|
| Cellulosic ethanol will suffer from the same problems that corn ethanol will. IE, as we use more of it, the feedstuffs are going to continue to become more expensive. One good example is wood pellets. In the early 90's pellets were in the $50 a ton range. The sawdust was pretty much free to the pelleters. Today, pellets are running around $150 a ton, and they spiked to over $200 a ton in 2007. Once we start really using these sources, we'll find out what the economics really are. To me, it makes a lot more sense to just burn these materials directly for heat, than to put them through the intermediate process to create a liquid fuel.
You say that Ethanol has a positive energy production. That is true, but, what we're probably going to see from here on out, is incremental gains. And, let's face it, "bio-energy" is nothing new. Your grandpa used it to feed his horses. It took a considerable amount of the production of the farm just to produce the energy for the farm. Our economy really didn't get to rolling till we started using-oil. To run our economy, we need sources with a higher positive net ratio than what Ethanol is going to give us. I don't think I like the scenario that you lay out with ever higher spiraling energy costs. And, that IS the scenario that you are laying out, there's simply no other way for it to play. One way or the other, energy use WILL be rationed. If we were thinking ahead, we'd already be transitioned to a "nuclear" economy with "energy so cheap it's not worth metering" as it's proponents predicted in the 1950's. Instead, here we are, stuck debating whether we're going to turn corn and soybeans into liquid fuels for our tractors and trucks, rather than just feeding them to our teams. Same difference. I don't have much reason to think the results will be much different this time. | |
|
USDA Dec 1 STOCKS 10.934 Billion Bushels.
