Ethanol

[Gordon Maney]

I am also torn between my desire to support the U.S. Farmer and the production of non food crops on land that should be producing food for Americans. I am told the corn used to produce ethanol is not usable as animal fodder or human food. If this is correct and the majority of farmers decide to grow fuel crops, we might be able to drive to the market but there won't be anything to buy when we get there.
Our family's land trust was designed to help the small farm holder to stay on the land and make farming attractive as a profession. We are currently discussing whether or not to limit the growing of non food crops on the trust land. I want farmers to make a good living but I don't want to see people starve as a result. I am certainly glad it's not my decision alone.
Another thing to consider is the development of wheat and other grain based polymers . The changes made to these plants render them inedible . I realise these crops are a way off, but the idea is a bit chilling.

Corn used to produce ethanol is the corn fed to livestock.

[80powerwagon]

Ethanol hasn't really helped the farmers, we initially saw a jump in the price for corn that followed the economy but after that the price for inputs jumped too. Fertilizer prices doubled in almost a year. They were making more money but also having to spend more. Now with cellulosic ethanol they are wanting to remove biomass from the field that needs to be there to prevent soil erosion and be recycled to return some nutrients to the ground. For farmers ethanol may be a short term gain but in the long run its going to hurt producers. I don't see why we jumped on a bandwagon that reduced our mileage, increased the cost of our vehicles, and has lead to the creation of "new" jobs that aren't stable. Just my 2 cents, may not be worth much but there are better routes than the one we took. But that is how the government works I guess, make a logistical nightmare and let the people sort it out.

[maineSS]

Producing Ethanol yields two products- one being alcohol, the other being DDGS- Distiller's Dried Grains and Solubles. Ethanol uses the carbohydrate portion of the feedstock, DDGS contains the proteins- these are much more important. There's no shortage of carbs in the world, the real problem is protein. Feeding the entire crop to livestock to make protein is quite wasteful- that conversion is about 1% efficient. DDGS can be converted directly to human food, so you can separate the protein portion for people, and use the ethanol for fuel or as an industrial chemical, which may be a better use if your vehicle engines aren't optimized for ethanol. We need to get off the dime and start doing something about our oil habit- wait til the day when we have to decide between oil for lubrication vs oil for fuel- won't THAT be a fun decision?

[Desoto61]

wait til the day when we have to decide between oil for lubrication vs oil for fuel- won't THAT be a fun decision?

Not to mention all the other feed stocks that are based off of oil. How many items do you know that are made from some "petroleum distillate"? Plastics, chemicals, cleaning products, paints, etc. Every car could magically stop using fuel tomorrow and it wouldn't stop our need for oil. Just reduce it.

There are natural substitutes for some of these, but most use plant or animal input sources, which leads us back to the problems with ethanol. Bio-diesel would be no different.

[Bob Thompson]

Producing Ethanol yields two products- one being alcohol, the other being DDGS- Distiller's Dried Grains and Solubles. Ethanol uses the carbohydrate portion of the feedstock, DDGS contains the proteins- these are much more important. There's no shortage of carbs in the world, the real problem is protein. Feeding the entire crop to livestock to make protein is quite wasteful- that conversion is about 1% efficient. DDGS can be converted directly to human food, so you can separate the protein portion for people, and use the ethanol for fuel or as an industrial chemical, which may be a better use if your vehicle engines aren't optimized for ethanol. We need to get off the dime and start doing something about our oil habit- wait til the day when we have to decide between oil for lubrication vs oil for fuel- won't THAT be a fun decision?

This is precisely the sort of information I need to render an informed decision.
I have about a foot and a half of documentation to read through regarding both alchohol and crops to produce bio-diesel . Some of it is very interesting, a lot of it reads like Tolstoy . I read , I make notes and then verify what's been written.
Since I'm not a chemist or a bio-engineer, some of this stuff is over my head.
In the grand scheme our policy decision will not make a huge difference , but we will at least set an example for others to review and perhaps follow.

As for ethanol in our conventional engines, we are probably barking up the wrong tree. There are things that can be done to alchohol to improve energy yield but it usually involves a fixed heat source . I was told of a company that is or was trying to prode a fuel cell that would run on any number of hydrocarbon fuels. I don't know what became of that . I know a lot of people are working on the problem. There may be no single solution but a mixed bag of fuels and energy sources. I suspect a lot of the problem relates to ego padding. Many scientists tout their solution as the only one. Most seem to agree that the goal is to produce cost effective portable electric power to run future transport. From the environmental standpoint electric vehicles could be a disaster. The rare and heavy metals that batteries are made from involve nasty and toxic mining and processing and will eventually lose the properties that make them usable. What do we do with them then?
Lots of stuff to think about, I hope to finish my reading by year's end.

[Bob Thompson]

I never buy it.


http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyl...pStories_msnbc

I forgot to reply to this earlier.

It seems that someone could make a killing if they came up with a simple accurate test to determine what percentage you are getting at the pump.
Something like a home pregnacy test that only requires you to splash a bit of the fuel on the absorbant or something like that.

[maineSS]

Ethanol's main problem as a fuel is its ability to attract and hold water, which is bad news for for engines, especially those in marine service. The other problems of lower BTU value and cold starting can be worked around- higher compression and starting aids- but you need to use the ethanol up rapidly and not let it sit around. Butanol might be a better alcohol for biomass fuel conversion, ethanol should probably be used as a chemical feedstock. From what I hear, the DDGS are presently going to livestock or landfill- that's quite a waste! Again, we need to start thinking about Fuel vs Lubrication- without lubrication, we'll be back in the mid 1800's in about a month after the world's machinery siezes up.

[MasterYota]

I was recently reading an article in Eco-Terrorist monthly ( I think it National Geographic) and they did a story on the Tar Sands located in northern Alberta, Canada. And they shared some interesting figures.
Since about 1979, 2 billion barrels of oil have been processed out of the tar sands. According to speculation, producers feel there are about 300 billion barrels of oil still to be processed, with new reserves being found daily. The Tar Sands provide about 80% of Canadian oil usage, with offshore drilling making up the rest, and we export more oil to the US than the Arab Sand country's do.

By my math the Tar sands won't run dry for another 5000-8000 years at current oil production capacitys. I'm not worried about running out of fuel or lubricants at all. Leave the corn for the critters, I hate having to choose between BBQ delights, and premium fuel...

And global warming is a myth. If you don't belive me -just come to Canada - it snowed in Ontario on the weekend (according to the weather channel). The ice just came off the lake at my cabin on the 20th of May (Centeral Interior of BC) and its just now starting to warm up.

[maineSS]

Refining tar sands is a hugely expensive undertaking in terms of material handling compared to pumping oil from the ground. It's also quite messy environmentally- takes lots of expensive remediation- and uses lots of water.

It's possible that diesel fuel from algae, or synthetic gasoline from genetically-altered bacteria will be cheaper than tar sand or coal once the industrial production process gets sorted out.

You'll note that now Democrats have won the election, Global Warming has been replaced by "Climate Change"- this allows them to still blame people for the upcoming Ice Age. Also, Guantanamo is still open!

[MasterYota]

Refining tar sands is a hugely expensive undertaking in terms of material handling compared to pumping oil from the ground. It's also quite messy environmentally- takes lots of expensive remediation- and uses lots of water.

It's possible that diesel fuel from algae, or synthetic gasoline from genetically-altered bacteria will be cheaper than tar sand or coal once the industrial production process gets sorted out.

You'll note that now Democrats have won the election, Global Warming has been replaced by "Climate Change"- this allows them to still blame people for the upcoming Ice Age. Also, Guantanamo is still open!

Expensive would be a relative term. The general cost of refining the oil from the sand to the barrel is about 15 dollars per barrel. That number has remained fairly constant over the last few decades or so. While it is cheaper to process oil as it flows from the ground the general gist of my previous comment was that we are not in any danger of running out of fuels or lubricants, any time soon.

The cost of environmental remediation is quit paltry when you consider the price of oil. When oil was at a $150 a barrel, and the process cost was only 15 bucks, how much proffit was there to give back to the environment? The answer is alot...

The argument can be made that nothing will grow there after the tar sands have been processed due to environmental dammage, but nothing will grow there during the next ice age either, so environmentally speaking, its a moot point. Climate change is inevitable, all we can do is adapt. I was recently watching a program on the discovery channel about dinosaurs, and it indicated that during that time, CO2 levels in the atmosphere where 5 times higher than they are now. That was a natural occuring phenomenon then, as there was no industry, or cars, or technology to produce that amount of greenhouse gas. And yet the earth still florished with life. If you belive the greenies of today, the earth should have been nothing but a barren wasteland with CO2 levels like that.

While I'm all for experimenting with alternative fuel sources, and recycling, and such, I do feel its neccessary to take environmental terrorism with a grain of salt. The vast majority of the greenies are paid lobyists, and somebody somewhere is making money from this eco-aware propaganda. Monetary gain is the driving force of this "go green" trend, and the "environment" is just the vehicle used to pack the money around.

Sorry for the hijack...

[rickt4498]

such a simple phrase...

...follow the money...

[maineSS]

I agree 100% with your observation that environmental wackos are attempting to drive policy to ridiculous extremes. The pendulum has swung to the opposite side from what was happening in the 40's and 50's, it's time for a little moderation here.

The atmospheric oxygen level in the time of the dinosaurs was roughly double what it is today, which allowed insects to grow much larger- cockroaches the size of cats, and dragonflies with 4 ft wingspans were the norm. Wonder how big mosquitos and hornets got?

[Gordon Maney]

I agree 100% with your observation that environmental wackos are attempting to drive policy to ridiculous extremes. The pendulum has swung to the opposite side from what was happening in the 40's and 50's, it's time for a little moderation here.

The atmospheric oxygen level in the time of the dinosaurs was roughly double what it is today, which allowed insects to grow much larger- cockroaches the size of cats, and dragonflies with 4 ft wingspans were the norm. Wonder how big mosquitos and hornets got?

I don't want to know, it is too scary.