Wouldn't it better to just discontinue Ethanol?

Hi,

Small amounts of ethanol, or more precicly ethyl-alcohol, have been added to automobile and avaiation fuel for piston engines for many decades to increase the octane number. What is new, are efforts to increase the amount of ethanol in automobile fuel.

Almost pure ethanol is an ordinary chemical which has numerous uses, ranging from solvent for pharmaceuticals, paints amd resins, desinfectant, starting product for chemical synthesis, fuel for e.g camping cooking ovens.

Its advantage is, that it can be produced by fermentation from biomaterials, its use is therefore CO2 neutral. It is also much less toxic than other organic solvents and fuels. Even humans can degrade it to carbon dioxide and water, at least in moderate doses.
During production of agriculural products, there are also batches which are not suitable for human or animal consumption, which are traditionally used for ethanol production. Using first rate agricultural products or even increasing areas of fields just for ethanol production may be an abuse of the system, but should not be taken to ask for abolition of the system as such.

We also have to consider that agricultural prices must be carefully balanced. If they rise too much, famine will occur in many parts of the world. If, on the other hand, they drop too much, farmers won't be able to make a living anymore. Production of ethanol is one tool to keep prices at a sustainable level.

In any case the amounts of ethanol produced are just too small to warrant pipelines. Transportation by tank cars in trains will continue to be the most efficient way of transporting ethanol.
Building realistic chemical plants is rather poly intensive, but using the more recent versions of trains, which allow the use of bump mapping as well as LOD, makes this a less difficult task. For content creators, building fermentation plants with track and loading/unloading facilities for raw materials and ethanol might be an interesting task.

Cheers,

Konni
 
Last edited:
If You have ever lived in any of the cities I mentioned above, you would know what I mean..Cough, cough Sputter...You would be surprised at the amount of people that have too wear masks..
 
Its advantage is, that it can be produced by fermentation from biomaterials, its use is therefore CO2 neutral.
Click to expand...

Except for when it's not. That could only be true if it plant's itself, uses no fertilizer or pump driven irrigation, no pesticides, harvest's itself, process's itself, dry's itself, store's itself, market's itself and transport's itself. Amazing!
 
While I am not for discontinuing ethanol, it does have its disadvantages... Why do we use ethanol in the first place? It burns cleaner than standard gas (Yep, another one thanks to the green freaks of the world, that people seem to think they account for all of the population.. Yes, the ones who use Global warming to make money) Disadvantages are that #1 Ethanol is a form of Alcohol, and it burns much hotter than standard gas, thus why special engines have to be made for it... Thus engines that are made for it and the owners use Ethanol in it, these engines may not last as long.... But this is not all, there is something else behind the ethanol business that makes more money than the gas itself... Its call High Fructose Corn Syrup, its used in nearly every food manufactured in the US, and it is a by-product of the ethanol making process....
 
I enjoy the claims of the environmentalists when they neglect to factor all the processes involved in the wonderful end results, as if those processes are not associated with the final product.
 
Euphod said:
I enjoy the claims of the environmentalists when they neglect to factor all the processes involved in the wonderful end results, as if those processes are not associated with the final product.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't be dancing around something like electric cars, would you? They are good for the environment, are clean, have no emissions, and will save the world!!










Don't read this part: They need smelly, polluting power plants to make the electricity, and lots and lots of inefficient power lines to bring a small percent of that electricity to the house to charge the car? And when those heavy batteries are no good anymore, leave a ton of hazardous batteries to be disposed of?
 
Very good Scott, I also like the slight of hand our government plays with the issue. You know, mass produced electricity from power plants is far more environmentally friendly than using gasoline, and is less expensive to the consumer.

“Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity price would necessarily skyrocket. . . . Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, natural gas—you name it—whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”
​
— President Barack Obama, January 2008

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.
​
— President Barack Obama, January 2008
Click to expand...
 
Ed: You live in a Big city area..Don't you have Brown Days??I think Ethanol is the only that helps that I know of..I guess too you have take in contention the air Flow..We Live in a valley which doesn't help..What are your thoughts??
 
I think the nearby Lake Michigan helps to prevent air dome inversions in the Chicago area, plus there are no valleys here. I am familiar with the brown days though, as I did live in California for some time. If you are referring to the above quotes, the question is, what happens to the money that the end consumer pays more of to the utility to cover the retrofit or the fines involved? The government takes that as taxes and then...?

A) They pay down the deficit! :eek:

B) They put it in a "lock box" to pay off unfunded mandates! :hehe:

c) They find another way to spend it, create another entitlement program, or give it all to Sandra Fluke for free birth control! :eek:
 
I figured this would get political. Let's talk about Trainz and by the way, in sunny California less than 0.7% of power is generated by in-state coal fired power plants. Maybe we should let business self regulate, do what they wish, and the public be dammed! Don't like it, move! Somebody does not believe fat meat is greasy!

John
 
Enzo,

If anyone is making money out of global warming it's the fossil fuel industry. Fossil fuels are sold and are causing global warming. To turn that around and claim that environmentalists are making the money is a totally disingenuous way of looking at it. And corn syrup is not a "by product of the ethanol making business". It was around as an industrial-scale food additive long before ethanol as a gasoline additive.

Ed,

Environmentalists (or anyone) who makes claims without taking all the processes into account is not really an environmentalist. Look up the term "Life Cycle Analysis". This is a rigorous technique developed by environmentalists precisely to look at all the inputs and outputs associated with products and industrial processes. It's the reason why the environmental community is skeptical about bio-ethanol from corn starch. That's not to say bio-ethanol is inherently a bad concept, just that it depends totally on what all the inputs and outputs are. LCA is a tool that quantifies those factors and tells us where the balance really lies. If anyone is wilfully ignoring factors, it's those with vested interests in the continued use of fossil fuels without the measures (or yes, costs) to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels.
 
Last edited:
"Business" and "public good" are not inherently mutually-exclusive. On the other hand, "Government" and "public good" largely are, especially in this day and age.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top