Ethanol... why!?!

[TomoHawk]

IMO, the ethanol thing isn't going to do anything about global warming. No matter what fuel you put into your internal-combustion engine, you're still going to get out smoke, soot and CO2! No mater what, it's still the same dirty design that was invented in the 1960s.

It's just a way to keep Detroit from closing down by allowing them to make the same dirty, inefficient wngines that people want to satify their idea that they need a car with 300 HP to go 100 MPH down the local freeway. A Honda hybrid, OTOH, can get 53 MPG, but at 59 MPH.

Fusion? Nuclear power? We might as well have flying cars! :eek: Try cars that run on hydrogen, or no fuel at all, like solar.

[26th-Z]

I'm up on my high horse because of some book I read a couple of months ago. The premise of the book was that we are buying oil from and funding the very terrorists we are at war with. It was a very anti-saudi theme with lots of history about the development of the middle east as testiment to the jihad we face. And then the pitch was made for energy self sufficiency - not for just us, but the rest of the world as well.

At the moment, flex fuel vehicles seem to make the most sense toward reducing our consumption rate of fossil fuels. The distribution infrastructure is already in place, something which kills the hydrogen fuel cell idea. At the moment, hydrogen costs more to produce than is obtained, however it can be produced with Lp gas which is plentiful. Ethanol and methanol don't pack as many btu's per unit as gasoline - a drawback perhaps. In terms of "green earth", ethanol, methanol and the bio diesels make the most sense of what is on the table for consideration. America consumes 70 million barrels of oil per day, I'm told. I don't think we really need to burn the precious stuff and polute our atmosphere if we don't have too.

[JimmyZ]

I'm sure this will get some flak but I don't buy the whole global warming story. It really makes me cringe when I hear people say it. To me, it's just something we've been spoonfed by our government and slanted media.

I DO think that we need to move on to the next generation of fuel however. As China and India come into the modern age and start using more gas prices will only go up. We need options. Supposedly they are building another refinery here in the states but it will take ten years to complete.

Since I was a kid I've been into astronomy and recently had a realization which could explain climate change. (Just a musing) We take for granted that our star's output remains constant when thinking of our climate. There are variable stars with periods of days and years. I wonder if anyone has collected enough data to show what our sun's output has been over the last few millenia? Food for thought.

http://gribbitonline.com/2008/03/03/al-gore-may-be-named-in-possible-global-warming-fraud-suit/

Wonder how the Gore lawsuit is going. It seems that he is being sued for false or exaggerated claims of global warming.

2c

Jim

[spike thomas]

Hey guys and gals, sorry for the inappropriate language. I was pretty steamed about the whole false advertising thing. I myself am not convinced of the "global-warming" issue, but also agree that a new fuel source is needed. I just don't think enough people realize the consequences of these prices. If you make a moderate amount of money (60k-beyond) you probably aren't hurting that bad, depending on you're expenses. others, however, are not so fortunate. I personally know people who will have to consider welfare if prices keep going up. That sounds nice doesn't it. then everybody on welfare can get free medicare and drive nice little hybrids payed for they the US of A. Hm...sounds like debt to me. Depending on the side of the fence you eventually end up on. right back to the world of the rich and poor, only this time we can call it "civilized".

once again, sorry about the cursing.

[Arne]

Here's my thoughts, for what they are worth.

1.) I believe that global warming appears to be real, but am not yet convinced that greenhouse gases are to blame, they could be enhancing a normal cyclical change. Even if greenhouses gases are not the root cause, that's no reason for us to refuse to attempt to mitigate the human effects. Ethanol DOES reduce greenhouse gases.

2.) All the fuel here in Oregon is now mandated to be E10 (10% ethanol). I have not noticed a significant problem in any of my vehicles, including the 240Z. I suspect that a lot of the bad effects that people complain about are from vehicles that are poorly maintained in some way or another. Did a short road trip in the BMW today, got a full 31 MPG, which is the same as I normally get on this trip over the past few years. No noticeable ethanol mileage reduction.

3.) All that said, I don't support the current ethanol programs. It's been pointed out by numerous biologists and agricultural engineers that corn is a lousy source of ethanol. Not because it doesn't make good ethanol, or any problem with the conversion, but because corn - as a crop - is heavily petrochemical dependent. If we truly want to help reduce our dependence on foreign oil (a VERY good idea, IMO), we should be making our ethanol out of something that grows and is harvested with as little petrochemical involvement as possible. Corn is not it. There are numerous other crops that would be better suited.

But - like it or not, ethanol in our fuel is probably here to stay - so clean your fuel system, replace your fuel lines and filters, and make the best of it.

[AZ-240z]

America consumes 70 million barrels of oil per day, I'm told. I don't think we really need to burn the precious stuff and polute our atmosphere if we don't have too.

I have heard this same figure from science community notables, sorry I can't remember specific names, who seemed credible at the time. The interesting thing about this figure is, it apparently is the same rate of consumption of oil America experienced some 30 years ago. This must, if true, speaks pretty loudly to the progress this country has made in energy conservation as I do think our economy has grown a little in the past 30 years.

Dan

[John Coffey]

Ethanol is also an oxygenate and is used to reduce emissions in states like California. Its a much better alternative the MTBE as far as ground water is concerned. Alcohol (methanol, ethanol) based fuels have been around longer then cars have existed and are not a new alternative fuel source.

The benefits and drawbacks of alcohol based fuels are exaggerated by both sides in the debate. They will not reduce our dependence on oil, they will not save the environment, they will not destroy your car's fuel system, and they are not a significant contributer to the increase in world food prices.

Ethanol is a fuel just like gasoline, diesel, and kerosene (JP). It is neither good nor evil.

[TomoHawk]

Ethanol is a fuel just like gasoline, diesel, and kerosene (JP). It is neither good nor evil.

Right. It's the design of the I.C. engine that needs more work. If you want to, you could also say that all those I.C. engines are busy helping global warming with all those radiators doing their thing and dumping all the heat the engine is creating! Why not come up with an I.C engine that generates no heat? (yeah, right) :lick:

thxZ

[mdbrandy]

One big argument that has been being discussed around here (heart of the corn belt - ethanol plant planned just outside of town) involves use of the local groundwater to produce the product. Large increases in ethanol production may have impacts outside just its use as an automobile fuel.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071010120538.htm

As with global warming, and most other hot-button topics, there are basically credible people on both sides of the issue.

[moonpup]

IMO, the ethanol thing isn't going to do anything about global warming. No matter what fuel you put into your internal-combustion engine, you're still going to get out smoke, soot and CO2! No mater what, it's still the same dirty design that was invented in the 1960s.......snip.......

Ok, I waited this long to see if anyone else was as truly amazed as I was to find out that the internal combustion engine was invented in the 1960's! :surprised

Here's a couple historical highlights.

1) 1206: Al-Jazari described a double-acting reciprocating piston pump with a crankshaft-connecting rod mechanism.

2) 17th century: English inventor Sir Samuel Morland used gunpowder to drive water pumps, essentially creating the first rudimentary internal combustion engine.

3) 1806: Swiss engineer François Isaac de Rivaz built an internal combustion engine powered by a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen.

4) 1838: a patent was granted to William Barnet (English). This was the first recorded suggestion of in-cylinder compression.

5) 1854: The Italians Eugenio Barsanti and Felice Matteucci patented the first working efficient internal combustion engine in London (pt. Num. 1072) but did not go into production with it. It was similar in concept to the successful Otto Langen indirect engine, but wasn't so well worked out in detail

6) 1860: Belgian Jean Joseph Etienne Lenoir (1822–1900) produced a gas-fired internal combustion engine similar in appearance to a horizontal double-acting steam beam engine, with cylinders, pistons, connecting rods, and flywheel in which the gas essentially took the place of the steam. This was the first internal combustion engine to be produced in numbers.

Perhaps you meant 1860's.....a hundred years earlier.

[e_racer1999]

i think he may have been referring to the L-series being invented in the 1960s, at least that's what I got from it.

[xray]

Couple thoughts:

1) Corn prices definitely increased when demand for ethanol production increased, first noted way back in 2007

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=biofuels&id=18173&a=

and...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/14/AR2007061402008.html

To say that increasing demand of a product with limited upside supply potential won't increase its price is a bit uninformed. To somehwat blunt this impact, companies are using a wider variety of materials to generated ethanol. Oh, and the Brazil argument is interesting since the growers there are tearing down rainforest to grow more corn and soybeans. greenies seem conveniently OK with this coincidence at the moment....

http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0516-ethanol_amazon.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html

2) E10 and E15 does not have much effect on corroding engine parts. Some say E85 will corrode aluminum and make rubber parts brittle, but I've seen evidence of the former only from oil companies and evidence for the latter only from enviro-greenies. Obviously, bias is on both sides of this issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/27/business/27ethanol.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85_in_standard_engines

http://ethanol.org/video/

3) The energy consumption vs energy to produce debate is interesting. most folks who claim it takes too much energy use older research...

http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm

But, as is the great thing about minimally-regulated capitalism, we're getting better and better at it.....

http://coskataenergy.com/process.html

As the need persists, our skills and technology will make it a more viable alternative or complimentary source of fuel going forward. I doubt it will be the cure-all, and hopefully it's overall environmental impact (crop/food prices, deforestation etc) will be minimized. But, with global warming maybe Alaskan tundra will make good farmland, right?