If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some SUV driver)   The secret reason why ethanol is not the solution   (healthandenergy.com) divider line 268
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

37230 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Apr 2006 at 10:15 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



268 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-04-28 01:40:17 AM  
Because you'd have to fill up every two hours?

Ethanol is easily produced from other sources than corn. Such as garbage sludge. Read and learn:

http://www.checkbiotech.org/blocks/dsp_document.cfm?doc_id=10651 (no html skilz)

I learned about this in high school AP Biology, 1993. Why this crap is taking so long to come out is beyond me, but my guess is: Big Oil Lobbyists. Yes, big surprise, our government holds us back.
 
2006-04-28 02:04:38 AM  
Because it's just the solvent?
 
nrw
2006-04-28 02:06:35 AM  
Imagine that ethanol doesnt take over all of Americas oil production. Now imagine that it could just supply a small enough part of it that America would not have to send tankers full of cash to countries like Iran.

Sounds like a pretty retarded idea if you ask me.

America gets surprisingly little of its oil from the Middle east compared to what most people think. If just that fairly small percentage can be replaced with something else, America will not be financing weapons purchases of countries that are very unfriendly to them.

But yeah that sounds really stupid.
 
2006-04-28 02:07:08 AM  
Cerebral Ballsy: Why this crap is taking so long to come out is beyond me, but my guess is: Big Oil Lobbyists. Yes, big surprise, our government holds us back.

your foil is showing.
 
2006-04-28 02:13:20 AM  
Where is GaryPDX?

Blogger isn't wrong, but he's using a bit of "slieght of hand" for his argument. Gasoline production also uses more energy then we put in to make it, just not as much as ethanol.
 
2006-04-28 02:13:49 AM  
Uhhh, because it's a engine-corroding alternative which is a joke at this time?
 
2006-04-28 02:20:48 AM  
I see the TimeCube guy is freelancing his web design skills now....
 
2006-04-28 02:41:55 AM  
But yeah that sounds really stupid.

The demand for gasoline is accelerating faster than the production of oil. There is no way Ethanol could ever be adopted fast enough to permanently prevent a net increase in demand for gasoline. Even if you listen to what the ethanol lobby says, it can't be considred a long-term solution. It wouldn't even buy us five years.

Gasoline production also uses more energy then we put in to make it, just not as much as ethanol.

What kind of magic fuels are being spent to produce gasoline? We should just use that energy source and cut out the middle man.
 
2006-04-28 02:46:49 AM  
im so tired of this bullshiat copout by everyone. im tired of hearing about gas prices and excuses/conspiracies/speculation why prices are so high, if i hear the term "peak oil production" im going to scream, seriously, theres PLENTY to go around folks, we arent running low. its all about money, i dont need to tell you all that though, no one here is that stupid and falling for what they're trying to cram down our throats, for example, if our natural resources were running low would they be paying 19 cents per gallon in iraq and other middle eastern countries that are supposedly third world countries and LESS developed than us? hell no. and we are FAR from any so called peak oil production, because we'd also need to be at some kind of peak population growth also, because the more the people in the world the more drivers, the more needed product and the more people to produce the product we would have. i'd say we are several decades from peak oil production, and long before that we are going to come up with a definate, actual and viable source of cheaper and safer and cleaner energy. not necessarily because theres not enough oil in the world but just because more people that are tired of the expensive energy are going to come up with ideas for it. and there will be more people coming up with viable ideas than the government and/or oil companies can make disappear. pardon the conspiratical rant there but i fully believe that theres ways to make cars go several hundred miles per gallon and that anyone in the past that has presented ways of doing so have either been paid off to shut up or been shut up forcefully. one hand im pissed that we are force to pay 3 bucks a gallon for gas but on the other hand i hope shiat hits the fan and we all have to resort to coming up with other ways of transport, walking is good for you, so is bicycling. we're all too fat and lazy anyway.

/meh
//end drunken rant
 
nrw
2006-04-28 02:53:54 AM  
jarrett: Even if you listen to what the ethanol lobby says, it can't be considred a long-term solution. It wouldn't even buy us five years.

Works well in Brazil. And I would put a country that is actually tryings experiences over a "Oh it just wouldnt work so lets do nothing" any day.
 
2006-04-28 02:55:43 AM  
submitter: why Ethanol is not the solution

because Everything Into Oil is.
 
nrw
2006-04-28 02:56:48 AM  
morphius501: i dont need to tell you all that though, no one here is that stupid and falling for what they're trying to cram down our throats, for example, if our natural resources were running low would they be paying 19 cents per gallon in iraq

Iraqs incredbly low gasoline costs are (or at least were ) being heavily subsidized by the American taxpayer. Which is pretty funny when you think about it.
 
2006-04-28 03:01:02 AM  
Hank I'm tin foil hat because I acknowledge the damage oil lobbyists have done? As much as I'm pro-world economy, I must admit I beleive oil is funding the terrorists. I mean, more than marijuana.
 
nrw
2006-04-28 03:27:18 AM  
Cerebral Ballsy: As much as I'm pro-world economy, I must admit I beleive oil is funding the terrorists.

Think that as you may, but imagine the havok that would occur if that money went to American farmers instead.
 
2006-04-28 03:39:07 AM  
so what i want to know, and im too lazy to go look for it so im asking anyone here that actually knows, what drives up the prices the most, and im not talking about price per barrel, i know about all that, its pretty much the same as the stock market, but where do the most cost(s) come from? the production of the oil? the shipment from other countries? the countries themselves that sell it to us? taxes? what? my guess is its mostly the production, because i have seen lately several maps showing oil production plants in the usa and they are literally HALF of what we had back in the 80's so if we had more refineries would things cheapen up a bit? i know its all kind of an endless circle, barrels cost more so whoever gets the barrels from the barrel sellers (?) has to jack up their prices a bit...and on down the line in order for everyone to make a decent profit, but seriously this is getting ridiculous. i for one vote that bush actually does something right and breaks up the monopolies we are getting. back when we had like fifteen gas companies things were all good, now we are down to what like 3? 2? we NEED to go back to when it was TWO competing gas stations with two differant gas companies across from each other....
 
2006-04-28 09:30:20 AM  
jay_vee: Because it's just the solvent?

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2006-04-28 09:52:21 AM  
TFA: His findings are published in the September, 2001 issue of the Encyclopedia of Physical Sciences and Technology .

Research since then has conclusively proved that both sides are right. Ethanol is energy-positive. Ethanol is energy-negative. So pick whichever answer you like.

Brazil uses sugar cane, not corn. That may be the reason why ethanol works there.
 
2006-04-28 10:12:58 AM  
*sigh*

Alright. Here's the deal.

Ethanol is a storage medium, just like gasoline is. The 'energy loss' is due to the difference in production methods.

Oil happens when plants, over long periods of time, rot underground. The plants take the energy from the sun, store it in the form of sugars, starches, etc., and then eventually are converted into oils.

Ethanol takes out the "let sit for a couple million years underground" step.

Sure, it'll take umpteen billion acres of corn to make enough ethanol. How many billion acres of trees, ferns, and dinosaurs did it take to make that barrel of crude again?

Also, the 'energy loss' he speaks of can easily be made up by other methods: solar or wind power for the processing plant, or just burning the leftovers--much like Brazil does with their sugarcane version.

Anyone who claims any compound is a 'source of energy' is, in fact, a total idiot, and needs to be removed from the gene pool. There's not enough room on the planet for all the idiots, and the loud-mouthed disinformation-spewing kind annoy me.

Ethanol, like gasoline, like sugar, like fat, like ATP, is a means of storing energy for later use.
 
2006-04-28 10:19:29 AM  
Secret...since when? Ethanol is a just a form of solar power and has the same issues.
 
2006-04-28 10:19:46 AM  
Are hybrid cars the solution? Really curious. Does anyone have any special Fark knowledge on the subject?
 
2006-04-28 10:19:49 AM  
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.

Yes, but seven thin people will squeeze into a SUV much easlier.
 
2006-04-28 10:20:03 AM  
I am cornholio! I need ethanol for my SUV... he he he
 
2006-04-28 10:20:39 AM  
Cerebral Ballsy: Ethanol is easily produced from other sources than corn. Such as garbage sludge.


That was my first thought, too. Kitchen waste and byproducts of food processing seem like good sources.
 
2006-04-28 10:20:41 AM  
David Pimental, 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. Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion into ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make one gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTUS. Thus, 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in it. Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs.

Mr. Pimentel concluded that "abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuels amounts to unsustainable subsidized food burning".

Neither increases in government subsidies to corn-based ethanol fuel nor hikes in the price of petroleum can overcome what Cornell University agricultural scientist, David Pimentel, calls a fundamental input-yield problem: It takes more energy to make ethanol from grain than the combustion of ethanol produces.

At a time when ethanol-gasoline mixtures (gasohol) are touted as the American answer to fossil fuel shortages by corn producers, food processors and some lawmakers, Cornell's David Pimentel, one of the world's leading experts in issues relating to energy and agriculture, takes a longer range view.

"Abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuel amounts to unsustainable, subsidized food burning", says the Cornell professor in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Pimentel, who chaired a U.S. Department of Energy panel that investigated the energetics, economics and environmental aspects of ethanol production several years ago, subsequently conducted a detailed analysis of the corn-to-car fuel process. His findings are published in the September, 2001 issue of the Encyclopedia of Physical Sciences and Technology .


So who were they talking to again? And what are his qualifications?
 
2006-04-28 10:21:00 AM  
www.film-erlebnis.com

I've said this for years.
 
2006-04-28 10:21:07 AM  
No, that's the secret rean an all-corn solution wouldn't work. They use sugar cane and beets elsewhere. Much better yield from those crops.

And, as noted above garbage is a source in many cases.

Generally stupid article and conclusions.
 
2006-04-28 10:21:41 AM  
I thought that the most efficient non-fossil fuel source was hemp, but that we weren't using it because Elliot Ness wants America to think of hemp as evil.

Was I the only one that thought that....?
 
2006-04-28 10:21:46 AM  
Ok so if Ethanol can take over a small percentage of our total use where is the harm.

This moron is basically stating that because ethanol can't cover our energy needs it's worthless.

Well hydroelectric power can't supply all the US's electric needs but that doesn't mean we don't utilize it.
 
2006-04-28 10:22:47 AM  
The average U.S. automobile, traveling 10,000 miles a year on pure ethanol (not a gasoline-ethanol mix) would need about 852 gallons of the corn-based fuel. This would take 11 acres to grow, based on net ethanol production. This is the same amount of cropland required to feed seven Americans.

Unless eating corn can cure cancer I think 7 Americans can live without corn for a while.


If all the automobiles in the United States were fueled with 100 percent ethanol, a total of about 97 percent of U.S. land area would be needed to grow the corn feedstock. Corn would cover nearly the total land area of the United States.

Wow this guy must think that America is the only country in the world that grows corn or something.
 
2006-04-28 10:23:13 AM  
jarrett: What kind of magic fuels are being spent to produce gasoline? We should just use that energy source and cut out the middle man.

The sun, nuclear energy, etc. aren't quite as good as "portable" fuels. Gas and ethanol are.
 
2006-04-28 10:23:57 AM  
Yes, Sugar Cane is supposedly a far better producer of Ethanol.

It really sucks that congress is beholden to corn growers in Aemrica... Corn Syrup and Corn-derived Ethanol are two products that just make no sense for America, economically, ecologically, and even, for the farmers themselves. Why not grow it here?

This is strange like the reasons we don't grow hemp here... again, it's a weed that: 1. Grows like wildfire 2. Has tons of uses 3. Is Genetically dominant for THC content (growing pot by a hemp field is a losing proposition as the hemp's genetic traits overtake the pot's - meaning growing hemp may actually reduce the strength of pot grown in this country.

Realistically, a strategic re-examination of agricultural policies in this country are needed if we are to compete in the global market place (or even hold on to our own domestic markets).
 
2006-04-28 10:23:58 AM  
"Association for the Study of Peak Oil" - bwahahahahaha!

Blogger isn't necessarily off base - assuming this is 1977.
 
2006-04-28 10:24:27 AM  
Well, duh. Even this Farker knows that ethanol is nothing more than a band-aid and a sweet delicious date on a lonely Friday night.

/*giggle* You make me feel so good
 
2006-04-28 10:24:46 AM  
Adman12: That was my first thought, too. Kitchen waste and byproducts of food processing seem like good sources.

Write down everything you throw away from your kitchen, figure out it's energy content. You'll find you could maybe get a teaspoon or so of fuel a day out of it. There's no magic energy pile somewhere.
 
2006-04-28 10:24:49 AM  
Nightsweat beat me to it, Brazil is getting good results from cane ethenol.

I dunno, should give us a temporary fix until we can kick our internal combustion addiction.
 
2006-04-28 10:25:02 AM  
LegacyDL

Wow this guy must think that America is the only country in the world that grows corn

Iowa grows corn and controls farm politics, that is why we can't import any ethanol from other countries. We tax the shiat out of it.
 
2006-04-28 10:25:06 AM  
I'm no expert on the subject, however I find it extremely suspsicious how every time governments start to semi-seriously look at alternative fuels, all these articles come out about how inefficient and how much energy it takes to MAKE the new fuel.

Let's see a study on how much energy and money it takes the oil companies to dig up some oil and refine it for usable fuel. Then let's do a comparison. Because I have a sneaking suspsicion that if we did the comparison we would see there is nothign more expensive, subsidized and inefficient as hunting for, digging for and refining oil. That doesn't even touch on the issue of oil being non-renewable or our reliance on unstable, terrorist supporting countries with human rights issues.
 
2006-04-28 10:25:38 AM  
So what about using the surplus corn that we end up with? Or allow hemp (not pot but hemp) crops and use that? People who point to the corn usage as an excuse are ignorant on the subject of ethanol.
 
2006-04-28 10:25:54 AM  
here's a link to the Brazilian ethanol program that's been very successful, but they use Sugar Cane instead of corn, its more energy dense.

http://www.renewables2004.de/ppt/Presentation4-SessionIVB(11-12.30h)-LaRovere. pdf
 
2006-04-28 10:26:31 AM  
from article..."Corn would cover nearly the total land area of the United States."

Well, then Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska, etc. should be ready to go to EtOH fuel any time.

-a
 
2006-04-28 10:26:48 AM  
www.jackherer.com

Just saying.
 
2006-04-28 10:27:01 AM  
Maybe we should talk to that guy who said that the future is magnetics.

I don't remember his name but, I do recall that it would require extremely high amounts of electricity and estenually (sp?) make every road bed deadly to touch.
 
2006-04-28 10:27:12 AM  
Brazil has gone to almost 90% ethanol in 3 years from cane ethanol. It only takes a government with our best interest in mind. Therefore, we will never see it in the US.
 
2006-04-28 10:27:40 AM  
Does anyone here work for an Ethanol plant and think some farkers will believe anything?
 
2006-04-28 10:27:43 AM  
the_whitney_brown: Are hybrid cars the solution?

If the entire world switched to hybrid vehicles (20% -30% max increase in fuel efficiency), we could probably cut oil usage by 10-15%. In other words: NO
 
2006-04-28 10:28:59 AM  
TheSignPost: Elliot Ness wants America to think of hemp as evil.

Actually, it's Randolph Hearst... he controlled wood pulp paper production as part of his publishing empire and lobbied Congress on the evils of Pot, conveniently getting them to throw Hemp into the dirty bathwater to throw out.

Who says the media can't influence entire nations or even the world?

I'm not at all for legalizing pot... but leaglizing hemp production makes nothing but complete sense.
 
2006-04-28 10:29:12 AM  
oncogenic: here's a link to the Brazilian ethanol program that's been very successful, but they use Sugar Cane instead of corn, its more energy dense.

So, all we'd have to do is cut the US economy down by a factor of 13 and the population in half.
 
2006-04-28 10:30:12 AM  
Pimental was provened wrong long ago. Check out http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html.

Morphius501, keep telling your self that.

Civil_war2_time, what? Most GM/Ford cars (not techinally wonders by any measure) can handle pure ethanol just fine. Corrosive in YOUR car maybe.

Bottom line is, ethanol could power America's vehicles exclusively, if we look past Farkin corn to do it. Corn is the worst per acre there is.
 
2006-04-28 10:30:13 AM  
BaconatedGrapefruit But do hybrids make sense for the individual user? My lease is up soon and I'm interested in opinions on the subject...
 
2006-04-28 10:30:56 AM  
As much as I'm pro-world economy, I must admit I beleive oil is funding the terrorists. I mean, more than marijuana.

And let's not forget heroin.
 
Displayed 50 of 268 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report