>Rick
>
>you are 25 years too late. The Myth of the existance of an energy and
>economically efficient "small scale" FUEL alcohol facility died about then
>after a very short but expensive life. Now if you want to put your ethanol
>in a jug- well, I'm from Kentucky and that's another story <grin>.
>
>If you want a good history of this effort, the fed has lottsa reporsts put
>out at tax payer expenses- including plans by the best and the worst, buth
>highest priced consultants- Just hop on over to your government document
>depository- most land grant insitutions have one and go through their
>collection.
>
>The same holds for on farm biogas plants and the rest of the on farm
>alternative energy materials- One thing the fed does is produce a lot of
>reports with lottsa information. So a stop at your local government
>docvuments depot and then to your local purveyor of quality brubon and you
>should stay toasty warm and informed for the rest of the winter
>
>cheers
>
>tom abeles
>
>On Tue, 31 Dec 1996, Rick Lubrick wrote:
>
>> I am looking for information on the purchase or plans to build a one-
>> man, on-farm ethanol distillery and any technical literature on
>> its production. I would be using oats or barley with wood heat as the
>> energy source. Maybe you can help.
>>
In a message dated 1/2/97 12:43:01 PM, you wrote:
>tom abeles
Tom, you are mistaken about biogas and ethanol. They can be economically
produced if done right. Ethanol is closer to the line for a variety of
reasons and gets into business decisions about the price of grain vs idel
capital equipment etc. Methane is efficiently produced worldwide. The
problem with methane in the US is that it is a crop and has to be learned.
You can't just set a thermostat and walk away, anymore than you can follow a
rigid set of actions for raising beef or soybeans and never look to see what
is happening. But that is the way it has been done, mostly.
The real issue with ethanol is ethical--how much food land should be diverted
to fuel and why and for whom? When I was in the Philippines a few years back
some well off folks were trying to buy up cane land on Negros, where children
were staving at a rate of about 1/3 of the child population by age three. I
mean starving, dead, as in not alive. Since cane was no longer profitable
and since their country is dependent on fuel imports, they were looking into
converting cane to ethanol. Meanwhile, if food were grown on some of the
land where cane was growing, there would be enough to feed people. Is having
money for fuel and a desire for it enough of a justification to prevent food
for hungry residents of that place from being grown? In the US, the issue
becomes more ecological since we have no need for hungry people here with
reasonable distribution. Here, it is an issue of diverting land from its
proper ecological function to fuel. Again, the question is about ownership
and whether having finanical power (including ownership) gives one the right
to divert land from uses that society as a whole might regard as higher? And
if not, how is the owner compensated? kPersonally, I think this is one of
those issues in which we will never have agreement, at least in my country
(USA) because neither side is likely to ever consider for s split second the
merits of the other position.
For Mother Earth, Dan Hemenway, Yankee Permaculture Publications (since
1982), Elfin Permaculture workshops, lectures, Permaculture Design Courses,
consulting and permaculture designs (since 1981), and now correspondence
permaculture training by email. Copyright, 1996, Dan & Cynthia Hemenway, P.O.
Box 2052, Ocala FL 34478 USA YankeePerm@aol.com
We don't have time to rush.