Now that ethanol has had a chance to be viewed seriously as an alternative fuel, several drawbacks have been noticed. There is little to no infrastructure to store and transport ethanol. Ethanol production has had a dramatic impact on the cost of the feed stocks it is made from resulting in dramatic increases in food costs. Pure ethanols require specially designed engines to run it. Ethanol has less energy per unit volume compared to gasoline, so you get less mileage per tank. Ethanol is not totally clean burning, you still get pollution it's just has different constituents. The energy cost of producing ethanol is significant. Some articles say it cost more energy than it provides, and another article stated it cost 8 gallons of oil to provide the energy to produce 10 gallons of ethanol. Does anyone have some confirmation/data on this point? Last and not least, the ethanol industry requires significant government subsidy to be commercially viable. So it looks like fossil fuels are still the most viable option unless something changes to reduce the list of drawbacks.
Ethanol Fad Fuel or serious alternate to oil?
- Thread starter burlboy
- Start date
Matter cannot be created or destroyed, meaning that everything is neutral, if you factor in the lifetime of the Earth as a whole.Moraff said:
However, fossil fuels release carbon that have been removed from the cycle for millions of years.
The only issue that matters with regards to Ethanol is EROEI, energy returned on energy invested. When oil comes spurting out of a Saudi Arabian well it can yield well over 100 times the energy required to extract it. In Brazil the abundant sugar crop gives ethanol a positive EROEI, but corn ethanol has an EROEI less than 1 and is thus no more an energy source than Duracell batteries are.
The "carbon neutral" argument is ludicrous. If corn is grown to produce fuel all sorts of fossil fuels will be used to fertilize and water it. While cheap oil is still available corn farmers are having a great time getting record prices for their crops so we can play at this "alternative fuels" charade. In a few years we'll start having to choose between eating and putting ethanol in the SUVs of the ruling elite. I wouldn't count on eating much then.
The "carbon neutral" argument is ludicrous. If corn is grown to produce fuel all sorts of fossil fuels will be used to fertilize and water it. While cheap oil is still available corn farmers are having a great time getting record prices for their crops so we can play at this "alternative fuels" charade. In a few years we'll start having to choose between eating and putting ethanol in the SUVs of the ruling elite. I wouldn't count on eating much then.
E
enduser1
The fact that half of Brazil is running their Flex cars on ethanol means its here to stay.
Flexies can run on gasoline and/or ethanol.
Ethanol is about half the price of gas in Brazil.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5829046/
A lot of negatives you hear about ethanol comes from oil people that are scared to death their income is gonna dry up. Dont buy into that!
EDIT: Flex cars are outselling regular gasoline cars in Brazil right now: http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=1030
Flexies can run on gasoline and/or ethanol.
Ethanol is about half the price of gas in Brazil.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5829046/
A lot of negatives you hear about ethanol comes from oil people that are scared to death their income is gonna dry up. Dont buy into that!
EDIT: Flex cars are outselling regular gasoline cars in Brazil right now: http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=1030
Yeah, who said you need a "special" engine to run ethanol? Jesus, most GM cars in the US are now flex fuel......and no, they don't have TWO engines.
A big misconception is the assertiion that electric vehicles are not that environmentally friendly. Dude, only 24% of our electricity comes from fossil fuel powered generators and if people would get their head out of their asses and let us build more nuclear stations, we'd be a lot better off.
(here's the link showing that 24%) http://www.opg.com/power/
Anyone who says ethanol is NOT a viable alternative to fossil fuels is an ass....the DIFFERENCE between ethanol and fossil fuels
- while it doesn't take much energy to remove oil from the ground, it DOES take a lot of energy to move it from source to market and has MAJOR environmental impact when accidents happen (Exxon Valdex??)
- Middle East...need I say more? (would you rather pay a farmer in Ontario or a shiek in arabia?)
and most of all ETHANOL IS A RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE!!!
If you want a great alternative fuel, BIO diesel is awesome because it changes what was once garbage oil, into a fuel with little energy spent cleaning it for use in engines.
A big misconception is the assertiion that electric vehicles are not that environmentally friendly. Dude, only 24% of our electricity comes from fossil fuel powered generators and if people would get their head out of their asses and let us build more nuclear stations, we'd be a lot better off.
(here's the link showing that 24%) http://www.opg.com/power/
Anyone who says ethanol is NOT a viable alternative to fossil fuels is an ass....the DIFFERENCE between ethanol and fossil fuels
- while it doesn't take much energy to remove oil from the ground, it DOES take a lot of energy to move it from source to market and has MAJOR environmental impact when accidents happen (Exxon Valdex??)
- Middle East...need I say more? (would you rather pay a farmer in Ontario or a shiek in arabia?)
and most of all ETHANOL IS A RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE!!!
If you want a great alternative fuel, BIO diesel is awesome because it changes what was once garbage oil, into a fuel with little energy spent cleaning it for use in engines.
Esco! said:
Thanks for backing up my point that the EROEI positive ethanol that Brazil's abundant sugar crop makes possible is completely different from the idiotic energy-sink corn ethanol that America's corn growing lobby is so vigorously promoting.
If only we could turn that sort of bullshit into useable methane our energy problems would be solved forever.Esco! said:
In ethanol they seem to be so far, yesrubmeister100 said:
Thats because of that prick Chavez, who sells it for next to nothing.rubmeister100 said:
Its still up for debate if there will be enough arable land to sustain enough corn production to meet North-America's ethanol needs.rubmeister100 said:
I think its a challenge that will eventually be overcome.
I agree potential for ethanol is good, but I dont understand what you mean by "net energy"rubmeister100 said:
I think its more then that, I think ethanol is our only hope so far.rubmeister100 said:
Nuclear, hydrogen and electricity have too many drawbacks.
Ethanol as a fuel only exists because of government incentives, it takes as much fossil fuel to produce as it does just to run the car on fossil fuel.
The arguement that electric cars are good because only 30% of Ontario's energy comes from coal is false, because 100% of Ontario's incremental electricity comes from coal. When you switch your car from gas to electric, that is a little more electricity that Hydro have to make. They already run the hydro dams and nuclear as much as they can, they only run coal when they need more power. So when you switch your car, they just burn a little more coal, so you are now powering your car on coal, with 75% of the coals energy wasted on transmission. So it would be better for the environment if you just had a coal boiler in your car.
Actually, it is not quite as bad as that. If you recharge your car only at night when demand is lowest, the incremental power would come from burning gas, not coal. There might even be times when no gas is burned, when hydro and nuclear cover it? Then it would be good, because they can't store that power, so then your car is running on clean power that would otherwise be wasted. The other reason to go electric would be so that the infrastructure is in place for in the future when incremental power comes from nuclear, then it really is better than gasoline.
The arguement that electric cars are good because only 30% of Ontario's energy comes from coal is false, because 100% of Ontario's incremental electricity comes from coal. When you switch your car from gas to electric, that is a little more electricity that Hydro have to make. They already run the hydro dams and nuclear as much as they can, they only run coal when they need more power. So when you switch your car, they just burn a little more coal, so you are now powering your car on coal, with 75% of the coals energy wasted on transmission. So it would be better for the environment if you just had a coal boiler in your car.
Actually, it is not quite as bad as that. If you recharge your car only at night when demand is lowest, the incremental power would come from burning gas, not coal. There might even be times when no gas is burned, when hydro and nuclear cover it? Then it would be good, because they can't store that power, so then your car is running on clean power that would otherwise be wasted. The other reason to go electric would be so that the infrastructure is in place for in the future when incremental power comes from nuclear, then it really is better than gasoline.
OK Rub, but can't you also say the same about crude oil?
While it is relatively easy to get it out of the ground once the well is drilled, you still had/have to:
Use energy to find the deposit
Use energy to transport the drilling equipment to the site
use energy to transport the people to and from the site
Use energy to produce the materials used to drill the well, cap it, and pump it
Use energy to produce the pipeline to transport the oil (in the case of the middle east) to the seaport
Use energy to produce the ship to carry the oil
Use energy via the ship to transport the oil
Use energy to offload the ship and transport the oil to the refinery
Energy to refine the oil into it's various components
etc etc etc.
Now you have to agree, that the shipping to the retail point is the same whether you're shipping ethanol or gasoline. Same goes for the pumping and sale of both liquids.
Now the volume of materials that can be produced from 1 barrel of crude oil may be greater than that of vegetable oils/ethanol but producing ethanol locally HAS to be more efficient than shipping something from halfway around the world...no?
Ok, here's a good article on it, about halfway down it explains some of the benefits of ethanol production....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol
Hell, Japan is using sake to produce ethanol? The bastards...if they have so much send it here, we'll drink it!!!
They also talk about exploring the production of ethanol from cellulose (corn cobs, SAWDUST etc)......
I say while ethanol production now may not be the perfect answer, it does have possibilities. To simply ignore researching ways of increasing the production of alternative fuels because they aren't efficient now is no different than when they first developed the internal combustion engine. Gasoline production was awfully expensive so was the production of the vehicles but with new technologies, there is now a vehicle for every man woman and newborn in North America.
While it is relatively easy to get it out of the ground once the well is drilled, you still had/have to:
Use energy to find the deposit
Use energy to transport the drilling equipment to the site
use energy to transport the people to and from the site
Use energy to produce the materials used to drill the well, cap it, and pump it
Use energy to produce the pipeline to transport the oil (in the case of the middle east) to the seaport
Use energy to produce the ship to carry the oil
Use energy via the ship to transport the oil
Use energy to offload the ship and transport the oil to the refinery
Energy to refine the oil into it's various components
etc etc etc.
Now you have to agree, that the shipping to the retail point is the same whether you're shipping ethanol or gasoline. Same goes for the pumping and sale of both liquids.
Now the volume of materials that can be produced from 1 barrel of crude oil may be greater than that of vegetable oils/ethanol but producing ethanol locally HAS to be more efficient than shipping something from halfway around the world...no?
Ok, here's a good article on it, about halfway down it explains some of the benefits of ethanol production....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol
Hell, Japan is using sake to produce ethanol? The bastards...if they have so much send it here, we'll drink it!!!
They also talk about exploring the production of ethanol from cellulose (corn cobs, SAWDUST etc)......
I say while ethanol production now may not be the perfect answer, it does have possibilities. To simply ignore researching ways of increasing the production of alternative fuels because they aren't efficient now is no different than when they first developed the internal combustion engine. Gasoline production was awfully expensive so was the production of the vehicles but with new technologies, there is now a vehicle for every man woman and newborn in North America.
The big advantage of an electric motor over ANY piston engine (whether you're talking gasoline, diesel, CNG, Propane or Alcohol) is efficiency. A good electric motor gets 80-90% efficiency. And it also has the advantage of consuming no energy when 'idling' and can be set up to generate energy on decelleration. The best piston engines get 60% efficiency at best... and only at the right RPM.
Plus, an electric motor can be integrated into the wheel hub, bringing driveline losses down to nothing, in theory.
In contrast, piston engines need transmissions and gears to keep them operating in an optimum range. And by extension differentials and drive shafts are also required. All this hurts efficiency by 5-20%.... 5% being a FWD setup with a manual transmission, 20% being an AWD setup with an older 4 speed automatic.
For that reason, the future is NOT ethanol -which only has 1/3 the energy for a given quantity when compared to gasoline.
Diesel makes more sense than ethanol for the simple reason that you can run a diesel engine on just about any oil... including vegetable oil.
(the first diesel engine demonstrated by Ruloph Diesel ran on peanut oil)
The future is an electric car with a solar panel built into the roof.
Here is a cheap, low-end version of what I'm talking about:
http://www.zapworld.com/ZAPWorld.aspx?id=3804
This is just beginning to become viable now... but some work needs to be done to get better bang for the buck on the battery side and improve the efficiency on the solar panel side.
Plus, an electric motor can be integrated into the wheel hub, bringing driveline losses down to nothing, in theory.
In contrast, piston engines need transmissions and gears to keep them operating in an optimum range. And by extension differentials and drive shafts are also required. All this hurts efficiency by 5-20%.... 5% being a FWD setup with a manual transmission, 20% being an AWD setup with an older 4 speed automatic.
For that reason, the future is NOT ethanol -which only has 1/3 the energy for a given quantity when compared to gasoline.
Diesel makes more sense than ethanol for the simple reason that you can run a diesel engine on just about any oil... including vegetable oil.
(the first diesel engine demonstrated by Ruloph Diesel ran on peanut oil)
The future is an electric car with a solar panel built into the roof.
Here is a cheap, low-end version of what I'm talking about:
http://www.zapworld.com/ZAPWorld.aspx?id=3804
This is just beginning to become viable now... but some work needs to be done to get better bang for the buck on the battery side and improve the efficiency on the solar panel side.
Which brings up another problem with our society that I see MUST be addressed: wasted energyrubmeister100 said:
I read somewhere that city planners are now investigating the viability of creating giant "heat sinks" underground where solar and other heat produced during the summer months can be stored and then released during the winter months. This heat energy can be used to heat all the buildings during the winter, using heat energy produced during the summer.
This brings up another point: look at all the companies who spend millions of dollars getting rid of excess heat and dumping it into our environment and then there are other companies who spend millions of dollars creating heat for their purposes......Just think of all the ethanol that can be "cooked" just from the waste heat during the production of ONE ingot of steel?
Another thing that I see that needs to be addressed immediately and if the government really wanted to do something for our society they'd take a good long look at it: is the waste created by duplication and unnecessary transportation of goods.
A great example of this is: I was working up in Gravenhurst last spring and I continually saw trucks from lumber yards delivering framing material to sites in Toronto and saw Trucks from lumber yards in Toronto delivering goods to Barrie and points north. WTF is up with that? Situations like this has to be the stupidest system ever invented by man.
Edited: I would just like to add that I realize that it is incredibly naive of me to even THINK that two companies would ever enter into an agreement where one's waste would be another's benefit and that two lumber yards would ever dare trade off delivery of materials.....
Here's an analogy that I think sums up the issues surrounding ethanol and other alternative fuels:
When humanity first figured out how to use petroleum to industrialize in the late 1800s, it was like we received an enormous inheritance. It was a massive amount of surplus energy, (literally millions of years worth of stored solar power) enough to build countless factories, cities and highways and to fuel endless cars and trucks to drive on them. This past century we have all been like young drunk millionaires pissing our trust-fund away. Guess what? That account is running low.
Ethanol, hydrogen, solar. These are more analgous to hard earned money from a minimum wage job. Yes, with a lot of effort some energy can be obtained, but we'll have to bust our asses for it. Forget about partying like a degenerate trust fund baby (i.e., commuting 100 miles a day in SUVs, buying cheap goods shipped from China, living in urban high-rises). The future is going to be about working hard.
When humanity first figured out how to use petroleum to industrialize in the late 1800s, it was like we received an enormous inheritance. It was a massive amount of surplus energy, (literally millions of years worth of stored solar power) enough to build countless factories, cities and highways and to fuel endless cars and trucks to drive on them. This past century we have all been like young drunk millionaires pissing our trust-fund away. Guess what? That account is running low.
Ethanol, hydrogen, solar. These are more analgous to hard earned money from a minimum wage job. Yes, with a lot of effort some energy can be obtained, but we'll have to bust our asses for it. Forget about partying like a degenerate trust fund baby (i.e., commuting 100 miles a day in SUVs, buying cheap goods shipped from China, living in urban high-rises). The future is going to be about working hard.
GREAT analogy Roger, and you've brought up another idiotic practice that has to be stopped: 100 mile commutes. This has GOT to be the second stupidest practice we north americans do....
For eg: a friend of mine bought a place in Whitby and his wife works in Etobicoke. Why? Because he said it takes him LESS time to travel from Whitby to the west end of Toronto than to travel from Central Mississauga to the west end of toronto...When he said this I asked him: Where do you get your crack from because it HAS to be some of the best shit on the planet in order to make you think that.....
For eg: a friend of mine bought a place in Whitby and his wife works in Etobicoke. Why? Because he said it takes him LESS time to travel from Whitby to the west end of Toronto than to travel from Central Mississauga to the west end of toronto...When he said this I asked him: Where do you get your crack from because it HAS to be some of the best shit on the planet in order to make you think that.....
