It's Time, In Fact It's Past Time To Switch To Ethanol

[On Par]

Did you know that our present cars will run on pure ethanol? Amazingly, no one ever mentions it, including "*".

Currently, our gasoline contains 10% ethanol. We should have developed it 30 years ago, but as it stands, we are in the infancy of having farmers produce it, and transporting ethanol to refineries. In fact, there is no pipeline system, as we have for oil. Once we have that in place, and we get farmer's to plant corn, instead of paying them to plow it under. We can become oil free. Not exactly what Exxon/Mobil wants, so they'll be a fight. A fight they are winning without any opposition, because there isn't any opposition.

The upside is, we'll stop killing our young as well as those opposing us in seach of the black crude. Our military needs, to the chagrin of it's vast complex, will diminish. And unlike oil, it's a renewable resource. Instead of war, we can use the money to rebuild our own infrastructure, our world image of doing things the right way, and do things for Americans rather than to them.

Meantime, let's do what Harry Truman did to steel - time to nationalize the Oil companies.

[Poiuyt]

1. Doesn't it take a lot of oil to process corn into ethanol?

I could be wrong, but I heard it wasn't the most efficient way of doing things.

[MazeRat7]

5. Thats right. It takes more energy to produce ethanol than what it gives up

While it sounds "great"... beat the man, oil independence, and all that... bottom line ethanol is a poor choice. I would much rather see natural gas cracked and used in HFC's.

MZr7

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

9. That's Bullshit And False Information.

Though I believe it requires further advances and isn't quite there yet as a wholesale solution, the statement above is still false on its face. Ethanol production requires only 70% of the energy as it takes to make gasoline, and yields more energy output than is needed in its own manufacture. That is fact. Please further your research to become more factually eductated on the matter.

[MazeRat7]

12. It cost $7.87 to save 1 gallon of gas with ethanol - here are the facts

<snip>
Do this easy math and see for yourself: According to the pro-ethanol USDA,
1) Making 4 gallons of ethanol uses up the energy in 3 gallons of ethanol.
2) So you must make 4 to save 1.

But ethanol has less energy per gallon, so
3) You must save 1.5 gallons of ethanol to save the energy in 1 gallon of gas.

So to save 1 gallon of gas, you must make
4) 6 gallons (4×1.5) of ethanol to save the energy in 1 gallon of gasoline.

Growing corn and producing ethanol are subsidized,
5) Saving 1 gallon gas cost all the subisidies on 6 gallons of ethanol.

Bottom line on subsidies: Net subsidies to ethanol are about 55¢/gallon
6) Cost of subsidies to save 1 gallon gas = $3.30.

Plus, to save a gallon of gas we must buy 6 gallons of ethanol, which even with subsidies, is more expensive per unit of energy than is gasoline. Details shown below.

The real cost of saving fossil energy is $7.87 for the energy in a gallon of gas. To become energy independent, we would have to grow corn on every square inch of the U.S. including Alaska and then half that much again. Well, that was last year. Unfortunately this is not good for the soil, and corn uses more nitrogen fertilizer than other crops, which pollutes our waterways. But those ethanol subsidies are good for Archer Daniel Midlands: $500 million of your tax dollars at work.

</snip>

You can read the rest of article here oh and BTW.. I make a good portion of my income from investing in alternative energies like hydrogen, solar, wind, etc... I don't think lack of education is my problem.. perhaps its yours.

MZr7

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. Flawed Analysis.

I do anaylsis for a living. I know firsthand how easy it is to do an analysis (in this case a cost anaylsis) that yields the result the person wants to see. It is easy to spin data and throw out numbers that seem factual but are done in a way to ensure the end result bolsters the argument, even though someone else could easily put an opposing analysis together that appears just as factual.

Furthermore, I'm not attesting that we are going to become energy independent because of it right now. In fact, I said I know we aren't ready. But comparing apples to apples, without the other crap data thrown in, ethanol is more efficient overall than gasoline all things considered. Subsidies have nothing to do with science. It is the cost of the science and energy output that matters. Subsidies are temporary and can be altered any time, so they are not to be factored in (just one piece of the flawed analysis). Fact is, ethanol is cleaner, renewable, and able to be produced independantly without foreign reliance. No, we aren't there yet, but it is the concept that is important right now.

And thanks for the link. Here's one for you too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel

[MazeRat7]

20. Whenever you argue with a fool... there are two.

I hope you do better analysis at your job than your doing on this topic. Science is on my side, as is generally the case. *grin. Bottom line, I am not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mine... so lets agree to disagree.

MZr7

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

24. You Provided Nothing But Empty Rhetoric There.

And I'm the best my company has ever had, and would put myself up against ANYBODY. I'm that damn good at it. Not sure why, I just have a hell of a knack for it.

But I did notice, you didn't provide any reasoning, contrary evidence, method to debunking, or anything else of any legitimacy or significance to back up your last statements. It was nothing more than empty rhetoric at not being able to continue the argument factually. Science is not on your side. Science shows time and time again that ethanol yields greater output than is needed as input, period. The only important statistic next would be the cost factor, since ethanol does in fact get less mpg than gasoline. So to be truly worthwhile, the cost of the increased ratio of ethanol vs gasoline would have to be offset enough to still beat out. For years that hadn't been the case, but with current oil prices it now is.

Course, that still is completely irrelevant in the context of your original post, since all your original post declared was that the ENERGY input was greater than the ENERGY output. That direct equation itself, taking only energy into consideration, is false on its face. Especially since corn is not the only source for producing ethanol. But I'm not going to get into all the further evidence with you, it's too late at night and I care far too little.

Fact is though, posting a reply touting foolishness, that I did poor anaylsis, that science is on your side while posting NOTHING to legitimize that false statement, and stating those things while having the inability to post anything to substantiate the absurdity is just extremely weak. Fortunately, our fellow DU'ers are bright enough to see past such empty rhetoric.

Goodnight now.

[Joe Fields]

68. Where do you get your information? Because I have info from sources

that conflict with your info. Your argument holds no water, unless you are willing to list sources. It is as empty as the argument you just pooh-pooed.

[markam]

84. Your information is false

Yes, you do use a certain amount of energy in pumping and refining oil, but you get out significantly more energy than you have to put into the system.

The proper way to look at it is like this. Suppose you have 1 BTU of energy. You can use it to make ethanol. In that case, you end up with about 1 BTU of ethanol, and about 0.2 BTU worth of corn byproducts which can be used to feed cattle. Or you can use it to pump, refine and distribute petroleum products. In this instance, you end up with about 9 BTUs of petroleum product for your 1 BTU energy investment.

Now which of those do you think is cheaper? Which of those will provide more liquid fuel?

[KittyWampus]

7. Yup, ethanol is about subsidies to factory farms. Note- GM is pimping

ethanol.

[TheFarseer]

13. does it take more OIL or

more ENERGY? We can make energy out of nothing with Wind and Hydro and so forth but we can't make oil out of nothing. If we are making non-oil energy into oil, I say that is well worth it. And don't tell me how much oil it takes to raise corn. Corn will be grown no matter what as long as we have our current subsidy system in place.

[mike_c]

23. both-- much of the energy subsidy is presently dependent...

...upon petroleum, both as a raw material for many agri-chemicals, for transportation (including cultivation and harvesting), and for manufacturing. At least some portion of the later could conceivably be replaced by other energy sources, but then the issue becomes economic-- if the COST of the energy subsidy increases, the economic viability of the energy return on ethanol production declines to compensate.

[LSK]

37. and how much oil does it take to ship oil halfway around the globe?

What is it about people who think an idea has to be PERFECT in every aspect or else we dont do it????

The same with people ripping on hybrids.

NEW TECHNOLOGIES ARE NOT GOING TO BE PERFECT ON DAY 1. NOTHING IS.

But we have to start trying other ideas even if there are problems with them at 1st.

[Pryderi]

38. I heard it cost 1 gal of gas to make 1 gal of ethanol. But then I heard

it on West Wing, so who knows?

[Hobarticus]

52. Big Oil's been waging a very effective campaign against ethanol

from the get-go. This was debunked, above.

I live in Iowa, one of the first states to offer ethanol at the pump. Immediately there were all sorts of doom-and-gloom stories about how ethanol causes engine fires, how it corrodes your fuel system and gaskets, etc. Truth be told, ethanol actually makes your engine run smoother and helps reduce carbon buildup. It's a great fuel for engines.

Granted, I may be biased as Iowa can gain a lot from ethanol, but ethanol isn't the boogeyman everyone makes it out to be. Agriculture is very fuel-hungry, true, but ethanol needs more R & D.

[Hobarticus]

2. Keep in mind, this is no 'magic fix'...agriculture is very fuel-dependant

This is definitely a case where fuel will have to be burned to make fuel, but in this case it's worth it.

Ethanol will take some patience and some heavy investment to get it where we need it to be, and it'll be an uphill battle against Big Oil, but you're right, it's WAY past time.

[DoYouEverWonder]

46. One more reason to legalize industrial hemp

Great source of biomass and it can be grown almost anywhere without pesticides or fertilizers.

[Hobarticus]

55. Zactly...nothing should be off the table, at this point n/t

[Joe Fields]

67. hemp fuel IS the answer.

One of the problems with pure corn ethanol is storage and pipeline. If you store pure corn ethanol in too hot of an environment, it gets moldy. Conversely, too cold of storage turns it syrupy. Also, you cannot run it through a pipeline, because it corrodes the line.

Right now, blending corn ethanol with gasoline is the only solution. But, corn ethanol costs approximately one penny more per gallon than gasoline for every percent blended. So, a five percent ethanol blend costs approximately five cents more per gallon than regular non-blended gasoline.

Hemp fuel is the answer. It is derived from the cellulose of the hemp plant, much the same way as corn. However, where you get an average yield of 28 to 30% cellulose from corn plants, the average yield of cellulose per hemp plant is 65 to 70%. This is an important fact, considering how much acreage would be needed to grow corn for fuel, as opposed to hemp.

According to a study by Lynne Osborne, author of "Energy Farming in America," it would take only 6% of the land mass in the U.S. put into cultivation of this type of biomass to supply all current U.S. demand for oil and gas.

[Rene]

3. I understand ethanol is VERY corrosive. What will that do to car

engines. I've heard it even corrodes the tanker trucks/pipes when it's being shipped.

[jmowreader]

14. Methanol is extremely corrosive, but ethanol is almost as bad

Ethanol is hardest on the rubber parts in your car's fuel system. It pulls the plasticizers right out of it.

One of the biggest changes they make when turning a Gasoline car into a Flexible Fuel car is to change out all the lines to alcohol-resistant ones.

Now, Methanol...Indy cars run on it, and one of the things they have to do before putting the car away after it's been driven is to clean the fuel system by running the car on gasoline for a while.

[Hobarticus]

53. False. I've been running ethanol blends through my cars for twenty years

and have never had any problems whatsoever. That's another Big Oil-founded myth, debunked almost immediately when ethanol blends were offered some twenty years ago. Matter of fact, ethanol blends are better for your engine, they burn cleaner.

[originalpckelly]

4. Yeah, this is an awful idea, unless...

we are only attempting to get off mideast oil. If we are trying to find a good new source of energy, we are way off.

[whodatt]

6. "instead of paying them to plow it under"

Paying them to "plow" it under? I think you need to get your facts straight.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

10. I Think You Need To Get Your Facts Straight.

The OP is correct there. Would you like to point out why that statement is factually incorrect?

[mike_c]

17. sorry-- the OP is utterly deluded....

It is not possible to replace more than a small fraction of gasoline consumption with ethanol, even under the best possible conditions. The energy investment needed to produce ethanol is very nearly the energy yield, and that's without considering the additional subsidy necessary to produce biomass on marginal land-- and the majority of suitable land is needed for feeding people or for maintaining natural habitats. No biomass based fuel will ever substitute for more than a small fraction of fossil fuel consumption-- total planetary primary productivity is somewhere on the order of 1/400 the annual energy yield from burning hydrocarbons, and only a small portion of that primary production can be diverted into fuels without causing massive ecological damage.

Ethanol might play a minor role in stretching the energy budgets of fossil fuel based societies, but ultimately a real alternative energy source must be developed, or the level of consumption has to be reduced to nineteenth century levels.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. Not On That Point It Wasn't.

I was responding to a specific quote that the posters attacked. That quote itself was plenty accurate, so please next time don't twist my reply out of context.

Now, having that said, I agree for the most part with the rest of your post. It is nowhere near a wholesale solution right now and is definitely a delusion to think it would be that easy to make a switch right now or realistically viable to mass produce whatsoever.

[mike_c]

22. even the acreage reduction program for corn was eliminated....

...in 1996. If farmers are plowing corn under they're doing it themselves, presumably to restrict supply and raise prices, but there has not been federal gov't support for acreage reduction subsidies for the last decade. Ref: the 1996 Farm Bill.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

27. .

http://www.thetartan.org/2006/2/20/forum/ethanol

[mike_c]

31. that's a bogus reference-- a student newspaper?!

That's an urban myth-- the 1996 Farm Bill phased out payments to farmers for not growing corn or for destroying plantings of corn (and other crops). The 2002 Farm Bill contains a counter-cyclical payment provision as a price subsidy for a number of crops, including corn, when the market price falls below a target price set by congress, but for the first couple of years the payment for corn was zero (the only years I could find data for) because corn prices exceeded target prices. It does NOT contain an acreage reduction program.

[TheFarseer]

39. You are absolutely right

no one is being paid to not grow corn. That other guy would be just as correct if he said alcohol was illegal and cited a 1920's newspaper as his source.

[Hobarticus]

54. Better go tell Brazil....40% of their fuel is ethanol

It's not your fault. Big Oil's been spinning ethanol poorly for decades.

From Wikipedia:

The largest single use of ethanol is as a motor fuel and fuel additive. The largest national fuel ethanol industries exist in Brazil and the United States. The Brazilian ethanol industry is based on sugarcane; as of 2004, Brazil produces 14 billion liters annually, enough to replace about 40% of its gasoline demand. Most new cars sold in Brazil are flexible-fuel vehicles that can run on ethanol, gasoline, or any blend of the two.
The United States fuel ethanol industry is based largely on corn. As of 2005, its capacity is 15 billion liters annually, although the Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires U.S. fuel ethanol production to increase to 7.5 billion gallons (28 billion liters) by 2012. In the United States, ethanol is most commonly blended with gasoline as a blend of up to 10% ethanol, nicknamed "gasohol". This blend is widely sold throughout the U.S. Midwest, which contains the nation's chief corn-growing centers.
In 2005, the Indy Racing League announced its cars will run on a 10% ethanol - 90% methanol blend fuel, and in 2007, the cars will race on 100% ethanol.
Thailand, India, China and Japan have now launched their national gasohol policies. Thailand started blending 10% ethanol for its ULG95 in 1985; now there are more than 4000 stations serving E10. The blending of 10% ethanol into gasoline will be mandated by the end of 2006 with the import ban on MTBE. It is expected that once the production of ethanol from cassava and sugar cane- molasses can be ramped up, a higher blending ratio like E20 or E85 or even Flexible Fuel Vehicle will be introduced to Thailand.

[Emit]

63. And Brazil expects to become energy independent this year.

From a combo of their ethanol and gasoline, as I understand it.

[BrotherBuzz]

19. Whom is paying whom to plow under corn?

Is the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 still operating? Interesting, the farmers in my area would like to know who will pay them to disc under corn. Depressed prices and all, corn just isn't being planted much in my area anymore, but they might have a go at it if someone is willing to pay them for their efforts. Same goes for sugar beets; when the sugar subsidy thingy was repealed and the market adjusted, the sugar processing plant closed and killed the industry.

[mike_c]

25. not since the 1996 Farm Bill....

The OP and it's defenders are simply mistaken about that. There hasn't been a federal acreage reduction program for corn in nearly a decade.

[BrotherBuzz]

29. Well, that explains it...

that's about the time the corn acreage in our area strated dropping. Hmm, most of them farmers are republican, yet they were still feeding in the welfare trough - ironic double standard, no?. :shrug:

[Erika]

8. Ethanol is not yet stabilized

Even the Idaho legislature voted down the idea.

[swatterdebattedelune]

11. ethanol is incredibly energy intensive

ethanol is incredibly energy intensive when made with corn. so the energy trade-off for security based on current technology is weak. certain grasses could provide a better source. our current gasoline prices will soar as congress did not give big oil a pass on mbte (which congress ironically required) litigation, so big oil stopped using it as an octane enhancer and clean-air ingredient. we currently have huge tariffs on imported ethanol to protect farm states, so our gasoline prices will soar this summer as refiners won't use mbte but will splash blend ethanol.

[gristy]

15. I'd much rather our land be used to grow food or for nothing at all,

rather than for growing oil.

[johnaries]

21. Why is everyone on this thread talking about CORN?

There are much more efficient crops for making ethanol, such as switchgrass.

One persistent myth about biomass is that it takes more energy to produce fuels from biomass than the fuels themselves contain. In other words, that it is a net energy loser. In fact, current ethanol production uses corn, one of the most energy-intensive crops, and then uses just the kernels from the corn plant, and not even the entire kernel. Even so, this process yields 50 percent more energy than it takes to make the ethanol, so it is a net gainer.

Nonetheless, we could do much better. By making ethanol from energy crops, we could obtain between four and five times the energy that we put in, and by making electricity we could get perhaps 10 times or more. In the future, to make a truly sustainable biomass energy system, we would have to replace fossil fuels with biomass or other renewable fuels to plant and harvest the crops.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy_basics/offmen-how-biomass-energy-works.html

I think the OP is right, it is PAST time to start using more ethanol to replace fossil fuels.

[mike_c]

28. it's still a mistake to think that any significant proportion...

...of current fossil fuel consumption can be replace by ANY biomass based fuel. Current fossil fuel use consumes the equivalent of 4 x 10¹⁸ g carbon annually, or about 400 times the earth's ENTIRE annual primary productivity. Since only a fraction of the biomass actually produced annually will EVER be available for diversion to ethanol production, it simply isn't possible to make much more than a small dent in fossil fuel consumption with ethanol. I mean, I think we should do what we can, but we need to realize that there is presently no sustainable alternative to fossil fuels at any where near current consumption levels. The gulf is several orders of magnitude.

[depakid]

32. People just can't get their minds around the tremendous scale

involved.

Thinking about a local area or farm is one thing, but an industrial society and interstate highway system with all of its attendent infrastructure is most assuredly another.

Also (as we know) making ethanol from corn is just ridiculous in terms of EROEI:

Ethanol Production Consumes Six Units Of Energy To Produce Just One

http://www.energybulletin.net/5062.html

[johnaries]

33. Patzick's paper was debunked a long time ago.

http://www.soyatech.com/bluebook/news/viewarticle.ldml?a=20050720-2

NO, bio-mass fuels can't replace can't replace oil completely, but I have seen some studies that estimate it can replace up to 80% of fossil fuel consumption. That ain't hay.

And it buys us a lot of time to develop new technology.

[depakid]

36. Read the editorial notes

at the bottom of the article.

Also 80% ???

You may be having difficulties with problems of scale (and substitution).

[killbotfactory]

42. And we wouldn't be (less) at the mercy of places like Saudi Arabia

And allow us to extend our own oil supply.

[mike_c]

59. 80% reduction would require planetary scale bioengineering....

4 x 10¹⁸ g C-- the biomass equivalent of our annual fossil fuel consumption-- is 400 times the total primary production capacity of the earth! This suggests that if you could convert every scrap of green biomass on earth to fuel with 100 percent efficiency you could replace 0.25 percent of fossil fuel consumption. Clearly, you can do better than that in the segment of the fuel economy that supplies transportation alone, but it's pie-in-the-sky to think you can even approach that much energy delivery with biomass derived fuels. Remember, fossil fuels represent eons of biomass concentration.

[killbotfactory]

41. I think in Brazil they make it out of sugarcane

And it's not a net energy loser.

[Tesha]

45. Because Archer Daniels Midland only makes money if it's corn Ethanol.

(Well, +/- a smidgen.)

"Ethanol", as presently being discussed in the United States,
is nothing but a sop to midwest red-state farmers and the
giant corporations that own them, lock, stock, and combine.

We're not yet really discussing tru biomass fuels or how they
could be incorporated as a carbon-neutral energy resource,
we're just discussing how to continue clandestine subsidies
to politically-favored groups.

Tesha

[Rene]

26. This may sound crazy...but I have this idea that I can't let go of.....

When I was a kid I had a bike that had a headlight that worked because it had an attachment to the front wheel that generated power from the constant contact/motion. As I pedaled.....the light worked and shined brightly.
Why can't there be a combination power system like that, working off the motion of the 4 tires that would keep generating power.....a combination of a fuel pump subsidized, after motion is underway, by the spinning wheel power being harnessed into supporting/generating energy for batteries.

[BrotherBuzz]

30. LOL, keep working on your crazy idea....

Hey, if you add more wheels can it generate more power? Just think of what a dynamo an eighteen-wheeler would be! :rofl:

[XemaSab]

35. I think the only way to harness energy from the moving tires

would be to somehow harness a frictional force, and it would take as much energy to propel the tires past the friction as you would get FROM the friction.

Any physicists want to weigh in? :shrug:

[Solon]

40. Actually why not get power from coasting...

Cars coast a lot of the time, you're going down a hill or a small grade, and small generators that move with the tires could generate a SMALL amount of power to help recharge batteries, etc. This actually is similar to the "Synergy" drive in Toyota Hybrids, they use the energy applied from the brakes to help recharge the batteries, similar idea there.

[XemaSab]

44. I think you'd still have to put a drag on the forward motion

The synergy drive harnesses that power from the drag applied by the brakes.

[Tesha]

51. Not exactly "applied by the brakes"...

> The synergy drive harnesses that power from the drag
> applied by the brakes.

Not exactly "applied by the brakes". The synergy drive,
as it recaptures the kinetic energy of the car and turns
it back into electricity (and then, into chemical potential
energy stored in the battery) *IS* the brake. It's called
"regenerative braking".

The mechanical brakes are only applied when the synergy
drive is unable to slow the car as fast as your command
(your foot on the brake peddle) demands. Then, the rest
of the car's kinetic energy is turned into heat and
dissipated, same as with any old car.

Tesha

[Tesha]

49. The energy that powered the headlights...

The energy that powered the headlights came from your legs.
That generator added a tiny bit of load onto the wheels and
you had to pedal a tiny bit harder to overcome that load.
You hardly notice it, though, because compared to air friction
(and the effort you expend to climb hills), the extra load
imposed by that generator was a gnat buzzing.

The energy that powered your legs was chemical potential
energy stored in the sugars in the Mountain Dew you drank
before setting out on your bike.

The chemical potential energy that was stored in the sugars
was electromagnetic energy emitted by the sun's surface,
converted to chemical potential energy by the action of
photosynthesis inside a corn leaf.

This electromagnetic energy which power the photosynthesis
was in turn produced by thermal energy (the kinetic energy
embodied in the vibration of atoms and molecules) welling
up from the Sun's core. The thermal energy was in turn
the energy of nuclear fusion taking place deep in the Sun's
core, turning hydrogen into helium.

The hydrogen lies lower on the Curve of Binding Energy from
helium, a fact that seems to be attributable to the way
the primordial universe "fell out" after the Big Bang.

So ultimately, the bike headlight was powered by potential
energy created at the time of the Big Bang.

(Well, unless you don't believe in that shit, in which
case "It's just God's magic that makes the headlight glow.")

Tesha

[killbotfactory]

43. I had this idea as a kid..

and actually, I remember reading that there are hybrids that do this.

[Tesha]

47. We could hook a generator up to Carl Sagan.

These days, he must be making about 10 Brazillian RPM down
in his grave...

Tesha

[mike_c]

60. LOL-- stop it-- I'm dying....

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

66. What you say is a perpetual motion machine. The steps to achieve that are:

1) Find the last digit of Pi

2) Accelerate an object to 1.01 times light speed

3) ...

4) PROFIT!

[meow2u3]

34. As a precaution, buy a locking fuel cap

You won't want your ethanol siphoned by some alcoholic who got kicked out of the bar for being too shit-faced to be served. :evilgrin:

[Deja Q]

48. Where do you grow it? What do you use to harvest it?! A hovering rug?

REALITY: Ethanol is far more expensive than people think. You need gas-guzzling machines to plant the seeds. You need to grow a shitload over the summer months. You then need to harvest it with more gas guzzling machines... then it needs to be converted into compatible flammable form.

And with hungry people to feed :cry:, we either drive'n'starve or crawl'n'eat.

Never mind pollution and global warming.

Try viable public transport instead.

Or electric engines. Other viable ways exist.

[tlsmith1963]

50. If I Could Afford a Car...

...I would drive a hybrid. Not only to help the environment. I don't want to support terrorist-supporting countries or greedy oil tycoons like Bush. Sure, they would still get *some* of my money, but not as much. And if a car came out that didn't run on gas at all, I would buy it in a heartbeat.

Tammy

[lonestarnot]

56. If we had done something in the last crisis, we would already be near or

energy independent, but instead we manufactured SUV's. We are a bright bunch.

[Tesha]

61. Reagan cut funding for fusion research.

In a very short-sighted decision for the planet
but in a move that benefitted moneyed, Republican-
leaning energy interests in his constituency, Reagan
substantially cut the funding for fusion research.

I'm not going to suggest that we'd have had fusion
power by now, but we probably would have been ten
years further down the road towards practical fusion
power reactors and energy independence.

Instead, we see a mostly-European (or is it "Yurpean"?)
consortium building ITER, a prototype protype fusion
reactor. And in a few decades, when we're buying COTS
(COmmercial Off-The-Shelf) fusion power reactors from
Europe, Japan, and China, we'll scratch our heads and
wonder how we let this technology get past us. "Was no
one paying attention?"

(He also allowed CAFE standards to slide, but I'll let
someone else write that rant.)

Tesha

[MadHound]

57. Ethanol can only fulfill a portion of our current fuel demands

First off, ethanol is energy intensive to produce, and there isn't enough cropland in the country to fulfill our fuel needs. Ethanol needs to be combined with a hybrid engine. We also will need to use diesel hybrid engines, for use with biodiesel. We would also have to start putting an extra battery or two in these hybrid cars, batteries that can be plugged into our hopefully renewable electrical energy network. And we have got to legalize hemp as an oil crop, because hemp can grow lots of places in this country that corn can't.

We can't and shouldn't put all of our eggs into the ethanol basket, it simply can't hold them. We've got to develop a multipronged sensible fuel policy that is based on hybrids and renewable fuels, and that absolutely stresses conservation.

[newportdadde]

58. "Plow under corn?" Nobody plowed corn under even with CRP

How about talking to someone who actually lived on a farm or knows anything about farming. I grew up in rural MO and nobody is going to plow under a freakin corn crop.

Hell even back when the stuff was burning up from lack of rain and severe drought my father and I would chop the stuff down by hand just to feed out what good parts of it were left to cattle, leaves, stalk and all.

[Mr.Green93]

62. Great idea. Let's destroy our topsoil

So some overweight suburbanite can go to the mall.

[Roaming]

64. Until they can figure out a way to make it burn better, it's

not the answer. It burns less efficiently than gas and actually causes more pollution. They need to figure out a way to make it burn better and cost less.

I once saw a documentary on hydrogen cars; I think it was in Iceland and some European countries. Hydrogen doesn't cause any stink when it burns. If there's an explosion it burns straight up in the air until it's all used up, instead of spreading like gas does. Those looked promising but you never hear about any R&D on that in this country.

[Hobarticus]

65. False. Ethanol blends burn cleaner and generate less pollution.

Indy runs their cars on the standard 10% blend. Would Indy run a less-efficient fuel?

You're right, in that the process needs to become cheaper, though.

[Tesha]

72. Actually, that's no proof-point.

In any racing class, artificial restrictions are introduced
to keep speeds down. This is as true of Indy cars as it is
of F1 or any other class.

Alcohol may or may not burn cleanly and efficiently, but
its use in Indy cars is not proof of anything like that.

Tesha

[Hobarticus]

74. False. Use of ethanol does not reduce power output of an engine.

You're incorrectly assuming that ethanol would be used to restrict performance, because ethanol somehow impairs performance and efficiency, and that's yet another Big Oil-generated myth, debunked for a couple of decades now.

Ethnol has indeed been proven to burn cleaner and generate less pollution, there's no 'may or may not' to it.

[Tesha]

76. Read what I wrote.

The mere fact that alcohol is mandated in some
racing class, by itself, proves *NOTHING* about
whether alcohol makes cars go faster or slower
or burn dirtier or cleaner.

Class regulations merely exist to make a set of
cars roughly competitive while not being *TOO*
dangerous to the drivers and spectators.

Tesha

[Hobarticus]

77. I did...and you're splitting hairs...

The post I replied to said that ethanol is inefficient. I said it isn't, and used Indy as an example, asking why this fuel would be used at all if it was inefficient. I also said that it has been proven that ethanol is more efficient.

Correct, the mere fact that alcohol is mandated in some racing class does not prove it's efficiency, but Indy is taking advantage of over two decade's worth of research and field use. I doubt they just pulled it out of their exhaust pipe.

Happy?

[Tesha]

78. Curious. Wikipedia says what I thought: It's used because...

Curious. Wikipedia says what I thought: It's used because
it's safer (than gasoline) in terms of not blowing up in
crashes. (Note also that it's methanol, not ethanol.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_fuel :

A seven-car crash on the second lap of the 1964
Indianapolis 500 resulted in USAC's decision to mandate
methanol. Eddie Sachs and Dave McDonald died in the crash
when their gasoline-fueled cars exploded. Johnny Rutherford
was also involved, in a methanol-fueled car which also leaked
following the crash, and while this car burned from the impact
of the first fireball, it formed a much lesser inferno than
the gasoline cars. That testimony and pressure from the
Indianapolis Star writer George Moore, led to the 1965
alcohol fuel mandate.

Tesha

[Hobarticus]

79. "A much lesser inferno..."

Small comfort that must have been.

This brings up a point: ethanol's been used for a couple of decades now. This accident happened over forty years ago. They're just getting around to using it and will switch from methanol/ethanol blends to 100% ethanol next year. If they're doing this for purely safety reasons, they sure weren't too quick on the draw. Must be more to it than just safety, since safety doesn't sound like a priority, here.

[Tesha]

80. Ethanol is only coming into use this year in Indy racing.

More from that very same Wiki article:

Currently, the Indy Racing League uses pure methanol (M100).
In 2006, the IRL will switch to a 10% ethanol / 90% methanol
(M90 or E10) mix, before switching to an all-ethanol mix (E100)
in 2007.

Tesha

[Hobarticus]

81. Correct, but it's surely not for safety reasons...

Since this accident in the article happened in 1964, and ethanol's been a safer alternative to methanol since the '80's.

If they were so concerned about safety, surely they would have moved a bit faster than forty years to implement a safer fuel. There must be some other reason besides safety to use ethanol.

[Tesha]

82. Sponsorship from "ADM, Supermarket to the World"? (NT)

[Jemmons]

69. Another avenue:

[Tesha]

73. Awww, your just blowin' hot air. Plus, the Senator from Exxon...

Awww, your just blowin' hot air. Plus, the Senator from Exxon
doesn't want any of those things crappin' up the views of
the millionaires who live on Nantuckett.

Tesha

[Jemmons]

70. For GE users:

http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showthreaded.php/Number/36237

[Bushwick Bill]

71. Alternative Drawbacks

Nine Critical Questions to Ask About Alternative Energy
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/052703_9_questions.html

Biofuels such as biodiesel, ethanol, methanol etc. are great, but only in small doses. Biofuels are all grown with massive fossil fuel inputs (pesticides and fertilizers) and suffer from horribly low, sometimes negative, EROEIs. The production of ethanol, for instance, requires six units of energy to produce just one. That means it consumes more energy than it produces and thus will only serve to compound our energy deficit.

In addition, there is the problem of where to grow the stuff, as we are rapidly running out of arable land on which to grow food, let alone fuel. This is no small problem as the amount of land it takes to grow even a small amount of biofuel is quite staggering. As journalist Lee Dye points out in a July 2004 article entitled "Old Policies Make Shift From Foreign Oil Tough:"

. . . relying on corn for our future energy needs would
devastate the nation's food production. It takes 11 acres to
grow enough corn to fuel one automobile with ethanol for
10,000 miles, or about a year's driving, Pimentel says. That's
the amount of land needed to feed seven persons for the
same period of time.

And if we decided to power all of our automobiles with
ethanol, we would need to cover 97 percent of our land with
corn, he adds.
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html

I don't know if those numbers are correct. I know that we are going to need alternatives, and clean ones would be nice, but I have a hard time believing that we will be able to move goods from China to the U.S. and power the interstate highway system on ethanol. We need some number crunchers to get on this.

[Jemmons]

75. "Biofuels are all grown with massive fossil fuel inputs..."

What a load of bollocks. You use fertilizers if and only if it makes sense from a business perspective. Does anyone believe that the brazilians would spend their money getting fuel at higher prices than the rest of the world?

[chemteacher]

83. Cost Analysis for Ethanol

I was a researcher at NREL for 7 years on the ethanol program before Gingrich's "Cotnract On America" forced the first major downsizing there. As a side, I love teaching chemistry to kids....

http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/program/2005_ethanol_brochure.pdf is a link to a quick overview of the cost analysis on ethanol. The MAJORITY of studies show that it is feasible from an energy standpoint. More available from either NREL or Argonne National Lab.

I agree with other posters stating that we need to think of several options...Ethanol is a great fuel option (it's liquid, easily transported, etc.) but it is only one piece of a more holistic renewable energy view (such as wind energy for electricity or solar thermal conversion to electricity).

Also, conservation is not just a "personal virtue". My heating bill in a 2800 s.f. house never went above $75 this winter in Colorado by being disciplined about my programmable thermostat, capturing passive solar during the sunny days and religiously closing the blinds when the sun set, etc.