eMergist’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  clarification on "perspectives ..."

  When I say "produces/builds everything it needs to operate..." I mean that the system must use only the biofuel it yields (or the eMergy eqivalent thereof gotten in direct or indirect exchange)as the FEEDBACK (after any number of downstream transformations into goods, machines, services, labor, etc.) required to engage with basically "free" (i.e. uncosted)natural inputs in ALL the processes for producing the fuel itself.  Such "free" inputs would be sunlight, rain, atmospheric gases, other natural resouces like metal ores, groundwater, etc. If artificial irrigation is required for growing the biomass, the biofuel (or its exact equivalent) must supply the feedback energy to provide it. Ditto for all added fertilizer.

  I should also clarify my comment on money. Regardless of what is actually paid out by the system for materials, goods, services, etc., the total eMergy input already gages most of the REAL monetary value.  However, I suspect that there may be cases where significant value-added is not measured DIRECTLY by eMergy.  It would take very careful analysis to find out for sure.

  I'd appreciate any insightful feedback as I continue to wrestle with these ideas.

   On Find out which cars can run on ethanol and biodiesel posted 2 years, 9 months ago 13 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  clarification on "perspectives ..."

  When I say "produces/builds everything it needs to operate..." I mean that the system must use only the biofuel it yields (or the eMergy eqivalent thereof gotten in direct or indirect exchange)as the FEEDBACK (after any number of downstream transformations into goods, machines, services, labor, etc.) required to engage with basically "free" (i.e. uncosted)natural inputs in ALL the processes for producing the fuel itself.  Such "free" inputs would be sunlight, rain, atmospheric gases, other natural resouces like metal ores, groundwater, etc. If artificial irrigation is required for growing the biomass, the biofuel (or its exact equivalent) must supply the feedback energy to provide it. Ditto for all added fertilizer.

  I should also clarify my comment on money. Regardless of what is actually paid out by the system for materials, goods, services, etc., the total eMergy input already gages most of the REAL monetary value.  However, I suspect that there may be cases where significant value-added is not measured DIRECTLY by eMergy.  It would take very careful analysis to find out for sure.

  I'd appreciate any insightful feedback as I continue to wrestle with these ideas.

   On A look at the impacts of biofuels production, in the U.S. and the world posted 2 years, 9 months ago 13 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  perspectives on energy balance

  According to the theory developed by the late H.T. Odum (widely regarded as the father of systems ecology), Tad Patzek is quite correct in allocating ALL the input eMergy (yes, that's the proper term here; see Odum for details)of biofuel production to the fuel produced. (And it all goes equally to every co-product, too!)  This is one of several ways in which conventional wisdom fails as a reliable guide for properly evaluating alternative fuel schemes. Another is in treating all energy types(both input and output) as kcal-for-kcal equivalent, something we'd never do with the monetary currencies of different countries, for example.  Thus, Pimentel and Patzek have been unfairly criticized for taking necessary human labor into account.  In fact, what appear to be an insignificant number of kcal of human work are worth (i.e., equivalent to) a great many kcal of petroleum energy, and in large measure have been developed from it! This is kind of understanding required for coming to terms with the crucial concepts of eMergy, energy transformity and energy quality. And, while we're on the subject of system inputs, let's be clear that among them is money.  Since money flowing through the economy is itself backed by eMergy flow, the eMergetic equivalent of tax breaks, price supports, discounts, etc. must also be accounted for.

  I invite anyone who thinks ethanol (or any other biofuel)sustainably delivers positive net eMergy on some given scale (and scale does matter!) to put it to the following simple (but admittedly difficult) test:  Develop a system FROM SCRATCH that produces/builds EVERYTHING it needs to operate (machinery, goods, services, etc., etc.)using only what it produces (e.g., the fuel)or the eMergy equivalent thereof(on an equal exchange basis), AND does better than just break even. I say "from scratch" to make sure you take ALL input eMergy into account.

  If, as some contend,  ethanol produced from agribusiness corn has a real eMergy yield ratio of 3:1, that ethanol should be a PRIMARY energy source more than capable of "self-subsidy" in the sense above. Let's see it.

   On Find out which cars can run on ethanol and biodiesel posted 2 years, 9 months ago 13 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  perspectives on energy balance

  According to the theory developed by the late H.T. Odum (widely regarded as the father of systems ecology), Tad Patzek is quite correct in allocating ALL the input eMergy (yes, that's the proper term here; see Odum for details)of biofuel production to the fuel produced. (And it all goes equally to every co-product, too!)  This is one of several ways in which conventional wisdom fails as a reliable guide for properly evaluating alternative fuel schemes. Another is in treating all energy types(both input and output) as kcal-for-kcal equivalent, something we'd never do with the monetary currencies of different countries, for example.  Thus, Pimentel and Patzek have been unfairly criticized for taking necessary human labor into account.  In fact, what appear to be an insignificant number of kcal of human work are worth (i.e., equivalent to) a great many kcal of petroleum energy, and in large measure have been developed from it! This is kind of understanding required for coming to terms with the crucial concepts of eMergy, energy transformity and energy quality. And, while we're on the subject of system inputs, let's be clear that among them is money.  Since money flowing through the economy is itself backed by eMergy flow, the eMergetic equivalent of tax breaks, price supports, discounts, etc. must also be accounted for.

  I invite anyone who thinks ethanol (or any other biofuel)sustainably delivers positive net eMergy on some given scale (and scale does matter!) to put it to the following simple (but admittedly difficult) test:  Develop a system FROM SCRATCH that produces/builds EVERYTHING it needs to operate (machinery, goods, services, etc., etc.)using only what it produces (e.g., the fuel)or the eMergy equivalent thereof(on an equal exchange basis), AND does better than just break even. I say "from scratch" to make sure you take ALL input eMergy into account.

  If, as some contend,  ethanol produced from agribusiness corn has a real eMergy yield ratio of 3:1, that ethanol should be a PRIMARY energy source more than capable of "self-subsidy" in the sense above. Let's see it.

   On A look at the impacts of biofuels production, in the U.S. and the world posted 2 years, 9 months ago 13 Responses