*unfounded, as of yet*) rumours that he's connected somehow to Big Oil, but I can't find proof. I also can't really find enough information about his findings to determine some rather key issues. For instance, are his results the product of tests run using only virgin feedstock? <br><br>Help! If anyone has any opinions or knowledge of him and/or his work, it would be a great help. <br><br>As background, I'm an editor, and I have two authors about to produce books relating to PO and/or alternative energy. I respect both of them and their research highly, but one thinks Pimenthal is a fraud, and one thinks his research is really sound and worth taking at face value.<br><br>Thanks for any help,<br>kermujin <p></p><i></i>
kermujin
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 3:22 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

question

Postby chiggerbit » Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:51 pm

I've sent your question to a local man who is well-informed on the organic/GM controversy. Not sure if he will know of this person, or even when or if he will get back to me any time soon.<br><br>My own opinion on the ethanol issue is that common sense should tell a person that the whole thing is a boondoggle. <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: David Pimenthal and Ethanol

Postby kermujin » Thu Dec 08, 2005 7:25 pm

Thanks, but I think there's a bit more to it. I can't seem to track down details of Pimentel's study, but here's where I think they diverge:<br><br>Author #1 is touting ethanol, but on a locally based/produced level. What he's saying is that waste product can be used to produce alcohol to power farm vehicles. He doesn't believe Pimentel's negative-net-energy claims, but I think P is arriving at these conclusions because, as far as I can see, it looks as though P is using virgin feed stock as a base, which flies in the face of most alternative renewable theory. Author #1 is also aware that this is not necessarily a long-term strategy, but may help reduce dependence on (foreign) big oil.<br><br>Pimentel is probably precisely correct in his findings; however, he's not trying the same studies based on second-use products, which in itself is a bit puzzling. Virtually no one in the alternative fuels camp is advocating virgin feedstock (with the exception of big soy), but yet these tests are consistently done this way. Frustrating.<br><br>Author #2 has great respect for Pimentel, but more for his organic bug and soil research. I just need to make sure that P isn't shilling for anyone before I'm ready to use his name and research.<br><br>Sometimes, it's kinda nice to have reasonably mundane problems to solve... <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>Thanks for passing it on,<br>kermujin<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
kermujin
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 3:22 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: David Pimenthal and Ethanol

Postby dragon feathers Jack » Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:46 am

the GM thing hasn't got anything to do with organic agriculture at all, nevermind crops-for-fuel - which it has even less to do with.<br><br>GM or GMO is about geneticly engineering existing lifeforms to exploit some trait in them,<br><br>its stupid and completely insane -<br><br>mostly because the whole thing about when farming went wrong is at most about 60 years old, it was mostly fine before that -<br><br>it went wrong because of overuse of artificial fertilisers, and then - after radionics was proven to work as pest-control - dependance upon biologically-poisonous pesticides and various related -icides.<br><br>lot of people forgot about things like seasonal planting (ie - you can tell what time of year it is by the stars, hence how star-planting in biodynamics works) and that lunar phases affect water uptake in crops as they affect tides.<br><br><br>so organics and related practices like permaculture and biodynamics are addressing those problems.<br><br><br>its also really stupid to be making rules about what crops can and can't be grown - if you don't know about that look up the many heritage vegetable sites and webpages, there's an abundance of existing crops already availible that are being ruled out of production for - again - insane reasons, so even there there's no need to be making a case to be needing to design new crops, as if the existing ones aren't good enough.<br><br><br>you don't really need to know much about any of this to work out that growing crops to make into methanol or biodiesels is obviously going to be more efficient that taking stuff out of the ground then cracking it into various different fuels, for a start - the growing process is better for the environment right there, we already know how to make vegetable oil and alcohol, engine conversions to run them are not difficult to do and not all engines even need converted. <br><br>then - alcohol fuels burn clean, they don't add to carbon emissions. i think the vegetable oils do to an extent but they are still grown from crops - which lessens carbon dioxide cause the plants need it to grow - and they produce oxygen. <br><br>look at Cubas example of turning around how their agriculture was being done there, and don't tell me that anywhere else can't do the same thing - there's hundreds of scope for planting crops and processing them. <br><br>consider how much extra good soil can be got from existing rock dust (seen the size of crops grown in this medium? they're giant - cause theres so much minerals in it) and better composting of so much as-yet-waste, and put that together with the amount of land that could be doing with some return-to-nature.<br><br>there's loads of ideas and things done like that that already are known to work - many of them were always known to work. <br><br><br>another thing about fuels - in terms of powering internal combustion engines, all they really need to do is heat fast and be ignitable to produce a controllable gas pressure (to turn the pistons, etc). and obviously not burn thru the gas tank. and its of course preferable if they don't emit poisonous fumes - so if you plan on building a Hg-Rev engine then the mercury would need to be contained and recycled w/o any escape of it. <p></p><i></i>
dragon feathers Jack
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:18 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to Energy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest