Patzek's 'stuff' (I dare NOT call them studies) is the article published in the journal Science which summarized the results of a study by
Alexander E. Farrell,1* Richard J. Plevin,1 Brian T. Turner,1,2 Andrew D. Jones,1 Michael O’Hare,2
Daniel M. Kammen1,2,3 (University of Calif., Berkeley) which commented on Pimentel's and Patzek's stuff as follows:
rael.berkeley.edu/EBAMM/FarrellEthanolScience012706.pdf
"Two of the studies stand out from the others
because they report negative net energy values
and imply relatively high GHG emissions and
petroleum inputs (11, 12). The close evaluation
required to replicate the net energy results showed
that these two studies also stand apart from the
others by incorrectly assuming that ethanol
coproducts (materials inevitably generated when
ethanol is made, such as dried distiller grains with
solubles, corn gluten feed, and corn oil) should
not be credited with any of the input energy and
by including some input data that are old and
unrepresentative of current processes, or so
poorly documented that their quality cannot be
evaluated .
11. T. Patzek, Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 23, 519 (2004).
12. D. Pimentel, T. Patzek, Nat. Resour. Res. 14, 65 (2005).
I don't think I can improve on that. Patzek is the founder of the UC Oil Consortium - supported by grants by the oil industry. He formerly worked as a petroleum engineer for Shell Oil. As I have stated before, pimentel is a retiered professor of entomology. That's the study of bugs. the researchers whose works he pretends to be qualified to critique are trained in this field and have many years of experience in it. Dr. Michael Wang, Argonne National Laboratory, has 17 years experience in evaluating various fuels. He developed the
GREET (Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation) model used by hundreds of researchers in the Government, industry and the academia.
ON THE SUBJECT OF PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS:
It seems this doesn't automatically mean what it used to mean. Most articles published in journals today don't even get reviewed before being published. This is particularly true of the smaller less prestigious journals which are happy to get papers to publish. They serve a purpose for professors who can't get anything published in the journals which won't publish their stuff as not meeting the standards of documentation and rigorous study design. this was reported in, I believe, FAIR (I'll check on this) or some other media watchdog site.
Anyway, the argument of whether Ethanol is practical to produce is over. pimentel and patzek are just continuing there 'Jihad' against ethanol because that is what their controllers in the fossil fuel industry demand of them. Ethanol is not going to to solve the fossil fuel problem all by itself. This of course is no reason to not develop it. It will take a number of approaches and technologies. But it IS the most cost effective and quickest way we currently have available to start reducing usage of fossil fuels for transportation (for reduction of coal we need to be pushing wind power). Ethanol is available now (in about 5 years cellulosic ethanol should become commercially viable). BTW our expansion of corn based ethanol production will help shorten the time to when cellulosic ethanol will become commercially viable as an important part of that equation is getting the production up to commercial volumes of production. And haveing the infrastructure in place already when cellulosic ethanol is ready will bring it to market several years sooner.
Improvements in the technology of ethanol production are being developed.
Iowa University has filed for a patent for a process using ultrasound which boosts alcohol yeild from corn by 30% - and at a savings in time and energy!. For one process innovation to produce this much of an improvement is dramatic. This advancement alone, would take the ONL estimate of 33% of fuel demand to almost 40% of fuel demand for transportation.
REgarding other technologies, ethanol used in ICE's, according to an Oak Ridge National Laboratory study will be able to meet about one third the transportation fuel demand of the U.S. - but that is based upon using ICEs. In the next decade or so fuel-cells using hydrocarbons (or carbohydrates e.g. ethanol) to supply the hydrogen will be introduced, initially for smaller applications but then for transportation applications (Google Acta or Ballard power). This will prove to be much more practical than using free hydrogen gas. Fuel Cells are 2 to 2.5 times as efficient as ICEs. given that efficiency gain the 33% capability for ethanol with ICEs becomes 66% to 82% of the transportation fuel needs when using Fuel Cell technology. Then of course there is biodiesel and methane from animal (and human) waste.
I don't post to this site to see my words in print (I really don't need that). I just want to blow away disinformation when I can and perhaps help a few people become aware of legitimate information that is out there, although not always easily found.