tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731149177870823280.post7570334984895960862..comments2024-02-24T18:01:44.751-08:00Comments on Musings . . . by Karen Lynn Allen: Per Capita Oil Consumption Is Dropping Like a Rock (in Some Countries)Karen Lynn Allenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01570980995774757572noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731149177870823280.post-56075686820785761972012-10-30T09:58:39.102-07:002012-10-30T09:58:39.102-07:00Very interesting! What a "hobby" Karen! ...Very interesting! What a "hobby" Karen! Thanks for putting this out for discussion. I will come back and keep reading.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08037008161244743109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731149177870823280.post-29376128818007525892012-10-08T01:26:14.562-07:002012-10-08T01:26:14.562-07:00Great article, written in a way that everyone can ...Great article, written in a way that everyone can understand, well done.<br /><br />I disagree with your projections for developed world countries, I think they are mostly not achievable in the short period of time between now and 2015. In particular I disagree with what you think is achievable in the USA; a drop from .059 to .040 I think is almost impossible.<br /><br />You have to bear in mind that that the drop in per capita consumption in the last five years has been the easiest to kill demand - discretionary and recreational demand, demand from inefficient industry which ultimately failed, etc. Reducing demand requires biting into less discretionary areas and "stronger" industries. <br /><br />If you are right that the US can or will reduce demand by more than double what it has achieved in the last five years, I have to think this will be in the face of a catastrophic economic meltdown, which would necessarily have global implications (notably on China and other developing countries). This would result in a crash in oil prices (see end 2008, early 2009) which would have the effect of adding stimulus to economies and refloat them in a small way until the next bout of higher prices and demand destruction.<br /><br />I simply cannot see all that happening in the next three years - the US would have to enter a multi-year decline for that to happen, and that, I think, would have to be accompanied by sustained high oil prices IN SPITE of global economic meltdown. I don't think we're at that stage of the peak yet.NFEnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731149177870823280.post-77084871325294713402012-10-07T00:04:06.644-07:002012-10-07T00:04:06.644-07:00Australia is a net importer of oil, but a net expo...Australia is a net importer of oil, but a net exporter of energy. Exports of coal, natural gas and uranium are, in energy terms, greater than oil imports. Given the large LNG projects under construction, it will stay this way for some time.<br /><br />High and rising oil prices will suck money out of the Australian economy, but not as much as will be pumped in by exports of other energy forms. Yes, per capita consumption will decrease in future (it cannot do otherwise in a post-Peak world), but not as soon or as fast as the author projects.Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731149177870823280.post-63085280877822355112012-10-06T15:25:45.474-07:002012-10-06T15:25:45.474-07:00Field Corn is Cattle Feed (primarily.) From a bus...Field Corn is Cattle Feed (primarily.) From a bushel of corn (56 lbs) you get back between 2.8 and 3.0 gallons of ethanol, and 0.1 gallon of corn oil, depending on the refinery.<br /><br />In addition, you get back approx 17.5 lbs of DDGS, which is a "Higher Value" Feed than Corn, alone, in that it not only replaces corn, but also, Soybean Meal (higher Proteing, and higher cost.) <br /><br />Many refineries also sell off the approx. 17 lbs of CO2 that results from the refining process (a little over 1/3rd of refineries do this at present, I believe, and more are adding the capability.)<br /><br />Bottom line is, at present, you get back about 40% of your "feed value" (this is considering the DDGS, only) when you refine a bushel of corn for ethanol.<br /><br />Approx. 30,000 btus of nat gas are used in the refining process (I'm dealing with your standard dry-mill plant, here; don't confuse that with a "wet-mill" plant, such as ADM's, that produces a wide range of additional products - corn gluten meal, etc.)<br /><br />Bottom line, after considering the 4.2 gallons of diesel used in the corn production, harvesting, etc, and the nat gas used to manufacture the fertilizer, and considering the Average yield (not the yield during a 50 Year Drought,) you're at just a tad bit over 2:1. Of course, the utility of a btu of ethanol is much greater, as regards transportation, than a btu of nat gas.<br /><br />Then, you have to look at the fact that soon all corn ethanol refineries will be powered by biogas from corn stover (see: Poet - Project Liberty - under construction.)<br /><br />Ethanol is changing rapidly. You shouldn't ruin a very nice, well researched piece with a section on a subject of which you know so little. You know half the story, but your work isn't done. :)<br /><br />Thanks for the otherwise fine article; when you fix the ethanol part I'll spread it around to my friends (like I really have any :) )Rufus IIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05297231055991566183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731149177870823280.post-9705255166080181052012-10-06T14:06:29.026-07:002012-10-06T14:06:29.026-07:00Hi Rufus II,
In "The Energy Balance of Corn ...Hi Rufus II,<br /><br />In "The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: an Update" the study's authors state that the energy out to input ration of corn ethanol is 1.34, which indeed implies that there is a small energy gain with the production of corn ethanol. However, this number is based on attributing energy output to the co-products of ethanol production and a corn harvest yield of 125 bushels per acre. Corn yields have been increasing beyond 125 bushels/acre so this was a conservative assumption--until this past summer. Due to this summer's drought yields are likely to be down to 111 bushels/acre. <br /><br />The logic behind including ethanol co-products (such as distillers dried grains, corn gluten meal, etc.) in ethanol's energy numbers is that the co-products would take energy to produce if they hadn't be co-produced with the ethanol. However, this assumption is not clearly justified, because the demand for the products may be heavily influenced by their cheap availability due to having been produced along with the ethanol. If not cheaply produced as by-products of ethanol, would they indeed have produced at all, requiring energy in their production? Can their co-production really be subtracted off they energy required to produce ethanol if they wouldn't have been produced had no ethanol been produced?<br /><br />Without the co-products, the valuation of energy output to input for corn ethanol is 1.08. With the corn yield this year 11% lower than even the conservative estimates in the USDA analysis, the energy output to input drops below 1.0 for corn ethanol produced from this summer's corn.Karen Lynn Allenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01570980995774757572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8731149177870823280.post-53167327817414354632012-10-06T13:30:29.863-07:002012-10-06T13:30:29.863-07:00You are Way off on your "ethanol net energy&q...You are Way off on your "ethanol net energy" assumptions. You need to work on that.Rufus IIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05297231055991566183noreply@blogger.com