Ethanol requirement

Aoxomoxoa said:
I wonder why we can allow high octane lead free petrol in this country for old engines and vintage cars?
Click to expand...

Because it is the only thing they will run on and their usage is incidental at best and there are very few of them, so it doesn't matter.
 
tekkychick said:
That's not his point either.

His point is - if you are using fossil fuels, try to use fuels that aren't quite as bad to the environment. And that the govt can regulate that, as otherwise we'd have the "tragedy of the commons" that I'm sure everyone on this forum discussed in their economics classes.
Click to expand...

Try to not use fossil fuels at all. All gasoline engines can run on pure methanol, and all diesels can be run on a mixture of 10% methanol and 90% plant oil. Diesels can actually run on 100% plant oil with slight modifications.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I saw a dirty jobs program where a dairy farmer did something similar. He invented a process using cow manure that created seeding pots. Providing a container and a biodegradable nutrient source all in one package. Rowe said it was genius.....if you could consider someone who worked with cow poo for a living a genius. LOL
Click to expand...

Most dairy farms in New England make and use methane from their cow manure. It is nothing new, but it's widespread use is.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
from the statement you quoted...."the majority of the US corn production consumed by humans is in the form of corn syrup".......that consumed by animals is a different matter....
Click to expand...

your wording it differently doesn't change the fact that more corn is consumed as animal food than by humans as corn syrup. Lawyers are so stupid thinking technicalities and wording are more important than the facts themselves. That is why Yurt sucked too.
 
Rune said:
Have you ever heard of physics, moron? Conservation of energy? I didn't think so.
Click to expand...

why do you ignore scientific fact?....
Cassman, a professor of agronomy at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, said in 2008 that ethanol has a substantial net positive direct energy balance—1.5 to 1.6 more units of energy are derived from ethanol than are used to produce it. Comparing 2008 to 2003, Alan Tiemann of Seward, a Nebraska Corn Board member, said that ethanol plants produce 15 percent more ethanol from a bushel of corn and use about 20 percent less energy in the process. At the same time, corn growers are more efficient, producing more corn per acre and using less energy to do so.[4]
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_energy_balance

reports based on data from 2003 or worse, from 1995, do not take into consideration the improvements made in the process......its like arguing that pocket calculators are not cost efficient because in the 70s they cost hundreds of dollars to produce.....
 
Rune said:
your wording it differently doesn't change the fact that more corn is consumed as animal food than by humans as corn syrup. Lawyers are so stupid thinking technicalities and wording are more important than the facts themselves. That is why Yurt sucked too.
Click to expand...

my statement was in response to a claim that ethanol production increased the costs of the corn that humans consumed........since no one claimed that animals don't eat more corn than humans your point is a worthless misdirection......what is your response to my point that brewer's mash, a by product of the ethanol production process can still be used as an animal feed?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
why do you ignore scientific fact?....

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

reports based on data from 2003 or worse, from 1995, do not take into consideration the improvements made in the process......its like arguing that pocket calculators are not cost efficient because in the 70s they cost hundreds of dollars to produce.....
Click to expand...

Why do you ignore reality?

From the same wiki article;

According to DoE,[SUP][16][/SUP] to evaluate the net energy of ethanol four variables must be considered:

  1. the amount of energy contained in the final ethanol product
  2. the amount of energy directly consumed to make the ethanol (such as the diesel used in tractors)
  3. the quality of the resulting ethanol compared to the quality of refined gasoline
  4. the energy indirectly consumed (in order to make the ethanol processing plant, etc.).
Much of the current academic discussion regarding ethanol currently revolves around issues of system borders. This refers to how complete of a picture is drawn for energy inputs. There is debate on whether to include items like the energy required to feed the people tending and processing the corn, to erect and repair farm fences, even the amount of energy a tractor represents.
In addition, there is no consensus on what sort of value to give the rest of the corn (such as the stalk), commonly known as the 'coproduct.' Some studies leave it on the field to protect the soil from erosion and to add organic matter, while others take and burn the coproduct to power the ethanol plant, but do not address the resulting soil erosion (which would require energy in the form of fertilizer to replace). Depending on the ethanol study you read, net energy returns vary from .7-1.5 units of ethanol per unit of fossil fuel energy consumed. For comparison, that same one unit of fossil fuel invested in oil and gas extraction (in the lower 48 States) will yield 15 units of gasoline, a yield an order of magnitude better than current ethanol production technologies, ignoring the energy quality arguments above and the fact that the gain (14 units) is both declining and not carbon neutra
 
PostmodernProphet said:
my statement was in response to a claim that ethanol production increased the costs of the corn that humans consumed........since no one claimed that animals don't eat more corn than humans your point is a worthless misdirection......what is your response to my point that brewer's mash, a by product of the ethanol production process can still be used as an animal feed?......
Click to expand...

So can presscake, irrelevant.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
do you believe electric cars are successful?......
Click to expand...

Yes, they are in their infancy in modern incarnation but with zero doubt are our transitional solution at a minimum and permanent solution in many instances.

Their superior qualities compared to ICE autos are vastly understated and generally unknown. I have quite a few threads about them on JPP if you would like to learn about them.
 
Rune said:
Depending on the ethanol study you read, net energy returns vary from .7-1.5 units of ethanol per unit of fossil fuel energy consumed.
Click to expand...

true.....there are studies that say it is .7.....but those are the ones based on outdated data.....the fact is, there is NO net loss of energy.....further, the energy consumed to produce ethanol fuel for vehicles is energy that 1) we have in abundance domestically and 2) is not currently being used to power vehicles......
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top