Turds in Congress have chosen the most expensive (least efficient) form of biofuel
- Thread starter BaliBabyDoc
- Start date
Are you really surprised? They'll grow it for awhile, then prove its inefficiency, and then they won't have to deal with the question of biofuels anymore. It's the oldest trick in the book.
I'm not quite that cynical. IMO, the corn, grain, and soybean lobby will keep these subsidies alive forever. When challenged over the poor performance, they will wrap themselves in "energy independence" garb and exclaim, "why do you hate the American farmer?!"
Hopefully, some enterprising academic (or privateer) will demonstrate waste substrate is far more efficient (cheaper) and consumers like schools and cities will flock to the cheapest product available.
Hopefully, some enterprising academic (or privateer) will demonstrate waste substrate is far more efficient (cheaper) and consumers like schools and cities will flock to the cheapest product available.
they are depending on drastic(unrealistic?) increases in crop yields to be realized in the long term...
I hope that they're right, but I think the more diverse our energy sources are, the better.
I hope that they're right, but I think the more diverse our energy sources are, the better.
Actually I've read that ethanol produces a 66% gain in energy, if you don't count the energy from the sun, which was free in the first place.
I know plenty of farmers who heat their shoips with corn, just plain old corn. They burn it and it's cheaper then using "recovered" oil if you have to buy the oil.
I know plenty of farmers who heat their shoips with corn, just plain old corn. They burn it and it's cheaper then using "recovered" oil if you have to buy the oil.
techs
Lifer
- Sep 26, 2000
- 28,559
- 4
- 0
Interestingly I have heard it takes on gallon of oil to produce one gallon of ethanol. I don't know who to believe.
However, I think it is Brazil that gets a huge portion of their automotive fuel from crops. Something like 40-60 percent. They do it using sugar rich crops like beets. Which is far better and more efficient than corn. Which is what we should really be using too.
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 26,130
- 4,787
- 126
It is really quite simple. In the 1970s (when the most outspoken ethanol critic got his numbers), it took more energy to produce ethanol than you got back from burning it. Since then, we have massive improvements in crop yields (genetic engineering, machinery improvements, insecticide improvements, fertilizer improvements) and massive increases in ethanol plant efficiency. So now, most data shows you get back a bit more energy than you put in.
Basically if you had machine in which you could pay $1 and get say $1.05 back, who wouldn't use it? So what if another machine lets you pay $0.50 and get $1.05 back. That is not important. Why stop using the machine we have? I say, lets use both!
CallMeJoe
Diamond Member
- Jul 30, 2004
- 6,938
- 5
- 81
Corn derived ethanol is the fuel of choice in the US because of the political influence ($) of ADM. Our energy policy is more about corporate subsidies than energy independence. True in oil as well as ethanol.
FWIW, Brazil makes ethanol from sugar cane, cooked with the cane waste rather than electricity, oil, natural gas or other sources better used directly for energy than for producing a second generation fuel.
FWIW, Brazil makes ethanol from sugar cane, cooked with the cane waste rather than electricity, oil, natural gas or other sources better used directly for energy than for producing a second generation fuel.
Detractors of bio fuels also fail to take into account the value of the by products produced. In the case of corn alcohol, the mash that is left is a very desirable cattle feed and it sells for more per pound then corn does.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
I think this has more to do with propping up farm subsidies than with trying to make the alternative energy program fail.
Increased crop yields should be possible if you lift all GM restrictions - afterall, no one is eating these crops, so as long as you prevent cross-pollination with crops intended for consumption, food safety isn't an issue.
Increased crop yields should be possible if you lift all GM restrictions - afterall, no one is eating these crops, so as long as you prevent cross-pollination with crops intended for consumption, food safety isn't an issue.
zephyrprime
Diamond Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 7,512
- 2
- 81
Our climate is unsuitable for growing a lot of sugar cange. Sugar cane has ~3x the biomass energy efficiency of corn so it's really too bad we can't grow it.
I thought this was gonna be about poo powered cars... I'm glad it's not
we could always invade mexico to grow sugarcane...
What happened to solar power? nobody ever talks about sticking solar panels on their car anymore
we could always invade mexico to grow sugarcane...
What happened to solar power? nobody ever talks about sticking solar panels on their car anymore
Where did you read that information? I would LOVE for ethanol to be a great source of vehicle fuel but everything I've seen:
1) Not cost efficient compared to gasoline
2) reduces fuel efficiency of the vehicle
3) reduces power of the vehicle
Biodiesel doesn't appear to have those problems . . . different problems (gelling), though.
http://www.ethanol.org/PressRelease71905bhtm.htm
http://www.ethanol.org/documents/04CFDC-002_EnergyBalanceF.pdf
A quick google search turned theses up. I had some other studies I had read that claimed the 66% return, but I can't seem to find the links right now.
The second link (pdf file) mentions a 1.67 gain (according to USDA) on pages 5 and 6.
If we really want to have clean power, we'll move to using hydrogen generated by nuclear and (hopefully in the near future) thermonuclear power.
Those links are interesting but suspect considering the sources:
USDA . . . a government agency willing to feed kids crap diets in order to keep farmers happy.
American Coalition for Ethanol . . . hardly impartial. While I can certainly believe their criticisms of Pimentel and Patzek, ACE claims on the same page are misleading.
1) It doesn't matter if 35k BTUs of production cost contains 77k BTUs of energy if it cannot be extracted in a typical internal combustion engine.
Mother Nature makes oil but humans consume energy to extract, refine, and transport the product. Obviously, Mother Nature contributes to corn but humans go through a lot of effort (using a lot of energy) to grow, harvest, process, and transport the end-product. But the BTU-to-BTU comparison doesn't make sense when the actual unit of production and use (gal) demonstrates gasoline to be a far more efficient (energy dense) substrate. In essence, transporting a gallon of gasoline (assuming spec grav is similar) costs the same as a gallon of of ethanol but the gallon of ethanol is worth less in energy.
2) Ethanol "might" offer superior vehicle performance if compression can be cranked up to take advantage of the inherent knock resistance. Almost all cars on the road do not have real-time compression adjustment. You can advance/retard the timing but most engines will have quite a limited range.
It's cool that IRL is using ethanol but they are migrating from methanol. That's not exactly rocket science or broadly applicable to regular vehicles. It's great for IRL, though. Now when NASCAR migrates to ethanol . . . that would be an achievement.
Regardless, it's an argument worth having and I'm definitely in favor of subsidizing biodiesel . . . but ethanol is questionable given current conditions.
www.fueleconomy.gov says E85 mileage sux
2003 Ford Ranger
87 octane 17/21 (19 combined)
E85 13/16 (14 combined)
2005 E85 vehicle mileage
Admittedly, they produce less greenhouse gas so that's still good . . . real good since it averages a 25% reduction.
Ethanol facts from Iowa Corn:Q
industrious ugrad project
E85 vs 87 octane in a small motor (Honda GX 110)
E85 produced more horsepower but consumed a lot more fuel. By this kid's analysis E85 cost twice as much as 87 unleaded to produce equivalent energy use per unit time.
The takehome is that we should be investing in waste instead of planting wasteful crops to produce biofuel.
USDA . . . a government agency willing to feed kids crap diets in order to keep farmers happy.
American Coalition for Ethanol . . . hardly impartial. While I can certainly believe their criticisms of Pimentel and Patzek, ACE claims on the same page are misleading.
1) It doesn't matter if 35k BTUs of production cost contains 77k BTUs of energy if it cannot be extracted in a typical internal combustion engine.
Mother Nature makes oil but humans consume energy to extract, refine, and transport the product. Obviously, Mother Nature contributes to corn but humans go through a lot of effort (using a lot of energy) to grow, harvest, process, and transport the end-product. But the BTU-to-BTU comparison doesn't make sense when the actual unit of production and use (gal) demonstrates gasoline to be a far more efficient (energy dense) substrate. In essence, transporting a gallon of gasoline (assuming spec grav is similar) costs the same as a gallon of of ethanol but the gallon of ethanol is worth less in energy.
2) Ethanol "might" offer superior vehicle performance if compression can be cranked up to take advantage of the inherent knock resistance. Almost all cars on the road do not have real-time compression adjustment. You can advance/retard the timing but most engines will have quite a limited range.
It's cool that IRL is using ethanol but they are migrating from methanol. That's not exactly rocket science or broadly applicable to regular vehicles. It's great for IRL, though. Now when NASCAR migrates to ethanol . . . that would be an achievement.
Regardless, it's an argument worth having and I'm definitely in favor of subsidizing biodiesel . . . but ethanol is questionable given current conditions.
www.fueleconomy.gov says E85 mileage sux
2003 Ford Ranger
87 octane 17/21 (19 combined)
E85 13/16 (14 combined)
2005 E85 vehicle mileage
Admittedly, they produce less greenhouse gas so that's still good . . . real good since it averages a 25% reduction.
Ethanol facts from Iowa Corn:Q
industrious ugrad project
E85 vs 87 octane in a small motor (Honda GX 110)
E85 produced more horsepower but consumed a lot more fuel. By this kid's analysis E85 cost twice as much as 87 unleaded to produce equivalent energy use per unit time.
The takehome is that we should be investing in waste instead of planting wasteful crops to produce biofuel.
It's a complicated problem, isn't it.
I still think ethanol is a good way for this country to use some of it's excess corn. Remember when we had the big farm crunch of the early 80's and the govement was paying people not to plant crops. How about the hidden costs of oil, such as the $300 billion we've spent in Iraq? Remember, all the money spent on ethanol stays right here in this country. There are so many considerations that don't get seem to be considered.
I try to look at the big picture and I think 10% gasahol is a good option. I don't know if the 85% solution is viable but I've been running nothing but 10% gasahol in my 1989 Grand Voyager since it was new. It has a 169,000 miles on it and still runs great, it doesn't even use any oil. All my vehicles get just as good, if not better milage with a 10% blend so maybe a 15% or even a 25% mix would work?? And yes, biodiesel is also a good option. AFAIC, any energy source that is renewable needs to be investigated and exploited if possible.
When and if the country gets serious about biofuels, then maybe they will support a program to grow a better suited crop to make ethanol, but until then what we have is better then nothing.
I still think ethanol is a good way for this country to use some of it's excess corn. Remember when we had the big farm crunch of the early 80's and the govement was paying people not to plant crops. How about the hidden costs of oil, such as the $300 billion we've spent in Iraq? Remember, all the money spent on ethanol stays right here in this country. There are so many considerations that don't get seem to be considered.
I try to look at the big picture and I think 10% gasahol is a good option. I don't know if the 85% solution is viable but I've been running nothing but 10% gasahol in my 1989 Grand Voyager since it was new. It has a 169,000 miles on it and still runs great, it doesn't even use any oil. All my vehicles get just as good, if not better milage with a 10% blend so maybe a 15% or even a 25% mix would work?? And yes, biodiesel is also a good option. AFAIC, any energy source that is renewable needs to be investigated and exploited if possible.
When and if the country gets serious about biofuels, then maybe they will support a program to grow a better suited crop to make ethanol, but until then what we have is better then nothing.
The requirement to use ethanol in gas is strictly a handout to the red states that are growing corn. It actually increases air pollution from evaporation.
The water absorbtion will hasten the demise of your engine.
And anyone who thinks biodiesel, or any other diesel is the answer, I have a bridge to sell you.
Biodiesel does reduce the particulate emissions by some 50%, so it only causes 50% of the cancers that regular diesels do. Diesels still have no emissions controls-ie filters.
The water absorbtion will hasten the demise of your engine.
And anyone who thinks biodiesel, or any other diesel is the answer, I have a bridge to sell you.
Biodiesel does reduce the particulate emissions by some 50%, so it only causes 50% of the cancers that regular diesels do. Diesels still have no emissions controls-ie filters.
Ethanol is so easily biodegraded that its evaporation into the air is absolutely harmless.
Gotta build a better engine then.
No one thing is the answer - it's a combination of more efficient as well as environmentally friendly technologie that will both alleviate the energy crisis and help the air become cleaner.
That just means they need to put in catalytic converters and filters in the path of the exhaust, which are specific to the characterstics of the particular emissions.
"That just means they need to put in catalytic converters and filters in the path of the exhaust, which are specific to the characterstics of the particular emissions. "
I'll repeat, there is NO emissions controls on diesels in the U.S. The trucking lobby has killed any attempt. Oh yeah, they are requiring lower sulfur fuel by something like 2009, really getting tough on them.
Meanwhile we have an epidemic of asthma and lung cancer.
Actually, I think the lower sulfur diesel comes this year.
Honda has a nice diesel that may come to the US.
Honda has a nice diesel that may come to the US.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter