Ethanol revisited

[jaj]

I took the bus to work today. In this neighborhood, the buses are electric. In this neighborhood, the electricity is produced by turbines on hydro dams.

Electricty won't move freight from point-to-point very well, but rail uses vastly less fuel per ton, and ships are even more efficient.

When the cost of fuel is high enough, there will be a switch back to rail and decentralized local warehousing - a lot like things back in the 60's and 70's. Fuel consumption will plummet, although things will cost more.

In the fifties, GM bought a number of railroads and shut them down - the commuter line in Los Angeles for instance. It might just be time to dust off the old plans and make them the new plans.

Cheers
JJ

 

[oilyriser]

Ethanol costs about the same as gasoline on an energy basis if you don't have to remove the last few % of water.

You could build a vaporizer, and burn it in a diesel engine the way people do with propane.

 

[Shannow]

oilyriser, if we had the TRUE costs of gasoline displayed at the pumps (potential warming, the costs of defending the reserves, maybe the cost of a war or two), then biofuels become VERY attractive and competitive.

 

[sprintman]

Now your talking

 

[Auto-Union]

At least biomass will fix some C02 from the atmosphere for a while.

 

[Shannow]

And if we can keep recirculating it, all the better.

I'd love someone to find a stable plate area that they could liquefy and keep my grass clippings between a couple of tectonic plates, under immense heat and pressure, for a few hours, decades,millenia

 

[oilyriser]

Stay tuned for 30% efficient nanoparticle photovoltaics, and 90% efficient batteries. The machines may win in the end.

 

[Merkurwwu]

What cracks me up about this ethanol debate is that conservatives act like people are looking for a silver bullet to solve our problems- and liberals think they've found it. Well, there is no silver bullet. I personally am a fan of ethanol. It has its drawbacks, there's no aboubt about that. But we also have hybrids, full electric vehilces (plug-in or not, recharged through wind energy or not), ethanol, natural gas, propane, and yes, even efficient gasoline vehilces to solve our problems. Why do people get so p!ssed about ethanol when it is just a small piece of the whole energy independence (or war stopping) puzzle? Especially since on either side there's nothing but talking points touting some pro or con about the technology- which is simply based on the twisted facts of some "think tank" or university study that could be interpreted in any of 100 ways.

As these technologies mature and become more common thier prices will go down. To me, its worth paying a higher price to get ethanol's lower MPG to help support research into the technology. People who drive hybrids are helping support the technology research in hybrid technology. Someone asked about the alternatives. I personally think the alternative is CHOICE. A SYSTEM of alternatives, whose techology already exists, to work toward the talking point of energy independence, but also toward clean air and conservation. Ethanol won't fix all our problems, and will probably create some additional problems, but why not support the technology in its infancy when it is more expensive until we know for sure whether or not it is a good alternative? Even Brazil, which is the leader in ethanol for energy still has only 50% of its car sales in ethanol vehilces (in 2000).

If you don't want to support technology moving forward with alternative fuels, then don't drive. There's more to life than pinching pennies at the gas pump. Support alternative technologies or at least don't ---- on those who want to. Your kids (probably around my age (28) or younger) will appreciate your thoughtfulness.

 

[Al]

Quote:

---

JohnCT, what do you suggest as an answer?

---

I think if he had an answer that would allow us to keep our inefficient gas guzzling/alcohol guzzling cars on the road. He would be a multi-gazillionaire.

The fact of the matter is that Ethanol production uses more fuel than it consumes. If you want it to be a self-sustaining process than you are looking at twice the land mass required (in the U.S).

The other main problems are that the pollution and the requirement for Oxygen. We are heading toward the day when we are not looking at a shortage of energy but a shortage of Oxygen. There are only so many trees and only so much ocean production in the Oceans. Add to that C02 (greenhouse gas) and you/me are double screwed.

There is no solution except conservation and less utilization of energy by an increasing number of people. Global plague FTW.