Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

234 | 235 | 236

 ... 487

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

freshprncebelair

freshprncebelair

Ellicott City, MD
June 2004

JUL 18, 2005 07:31 AM


Yahoo News Article


Supporters of ethanol and other biofuels contend they burn cleaner than fossil fuels, reduce U.S. dependence on oil and give farmers another market to sell their produce.

But researchers at Cornell University and the University of California-Berkeley say it takes 29 percent more fossil energy to turn corn into ethanol than the amount of fuel the process produces. For switch grass, a warm weather perennial grass found in the Great Plains and eastern North America United States, it takes 45 percent more energy and for wood, 57 percent.



A crushing blow to biodiesel. If this study is correct, it would seem like biodiesel is utterly doomed.

(Blatantly stolen from Slashdot)

Keith

Keith

Oklahoma City, OK
August 2002

JUL 18, 2005 07:44 AM

...a SPECIFIC kind of biodiesel, made with a SPECIFIC kind of base oil, using a SPECIFIC kind of technology...

freshprncebelair

freshprncebelair

Ellicott City, MD
June 2004

JUL 18, 2005 08:47 AM

What if it turns out that Ethanol is a net energy loss?

What if it turns out Ethanol is just a feel good fuel, designed to provide subsidies to American farmers, and make environmentalists happy?

MistahPrince

MistahPrince

Chicago, IL
February 2005

JUL 18, 2005 09:01 AM

I have to agree here with skankzor. Ethanol is not the best alternative fuel out there. Same goes for recycling anything other than aluminium. It hurts the environment more than it helps, at this stage. Sure, getting the mindset there is a big step, but don't have false sense.

tathra

tathra

New Castle, IN
January 2005

JUL 18, 2005 09:04 AM

i'm sorta a fan of ethanol for fuel. that way i have an excuse to have open liquor bottles in the car - "what officer, this? this is my emergency fuel supply!" wink

Keith

Keith

Oklahoma City, OK
August 2002

JUL 18, 2005 09:07 AM

Sknow said:
I have to agree here with skankzor. Ethanol is not the best alternative fuel out there. Same goes for recycling anything other than aluminium. It hurts the environment more than it helps, at this stage. Sure, getting the mindset there is a big step, but don't have false sense.



What I'm saying is that ethanol is not the only kind of biodiesel, so saying that biodiesel is "doomed", because ethanol specificially is inefficient, is kind of silly.

lamdalamdalamda

lamdalamdalamda

Chicago, IL
February 2003

JUL 18, 2005 09:10 AM

we've been talking about this in the futurism group, and louys found this article. though new discoveries like this are very promising, we still have to conserve. there are other things we need petroleum for.

Trevallion

Trevallion

Murfreesboro, TN
February 2004

JUL 18, 2005 09:12 AM

I thought that most commercially produced biodiesel was made from soy?

dem_z

dem_z

United Kingdom
June 2004

JUL 18, 2005 09:14 AM

I don't know much physics but

but a new study says the alternative fuels burn more energy than they produce.


seems odd to me. What do they expect, that you'll burn less energy than you produce? confused

What they really need to do is give a comparison between ethanol and regular, from birth to grave, to see if there's advantages.

I find it hard to understand how a field is less efficient than oil rigs.

EDIT: Don't forget that it's a new industry without thatmuch funding at the moment, so obviously stuff is going to get more efficient.

[Edited on Jul 18, 2005 by dem_z]

bones_708

bones_708

Houston, TX
December 2004

JUL 18, 2005 09:23 AM

dem_z said:
I don't know much physics but

but a new study says the alternative fuels burn more energy than they produce.


seems odd to me. What do they expect, that you'll burn less energy than you produce? confused

What they really need to do is give a comparison between ethanol and regular, from birth to grave, to see if there's advantages.

I find it hard to understand how a field is less efficient than oil rigs.

EDIT: Don't forget that it's a new industry without thatmuch funding at the moment, so obviously stuff is going to get more efficient.

[Edited on Jul 18, 2005 by dem_z]



I would assume that the amout of energy (heat, electricity, ect) to produce the fuel is greater than the potential energy of the fuel they get out.

freshprncebelair

freshprncebelair

Ellicott City, MD
June 2004

JUL 18, 2005 09:32 AM

Trevallion said:
I thought that most commercially produced biodiesel was made from soy?




From the article:



It takes 27 percent more energy to turn soybeans into biodiesel fuel and more than double the energy produced is needed to do the same to sunflower plants, the study found.



And I know that fuels that we use to store energy will be a net energy loss, but the problem is that the energy losses talked about in the study are fossil fuel losses. If these were losses from Hydro, Solar, Nuclear energy, it wouldn't be a real issue

coasterdu

coasterdu

I'm lost
November 2004

JUL 18, 2005 09:54 AM

skankzor said:

A crushing blow to biodiesel. If this study is correct, it would seem like biodiesel is utterly doomed.

(Blatantly stolen from Slashdot)



Ethanol is not biodiesel. At least get your information straight before using phrases like "crushing blow". Ethanol is an alcohol, biodiesel is various natural oils. Ethanol is added to gasoline to increase the oxygen level and therefore improve combustion. The additive being used previously, MTBE, is a known carcinogen and was beginning to show up in water.

Right now ethanol is cheaper than gasoline due to a slight oversupply. The market will likely correct itself.

bones_708

bones_708

Houston, TX
December 2004

JUL 18, 2005 10:12 AM

teeseven said:

skankzor said:

A crushing blow to biodiesel. If this study is correct, it would seem like biodiesel is utterly doomed.

(Blatantly stolen from Slashdot)



Ethanol is not biodiesel. At least get your information straight before using phrases like "crushing blow". Ethanol is an alcohol, biodiesel is various natural oils. Ethanol is added to gasoline to increase the oxygen level and therefore improve combustion. The additive being used previously, MTBE, is a known carcinogen and was beginning to show up in water.

Right now ethanol is cheaper than gasoline due to a slight oversupply. The market will likely correct itself.



And if you checked the artical you would of seen that biodesel has the same problem as ethanol. They use more fossil fuel to make than gets produced.

Helter

Helter

Chester, PA
OLD SKOOL

JUL 18, 2005 10:13 AM

dem_z said:
I don't know much physics but

but a new study says the alternative fuels burn more energy than they produce.


seems odd to me. What do they expect, that you'll burn less energy than you produce? confused

What they really need to do is give a comparison between ethanol and regular, from birth to grave, to see if there's advantages.

I find it hard to understand how a field is less efficient than oil rigs.

EDIT: Don't forget that it's a new industry without thatmuch funding at the moment, so obviously stuff is going to get more efficient.

[Edited on Jul 18, 2005 by dem_z]




You have to compare the amount of energy it takes to harvest and process the fuel to the amount of energy the end product will contain. If the end product contains less energy than it took to produce, and isn't in a significantly more accessible form, then you would have been better off not even doing it.
Gasoline has a huge energy density, ethanol doesn't. That means that ethanol needs to be much less energy intensive to produce in order to give the same cost/benefit ratio.

Helter

Helter

Chester, PA
OLD SKOOL

JUL 18, 2005 10:17 AM

bones_708 said:

teeseven said:

skankzor said:

A crushing blow to biodiesel. If this study is correct, it would seem like biodiesel is utterly doomed.

(Blatantly stolen from Slashdot)



Ethanol is not biodiesel. At least get your information straight before using phrases like "crushing blow". Ethanol is an alcohol, biodiesel is various natural oils. Ethanol is added to gasoline to increase the oxygen level and therefore improve combustion. The additive being used previously, MTBE, is a known carcinogen and was beginning to show up in water.

Right now ethanol is cheaper than gasoline due to a slight oversupply. The market will likely correct itself.



And if you checked the artical you would of seen that biodesel has the same problem as ethanol. They use more fossil fuel to make than gets produced.



More accurately, you would have seen that *one study claims* that this problem exists. there are dozens of other studies that claim the opposite.

bones_708

bones_708

Houston, TX
December 2004

JUL 18, 2005 10:20 AM

Helter said:

bones_708 said:

teeseven said:

skankzor said:

A crushing blow to biodiesel. If this study is correct, it would seem like biodiesel is utterly doomed.

(Blatantly stolen from Slashdot)



Ethanol is not biodiesel. At least get your information straight before using phrases like "crushing blow". Ethanol is an alcohol, biodiesel is various natural oils. Ethanol is added to gasoline to increase the oxygen level and therefore improve combustion. The additive being used previously, MTBE, is a known carcinogen and was beginning to show up in water.

Right now ethanol is cheaper than gasoline due to a slight oversupply. The market will likely correct itself.



And if you checked the artical you would of seen that biodesel has the same problem as ethanol. They use more fossil fuel to make than gets produced.



More accurately, you would have seen that *one study claims* that this problem exists. there are dozens of other studies that claim the opposite.



Right now there is one posted study showing it is not efficent and you, with no support, saying it is. Hmmmm which way should I lean?

Helter

Helter

Chester, PA
OLD SKOOL

JUL 18, 2005 10:29 AM

bones_708 said:

Helter said:

bones_708 said:

teeseven said:

skankzor said:

A crushing blow to biodiesel. If this study is correct, it would seem like biodiesel is utterly doomed.

(Blatantly stolen from Slashdot)



Ethanol is not biodiesel. At least get your information straight before using phrases like "crushing blow". Ethanol is an alcohol, biodiesel is various natural oils. Ethanol is added to gasoline to increase the oxygen level and therefore improve combustion. The additive being used previously, MTBE, is a known carcinogen and was beginning to show up in water.

Right now ethanol is cheaper than gasoline due to a slight oversupply. The market will likely correct itself.



And if you checked the artical you would of seen that biodesel has the same problem as ethanol. They use more fossil fuel to make than gets produced.



More accurately, you would have seen that *one study claims* that this problem exists. there are dozens of other studies that claim the opposite.



Right now there is one posted study showing it is not efficent and you, with no support, saying it is. Hmmmm which way should I lean?



No, right now there is one article, which mentions a number of studies, one of which says one thing, a few of others say another thing. I haven't said anything one way or another, I was simply pointing out that this is just one study out of literally dozens that have been done, so declaring it as fact is extremely premature. I can't help that you don't seem to have much grasp of either the subject at large or the article in question.

bones_708

bones_708

Houston, TX
December 2004

JUL 18, 2005 10:54 AM

Helter said:
No, right now there is one article, which mentions a number of studies, one of which says one thing, a few of others say another thing. I haven't said anything one way or another, I was simply pointing out that this is just one study out of literally dozens that have been done, so declaring it as fact is extremely premature. I can't help that you don't seem to have much grasp of either the subject at large or the article in question.


Right now there is one article referencing a study that says biodiesel is inefficient. There was no other comment about biodiesel in that article. Biodiesel has many advantages as far as emissions are concerned, however it does cost more to produce and uses more energy than you get out. This may change with alternative sources of oil (mustard seed, algae, recycled cooking oil) are figured in. You would also have to figure in the environmental costs of cultivating the size crop you would need to provide reasonable quantities of Biodiesel. The massive farming, pesticides, fertilizers, ect. Insulting me or trying to weaken my arguments by questioning my knowledge or intelligence without even trying to address the issues shows that you have no desire for any real debate.

GramNegative

GramNegative

I'm lost
October 2004

JUL 18, 2005 11:15 AM

bones_708 said:
you have no desire for any real debate.


Maybe he, unlike you, does not really want to debate it for the sake of debate.
If you spent 30 seconds on google you could find 100000 other articles about biodiesel production, but you just want to argue in the context of this thread.
Have fun.

[Edited on Jul 18, 2005 by GramNegative]

Stiles

Stiles

Oakland, CA
November 2002

JUL 18, 2005 11:28 AM

Read this article for an overview of ethanol production efficiency covering various sources being used in the world today.

Corn is inefficient compared to sugar beets, or best of all, sugarcane (as used in Brazil, the current leader in ethanol production, where ethanol has replaced 40% of imported fuel for domestic use).


Also important is the amount of energy used to produce ethanol. Growing, transporting, and distilling corn to make a gallon of ethanol uses almost as much energy as is contained in the ethanol itself. Sugar beets are a better source, producing nearly two units of energy for every unit used in production. Sugarcane, though, is by far the most efficient of the current feedstocks-yielding eight times as much energy as is needed to produce the ethanol. Given their positive energy balances and higher yields, it makes more sense to produce ethanol from sugar crops than from grains.




Since sugarcane energy yield is the best @ 800%, we would do well to figure out how to grow it in the US...

bones_708

bones_708

Houston, TX
December 2004

JUL 18, 2005 11:34 AM

GramNegative said:

bones_708 said:
you have no desire for any real debate.


Maybe he, unlike you, does not really want to debate it for the sake of debate.
If you spent 30 seconds on google you could find 100000 other articles about biodiesel production, but you just want to argue in the context of this thread.
Have fun.

[Edited on Jul 18, 2005 by GramNegative]



I have ,tho I like yahoo, and not just for this thead. I am more than open to discusing this topic. It is hard when people don't say anything. Like you. How would I respond to someone who doesn't state anything but "there are other studies". Yes there are AND .

GramNegative

GramNegative

I'm lost
October 2004

JUL 18, 2005 11:35 AM

from my post in environment group:
link

If we used the entire U.S. corn crop of 11 billion bushels, that would produce only 30 billion gallons of ethanol — less than 20 percent of total gas consumption.



Ethanol, like hydrogen, makes a much cleaner energy storage medium (fuel).

As I understand it, a major issue with ethanol is drying it (getting the water out), and there are some cheap ways being looked at - ceramics and cornmeal (!) are two I read about a few months ago. The tradition distilling/refluxing is energy intensive.

bones_708

bones_708

Houston, TX
December 2004

JUL 18, 2005 11:39 AM

Stiles said:
Read this article for an overview of ethanol production efficiency covering various sources being used in the world today.

Corn is inefficient compared to sugar beets, or best of all, sugarcane (as used in Brazil, the current leader in ethanol production, where ethanol has replaced 40% of imported fuel for domestic use).


Also important is the amount of energy used to produce ethanol. Growing, transporting, and distilling corn to make a gallon of ethanol uses almost as much energy as is contained in the ethanol itself. Sugar beets are a better source, producing nearly two units of energy for every unit used in production. Sugarcane, though, is by far the most efficient of the current feedstocks-yielding eight times as much energy as is needed to produce the ethanol. Given their positive energy balances and higher yields, it makes more sense to produce ethanol from sugar crops than from grains.




Since sugarcane energy yield is the best @ 800%, we would do well to figure out how to grow it in the US...



I agree that sugar cane is a great source of ethanol. I do think however that it would be at best a stopgap measure until cleaner fuel or new tech comes along. There is no doubt that is can help both our fuel supplies and some enviormental concerns.

GramNegative

GramNegative

I'm lost
October 2004

JUL 18, 2005 11:43 AM

energy content /pound

Methyl Alcohol has 10,200 BTUs per pound and is made from wood grains. It is also the type of alcohol that causes blindness and death if ingested. Methyl Alcohol is sold as HEET fuel line dryer and also comprises 80% of what is sold as denatured alcohol in the 32 ounce cans at Wal-Mart.

Ethyl Alcohol has 12,550 BTUs per pound and is made from grains. It's what you drink in beer, tequila, etc. You can get it as Everclear (90% pure) or in denatured alcohol from Wal-Mart because it makes up the other 20% of that formula.

Compared to Propane/Butane or gas with about 21,000 BTUs per pound

.

Using ethanol means you have to carry twice the fuel - assuming the engine uses it just as effeciently

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

JUL 18, 2005 11:44 AM

There's a whole host of sources cited from this page...

http://earth-policy.org/Updates/2005/Update49.htm

Growing, transporting, and distilling corn to make a gallon of ethanol uses almost as much energy as is contained in the ethanol itself. Sugar beets are a better source, producing nearly two units of energy for every unit used in production. Sugarcane, though, is by far the most efficient of the current feedstocks—yielding eight times as much energy as is needed to produce the ethanol. Given their positive energy balances and higher yields, it makes more sense to produce ethanol from sugar crops than from grains.


Edit: Damn, looks like Stiles beat me to that one.

Citations listed there include this one:
USDA: The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol (PDF)

We conclude
that the NEV of corn ethanol has been rising over time due to technological
advances in ethanol conversion and increased efficiency in farm production. We
show that corn ethanol is energy efficient as indicated by an energy output:input
ratio of 1.34.


Now, I'm not saying that either the study cited in the Yahoo article or this one are "right," but you (bones) seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that there are other, conflicting references.

[Edited on Jul 18, 2005 by bean]

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next