Post by: roo_ster on July 17, 2007, 05:47:38 AM
Quote from: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/07/the_law_of_unintended_conseque_1.cfm
IF YOU'VE been watching hte commodity markets, you know that prices of certain food staples, especially maize, have been rising in recent months. That's because people want to use them for energy, and not to power people or horses. The push into biofuels is diverting commodities from feedstock to fuelstock.
That is bad news for the developing world, where the poor can ill-afford to pay more for basic staples like grain that are traded in global markets. The Financial Times reports that the UN now says it can no longer afford to feed the nearly 100 million starving people it helps each year with the currently allocated food budget.
A tragic unforeseen side effect (although presumably one that could be alleviated with a bigger budget.) But not quite unforeseen: as one acquaintance pointed out, during a dinner where guests were lauding the potential of renewable biofuels, "If you want to know what happens when people get a good way to convert cellulose into pure energy, just ask Jared Diamond."
Now I'm wondering what the currently invisible downside of massive solar panel installations might be . . .
At the grocery store, milk is up $0.75 to $1.00 from a couple years back. We can save the cost of a Sam's Club membership in 20 weeks just by buying milk there and not in the grocey store (~$1 less per gal).That is bad news for the developing world, where the poor can ill-afford to pay more for basic staples like grain that are traded in global markets. The Financial Times reports that the UN now says it can no longer afford to feed the nearly 100 million starving people it helps each year with the currently allocated food budget.
A tragic unforeseen side effect (although presumably one that could be alleviated with a bigger budget.) But not quite unforeseen: as one acquaintance pointed out, during a dinner where guests were lauding the potential of renewable biofuels, "If you want to know what happens when people get a good way to convert cellulose into pure energy, just ask Jared Diamond."
Now I'm wondering what the currently invisible downside of massive solar panel installations might be . . .
Burning food for fuel is a BAD THING. Subsidizing it is sand-poundingly stupid policy.
Post by: K Frame on July 17, 2007, 05:52:05 AM
It's all those bastards who want to gas up on Silver Queen sweet corn...
Post by: Manedwolf on July 17, 2007, 05:53:19 AM
They're expecting milk to be $5 a gallon by fall, I'd heard. Yeah, this is gonna end well...
Why didn't we do what Brazil did, and focus on high-yield sugarcane for ethanol production? It seems to be working well for them.
Post by: roo_ster on July 17, 2007, 05:57:10 AM
But the ethanol subsidy, the ethanol oxegenate requirement, and the increased complexity of getting it all to the gas station are much greater drivers than the cost of a barrel of oil.
It would be cheaper, if we eliminated the corn ethanol subsidies and tariffs on Brazilian cane sugar & ethanol, to import our ethanol & cane sugar from Brazil.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 17, 2007, 06:01:16 AM
I think the United States really, really needs to have a strong stake down in Brazil. And besides...right now, we import energy from nations that are downright hostile in the middle east. Why not import energy from an actually friendly ally with a lot of resources that's also a lot closer?
Places with major international business-center cities of 20 million people make good allies! Sao Paulo alone has 32 malls, with a strong American brand presence from Starbucks to Barnes & Noble to Ralph Lauren. Talk about a growth market opportunity for American business, if we lock in energy agreements as well!
Post by: K Frame on July 17, 2007, 06:13:55 AM
I normally drink soymilk when I drink milk.
Post by: charby on July 17, 2007, 06:38:05 AM
Because sugarcane doesn't grow in the Midwest, I don't believe.
ding! ding! winner winner chicken dinner, so Pat tell us what Mike just won...
Corn is a horrible source for ethanol, but its a start. Cellulose ethanol will make more economically and environmental sense in the future when the manufacturing process is perfected, Midwest is a great place to grow plants for cellulose ethanol production, so are the forests out east, south and west.
Sugar cane is a perennial crop, but it requires the same inputs are corn to get it to grow like it does, Brazil also has a dirty little secret that ethanol production is heavily subsidized.
Biofuel can be made from animal and human wastes, etc.
With subsidized crops we may not see the price at the pump or grocery store, but we do pay with our taxes.
-Charby
Post by: Moondoggie on July 17, 2007, 06:41:21 AM
I agree that it's stupid to burn our food.
I also think it's stupid that we haven't built a nuclear power plant in decades.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 17, 2007, 06:45:09 AM
Post by: K Frame on July 17, 2007, 06:49:30 AM
We already do grow substantial amounts of sugar cane in the gulf states, mainly Florida and Louisiana.
But, guess what...
Sugar cane is food...
"Corn is a horrible source for ethanol, but its a start."
Finally, someone realizes the fricking obvious!
Corn is JUST A START.
There are other methods that don't use food materials that are looking pretty promising.
WHY are American efforts centered on corn right now?
Because the United States produces over HALF of the world's supply of corn, meaning it's available in great abundance.
Post by: Thor on July 17, 2007, 07:14:50 AM
http://encarta.msn.com/media_461575331_761572256_-1_1/Air_Pollution_in_Cubat%C3%A3o_Brazil.html
I'm thinking that we'll face similar problems down the road, not to mention the fact that ethanol just doesn't perform as well as petroleum products.
Post by: Sindawe on July 17, 2007, 07:27:07 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 17, 2007, 07:31:36 AM
If it ain't George W's fault, it's ethanol's.
Getting somewhat jaded in hearing that, and not just because I'm a farm boy from a farming family. Art even surprises me with his take on the business, because I figure of all people he'd research both sides of the equation. Maybe not.
Regardless, I wouldn't deny the Mexicans my field corn for their tortillas, if that's what they really want. My family's angus beef like it, so no reason the beaners have to use higher grade white corn and sweet corn in their tortillas, either. Of course, if they just stayed home on their side of the Rio Grande and grew their own grain crops, that would be a bonus.
http://www.foodandfuelamerica.com/2007/07/grain-prices-not-at-fault-for-food.html
Of course, some even say beer costs are higher due to corn prices:
http://www.foodandfuelamerica.com/2007/07/why-beer-prices-are-higher-tale-of-two.html
For those who didn't see it mentioned before here, CORN IS JUST A START to wean us off the Jihadistan petroleum teat. It isn't the end game, nor will it fuel every vehicle in the country. Since we Americans have been grain alcoholics from the Colonial days, it was a springboard technology, getting the ball rolling sooner rather than later. And the ball actually started rolling in the 1990's, as far as Big 3 flex-fuel vehicles are concerned, so the surprise to some is somewhat of a delayed effect, IMHO. All the new ethanol plants in my neck of the woods were built with provisions to switch over to cellulosic ethanol production later on.
Of course, every gallon of gasoline I don't burn in my E-85 S-10 will go to fill up some fat-assed H2 in Hollywood, and that vehicle's owner will print out a carbon credit or two to ease his conscience before moving on, I'm sure...
Post by: K Frame on July 17, 2007, 07:41:07 AM
Here is an idea (and not fully fleshed out since it just occured to me). Rather than using food crops to generate ethanol, use something that grows fast, is abundant and generally considered a pest. Like Kudzu and Water hyacinth. Break down the cellulose via Cellulolysis with microbes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol
That's in the works.
The reason why they're using corn as the starting point is because the cellulose reduction method is still having some major kinks worked out and corn is already cultivated in a manner that makes it cheap and easy to harvest.
Post by: ilbob on July 17, 2007, 08:02:50 AM
The reason we can't open our markets to Brazilian ethanol is that the Brazilian government heavily subsidizes ethanol production, much as ours do. What possible reason could they have to subsidze us?
Sugar beets and cane may be a good idea, but there is heavy government meddling in that market too.
Post by: The Rabbi on July 17, 2007, 08:36:06 AM
Maybe this will spur someone to look at ag policy in this country and eliminate all the subsidies, price supports, and other bogus schemes.
Post by: nico on July 17, 2007, 08:38:37 AM
it's illegal to grow any hemp species (even the ones that can't be used for drugs).
Post by: K Frame on July 17, 2007, 08:38:45 AM
Local governments are expecting nearly a half million additional acres to be planted into corn in the Bay watershed area over the next few years, and they are REALLY worried what that is going to do to the Bay's water quality.
Post by: charby on July 17, 2007, 08:38:49 AM
But fortunately we have not maxed out our capacity to grow corn. I'll bet the gov't is still paying farmers somewhere to keep their land out of production.
Maybe this will spur someone to look at ag policy in this country and eliminate all the subsidies, price supports, and other bogus schemes.
Maybe this will spur someone to look at ag policy in this country and eliminate all the subsidies, price supports, and other bogus schemes.
They pay to keep highly erodible and marginal lands out of production, many of them have recently or are going to recently be able to go back into production. Here in Iowa some have and some haven't. I think the smart farmers knows what happens when corn prices are skyrocketed, it sky rockets back down and lots of people lose their asses.
Farm land will be cheap again, cheap like it was when the ag crisis happend.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 17, 2007, 08:43:46 AM
Quote
I've seen a few articles over the last few years that claimed hemp is a much more efficient source for ethanol than corn
Most of the articles I've seen seem to be by hemp-as-religion potheads who want fields of hemp to help conceal their little corners of headtrip weed.
NH just defeated a measure that the potheads put forward that would have used state funds to establish a regulatory agency for legalized hemp growing inspection. Not a single farmer was there, just what looked like relics from woodstock.
Hemp is not All That. It is, however, nearly a religion to some hippies.
Post by: roo_ster on July 17, 2007, 08:51:45 AM
Couldn't we grow sugar cane in LA and FL?
I agree that it's stupid to burn our food.
I also think it's stupid that we haven't built a nuclear power plant in decades.
We do grow sugar cane in FL. It is not economically viable without VERY restrictive limits on sugar imports. Here's the deal:I agree that it's stupid to burn our food.
I also think it's stupid that we haven't built a nuclear power plant in decades.
1. Restriction on the amount of sugar imported into the US to support Everglades sugar growers
2. Sugar growers drain portions of the 'glades for their fields and pump water in & out to suit their needs
3. Runoff drags fertilizers & such into the glades, spurring the growth of crap-vegetation that cokes out other plants & animals
4. The result of 3 & 4 is a reduction in size of the glades and some parts that remain end up fouled
Al Gore proposed multi-billion dollar efforts to fix the glades. What a maroon. What he needed to do was lift the restrictions on imported sugar and the sugar growers would go outta business and their operations would sink back into the glades with disuse.
Which leads me to the next bit...
Corn is JUST A START.
Corn is not a start, it is a subsidy-pit. Ethanol as a fuel from corn sugar or cane sugar grown in the USA is a good screwing to the US taxpayer & consumer. If it is a start, I insist that I first be kissed and that the corn-growers use "protection" and a tub of (non-petroleum!) K-Y before I get corn-holed.If ethanol from cellulose is such a wonderful thing, wait until that is on-line. Then get together with the hemp-heads and grow wacky tobaccy to burn in pipes and IC engines. Then, everyone will be happy.
---------
This year I went down to south Texas, again. I though I had teleported to Latin-American Iowa, since the highways were all bordered with corn, rather than the usual cotton fields. Yep, marginal lands being put into production to milk the taxpayer--er--I mean, "Decrease our dependance on foreign oil."
Post by: roo_ster on July 17, 2007, 09:03:20 AM
The More Things Change, the More... [Victor Davis Hanson]
Some of the figures on prime farm acreage diverted to corn/ethanol production are quite staggering, and range up to one of every four acres planted to corn, maybe as much as 30 million acres quite soon.
An ironic note: The agricultural revolution that changed America was not entirely a result of efficient machines, chemicals, and new crop species. Much of it was due to the end of devoting millions of acres to pasturage and feed stuffs for millions of horses. My grandfather told me that when he was small half our farm was used to feed the horses that pulled the cultivators for the vineyard and orchard. But apparently here we go again-planting land for transportation. And we should expect everything from ice cream to beef to rise in price as a result.
07/17 08:28 AM
Some of the figures on prime farm acreage diverted to corn/ethanol production are quite staggering, and range up to one of every four acres planted to corn, maybe as much as 30 million acres quite soon.
An ironic note: The agricultural revolution that changed America was not entirely a result of efficient machines, chemicals, and new crop species. Much of it was due to the end of devoting millions of acres to pasturage and feed stuffs for millions of horses. My grandfather told me that when he was small half our farm was used to feed the horses that pulled the cultivators for the vineyard and orchard. But apparently here we go again-planting land for transportation. And we should expect everything from ice cream to beef to rise in price as a result.
07/17 08:28 AM
Post by: AJ Dual on July 17, 2007, 12:01:55 PM
Corn Ethanol is a net energy sink, even if the industry could get simple 1:1 parity with a gallon of gas to a gallon of Ethanol (still, why bother?) the corrosive and hydroscopic nature of Ethanol also means the energy cost of storage and transport is higher too, and it's got a lower efficiency in IC engines on top of it. And the economic damage the Ethanol subsidy is doing can't be ignored.
And creating third world and Mexican food instability is REALLY going to improve the illegal immigration situation&
Although food-Ethanol might actually have the intended effect of reducing dependence on imported oil, just not in the way it was planned. Putting a second stress on the inflation index from the food sector to go along with the energy sector might just push us into a depression where all commodity consumption is drastically reduced.
Gee, maybe that depression will also fix the world metal markets and "fix" the "ammo problem" too! Oh, wait, SHTF will have happened by then, so we won't at least have cheap ammo for looters, I guess.
And yes, I do agree that the energy sector is causing the food sector price to rise, along with everything else. But "fixing it" by making the food sector even higher as it gets tasked towards the energy sector does not seem to me like the solution.
WAIT A MINUTE!
We won't be able to afford food, and we won't be able to afford to drive& Hmmm&
OH& MY& GOD&
WE'VE JUST UNCOVERED THE SOLUTION TO AMERICA'S "OBESITY EPIDEMIC"
HALLELUJAH!
Thank God we just didn't let every commodity "float" and let the market come up with it's own solutions. America would have all been dead from Diabetes and heart attacks within a decade!
Post by: AmbulanceDriver on July 17, 2007, 12:09:46 PM
1) Dad was obsessive about quality control. We had our own analytical lab on site, and the plant was turning out fuel that was 5%+ better than what everyone else was. 99.85% pure Ethanol was the baseline that Dad required. Usually we were in the 99.95% pure range. His competitors hated that. Mostly because he wouldn't water down his fuel and sold it for the same price as what they did, they ended up losing a lot of business.
2) Dad didn't bribe gov't officials to get "preferential" treatment.
Post by: Monkeyleg on July 17, 2007, 12:14:48 PM
Post by: ilbob on July 17, 2007, 01:09:45 PM
http://americas.irc-online.org/am/4049
I guess brazil is stupid enough to subsidize US use of ethanol.
Post by: Thor on July 17, 2007, 01:56:34 PM
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/crp/
Post by: Art Eatman on July 17, 2007, 02:09:53 PM
There is a profit of about a buck a gallon, if corn is at some $2 per bushel. At $4 per bushel, it's $0.09 per gallon, which won't cover the ROI needed for a viable operation.
It takes about 7 ethanol-gallons' worth of energy in to get ten gallons of ethanol out. Brazil, using sugar cane, is 1 in for 10 out.
There are tax incentives for ethanol plants, and corn is subsidied (think ADM). So, even bicycle riders and hikers are paying for auto fuel.
The increased (and marginal) acreage reduces wildlife habitat, notably affecting deer, antelope and pheasant hunters.
Much of this new planting is irrigated from the Ogalalla Aquifer. The aquifer is already over-used, and is slow to recharge. (It underlies the Greap Plains, from the Rockies to nearly the Mississippi; south into Texas.)
Farmers are not rotating crops as they should, which depletes soil nutrients--and increases bug problems and disease problems. If they try to make it up from additional fertilizer, well, fertilizer requires a lot of electric energy in the process. (Look up the ramifications of what happened to Egypt with the Aswan Dam. No more natural fertilizing from Nile floods. The electricity had to go to fertilizer plants instead of the intended use in cities.)
The diversion of corn into fuels rather than food has already started to raise the cost of meats as well as eggs, Post Toasties and Fritos. (Hen scratch is up 40%.; $10 for a 50-pound bag instead of $7.) Also, any foods which use corn syrup, such as most Hershey products--and hundreds of others.
Had enough?
Corn requires some 2.5 to 3 feet of water per acre. Sugar cane requires six--which limits where you can grow it without irrigation.
IN summary, "gasohol" is one of the worst ideas to come down the pike in many a year.
Art
Post by: Nitrogen on July 17, 2007, 03:19:24 PM
Put that in your fuel-cell and smoke it.
Post by: Monkeyleg on July 17, 2007, 05:57:23 PM
But it doesn't take much thought to figure out why congress is pandering to the ethanol lobby. States like IO, MN, WI, NE, KS and others are always in play for elections.
Our dominance as the world's grain producer was surrendered over a decade ago to Brazil. They outproduce the US in corn, wheat, soybeans, orange juice, cattle, hogs, and just about every other food commodity you can think of.
I didn't realize that fact until I started trading commodities in the late 1990's, and found that I had to pay more attention to the weather in Brazil than in the US.
Yet our elected representatives are making us surrender our food to pay for their politicially-motivated subsidies of gasoline.
Consider that we're losing tens of thousands of acres of farmland in the midwest every year to home developers, and you've got a real recipe for a real crisis.
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 17, 2007, 06:05:51 PM
Quote
Did you know that Corn-based ethanol is more expensive per joule of energy than gasoline, even with subsidies?
Put that in your fuel-cell and smoke it.
Put that in your fuel-cell and smoke it.
Sources, please.
Post by: The Rabbi on July 17, 2007, 06:19:06 PM
Consider that we're losing tens of thousands of acres of farmland in the midwest every year to home developers, and you've got a real recipe for a real crisis.
Uh, oh. It's the "limits to growth" argument updated.
Unfortunately also erroneous. Most growth is taking place in the South and Southwest. The farmbelt has been a net loser of population. There is no shortage of arable land, and no shortage of corn or the potential to grow it.
The problem in the US is too much food. So burning it makes a lot of sense to me.
Post by: Monkeyleg on July 17, 2007, 06:56:10 PM
But the population has been spread out, at least here in WI. Admittedly, my argument is a combination of articles I've read about the decrease in farmland, as well as anecdotal. Where a farm existed last year, I now see a new subdivision.
If the loss of farmland in WI, MI, MN and IL can be easily countered by increasing planted acreage in states like NE, IO, KS, and so on, then perhaps there's no problem.
If anyone has a link to a credible study on the effect of loss of farmland, I'd love to see it.
"The problem in the US is too much food. So burning it makes a lot of sense to me."
Do you have mandated gasoline blends in Nashville? We do here in southeastern Wisconsin. The gas is more expensive than what's available in counties that don't have mandated blends, doesn't deliver as many miles per gallon, and mechanics tell me the mandated blends are harder are some engine components that plain gasoline. (I can tell you firsthand that the ME blend rots fuel system gaskets very quickly).
In the end, it just smells like plain old DC politics.
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 17, 2007, 07:36:07 PM
http://www.wisconsinrapidstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070712/GPG03/707120552/1812/WRT010301&theme=GPGGASPRICES
Post by: Monkeyleg on July 17, 2007, 08:12:12 PM
Yep. And what additional cost is tacked on for our boutique gasoline blends?
Anything I know about our WI Starbucks gasoline blends goes back to when the whole ethanol/methanol argument started. So, what I know may be well out of date.
If so, then forgive me my ignorance.
But I can't conceive of a market situation in which Exxon can deliver plain old gas to Jefferson County, but have to go through extra gyrations to deliver Starbucks gasoline to Milwaukee county, and not have to charge extra for the additional expenses.
Post by: The Rabbi on July 18, 2007, 03:49:58 AM
Post by: charby on July 18, 2007, 04:46:36 AM
Also the whole ethanol plant build up is not a new thing, it happened in the 1970's here in Iowa, I remember as a kid driving past a few of them and how bad they stink.
Give it ten years and there will be a lot of vacant ethanol plants sitting around, Ag land prices will have crashed and it will be the early 1980's all over again.
-C
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 18, 2007, 06:36:33 AM
How soon we forget, and it's deja vu all over again.
We keep pissing off the folks who don't like us much to begin with, and:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis
Post by: charby on July 18, 2007, 06:58:06 AM
I don't corn or sugar cane because of the high inputs needed to produce a crop. Both require a lot of hydrocarbon based fertilizer to produce the crops we need to make all this ethanol.
Also as we wean off of petroleum based fuels we are going to have learn to slow our lives down a bit. For example jet fuel packs a lot energy for its volume and weight, hence why I can leave Chicago and be in Frankfort, Germany in about 8 hours. I can't think of any bio fuel that can do that, so we might have use prop planes for trans continental travel which will extend flight time, perhaps we go back to ocean liners and extend the trip up to a week to cross the Atlantic Ocean.
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 18, 2007, 07:49:14 AM
Just, for Gawd's sake, don't make biodiesel from corn. Use Soylent Green or something folks won't get their panties in a wad over.
Post by: charby on July 18, 2007, 08:52:15 AM
Don't sweat that aspect. Turbine engines (turbojets, turbofans, turboprops, turboshafts) are unbelievably versatile powerplants. They will run on darned near any combustible fuel that can be injected into the burner cans, including powdered coal. Commercial Jet-A1 and military JP-8 is in reality a type of kerosene, and the military has no problems fueling its diesel vehicles with JP-8 when normal diesel is unavailable. Biodiesel or purified straight vegetable oil would work just fine in a jet/turbine engine, as long as you pay attention to mixing in the right type and amount of gumming, icing, and corrosion inhibitors.
Just, for Gawd's sake, don't make biodiesel from corn. Use Soylent Green or something folks won't get their panties in a wad over.
Just, for Gawd's sake, don't make biodiesel from corn. Use Soylent Green or something folks won't get their panties in a wad over.
I was thinking dead baby kitties...
Post by: Bogie on July 18, 2007, 08:55:44 AM
I think we need to do as much with biodiesel... Think soybeans, folks... Or anything else we can stuff into a reactor vessel...
I suspect that our love of "high horsepower fast starts" is gonna be gone in a few years - because vehicles aren't gonna be capable of zero to sixty times like we're used to.
Think of your transportation as transportation, and not as a competitive status symbol - that's the first step.
Post by: charby on July 18, 2007, 09:02:29 AM
I think we need to do as much with biodiesel... Think soybeans, folks... Or anything else we can stuff into a reactor vessel...
I'm thinking algae or bacteria.. projections are like 1000's gallons of bio diesel per acre, unlike soybeans which is under 50 gallons an acre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 18, 2007, 09:08:35 AM
Quote
I think we need to do as much with biodiesel... Think soybeans, folks... Or anything else we can stuff into a reactor vessel...
Imagine the outcry from the Mexican tofu eaters. There would be much weeping and gnashing of teeth.
As for this:
Quote
I suspect that our love of "high horsepower fast starts" is gonna be gone in a few years - because vehicles aren't gonna be capable of zero to sixty times like we're used to.
Think of your transportation as transportation, and not as a competitive status symbol - that's the first step.
Think of your transportation as transportation, and not as a competitive status symbol - that's the first step.
Very nicely stated. Sadly, we Americans are somewhat allergic to public transportation, especially in the more wide-open places. Madison has designs on a light rail system, and I see it going nowhere.
Of course, I almost got creamed at lunchtime today by a mommy (sans peripheral vision, cellphone firmly attached) in her Asscillade, packed full of little screaming crotchfruits, enroute to Jimmy John's. I was thinking "What an excellent source of Extra Virgin Soylent Green biodiesel, right there, in one tidy little Cadillac package, ready for rendering and processing". I reached for the lights and then just let it go, because I was hungry, the line in Jimmy John's wasn't getting any shorter, and I didn't feel like doing the paperwork.
Post by: Marnoot on July 18, 2007, 09:32:13 AM
Quote
Sadly, we Americans are somewhat allergic to public transportation, especially in the more wide-open places.
I would consider public transportation were it a viable alternative. As it is where I live, I can drive myself to and from work, spending a total of 20-30 minutes/day in the car. Or I can take the bus, including one transfer, spending 1.5-2 hours/day in or walking to/from a bus. The only time I even consider public transit is if my car's in the shop, or I'm heading downtown for a leisurely day/evening.
Mass transit really only becomes viable as a means of transit for most people when population density passes a certain mark. In suburban and smaller urban areas, a car is just orders of magnitude more convenient and fast and you'll never get appreciable numbers of people to switch unless they both live and work within a reasonable distance of a bus/train stop. In dense urban areas like New York driving your own car is inconvenient, leading to most people using mass transit.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 18, 2007, 09:42:55 AM
Quote
Sadly, we Americans are somewhat allergic to public transportation, especially in the more wide-open places.
Public transportation in many areas is the suspicious-looking people whom you'd go out of your way to avoid on the street...now sitting right next to you in an enclosed, moving vehicle. In places like Boston, you just might be sitting next to the guy the street gang just came onto the bus to execute. (which just happened recently in Boston...several times. Broad daylight bus shootings) Not to mention the fact that if someone is sick and contagious, now everyone is sick. And, of course, there's always the increased possibility of terrorists blowing themselves up amid a captive audience. Buses seem to burn really well and quickly, and trains in tunnels become traps.
Not my idea of ideal. I like being in my own private vehicle, climate controlled, with my music. I work for the money to afford that, I pay taxes for the roads, it's my right as a result. And I do not wish to pay taxes to subsidize public cattlecars I have no desire to use.
And if we really want to get serious about a long term fuel source, we ought to be looking into gas hydrate "mining" from the Gulf of Mexico. There's hundreds of years worth down there.
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 18, 2007, 09:51:00 AM
Quote
Public transportation in many areas is the suspicious-looking people whom you'd go out of your way to avoid on the street...now sitting right next to you in an enclosed, moving vehicle.
Not my idea of ideal. I like being in my own private vehicle, climate controlled, with my music. I work for the money to afford that, I pay taxes for the roads, it's my right as a result. And I do not wish to pay taxes to subsidize public cattlecars I have no desire to use.
Not my idea of ideal. I like being in my own private vehicle, climate controlled, with my music. I work for the money to afford that, I pay taxes for the roads, it's my right as a result. And I do not wish to pay taxes to subsidize public cattlecars I have no desire to use.
America in a nutshell. "I got mine, screw y'all, we got dogs and Valvoline, it's a pretty damned good time..."
Later on, out of the mouths of babes, "Holy Crap! Where did the cheap gas go? I have a Tahoe to feed, damnit!"
Suspicious-looking people? Like the ones in the car right next to me now, license plate buzzing from the tubthumper subwoofers in the trunk?
(Bet they don't know about the new decibel ordinance, this could get fun real quick)I spent a lot of time in San Francisco on weekends, and used the Sacramento Light Rail to go from my house to Old Sac. Cable cars or Light Rail, it was fun, and I was never in fear for my life at any given time. Were I to go back to work for the Agency in D.C., I'd definitely make use of public transit. YMMV, of course.
Post by: Thor on July 18, 2007, 10:15:01 AM
All in all, I'd like to see some form of alternative energy happen, but I'd prefer to keep government subsidies out of the equation. I DO have to ask, what ever happened to that massive oil field find in the Gulf of Mexico that we were supposed to start drilling?? I had read that there was enough oil there to keep us going on fossil fuels for many generations.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 18, 2007, 10:19:29 AM
Quote
Suspicious-looking people? Like the ones in the car right next to me now, license plate buzzing from the tubthumper subwoofers in the trunk?
Ah, but they're not in YOUR car, are they. If it was public transit, they'd be in the same vehicle. So would the guy who keeps rocking back and forth and muttering about the second coming, the one that smells like a dumpster on a summer day, the one hacking up a lung with a cough that sounds like acute tuberculosis, and the groups of people wearing "colors" that keep glaring at each other and might or might not be illegally armed. If you're in a moving bus or train with them when they decide to go sideways-gangsta-shooting at each other...Where are you going to go?
And the D.C. Metro would make a fine radioactives or bioterror target. Spill anything that can be aerosol on the track, the suction draft of the passing trains would spread it through the entire system.
Also, personal vehicles are what make America egalitarian. Once upon a time, the rich had carriages and country homes, the rest of the city workers had to live in filth in the industrial cities and move about only with public transit. Now anyone can live in the country, work in the city and have their own "carriage".
I think that's a good thing.
And Thor, the people in those countries pay for that mass transit with REALLY HIGH TAXES. No thanks.
Post by: Thor on July 18, 2007, 10:29:15 AM
And Thor, the people in those countries pay for that mass transit with REALLY HIGH TAXES. No thanks.
I can't argue with you on that as I really never knew or paid attention to what the local populous paid in taxes. Most of time, it was cabs.
What I DO know is that in Minneapolis and St. Paul is that public transportation is starting to get dangerous, especially the light rail stations.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 18, 2007, 11:27:22 AM
In the northeast, NH doesn't really have much, but Boston's MBTA trains have muggings and shootings on the platforms, as well as regular gang executions on the buses.
In D.C., the metro platforms were hot and smelly and unpleasant.
My opinion of how big government handles public transit is not very high. They tend to handle it like they do everything else...badly.
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 18, 2007, 11:31:08 AM
Post by: Bogie on July 18, 2007, 11:33:15 AM
There was a serious hubbub over "those people" and "bringing crime from the city."
Yeah, right...
It didn't happen. So you've got an hour and a half commute to drive about 30 miles.
And you can't get decent low-level help, because the rich kid teenagers don't wanna work at Mickey D's...
And when I rode mass tran to work, if folks were weird, I was weirder... It's nice to have a seat to yourself...
Post by: Manedwolf on July 18, 2007, 11:35:02 AM
I'm sure you know the sort I mean, though. For some reason, any time I've had to run to one (24hrs, lightbulb/tool/food NOW), there's just a whole lot of people in them at that hour that...defy categorization. From mumus and curlers to guys mumbling to themselves, people who stare..at other people, shufflers, someone who had one ear significantly larger than the other one and was picking up and putting down the same bottle on a shelf over and over...
It's just...odd.
Post by: roo_ster on July 18, 2007, 11:36:28 AM
And, we wouldn't have to mow down nearly every last tree on America to grow corn for ethanol to meet current demand for automotive fuel.
Last, public transport is not viable for most of America outside the megalopolises. Even were it is in use, most times the cost to ride does not cover the cost to operate. Fine for euro-weenies. Not so fine for Americans.
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 18, 2007, 11:40:35 AM
Now, how's about y'all stop telling us how evil we are with the ethanol start-up bit and offer a better, non-subsidized energy alternative, since last I heard the Mr. Fusion unit for my truck is currently on back-order from the manufacturer?
You know, the old, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" thing.
We sure do a lot of bitchin', and not much fixin'. I'd wager the bitchin' will ramp up even higher before the fixin' starts in earnest. That's an American "right" these days, too. The right to cheap gasoline, the right to ass-wagons of 12mpg, and the right to bitch when they spend $120.00 or more to fill up that Suburban.
I'm also trying to remember exactly how many trees my family and friends in Sauk County have cut down to plant ethanol corn in their fields. Off the top of my head, I remember the number being 0, give or take 0. Maybe that's because the fields were already growing the same field corn to sell at government-subsidized prices before the most recent ethanol boom? I dunno, you tell me.
Post by: Sindawe on July 18, 2007, 12:47:49 PM
Quote
I'm thinking algae or bacteria.. projections are like 1000's gallons of bio diesel per acre, unlike soybeans which is under 50 gallons an acre.
Well speak of the Devil. I came across this on Slashdot.org today.
===============
World first: Flying high on pond scum
Air New Zealand and airliner manufacturer Boeing are secretly working with Blenheim-based biofuel developer Aquaflow Bionomic Corporation to create the world's first environmentally friendly aviation fuel, made of wild algae.
If the project pans out the small and relatively new New Zealand company could lead the world in environmentally sustainable aviation fuel.
It's understood Air NZ is undertaking risk analysis. If everything stacks up it will make an aircraft available on the Tasman to test the biofuel.
The fuel is essentially derived from bacterial pond scum created through the photosynthesis of sunlight and carbon dioxide on nutrient-rich water sources such as sewage ponds.
Air NZ would most likely test the fuel on one engine while normal aviation fuel would drive the other engine. Fuel is held in cells on the aircraft that can be directed to a specific engine.
Continues at: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4132048a13.html
Post by: Bogie on July 18, 2007, 01:15:28 PM
Next time you need to go across the state for something, why not ride the dog?
Lots of bus stuff ain't bad. Only prob is dealing with car rental on the other end...
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 18, 2007, 01:36:43 PM
I doubt I could get Manedwolf to ride a Greyhound. Too many of those people onboard, don't ya know...
Post by: Thor on July 18, 2007, 03:14:00 PM
Post by: MillCreek on July 18, 2007, 03:56:27 PM
Quote
I was thinking "What an excellent source of Extra Virgin Soylent Green biodiesel, right there, in one tidy little Cadillac package, ready for rendering and processing".
This should be carved on a stone tablet and carried down from the Mount, or something.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 18, 2007, 03:59:18 PM
Quote
I doubt I could get Manedwolf to ride a Greyhound. Too many of those people onboard, don't ya know...
Quote
Update: Passenger Grabbed Wheel In Greyhound Bus Crash
Last Update: Jul 10, 2007 11:44 AM ABC
A woman who police put aboard a Greyhound bus in Nashville is accused of grabbing the steering wheel, sending the bus into trees in Arkansas.
Last Update: Jul 10, 2007 11:44 AM ABC
A woman who police put aboard a Greyhound bus in Nashville is accused of grabbing the steering wheel, sending the bus into trees in Arkansas.
Quote
About a half-hour before the crash, Combs went to the front of the bus and complained to the driver that other passengers were spraying drugs in her face. 
State police say they got a call about an unruly person on the bus. Before a trooper could find it, the bus had run into the woods.
In October 2001, a man slashed the driver of a Greyhound bus near Manchester, Tennessee, with a box cutter, causing a crash that killed seven people, including attacker Damir Igric, a 29-year-old Croatian.
State police say they got a call about an unruly person on the bus. Before a trooper could find it, the bus had run into the woods.In October 2001, a man slashed the driver of a Greyhound bus near Manchester, Tennessee, with a box cutter, causing a crash that killed seven people, including attacker Damir Igric, a 29-year-old Croatian.
Nope!
Post by: Art Eatman on July 19, 2007, 02:39:13 AM
From 1989 to now, Archer-Daniels-Midland (ADM) has received some $10 billion in federal subsidies for gasahol.
From the number-crunchers: If all corn were used for ethanol, it would meet somewhere in the neighborhood of 12% to 15% of the US motor fuel needs. The CAFE is 28.5 mpg. Add 15% to that and you have a CAFE of 32.8 mpg. It seems to me that what would be more helpful than doing the ethanol thing is to use some Psychology 101 on the low-mpg people about the ego-trip vehicles they drive.
TV advertising is the free-market's way of persuading people to piddle their money away on useless crap. Why not use it to persuade people to make halfway-rational economic decisions abut transportation?
Oh: Environmental effects of increased farming: The "Dead Zone" of no oxygen in the Gulf at the mouth of the Mississippi is some 8,500 square miles, this year; more than last year. Hurts the incomes of fishermen.
Art
Post by: charby on July 19, 2007, 05:22:17 AM
From the number-crunchers: If all corn were used for ethanol, it would meet somewhere in the neighborhood of 12% to 15% of the US motor fuel needs. The CAFE is 28.5 mpg. Add 15% to that and you have a CAFE of 32.8 mpg. It seems to me that what would be more helpful than doing the ethanol thing is to use some Psychology 101 on the low-mpg people about the ego-trip vehicles they drive.
TV advertising is the free-market's way of persuading people to piddle their money away on useless crap. Why not use it to persuade people to make halfway-rational economic decisions abut transportation?
Oh: Environmental effects of increased farming: The "Dead Zone" of no oxygen in the Gulf at the mouth of the Mississippi is some 8,500 square miles, this year; more than last year. Hurts the incomes of fishermen.
Art
I read somewhere that car manufacturers don't like to push the economy cars because they don't return much profit. I also read somewhere that the SUV profits for GM is what made it possible for them to sell the compact cars and still be solvent. Probably why they are hurting now.
I totally agree with you on the environmental effects of farming, I've been trying to argue against corn because of the input costs in growing: Fuel for equipment, fertilizer, pesticides and water. Also the fertilizer inputs also find their way downstream to the Gulf and excessive runoffs of nitrates are so great for the ecosystems either.
Honestly I think people as a whole need to drive less, consume less, slow down and enjoy the simple things in life.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 19, 2007, 05:37:16 AM
Quote
I read somewhere that car manufacturers don't like to push the economy cars because they don't return much profit. I also read somewhere that the SUV profits for GM is what made it possible for them to sell the compact cars and still be solvent. Probably why they are hurting now.
American manufacturers, who want to crank out low-tech crap made overseas. The atrocious packaging-plastic-quality interiors they're doing should show where their priorities are.
Honda and Toyota are putting out cars made by American workers in plants in Ohio and Kentucky that average 30mph or more...even at least 25 for the biggest Acura TLs and Lexuses.
As a result, they're kicking GM's butt.
Post by: Scott on July 19, 2007, 05:50:03 AM
Quote
I read somewhere that car manufacturers don't like to push the economy cars because they don't return much profit. I also read somewhere that the SUV profits for GM is what made it possible for them to sell the compact cars and still be solvent.
Bingo!!. When I worked for one of the Big Three, it was common knowledge that the small cars were money losers, only sold to meet CAFE. What was not so well known was that the mid-size and large cars were barely break even propositions. At one time, the best selling sedan had a profit margin of less than 1%. ALL of the profits came from trucks and SUVs, especially the luxury models.
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 19, 2007, 07:17:30 AM
Quote
Honda and Toyota are putting out cars made by American workers in plants in Ohio and Kentucky that average 30mph or more...even at least 25 for the biggest Acura TLs and Lexuses.
Dayum! No wonder they put Kanji stickers on 'em, to make them go faster. 30mph is pretty darned pokey.
Art, again, I respectfully have to ask you, where is anybody saying that ethanol is The One True Sword to fill every gas tank in America? You keep throwing that out, and damned if I don't keep asking you where you get that from. I know you're a crotchety old dude, wise to the world and all, but c'mon...
I'm working with my dad right now in building a small diesel/electric vehicle, a hybrid if you will, using a small 18-hp twin cylinder diesel from a wrecked lawnmower. This one runs like a locomotive, with the diesel running a generator, and it drives traction motors at the wheels (or one motor at the differential, as ours is currently). The diesel runs at a constant RPM, with changes in road speed handled by adjusting the voltage/current at the wheel motors. We've discovering that pulse-width modulators for DC motors generate a good bit of heat.
We've also been playing with a diesel/hydrostat version, but the efficiencies aren't there (yet?). A pressurized accumulator system might boost it, but that requires extra space, weight, oil, etc.
These guys are doing neat things:
http://www.torvec.com/messagefromceo053105.html
Post by: Bogie on July 19, 2007, 07:26:15 AM
Post by: bedlamite on July 19, 2007, 08:55:56 AM
Post by: charby on July 19, 2007, 09:01:27 AM
Just get a horse
fuel is unrefined biomass and water
makes one horse power
exhaust is biomass and water mixed with organic chemicals out
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 19, 2007, 10:07:28 AM
My dad's garden is doing absolutely wonderful on what he calls "Horse Tea".
He mixes the horse manure from the farm with water in a big plastic 55-gallon drum, lets it steep in the hot sun, then taps off the resulting tea into the sprinkler cans. His tomatoes never looked better.
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 19, 2007, 10:10:59 AM
Post by: roo_ster on July 19, 2007, 10:12:31 AM
I'll do both the math and the googling.
Ethanol is no more a solution than McDonald's used fry-oil is for diesel. Oh, it is a nice idea, but it will never amount to but a tiny proportion of the entire need.
Just one of the studies:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug01/corn-basedethanol.hrs.html
Quote
o An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre, according to Pimentel's analysis. Thus, even before corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock costs $1.05 per gallon of ethanol.
o The energy economics get worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented. As many as three distillation steps are needed to separate the 8 percent ethanol from the 92 percent water. Additional treatment and energy are required to produce the 99.8 percent pure ethanol for mixing with gasoline.
o Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. "Put another way," Pimentel says, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTU."
o Ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline. "That helps explain why fossil fuels -- not ethanol -- are used to produce ethanol," Pimentel says. "The growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn't afford it, either, if it weren't for government subsidies to artificially lower the price."
o Most economic analyses of corn-to-ethanol production overlook the costs of environmental damages, which Pimentel says should add another 23 cents per gallon. "Corn production in the U.S. erodes soil about 12 times faster than the soil can be reformed, and irrigating corn mines groundwater 25 percent faster than the natural recharge rate of ground water. The environmental system in which corn is being produced is being rapidly degraded. Corn should not be considered a renewable resource for ethanol energy production, especially when human food is being converted into ethanol."
o The approximately $1 billion a year in current federal and state subsidies (mainly to large corporations) for ethanol production are not the only costs to consumers, the Cornell scientist observes. Subsidized corn results in higher prices for meat, milk and eggs because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the United States Increasing ethanol production would further inflate corn prices, Pimentel says, noting: "In addition to paying tax dollars for ethanol subsidies, consumers would be paying significantly higher food prices in the marketplace."
o The average U.S. automobile, traveling 10,000 miles a year on pure ethanol (not a gasoline-ethanol mix) would need about 852 gallons of the corn-based fuel. This would take 11 acres to grow, based on net ethanol production. This is the same amount of cropland required to feed seven Americans.
o If all the automobiles in the United States were fueled with 100 percent ethanol, a total of about 97 percent of U.S. land area would be needed to grow the corn feedstock. Corn would cover nearly the total land area of the United States.
o The energy economics get worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented. As many as three distillation steps are needed to separate the 8 percent ethanol from the 92 percent water. Additional treatment and energy are required to produce the 99.8 percent pure ethanol for mixing with gasoline.
o Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. "Put another way," Pimentel says, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTU."
o Ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline. "That helps explain why fossil fuels -- not ethanol -- are used to produce ethanol," Pimentel says. "The growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn't afford it, either, if it weren't for government subsidies to artificially lower the price."
o Most economic analyses of corn-to-ethanol production overlook the costs of environmental damages, which Pimentel says should add another 23 cents per gallon. "Corn production in the U.S. erodes soil about 12 times faster than the soil can be reformed, and irrigating corn mines groundwater 25 percent faster than the natural recharge rate of ground water. The environmental system in which corn is being produced is being rapidly degraded. Corn should not be considered a renewable resource for ethanol energy production, especially when human food is being converted into ethanol."
o The approximately $1 billion a year in current federal and state subsidies (mainly to large corporations) for ethanol production are not the only costs to consumers, the Cornell scientist observes. Subsidized corn results in higher prices for meat, milk and eggs because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the United States Increasing ethanol production would further inflate corn prices, Pimentel says, noting: "In addition to paying tax dollars for ethanol subsidies, consumers would be paying significantly higher food prices in the marketplace."
o The average U.S. automobile, traveling 10,000 miles a year on pure ethanol (not a gasoline-ethanol mix) would need about 852 gallons of the corn-based fuel. This would take 11 acres to grow, based on net ethanol production. This is the same amount of cropland required to feed seven Americans.
o If all the automobiles in the United States were fueled with 100 percent ethanol, a total of about 97 percent of U.S. land area would be needed to grow the corn feedstock. Corn would cover nearly the total land area of the United States.
An Another
According to the Renewable Fuels Association, 95 ethanol refineries produced more than 4.3 billion gal. of ethanol in 2005. An additional 40 new or expanded refineries slated to come on line in the next 18 months will increase that to 6.3 billion gal. That sounds like a lot--and it is--but it represents just over 3 percent of our annual consumption of more than 200 billion gal. of gasoline and diesel.
One acre of corn can produce 300 gal. of ethanol per growing season. So, in order to replace that 200 billion gal. of petroleum products, American farmers would need to dedicate 675 million acres, or 71 percent of the nation's 938 million acres of farmland, to growing feedstock. Clearly, ethanol alone won't kick our fossil fuel dependence--unless we want to replace our oil imports with food imports.
Note, that is total farmland in use in 2005, not just farmland currently used to grow corn. This includes farmland not particularly suitable to grow corn. Such less-optimal acreage would require higher inputs of water, fertilizers, fuels, etc. than prime corn-belt acres.One acre of corn can produce 300 gal. of ethanol per growing season. So, in order to replace that 200 billion gal. of petroleum products, American farmers would need to dedicate 675 million acres, or 71 percent of the nation's 938 million acres of farmland, to growing feedstock. Clearly, ethanol alone won't kick our fossil fuel dependence--unless we want to replace our oil imports with food imports.
Some References:
Acres Devoted to Corn 2000
http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/cropmajor.html
Energy Conversion Factors:
http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html
US Oil Consumption:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html
MATH
Corn Crop Land (Acres) 7.27E+07
Gal Eth/Acre 328
Total Eth Max (Gal) 2.38E+10
BTU/Gal Oil 1.38E+05
BTU/Gal Diesel 1.31E+05
BTU/Gal Gasoline 1.15E+05
BTU/Gal Eth 7.57E+04
Oil/Eth Factor 1.82
Diesel/Eth Factor 1.72
Gas/Eth Factor 1.52
Eth Equiv to Oil % 55%
Eth Equiv to Deisel % 58%
Eth Equiv to Gas % 66%
US Oil Consump (bbl/day) 2.08E+07
US Oil Consump (gal/day) 8.74E+08
US Oil Consump (gal/year) 3.19E+11
% Oil Used for Transport 69%
US Oil Consump Trans (gal/year) 2.20E+11
% US Trans Oil Met by Eth from All Corn Acres 11%
% US Total Oil Met by Eth from All Corn Acres 7%
Eth Produced 2005 4.30E+09
Eth Proj Pro 2006 6.30E+09
2005 Eth as Pct of Total Oil 0.74%
2006 Eth as Pct of Total Oil 1.08%
2005 Eth as Pct of Trans Oil 1.07%
2006 Eth as Pct of Trans Oil 1.57%
I can email the spreadsheet to whomever is interested.
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 19, 2007, 10:39:03 AM
(I'm still waiting for the answer)
Now, do you suppose that the 4.3 billion gallons of ethanol fuel in that particular study you so nicely bold-faced (paid for by whom, I'm curious) just might have replaced 4.3 billion gallons of gasoline that came from Jihadistan?
Be it ethanol, used french fry oil, biodiesel, Soylent Green squeezin's, every little bit helps. None so far is a solution unto itself, but it means we are looking, and working on ideas.
I dunno, I might be off-kilter here, but solar energy makes plants grow. Those plants die, and over time become coal and petroleum. We are currently reaping the sun's long-term investment in those ancient plants to fuel our lifestyle here in the 21st century. As Art and others point out, there were only so many plants back then, and we're discovering that those petroleum reserves they became aren't as big as they used to be back in the days of carhops and '57 Chevys. In the meantime, we continue to guzzle at the petroleum teat, and since the reserves here in the States aren't enough to nurse us and our God-given right to drive, we import from people who consider us infidels and worthy of massacre. But their reserves aren't so big, either, and they've been caught fudging the numbers.
So we look for renewable resources of energy, mainly because the Mr. Fusion units are still back-ordered due to lack of technology, and we grant subsidies to upstarts to give them a chance to improve the technology and become viable, vs. fizzling out or being quashed by the Big 3. As Mike, myself, and others pointed out, corn ethanol is a lead-in to bigger and better things, a weathervane in the right direction vs. us sitting here and sucking our thumbs, crying when the price of gasoline takes yet another hike. It was never intended to become, nor is it, the be-all, end-all of renewable energy sources. Our alcoholic forefathers knew how to convert grains into booze, so it was an easy technology to run with. Farmers who were already fighting the repo man and getting their corn subsidized by Uncle Sam could care less who buys it. In the meantime, Cellulosic ethanol, blue-green algae biodiesel, soybean biodiesel, they all warrant research, as long as we understand that there will always be ripple effects, hence my disclaimer about the soybean biodiesel pissing off the tofu-eating Mexicans.
Or would you rather we do nothing? Your beloved Euro-weenies are learning how it works already, and look at what they're driving and paying for in fuel costs. There's no free lunch - we've been robbing Peter to pay Paul, and the final bill is coming due. I believe that'll come due sooner rather than later, and all I'd have to say is "I told you so..."
Post by: Sergeant Bob on July 19, 2007, 11:12:35 AM
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 19, 2007, 11:27:04 AM
Post by: roo_ster on July 19, 2007, 11:44:17 AM
Now, how's about y'all stop telling us how evil we are with the ethanol start-up bit and offer a better, non-subsidized energy alternative, since last I heard the Mr. Fusion unit for my truck is currently on back-order from the manufacturer?
You know, the old, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" thing.
I do believe the obligation to prove a subsidy's and a mandate's worth is on those who wish to impose it. As such things are anathema to freedom and a free market, there had best be a net benefit in the cost/benefit analysis.You know, the old, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" thing.
Also, a viable solution to a bad idea is to stop implementing it, much as a viable solution to head trauma is to stop banging your head on the wall.
The market did not need subsidies to end our dependence on whale oil. It became more expensive relative to other alternatives. I think that solution, the market, will best solve our fuel problems. Tear out mandates, subsidies, CAFE, EPA cocktail blends, etc. and let the market do its work.
I'm also trying to remember exactly how many trees my family and friends in Sauk County have cut down to plant ethanol corn in their fields. Off the top of my head, I remember the number being 0, give or take 0. Maybe that's because the fields were already growing the same field corn to sell at government-subsidized prices before the most recent ethanol boom? I dunno, you tell me.
You & your family's cutting of trees is not the issue. Your farmland sounds like it is some of the better and (more importantly) currently in cultivation. The lands at issue are the marginal plots that have fallen to disuse since Midwest agriculture came online in the late 1800's. Ethanol subsidies and mandates make it profitable to put that land to the plow again. Toss in land that is already in use growing crops suitable to the local climate that is now being planted in corn. All such lands generally require greater inputs (fertilizer, water, etc.) than prime land in the farm belt.Now, do you suppose that the 4.3 billion gallons of ethanol fuel in that particular study you so nicely bold-faced (paid for by whom, I'm curious) just might have replaced 4.3 billion gallons of gasoline that came from Jihadistan?
Not by a long shot. Do. The. Math. Assume that it takes zero energy inputs to make that 4.3 billion gallons of ethanol. Since Eth has 55% the energy content of oil, you would replace 2.37B gal of oil with the 4.3B gal of Eth.
But, assuming zero energy inputs for corn-derived Eth is not even close. The Cornell study a net loss of 54000 BTU per gallon of Eth produced, or:
Net BTU Loss per Gal Eth 5.40E+04
Net BTU Loss for 4.3B Gal Eth 2.32E+14
Equivalent Gal Oil Loss to Pro 4.3B Gal Eth 1.68E+09
So, to produce that 4.3B gal of Eth, we not only have to import the original 4.3B gal of jihadi oil, we need to import another 1.68B gal of jihadi oil. Yep, that is quite the "alternative."
Cost the consumer more, import more jihadi oil, and spend more tax dollars to do it. Great idea.
I've got way more than 11 acres planted in field corn, and I'll exercise my Gawd-given right to drive hither and yon using what grew there, and sell the extra to whom I choose, be it the ethanol distillery in Friesland or the local co-op.
It is less a God-given right, more a Congress-given windfall. Or would you rather we do nothing? Your beloved Euro-weenies...
So, you taking public transportation out to your acres of subsidized corn? How 'bout when you're on patrol? Advocates for public transport really ought to set the example.Doing nothing is certainly preferable to Eth subsidy and mandates. At least doing nothing doesn't cost us more.
Ethanol is, at its heart, just another example of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs similar to the illegal alien issue. We don't need another one of those sorts of programs, thank you very much.
Post by: El Tejon on July 19, 2007, 11:45:09 AM
Corn Police=>
Post by: charby on July 19, 2007, 12:07:03 PM
I just re read the whole topic
My prediction for 2020...
There are going to be a whole lot more people out there who are not going to be able to have cars, not because they can't afford the vehicle, just that they can't afford the fuel to put in it.
-C
Post by: roo_ster on July 19, 2007, 12:24:08 PM
I bet you are a Kernel in the Corn Police Corps.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 19, 2007, 12:43:44 PM
They have ears everywhere.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on July 19, 2007, 01:33:53 PM
Don't talk badly about the Corn Police.
They have ears everywhere.
They have ears everywhere.
They are probably stalking him right now.
Post by: MillCreek on July 19, 2007, 02:19:11 PM
Don't talk badly about the Corn Police.
They have ears everywhere.
They have ears everywhere.
They are probably stalking him right now.
And will heat him until he pops.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on July 19, 2007, 03:37:01 PM
Don't talk badly about the Corn Police.
They have ears everywhere.
They have ears everywhere.
They are probably stalking him right now.
And will heat him until he pops.
After they take him downtown to that maize that is the city jail if he gives them too much of a tassel.
Post by: Nitrogen on July 19, 2007, 11:20:58 PM
Quote from: Gewehr98
Sources, please.
Someone asked for a source on my earlier post on the fact that ethanol is more expensive per joule than gasoline. It's math I did myself.
A gallon of gas contains about 131 megajoules of energy.
A gallon of Ethanol has about 80 megajoules.
(you can look that up anywhere)
Going by prices I can get each for in Dallas, TX:
2.75/gal for gasoline
2.45/gal for E85.
SO:
2.75 for 131 megajoules is about .02099 cents per megajoule
47.64 Megajoules per dollar of gas.
2.45 for 80 megajoules is about .03062 cents per megajoule.
32.65 Megajoules per dollar of ethanol
This is also assuming that you usefully use each megajoule. Ethanol has a SLIGHT edge on gasoline in this department, assuming your engine is designed for it. To get that edge, you have to run your engine at a higher compression ratio, like 16:1. I doubt most ethanol cars are designed for this, being flex fuel cars to run on gasoline, so they are actually using ethanol LESS efficiently as they can, so it's wasting MORE of that stored energy.
Also realise E85 is taxed less and subsidized more, so the truth is even worse.
NOW
Ethanol has a higher octane rating than gasoline, so you can run it at a higher compression ratio, but I don't believe flexfuel cars these days are designed to take advantage of that.
Also running at a higher compression ration can increase greenhouse gases, so isn't a good idea.
E85=BAD.
Post by: Art Eatman on July 20, 2007, 05:59:04 AM
I do think that too much importance is being attached to the whole corn deal to the detriment of those who don't profit from corn itself. And I don't like the present subsidy system. Further, the import duties on ethanol from Brazil--which uses far less land and water per gallon of output, limits the availability here. And is also a form of subsidy to this present system of production.
I'm objecting to the harm that's being done by the way ethanol's "bubble" is being touted as a Good Thing.
Art
Post by: charby on July 20, 2007, 07:17:19 AM
check that link out....
I'm suprised how much oil we consume compared to the other 1st world nations.
Post by: Thor on July 20, 2007, 07:57:24 AM
Post by: charby on July 20, 2007, 08:00:34 AM
Well, not only do we use that oil for transportation and energy, but we also use it for plastics. Take a look around you and see just how much plastic is in your environment. There's also other things we use that oil for, like weed killers and other such things.
I know
Post by: Firethorn on July 20, 2007, 09:48:01 AM
Someone asked for a source on my earlier post on the fact that ethanol is more expensive per joule than gasoline. It's math I did myself.
I'll agree with your math, more or less.
1 US Gal gasoline: 125k BTU
1 US Gal ethanol: 84.6k
Difference: Ethanl has 68% of the energy of gasoline.
If Gasoline is $3/gallon, Ethanol(E100) would have to be $2.04/gallon to make sense.
This discounts some possibilities that can optimize the burning of ethanol more than gasoline, like the aforementioned increase in compression ratios. I've heard that some people only loose 10% of their milage when using E85, so E85 at $2.73 would make sense for them. Some research turned up variable compression ratio engines. So you can make up most of the loss via additional optimization and fancy electronics.
Personally, I think that corn based ethanol is a bandage at the most, cellulistic ethanol has much more promise.
Post by: roo_ster on July 20, 2007, 09:58:40 AM
G98, I don't know anybody (among knowledgeable people, anyway) who think ethanol is THE answer. I certainly don't, and I certainly never wrote anything here where I intended to imply that. I'm griping about the unintended consequences of what's now being done.
I do think that too much importance is being attached to the whole corn deal to the detriment of those who don't profit from corn itself. And I don't like the present subsidy system. Further, the import duties on ethanol from Brazil--which uses far less land and water per gallon of output, limits the availability here. And is also a form of subsidy to this present system of production.
I'm objecting to the harm that's being done by the way ethanol's "bubble" is being touted as a Good Thing.
Art
I do think that too much importance is being attached to the whole corn deal to the detriment of those who don't profit from corn itself. And I don't like the present subsidy system. Further, the import duties on ethanol from Brazil--which uses far less land and water per gallon of output, limits the availability here. And is also a form of subsidy to this present system of production.
I'm objecting to the harm that's being done by the way ethanol's "bubble" is being touted as a Good Thing.
Art
What Art said.
The thread's title is "Ethanol & The Law of Unintended Consequences," for a reason.
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 20, 2007, 10:27:54 AM
I was done with the thread once I got the "set the example by running it in your squad car" thing.
Like that's really up to me.
Moot point, anyway.
I tendered my resignation to the Dane County Sheriff's Department this morning. Lots of hidden expectations, lots of animosity from folks calling me a "piggy" (including my own stepsons), and I don't want to deal with another 20 years of bureaucracy and bad laws. My last hamburger highway, with the remains of "excellent drivers" rinsed off the asphalt, was the highlight.
I'm taking an offer elsewhere, a Management McJob that pays nearly the same.
Y'all talk amongst yourselves, ok?
Post by: Sindawe on July 20, 2007, 12:58:33 PM
Quote
I'm taking an offer elsewhere, a Management McJob that pays nearly the same.
Wow, from "piggy" to "Pointy Haired Boss".
Quote
Personally, I think that corn based ethanol is a bandage at the most, cellulistic ethanol has much more promise.
Concur. I think that ANY ethanol as a liquid fuel that is burned in an engine is just a transition step.
Post by: K Frame on July 20, 2007, 01:12:42 PM
I'll bet it was someone who thought he was a good enough driver that he could stay left all the time...
You know, in reading through all of these messages, I'm struck and how many people still seem to believe that corn is it; that all other forms of alternate fuel technologies have come to a screeching halt, that no more research will ever be conducted, and that the purpose is to move wholesale, 100% away from oil to ethanol made from ONLY corn -- no other product will ever be used for ethanol production.
Oiy Veh.
Post by: Thor on July 20, 2007, 03:09:06 PM
Post by: Bogie on July 20, 2007, 07:53:09 PM
You gotta give 'em some credit for at least trying...
Now if we can get clean nukes online, that'll be another good thing - I wonder how Gore's camp deals with that concept?
Post by: Firethorn on July 22, 2007, 07:50:38 AM
Now if we can get clean nukes online, that'll be another good thing - I wonder how Gore's camp deals with that concept?
Not even with a ten foot pole.
Sindawe - cellulostic ethanol can be made with pretty much any plant matter-including leaves, grass, and wood. Per pound of plant matter, you get more than 16 times the alcohol from the cellulostic method, and it requires less energy input to boot.
Though personally I think that biodiesel has a much better process - extracting oil from crops is a well known science, we already have plants more or less optimized for it. The resulting product requires less processing and has more energy, and is run in a more efficient engine.
Of course, you can use the remaining parts of the plant over in the ethanol facility, and the remains from there as fertilizer. We have a more or less full circle here...
Post by: Sergeant Bob on July 22, 2007, 12:12:24 PM
Campers, at LEAST the numbnuts bureaucrats are considering something other than "fossil fuels" or a high-tech freakacontraption like a "fuel cell."
You gotta give 'em some credit for at least trying...
You gotta give 'em some credit for at least trying...
No, I give them credit only for lining someone's pockets with our money. It's a loser and they are still throwing more and more money at it. Corn ethanol is not going to replace fossil fuels, so why not invest in something that could at least, possibly put a dent in our dependence?
The government isn't going to do anything to takes the profits out of oil if they can help it.
Post by: Art Eatman on July 23, 2007, 02:33:29 AM
THEN look at the options: Tar sands, shale oil, liquified coal, bio-diesel, ethanol. Then, look at the total costs of each type, and each variant on types.
Tar sands and oil shale are found in areas of little available water, but require large amounts in processing. And, the energy requirements for processing are large. The energy returned for energy inputs is rather low.
By variant, I mean ethanol from corn, from cane, or other plant material. By total costs, I mean environmental as well as energy inputs to raise and harvest as well as process.
Separately, about bio-diesel: What's its storage life? I've heard that it's rather short-term. I know I can use petroleum diesel that's been in an above-ground tank beyond two Terlingua summers, as fuel for my backhoe.
Post by: charby on July 23, 2007, 05:30:57 AM
Maybe the prices are coming down on corn, but I did see futures trading at $3.43 for March 08 corn.
Post by: Firethorn on July 23, 2007, 10:29:10 AM
I drove by the ethanol plant yesterday in Nevada, IA, they are paying a spot price of $2.98 a bushell for corn. Before all the ethanol bruhaha corn usually sold for around $1.75-$2.00 a bushell.
Maybe the prices are coming down on corn, but I did see futures trading at $3.43 for March 08 corn.
Maybe the prices are coming down on corn, but I did see futures trading at $3.43 for March 08 corn.
Youch....
Still, speculators do lose their shirts on occasion. In this case it could happen since there is a point that ethanol producers, even with subsidies, won't be able to operate on a profit and will shut down/reduce production if the price goes high enough. I also think that there's going to be a huge increase in corn production., to the point of making other grains more expensive because so many farmers switched over.
Post by: Thor on July 23, 2007, 12:44:19 PM
I also think that there's going to be a huge increase in corn production., to the point of making other grains more expensive because so many farmers switched over.
Yep, more unintended consequences. One of the farmers I know has planted ALL of his acreage in corn, vs the other mix of stuff he normally plants. I hope it works out for him.
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 23, 2007, 01:07:05 PM
We have lots of coal, but making a clean-burning steam locomotive is still out of our reach, and so the EPA and other environmental agencies would nip that one in the bud - no big 4-6-6-4 Challenger articulated locos going cross country again. Hell, bicycling would be a good idea, but it'll cost petroleum to make all those bikes, and to ship all the extra food to satisfy the calorie requirements of all the bicyclists. Then those hard-working bicyclists will add to the greenhouse gas methane burden as they process their enchilada fuel while riding to work. Soccer mommies aren't going to want to haul their precious cargoes to and from Tumblebugs on a multi-person bike, either. Manedwolf is decidedly anti-social, and he has kin out there, I'm sure. Oh, the horror. Where does it all end?
Post by: Thor on July 23, 2007, 02:02:25 PM
Post by: Firethorn on July 23, 2007, 06:05:51 PM
I'm trying to figure out which alternative motor fuel doesn't have unintended consequences.
Everything in our economy today is cross-connected. Reduce oil production, and ripples spread. Make oil expensive, ripples spread. Make cedar more expensive and it'll have an effect on the price of milk.
The trick is to not worry about this stuff too much, it'll all balance out in the end. Part of the reason I dislike the government interfering too much, it creates uneconomical distortions. With the possible exemption of food, where you can't afford big ripples because people starve to death on the low end, and supplies necessary to military operations I think that not much should be subsidized or taxed heavily*.
I like the idea of keeping the government out of it because stuff like this happens - subsidies and requirements(some states require all gasoline sold to be mixed with 10% ethanol) have the effect of making ethanol profitable in situations where it really shouldn't, costing us more in taxes and other consequences.
*A small to moderate tax to pay for things like military, police, fire, courts, care for the truly disabled(like true retardation and/or severe physical handicap).
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 23, 2007, 07:58:40 PM
Corn is cheap and in high supply, and fuel is expensive and in short supply. The market is correcting itself, balancing out the overabundance of corn with the underabundance of fuel. It will continue to adjust and adapt, until a new equilibrium is reached. This is a good thing!
Many of you seem to be operating under the impression that the market could somehow divert too much food production into fuel production. When push comes to shove, people will choose having enough food over having enough vehicle fuel, and the market will accommodate them. The ethanol plants will shut down lickity split if people start going hungry. Count on it. So long as the market remains nominally free, the unintended consequences will work themselves out.
One important consideration seems to be overlooked in all of the preceding discussions: we have gobs of corn, we want gobs of vehicle fuel. Regardless of how inefficient and clumsy corn ethanol is, it allows us to transform something we don't need into something we do. Until that changes, entrepreneurs and/or govninnies will continue to dabble in corn ethanol, at least to some extent.
Post by: roo_ster on July 24, 2007, 01:39:34 AM
You are missing Firethorn's point. Whatever sort of equilibrium we get to, it won't be natural. It will be an artificial, bloated distorted false-equilibrium. False, because if any of the gooberment props (subsidy, mandates, etc) are kicked out from under it, the mess will come crashing down because ethanol from corn sugar grown in the USA is not viable. It is not a rational choice, economically, without gooberment forcing it down our throats and giving it to us in the poop chute.
It doesn't really matter how "cheap" corn is in the absolute sense. It is still much more costly to turn it into fuel relative to petroleum.
Also, we have gobs of corn if we use it for food. If we use it for fuel, we have very little and only a small fraction of what we would need to fuel our fleet of automobiles. I did the math earlier in the thread and I am not the first.
If, for some reason ethanol ends up being THE ANSWER after duelling it out with petroleum and other options in the market, I would be fine with that. I am not fine with subsidy and mandates forcing a non-solution on us that anybody with an internet connection and math-literacy can debunk.
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 24, 2007, 04:38:30 AM
I dunno. Depends who you ask, I guess. SUppose these guys have cranial-rectal inversion syndrome, too?
http://www.e85fuel.com/news/072007/cfdc_issue_brief.pdf
Post by: roo_ster on July 24, 2007, 05:08:45 AM
You don't have to take anybody's word for anything.
If you don't believe me, look up the US Gov't's estimated amount of cropland currently devoted to corn & other staples, the avg yield/acre of corn, the amt of Eth one can distill form corn sugars, the energy content of Eth & petroleum products and DO THE MATH.
Even assuming faeries provide the energy to distill the Eth for free, ieth from sugar produced in the USA is not a solution.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 24, 2007, 07:44:21 AM
My claim (and I believe Firethorn's as well) is that what we're seeing is the market adapting itself. This will inevitably result in changes in the economic equilibrium that effect a wide swatch of the economy. This isn't a manifestation of "unintended consequences", it's the natural result of the market at work.
The government has been meddling with both crop production and fuel production for decades. Government subsidies and regulations and suchlike may be artificial, but they're still real, they still exist, and they still affect the market. The market will adapt to them as readily as to any other aspect of the economic situation.
The fact is that government regulations do exist, and they do make ethanol a viable and profitable use of corn. Don't be surprised or alarmed that the market is responding.
Post by: Firethorn on July 24, 2007, 07:46:22 AM
the amt of Eth one can distill form corn sugars, the energy content of Eth & petroleum products and DO THE MATH.
Even assuming faeries provide the energy to distill the Eth for free, ieth from sugar produced in the USA is not a solution.
Even assuming faeries provide the energy to distill the Eth for free, ieth from sugar produced in the USA is not a solution.
What's all this about sugars? Ethanol for fuels is made mostly from starches - minor nitpick I know, but important. You don't make ethanol out of corn syrup, you make it out of whole kernels. The cellulose and other things that can't be broken down end up as silage.
Ethanol from corn kernals will always be a nich market, but there are alternatives out there that can be a major alternative - such as biofuel from algae where you can get the necessary biomass and don't need major amounts of effort.
Quote
The fact is that government regulations do exist, and they do make ethanol a viable and profitable use of corn. Don't be surprised or alarmed that the market is responding.
Agreed.
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 24, 2007, 09:14:05 AM
Post by: Thor on July 24, 2007, 10:05:09 AM
Post by: charby on July 24, 2007, 10:13:03 AM
My Father in law used to get corn silage for his cattle. After a while of sitting around, especially in the warm weather, it would start to smell just like alcohol. More like a moldy alcohol, but alcohol just the same.
There is and starches sugars in the stalks and leaves, just less of a concentration then in the kernels. Starches will break down to sugars with heat, also silage in an anaerobic environment and fermentation occurs quite easily. I don't have enough time to explain the process.
IIRC, the sugar in the kernels have turned to starches long before they harvest dent corn.
Post by: roo_ster on July 24, 2007, 10:23:13 AM
I used to brew beer, sometimes even going to the effort of malting barley myself. That is where I get most of my terminology for such processes. For instance:
Quote from: http://beeradvocate.com/news/stories_read/316
Malted Barley: A form of raw barley processed in a controlled environment (to let the grain germinate and sprout partially), then dried. The chief purpose of this process is to naturally create sugar and soluble starches, which are needed to brew beer
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malt
Malted grain is used to make beer, whisky, and malt vinegar. Malting grains develops the enzymes that are required to modify the grain's starches into sugars, principally maltose. Barley is the most common malt because of its high diastatic power or enzyme content. Other grains may be malted, although the resulting malt may not have sufficient enzymatic content to convert its own starch content fully and efficiently.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewing
The malt is crushed to break apart the grain kernels, increase their surface area, and separate the smaller pieces from the husks. The resulting grist is mixed with heated water in a vat called a "mash tun" for a process known as "mashing". During this process, natural enzymes within the malt break down much of the starch into sugars which play a vital part in the fermentation process. Mashing usually takes 1 to 2 hours, and during this time various temperature rests (waiting periods) activate different enzymes depending upon the type of malt being used, its modification level, and the desires of the brewmaster. The activity of these enzymes convert the starches of the grains to dextrines and then to fermentable sugars such as maltose. The mash tun generally contains a slotted "false bottom" or other form of manifold which acts as a strainer allowing for the separation of the liquid from the grain.
[Beer Tangent: The most common ingredient used in home brewing is corn sugar, dextrose obtained from corn starch. Sometimes added during the fermentation process to give the saccharomyces cerevisiae more to chow down on & create more ethyl alcohol, sometimes added right before bottling to produce carbonation.]
So, the brewer & then distiller views it all as sugar and every one I ever spoke with in that culture referred to it as such. Some of the carbohydrates may start out as starches, but it is going to be worked on by enzymes into sugars if you expect it to be consumed by the yeast and transformed into CO2* & ethyl alcohol.
If the ethanol production facilities using corn to produce ethanol are using a different process NOT involving malt/mash/enzymes/yeast, I would be interested. There are other ways, but getting little microorganisms to do the work for you has been the means of choice for millenia.
Answered my own question:
Conventional ethanol and cellulosic ethanol are the same product, but are produced utilizing different feedstocks and processes. Conventional ethanol is derived from grains such as corn and wheat or soybeans. Corn, the predominant feedstock, is converted to ethanol in either a dry or wet milling process. In dry milling operations, liquefied corn starch is produced by heating corn meal with water and enzymes. A second enzyme converts the liquefied starch to sugars, which are fermented by yeast into ethanol and carbon dioxide. Wet milling operations separate the fiber, germ (oil), and protein from the starch before it is fermented into ethanol.
Same thing I used to do and humans have done since the Egyptians.In the end, terminology does not matter , as the BTU content of ethyl alcohol is what it is, no matter how it is obtained. Also, corn yield per acre does fluctuate, but mean yields and acreage devoted to corn & other ag foodstuffs, and the amount of ethanol produced from a given amount of corn can be determined.
* [enviro_squeal]Eek! CO2 is a byproduct of ethanol production?! How are they getting the energy to heat up the mash?! Coal-fired plants, maybe?![/enviro_squeal] It does look like there is no such thing as a free lunch, free beer, or internal combustion engines running on carbon-heavy compounds that don't produce CO2 somewhere in the mix. Or wort.
Post by: roo_ster on July 24, 2007, 10:32:47 AM
An Iowa State U report on the wonderfulness of ethanol as a fuel*? Whodda thunk it? I think that is one of the few topics on which Iowa State & U of Iowa alumni can agree.
Of course, they address only a small part of the deal, leaving out such elephants as the extra complexity of transporting ethanol, as it can not be shipped via pipelines, requiring trucks that burn diesel to move it about. I do like the chart on increasing yields per acre, though. Could increased use of fertilizer be a factor?
* Which poster wondered just who funded an ethanol study I cited previously?
Post by: Thor on July 24, 2007, 12:56:39 PM