What is Digg?98 Comments
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+40The problem isn't the type of fuel; it's about the entire car-based transportation infrastructure we have set up. Cars are fun and convenient for the individual; but an overall inefficient solution to the very basic problem of "moving ***** around"; Here's a simple thought experiment:
Next time you're stuck in traffic, or in a parking lot, or anywhere really, mentally erase everything that is not "payload" (i.e. people, groceries, etc.) and just look out how much empty space there is. The ratio of transporter to transportee is all *way* out of whack. There's more stuff to do the transporting than there is being transported; for your average weekly car use, you're spending probably more than 90% of your energy just moving the car itselft, and less than 10% on carting around your actual person. Regardless of where your energy comes from; that's pretty wasteful.
Bulk transport with trains or larger, public transport units (perhaps trollies; light rail; or even busses) for long distances and large payloads, then branching out to a *small* number of short distance individual transport units (a bike, perhaps with power-assist; simply walking; or (god forbid) a segway-ish device) for the shorter, more accurate transportation. Using a whole car (weighing perhaps a ton) to transport a single person or two (weighing perhaps 100-300 lbs) all the way from A to B, when there are tens or hundreds of other individuals making a trip only slightly different at the same time, is just plain silly. Unfortunatly; we're already so invested in the infrastructure that change is going to be very hard; even the way our cities are laid out assumes that we *must* use a single car for a single A to B trip.
We need to start focusing on the big picture of *how* public transport, and freight transport happens; rather than just switching energy sources and thinking it will fix everything. - Rekutyn, on 10/11/2007, -3/+28Brazil's almost powered entirely by ethanol. It just isn't made from corn.
No US corn lobby there ;) - math20, on 10/11/2007, -4/+26Oil subsidies are bad but they do not justify subsidies for ethanol.
- glmory, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16Not only do we not make sugar cane ethanol. We tax the importation of sugar cane ethanol to make it too expensive to use here! We subsidize American ethanol and block more efficiently grown ethanol from other countries. This is probably the easiest way to see that this is nothing more than a farm subsidy.
Although to be honest the economics of sugar cane ethanol, while better than corn, are not terribly amazing. To get the sort of spare land in the tropics to put a dent on American oil consumption is a whole lot of burned down rain forests.
@titanmiller. It hasn't changed much, we use thousands of acres of land for very little, if any energy. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html - mille716, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12@WOODROW
You're confusing a Sikh (Indian religion) and a Sheik (Muslim wise man or scholar) . He wasn't referring to Indians. - kalleanka, on 10/11/2007, -9/+20"The report is quite true, as the guy said if ethanol is such a good idea you would have been using it for years"
I think the issue is rather that ethanol is better for the environment but worse financially, and that's why it hasn't been used more before. In a free market in general no one gives a damn about the environment, corporations care about maximizing their profits. - bacon_skoda, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Only ten days ago:
http://digg.com/general_sciences/Former_weed_may_fill_world_s_fuel_tanks_2
jatropha is emerging as an alternative to ethanol.
It is grown in wastelands, needs relatively little care or refinement, and is inedible – meaning it will not take food from the poor for the gas tanks of the rich.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatropha
The plant can grow in wastelands, and it yields more than four times as much fuel per hectare as soybean, and more than ten times that of corn. A hectare of jatropha produces 1,892 liters of fuel (about 6.5 barrels per acre). Also Jatropha is a one-stage conversion to biodiesel
Ten Times John Stossel, Ten Times. - bellisland, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11energyeshs about Ethanol!!!!! From wired.com
1) It takes more energy to make ethanol than the fuel itself produces.
2) Ethanol is expensive to produce.
3) There's not enough land to grow crops for ethanol.
4) Switching to ethanol is expensive.
5) Ethanol is unfairly subsidized.
6) Cars that run on ethanol get lower mileage.
All the Reality is at http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.10/myths.html
Wired also wrote about a company that can produce Ethanol in a much more efficent way, by using a closed loop system. (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.10/ethanol.html, www.e3biofuels.com) - FadieZ, on 10/11/2007, -8/+18@kalleanka
Actually, it's not even better for the environment. We'd even be better off using oil in the long run (not that I want that to happen). There are virtually no advantages to converting to ethanol, and that's why this thing just boggles the mind. - f201, on 10/11/2007, -8/+16And besides, who says it's cleaner to burn? The energy in gasoline comes from breaking C-H bonds in isoctane/heptane. Ethanol, (C2H5OH) is basically the same stuff. It's got the same bonds. And the same amount of those bonds have to be broken to move your car one mile regardless of whether it's C7H16 or C2H5OH that's being broken down. And when you break those bonds, It still forms CO2, just like gas, folks. It's not some magical potion that turns into love and rainbows when you combust it.
- theblooms, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10@ brstilson
CO is a minor byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion. CO2 + H2O are the major products. If well tuned, you can actually see water coming out of the tailpipe of a cold engine. Of course once it warms up, the water comes out as vapor. Just look at the balanced chemical equation.
And I am not just speaking out of my ass. I have a BS in Chemistry plus years of experience working in the Production QC lab of a Bromine-based chemical plant. - stalinvlad, on 10/11/2007, -6/+14But as the corn grows it sucks CO2 out of the air, so there is no net change in CO2 levels
BTW the CO2 in the oil was also in the air once, - johnpaul191, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8corn is the leading crop for ethanol because the US can produce so much of it, and it has a strong lobby group. one major thing about using corn for fuel is that you only use the corn kernels. everything else is going to be scrapped for mulch.
that's is why a lot of researchers are testing the viability of something like switchgrass. that is a wild grass that can be grown in fields and the whole grass is used. it looks like they may be able to get even more energy out of switchgrass than corn, and it does not have growing requirements like corn does. think about how corn is grown. massive fields in rows, lots of water (that's a potential issue) etc etc. switchgrass is just grown like a wild grass, then the whole thing is mowed and collected.
Brazil is mostly using sugar beets i think right now. while that's not corn, there is a concern that they may eventually be turning a lot of land into land dedicated for "farming for fuel". i don't know how true it is, but there has been a concern about parts of the Amazon getting cut down for farmland, as they are now for raising cattle. a side note, but an important point: Brazil raises way more cows than the USA... and even sells the US beef at this point. if they are cutting down rainforests for cattle, can they viable dedicate other land to growing fuel?
realistically this is a relatively new pursuit, and in time it will get more efficient as they figure out the best plants (based on science, not lobbying efforts) and ways to process them or find another alternative fuel source all together. - chicken101, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10Dude, if you run the trucks that transport ethanol using ethanol (this includes all the tractors, helicopters and everything else use to cultivate, transport and process corn into ethanol)...then we would actually be producing almost no ethanol.
- johnpaul191, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6@brstilson
no, they specifically said motorcycle. most motorcycles and scooters sold around the world (including the US, Europe, Canada, Mexico etc) still use carburetors. for example you can go on Harley-Davidson's website and order many of their bikes with a carb or fuel injection. the difference in efficiency is basically nothing. any bikes i have seen with the same engine, but have an option of carbs or fuel injection, do not (according to the EPA) offer any real efficiency advantage in terms of MPG.
offhand i think fuel injection offers a more even powerband, and the ability to remap that powerband with software (as opposed to opening the carbs and changing out jets etc). for a high performance vehicle that is going to race, that's crucial. they can tune the engine for atmospheric conditions, fuel, riding style etc. for actual street use, it often appears that there are so many other factors that a lot of that scientific precision is lost on variables. your mood, driving style, traffic conditions, weather bla bla bla add too many factors to the equation.
the conspiracy theorists will claim that all cars now use fuel injection because it requires all kinds of computer equipment to diagnose and maintain. they hoped that would ensure people came to their repair shops. i have no idea how true that is, but there has been talk about the car companies claiming DMCA for their proprietary software so even actual repair shops could not work on those systems (unless they were licensed/autherized for that make of car), let alone weekend warriors.
i don't know too much about cars, but i have had a few motorcycles, all with carbs. while they may take me a while to work on sometimes, it's pretty easy work. with a sub $20 manual for my bike i can easily do all the repairs myself. that's half the fun of vintage bikes. while my 20+ year old bikes may not be as efficient as some little modern scooter, they get WAY better mileage than most cars on the road (including the car i need to have because of my job). it's a personal issue, but i also don't fit on small modern little 100 mpg scooters because of my size (6'6" 200+ lbs). i fit on more old bikes than new ones. - brstilson, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6f--k ethanol because it isn't compatible with obsolete automotive technology that hasn't been used in more than 20 years?
- jiganto, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6It takes 4 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of Ethanol, putting a strain on local water supplies.
- brstilson, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5The problem isn't with ethanol, the problem is relying completely on corn to make ethanol. Hemp yields far more ethanol per acre than corn. The thing about ethanol is that it can come from a wide variety of sources. These corn farmers don't realize that they're actually hurting their friends and neighbors with cattle, pig, and poultry farms by driving feed prices through the roof. The money we'll supposedly "save" on ethanol will just be eaten up by higher food prices.
- ngmcs8203, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6So do we want more pollution in the upper atmosphere or down at our level? In some portions of the world Ethanol increases the amount of ozone down here. Why don't we look into electric or hydrogen solutions?
- s1nister, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Or the middle east to steal their oil...oh wait. Nm, on to Brazil!
- matts0344, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5"Point: Making ethanol requires fossil fuels for production and transportation (ie: trucks)
Problem: Can the trucks run on ethanol? um..."
Problem: If it takes about the same energy to make ethonol than it produces your solution does not work. - WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5No, "we" don't need to do any such thing. This is why those who traditionally support socialism have co-opted the "green movement": it's an excuse to tell others what to do. Driving cars is what the free citizens of these country elect to do and it is the responsibility of our governments to provide the infrastructure that allows us to do this. The people command, not the other way around. Don't tell us what to do.
- Cronof, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Corn ethanol is not a worthy investment, but cellulosic ethanol is.
- diffraction, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3We need to switch to gasified coal, but I doubt the oil companies would be thrilled with that idea.
- s1nister, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5In response to the Cado pundit:
1. You need government subsidies to build infrastructure and to promote research into the energy efficiency. Even if it's economical it could be only economical in so far as they don't want to take that initial infrastructure investment or research.
2. Cado is a libertarian thinktank and hardly an unbias viewpoint. It shouldn't have been the only source, next to a politician (who obviously knows nothing, it's not his specialty)
3. Even if Ethanol is good for 12% of the cars. With hybrid technology and an increase in crops, this could account for up to 50% of the oil consumed by Americans. But of course, this would take a great deal of shifting away from unleaded petroleum to diesel in cars.
4. I was surprised that no one even talked about how much corn prices would shoot up. Which in turn would destroy the primary food for a lot of people in both America and Mexico, I think that's the real disaster to using corn ethanol.
5. The best way to solve the energy crisis is to push for hybrid technology that utilizes existing technology to create plug and charge hybrids with giant batteries that are both charged and recharged by the gas engine. In theory the majority of your traveling could be done on PURELY electric batteries, getting 300-400 MPG (if you work locally -- within 20 miles of your house). Everyone should watch the documentary "Who Killed The Electric Car". - mille716, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I consider myself an environmentalist. I admit I don't know that much about nuclear energy but isn't it time in the U.S. we had a serious discussion about the using nuclear power? Question: Is zero air pollution > some nuclear waste?
- apeweek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3It doesn't matter much where electricity comes from. Electric vehicles are several times more efficient than cars with internal combustion engines - this means more miles on less energy , which means less pollution, even if plants burn dirty fuel (which they also burn much more efficiently than your car can.)
As for loss of power in power lines, the electric grid is about 95% efficient. This handily beats the waste of fuel (and additional pollution of) transporting gasoline to thousands of service stations.
The easiest way to prove the efficiency of electric cars is to look at relative fuel costs. A 4-miles-per-KWH electric car (a common figure) can drive around for just a couple pennies per mile, in most cities. Gasoline is five to ten times as much. Efficiency is the reason for the difference. - brstilson, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I think electricity will be a superior option to liquid fuel vehicles as soon as the technology conquers its last hurdle: charging time. Currently, even the highest-performing electric cars take hours to charge. Cut this down to 5 minutes or less, and then you have a viable option.
Now you may be thinking that electric cars cause more pollution from power plants than gasoline cars, and you'd be wrong. To produce gasoline, a refinery has to apply massive amounts of energy to crude oil, creating massive amounts of pollution. Then, further processing requires more energy. THEN, you have to get the gas from one place to another, usually on tanker trucks, that consume even MORE energy, and causing even MORE pollution.
In contrast, electricity is usually produced by spinning a turbine, usually by steam. The great thing about that is that there are thousands of ways to produce electricity, using a variety of sources, including natural laws. There is so much more potential for electric power than there ever will be for fossil fuels. Production of electricity doesn't HAVE to pollute the environment. For transportation, the infrastructure already exists, our massive power grid. So already we've made up for the increased output from traditional power plants by cutting the pollution from refining and transportation. On top of that, the vehicles themselves do not pollute.
Gas motors are less than 25% efficient, most of the energy output is lost in heat. Electric motors on the other hand are typically 95-99% efficient. They can drive the wheels directly, eliminating the need and efficiency loss through complicated gearing and mechanical linkages. Electricity just makes sense, and as soon as the technology catches up and prices drop, it's going to make sense for a lot more people. - vudicarus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4It's time to invade Brazil and steal their sugar.
- ButterBuddha, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I might agree with John Stossel, too bad he's a total douche bag
- interiot, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4You burn gasoline, you're releasing CO2 that has been stuck underground for millions of years (and humans are releasing nearly all of the underground CO2 in a span of ~200 years). The net change is a huge increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
You burn ethanol, you're releasing the same amount of CO2 that was sucked out of the atmosphere a year or two ago by the plants that got turned into ethanol. The net change is nearer to zero (though as the video points out, it's not zero, since it takes so much petroleum to harvest and refine corn... but just looking at the basic chemistry of CO2 + photosynthesis => ethanol... ethanol + O2 => CO2, it's net zero). - Urusai, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Maybe if we banned computers people would be forced to go out and get some exercise instead of posting on digg.
- Rekutyn, on 11/07/2007, -6/+9Statement: Duh.
Question: Which corn lobbyist forgot to pay off John Stossel?
Seriously, I've caught this programme before and I must say--besides the ethanol bit--Joseph Goebbels would be proud. - djphatjive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I want one of these. But pricey.
The Vectrix maxi-scooter is fun to ride and easy to operate. Its top speed of 62 mph (100 km/h) and fast acceleration make it safe and easy to zip in and out of traffic. The onboard charger plugs into any standard electrical outlet to quickly charge the batteries, which provide up to 70 miles (110 km) of travel on a single charge. A low center of gravity and stiff frame provide excellent handling, and the multi-function throttle allows riders to accelerate and slow down with a simple twist of the throttle. The on-board charger plugs into any standard 110/220V electric outlet and recharges the battery pack (80% charge) in just over two hours
http://www.vectrix.com/ - caution, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I consider myself a conservationist, and agree that nuclear energy can really help us out. I think it was a documentary I saw recently where they illustrated how after Three Mile, due to knee-jerk US reactions, the regulatory mountain you have to climb to even begin to start building a nuclear plant would take over 5 years-- before the first concrete is poured.
I'm for ending the energy dependence starting right now, whatever it takes.
On any issue that plagues the US, we're going to have to sacrifice. It doesn't seem like the masses are ready to do that.
- Rekutyn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Agreed. Not to mention its use for plastics, fabric, medical supplies, etc...
- crowsattack, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2To name some of the alternatives solutions: Electric cars/hybrid vehicles, hydrogen vehicles, solar powered cars, air compressed cars, mass transportation systems, nuclear powered cars, horse and buggies.
- mikemil828, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2//Corn prices go up then grain prices go up, milk goes up, dairy goes up, meat prices go up, and everything goes up.
No different than what is happening now with fossil fuels, as the prices of oil goes up, the cost of transporting everything increases and the cost is passed onto the consumer. - Bamboolemur, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Stossel is NOT a fair source of information. The report was totally biased. He interviewed politicians instead of interviewing actualy spokespeople/scientists/advocates of corn ethanol.
Just asking for a fair analysis of the issues, thats all.
Stossel does this all the time, like when he indirectly blamed the death of millions of africans from malaria because environmentalists insisted on banning DDT. - dn11, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2lets not forget that stossel is the same guy that said organic food is dangerous and that global warming is a hoax. I agree that corn ethanol looks mostly like a scam, but Stossel doesn't differentiate between types of ethanol, or methods of extraction - he just throws one blanket over it
- Rekutyn, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6Mexico is already suffering from high corn prices in the US.
- offcenter, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I've been reading _The Economist_ magazine, they basically say the same thing. It's a convenient subsidy game that keeps everyone happy.
- yourmightyruler, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHQ4cEr5Wao
The UK version of "Who Killed the Electric Car"
Why not biodiesel? We can use the old cooking oils and use them. But no, car companies say that it'll ruin your engine. But diesels were originally designed to run on peanut oil. - 15charmaxwtf, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You should think of taking up politics.
- theblooms, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@ S1nster
Do you REALLY want to know who killed the electric car? It was Thomas Edison. According to Popular Mechanics, Edison was talking to Henry Ford and legend has it that back in 1896, at a dinner party, he passed a note to his friend Henry Ford. Essentially it said, "The electric car is dead."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/jay_leno_garage/4215940.html
Just because something SEEMS like a good idea doesn't necessarily make it so. Electric cars have been around as long as (longer?) than the gasoline car. They just aren't practical at all.
Everything that is 'new and improved' on the car has been around for DECADES AND DECADES, and in the case of the electric car, more than a CENTURY. - jiganto, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I completely agree, and it's something that I've been pushing at school for a while.
By replacing all/most cars with electrics you're basically centralizing power production, and it is that much easier to improve the efficiency of a few thousand existing power plants than the efficiency of millions of cars already on the roads. Not to mention that, as you already said, there are countless ways of producing electricity many of which are renewable and clean.
The problems faced are, again as you said, with recharging. However this can be dealt with improvements to batteries and other energy storing devices (ie. fly wheels, hydrolics, capacitors), you could also implement swappable standardized batteries as they get smaller and ligher, pushing for more public transportation in large cities could be used to deal with people who have no driveways or garages.
It would take a while to complete the conversion, but personally I feel that electric is the way to go. - RollFizzlebeef, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3http://digg.com/videos/educational/Myth_John_Stossel_is_not_a_pussy
- glmory, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@titanmiller lets use your number of 312 gallons per acre per year. Lets also ignore that fertilizer and pesticides are essentially pure fossil fuels, and ethanol needs to be shipped in trucks, not pipelines. 312 gallons per acre is an irrationally high number because the farm does use a great deal of energy, but we can forget about this for a moment. Now, this sounds like a lot, so lets do some math to put it in perspective.
Now, in America we use 20 million barrels of oil a day(http://www.nrdc.org/breakthechain/chained.asp). Lets ignore the huge amount going into jet fuel, plastics, and other industries, and simply look at gasoline. The Average American uses 464 gallons of gasoline a year(http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gasoline_per_capita.html) and there are 300 000 000 Americans, so total U.S. consumption of gasoline is about 139 200 000 000 gallons.
Lets ignore that there less energy in a gallon of ethanol than in a gallon of gasoline.
To replace all of our gasoline use with ethanol we then need 139 200 000 000/312 acres of land. Or 446 153 846 acres. So, we need 400 million acres of corn to replace just gasoline.
Lets compare this to total farmland in America(http://www.farmlandinfo.org/agricultural_statistics/) There are about 900 million acres of farmland. 47% of this is used for crop production, the rest livestock(think mountains unsuitable for anything but cattle or sheep). So we currently use 440 million acres to grow our food. We need at least as much again, and all for corn, if we intend to get all our gasoline from corn using your ridicuously high assumed productivity of the stuff.
Care to calculate how much land we would need to replace our coal, jet fuel, natural gas, nuclear power, ect with the stuff? Ill give you a clue, we currently use more energy than all the plants in America capture in sunlight.
Biofuels are a silly diversion from Wind, Solar, and Nuclear power that can actually help us. - theblooms, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5What works in other developed nations just doesn't work in the US. When compared to Japan and the EU, America is still a largely rural country. Almost half of our population DOESN'T live in a city. They live in small towns or on farms. The infrastructure costs to run light rails and such to every town of
- devdavad, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@dn11
"lets not forget that stossel is the same guy that said organic food is dangerous and that global warming is a hoax."
Thank god for people like you. -
Show 51 - 92 of 92 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is