The ethanol lobby is claiming that mixing a higher percentage blend of ethanol actually increases mileage.
We know at lower levels of ethanol added to gas does increase the octane rating of the gas. At he higher blend levels whether that improves gas mileage is another matter. E85 is horrible for gas mileage but it does reduce our dependency on oil.
Whereas once the oil is gone, it's gone. I don't believe it will ever be gone. More than likely it will become harder to find and become prohibitively expensive to extract. It will become a rare commodity.
They claim the need for Oxygenates does not exist. That is what ethanol is being used for. Along with supposedly cutting our consumption of fossil fuel.
The Clean Air Act requires that RFG contain 2% oxygen, by weight. Over 85% of RFG contains the oxygenate methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and approximately 8% contains ethanol - a domestic fuel-blending stock made from grain and potentially from recycled biomass waste. There is disagreement about the precise role of oxygenates in attaining the RFG air quality benefits although there is evidence from the existing program that increased use of oxygenates results in reduced carbon monoxide emissions, and it appears that additives contribute to reductions in aromatics in fuels and related air benefits. It is possible to formulate gasoline without oxygenates that can attain similar air toxics reductions, but less certain that, given current federal RFG requirements, all fuel blends created without oxygenates could maintain the benefits provided today by oxygenated RFG.
cost of ethanol Ethanol prices today are already substantially higher than gasoline prices. Ethanol is selling in wholesale futures markets for $2.17 per gallon for June delivery, which compares unfavorably to gasoline selling at $2.30 per gallon for the same. That's because ethanol has only three quarters of the energy content of gasoline. Hence, it costs $2.89 to buy enough ethanol in wholesale markets to displace gasoline that costs $2.30 per gallon. Costs would be even higher without the blizzard of federal and state subsidies in play — about $4.00 per gallon of gasoline equivalent, by conservative estimates. (The best numbers we have on ethanol come from a 2002 producer survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That survey reported that it cost an average of $2.53 cents to produce a gallon of ethanol in 2002; $1.57 per gallon for the cost of building ethanol processing facilities and 96 cents per gallon to run those facilities and pay for the corn. The USDA recently reported, however, that the sharp increase in corn prices since then has raised operating costs to $1.45 per gallon, which suggests that ethanol costs somewhere around $3.00 per gallon to produce at the moment. $3.00 * 1.33 = $3.99.) http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8243
consequences of large scale production
Ethanol likewise increases total air pollution according to a thorough review of the literature published in 2005 by Australian academic Robert Niven and a study subsequently published last February by Prof. Mark Jacobsen of Stanford. Niven's review also found a whole host of other environmental problems, such as water pollution and ecological destruction, that would follow from turning America's heartland into a giant fuel-factory. In short, if ethanol is "green," then so is coal.
Other unintended consequences include major increases in dairy, beef, pork, and poultry prices, along with just about anything that uses corn-based sweeteners and other corn related products. That's happening now and will only get worse in the future as corn prices continue their inexorable rise. Fuel efficiency also threatens to make cars lighter than they otherwise would be, and thus less safe. (This last observation is hotly controversial, but can't be dismissed lightly.)
Last ethanol works in Brazil, mainly because they use sugar cane which is much more efficient in producing it using much less land then the USA woudl need to grow the same amount in corn. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil
Nice set of facts but they are based on the assumption that corn is the only plant that can produce ethanol. In today's farms with its refining techniques it is true that corn based ethanol is the majority method in acquiring ethanol. Your article does not discuss new growing or new refining techniques utilizing celulistic ethanol from other plants other than corn in which the ethanol market is betting on the future. I don't put any credence on the above articles as they are narrowly focused based on corn based ethanol.
The pricing given from above for both ethanol and gas were based on May 2007 pricing. Since then the price of oil and gas have gone way up on the upside. You need to recheck those numbers in today's dollars.
In short, if ethanol is "green," then so is coal. Coal is a fossil fuel. Coal is not a renewable source of energy, ethanol is. Third, ethanol burns more cleanly than coal. Coal when burned emits many dangerous pollutants such as sulphur, The real question is which fuel is more greener?? The answer is obviously clear.
Fuel efficiency also threatens to make cars lighter than they otherwise would be, and thus less safe. What a ridiculous statement. The auto manufactures are looking into composite materials which are lighter and pound for pound stronger than steel. As with all of the new fighter aircraft and commercial aircraft, these new composite materials are being utilized to make them lighter, more agile, and more stronger than conventional aircraft. Finally, the auto MFG's are looking into implementing these technologies in autos. That's great. Lighter materials does not necessarily equate to less safe if it's used in context with composite materials.
It astounds me to see garbage being written to try to misinform and sway the public's opinion on alternative renewable energies. We know who they are. As for ethanol, this renewable green energy is not the magic bullet for our future energy needs but it will serve as part of the total solution of our energy independence.
Coal is a fossil fuel. Coal is not a renewable source of energy, ethanol is. Third, ethanol burns more cleanly than coal. Coal when burned emits many dangerous pollutants such as sulphur, The real question is which fuel is more greener?? The answer is obviously clear.
Corn is raised using fossil fuel in several forms. Without anhydrous ammonia made from natural gas there would not be enough corn to run the still. Tractors use dirty diesel that is not regulated by the current ULSD mandate. Many of the new stills are coal fired to save on energy costs. So ethanol is FAR from a clean alternative. It is still debatable if it saves us one ounce of fossil fuel.
The current technology to make ethanol from cellulosic material will require an entirely new facility. So all the ethanol from corn facilities will be obsolete. We did this once before in the 1970s. Close to 100 ethanol production facilities paid for by OUR tax dollars were abandoned and left to rust away, along with the towns they were a part of.
Gagrice, yes it's not perfect. As time as goes on, I am sure that the mix of fuels to produce and refine ethanol will slowly consolidate into a couple. Ethanol is currently in a state of flux and transition, hopefully, it will have some sort of direction soon.
The current technology to make ethanol from cellulosic material will require an entirely new facility. So all the ethanol from corn facilities will be obsolete. True, but, if corn base ethanol is exclusively used for the ethanol fuel industry then I believe that it will serve a small part in our total energy independence. If Cellulistic ethanol comes into fruition then that type of ethanol will play a much larger role and perhaps generate a large dent in our battle against foreign dependence on oil.
My favorite alternative renewable source of energy is the sun to generate electricity for your home, commercial buildings, and perhaps even for your car. A lot of potential there.
Yea the SUN always works- but one important point. It doesnt work for those politicians that want to tax the use of the SUN lol.
I can see it now- "lawmakers on Capitol Hill overwhelmingly voted for a tax on the usage of the SUN. Residents will be charge a SOLAR TAX - based on their solar energy bill usage. Each resident is given an allowance of SOLAR use each month - usage above this allowance will result in city/ county/ and federal fines".
Find a way for the law makers to get rich off the SUN and you will get your renewable resource- LOL
"lawmakers on Capitol Hill overwhelmingly voted for a tax on the usage of the SUN. Residents will be charge a SOLAR TAX - based on their solar energy bill usage. Each resident is given an allowance of SOLAR use each month - usage above this allowance will result in city/ county/ and federal fines".
That is true some of these alternative energies will affect the goverment on how it collects its revenue. It would be difficult though to measure the actual sun's radiation for tax purposes, but they could easily tax on the solar panel or cells themselves. Actually, today the feds and states are giving out tax breaks for those items. It could easily change in the future. You got to love "Uncle Sammy", he always tries to find new ways to collect his cut.
Cellulosic biomass is the way to go. Switchgrass is looking to be the best of all. It can grow in pretty much any type of soil, even poor soil conditions and you can get about 2 crop yields per season. It's more efficient to produce than corn based ethanol and lower emissions overall to produce. It also doesn't cut into our food supply like corn based ethanol does.
Yes I agree cellulosic is the wave of the future... just wish the politicians would know more about it righ tnow. I have yet to hear anyone in the debates talk about the economy or specifics on becoming MORE GREEN. I heard someone the other night indicate we should have a 1 billion dollar bonus to the first company to come up with a car that gets 100/mpg. LOL...... I thought to myself- using what FUEL???? Gasoline / Ethanol/ Solar/ Hydrogen???? I still see big time oil giants obtaining huge footprints in whatever fuel medium is decided upon- thus the RICH get RICHER and the POOR keep paying the RICHER lol. To stay focus on this topic- I tend to think the price of Ethanol (cellulosic) will remain the same price as gas (if not higher) but the environment and cars will get better MPG. What do you think (regarding price)?
100MPG and $1/gallon or less would be nice. Something really cheap, plentiful and renewable.
I think hydrogen would be the best. They already have filling pumps that can create hydrogen on the fly.
The best thing would be able to fill your tank with water and go. It converts the hydrogen on the fly. That will be like 20 years or more from now probably though.
More than likely, it would never happen because of oil company lobbyist.
What they don't say is, you can get up to two harvest a year on switchgrass. So, that same acre can produce as much as 600 gallons.
Another thing not mentioned was, cellulosic ethonol take a lot less enegery to produce that gallow than corn based ethonol does, making it cheaper and more viable. A LOT less impact on the environment than corn based. Right now, corn based ethonol production is very hard on the environment and havign a huge impact on food supply.
"Coal is a fossil fuel. Coal is not a renewable source of energy, ethanol is. Third, ethanol burns more cleanly than coal. Coal when burned emits many dangerous pollutants such as sulphur, The real question is which fuel is more greener?? "
Well, there is a LOT coal. If you process the coal into refined liquid fuel and dispose of the sulphur and other undesirable elements, you can end up with very clean liquid fuel. The high price of petro is starting to make this a more viable option along with perhaps the ethanol solutions, etc.
You might want to look at sasol.com about their clean Turbodiesel and other fuels. Also, syntroleum.com "Syntroleum Processes convert fats, biomass, natural gas, coal, and other carbon bearing feedstocks into ultra-clean and environmentally friendly fuels."
My gut feeling is these might be much better ways to deal with fuel needs for the next hundred years than trying to grow enough biomass to get the energy. But, would we have to strip mine half of the US to get that much coal to convert or would there be better ways?
My gut feeling is these might be much better ways to deal with fuel needs for the next hundred years than trying to grow enough biomass to get the energy. But, would we have to strip mine half of the US to get that much coal to convert or would there be better ways?"
Here we go again. I think you answered it right at least on the last portion of it. Coal and strip mining scar our valuable landscape. Coal is not a renewable energy source. Plus, if it can burn cleanly it will probably play a small role in our total energy future. Maybe some short term benefits but long term wise its not a good energy source. IMHO
In my opinion, the fuel of the future, water is a very strong candidate. Is water a renewable source of energy?? That's a tough question to answer. It's an arguable point. It could be a renewable source of energy. We'll save that argument for another day.
Water is and is not a renewable source. If water is used to create hydrogen, which is then fed through fuel cells and then recombines with oxygen to form water again, then yes, very much so. There is only so much water on the planet however so you can't destroy it like oil. Of course, I don't ever see such a thing as destruction of water to create energy.
I think we will have the hydrogen fuel cell technology down pretty good or at least usable before we will need to depend on some sort of coal refining. Coal is not the answer, at least not for normal everyday consumer use. It will still be needed for power plants and such until we can either build more nuclear or other clean power plants.
I think we will refine the creation of ethanol through cellulosic ethanol but, I still see ethanol as a stepping stone to a much better technology, like hydrogen. Then we will have to deal with producing hydrogen safely, cheaply and cleanly. The technology is already there. They already have systems the size of normal fuel pumps that can create hydrogen on the fly through either solar or electricity.
I still don't understand why they need such large engines for electric hybrids. Why not an engine small enough to just recharge the batteries? It would just kick in when the charge got to 50% or something.
Water is and is not a renewable source. If water is used to create hydrogen, which is then fed through fuel cells and then recombines with oxygen to form water again, then yes, very much so.
All right, I'll argue this today. I Believe that water is a renewable source of energy no matter what even with out the above. Why?? Our lovely mother nature has unique process of evaporation and condensation to replenish every second of the day water. Yep, Rain, snow, sleet and hail. Pretty simple. We have to make sure what mother nature produces and what we store equates to what we use for fuel. Hydrogen by itself is a very unstable gas based on its chemical properties.
Yes and the above use of hydrogen fuel cells will absolutely help. In might make LA instead having smog have humidity from all those hydrogen fuel cell cars (I'm exaggerating). The rest of your statements I completely agree with.
Regarding engine size on hybrids. Your talking now of a pure electric car. Trying to get the big auto makers to change over night is daunting challenge. It's being done but a small scale. The electric motors to just drive the vehicles by themselves are not in high volume production. Design and development time, costs and market acceptance is another issue. Solar can play a role in charging those batteries instead of a small engine. Generally, I concur on what you stated.
In the February issue of Popular Science there is an interesting article on hydrogen driven hypersonic jet or a Green Hyper-jet. It's fantasy at this point but it's interesting that somebody is having thought in developing such a plane. It will travel at mach 5 (3000mph) and it could reach London in two hours theoretically emission free.
The Green Hyper-jet will be powered by liquid hydrogen fuel, which can be made by water.
In going back to renewable water, one other reason that water is renewable is the fact that sewage water can be recycled for fuel or for other uses. Is a hydrogen economy coming?? Maybe, but that's many years down the road from now.
Some stations have labels on the pumps that say, "Contains Ethanol". Some have labels saying, "Contains Up To 10% Ethanol"
Was that just a transitional thing as ethanol-laced gas was added to underground tanks until all the gas is 10% diluted, or are there places using less than 10% mixes?
That type of labeling permits the fuel suppliers to mix up to 10% ethanol, and still legally sell it as a vehicle fuel which may, or may not, have been altered. If the fuel DOES contain 10% ethanol, your vehicle will burn about 5% more than pure gasoline, so, if you pay $2.50 per gallon for the blend, it will ultimately cost the same as if you bought pure gasoline at $2.62 per gallon.
Last I saw in chemistry, cellulosic material does not make ethanol. It makes Methanol. Each is an alcohol, but it takes 2.00 gallons of Methanol, and ONLY 1.50 gallons of ethanol to replace 1.00 gallon of pure gasoline.
There is no such thing as "cellulosic ethanol" PERIOD. Cellulose makes METHANOL (called wood alcohol) which DOES require less energy input to produce, but ALSO supplies less energy when burned. Methanol provides about 25% LESS energy than Ethanol, and Ethanol provides 66% less energy than gasoline.
I am NOT trying to downgrade either, just trying to provide some FACTS amongst a great deal of speculation.
Worst comes to worst, you can drink ethanol, but not methanol !! The prime reason for E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) is to make the E85 ethanol UNDRINKABLE!
Popular Science magazine was probably THE most influential read during my formative years. Unfortunately, some of the technologies published were less than viable. I still love the magazine but some folks have "read-in" their own "take" on stuff. Yes, hydrogen and oxygen can be separated from water, at great expense. (The expense is NOT a conspiracy, but a fact of physics and chemistry - NOT SUBJECT to debate, discussion, or any wishful thinking!! The energy obtained combining hydrogen with oxygen, whether in fuel cells, or as a "fuel" is less than that required for the hydrolysis required to separate them from water.
Whether anyone out there believes, or not, HYDROGEN is not currently a viable fuel for ANYTHING. It requires more energy (read as other fuel) to separate H2 from O2 than is recovered (read as used) in either fuel cells, or direct combustion.
At this point in time, and technology, HYDROGEN is nothing more than a BATTERY, i.e., storage device. :sick:
Its the fast growing fuel with 16 million Flexfuel vehicles worldwide.
Since all gas stations are franchise of Big Oil, Ethanol has to be sold only thru them and they price it only 10 % below gas.
I wish Ethanol makes like ADM, Poet start their own E85 stations and sell it at a slight profit. As gas prices increase, more people may start buying this fuel.
As Chinese and other start buying more vehicles and the price of gas will go up, since the supply can never meet the demand.
No other go, but to bring up alternative fuels and the #1 here is Ethanol. Brazilians are able to make it for a price much lesser than gasolene, we can start importing from them as well.
The bleeding has already started. Subsidies disappear and the value of ethanol disappears. I also read we are selling ethanol to Brazil. I guess they are starting to feel the pain of wasting high priced sugar on fuel.
Georgia ethanol plant sold, at taxpayers' loss
The failed Range Fuels wood-to-ethanol factory in southeastern Georgia that sucked up $65 million in federal and state tax dollars was sold Tuesday for pennies on the dollar to another bio-fuel maker with equally grand plans to transform the alternative energy world.
A reporter would like to speak to someone who buys ethanol-free gasoline. If you consistently purchase ethanol-free gasoline (aka pure gas), and you are willing to speak to a reporter about why you purchase ethanol-free gas rather than the E10 blends sold at most filling stations, please email PR@edmunds.com no later than 10 a.m. Pacific /1 p.m. Eastern Friday, April 20, 2012 with your daytime contact information.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
Ethanol MAY have disappeared from the pump at one local station. At my last fill up, my mileage was up about 10%, which is what the ethanol "costs". I'll have to wait until my next fill up to see if I'm looking at a filling variation (although I'm usually pretty good about being consistent), but I'm looking at mileage numbers I haven't seen out of my car in about 4 years.
I am thinking that Costco gas now has less ethanol than when the subsidy was in place. My mileage went up about 5% on my Nissan PU truck. No different driving style.
The jump in mileage is just too big and too precise to be anything but the lack of ethanol. But it will be another week or so before I'll be able to tell for sure
The signs on our pumps say up to 10% ethanol. I believe the mandate is just 2.9% ethanol required. Ethanol costs a lot to truck to CA from the midwest. Same probably goes for the East Coast. So cutting back to 2.9% could save them money at the distributor level. Ending the subsidy will save the tax payers $6 billion per year.
It would be nice if that "up to" could be eliminated and we had a number displayed that told us exactly how much ethanol is in the mix. Wouldn't that make us better informed consumers so we could better judge the effectiveness (or lack of same) of the ethanol blend?
For example, as far as my experience goes, the "up to 10%" has consistently cost me 10% in mileage across 4 different vehicles. If that actually has been reduced to 2.9% and I'm seeing a 10% gain in mileage, then my understanding of physics may be shaken up. If you add something to gasoline that has less energy per unit volume, you simply cannot get better mileage with the blend.Which is why I suspect that I hit a tank full of non-ethanol gas
The EPA demands you raise unicorns. You must have one thousand unicorns per acres or they will fine you. "But unicorns don't exist," you protest. "Don't worry," the EPA says, "we know this and we're reducing the requirement by 98% so your fines will be lower. Better get started, though. The required number goes up next year."
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
Just another hidden tax added to our gas, by a federal agency that needs to be cut at least in half. Most states now enforce environmental regulations. So the need for a massive EPA is gone.
Politicians can blame the weather for drought. But they cannot blame the weather for government mandates that led farmers to overplant corn this spring for ethanol production, which monopolizes 40 percent of America’s corn yield.
Miles of useless corn fields are boosting the price of corn (almost 23 percent). Restaurateurs, consumers and livestock farmers will suffer while the many of the farmers who planted the corn have subsidized insurance and, so, despite overplanting, will not feel pain.
Farming Turns Good Republicans into RINOS
Republicans like Sen. Roy D. Blunt (MO), Sen. Pat Roberts (KS), Sen. Susan Collins (ME), Rep. Tom Latham (IA), Rep. Tom Cole (OK), Rep. Frank D. Lucas (OK) and House Speaker John Boehner (OH) have run to the people and the press with their reasons for why the taxpayers must bail out farmers.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell lauded a five-year farm bill that the Senate passed in June (which allocates a half-trillion-dollars to food stamp programs and subsidies for select crops like sugar) as: “one of the finest moments in the Senate in recent times in terms of how you pass a bill.”
If Republicans are now the party of just getting things done, we may as well hire a group of third graders to run Washington. Because getting something done is not synonymous with accomplishment.
I could spend an entire year sipping poolside Mai Tais while reading comic books and assert that I “got something done.” I would have done something, but accomplished nothing. This is effectively what Republicans are doing (not accomplishing) in Washington when they ram through farm subsidies that damage our economy.
Comments
We know at lower levels of ethanol added to gas does increase the octane rating of the gas. At he higher blend levels whether that improves gas mileage is another matter. E85 is horrible for gas mileage but it does reduce our dependency on oil.
Whereas once the oil is gone, it's gone.
I don't believe it will ever be gone. More than likely it will become harder to find and become prohibitively expensive to extract. It will become a rare commodity.
The Clean Air Act requires that RFG contain 2% oxygen, by weight. Over 85% of RFG contains the oxygenate methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and approximately 8% contains ethanol - a domestic fuel-blending stock made from grain and potentially from recycled biomass waste. There is disagreement about the precise role of oxygenates in attaining the RFG air quality benefits although there is evidence from the existing program that increased use of oxygenates results in reduced carbon monoxide emissions, and it appears that additives contribute to reductions in aromatics in fuels and related air benefits. It is possible to formulate
gasoline without oxygenates that can attain similar air toxics reductions, but less certain that, given current federal RFG requirements, all fuel blends created without oxygenates could maintain the benefits provided today by oxygenated RFG.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/fuels/oxypanel/rec721.pdf
Ethanol prices today are already substantially higher than gasoline prices. Ethanol is selling in wholesale futures markets for $2.17 per gallon for June delivery, which compares unfavorably to gasoline selling at $2.30 per gallon for the same. That's because ethanol has only three quarters of the energy content of gasoline. Hence, it costs $2.89 to buy enough ethanol in wholesale markets to displace gasoline that costs $2.30 per gallon. Costs would be even higher without the blizzard of federal and state subsidies in play — about $4.00 per gallon of gasoline equivalent, by conservative estimates. (The best numbers we have on ethanol come from a 2002 producer survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That survey reported that it cost an average of $2.53 cents to produce a gallon of ethanol in 2002; $1.57 per gallon for the cost of building ethanol processing facilities and 96 cents per gallon to run those facilities and pay for the corn. The USDA recently reported, however, that the sharp increase in corn prices since then has raised operating costs to $1.45 per gallon, which suggests that ethanol costs somewhere around $3.00 per gallon to produce at the moment. $3.00 * 1.33 = $3.99.) http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8243
consequences of large scale production
Ethanol likewise increases total air pollution according to a thorough review of the literature published in 2005 by Australian academic Robert Niven and a study subsequently published last February by Prof. Mark Jacobsen of Stanford. Niven's review also found a whole host of other environmental problems, such as water pollution and ecological destruction, that would follow from turning America's heartland into a giant fuel-factory. In short, if ethanol is "green," then so is coal.
Other unintended consequences include major increases in dairy, beef, pork, and poultry prices, along with just about anything that uses corn-based sweeteners and other corn related products. That's happening now and will only get worse in the future as corn prices continue their inexorable rise. Fuel efficiency also threatens to make cars lighter than they otherwise would be, and thus less safe. (This last observation is hotly controversial, but can't be dismissed lightly.)
why we don't need it, we have centuries of oil, more then the ME
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8778
Last ethanol works in Brazil, mainly because they use sugar cane which is much more efficient in producing it using much less land then the USA woudl need to grow the same amount in corn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil
The pricing given from above for both ethanol and gas were based on May 2007 pricing. Since then the price of oil and gas have gone way up on the upside. You need to recheck those numbers in today's dollars.
In short, if ethanol is "green," then so is coal.
Coal is a fossil fuel. Coal is not a renewable source of energy, ethanol is. Third, ethanol burns more cleanly than coal. Coal when burned emits many dangerous pollutants such as sulphur, The real question is which fuel is more greener?? The answer is obviously clear.
Fuel efficiency also threatens to make cars lighter than they otherwise would be, and thus less safe.
What a ridiculous statement. The auto manufactures are looking into composite materials which are lighter and pound for pound stronger than steel. As with all of the new fighter aircraft and commercial aircraft, these new composite materials are being utilized to make them lighter, more agile, and more stronger than conventional aircraft. Finally, the auto MFG's are looking into implementing these technologies in autos. That's great. Lighter materials does not necessarily equate to less safe if it's used in context with composite materials.
It astounds me to see garbage being written to try to misinform and sway the public's opinion on alternative renewable energies. We know who they are. As for ethanol, this renewable green energy is not the magic bullet for our future energy needs but it will serve as part of the total solution of our energy independence.
Corn is raised using fossil fuel in several forms. Without anhydrous ammonia made from natural gas there would not be enough corn to run the still. Tractors use dirty diesel that is not regulated by the current ULSD mandate. Many of the new stills are coal fired to save on energy costs. So ethanol is FAR from a clean alternative. It is still debatable if it saves us one ounce of fossil fuel.
The current technology to make ethanol from cellulosic material will require an entirely new facility. So all the ethanol from corn facilities will be obsolete. We did this once before in the 1970s. Close to 100 ethanol production facilities paid for by OUR tax dollars were abandoned and left to rust away, along with the towns they were a part of.
The current technology to make ethanol from cellulosic material will require an entirely new facility. So all the ethanol from corn facilities will be obsolete.
True, but, if corn base ethanol is exclusively used for the ethanol fuel industry then I believe that it will serve a small part in our total energy independence. If Cellulistic ethanol comes into fruition then that type of ethanol will play a much larger role and perhaps generate a large dent in our battle against foreign dependence on oil.
My favorite alternative renewable source of energy is the sun to generate electricity for your home, commercial buildings, and perhaps even for your car. A lot of potential there.
I can see it now- "lawmakers on Capitol Hill overwhelmingly voted for a tax on the usage of the SUN. Residents will be charge a SOLAR TAX - based on their solar energy bill usage. Each resident is given an allowance of SOLAR use each month - usage above this allowance will result in city/ county/ and federal fines".
Find a way for the law makers to get rich off the SUN and you will get your renewable resource- LOL
That is true some of these alternative energies will affect the goverment on how it collects its revenue. It would be difficult though to measure the actual sun's radiation for tax purposes, but they could easily tax on the solar panel or cells themselves. Actually, today the feds and states are giving out tax breaks for those items. It could easily change in the future. You got to love "Uncle Sammy", he always tries to find new ways to collect his cut.
Check this out
To stay focus on this topic- I tend to think the price of Ethanol (cellulosic) will remain the same price as gas (if not higher) but the environment and cars will get better MPG. What do you think (regarding price)?
I think hydrogen would be the best. They already have filling pumps that can create hydrogen on the fly.
The best thing would be able to fill your tank with water and go. It converts the hydrogen on the fly. That will be like 20 years or more from now probably though.
More than likely, it would never happen because of oil company lobbyist.
Switcheroo
Another thing not mentioned was, cellulosic ethonol take a lot less enegery to produce that gallow than corn based ethonol does, making it cheaper and more viable. A LOT less impact on the environment than corn based. Right now, corn based ethonol production is very hard on the environment and havign a huge impact on food supply.
Well, there is a LOT coal. If you process the coal into refined liquid fuel and dispose of the sulphur and other undesirable elements, you can end up with very clean liquid fuel. The high price of petro is starting to make this a more viable option along with perhaps the ethanol solutions, etc.
You might want to look at sasol.com about their clean Turbodiesel and other fuels. Also, syntroleum.com "Syntroleum Processes convert fats, biomass, natural gas, coal, and other carbon bearing feedstocks into ultra-clean and environmentally friendly fuels."
My gut feeling is these might be much better ways to deal with fuel needs for the next hundred years than trying to grow enough biomass to get the energy. But, would we have to strip mine half of the US to get that much coal to convert or would there be better ways?
Here we go again. I think you answered it right at least on the last portion of it. Coal and strip mining scar our valuable landscape. Coal is not a renewable energy source. Plus, if it can burn cleanly it will probably play a small role in our total energy future. Maybe some short term benefits but long term wise its not a good energy source. IMHO
In my opinion, the fuel of the future, water is a very strong candidate. Is water a renewable source of energy?? That's a tough question to answer. It's an arguable point. It could be a renewable source of energy. We'll save that argument for another day.
I think we will have the hydrogen fuel cell technology down pretty good or at least usable before we will need to depend on some sort of coal refining. Coal is not the answer, at least not for normal everyday consumer use. It will still be needed for power plants and such until we can either build more nuclear or other clean power plants.
I think we will refine the creation of ethanol through cellulosic ethanol but, I still see ethanol as a stepping stone to a much better technology, like hydrogen. Then we will have to deal with producing hydrogen safely, cheaply and cleanly. The technology is already there. They already have systems the size of normal fuel pumps that can create hydrogen on the fly through either solar or electricity.
I still don't understand why they need such large engines for electric hybrids. Why not an engine small enough to just recharge the batteries? It would just kick in when the charge got to 50% or something.
All right, I'll argue this today. I Believe that water is a renewable source of energy no matter what even with out the above. Why?? Our lovely mother nature has unique process of evaporation and condensation to replenish every second of the day water. Yep, Rain, snow, sleet and hail. Pretty simple. We have to make sure what mother nature produces and what we store equates to what we use for fuel. Hydrogen by itself is a very unstable gas based on its chemical properties.
Yes and the above use of hydrogen fuel cells will absolutely help. In might make LA instead having smog have humidity from all those hydrogen fuel cell cars (I'm exaggerating). The rest of your statements I completely agree with.
Regarding engine size on hybrids. Your talking now of a pure electric car. Trying to get the big auto makers to change over night is daunting challenge. It's being done but a small scale. The electric motors to just drive the vehicles by themselves are not in high volume production. Design and development time, costs and market acceptance is another issue. Solar can play a role in charging those batteries instead of a small engine. Generally, I concur on what you stated.
(What) Were They Thinking?
The Green Hyper-jet will be powered by liquid hydrogen fuel, which can be made by water.
In going back to renewable water, one other reason that water is renewable is the fact that sewage water can be recycled for fuel or for other uses. Is a hydrogen economy coming?? Maybe, but that's many years down the road from now.
Was that just a transitional thing as ethanol-laced gas was added to underground tanks until all the gas is 10% diluted, or are there places using less than 10% mixes?
Cellulose makes METHANOL (called wood alcohol) which DOES require less energy input to produce, but ALSO supplies less energy when burned. Methanol provides about 25% LESS energy than Ethanol, and Ethanol provides 66% less energy than gasoline.
I am NOT trying to downgrade either, just trying to provide some FACTS amongst a great deal of speculation.
Worst comes to worst, you can drink ethanol, but not methanol !!
The prime reason for E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) is to make the E85 ethanol UNDRINKABLE!
Yes, hydrogen and oxygen can be separated from water, at great expense. (The expense is NOT a conspiracy, but a fact of physics and chemistry - NOT SUBJECT to debate, discussion, or any wishful thinking!!
The energy obtained combining hydrogen with oxygen, whether in fuel cells, or as a "fuel" is less than that required for the hydrolysis required to separate them from water.
Whether anyone out there believes, or not, HYDROGEN is not currently a viable fuel for ANYTHING. It requires more energy (read as other fuel) to separate H2 from O2 than is recovered (read as used) in either fuel cells, or direct combustion.
At this point in time, and technology, HYDROGEN is nothing more than a BATTERY, i.e., storage device. :sick:
Its the fast growing fuel with 16 million Flexfuel vehicles worldwide.
Since all gas stations are franchise of Big Oil, Ethanol has to be sold only thru them and they price it only 10 % below gas.
I wish Ethanol makes like ADM, Poet start their own E85 stations and sell it at a slight profit. As gas prices increase, more people may start buying this fuel.
of gas will go up, since the supply can never meet the demand.
No other go, but to bring up alternative fuels and the #1 here
is Ethanol. Brazilians are able to make it for a price much lesser
than gasolene, we can start importing from them as well.
Georgia ethanol plant sold, at taxpayers' loss
The failed Range Fuels wood-to-ethanol factory in southeastern Georgia that sucked up $65 million in federal and state tax dollars was sold Tuesday for pennies on the dollar to another bio-fuel maker with equally grand plans to transform the alternative energy world.
http://www.ajc.com/business/georgia-ethanol-plant-sold-1289567.html
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
The jump in mileage is just too big and too precise to be anything but the lack of ethanol. But it will be another week or so before I'll be able to tell for sure
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2012-01-03/ethanol-subsidy- -gas-prices/52355056/1
For example, as far as my experience goes, the "up to 10%" has consistently cost me 10% in mileage across 4 different vehicles. If that actually has been reduced to 2.9% and I'm seeing a 10% gain in mileage, then my understanding of physics may be shaken up. If you add something to gasoline that has less energy per unit volume, you simply cannot get better mileage with the blend.Which is why I suspect that I hit a tank full of non-ethanol gas
The EPA demands you raise unicorns. You must have one thousand unicorns per acres or they will fine you. "But unicorns don't exist," you protest. "Don't worry," the EPA says, "we know this and we're reducing the requirement by 98% so your fines will be lower. Better get started, though. The required number goes up next year."
Huh?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/21/regulation-requires-oil-refiners-use-- millions-gallons-fuel-that-is-nonexistent/
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Miles of useless corn fields are boosting the price of corn (almost 23 percent). Restaurateurs, consumers and livestock farmers will suffer while the many of the farmers who planted the corn have subsidized insurance and, so, despite overplanting, will not feel pain.
Farming Turns Good Republicans into RINOS
Republicans like Sen. Roy D. Blunt (MO), Sen. Pat Roberts (KS), Sen. Susan Collins (ME), Rep. Tom Latham (IA), Rep. Tom Cole (OK), Rep. Frank D. Lucas (OK) and House Speaker John Boehner (OH) have run to the people and the press with their reasons for why the taxpayers must bail out farmers.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell lauded a five-year farm bill that the Senate passed in June (which allocates a half-trillion-dollars to food stamp programs and subsidies for select crops like sugar) as: “one of the finest moments in the Senate in recent times in terms of how you pass a bill.”
If Republicans are now the party of just getting things done, we may as well hire a group of third graders to run Washington. Because getting something done is not synonymous with accomplishment.
I could spend an entire year sipping poolside Mai Tais while reading comic books and assert that I “got something done.” I would have done something, but accomplished nothing. This is effectively what Republicans are doing (not accomplishing) in Washington when they ram through farm subsidies that damage our economy.
http://townhall.com/columnists/katiekieffer/2012/08/27/rinos_play_farmville
Interesting read in Forbes yesterday
It's Final -- Corn Ethanol Is Of No Use
In 2013, 40% of the US corn crop went toward producing ethanol. That's way too much for something that doesn't save a drop of oil/gasoline