Wouldn't it better to just discontinue Ethanol?

E

Euphod

No Friend requests please
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest...monly-used-rail-car-has-dangerous-design-flaw

I realize that some industries require Ethanol, but it has been proven to be ineffective (in fact, counter productive) in reducing emissions, dangerous to transport, more expensive than gas, harmful to engines, and removes much of the corn crop from use for the world's food supply. The only people that benefit from it's use as a gasoline additive are the farmers that receive the subsidies that the rest of us pay for. It seems silly to complain about a design flaw (?) of the transportation container for a product that is useless, and then suggest that shipping companies should pay millions to improve the same, all the while knowing that those costs get passed on to the consumer.
 
I will start of with saying most of the US corn crop is used for animal feed, not in the production of ethanol. More than one-third of our corn crop is used to feed livestock. Another 13 percent is exported, much of it to feed livestock as well. Another 40 percent is used to produce ethanol. The remainder goes toward food and beverage production. Almost any plant-based material can be an ethanol feedstock. All plants contain sugars, and these sugars can be fermented to make ethanol. The Renewable Fuel Standard limits production of ethanol from starch-based feedstocks to 15 billion gallons to ensure there are enough feedstocks to meet demand in livestock feed, human food, and export markets. As for dangerous to transport, is it anymore dangerous than LGP, gasoline, chlorine or hydrogen. And from personal observations, I have seen more deaths caused highway transportation of hazardous materials than I have rail transport, by the way, I live in car crazy Southern California.

Just my 2cents
John
 
For the most part I can only agree Ed, although I think it's not right to say ethanol harms engines. If it's used at the right level and the engines are designed to take it, there are no problems.

Ethanol from food starch and sugar is a misuse of technology though. Bio-ethanol could be morally and environmentally justifiable when it can be made from inedible plant matter (the stalks, husks, leaves etc). I think it's called 'second generation' (or possibly third generation) cellulosic biofuel, and I know a lot of effort is being poured into that. It's chemically difficult - plants only exist because that material resists degradation. It can be fermented after treatment with acids, high temperatures and pressures, but that just negates the overall environmental benefit. The hope is that a catalyst or bio-agent (perhaps a genetically modified yeast) can be developed to make the process take place under mild conditions.

.
 
Last edited:
Euphod said:
The only people that benefit from it's use as a gasoline additive are the farmers that receive the subsidies that the rest of us pay for.
Click to expand...

No the other people who benefit are the politicians the lobby groups make very generous donations and its only some farmers who benefit, many who raise cattle etc would prefer this not to happen.

Cheerio John
 
Euphod said:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest...monly-used-rail-car-has-dangerous-design-flaw

... The only people that benefit from it's use as a gasoline additive are the farmers that receive the subsidies that the rest of us pay for...
Click to expand...

I've never considered corporate giants like ADM to be "farmers". While "real" farmers have enjoyed benefits from the subsidies, corporate interests and their lobbyists kept the ethanol subsidies in place for so long. I don't think doing what is "better" has much bearing on business-and-political stuff like ethanol subisidies! Better for whom? Better for ADM's commodity and ethanol production business, its shareholders, its management, and employees? Better for corn farmers? Better for consumers? Better for the economy or the environment? More than one perspective on what's better, depending on your interest in the outcome. :confused:
 
:cool: Missing from this discussion is the intrusion of Enviornmental Protection Agency(EPA) exhaust emmissions regulations. Ethanol is an alcohol based fuel that has few or none of the exhaust particulates contained in straight Diesel and gasoline fuels.

There certainly is a large faction of enviornmental, business and political thumbs in the works reguarding ethanol production. EPA requires that a certain amount of ethanol be present in all fuels with a target date in force.

ABOLISH THE EPA!
 
Some simple numbers. My vehicle gets about 22 mpg without ethanol, but with 10% ethanol, the gas mileage drops to about 18 mpg. A thousand miles without ethanol would require 45.5 gal, but with ethanol, it requires 55.5 gal. Considering that the ethanol amount is 10%, it takes 50 gal of gasoline mixed with 5.5 gal of ethanol to go the same distance that 45.5 gal of gasoline would take me before. And yes, I keep my engine very well tuned and in tolerances. So, it takes 4.5 more gallons of gasoline to go the same 1000 miles when mixed with ethanol than it does without it. Where is the savings in gasoline? Am I supposed to go out and spend thousands of dollars on a new vehicle just to use ethanol when the vehicle I already have passes emissions tests just fine even when using fuel without ethanol?

Mike
 
Mike/Leefer

Good to see you back.

I won't dispute your figures, but will say I am a little surprised. I ran my previous car on 10% ethanol for years and could never tell the difference. It's true that the energy generated per kilogram of ethanol is less than you get from a kilo of gasoline, but ethanol is more dense, so in a gallon you get more kilo's which tends to minimize the differences in the miles-per-gallon fuel economy.

The point about ethanol though is that unlike fossil fuels, the carbon dioxide it generates is (in principle) 'greenhouse neutral' because the carbon involved was recently taken from the atmosphere by plants. And it's renewable so it's not depleting a finite oil resource. That's in the ideal world, but in reality, growing the feedstock plants, processing them and transporting the bio-fuel still involves fossil fuel inputs, so it's less than greenhouse-neutral (but not as bad as fossil fuel). When diluted to just 10% in gasoline though, the overall environmental benefits are so small that even environmentalists question why it's being pushed.

I was getting similar mileage to you in my Japanese 6-cylinder gasoline car. When the time came to replace it, I changed to a German turbo-diesel. It delivers twice the power and twice the mileage. I don't know how they do it, but I know why. These increases in fuel economy were driven by EPA legislation. They should be applauded not abolished.
 
Last edited:
BD1 said:
It does take many gallons of gasoline, diesel fuel, petroleum oil to manufacture one gallon of Ethanol.

This country is criss crossed by thousands of petroleum pipelines, yet much of it goes by long distance trucks.

It is counter productive, wastes resources, wastes petroleum fuel, and coal supplies due to increased electrical use.
Click to expand...

Having hauled millions of gallons of gasoline myself, I can say that pipelines, rail, and ships haul the gasoline to the terminals (the loading racks) and the trucks go from the terminals to the gas stations. Pipeline to each individual station would be ridiculously inefficient.
 
Australia's V8 Supercars race series uses 85% ethanol based fuels. These cars reach 300kmh at Mt Panorama racing circuit. The engines are very reliable, most mechanical failures involve non engine components. This would tend to show that IF the engines are built and tuned to run ethanol based fuels, they can be reliable and efficient.
Most of the anti-ethanol mumbo jumbo comes from the ones with the most to lose - the fossil fuel oil giants. It is well known that the oil companies have bought out patents for more efficient and or alternative fuel sourced engines in order to protect their fuel monopoly and billion dollar revenues. I believe Brazil is a world leader in ethanol based fuel use, where it is the normal product found at service (gas) stations.
Personally, I do not use ethanol based fuel - but only because my car's engine is not specifically designed for it. Fossil fuels are finite, so it is inevitable that renewable energy sources need to be found and improved.

Bob (CRO)
 
That is the point, the principle of the steam engine was known centuries before James Watt was born, what he did was make it efficient and practical.

Other item, in Britain sometime in the 1930s a bunch of boffins erected a radio transmitter. Nothing on it but a continuous carrier wave, not much fun to listen to. They hooked the receiver antenna to an oscilloscope, then watched while the line slowly showed a spike that grew to an inch high and then back to nothing again as an airplane flew toward the antenna, passed it, then flew away.

Again not much use, range was about half a mile, no bearing, range, altitude, or speed information, but that was the beginning of radar.

Same thing applies to alternate energy sources, solar cells are way too expensive and inefficient for me to cover the roof of my house with them and tell the electric company to go rob somebody else, but the research has to start someplace and somebody has to pay for it.
 
Last edited:
I think the reality of it all, is the air pollution help it creates to Larger cities..Particularly like Phoenix. Los Angeles, San Diego,. Areas of the southwest..We have too burn 10% Ethanol particular during the summer Months..The pollution seems the highest during these months..Also I think about it Denver is Quite bad to..It has its Brown Days too..
 
I'm not going to discuss the merits of ethanol as a fuel but this story is just typical media sensationalist bs, "But the accident reports show that since 1996 at least two people have been killed by balls of flame, with dozens more hurt." <- they even admit it themselves.
 
"typical media sensationalist bs" is right, look at all the melodramamatic hysteria over the V-22 Osprey accidents. Technically that's a fancy helicopter similar to the CH-46 Chinook, only more complicated due to the tilt rotor design. Helicopters are gonna crash more often than fixed wing aircraft simply because they have a lot more moving parts, are harder to control, and generally operate closer to obstacles because that's the whole point of helicopters. Toss in the hazardous nature of military operations and it actually has a very GOOD record, yet the media has to sensationalize the whole thing and make mountains out of molehills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top