Some Facts About Ethanol

So, I'm now truly baffled by the majority of the posters here wholeheartedly embracing E85. It costs significantly more, and is subsidized by the government. It has a major detrimental affect on vehicles not built to use it, as Ethanol is highly corrosive on the fuel system. It does in fact pollute the enviroment, just with a different set of toxins what we measure from gasoline pollution. Its been stated numerous times over that it costs more in energy to create than it produces (alas, the problem with most of the alternative fuels), and despite these facts it provides LESS miles per gallon and power than gasoline.
Click to expand...

Huh? where are you getting your facts?

Yes, it costs more, but its a moot point, since we WILL run out of oil, or it WILL be much more expensive than it is today.

Ethanol or Methanol both produce less pollutants than gas does--Period.

And why would you use E85 in a vehicle that wasn't designed to take it? (although if you currently use "premium" gas in your "little turbocharger sports car" its already up to 10% ethanol---that's how they boost the octane rating without using lead or other nasty additives). Also it can provide MORE power, in an engine designed for it, as the Octane rating is higher, so you can use a higher compression ratio, or more boost on a turbo/supercharger.
 
Random comments:

Given the choice between ETOH and MTBE I'll take ETOH any day. People forget quickly but MTBE was a poison/carcinogen/teratogen which was the last 'fantastic idea' from the lunatic eco-fringe.

Speaking of the lunatic eco-fringe I wonder how come whenever any of them 'does the math' about the cost of corn based ethanol and soybean based biodiesel they always conveniently forget the fact that byproducts of both processes produce animal feed which retails for about $180 per ton when sold in 50 pound bags? (This summer, with all the drought and poor grass, the Meek cows are very happy to be getting sweet feed made mostly from dried distillery mash.)

buckster, er, have you checked your seals and gaskets recently?

The Chinese used to run most of their trucks on wood alcohol. They carried the still in the truck and made it as they needed it. Stills burnt the charcoal made in the process. (First time I heard of this was reading the wartime printing of "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo" with all the names blanked out.)
 
Last edited:
Regardless of the efficiency of ethanol, relative to gasoline, it's absolutely a fact that corn is one of the least-efficient bases for ethanol production. Switchgrass, wood byproducts, etc., are much more efficient, and, after initial start-up costs, are much cheaper to produce.
 
As I set here looking at a corn field at the edge of my yard pondering a reply. Corn is really not an ideal product for alcohol production. It is at best a breakeven deal with cheap feedstocks like we have had for a few years. If corn prices rise above 2.75 a bushel it will loose money. If we want to have alcohol production that will be profitible we need to follow Brazils lead and convert to sugar cane. This won't happen because of present sugar subsidies. Just like the big bio-diesel farce. Using all available soybean oil for biodiesel production would cover about 8% of national use. Boy won't that make a dent in use, and remove lots of cooking oil and margerine from store shelves. I grow corn and soybeans and wheat and they will never be an economic source for raw materials, for energy production, unless they are extremely cheap.
 
I wonder if the best source of cheaper gas might be high sulfur coal, the sort that has been nixed for most US uses? Many moons ago back when I was an undergraduate I was involved in a project testing catalysts for coal liquifaction, looking for one which was more efficient than the ones the Germans used in the 1940's. The cost per gallon of coal-derived gasoline was estimated to be the astronomical price of $1.25 using 1940's technology and we were looking for a cheaper method.

The nice thing about liquifying cheap grades of coal is that much of the US is sitting on huge coal beds.
 
Switchgrass, wood byproducts, etc., are much more efficient, and, after initial start-up costs, are much cheaper to produce.
Click to expand...

Don't those (forgive me if I forgotten my basic chemistry) produce methanol, not ethanol? not that thats a big deal, methanol (wood alcohol) is also a viable fuel, too, you just need twice as much to get the same energy as gasoline.
 
I admit to almost total ignorance in this area but ...

I can't help but wonder where the agricultural acreage to produce biofuel will come from.

The world population is increasing at an unprecedented rate. The world will have to produce more food to feed its population, ergo more agricultural acreage will necessarily be devoted to food production.

Do we have enough surplus agricultural acreage in the world to accomodate both food and biofuel agriculture?
 
I heard something...

About hempseed oil. Oh wait, nevermind we don't want to put the chemical, oil, and paper companies out of business because it's important that they have control on what the people can and can't have, and make sure they have a grip on our government.


Epyon


P.S: I would think a government that didn't waste its time in futile wars could spend that effort into finding better solutions to our energy problems.
 
I can't help but wonder where the agricultural acreage to produce biofuel will come from.

The world population is increasing at an unprecedented rate. The world will have to produce more food to feed its population, ergo more agricultural acreage will necessarily be devoted to food production.

Do we have enough surplus agricultural acreage in the world to accomodate both food and biofuel agriculture?
Click to expand...

In the past 50 years we've increased the yield of many crops by 100%. In the U.S. much farmable land (especially the marginal stuff) goes unfarmed as a profitable market for the crops simply isn't there. And we still export huge amounts of foodstuffs.

So, yeah, if managed properly, there should be enough agricultural production for both.
 
I can't help but wonder where the agricultural acreage to produce biofuel will come from.
Click to expand...
You must not have read my post. Much of the grain grown in this country becomes animal feed. Making it into fermented mash and then extracting alcohol doesn't subtract from its value as feed.

:rolleyes:
 
Ethenol has as much bad science FOR IT than DDT had AGAINST IT. DDT BTW is a great pest controller... but libs yelled loud and long enough to get it banned.

Ethenol is on the same track.. the libs will yell loud and long till its forced down our tanks.

Ethanol is a joke. There is SO MUCH SLATE OIL IN THE US/CANADA IT MAKES THE MIDDLE EAST USELESS. But libs won't let us go get it. Even though we can do it with less pollution than just about any other fuel exploration.

Want to get the US off foreign oil? Get rid off all cars 20 years or older (unless a special antique/classi tag is paid for). That there will reduce polution before the first tree is cut down. Second all new vehicles will be DIESEL ONLY. The Otto engine is not feasable for high milage use. Plus diesels can easily be switched between fuels and can burn oil that is much less refined that gas. Lastly tell all oil producing nations that get subsidies IN ANY FORM FROM THE US that all funds will stop unless OPEC loses its control over production quotas.

Elect me president and I will cure ALL YOUR FUEL PROBLEMS :D
 
Ausserordeutlich said:
So, Mad, how about illuminating the unwashed masses?
Regardless of the efficiency of ethanol, relative to gasoline, it's absolutely a fact that corn is one of the least-efficient bases for ethanol production. Switchgrass, wood byproducts, etc., are much more efficient, and, after initial start-up costs, are much cheaper to produce.
Click to expand...
You've already covered part of it. Corn is a horrible material to base the effects of ethanol production on. You are correct in that crops like switch grass would be much more practical, along with the use of agricultural wastes. There are also the strawmen of antiquated fermentation methods and raw comparisons between the latent energy in gasoline and ethanol.
 
I worked in the field a number of years ago, and unless there has been a LOT of improvement in chemistry, technology, and engineering all across the board, conversion of cellulosics to ethanol is one of those things that sounds better than it works. I did small scale and pilot plant sulfuric acid hydrolysis on wood chips, waste paper, sugarcane bagasse, corn stover, and probably other stuff I do not now recall. It was a mess to deal with.
The biochemistry/microbiology side of the program just hung their heads whenever somebody told them that enzymatic hydrolysis was the way to go and they should have figured it out.

I would be interested to learn the state of the art that so impressed the President with switchgrass utilization.

I am in favor of a simple plan of reserving petroleum for transport fuels and chemical manufacture. Generate utility electricity with coal and nuclear, not oil and gas. Electrify railroads. Pick up a few percent with oddball sources like biomass, wind, wave, coalseam gas, etc., but don't expect them to save the day. Develop waste-to-energy without invoking the spectre of smoky old municipal incinerators. You can cofire about anything combustible with coal and the little bit of gases and ash it generates pales in comparison with the coal emissions that have to be dealt with anyhow.
 
"Don't those (forgive me if I forgotten my basic chemistry) produce methanol, not ethanol? not that thats a big deal, methanol (wood alcohol) is also a viable fuel, too, you just need twice as much to get the same energy as gasoline."


Nope; it's ethanol, just like corn. The technology for converting wood left-overs (in GA, 22,000,000 tons are left in the woods each year) into ethanol requires no dangerous chemicals or enzymes...only hot water and a membrane that separates the sugars out.

Some of my local friends are investing in a new corn-fed ethanol plant. They're being led to believe that the plant will be profitable, paying dividends, after one year. They're told that the current NET profit is $1.00 per gallon, and that their new plant will produce 100,000,000 gallons of ethanol per year.
 
Nope; it's ethanol, just like corn. The technology for converting wood left-overs (in GA, 22,000,000 tons are left in the woods each year) into ethanol requires no dangerous chemicals or enzymes...only hot water and a membrane that separates the sugars out.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't happen to have a journal or internet reference for that technology, would you?
 
ABE process is going to end up the best. Anaerobic, processes cellulose (meaning it works with vegetable *waste*), and you end up with acetone, butanol, and ethanol. Acetone's handy, ethanol's nice, but butanol can mix with gasoline in almost any ratio and still run in most vehicles... the properties are very close with butanol having, and I'm pulling this from memory, 90% of gasoline's energy compared with much less for ethanol.

Only hassle is, it smells funny :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top