Ethanol Production

[dullard]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I tried to discuss ideas in this thread, but was disrupted when people decided not to answer the very simple, straightforward questions that I posed in the OP.

I'm confused, because I did answer them in my first post and since the questions were quite broad (they were not simple at all, which is why I asked you to clarify the OP). But enough about that, it is nice that you finally went back to the issues:

As for the usage of ethanol as a mobile fuel, it cannot be used effectively as a fuel in and of itself in existing everyday cars: it must be "diluted" using different fuels, most likely an octane-poor gasoline. Thus, while it can serve a purpose, heralding it as a final short-term solution is foolish since it is not a stand-alone product.

Ethanol can be used at 100% (or as close to 100% as is practical in production) in vehicles that are designed for it (ethanol plays havok on standard seals so you need resistant seals in your car to run high percentages of ethanol). There are many vehicles today that can handle high percentages of ethanol (there are millions of flex-fuel vehicles for example). However, the US law forbids 100% ethanol as a standard fuel if I recall correctly. And since the laws fix the ehtanol to a max of 85%, the cars are designed for a max of 85% ethanol. Ethanol is diluted with gasoline due to laws, not due to technology. I imagine the laws are to prevent people from buying ethanol fuel cheap for a drink instead of paying through the nose in liquor taxes. But there may be other reasons for the law.

You are correct though, ethanol is NOT a final short-term solution. Ethanol, as we currently produce it, is basically a wash. Almost all that you gain from using less fossil fuel in your engine you lose by using more fossil fuels to produce ethanol. It is like moving your money from your left pocket to your right pocket: you didn't gain a thing other than a possibly flashy show for guillible people. Thus, right now, ethanol is a waste of our efforts and is not a short-term solution. That WILL change in the future, but technology and/or laws will first have to change. One example of a new technology would be switchgrass mentioned above. One example of a law change would be the elimination of our sugar controls so that sugar can be used profitably in the US instead of corn.

Your answers to your questions are accetable, I have no real comment on them. But, they can be expanded. For example, one big disadvantage of ethanol as a fuel is that it is LESS environmentally safe than gasoline. This problem really hasn't reached the media yet. But, ethanol fuel produces larger quantities of harmful pollutants. A professor in my department (chemical engineering in the midwest) was reamed by the school and the state for publishing her anti-ethanol environmental test data. The public, especially the government, doesn't want to know about any harmful aspects of ethanol. They want to see ethanol as a solution not a problem.

Ethanol WILL become a good solution. But we aren't there yet. It isn't a good short-term solution either. A real short-term solution would be to use fuel efficient vehicles that have been available for decades.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
Ethanol fuel from corn faulted as 'unsustainable subsidized food burning' in analysis by Cornell scientist

Pimentel is a quack that keeps using 1970's ethanol production numbers when much better production methods have been developed. A lot has changed since the 1970s. Fertilizer and better seeds dramatically increase corn yields. Ethanol plants have drastically improved technology and use far less energy now for the same production level as in the 1970s. Pimentel was correct in the 1970s, but he refuses to update his model inputs to today's technology. His recent publications are so out of date that they are laughable.

The link posted by nobodyknows is just one of many showing how woefully incorrect Pimental has become.

That said, ethanol from corn still isn't that much of a gain. We have far better solutions right now.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: alien42
cellulosic ethanol is the key to our immediate energy future. after years of R&D, 2009 will be the groundbreaking year for the technology. forget about wasting corn for ethanol, we will be producing ethanol from what has historically been waste and leftovers.

Yep.

This is my hope as well.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
Umm, I hate to break this to you CyloWizard, but this is not really politics or news, is it?

Maybe a good post for Off Topic or Highly Technical. Considering the mud slinging mess that is P&N this post seems kind of out of place.

So you can't figure out how ethanol production has anything to do with politics? I guess it's a little over your head that someone could start a discussion without needing an ignorant journalist to tell him how to think on it first. :roll:

But since you asked, I think it is not ethical to make fuel from food. Ethanol becomes a completely embarrassing scientific moral failure in this country when the government subsidies corn farmers to help make it when you stop to consider all the starving people this planet can not feed already.

And the entire ethanol concept is further flawed when it also takes way more energy to make the fuel than it ever recoups to help the atmosphere to use it.

Ethanol fuel from corn faulted as 'unsustainable subsidized food burning' in analysis by Cornell scientist

I agree with the first bit. Others have covered that study pretty well.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: dullard
Ethanol can be used at 100% (or as close to 100% as is practical in production) in vehicles that are designed for it (ethanol plays havok on standard seals so you need resistant seals in your car to run high percentages of ethanol). There are many vehicles today that can handle high percentages of ethanol (there are millions of flex-fuel vehicles for example). However, the US law forbids 100% ethanol as a standard fuel if I recall correctly. And since the laws fix the ehtanol to a max of 85%, the cars are designed for a max of 85% ethanol. Ethanol is diluted with gasoline due to laws, not due to technology. I imagine the laws are to prevent people from buying ethanol fuel cheap for a drink instead of paying through the nose in liquor taxes. But there may be other reasons for the law.

I am well aware that ethanol can be used at 100% in engines designed for it, which is why I said as much in the portion of my post that you neglected to quote. The only reason I stated that it wouldn't be a quick transition is because it would take some time to optimize the design for higher compression ratios and thermal management when using pure ethanol.