Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Bonds, Currencies, Commodities and Index Futures -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Moominoid who wrote (2155)	7/26/2001 7:10:12 PM
From: Mark Adams	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12411

I've heard that 'total energy cycle' argument for ethanol. But the surplus is in the form of things like palm oil. And it may be possible that soybean oil or palm oil can be produced with less energy input than is currently applied for corn. BTW, as I understand it, ethanol only uses the starch from the corn, leaving the vitamins, oil etc for a rich animal feed. It's quite possible these valuable byproducts were not included in the energy input/output calcs for ethanol. With soybeans, you have an added benefit in the form of nitrogen fixing, improving the fertility of the soil for subsequent crops. I was thinking, after I posted the previous note, that looking at comparative energy content is meaningless unless one also incorporates cost. For example, while the energy content of palm oil might exceed that of wood by a factor of four, the cost of plam oil might exceed wood by a factor of 16, making wood 1/4th the cost per btu. But as energy costs evolve, these numbers may shift. Also, economies of scale might be achieved if the amount of oil processing increases due to energy needs. On initial inspection, I suspect drilling for oil/gas is much "cheaper" than converting excess supplies of edible oil sources.