Ethanol question

[Digit]

I have been wondering why the push for ethanol when we need the land to produce food for the masses.

To me, this allows something we have to go to "stations" to obtain therefore, somebody controls these stations.

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

I guess I was so moved by "Who Killed The Electric Car" that everything else pales by comparison.

[mike_c]

1. ethanol is a solution looking for a problem....

Replacing fossil fuels isn't it, I'm afraid.

[Captain Angry]

2. My problem with Ethanol is that it doesn't increase miles per gallon.

It replaces oil with something else, but does nothing to reduce consumption.

Nice idea, but it's a patch. Unless we get off of fuel entirely, we will be owned by somebody.

[whistle]

3. It's the dumb ass shit for brains syndrome, ethanol is a zero sum gain

...fuel source, plus we loose all at farm land growing crops for fuel reducing precious farm land that could be used to grow food.

[youngdem]

4. It's ALL about politics

Both parties see an opportunity to buy votes in states like Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, and really the entire Midwest and even parts of the South. It is a scam. It runs food prices up, doesn't reduce pollution much at all, is delta negative in most realistic evaluations (except for switchgrass and a few other materials).

It doesn't improve gas mileage, and in fact, it is making our air dirtier because truck manufacturers are building ENORMOUS 'flex fuel' trucks that can take E85 ethanol or gasoline. So, all of these huge, polluting trucks are driving around with these flex fuel tags on them, but of course very few are using it because it is more expensive and you get shittier gas mileage on it, so why would you?

It's simply a political scam...This is a panacea to farmers who see $4 gas growing in their corn fields.

Bad. Bad investment, bad start on our road to alternative fuels, doesn't help, is a political boondoggle, and is going to create huge social problems because it is driving food costs up for staple items across central and south america. Even here in the US, cola companies and other companies that use corn syrup are already searching for (just as unhealthy) sweetener alternatives.

Terrible public policy. A lot of money to spend for almost no positive payoff and a lot of negative.

Now, if someone creates a technology that allows the use of alge or a switchgrass with commercial efficiency and a good delta, then perhaps we will have something.

[orleans]

5. i wonder why the fuck the cafe standards have not been raised

what the hell is wrong that we can't even get the cafe standards up?

[Captain Angry]

6. They will. Be patient.

We'll get a 5 mpg increase over 30 years. *cough*

The administration is hoping that companies will decide to do it on their own. Toyota's fleet mpg increases with each new hybrid released. As does Honda's. When China's cars show up next year, they will all be in the 35 mpg range unless they purposely "dumb them down." If I recall correctly, China requires 35 mpg.

[athena]

7. It's all about carbon dioxide.

When you use fossil fuels, you are releasing carbon that has been locked in the earth for millennia. When you burn ethanol, you also produce carbon dioxide, but it's the carbon dioxide that the plants absorbed from the atmosphere. You're not producing new carbon dioxide.

[Strelnikov_]

8. The problem with ethanol is that it is not an energy source

Seventy percent of the food value of the corn feedstock remains following ethanol processing assuming wet milling.

The problem is, where does the energy to produce ethanol come from since the EPR is ~1 (energy content of product equals energy required to make the product). Currently they are using coal and natural gas, fuel that could be used directly to make a liquid fuel (EPR of coal to liquids ~ 5). Current corn ethanol production using these energy sources has minimal impact on reducing carbon emissions.

Since ~ 70% of the energy required to produce corn ethanol is consumed at the processing plant, corn ethanol could be an energy carrier for intermittent wind energy. In other words, a way to store and convert wind energy into a liquid fuel.

Thing is, we are not going to run anything close to the current system on ethanol, or any biofuel. The biodiesel option shows somewhat more potential since it actually is an energy source (EPR ~ 3), with a similar percent of food value remaining (~ 70% soy biodiesel). But, again, no where close to meeting the needs of even the current ICE fleet.

So, the conclusion I have reached is the future is electric. The future is local. Electric cars, trains, etc. Local economies reducing the demand for transportation energy.

With the inherent efficiency of an electric transportation economy, we may be able to produce enough energy with renewables combined with a greatly reduced burn rate on the non-renewables (nuclear, coal, natural gas). With this shift to electric transportation, we will probably be able to produce an adequate quantity of 'renewable' liquid fuels (ethanol, biodiesel, BTL~biomass gasification) for heavy equipment not readily electrified and PHEV's.

One note, I don't see how, if the energy balance for corn ethanol can not be made to work sustainably, that cellulosic ethanol can be made to work, since that same 70% process plant energy will apply (fermentation, distilling, 'drying').

Who knows, considering that BD and GTL processes directly yield compression ignition compatible fuel, maybe we are in the final days of spark ignition engines in anything larger than small implements.

As corn ethanol stands today, it is not worth the effort from an environmental and energy security standpoint. With process transformation (to wind energy) and technological improvements it could be a factor in the liquid fuel starved future, but as an energy carrier, not as an energy source.

[DawnIsis]

9. Ethanol is Bush's dream of how to keep us paying buying the gallon instead of going electric

[Digit]

10. That was my thought

Those boogers.