Finally a quality ethanol REVIEW gets closer to the truth

[BaliBabyDoc]

Yahoo

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Ethanol -- alcohol produced from corn or other plants -- is more energy-efficient than some experts had realized and it is time to start developing it as an alternative to fossil fuels, researchers said on Thursday.
---
"We find that ethanol can, if it is made correctly, contribute significantly to both energy and environmental goals. However, the current way of producing ethanol with corn probably only meets energy goals," said Alexander Farrell at the University of California Berkeley.

In essence, you must approach ethanol production from an "efficiency perspective" NOT . . . "how can we subsidize corn production" perspective.

Farrell said it was possible to put ethanol in a car and run it, but making ethanol using current technology is expensive and contributes to pollution and greenhouse gases.

"(The environmental cost) comes entirely from making fertilizer, running the tractors over the farm and operating the biorefinery," Farrell said.

Better methods now being investigated would use the woody parts of plants, using what is known as cellulosic technology to break down the tough fibers.

"Ethanol can be, if it's made the right way with cellulosic technology, a really good fuel for the United States," said Farrell, an assistant professor of energy and resources.

This is a diplomatic/scientific way of saying . . . only morons would grow corn and then convert it to ethanol.

Their facility would make a range of fuels, foods, chemicals, animal feeds, materials, heat and power using what is known as biomass -- a collection of renewable plant matter and biological material such as trees, grasses and agricultural crops.

"We're looking at a future for biomass where we use the entire plant and produce a range of different materials from it," Charlotte Williams of Imperial's Department of Chemistry said in a statement.

I wonder if Congress will move billions of dollars from crop subsidies . . . in order to support REAL energy independence?

 

[CycloWizard]

The fundamental problem remains though: what process can be used to create ethanol with a net generation of energy? Until this question is answered, this remains just a lot of speculation. There is no indication as to whether this can even be done using plants as a source at this point. Further, the use of ethanol will still result in the net output of just about as much CO2 as gasoline (don't have time to figure out the exact difference, but I'm pretty sure it's not a huge difference between the two).

If we can find the necessary process to net energy from its production, it's still only a short-term solution due to the environmental impact of combustion. It's still a step in the right direction, but not a very big one IMO.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The fundamental problem remains though: what process can be used to create ethanol with a net generation of energy? Until this question is answered, this remains just a lot of speculation. There is no indication as to whether this can even be done using plants as a source at this point.

It's called photosynthesis. It's the equivalent of using solar panels, except the energy absorbance and storage units are organic.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Further, the use of ethanol will still result in the net output of just about as much CO2 as gasoline (don't have time to figure out the exact difference, but I'm pretty sure it's not a huge difference between the two).

Actually the net output of free CO2 in an ethanol cycle is 0. The plants fix carbon into sugars from atmospheric CO2. The sugars are converted to alcohol. The alcohol is burned, releasing the same amount of CO2 that was absorbed in the first place.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
If we can find the necessary process to net energy from its production, it's still only a short-term solution due to the environmental impact of combustion. It's still a step in the right direction, but not a very big one IMO.

As I've already shown, you're basing this opinion on incorrect data. Try rethinking it, given what I've explained.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Meuge
It's called photosynthesis. It's the equivalent of using solar panels, except the energy absorbance and storage units are organic.

Wow, genius! Now, genius, please tell me what process you can use to convert that captured energy into energy stored in the form of ethanol so I can patent it and become a gajillionaire.

Actually the net output of free CO2 in an ethanol cycle is 0. The plants fix carbon into sugars from atmospheric CO2. The sugars are converted to alcohol. The alcohol is burned, releasing the same amount of CO2 that was absorbed in the first place.

You might think this unless you had a concept of how any ethanol generation process would work. If said process had 100% selectivity - changing all input carbons to an output of ethanol - then what you said is correct. However, this will not be the case for many reasons. Consider that the input is not a single reactant species. Thus, if you apply one process to the entire lot, you will end up with multiple output species. Now, you can apply many different treatments to obtain higher selectivity (as is done in petroleum processing, where the goal is generally to maximize the selective production of octane/heptane). However, the process will never become 100% selective. So, like I said, CO2 emissions will still be a problem. How much of a problem? You, nor I, can say, since no viable process yet exists and, therefore, we cannot know the selectivity of said process.

As I've already shown, you're basing this opinion on incorrect data. Try rethinking it, given what I've explained.

Given what you've explained, I'm now dumber. I don't pretend to lecture you on the finer points of disease. If I did, I would look like an ass because you know much more than I do (assuming you're really in med school). Why, then, do you try to lecture me on the finer points of energy production?

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Meuge
It's called photosynthesis. It's the equivalent of using solar panels, except the energy absorbance and storage units are organic.

Wow, genius! Now, genius, please tell me what process you can use to convert that captured energy into energy stored in the form of ethanol so I can patent it and become a gajillionaire.

You're out of your mind. The plants do all the work for you (along with the yeasts). Reducing carbon is an energy-consuming process. The energy is stored in the hydrocarbon bonds of sugars. After the sugar is converted to ethanol by yeast, the ethanol can be burned, oxidizing the hydrocarbon bonds and releasing the energy.

Open a chemistry book. It helps.

Originally posted by: Meuge

Actually the net output of free CO2 in an ethanol cycle is 0. The plants fix carbon into sugars from atmospheric CO2. The sugars are converted to alcohol. The alcohol is burned, releasing the same amount of CO2 that was absorbed in the first place.

You might think this unless you had a concept of how any ethanol generation process would work. If said process had 100% selectivity - changing all input carbons to an output of ethanol - then what you said is correct. However, this will not be the case for many reasons. Consider that the input is not a single reactant species. Thus, if you apply one process to the entire lot, you will end up with multiple output species. Now, you can apply many different treatments to obtain higher selectivity (as is done in petroleum processing, where the goal is generally to maximize the selective production of octane/heptane). However, the process will never become 100% selective. So, like I said, CO2 emissions will still be a problem. How much of a problem? You, nor I, can say, since no viable process yet exists and, therefore, we cannot know the selectivity of said process.

Wrong again. Since every carbon atom comes from CO2 in the atmosphere, it is physically impossible for the process to generate EXTRA CO2.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Why, then, do you try to lecture me on the finer points of energy production?

Because you don't seem to understand it.

 

[1EZduzit]

Better methods now being investigated would use the woody parts of plants, using what is known as cellulosic technology to break down the tough fibers.

Actually, removing the "woody" organic matter year after year is the best way to ruin the tilth of your soil. It's what absorbs the water and insulates the soil.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Better methods now being investigated would use the woody parts of plants, using what is known as cellulosic technology to break down the tough fibers.

Actually, removing the "woody" organic matter year after year is the best way to ruin the tilth of your soil. It's what absorbs the water and insulates the soil.

yeah doesn't that stuff need to be plowed back in to keep the land good?

 

[mect]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Meuge
It's called photosynthesis. It's the equivalent of using solar panels, except the energy absorbance and storage units are organic.

Wow, genius! Now, genius, please tell me what process you can use to convert that captured energy into energy stored in the form of ethanol so I can patent it and become a gajillionaire.

You're out of your mind. The plants do all the work for you (along with the yeasts). Reducing carbon is an energy-consuming process. The energy is stored in the hydrocarbon bonds of sugars. After the sugar is converted to ethanol by yeast, the ethanol can be burned, oxidizing the hydrocarbon bonds and releasing the energy.

Open a chemistry book. It helps.

Originally posted by: Meuge

Actually the net output of free CO2 in an ethanol cycle is 0. The plants fix carbon into sugars from atmospheric CO2. The sugars are converted to alcohol. The alcohol is burned, releasing the same amount of CO2 that was absorbed in the first place.

You might think this unless you had a concept of how any ethanol generation process would work. If said process had 100% selectivity - changing all input carbons to an output of ethanol - then what you said is correct. However, this will not be the case for many reasons. Consider that the input is not a single reactant species. Thus, if you apply one process to the entire lot, you will end up with multiple output species. Now, you can apply many different treatments to obtain higher selectivity (as is done in petroleum processing, where the goal is generally to maximize the selective production of octane/heptane). However, the process will never become 100% selective. So, like I said, CO2 emissions will still be a problem. How much of a problem? You, nor I, can say, since no viable process yet exists and, therefore, we cannot know the selectivity of said process.

Wrong again. Since every carbon atom comes from CO2 in the atmosphere, it is physically impossible for the process to generate EXTRA CO2.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Why, then, do you try to lecture me on the finer points of energy production?

Because you don't seem to understand it.

Meuge is correct. Ethanol from plants takes all its carbon from the atmosphere. The only way that ethanol would be releasing more into the atmosphere would be if hydrocarbons derived from fossil fuels were used. Fossil fuels are termed such because they release carbon from a long time ago back into the atmosphere. Now granted, if the level of organic matter on the planet is decreasing, then this would lead to a net increase, but as long as we hold it essentially constant (which the US is doing a decent job of), we can still use organic fuels without increasing CO2 levels. This is of course assuming no fossil fuels are being used to supply energy for the process. Also, even if the process occurs at a net energy loss, this isn't a big deal as long as the production is economically feasible. The idea is to provide transportable fuel. Really, if you count the energy from the sun, it will have to ocurr at a net energy loss because energy conversion always ocurrs with loss involved.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Better methods now being investigated would use the woody parts of plants, using what is known as cellulosic technology to break down the tough fibers.

Actually, removing the "woody" organic matter year after year is the best way to ruin the tilth of your soil. It's what absorbs the water and insulates the soil.

yeah doesn't that stuff need to be plowed back in to keep the land good?

In my area we no-till all our crops in. I haven't plowed any of my ground in 20 years or better. The way it's done now, you just plant right into the previous years trash. Last year I had to disk my corn ground once to plant. I think it had been 5 years since it had been cultivated??