Display:
Writeboard allows you to compare drafts, so you could have seen what editing I had done to Nomad's version, which apparently you hadn't seen. As to the introduction and the ending, we can get to them next, as I said in my comment above. Typos you only need get in there yourself and clear them up, or make any other drafting suggestions.

Our calculations were:

According to Eurostat, transport fuel consumption for 2002 in the EU-25 was :
petrol, 5.2 e6 TJ ; diesel, 6.6 e6 TJ.
5.75% of these gives:
petrol, 0.3 e6 TJ ; diesel, 0.38 e6 TJ
Ethanol : 0.3 e6 TJ petrol  / 22 MJ/l = 13.6 e9 l
Biodiesel: 0.38 e6 TJ diesel / 34 MJ/l = 11.2 e9 l
If all the area (statistics, DG Agriculture) currently dedicated to potential ethanol feedstocks were used for ethanol, production could be an estimated:
·    10.5 e9 l of ethanol potential from the current EU-25 cultivated area of sugar beet (2.1 e6 ha @ 5000 l/ha)
·    19 e9 l of maize ethanol potential (from 6.5 e6 ha @ 3100 l/ha)
·     33.5 e9 l of common wheat ethanol potential (from 13.4 e6 ha @ 2500 l/ha)
·     23 e9 l of barley ethanol potential (from 23 e6 ha @ 1000 l/ha).
If only the surplus percentage (in excess of 100% self-sufficiency) of these crops were to be used, the estimates would be:
·    30% sugar beet: 10.5 e9 l x 30% = 3.15 e9 l ethanol
·    9% common wheat: 33.5 e9 l x 9% = 3 e9 l
·    13% barley: 23 e9 l x 13% = 3 e9 l
Surplus production (9 e9 l ethanol) would not suffice to cover the needed 13.6 e9 l. Only an extension of the area of ethanol feedstock crops, or a transfer of crops from animal feed to ethanol, would cover needs.

As for biodiesel, the total area of the two principal feedstocks, rapeseed and sunflower seed, would produce an estimated:

·    5 e9 l from rapeseed (4.5 e6 ha x 1100 l/ha);
·    2.2 e9 l from sunflower (2.2 e6 ha x 1000 l/ha)

Total production (7.2 e9 l) would not suffice to cover the needed 11.2 e9 l.

Yes, your point about ethanol/biodiesel aggregate is right: no doubt they say it's in the aggregate. My attempt here, however, is to do something punchy that will remain as a line of reasoning in readers' minds, so I avoided going into full detail. We could add the above calcs as a note?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Sep 12th, 2006 at 06:21:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I would just give the conclusion for Ethanol and the conclusion for biodiesel.

I pointed out bits that were wrong but I waan;t quite sure how to correct.

And I don't want to run the risk of triggering the local firewall by submitting an edit.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 12th, 2006 at 06:29:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Firewall?

Are you an alien invader?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Sep 12th, 2006 at 06:42:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You mean from the computer you're now working with? Otherwise, no reason to be shy...

As said, I'd refer to our consultation available at the EC website and indeed just write up the two conclusions.

Next attempt is made.

by Nomad on Tue Sep 12th, 2006 at 06:42:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series