more smoke and mirrors

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(barbaram @ Apr 6 2007, 03:06 AM) [snapback]418700[/snapback]</div>

There's a lot of controversy over ethanol. Apparently it works in Brazil, although they use cane rather than corn. Clearly, Bush thinks ethanol will not work, or he would not have offered it as a solution. He does not want anything to replace oil. But if he thinks it won't work, maybe it can.

I still prefer electric for city driving, and some sort of renewably-produced liquid fuel for long-distnce driving.

 

Regarding Brazil, I don't know the water and and other eco aspects of large scale cane agriculture for Etoh production, but I do know that massive amounts of natural gas bought (I think from Bolivia) are required. So it is not a carbon solution.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(barbaram @ Apr 6 2007, 05:06 AM) [snapback]418700[/snapback]</div>

I hear the brake are unrealiable and wear out really fast.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Apr 6 2007, 09:14 AM) [snapback]418804[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, but they're renewable.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(barbaram @ Apr 6 2007, 05:06 AM) [snapback]418700[/snapback]</div>

I have never heard ethanol proclaimed as the solution by anyone, but rather a short-term solution to the rising costs of fossil fuels. I am not sure why so many of you are so threatened by Ethanol production? Why demonize ethanol?

 

A lot of the criticisms I hear about ethanol can be solved with technology, and technology based solutions are often the easiest to implement once there's a "critical mass" of need. Ethanol has the advantage of not needing a new infrastructure to deliver the fuel to cars (there are some minor problems ... tanks have to be "ethanol safe" and some engines ... like marine outboards ... cannot use the fuel).

There are studies showing the ratio of energy used to generate a certain amount of ethanol being both good and bad. The "bad" studies usually show that oil-based energy is cheaper, but that's only one consideration (I view the independence from the oil-stream as the most important reason, and others here will view the smaller carbon footprint of ethanol as the most important reason). And there is work being done to use other types of plants like switchgrass; while its hard to get ethanol out of them now with less energy use than you produce, that's a problem only until its solved.

Hawai'i used to produce a lot of sugar cane; the fields are fallow now, the Hawai'ian sugar industry has fallen victim to rising wages and stiff competition from cheaper sources of cane. Perhaps the Hawai'ians should start creating and exporting ethanol.

 

When discussing ethanol, think cellulosic, not maize or corn. Cellulosic ethanol can be made from switch grass and other crops. Maize should be reserved for food.

Renewable electricity (PHEV) is a superior way to go for daily driving, especially when tied to photovoltaics and the grid. Even if ethanol is a constructive alernative it is still a hydrocarbon and greenhouse gases are still dumped into the atmosphere. Rolling tires still generate particulate matter, even if the propulsion system is ZEV.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Apr 6 2007, 12:07 PM) [snapback]418947[/snapback]</div>

I do not believe that ethanol can be transported by pipe.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Apr 6 2007, 02:06 PM) [snapback]418945[/snapback]</div>

Because ethanol is another way to laundry government money to oil companies. EtOH produced from corn only makes sense by heavily subsidizing corn farmers which in turn pay oil companies for fuel and fertilizer.

Corn: the most inefficient way to extract energy from oil.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Apr 6 2007, 02:40 PM) [snapback]418970[/snapback]</div>

If what you say is true why are the oil companies fighting it so hard? Wouldn't they be excited about the most inefficent way to extract energy form oil? One of those rare issues where the envionmental movement and ExxonMobil are teamed up.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Apr 6 2007, 02:44 PM) [snapback]418974[/snapback]</div>

They are not. Hence flexfuel cars and Bush's approval.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Apr 6 2007, 03:40 PM) [snapback]419004[/snapback]</div>

I can tell you first-hand that oil companies are lobbying continually in my midwestern state to suppress the distribution of ethanol. You can deny it, but the fact is oil companies are trying very hard to stop ethanol production and distribution.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Apr 6 2007, 03:45 PM) [snapback]419006[/snapback]</div>

They might be lobbying against it to some level. But certainly not to the level they lobby against more strict CAFE standards, where the CEO publicly denounces it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Apr 6 2007, 04:58 PM) [snapback]419054[/snapback]</div>

I agree with you, but logically why would oil companies not be rushing into ethanol encouragement if it is such an inefficent way to produce fuel?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Apr 6 2007, 12:06 PM) [snapback]418945[/snapback]</div>

There are several issues with ethanol, some of which are inherent, and some of which relate to present ways of making it:

1. If it is made from corn, it diverts a food crop and associated crop-growing land from food to energy. Large-scale corn-based ethanol could drive up food prices by reducing the supply of food.

2. If the biomass is produced by conventional mechanized agriculture, it consumes petroleum as tractor fuel and fertilizer.

3. If naural gas is used to distill the ethanol, that is a fossil-fuel input.

4. It is corrosive, requiring different transportation equipment than oil.

However, there is potential to make ethanol from what is now waste biomass, and there is no reason not to use the ethanol itself as the fuel for distillation. I doubt it could replace petroleum, but if we were using renewable electricity were possible, ethanol could provide energy where electricity is not practical.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Apr 6 2007, 12:07 PM) [snapback]418947[/snapback]</div>

Sugar cane is very labor-intensive. It is practical only where wages are low. That's probably why Brazil can run on ethanol.

On the other hand, when petroleum becomes expensive enough, it will become economical to grow cane for ethanol. That time is probably not too far off. But I doubt that Hawaii is big enough to supply a significant portion of the nation's energy needs.

 

The MPG on ethanol are less than gas. You need more ethanol to attain the same mileage.

While it is renewable, I expect because it is diverted from food production and can always be diverted back, there will always be cost issues. So if ethanol costs the same as gasoline but you need more of it.......

Then there's the maintenance. If ethanol requires more frequent car maintenance and replacement of parts (with the accompanying cost of the labor to do that) you have another cost issue.

Rather than considering ethanol a bridge to another bridge to a possible solution....I'd rather go with high mileage hybrids while we're working on that solution. Possibly EV. I see no reason to stick ethanol between hybrids and EV.

I'm only talking domestic family autos here. For public transortation, commerical transportion, etc. I'm sure there's also an answer and I'm not so sure that's ethanol either.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Apr 6 2007, 02:07 PM) [snapback]418947[/snapback]</div>

I was just in Kaua'i and sugar cane is making a comeback due to the need for ethanol. Ethanol makes more sense if made from sugar cane rather than corn because there is less need to break down polysacharides such as starch, the main sugar component of corn. Also, the fibrous component of sugar cane can be burnt for energy directly.

In short, economically, and in energy terms ethanol makes sense from sugar cane, but not corn.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 6 2007, 02:07 PM) [snapback]418947[/snapback]</div>

There is also the need of natural gas and oil for fertilizer production. Fertilizer production currently uses up to 5% of the world's natural gas production.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Apr 6 2007, 05:45 PM) [snapback]419113[/snapback]</div>

As oil becomes more scarce, it's cost will rise exponentially. There's not reason for sustainably-produced ethanol to follow it up.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Apr 6 2007, 06:39 PM) [snapback]419129[/snapback]</div>

I mentioned that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 6 2007, 09:30 PM) [snapback]419150[/snapback]</div>

But it will. It just has to stay cheaper than gas. But as gas prices rise, the price of ethanol can rise with it. They can justify it with supply and demand, keeping the supply just low enough to barely meet the demand.