Ethanol Hoax? Comments please

Yes, you've got it right. If it took you this long to realize it, you listened to the media and not the facts. Ethanol is less efficient in it's ability to store power than conventional petroleum products currently available. The estimates (with water usage and power requirements to produce) are anywhere between 1.5x to 3x the energy stored that is available to release.

Farm subsidies have long been in contention. They should be abolished. Farm subsidies only cost the US Consumer (in the form of the taxes raised to pay them) and benefit the rest of the world. The US is a major food exporter, therefore you are paying to feed those in the Middle East (OPEC), China, India and every other country that imports our food.

If they were abolished, food prices would rise. They would also rise for the rest of the World. Our trade deficit would shrink or go away. North America is about 20 people per sq KM, Asia is about 80. The Oil rich countries in the middle east sit on mostly land unsuitable for raising crops. We run out of oil, they run out of food. We have untapped Artic reserves that are on parallel with the middle east (with a large quantity already drilled and capped). The government actually got one thing right in the Constitution. What is the first item that the US Government is required to do according to the Constitution? "Provide for the Common Defense".

The 3 main tenants of the Constitution are: Provide for the Common Defense, Promote the General Welfare and Secure the Blessings of Liberty.

The Proven US Oil Reserves remain untapped, not for an economic reason but in an attempt to enable the execution of the First Principle of the Constitution. Our current mode of defense requires vast amounts of Oil to be effective. We have that in reserve to enable us to conduct a long term, large-scale war without having to resort to WMD methods that are much less selective, directable and ultimately, predictable.

The lives of people bombed by HE (high-explosive), shot by bullets, killed by tanks, shredded by FA (fuel-air), mutilated by mines or sent to their lockers next to Davy Jones, are quantifiable. Use of Nuclear, Biological, Chemical and other technologies require little oil, but both the short term and long term ramifications are much less certain. Chemical is probably the easiest to control out of the bunch. Nuclear...not only is it massively destructive during it's initial burst, but the long term effects of even the dust cloud it would produce are unknowns. Biologics are worse. We know quite a bit about biology, but as for the ability of biologics to mutate and to predict what they might mutate into? We're cave men with fire. We know what it is, but we haven't figured out how to control it.

Biologics right now are kinda like giving a Chimp a piece of flint to bang around, then putting him in an enclosure full of metal rocks and tinder. Banging the rock around, he may create fire, but will also burn to death as the entire closure goes up if he doesn't get it in the right place the first time. Russian roulette with a virus.

I think I went a little farther than you were expecting with your question. But the first rule of any innovation...Follow the money. Works with the media and politicians as well.

To succeed one needs to compete with the media feeds
of the politicians, not an easy thing to do. That is:

The public have an image of "corn fuel" and only by making
the downsides clear to them will the flow ever be reversed.

The public are easily herded into cul-de-sacs innocently
following the shepherd. (e.g Hitler in WW2) and your voice
is literally a cry in the wilderness; without the media.

For a low cost reversal, writing to the (public) media (as
against limited CR4) is a good step; then, perhaps a group
of like minded informants can be created, preferably with one
or two well known celebrities, to bring "light" to the politicians.

None of this is easy; and there are so many "hobby horses"
that sometimes I feel we could create a "cranks" group of
alternative (good) practices. All we would need then is our
own little island, preferably on another planet.

jt.

I tried archeology, but gave it up, when I realised my life was in ruins.

The Public are your friends, your neighbors, your coworkers. Trust them not, prepare yourself. Create a 3 month food storage. Arm yourself and stockpile ammo. You may need to hunt or protect.

Start with your State and local politicians and get involved, know where they stand and how they have voted...then shove it in their face. OFTEN, LOUDLY. File a lawsuit if they have done something that contradicts a campain promise

Be prepared for a second Depression. It's on it's way. 53 Trillion dollars in debt means we go through a serious depresion or we nuke several continents.

Know how to grow your own food, can your own food and hunt your own food. Better than Soylent Green.

Sermon is done, but remember one thing. No one will give you shit if they need it.

Eck! What's up doc??

Well better than ethanol. Yad a yad a and mostly smoke; the sugar in the corn plant (maze) itself is more efficient use towards ethanol production than the kernel.

Eat, drink, be merry, then cause a 200 car pileup. How many 'gas users' can you take out of the equation?

We could even make a "Running Man" like game out of it.

<very evil grin> Muahahahaha

So, it's 'business as usual', then?

Pretty much. Until we start scaring our politicians, or develop laws to severely punish them for failure (and change the sheep attitude or our populace) we're pretty much screwed.

Truthfully, I thinking of offering to pay my 2008 taxes in an equivalent of Lead. But there's a lot of politicians and I might have to replace a couple of barrels due to friction buildup. Hell, if they'd let me use that currency, I'd pay double or treble taxes.

So, Bush wasn't far off when stating publicly, "This country is addicted to oil", then?

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

<....we're pretty much screwed....>

Hmmmm.........

We had an acronym for it in the Navy. BOHICA - Bend Over, Here It Comes Again. I just don't want to be the "Last of the Bohicans".

Here's a fun one from an automotive engineering buddy, "Ethanol is a larger molecule than traditional gasoline. Therefore a traditional carburatored, and a fuel injected motor will experience build up faster with ethanol." Has anyone noticed "vapor lock" on your fuel injected, and corn fed, car on a hot day?

Also corn is a main feedstock for cattle, poultry and pigs. If all the corn is being bought up for ethanol production this summer we will all be experiencing some BBQ inflation. Personally I'm going to start BBQing buffalo (North American Bison), yum.

Corn is a inefficient feedstock for ethanol production, and uses lots of petroleum as fertilizer. Sugar cane or switchgrass (if cellulosic ethanol plants become workable) are said to have much more favorable energy balances.

Has any one thought of what will be the emission fig when ethanol blend fuel is used how you guys will meet EPA norms with in and Euro directives else ware can some one reply.

crm

There's more to this equation.

the local ethanol producer is selling the leftovers [brewers waste] as livestock feed.

Even with the subsidies stand alone ethanol production is a money loser. The increase in production has reduced the price on ethanol, putting some of the more marginal producers out of business. Corn like crude oil has become a speculative commidity.

Locally sugarbeet acerage has dramatically dropped, causing the local sugar plant to close it's door's. Are there any sugar to ethanol plants in the US? though that would be a waste of perfectly good Mohito's

You state some very good facts. I would add that from an overall energy consumption strategy, ethanol production for automobile fuel is not a logical strategy. During the summer of 1982, I worked on an energy research project at Iowa State University that studied the ethanol production. Although the team on the project consisted of twelve high school seniors, we had at our disposal a vaste amount of information at ISU, including detailed metrics for corn production including required usage of diesel fuel to plant and harvest corn. We toured an operating ethanol plant in Iowa and were given much data concenring energy requirements for producing ethanol. We also looked at the energy value of ethanol (Btu/per gallon) and compared to petroleum. After crunching all of the numbers, the conclusion of the study was that ethanol requires much more energy to produce than the value of the end product. Consequently, we did not reccomend ethanol as a long term strategy for transportation fuel. It shouldn't surprise me that no one read a study performed by a group of high school students. It seems ironic that we are still debating this issue, and the smart people today are now coming to the same conclusion we did 26 years ago.

Jay Rolfes, email jrolfes@mchsi.com

No to ethanol

Yes to syngas DME

Technology and oil companies have already moved this way.

Use the ethanol for drinking so we can forget NAFTA (all FTA's) and the shipping out of American jobs.

h2om@hotmail.com

Not to join 2 CR4 segments but how about getting MYTHBUSTERS to debunk this in front of the "whole world"?

Granted, they are not on a major network but I bet it would generate some publicity that might be discussed for at least a day. Heck, it might even make it on to the Daily Show! Then people would notice.

You said:-

Granted, they are not on a major network

maybe not in the US, but they are watched world wide......pretty good coverage!!!

First of all, who is Walter Williams and for whom does he work? Second, corn is not the only source of ethanol, methanol, hydrogen and/or methane. Third, burning the fuel in reciprocation engines or even turbine engines is far from the most efficient and economical ways of putting the fuel to use. I suggest you do some more study and you will find much work that is going forward in the field of Sustainability Engineering. You will find many of your answers already being presented in the many sections of CR4. Talk is cheap when action is needed.

I don't believe producing yet another hydrocarbon to be burned in our inefficient gas guzzling cars is the way to go.

That being said, if you're an American, you've been forced to pay (Government Investment) for a technology that's marginal at best. Even Methanol (produced from corn, switchgrass or the bodies of politicians (wishful thinking, but it is a fairly large and untapped resource that has no real use ) is just creating a 'battery". And discharging that "battery" has the same issues. It just happens to be the devil we know. It's also controllable. Oil companies like it because the average Joe can't just make it and the storage and delivery systems are also controlled by them.

Not much money goes into research on things that cannot be controlled. A lot of money goes into lobbying against them and subduing them. And if they cannot be controlled or taxed, governments are not too hard to convince to set as many hurdles as possible. I don't like it. But We have the power to change that. And boy do we need to. The Government won't change it until we tell them too.

There are lots of new posibilities and old, tried and tested options with new uses. And they're coming...like snails on a cross country trip (and even in Liechtenstein). One of the best things all of us can do is get informed, get involved and remember to vote with your paycheck. Writing and calling your State and Local representatives help alot. You'd be suprised how effective that can be. Squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that.

And if that's not your thing...try building it in your own home. That's the ultimate in Energy Independence...Make it Yourself. That's where I want to go.

It is even worse than everyone has noted here. A recent study looked at the CO2 impact of ethanol and found that the land use changes end up releasing 400X or more, the CO2 than if the land had been left in it's natural state and petroleum used in it's place.

So not only does this mean MORE petroleum is used for the same energy gain, (some estimates are 1.5X more), but the CO2 impact is over 400 times more.

Add the fact that we will NEVER be able to live without petroleum. Far too much of our civilization relies on plastics to do so.

We aren't suppose to live without petroleum. Lets just stop wasting it on stupid SUV's, etc & maybe conserve some so our grandchildren can reap some of it's benefits.

I'm all for conservation, but it won't get us far. The population is growing fast and some of the most populated countries in the world are just coming into their own as far as per capita energy uses.

I, personally, don't want my grandchildren reaping any benefit from petroleum that requires explosions. I'd rather have them inherit a much less destructive and plentiful source (especially since bio-electric implants may require me to plug them in...though, might make discipline easier)

"... In fact, there's a double tax -- one in the form of ethanol subsidies and another in the form of handouts to corn farmers to the tune of $9.5 billion in 2005 alone."

Try triple: the US Government is giving credits to the auto manufacturers toward fuel economy requirement mandates when building "flex-fuel" vehicles (able to run on anything between 100% gasoline to 15% gasoline and 85% ethanol) - even if those vehicles are never driven an inch on anything but pure gasoline; many are sold & used in areas totally lacking any filling stations offering the E-85 (i.e., 85% ethanol) fuel for sale! And that seems to be independent of the fact that their actual fuel economy is WORSE than gasoline-only counterparts. I've read about at least one survey that learned that MOST purchasers were not even told that their cars / trucks were flex-fuel capable! Some small part of the credit is used to lure in customers by lowering vehicle prices relative to those not getting the credit.

So ethanol from corn is not ideal, even using solar heat for the fermentation and distilling process doesn't help with the fact that a food crop is being used for fuel. Farmers grow corn because they know how to grow corn. What is needed is a different plant. Walter Williams makes some good points.

Switchgrass is nasty stuff, but it will work. Sorghum will grow where corn grows and can take drier conditions and some types are higher in sugars, almost as high as sugar cane. Do some genetic tinkering and add DNA from sugar cane to make it even higher in sugar. Add some DNA from clover or a similar plant that harbors nitrogen fixing bacteria to reduce fertilization needs.

Ethanol from cellulose is another good possibility. Build algae farms for mass production. Any reduction in dependence on oil is worthwhile and any technology that would allow the use of less highly refined fuels would help.

What price are we willing to pay to be independent of OPEC? Are we implementing a plan to buy oil until they run out rather than tap our own reserves and then we will be the only ones left with oil? Does our military really have a contract to buy as much synthetic fuel made from coal as can be made so as to keep our military independent of imported fuel?

Even if we could make ethanol from agro-trash, the fuel, water and chemicals used in processing give you about a 70% energy return for energy used. And that's not counting transportation, just processing. It makes no sense any way you slice it. At least none I can see. Coal Gassification makes much more economic and energinomic sense.

Burning ethanol from plants or buring gasified fuel from coal? Both are burnt hydrocarbons that have no less effect on the polutant side than petroleum.

so far no one has come out with an answer for my comment you cannot have a fuel that is economical efficient &which burns with out producing pollutants.please focus on emissions produced by bio-fuels you will see carbon,NOx& particulates generated by ethanol based or any other bio-fuel based fuel will be expensive to control trade off is essential between emissions standards and fuel used.who will decide the quantum of trade off and its effects is still not clear.as such lot of money has gone down the drain to develop emission complaint engines we know now to meet the emission standards engine fuel injection and combustion system has to under go expensive changes resulting in higher fuel consumption

crm

Yes, you can. Try burning Hydrogen. What's the byproduct?

Hydrogen doesn't qualify as ecomonical, yet.................

ok, Garth, yer on.

We'll have to omit the regeneration of energy from the product, but lets put a challenge out there.

What is the cost of making one gallon of gasoline, getting it to the pump, putting it in your Prius, and driving until the tank runs dry? (ok, what's the energy equivalent for 1 gallon gas/actual cost? I think Gas goes for about 1.3x10⁸ Joules S.I.

I truthfully have no idea what a gallon of hydrogen's potential energy is or it's cost. But I do have a couple of contacts at Air Liquide that can probably get me that information and I will ask.

I think this would be a really interesting question. Care to pursue it?

I know German Navy has built couple of submarines running on Hydrogen fuel with an endurance of 15Days but they don't publish fuel consumption data i also know these German subs were lent to US Navy for exercise and training Then the data should be available with US by now

crm

I would love to know more about that, but being that I've been out of the Navy for a little over 22 years, they don't let me know these things :P.

I'll see what I can find on the web, but Submarines have always led battery funding in the US (since they gotta be quiet and even nukes can't run as quiet as diesels running on batteries)

Thanks for posting this prior to reading my last comment. You'll see and it's not pleasant. Basically I was asking for 3 considerations from you when you post:

1. Formating
2. Spacing
3. Content

Spacing and formating I cannot teach you without months of instruction. Content I can bitch about. Please understand that you can argue and question things and those reading will be much more likely to answer you if they can read it easily.

Besides, if you know someone is wrong and can prove it, it really sucks if no one will read it.

Thanks, cool and keep me posted on the German Naval Hydrogen stuff. I like hydrogen as an option, it just has some unovercome downsides as of yet.

Thanks

(since they gotta be quiet and even nukes can't run as quiet as diesels running on batteries)

Diesels quiet?

Which cost of a gallon of gas. the 4 bucks a gallon cost or the actual cost including the various subsidies?

I have no [know] idea

Hydrogen sounds like a really clever solution................

Liquid fuels have a higher energy density!

Hydrogen has some nasty habits:

Leaving where ever you try to contain it, being such a small molecule.

Changing the structure of the containment [embrittlement]

Going Boom!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, Diesel powered submarines run quiet...but it's because the diesels run on batteries when not running on the surface. I didn't mean to imply diesel engines were quiet. Sorry for the misleading statements.

"Yes, Diesel powered submarines run quiet...but it's because the diesels run on batteries when not running on the surface. I didn't mean to imply diesel engines were quiet. Sorry for the misleading statements.

tomkaighin Are you absolutely sure the above is a true and accurate statement?????

Well, while not completely true, some diesel subs have run on diesel engines while submerged, the crews have all died. Asphyxiation is a bitch. And if you try to pull out snorkling depth as ia counterpoint, I will beat your with a radioactively enlarged parameceum.

And the next time you are on a diesel sub, let me know. I'm too tall for em, and have had it proved. (gq, run for station, forget to duck, knock self unconcious...the tops of watertight hatches are not forgiving). The situations they lead to when not a real emergency have a tendency to be.

And Yes, I am absolutely sure that diesel subs running on batteries are much quieter than boomers or fast attacks running on anything, or not running at all. A diesel sub (Dolphin class AGSS - 555 - Last one standing) can be running 4 knots on batteries (no cavitation) and a nuke fast attack (LA 688 class) can be playing dead (hole in the ocean) and because of the nuclear power signature, it would be easier to pick up.

Now, a Russian Alpha? Nuclear but different story. A botwains mate, siting on the prow of a dingy at 30 miles can pick that up.

Exaderation, yep, but old diesel/battery subs run dead quiet under 8 knots. Even Mag and sonobouys wont pick them up unless they are directly over them. As for the FFG's, DDG's and DE's I was on. Couldn't find LA688's unless they pulled power and cavitated directly infront of our sonardome.

I did watch an LDO and Line Captain catch one. It wasn't a matter of our equiptment, it was a chess game. 34 sq mile op area, SOSUS nets had both of us, 1 688, 1 DDG, 1 LAMPS helo and 1 P3 Shore based. Operational map, 22 sonobouys dropped. 2 pinged unknowns, extrapilations and experience prevailed and we got a firing solution 2 minutes after they did. We would have died but fish would have been in the water. It was an impressive game.

tomkaighin

Gotcha! Diesels run on diesel fuel!

Diesel subs run on batteries when submerged.

Trust me, I know the eureka feeling even when it comes at the end of the genetic parade (you'll find me there scooping with a barrel and cursing elephants)

Crap, I nailed you twice on the same issue. I appologize for my stupidity in not knowing that the comments were in the same thread. You may slander my family in any way you see fit and would be justified.

It will teach me to learn to read before I spend time picking the tics from my mate. Feel free to take shots at me...but be warned, it's not as satisfying as it may seem, as I am too fat to miss :P.

forget it english is neither my language nor yours keep smiling and keep yourself happy

have a good day

crm

Noted, absorbed, and I should have noticed and been way more tolerant. I only speak one language, therefore I should be much more understanding of those that do me the honor of learning mine.

I appologize for being a Certified Ass. I hope you will forgive me.

Water vapor, the #1 greenhouse gas. Warm, steamy jungle world.

One reason no one has actually attempted to answer you is threefold:

1. You must learn to use punctuation and spacing as it is much easier to read that way. If you don't, regardless of the brilliance of whatever statement you are trying to make, no one will read it as it appears to be written by a child that hasn't been beaten enough by it's parents, but is making up for it by being beaten relentlessly in school.
2. You are trying to chastise us for not having come up with the answer to everything and then giving it to you just because you asked. That reinforces my point about the beating as a child.
3. Your statement about tradeoffs of emmissions shows how little you actually understand about any of the environmental or indeed physical applications of energy transfence. You picked 3 buzzwords, had two independent thoughts (though they had nothing practical to do with this discussion but were more likely to be imaginatory contemplations of the breasts of Rosanne Barr - but at least if you measured by whaling spec's, might still be appropriate for an energy blog :P )

So, basically, what I'm saying is:

LEARN TO WRITE AND MAKE YOUR POINT!

I can't agree with you or dispute you if all you do is drool on your toast. Comprende?

It's pork and beans!