Mark's Global Warming thread made me think about this. What do you know about ethanol as a viable fuel source? Just start a discussion.
Justin
Printable View
Mark's Global Warming thread made me think about this. What do you know about ethanol as a viable fuel source? Just start a discussion.
Justin
Sugarcane based ethanol = good
Corn based ethanol = bad
BUT this is more an issue of politics then science IMHO
I think any crop based ethanol is a bad solution. This requires growing edible crops for fuel. It doesn’t much make sense to me. Besides, the amount of crop would require tremendous amounts of fertilizer which are petroleum based.
Why not reduce fuel instead of looking for new sources?
I'm more along these lines. Engines can be so much more efficient in what they do without losing much performance (if any at all). I expect that the new research that is going into the Formula 1 cars will blow this wide open, leading the way to hybrid car efficiency but still 100% gasoline.Quote:
Originally Posted by DSailing
Something I think needs to be looked into more is fuels from waste or byproducts. Wouldn't it be fantastic if we could take all that landfill waste and convert it into something we could run our cars on. There is currently a company that has a process for doing just this, but it's still in its very expensive, time consuming infancy. I think this is one of the best solutions because it fixes two constants- the constant need for fuel and the constant production of waste.
Have to agree with DSailing on this one.
Look at grain prices already and we are just at the beginning of the ethanol boom. Even beer is more expensive because of the increase in Ethanol production. I'd rather walk and eat than starve while driving.
Not to mention that Ethanol is a poor fuel source just from an output standpoint. It id far less efficient than petrol.
I do like biodiesel though mostly because it takes a waste product an makes it usable. Plus think of the increase in glycerin soap production, could bring the prices down :)
According to this news release:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/ethanol.html
the energy balance of corn-produced ethanol is quite close, meaning that whether it's a win (more energy out than went into its production) or a loss (the other way around, duh) depends on the details of its production. Here's an excerpt from the above page:
This article (from the MIT News Office) concludes with the note that the research was funded by BP America, and the following pointer for downloading the actual report, from the MIT Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (LFEE):Quote:
Does using corn-based ethanol in place of gasoline actually make energy consumption and emissions go up, as some researchers claim? Why do others reach the opposite conclusion? And how much better would ethanol from "cellulosic" feedstocks such as switchgrass be?
To answer those questions, Tiffany A. Groode, a graduate student in MIT's Department of Mechanical Engineering, performed her own study, supervised by John B. Heywood, Sun Jae Professor of Mechanical Engineering.
Using a technique called life cycle analysis, she looked at energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions associated with all the steps in making and using ethanol, from growing the crop to converting it into ethanol. She limited energy sources to fossil fuels. Finally, she accounted for the different energy contents of gasoline and ethanol. Pure ethanol carries 30 percent less energy per gallon, so more is needed to travel a given distance.
While most studies follow those guidelines, Groode added one more feature: She incorporated the uncertainty associated with the values of many of the inputs. Following a methodology developed by recent MIT graduate Jeremy Johnson (Ph.D. 2006), she used not just one value for each key variable (such as the amount of fertilizer required), but rather a range of values along with the probability that each of those values would occur. In a single analysis, her model runs thousands of times with varying input values, generating a range of results, some more probable than others.
Based on her "most likely" outcomes, she concluded that traveling a kilometer using ethanol does indeed consume more energy than traveling the same distance using gasoline. However, further analyses showed that several factors can easily change the outcome, rendering corn-based ethanol a "greener" fuel.
Quote:
A report on Groode's work, titled "Review of Corn Based Ethanol Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions," can be downloaded at lfee.mit.edu/metadot/index.pl?id=2234.
That's what good Google and 2 minutes did.
Dale
Don’t me wrong, I don’t agree with ethanol, but long term petrol use is unsustainable too. I just don’t see the need to burn food for fuel. I do like the idea of waste or methane, but I think the best solution is reduction. I use solar panels and a wind generator, but these even take petrol in order for creation not to mention the batteries, but I try to reduce my electrical and fuel consumption. I only use lights when needed, ride my bike when feasible, etc…
interesting study. But the stuff will be sold by the gallon. If they are the same price I'd buy the gallon of gas because it will take my car further thats where my involvement in the process ends.
Actually this reminds me of the debate when Mcdonalds had to switch from foam containers to paper. Even though it costs so much less the recycle the foam, while the paper can't be reused they were forced to switch in order to be seen as "environmentally friendly". Thats why I fear we will be stuck driving inefficient corn cars rather than more efficient gas ones (gotta be PC). Perception having more force than reality or facts.
We've got it mixed with standard unleaded over here - this blended fuel is somewhere in the order of 5 cents per litre cheaper than regular unleaded, I think. I asked a couple of friends who are mechanics about whether I could put it in my lawnmower and they recommended against it :shrug:
I thought I read or heard somewhere that grain-based fuel would require too much land to be given over to it to make it viable as a stand-alone solution. Personally I like the sound of hydrogen, but apparently it takes a bit of energy to create that too - I don't want to highjack Justin's thread, but does anyone know if that is true?
James.
Hi-jack away --- just keep with the basic "alternative fuels -- bogus or what?" feel of the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
Justin
Thanks Justin :tu :DQuote:
Originally Posted by jaegerhund
James.
From what I understand, hydrogen is on its way to being feasible, but it's still in those initial stages of being too expensive to implement. I just see the race for better fuels as being like computers. At first they were big, expensive, and almost useless, but in the course of 30 years we have computers that fit in the palm of your hand, do everything but clean your house, and are exponentially more powerful.
It also helps that there is more focus being put on higher efficiency. I don't know if I've said it here, but it's my belief that car manufacturers will put their money where the consumer's concern is. Their concern up until a few years ago has been in making "safer" vehicles. Now that people "know" their cars are safe, people are concerned about fuel.
Isn't one of the beautiful things about fossil fuels that the energy expenditures are based on extraction (drilling , processing, etc) only -- as apposed to bio-fuels where energy has to spent in the creation of the fuel itself as well . I think it would be smarter to steer towards other energy sources --- solar, wind, ? ,etc where a ready-made energy is there for the harvesting.
Justin
Well I would like for MIT to pay for my fuel if they think it is quite close. Last year I bought a new F150 and realized after the fact that it was a Flex Fuel vehicle, meaning it will use Gas or E85 ethanol. When I run a full tank of gas I get 17.5 -almost 18 mpg. When I use Ethanol it drops to 14-14.5 MPG. It doesn't really work out to any advantage. The E85 prices climb right along with gas. Gas is $3.12/Gal and E85 is $2.85/gal. Arizona gives no incentive to use it but it is starting to become more prevalent in the area. In the long run it probably ends up costing more than gas.Quote:
Originally Posted by wdhall
Bob
I have to agree with some of you guys of the inefficiency of ethanol being a viable fuel source, and of course it's a political issue. I believe that the government subsidies in the agriculture aspect of making ethanol is money well wasted, and should be put to use in other "future fuel" markets.
Some cellulostic ethanols are better than others. Biodiesel is also a viable alternative to either, as diesel engines are typically more efficient than gasoline engines, and biodiesel is cheaper to produce than ethanol or gas. In fact, one can build a "backyard" biodiesel fuel plant that uses its own byproducts to run, and all you have to do is add waste plant material and clean it out from time to time.
Electricity as a power source isn't yet viable because batteries and capacitors are too heavy/dangerous at the current levels of technology, but things are looking brighter on that front as nanotech really advances.
Hydrogen, IMO, is a waste of time, as there's no natural source of free hydrogen. It has to be created out of the electrolysis of water, and the laws of thermodynamics insist that the energy we get out of burning hydrogen (turning it back into water) will be less than it to to turn water into hydrogen in the first place. It's only role is as a high energy-density carrier, but that feature also makes it very dangerous. Puncture and ignite a high pressure hydrogen tank (that carries sufficient hydrogen to run a car) and they won't find any part of you and only small parts of your car. By the time we figure out how to make it safe and cheap enough, we'll have figured out battery technology.
I know they've been using bacteria to produce alcohol from plant matter. That would reduce the energy expenditures and factor into both using eth as a fuel and the production of biodiesel.
The problem is that here we have a bias against diesel-powered passenger cars. That's making us go through our fuel supply faster. If we could make diesel engines more popular in passenger cars (manufacturers should offer more and stop jacking up the prices) we would have vehicles that would run on a natural fuel and burn less of it. The only problem with biodiesel is gelling, but I'm sure they can cook up some sort of a stabilizer that will prevent that.
No kidding X I WANTED a diesel when I bought my last van but they wanted over five grand for it and only offered a huge diesel engine that could tow a house. I used to have a nice little diesel car back in the eighties. Real cheap to run, got over forty to the gallon and seated five adults comfortably with trunk room too. I keep my fingers crossed that wee will get some good offerings in this area before I need a car again.
Of course its real easy to use bacteria to make methane gas, I've alway thought we should get much better at harnesing that for fuel. Wouldn't it be nice if every house was heated or cooled at least in part by its own septic system.
OK Justin, I'm going into the uber-hijack mode here, but...
Ethynol, The only thing I know about it is that it sucks up water and caused a bunch of breakdowns in boat motors here.
I remember reading a story that I think might interest everyone about a contest to build a production ready car that gets 100mpg
I imagine the sting of $3.80 at the pump won't hurt as much while we find a better alternative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildtim
I don't understand that either. I've been wanting a Jetta TDI for a long time because of the great mileage it gets, but VW charges an extra $8k for it! Every time I see one of those old Mercedes diesels I think to myself that I should buy one.
Here in Sweden we make ethanol from trees!
I heard a story about food riots in parts of the world could be directly connected to the recent step up in the growing of corn for ethanol and that the recent skyrocketing of food prices are also linked to this! I'll see if I can't find the story.
here is the link:http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=412984
My father used to always tell me that when government solves one problem they create seven more!
I guess the proof is in the pudding huh?
Well -- I don't much about this stuff but I suppose beyond all the conspiracies that one can dream up about why oil production and use has been the key for the last hundred years, oil and fossil fuels are a pretty good source of energy ---with problems of course but few by comparison to alternatives.
Justin
Justin,
One thing you should be particularly concerned with is the fact that the ethanol being produced up in Iowa negatively affects our gulf waters. I saw this on a CNN special and maybe someone can fill in the gaps as I don't remember verbatim, but it goes something like: Their ethanol plants rely on coal for production which produces waste and they designate space for corn. Somehow the soil becomes toxic to some degree and is drained into the Mississippi which travels down and emties into the Gulf of Mexico creating a "dead zone" where no marine life can survive because of the lack of oxygen and abundance on toxins in the water. The dead zone, which already exists, begins at the shoreline and moves outward as things get progressively worse.
On another note,the April 7, 2008 issue of TIME dedicated it's cover story to "The Clean Energy Myth" that everyone should read because it proves more or less that ethanol is pure s***, based on it's short and long-term impact on carbon emissions increased by mass deforestation, inflation in food prices, and inability to significantly decrease our dependence on imported oil." "The grain it takes to fill an SUV tank with ethanol could feed a person for a year." "Using land to grow fuel leads to the destruction of forests, wetlands and grasslands that store enormous amounts of carbon."
They do a good job of painting a picture of the enormity of the problems that ethanol creates. Check it out, vote no for ethanol. I'd like more info on hydrogen as it seems like a great idea with few drawbacks, but I may be wrong.
I think you guys have the ethanol/hydrogen issues covered.
But as Tim mentioned there are other factors to the alternative energy crisis.
Living in Kansas has shown me that there are many natural resources not being taken advantage of. Wind farms are being implemented but very minimally so, much open space could be made use of that is just laying in wait currently (cattle pastures and unfarmable areas are good candidates).
There are new studies involving algae that soak up sunlight and store the resulting chemical energy that can then be used as a fuel source, but they are not backed by anyone with the financial power to make them work on the scale we need.
Many people could be installing passive water heaters to minimize natural gas use. They are essentially plastic tubs of water that are heated by the sun so that you don't have to waste as much gas heating it from cold to hot, only from warm to hot.
There is some work going on in passive heating and cooling for houses as well. The principle is that water is circulated through pipes that are buried underground where the temperature is like 60 degrees year-round (hotter than the ambient air in the winter but colder than the ambient air in summer). Then you use the temp. of that water as a starting place for the heating/cooling system of the house thus saving the energy that would have been spent getting the air to that initial ground temp.
I have no idea whether these will turn out to be bogus or not, but they all sound good and solid. Anyone else have knowledge along these lines?