Report: Ethanol More Harmful Than Gasoline

[GooeyGUI]

Daily Tech

Sounds more like a mixed bag if you ask me. It'd be better all away around to get rid of combustion engines wouldn't it?

 

[0]

It takes more energy to create a gallon of ethanol that you will ever get out of it. That is the real story folks. Tell that to Gore.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: 0
It takes more energy to create a gallon of ethanol that you will ever get out of it. That is the real story folks. Tell that to Gore.

Wrong.

Current Corn ethanol production does run at a slight loss, but Brazil has been producing ethanol from sugar cane and other types of plant cellulose with a lower energy input than is contained in the ethanol.

ZV

 

[0]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: 0
It takes more energy to create a gallon of ethanol that you will ever get out of it. That is the real story folks. Tell that to Gore.

Wrong.

Current Corn ethanol production does run at a slight loss, but Brazil has been producing ethanol from sugar cane and other types of plant cellulose with a lower energy input than is contained in the ethanol.

ZV

It is you that is wrong. There have been several high level research reports that indicate this is true. The problem is that high purity ethanol requires the removal of water, which is a very energy intensive ordeal. Check it out before spouting.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: 0
It takes more energy to create a gallon of ethanol that you will ever get out of it. That is the real story folks. Tell that to Gore.

Welcome to the Law of Conservation of Energy. It takes more energy to make any kind of fuel than can ever be obtained from reacting that fuel. The closest you'd ever get in terms of efficiency would be a matter/antimatter reaction. It took a lot of energy to create that matter in the first place (e=mc^2), and it takes a lot more energy to produce antimatter due to the inefficiency of the process. Antimatter is the most expensive substance in the world.


I recall hearing that if we'd switch entirely to ethanol produced from corn, we'd have a water crisis instead of an oil crisis.
Corn is just too damned inefficient at producing ethanol. It's used because the lobbyists for the industry are good at bribing public officials.
Prairie grasses like now-infamous switchgrass, would be far more efficient, as the entire plant can be used for ethanol, not just the seeds. And they're better adapted for life on the prairies as opposed to relatively fragile corn stalks.

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: 0

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: 0
It takes more energy to create a gallon of ethanol that you will ever get out of it. That is the real story folks. Tell that to Gore.

Wrong.

Current Corn ethanol production does run at a slight loss, but Brazil has been producing ethanol from sugar cane and other types of plant cellulose with a lower energy input than is contained in the ethanol.

ZV

It is you that is wrong. There have been several high level research reports that indicate this is true. The problem is that high purity ethanol requires the removal of water, which is a very energy intensive ordeal. Check it out before spouting.

And gasoline flows directly out of natural springs into our gas tanks?

 

[Auggie]

Jeff, I think you're wrong. The fact is that the Sun provides the energy for most of our fuel, it's just a matter of efficiency in processing and using the fuel for our needs. In the case of oil, it's easy to pump up crude oil, run it through a series of hot distillation steps and produce gasoline. In the case of corn, the amount of energy required to get the ethanol is greater, making the relative "free energy" much less negative, if you want to think about it in terms of overall Gibb's free energy

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: 0

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: 0
It takes more energy to create a gallon of ethanol that you will ever get out of it. That is the real story folks. Tell that to Gore.

Wrong.

Current Corn ethanol production does run at a slight loss, but Brazil has been producing ethanol from sugar cane and other types of plant cellulose with a lower energy input than is contained in the ethanol.

ZV

It is you that is wrong. There have been several high level research reports that indicate this is true. The problem is that high purity ethanol requires the removal of water, which is a very energy intensive ordeal. Check it out before spouting.

And gasoline flows directly out of natural springs into our gas tanks?

why of course it does

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Auggie
Jeff, I think you're wrong. The fact is that the Sun provides the energy for most of our fuel, it's just a matter of efficiency in processing and using the fuel for our needs. In the case of oil, it's easy to pump up crude oil, run it through a series of hot distillation steps and produce gasoline. In the case of corn, the amount of energy required to get the ethanol is greater, making the relative "free energy" much less negative, if you want to think about it in terms of overall Gibb's free energy

I never said that ethanol was more efficient for us to produce than it is to convert crude oil to gasoline.
I said that it is less efficient to produce ethanol from corn than it is to get it from grasses.

 

[AgentJean]

Butanol is better then ethanol. It is much closer to gasoline so very little modification is needed to the engines, it contains twice the engery of ethanol and only slightly less than gasoline. Butanol can be fermented from bio-mass(a process inveted in the 1920s )

I recommed you people read up on this substance.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: 0
It is you that is wrong. There have been several high level research reports that indicate this is true. The problem is that high purity ethanol requires the removal of water, which is a very energy intensive ordeal. Check it out before spouting.

DOE study:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/net_energy_balance.html

Relevant quotes: "The most official study of the issue, which also reviews other studies, concludes that the "net energy balance" of making fuel ethanol from corn grain is 1.34; that is, for every unit of energy that goes into growing corn and turning it into ethanol, we get back about one-third more energy as automotive fuel."

"For cellulosic bioethanol?the focus of the Biomass Program?that study projects an energy balance of 2.62."

You're right, I was wrong. Even using corn results in an energy surplus and not a loss. Whoops.

ZV

EDIT: If you think it's just a government thing, here's a study from UC Berkeley that agrees that ethanol production from corn is currently running at a net energy surplus.

The simple fact is that the data supporting the claim of a net energy loss are decades old and simply not applicable given the advances in technology.

 

[Rogodin2]

ROI is a bastard.

Fundamentally there is no hydrocarbon based compound that can replace Oil-regardless of the extraction method and type.

Return on Investment is so high for all other compounds that we're screwed when the production levels fall down the slope.

The department of energy released a memo to the GDA about this-and the department of energy responded with a model for the US military-the outlook is bleak and the militar must power-down.

Rogo

 

[RU482]

Originally posted by: AgentJean
Butanol is better then ethanol. It is much closer to gasoline so very little modification is needed to the engines, it contains twice the engery of ethanol and only slightly less than gasoline. Butanol can be fermented from bio-mass(a process inveted in the 1920s )

I recommed you people read up on this substance.

better check your math there, sparky,

Twice the energy of ethanol, yet not quite the energy of gasoline?

 

[andylawcc]

good thread.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: 0
It takes more energy to create a gallon of ethanol that you will ever get out of it. That is the real story folks. Tell that to Gore.

Wrong.

Current Corn ethanol production does run at a slight loss, but Brazil has been producing ethanol from sugar cane and other types of plant cellulose with a lower energy input than is contained in the ethanol.

ZV

Brazil has been doing this since the oil crisis in the 70's. currently they produce 80% of the worlds Ethanol and are the largest exporter in the world.

They also have cars called "Flex" which can tell the difference between the Ethanol and Gasoline, and adjust air/fuel ratio's accordingly. Also, reporting that the Ethanol gets better fuel mileage.

Don't be blinded by the BS, Ethanol is a good alternative to oil.



Even better though: Check this out
To go along with the link, remember that Cannabis plants contain the highest concentration of Fatty Acids out of any plant in the world. People consume Flax seed oil because of Fatty Acids, which is 40-60%..not bad, but not as much as Cannabis plants. /2 cents.




edit: This is copied from the DailyTech link

"The study finds that if much of the country's fuel supply would switch from gasoline to E85, the number of deaths from respiratory failure (due to ozone) in the United States would rise from 4,700 people a year to nearly 4,900 per year."

People are worried about 200 deaths per year?! OH NOES, but cigarettes are legal...killing 1/2 million a year. go fvck yourselves DailyTech...

Yea, and I'm not done: "due to ozone" O3 is actually present in our atmosphere naturally, the problem is when it's down here at our level. How many people own air filters that create O3? can't count...How many people use public restrooms with those little timed air fresheners?! everyone, here's a tip...don't breathe when you are near one of those...they produce lots of O3.

 

[DrPizza]

There may be a small increase in the amount of energy available, however look at what it's done to the price of corn... The price of meat is going to sky rocket because feed prices are rising rapidly. (about a 30 to 40% increase in the price of corn in the past 2 years.)

 

[Iron Woode]

I am not fond of ethanol.

Has less energy than gasoline and therefore much less fuel economy.

Ethanol in the winter can pose problems.

Ethanol production will also drive up the costs of corn. This in turn results in issues of food for humans and animals. Not too mention increased costs for everything.

Bio-diesel makes much more sense.

just my $0.02

 

[da loser]

all those studies are so flawed. they are measuring fossil fuel expenditure not measuring energy usage. all processes lose energy, simple thermodynamics. yet how did they magically get more energy?

lets use the berkeley data (note by the . 1.19 fossil fuel to produce 1 gasoline and .774 fossil fuel to produce 1 ethanol.

gasoline has energy input from fossil fuel AND the key part is made from fossil fuel :Q. so they calculated the energy input plus the feed material :disgust:

ethanol just derives the energy input.

so lets recalculate the energy input to produce gasoline. 1.19-1= .19 energy to produce 1 gasoline.

the charts should read .19 for gasoline and .774 for ethanol. clearly ethanol is much more energy intensive. do you really think the world would evolve around gasoline when going by the data ethanol is more efficient? it's not just an oil baron conspiracy.

only cellulosic ethanol showed .10, which is not commercial reality but estimates. hopefuly it could at least diversify energy requirements.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: da loser
so lets recalculate the energy input to produce gasoline. 1.19-1= .19 energy to produce 1 gasoline.

the charts should read .19 for gasoline and .774 for ethanol. clearly ethanol is much more energy intensive. do you really think the world would evolve around gasoline when going by the data ethanol is more efficient? it's not just an oil baron conspiracy.

The point was never that ethanol was more efficient that gasoline. The point was that it's not negative net energy. Yes, all processes lose energy, but that doesn't mean that the process cannot result in an end product that contains more useable energy than the componants did initially.

It absolutely is currently less efficient to create a gallon of ethanol than it is to create a gallon of gasoline, but that is just because it is absurdly efficient to create a gallon of gasoline right now. It doesn't mean that ethanol is a dead-end, only that it's just in the early stages of development.

ZV

 

[MrBond]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
There may be a small increase in the amount of energy available, however look at what it's done to the price of corn... The price of meat is going to sky rocket because feed prices are rising rapidly. (about a 30 to 40% increase in the price of corn in the past 2 years.)

That's very true, people don't seem to realize it yet either.

The price of corn makes (corn-growing) farmers happy though. I'm not sure if Dad's planning on more than usual this year or not. If I were in his situation, I'd probably plant all corn, since he's more than likely losing 90% of his fields next year to the state so they can build a new highway :disgust:.

There is research ongoing to make ethanol production (both from corn and cellulose) more energy efficient. I listened to a talk from a guy working at the EPA research labs a couple weeks ago and they've just filed for a patent on a process that's supposed to be pretty good, but he wouldn't go into detail. Even the (already patented) work he presented was slightly better than distillation.

 

[ch33zw1z]

MrBond, I was born in the city you live. totally off topic...but i felt the need to state that!

 

[KeyserSoze]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: 0

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: 0
It takes more energy to create a gallon of ethanol that you will ever get out of it. That is the real story folks. Tell that to Gore.

Wrong.

Current Corn ethanol production does run at a slight loss, but Brazil has been producing ethanol from sugar cane and other types of plant cellulose with a lower energy input than is contained in the ethanol.

ZV

It is you that is wrong. There have been several high level research reports that indicate this is true. The problem is that high purity ethanol requires the removal of water, which is a very energy intensive ordeal. Check it out before spouting.

And gasoline flows directly out of natural springs into our gas tanks?

LOL, I have to sig that.



KS

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: 0

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: 0
It takes more energy to create a gallon of ethanol that you will ever get out of it. That is the real story folks. Tell that to Gore.

Wrong.

Current Corn ethanol production does run at a slight loss, but Brazil has been producing ethanol from sugar cane and other types of plant cellulose with a lower energy input than is contained in the ethanol.

ZV

It is you that is wrong. There have been several high level research reports that indicate this is true. The problem is that high purity ethanol requires the removal of water, which is a very energy intensive ordeal. Check it out before spouting.

Even if there's a slight net gain, which some research shows, it's not worth the amount of land... somehow most people don't think of that.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: 0

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: 0
It takes more energy to create a gallon of ethanol that you will ever get out of it. That is the real story folks. Tell that to Gore.

Wrong.

Current Corn ethanol production does run at a slight loss, but Brazil has been producing ethanol from sugar cane and other types of plant cellulose with a lower energy input than is contained in the ethanol.

ZV

It is you that is wrong. There have been several high level research reports that indicate this is true. The problem is that high purity ethanol requires the removal of water, which is a very energy intensive ordeal. Check it out before spouting.

Even if there's a slight net gain, which some research shows, it's not worth the amount of land... somehow most people don't think of that.

Aren't fuel expenses for the consumer sitll higher with E85? Worse mileage + higher costs = more money = I"M NOT SWITCHING.

Hybrid is great too but if it comes out to a 10 year break-even economics, I'm not getting it just yet. So like I said, just like there's a bunch of early adopters in BD/HDDVD and HDTV, I'll take my time and wait till the market is at a good saturation point so that I'm not getting prototype crap.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Iron Woode
Has less energy than gasoline and therefore much less fuel economy.

apparently the octane rating for ethanol is near that of leaded gas, so you can up the compression and make much more power. engines built specifically for ethanol can use that fact to narrow the gap in fuel mileage.