| Ethanol, the fossil fuel alternative?
- Click HERE for Original Thread
|
| anjan |
We keep hearing about the great things Ethanol can do - primarily "reduce our dependence on foreign oil."
A leading Cornell University agricultural expert, has calculated that powering the average U.S. automobile for one year on ethanol (blended with gasoline) derived from corn would require 11 acres of farmland, the same space needed to grow a year's supply of food for seven people. Not only that - every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs. So, in effect, its increasing our dependence on foreign oil but benefiting the farm lobby immensely.
Interesting study |
|
|
| crazymjb |
Yeah, I have heard that ethanol is not an "effective" replacement for gas, same with biodiesel, all americas farmland would need to exclusivly grow the stuff for it if it were to replace completly petrolium based dieslel.
Also, I do not believe ethanol is as powerful as regular gasoline.
Mike |
|
|
| perk |
Even if it's not as efficient or as effective, many countries have already gone bio. Take a look at Brazil and Peru, not usually countries to look to for innovation but they are way out ahead on ethanol production. They make most of their ethanol and methanol from sugar cane. We can make it here from corn and other crops.
In fact, I find it interesting that the big 3 U.S. automakers all make and sell most of the cars used in those countries. What's really interesting is that those countries mandate that all cars sold there must run on ethanol and gas. So Ford, GM, and Chrysler are already mass producing cars made to run on bio fuels. The equipment needed is pretty damned simple. In fact, it's only a minor modification of what we already use in that it basically works the same way that a standard electronic ignition works in nearly 100% of cars already sold in the U.S. The electronic ignition senses what type of fuel is being used and adjusts timing, fuel delivery, air intake, etc. accordingly. Most of the cars have 2 tanks--one for ethanol and one for gas. The car uses gas to start and warm up, then automatically switches over to ethanol.
As to your point on feeding 7 people, who cares. We already grow so much in this country that it's way more than we can eat and export. In fact, we subsidize so much of what we grow that this might finally be an opportunity to actually sell all of what we grow in the free market. And even if that weren't true, it WILL at least cut down on our dependence on foreign oil. That alone makes it worth doing. |
|
|
| anjan |
I think using another third world country as a precedent is also not smart. You need to review the study results out of Cornell to look at the study results and realize the amount of land and the amount of fossil fuels needed to make ethanol. And Mike is right, ethanol is a low grade fuel and why do we need to lose 54,000 BTUs to make any fuel when we can use the money and resources to develop better hybrids and efficient engines?
Do the math - if there are, let's say, 10 million cars on the road, it will take 111 million acres of land growing corn solely for fuel. And how many cars do we have on the road? Maybe that's why hybrid is going mainstream and ethanol is in pockets, where the agriculture lobby is pumping money to market ethanol. |
|
|
| crazymjb |
While I do think we should look into some alternative fuels, I think our money is better spent on hybrid research and more economic engines.
Another thing you may or may not have realized is that the horsepower wars are back, and that isnt helping(though I personally couldn't care less, I am 16, and thus, LOVE POWER).
Mopar has started throwing out tons of HP machines, and they(and jeep and chrysler) are stickin an SRT sticker on everything, they also have a few muscle concepts(challenger :wish: ) in the works. Ford has the new and very sexy 'Stang out, we also have the nice new Goat, nice Camaro in the works, and then there is everything I am forgetting. So, if they pulled all these cars, which they wont thank god, I would expect we would be in less of a a fuel crisis.
I also heard something, I am unsure about the truth behind it, about a Hybrid drive for the F150 ford is working on. In place of batteries(which I guess arent very efficient) it uses some sort of hydraulic storage device. It is claimed the F150 will get milage equal to if not greater than that of the Prius. They say that this system only fits in bigger cars... http://www.newtechspy.com/articles0...ulichybrid.html
But as far as bio-fuel is concerned, meh, ill stick to my cologne/gasoline thank you.
Mike |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
Initially, I'd agree with the hybrid argument, however, the idea of ethanol is not only to find alternate forms of energy, but to disassociate ourselves with our dependency on the Middle East.
Eventhough the initial cost in investing in the technology might be costly, we should be looking towards the long term savings. I'd gladly pay equal or a little more for ethanol at this point as long as we aren't subject to the whim of an unstable political arena. It's not like we will ever hear, "the price of corn hit $70 a barrel due to the roadside bombings." |
|
|
| nightguy |
Well they're already putting 10% ethanol into gasoline in most states and cars are running like crap. Some states want an increase to 20%. :eek: And E85 cars give up economy in order to be "clean".
I am surprised the acreage needed for each person is only 11. We do have a lot of land that could be farmed in this country but it would still require someone to plant and harvest it...and manage it. Not to mention corn depletes soil of nutrients more than just about any other crop so it either needs to be rotated or the soil needs to be amended.
No offense to any farmers I know, but it seems difficult enough to negotiate a fair price with dairy farmers. I'd hate to see what would happen if we had to also deal with farmers that have a far more valuable product. |
|
|
| perk |
quote:
Originally posted by anjan
I think using another third world country as a precedent is also not smart. You need to review the study results out of Cornell to look at the study results and realize the amount of land and the amount of fossil fuels needed to make ethanol. And Mike is right, ethanol is a low grade fuel and why do we need to lose 54,000 BTUs to make any fuel when we can use the money and resources to develop better hybrids and efficient engines?
Do the math - if there are, let's say, 10 million cars on the road, it will take 111 million acres of land growing corn solely for fuel. And how many cars do we have on the road? Maybe that's why hybrid is going mainstream and ethanol is in pockets, where the agriculture lobby is pumping money to market ethanol.
As long as we're pointing out how "smart" my argument may be, allow me to point out several gaping holes in your argument. First, your entire argument rests upon one study by one person. It's not clear that this one man's opinion and calculations could withstand scientific scruitny. I seriously doubt it given the obvious political overtones of his report. Second, you inexplicably seem to believe that we must have an all or nothing solution. Why? No one is calling for an immediate 100% replacement for all fossil fuels. I believe the issue in debate is whether we should begin to convert some of our use to alternative fuels. Third, what do you mean by "another" third world country? Fourth, I don't believe Brazil is generally considered a third world country. Fifth, if you think it is, I'd suggest that you are perhaps somewhat skewed in your perception of latin America. Sixth, we have plenty of land, plenty of farmers, plenty of grain crops and grains are a renewable resource. Fossil fuels are scarce and non-renewable. Seventh, who cares whether ethanol is a "low grade fuel"? The point of my entire post was that it can be and is being used effectively in other countries. The price of ethanol is 2/3 less than gas in those countries that have adopted its use. Eighth, the professor's calculations about the amount of fuel needed to make ethanol is simply incorrect, as are most of his other "findings." That posting seems a good example of the oft quoted axiom--don't believe everything you read on the internet, especially those things with a political bent. |
|
|
| anjan |
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
Eventhough the initial cost in investing in the technology might be costly, we should be looking towards the long term savings. I'd gladly pay equal or a little more for ethanol at this point as long as we aren't subject to the whim of an unstable political arena. It's not like we will ever hear, "the price of corn hit $70 a barrel due to the roadside bombings."
I think you misread the cost and energy loss involved. The current process of generating ethanol is using a lot of fossil fuel and wasting 24000 BTUs per gallon of ethanol. So no matter how you look at it:
- Ethanol is poor burning fuel meaning you get less mileage
- You increase your reliance on fossil fuels because you're burning a helluva lot of it to get your low grade product
- Ethanol is nothing but marketing hype
Now, if they were to come up with a process that produces ethanol (or anything else) that doesn't burn up more energy than it is generating or it is increasing dependence on the very product its supposed to replace. |
|
|
| crazymjb |
Has anyone seen those french AIR cars? They use compressed air(12k Pounds I think) and a "steam" engine type system... But that is a whole other debate.
You wanna pay more for ethanol, go right ahead, as long as I still have a place to fill up with 93.
As far as the partial conversion(some cars running soley on ethanol), you probably would make the same numbers im terms of use as this diluted gasoline(10% ethanol), so no sense in doing that...
I do agree we should decrease our dependancy on foreign oil. Personally, I don't see why we don't just go through with the alaska project, however, invest a fair amount more to make sure it does not devastate the environment(c'mon, if done right, which it probably wouldn't be unless we give the EPA some more control, it would have minimal effects on the local environment).
Also, I heard something about there being a sh-t load of shale somewhere around here... Why not invest in research to make that converted to oil more easily?
As far as excess veggies to use for oil, I don't believe there are enough to give each gas station a tank of the stuff along with its other regular refills.
Alternative fuels, sure, veggies, maybe not....
Mike |
|
|
| anjan |
quote:
Originally posted by perk
First, your entire argument rests upon one study by one person. It's not clear that this one man's opinion and calculations could withstand scientific scruitny. I seriously doubt it given the obvious political overtones of his report.
Really? :2: One Man, One Study, Political?
Google and you can find numerous studies/research that prove why, technologically, ethanol is a huge scam. Its easy to label something "political" and provide no coherent argument against the results of a scientific research.
quote:
Second, you inexplicably seem to believe that we must have an all or nothing solution. Why? No one is calling for an immediate 100% replacement for all fossil fuels.
Whoever talked about 100% of anything? The question here is that every gallon of ethanol is burning more fossil fuel than it claims to save. It also burns less hotter, making it even less cost efficient. This is not a opinion, its a well known fact. If you followed the links above you will see how the $3.8 billion out of our pockets is what is keeping this project afloat.
quote:
Third, what do you mean by "another" third world country?
I mean you are comparing with another country that belongs to the third world.
quote:
Fourth, I don't believe Brazil is generally considered a third world country.
Newsflash - your belief doesn't classify national economic status :) Check World Bank's classification. Brazil is VERY MUCH a third-world/developing country. Before you state your belief about Peru - that's developing too. Who knows? Maybe World Bank is skewed in their perception of Latin America too!
quote:
Sixth, we have plenty of land, plenty of farmers, plenty of grain crops and grains are a renewable resource. Fossil fuels are scarce and non-renewable.
So, like John McCain says, why don't we remove the $3.8b subsidy? If this is really a efficient technological model, it should be able to financially sustain itself, right? But because it is such a money pit, it has never been in the black. I'm paying for that science experiment gone bad. I don't have problem you writing out a check for a bust idea but I don't want any part of it.
quote:
Seventh, who cares whether ethanol is a "low grade fuel"? The point of my entire post was that it can be and is being used effectively in other countries. The price of ethanol is 2/3 less than gas in those countries that have adopted its use.
Again, I care and so do a lot of others that can read. Remember that ethanol is pushed as a replacement, alternative fuel. Its not doing any of that. This is not a truth or dare about being able to run your car on plant extract. The low grade fuel tilts the scales in favor of gasoline even more. That's why it matters - simple math.
quote:
Eighth, the professor's calculations about the amount of fuel needed to make ethanol is simply incorrect, as are most of his other "findings." That posting seems a good example of the oft quoted axiom--don't believe everything you read on the internet, especially those things with a political bent.
Maybe its time you applied that yourself? :4: You are believing a lot of drivel from a lobby and labeling everything that calls on these lies as political diatribe. Oh how convenient! :1: If you claim to know the correct "numbers" why not be less vague and show how this study, like a lot of others that have had the same results, are mistating and miscalculating? I want to see the test results you got in your garage :2: As it stands, the only one making false claims and labeling anything contrary as political is you. |
|
|
| anjan |
quote:
Originally posted by crazymjb
Has anyone seen those french AIR cars? They use compressed air(12k Pounds I think) and a "steam" engine type system... But that is a whole other debate.
You wanna pay more for ethanol, go right ahead, as long as I still have a place to fill up with 93.
As far as the partial conversion(some cars running soley on ethanol), you probably would make the same numbers im terms of use as this diluted gasoline(10% ethanol), so no sense in doing that...
I do agree we should decrease our dependancy on foreign oil. Personally, I don't see why we don't just go through with the alaska project, however, invest a fair amount more to make sure it does not devastate the environment(c'mon, if done right, which it probably wouldn't be unless we give the EPA some more control, it would have minimal effects on the local environment).
Also, I heard something about there being a sh-t load of shale somewhere around here... Why not invest in research to make that converted to oil more easily?
As far as excess veggies to use for oil, I don't believe there are enough to give each gas station a tank of the stuff along with its other regular refills.
Alternative fuels, sure, veggies, maybe not....
Mike
Amen! There are so many options already that deserves the subsidy so much more than the corn lobby - compressed air, fuel cell, better hybrids, better diesel engines (like in Europe). Toyota and Honda lead the way in these areas but even GM, Chrysler, and Ford have started in these areas for obvious reasons. |
|
|
| Dick Isinia |
I travel to brazil on avg 5-7 times a year Its quasi 3rd world meaning the poor are very , very poor and make up the majority of the pop. I dont think mdxs exists there :) usually the elite top 1% of the pop. drive bulletproof range rover, benz,or bmw , the rich (salary 3-4000 us per month) drive civics alot of small ford suvs very hot car down there Echo sport I believe , the middle class drive older fiats vw's or scooters , the poor drive thier feet .
every car produced or sold there in the last 5 years has to use both fuels , gas is about 1 U.S. dollar per liter so roughly $4 per gallon , and a good salary is about 500 dollars per month , they have a ton of oil there and the industry to refine it , but they have more sugar so why not sell the oil on the "free market" (do those things actually exist) to the only consumers in the world who can pay for gas and still live decent , US!
Anyway the people who own all the corn fields figured out they could sweeten stuff with corn extract payed congress to set the tariffs high on sugar and weve been drinking soda ,Iced tea , everything else sweetened with corn for years , no wonder why were so fat and this is just speculation but youd prolly need enough corn to make popcorn for every movie theater in the whole country for a decade than youd need to sweeten the soda in the fountain for a year , so if they pay enough they can write the legislation themselves , inferior product ? who cares ?
Sugar is far superior to corn syrup look at your coke its sweetened with corn , if you want coke sweetened w/sugar try an ethnic grocery if you have em in your city, usually sell imported coke , way better than the american version. |
|
|
| Dick Isinia |
| BTW I think over 90% of the oil we consume in america is imported from our own hemisphere , so me and you arent dependent on foreign oil , the poeple who own our country and want to own the world are dependent on foreign oil usually "we" and "our" when used in soundbytes and talking points dont refer to the people , but their masters. |
|
|
| crazymjb |
The only thing I have to put in check now is the comment about ethanol burning cooler. While I am not sure if this is true or not(though I always though alchohol burned very hot) could you explain to me why exactly that makes it weaker? Car engines are only 33% efficient in converting the potential energy of gasoline into mechanical energy, the other 66% goes to heat... So what exactly is the problem with a fuel that burns cooler? Not trying to start an argument, though we already have a mini war brewin', but could any one with some more knowledge in this area fill me in?
Thanks,
Mike |
|
|
| NSXBill |
| Drill more holes and everything will be fine... |
|
|
| anjan |
Time to revive this discussion :D
This panacea for our fuel needs is already creating huge problems as admitted by the US Govt.
quote:
High feed costs, created by the explosive growth of the fuel ethanol industry, will lower U.S. beef and broiler chicken output this year by a quarter billion lbs from earlier forecasts, the U.S. government said on Friday.
Click here for more
Now not only have we subsidized the inefficient production of this sludge as taxpayers, we will be paying more for our meat as well. Nice!! :rolleyes: |
|
|
| SilveradoMDX |
| The best fuel alternative in the future is either hydrogen or air fuel, not ethanol. |
|
|
| jhue |
Where do you think this hydrogen is going to come from?
Before you can have an intelligent conversation on this topic, you need to know the difference between an energy source and an energy carrier.
Hydrogen fuel is not an energy source, it's an energy carrier. You need an actual energy source to create it in the first place, such as electricity (via hydrolysis) or natural gas. By itself hydrogen isn't going to solve any energy problems.
What we need are alternate energy sources. In order to utilize them we might need different energy carriers, such as hydrogen. |
|
|
| G. COLTON |
Anybody noticed the price of corn lately. Gone up has it not?
As the price of corn goes up, the price on animal feed goes up. the price that you pay for meat in the grocery is directly proportional to the price of cron.
Ethanol manufactured from corn IS NOT the answer. I do not know the long term answer. Hydrogen is very long term. Nuclear even longer. Though we do need to get to work building nuclear power stations.
The short term (20 to 30 years?) answer to to open more oil fields. And it may possible be to get to work on shale oil. However, that is at least 10 years away even if we start now.
G |
|
|
| BostonX |
| Maybe this is the answer to our transportation energy problems. |
|
|
| SilveradoMDX |
quote:
Originally posted by jhue
Where do you think this hydrogen is going to come from?
Before you can have an intelligent conversation on this topic, you need to know the difference between an energy source and an energy carrier.
Hydrogen fuel is not an energy source, it's an energy carrier. You need an actual energy source to create it in the first place, such as electricity (via hydrolysis) or natural gas. By itself hydrogen isn't going to solve any energy problems.
What we need are alternate energy sources. In order to utilize them we might need different energy carriers, such as hydrogen.
Very true. Each of these fuels, as you call it energy carrier have already been achieved. What's difficult is the energy source. The number one on the list was actually, air fuel. There already making the energy source also as air, nice. |
|
|
|
|
