Wheels just fell off the Biodiesel and Ethanol bandwagons

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you had a stronger base of solar, wind, or nuclear power it wouldn't really matter if it used more power than it created because the energy going in is renewable. The fact that we even have a potential source of domestically grown energy is important. If we could find a clean way to use coal, our energy needs would be set for a long long time.
 
"If you had a stronger base of solar, wind, or nuclear power it wouldn't really matter if it used more power than it created because the energy going in is renewable. "
-------------------------------------------------------------
There's a winner.
 
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug01/corn-basedethanol.hrs.html

From 2001.

"If all the automobiles in the United States were fueled with 100 percent ethanol, a total of about 97 percent of U.S. land area would be needed to grow the corn feedstock. Corn would cover nearly the total land area of the United States. "

"Ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline. "That helps explain why fossil fuels -- not ethanol -- are used to produce ethanol," Pimentel says. "The growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn't afford it, either, if it weren't for government subsidies to artificially lower the price."

Oops, how did we miss that one.
 
So is the study saying that if we just used the "energy" (crude oil!) that would have gone into ethenol production to just fuel our cars instead of making ethenol, we'd use 29% less overall???
lol.gif
patriot.gif
Now that's the American Way!!
 
It's not a victory or a loss - it's just facts.

The bottom line still remains that pumping dino oil from the ground and sticking pipes up holes for natural gass is still relatively the lower cost choice.

I think we need better "comboing" (I made that word up
wink.gif
) Crazy wildasz example - Maybe some biosource is near NG or geothermal vent or some other source that lowers the cost.....

The "facts" aren't a victory nor should they be some lameass knuckledragging excuse to quit looking!!!
 
quote:

Originally posted by Drew99GT:
So is the study saying that if we just used the "energy" (crude oil!) that would have gone into ethenol production to just fuel our cars instead of making ethenol, we'd use 29% less overall???
lol.gif
patriot.gif
Now that's the American Way!!


Too bad to many that means that means that we can use 29% more in the here and now. Like a bigger engine, more power, more guzzling vehicles. The only real sollution to conservation or good energy balances may be to make fuels prices artificially high, like over $5 a gallon. Worldwide. But that wouldnt be in the interest of the world I think...

The simple solution? Get more high efficiency diesels. Low sulfur fuels will allow more particle traps, catalytic oxidizers, and combined with engines designed to run low NOx, its a low pollution , low fuel usage way to conserve. But unfortunately every ******* needs to jackrabbit start their huge engine vehicle away from red stoplight to red stoplight, achieving 5 MPG and lots of waste in the process.

JMH
 
quote:

Originally posted by JHZR2:
P.S. Has anyone checked the energy penalty taking crude from the "well to the wheels"? Last I checked, there is a cost to pump it from the ground, ship it, refine it, ship it again, and then lets not forget the guzzlers on tthe road.

From Nov 2004 Scientific America:

- conventional gas ICE has a tank to wheels energy loss of 85%; total loss (well to wheels + [vehicle] tank to wheels) is 88%.

- Fuel cell well to wheels loss from steam-reformed natural gas is 78%; if the source of hydrogen is coal electrolysis, total loss is 92%
 
quote:

Originally posted by BlueWorld:
Making biodiesel from sobeans is ineffcient. Which is way anybody who has studied the feasibility of large scale commercial production has based it using other plant life.

And growing sugar cane in Iowa isn't efficient either so it doesn't work out either way.

quote:


And, what everybody has missed is that even if it takes 50% more energy to produce, it's renewable and sustainable.


Not if the "real" energy comes from a non renewable resource.

The truth is that we have a legitimate energy source that has been around for years and is right now the only one capable of lowering fossil fuel use. Too bad the environmentalists have pushed even harder against it.

-T
 
Well, for this to be true you have to assume that you use fossil fuels to provide the energy. There's nuclear ...there's also other grown energy sources. They won't work in the mass that we're consuming them ...but what do you do when you run out of gas?

You may be growing 10 acres of hay per 1000 gallons to provide your energy source.
dunno.gif


Everyone is looking at this from a stand point of "no sacrifice" and "business as usual". It isn't going to be that way if we don't get the energy nut cracked before the wells run dry.
 
quote:

Originally posted by T-Keith:

quote:


And, what everybody has missed is that even if it takes 50% more energy to produce, it's renewable and sustainable.


Not if the "real" energy comes from a non renewable resource.

The truth is that we have a legitimate energy source that has been around for years and is right now the only one capable of lowering fossil fuel use. Too bad the environmentalists have pushed even harder against it.

-T


TKeith, post you responded to that reminds me of the joke about guys that were buying watermellons and selling them at loss so the decided to buy a bigger truck and make up for it with quantity.
grin.gif
 
Hydrogen is only viable if you use Nuke Power to seperte hydrogen from water! We all know how much every one wants a nuke reactor in their back yard!!

The biodiesel only makes sense if it is useing wasted oil from fast food etc...

I still think that thermal depolymerazation(sp) is going to be the most likely technology to help us out. It would allow use to use our trash to make oil. The resulting waste would take up far less waste in the landfill then it does in it's un converted organic form!

I think that we should also consider weeds that can grow in realatively bad soil and do not require a lot of frtilizer like Hemp! Hemp used to cover America about as plentiful as grass! THe bulk fibers could be use in textiles, engineered lumber or in thermal depolyermization. Use all of the unused public especialy federal lands for this! Any place Hemp will not grow creasole(sp) bush's probably will and they can be used in much the same process. This would leave prime farm land alone.

I know Chevron has a why to use pop bottles to make feeder stock and that might also help. I doubt any one technology is going to do it! We need to use everyting that we have. We waste so much that an effecient national recyleing program is really need to make things centralized and cost effective! If a technology is not paying off we should not throw money at it but it should not be droped either!

I think that fuel cells are fools gold! Any time you convert one form of energy to another form you have efficency loss's! It is silly to waste hydrocarbon energy in a catalytic reaction that is less effcient then just burning it in the cylinders!

I also wounder how many homes,power station,industrial operations could be fueled if all crankcase oil was 100% recyled? I do not car if it is burned or if it is rerefined surely their has to be a way to put it to a much better use?
 
John,

hybrid fuel cells, even low temp PEM can provide higer efficiencies than IC engines, even some of the advanced diesels. Go to high temp (long way off), and the efficiency advantage is there.

Its a sulfur tolerance thing really.

When you go off full-throttle, the efficiency advantage will show up, so long as thermal integration is sufficient.

Youre right there is a lot of loss, and the difference (at full load) isnt overwhelming, but at "idle" or part load, there can be a big difference.

Electrolysis is an extremely inefficient process. We'd likely be better off charging batteries and sticking to that only, IMO. High-temp electrolysis, especially with oxygen transport membranes enhances efficiencies of hydrogen production, but nowhere near enough.

There's a lot in the pipeline. Its been 5 years off for the last 30 years, but its "closer" now...

I wouldnt discount them as fools gold yet.

JMH
 
if you look at ethanol as a convenient energy source, rather than a net negative or net positive, it may be a workable solution. ethanol is easily transported, relative to solar, wind, hydrogen, nukes, or hydroelectric.

at some point you have to have the others to produce the ethanol.

on another interesting note, human feces powers rwandan prison.

there was another article not that long ago the discussed turning the waste stream of hog farms into oil, i believe.

we certainly have to get more creative in converting our many waste streams into some type of energy.
 
Exactly. Sooner or later, we will need to start phasing in a lot of the ideas out there, regardless of the energy specifics. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Unfortunately, most who are out to promote or bash energy, science, or any other topic under the sun are not knowledgable enough to figure a lot of the realities out. They just like to blow hot air for "principle" of something that they think they should be involved in.

JMH
 
Maybe the whole idea of ethanol/soydiesel is to increase petroleum consumption. It would make sense, considering who is in charge.

Yes, the cars from the 1990's got better fuel economy, with the lean burn/ higher Nox. But we can go back to lean burn, if you can get gasoline with less than 10 ppm sulphur. There are lean nox catalysts available, but they are very sensitive to sulphur.
 
Anyone know the energy balance to pump crude, tranport it, and refine it into gasoline or diesel? The reason I ask is I know the refineries I've seen sure have a boatload of electrical lines running INTO the refinery. That means some energy is being used in the refining process too.

Now that would make for a more meaningful comparison, rather than just pointing out that that ethanol (in some studies) has a net negative balance. Of course, that would make too much sense, rather than allowing cometing studies to say, see, its bad, or see its good.

Reality usually ends up being somewhere in the middle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top