bones_708 said:

Being a smart ass doesn't change that they used waste for energy production does it? Or do you think trash will give better ethanol production than corn? If Corn is borderline (at best) then how in the hell is trash going to be more effecent?

*bzzzzt*
Thank you for playing

I know you're not a fan of critical analysis, but do try to keep up:

Your examples were both out of date, and thus based on wildly inaccurate asumptions about the current price of oil.

Your other example was a few words about two solitary operations in Florida with no description or backing numbers whatsoever.

They prove *nothing*.

In fact, if you plug current oil prices into the Australian paper you cited, ethanol production there would be quite profitable, everything else being equal.

It really, really helps to read your cites before posting them.

You really didn't read them did you? Or think about what they said anyway. Sugar cane is a viable comercial source of ethanol. I have never said diffrent, quite the opposite. You started to champion using biomass waste for ethanol production. That is not comercialy viable. Those were two quick sources but let me give you a clue, it's not how much oil costs, it's how much energy you use to produce the fuel, how much it cost to produce the fuel, how much competing fuel sources are, and the impact of producing the fuel among others. Saying "oil cost more so now it works" is ignoring the rest of the equation. Your point when you started this little discusion was that waste products should be used as a source for ethanol.

You said

and you should have no problem finding me a powerplant that runs on farm waste like cornstalks and turkey offal, if you really believe what you posted.

And I did, but they were to old and didn't count and besides oil costs more now.
OK whatever, nevermind that you have yet to come up with any facts to support any position (in fact so far I'm not sure you've taken any but just tried to work me) and I have supported my claims. I'll give you another source that shows using biomass left from ethanol production for electrical generation.

Here

In this regard, geography is the decisive factor. In tropical regions with abundant water and land resources, such as Brazil, the viability of production of ethanol from sugarcane is no longer in question; in fact, the burning of sugarcane residues (bagasse) generates far more energy than needed to operate the ethanol plants, and many of them are now selling electric energy to the utilities

Now sugar cane, the best current base for ethanol production, is not able to be grown in large areas of the US so that lowers the ballance of energy on US ethanol production. Now if had made any other point I would address them, but since you seem to have gotten down to " You're Wrong! You're Wrong!" without going into specifics. I guess that will do for now.

[Edited on Jul 18, 2005 by bones_708]

except you ignore another whole side of the equation, using solar/wind/water power to generate electrical/heat rather than oil byproducts. that could make the whole system viable.

we're never going to have one miracle power source that fits our needs (unless, you know, we find out what powered atlantis). at best we're going to be able to make is a patchwork quilt of various kinds of energy. that's where solar/water/wind/geothermal come in. using them, we can create biodiesel fuels easily without damaging the environment or using fossil fuels.

bones_708

Houston, TX

December 2004

JUL 18, 2005 08:45 PM

ashmanonar said:

except you ignore another whole side of the equation, using solar/wind/water power to generate electrical/heat rather than oil byproducts. that could make the whole system viable.

we're never going to have one miracle power source that fits our needs (unless, you know, we find out what powered atlantis). at best we're going to be able to make is a patchwork quilt of various kinds of energy. that's where solar/water/wind/geothermal come in. using them, we can create biodiesel fuels easily without damaging the environment or using fossil fuels.

Well, no. Right now in the US you have value on electricity. If it cost more to produce than the energy value of the ethanol then it is not comercialy viable. That being said I wish people would read the posts and follow the argument. What you are responding to is me telling Stiles that it is more effecent to burn waste biomas for energy (as to use durring ethanol production) than to try and make ethanol from what is basicly trash. Right now I would say ethanol replacing MTBE in gas is what we need to try for. Just that 10% mix make a world of diffrence to the enviorment. That is an obtainable goal, not an easy one, but obtainable in the reasonable future.

freshprncebelair

Ellicott City, MD

June 2004

JUL 18, 2005 08:51 PM

bones_708 said:

Well, the main thing is, is avoiding reliance on fossil fuels for creating our alternative energy sources.

Most alternative energy plans right now involve storing energy chemically (biodiesel, ethanol, hydrogen). This means that energy WILL be lost. However, if we can get energy from Nuke/Wind/Solar/etc sources, storing the energy won't hurt the environment like the situation right now (the energy stored is from fossil fuels).

bones_708

Houston, TX

December 2004

JUL 18, 2005 09:10 PM

skankzor said:

Well, the main thing is, is avoiding reliance on fossil fuels for creating our alternative energy sources.

Most alternative energy plans right now involve storing energy chemically (biodiesel, ethanol, hydrogen). This means that energy WILL be lost. However, if we can get energy from Nuke/Wind/Solar/etc sources, storing the energy won't hurt the environment like the situation right now (the energy stored is from fossil fuels).

Well thats true but in most cases it's the release of the energy that harms the environment. There is no getting around our relince on fossil fuels for the forseable future but we can lessen our reliance and do what we can to help the enviroment. Ethanol if produce effecently can make a big diffrence. biodiesel could have applications in blended fuels. Having a reasonable plan to incorperate them into out energy supplies could be of great value. Ethanol from sugar cane in Florida, Texas, and California could really help with our ethanol supplies and the use of biomass in electrical production would more than cover the production of Ethanol leaving extra that could be put bake into the grid. A totaly renuable resource that is much cleaner than oil or coal generation.
One of the biggest roadblocks is what we use to produce these fuels and the entrenched political lobbies forcing use to use less effecent sources. It's not the oil companies, they would hop on the bandwagon and make money off any energy source, it's the farmers who see this as a subsidy and won't give it up.

freshprncebelair

Ellicott City, MD

June 2004

JUL 18, 2005 10:01 PM

bones_708 said:

Damn straight. That's the reason we will be using Ethanol....it's prime pork spending.

bones_708

Houston, TX

December 2004

JUL 18, 2005 10:03 PM

skankzor said:

Damn straight. That's the reason we will be using Ethanol....it's prime pork spending.

Well yes but the problem is because of that it is more expensive and we are less likely to use it.

SirPsychoSexy

Ridgewood, NJ

January 2004

JUL 18, 2005 10:46 PM

GramNegative said:
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 efficiently

Not quite that simple, ethanol burns slower and has more "push" per stroke (slower deflagration) kind of like octane, it is less efficient but gives more power under high strain. This makes it more fuel efficient during harder acceleration.

Anyway, its not 1/2 as efficient, in the real world it is closer to 78% of the efficiency of gasoline.

Now if you want to get into even more complicated issues, what is the cost at the pump if billions of dollars are going to farm subsidies that are not being used to grow fuel.
Also, how much money does it cost to protect the nations energy future militarily -- it seems we get in quite a few military conflicts over foreign energy supplies....

So cost at the pump is never just what you pay when the govt has to shift more economic resources away from other services that potentially save you pocket money, or keep you safer, or out of the hospital. (unless you disagree with certain progressive ideologies, in which case they just take less of your money, period )

*sigh*

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3

BOARDS:

TOPICS:

Batavia, IL

January 2005

JUL 18, 2005 08:35 PM

Houston, TX

December 2004

JUL 18, 2005 08:45 PM

Ellicott City, MD

June 2004

JUL 18, 2005 08:51 PM

Houston, TX

December 2004

JUL 18, 2005 09:10 PM

Ellicott City, MD

June 2004

JUL 18, 2005 10:01 PM

Houston, TX

December 2004

JUL 18, 2005 10:03 PM

Ridgewood, NJ

January 2004

JUL 18, 2005 10:46 PM