Posted on 02/27/2009 11:20:06 AM PST by Notoriously Conservative
A few years ago, the government mandated ethanol as a gasoline additive, in an attempt to make gasoline more ecofriendly, and as a replacement for MTBE, which has been shown to cause cancer. Problem with that is, there is no solid proof that leaking ethanol is any better than leaking lead or MTBE.
Problem two, is it really economically viable? The only reason it is cost effective now, is because of government subsidies.
For each billion ethanol-equivalent gallons of fuel produced and combusted in the US, the combined climate-change and health costs are $469 million for gasoline, $472–952 million for corn ethanol depending on biorefinery heat source (natural gas, corn stover, or coal) and technology, but only $123–208 million for cellulosic ethanol depending on feedstock (prairie biomass, Miscanthus, corn stover, or switchgrass). http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/02/02/0812835106.abstract
Problem three, the energy content of ethanol is approximately two-thirds that of gasoline by volume. So it takes more ethanol to run your car than gasoline. That means the more ethanol in your gasoline, the worse your mpg. Now, I don't claim to be a scientist, or even to have a vast knowledge of the environmental sciences, but I can still deduce that lower mpgs can't be good for the environment.
Furthermore, ethanol is made by turning sugar from corn into alcohol. In order to become alcohol, that sugar needs to be distilled and distillation requires heat. Heat requires energy, energy makes pollution. So again, the lower emissions seem at best, mitigated.
And last, but not least, you have to consider the cost of food. Ethanol dramatically increases the demand for corn. It is said that the grain required to fill the gas tank of a minivan with ethanol is sufficient to feed one person for a whole year.
Ethanol is currently taking about 6% of the US corn crop to make 90% of all US ethanol. What does this mean? Well, since the government mandate, corn has gone from $2.00 a bushel to $3.78+. That is a doubling in cost. The increase in cost, of course, is passed onto the consumer. In fact, food prices are expected to go up 7% in 2009.
At a recent teleconference, arranged by a group of major foodmakers, economists predict that food inflation could be 7 to 8 percent.
This year's corn, wheat and soybean crops — major ingredients in feed rations — are said to fetch prices at the farm gate that are double their 2005 levels.
I hate corn derived ethanol.
Sources and further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol Will Cellulosic Ethanol Take Off? Cellulosic ethanol output could "explode" One Molecule Could Cure Our Addiction to Oil Coskata CEO explains how to get to $1 a gallon ethanol
I hate the stuff because it sucks the water out of the air and breaks down the innerds of my evinrude.
Depends upon how it is served and what it is mixed with.
...Indeed.
These people need to learn about cause and effect.
Things don’t magically appear out of nowhere... like the electricity at your outlet. And actions have consequences, ah but tell that to these mortgage-debt-riders.
Since, according to the Obama admin, it might become the states right to decide cannabus/hemp laws, this might solve the problem.
HEMP IS THE NUMBER ONE biomass producer on planet earth: 10 tons per acre in approximately four months. It is a woody plant containing 77% cellulose. Wood produces 60% cellulose. This energy crop can be harvested with equipment readily available. It can be “cubed” by modifying hay cubing equipment. This method condenses the bulk, reducing trucking costs from the field to the pyrolysis reactor. And the biomass cubes are ready for conversion with no further treatment.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/hempfuel.htm
The solution for those idiots is very blatent. Convert their ethanol into diethyl ether and add that to gasoline. put that in a teaspoon and light it and you get a foot high blue flame.
Beyond that, though, it gums up any processing machinery, making it uneconomical. And why are you referencing druglibrary.com for an "industrial" crop?
Yep, not matter where it comes from, it’s still ethanol.
Have you actually harvested it before? (I don’t have the slightest idea, myself)
druglibary.com had the article I was looking for. What’s the difference?
Are you suggesting a turkey in your tank?
Absolutely. But I would not suggest drinking a tankard of it, at least not in one sitting.
I’ve read about it. The Canadian government has studied hemp for industrial use, and the gumming problem was their finding. I mentioned the drug library because industrial hemp is a common stalking horse for the pothead community.
Pot/hemp was legal in this country for most of it’s history.
(I suppose you know the difference between marijuana and hemp and read the rest of the link?)
The article suggested corn wasn’t the ideal crop for ethanol production. Hemp may be.
So what? Hemp stopped being an economical crop a long time ago for the reason I stated. Even in areas where it's legal to grow, it's labor intensive and subsidized. The article is worthless, and the fact that it comes from pothead central is no coincidence.
The article suggested corn wasn’t the ideal crop for ethanol production. Hemp may be.
There is no ideal crop for ethanol production. Ethanol is a subsidized government boondoggle that makes a terrible fuel. Corn may not be the best crop for the swindle, but it's better than hemp.
Have a bad experience with reefer, eh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
