What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Do you believe the 2012 Mayan Prophecy? view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - The Mayan Calendar predicts the end of time: 2012. See the trailer for 2012, opening November 13.
152 Comments
- inactive, on 05/22/2008, -6/+65I have a few problems with ethanol as it is today.
One is the fact they are using food crops to make it when nonfood products like hemp would be far better.
The second is the effect it has on today's computer controlled engines.When ethanol is added to gasoline it increases the amount of oxygen in the post combustion gasses. The result is the oxygen sensor reads it as a lean mixture and the computer increases the time the injector is open leading to unburned fuel in the post combustion chamber leading to an increase in pollutants such as aldhydes in the final exhaust. Because of the rich mixture the combustion efficiency is decreased and power is decreased and you get the oil washed off of the cylinder wall leading to an increase in friction and wear.The increase in friction causes the engine to be less powerful and the increase in wear leads to burning oil which causes the catalytic converter to heat up. - Cfahooligan, on 05/22/2008, -3/+37Brazil has it right by using sugar cane ethanol. We are using corn which is not that great for the environment and messing the world food supply. Brazil is completely self sustained based on sugar ethanol. Completely independent of big oil companies.
- inactive, on 05/22/2008, -4/+26There goes my grocery bill. I guess I'll need to take fourth mortgage out on my life in order to buy food.
- delmar14, on 05/22/2008, -3/+20"Who cares if people in poor countries starve to death, we're saving the planet so its ok."
A Greenpeace hippy in Chicago actually said that to me after I told her that I didn't think turning food into fuel was a good idea. That being said, Brasil has the right idea by using sugar cane and we should be using hemp or switchgass. ***** the corn farmers and their insane demands. - mvpimpao, on 05/22/2008, -1/+14acctualy in brazil we use sugarcane to get ethanol... and since we´ve been cultivating sugarcane since we were a portugal´s colony.. i dont think that its a problem. USA is using food to make ethanol... not Brazil.
- pstroll, on 05/22/2008, -5/+15Ethanol:
* takes away farm land for food production ... check
* thermodynamic loss ... check
* use up top soil nutrients and fertilizer ... check
* supported by George Bush ... check - geekchic, on 05/22/2008, -4/+13The first point is easy to fix - by changing the way the US is dumping innapropriate subsidies on food crops.
The second one is easy to fix - by upgrading the computer based systems to understand the new fuel better. - redcolumbine, on 05/22/2008, -1/+9So stick termite stomach genes in E. coli and feed them kudzu and Japanese knotweed. They'll cough up enough ethanol to get every car on the road ripsnorting drunk.
- uzusan, on 05/22/2008, -1/+8There is another problem with alternatives to food crops, in that any other crop of similar size that can be used for ethanol takes up the same space, so the use of that land for food crops is lost anyway.
If the same land is used the end result is still less food crops. A similar situation is happening with palm oil:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_oil#Environmenta ... - mirunit, on 05/22/2008, -1/+7Ethanol = Less Energy Per Unit. It also happens to raise food prices and help people starve.
- alfredomancho, on 05/22/2008, -4/+9You forgot to mention it takes much more energy to create corn-based ethanol than the energy you get out of it
- xBlackDust, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5HEMP FOR THE WIN!!!!
It can save the planet.
hemp can be used for almost anything. - CptBuck, on 05/23/2008, -0/+5Really? Will it always be the fuel crop? How about truffle farmers? Vinters? Saffron farmers (who sell their product at $2,700 a pound)? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
The problem with ethanol has to do with efficiency, sustainability, and cost. Brazilian sugarcane ethanol has none of those problems while american corn ethanol has all of them.
Your post seems to suggest that farmers will stop growing other products. I don't think we'll run out of potatoes any time soon. - LacanX, on 05/22/2008, -3/+8You do know America doesn't have enough farmland to grow enough corn to make enough ethanol for it to be even close to feasible, right? Ethanol wont work, period.
- FairDinkumMate, on 05/23/2008, -0/+4Brazil(where I live) still has 40% of it's arable land unused(no, I am not counting any rainforest).
Sugar is at least 8 times more efficient for the production of ethanol than corn.
Most new cars sold in Brazil have 'flex' engines, which allow them to run on any mix from 100% gasoline to 100% ethanol or anywhere in the middle.
Ethanol is a fantastic solution for Brazil, but it won't work everywhere. I am an Australian for example & there is no way possible that Australia has enough water to be able to grow the sugar cane required to replace oil. I think that the US is creating more problems for itself by subsidizing corn for political reasons rather than working on the solution that is best for its mix land, climate, water availability, etc - inactive, on 05/22/2008, -3/+7Not completely (yet), but things are headed in the right direction. I think everyone is going to need alternative fuels sooner or later. But we do pay less for gas than Americans
- billessig, on 05/22/2008, -1/+5Easy? Have you ever installed a new EMS/ECU? I have, it's by NO means easy.
- Troy64, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4maybe we can shift our new paradigm.
I thought we were throwing out catch phrases. - FairDinkumMate, on 05/23/2008, -0/+4No. Although I understand why you would think that when I see the media. I don't know if you're interested, but here are some the facts regarding this issue:
* Sugar is grown in the south of Brazil, not the north.
* 40% of Brazil's arable land is still unused(excluding rainforest)
* Most of the rainforest destroyed is used for graziing(cattle) & soy crops(some of which HAS been displaced from the south by sugar)
* With so much arable land, why are they destroying rainforest anyway? Basic reason - money! Legal, arable land is more expensive to buy than rainforest because rainforest in theory has no possibility of a financial return. On top of this, these 'farmers' that buy the rainforest land then illegally clear it & sell the timber they clear, offsetting even more of their initial cost. The Brazilian government is trying very hard to eliminate illegal land clearing(eg. They have sent 1000's of federal police in to monitor the land & they are currently establishing a satellite image program to allow them to monitor the whole Amazon in real time). Certainly there is some corruption but clearing of the Amazon is one of the most hated actions here in Brazil by all people, regardless of political affiliation, wealth, race or location. - inactive, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4So do food prices.
- osmaker, on 05/22/2008, -3/+7You and cashman57 both don't get it.
The problem with ethanol is not that it uses FOOD crops. The problem with ethanol is that it uses ANY crop.
As long as you use crops for fuel, farmers will plant the crop that gets them more money, and guess what? It'll always be the fuel crop (until/if fuel becomes cheap, which won't happen from ethanol). - Dgtldvr, on 05/22/2008, -1/+4In the USA, Ethanol as a fuel is based 100% on a fraudulently-sold farm subsidy program. It doesn't reduce either fossil fuel usage or greenhouse gas emissions. E85 damages cars (by drying out rubber parts in the fuel line), reduces fuel economy, and adds costs. It was corn-belt politics, pure and simple. The effect is a huge flood of coastal states gas money and taxpayer dollars going to big corn producers and a few subsidized Ethanol distillers.
Congress is responsible for this mess. Vote the rascals out in November! - inactive, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3Hard to use it when there isn't a station selling it within 500 miles.
- JDenigma, on 05/22/2008, -4/+7As for what samoan above said, the usage of ethanol here doesn't even have anything to do with the free market and market adjustments so that's a fallacious point there. You don't know what you're talking about with respect to market economics. This is all government central planning mandating through subsidies what our energy solutions should be and that has nothing to do with the free market. No one here is addressing the fundamental root problems here and that is politics and political lobbying, special favors and subsidies influencing our energy usage. Get the government out of it and let the market decide what people will think is the best technology to use through consumer demand rather than all of us fighting over the same piece of pie through political control. I personally think that nuclear energy is one of the ways to go, but it is not for me to decide that through government legislation favoring a particular industry over another. We all think we know what is the best answer with our own bright ideas so we all think we can be wise grand central planners. That's what the free market is for. The government getting in the business of providing subsidies and favoring one industry over another whether it be oil or something else, is what created these problems in the first place. Subsidies are unconstitutional.
- bjmoose, on 05/23/2008, -1/+4Ethanol is not the answer. Back in the 70s when the peanut farmer, Jimmy Carter, was president we had a bit of a gas shortage, prices spiked above $1.00 gal, and it was rationed. This directly affected me and millions of others. In Houston I saw a handful Gas-ahol stations (about 70% ethanol). Price of corn went up and this alternative wasn't much less than regular gas.
Now it's come back, and with it even higher corn prices and subsequently higher food prices overall due in part to several fields once used to produce other foods switched to producing corn so there is less food, and more demand from other countries. This is such a bad idea. Corn strips soil of nitrogen, farmers have to add it back to the soil and/or not use the field for a couple of years waiting until it's healthy enough to grow something. The cost of this is ultimately passed on to the consumer.
I wonder, many smaller farms were lost over the years due primarily to an inability of the cash-strapped farmers to pay back loans. Where would we be now if those small farms were still around? I think most of you are smart enough to figure this out.
People, we really are all in this together. The more each of us takes the less there is for the rest and the more it will cost. Please be responsible in your actions. - psulion, on 05/22/2008, -1/+4I don't understand why politicians and automakers do not focus a little more on hydrogen power. 1. It is 100% clean burning, the only emission is water, so that should make environmental sense. 2. You don't need corn, or hemp, or whatever to create it; so food prices aren't going to increase. 3. Hydrogen is the most abundant element on Earth so we don't have to worry about relying on the Middle East or it running out anytime soon. The technology for the engines and such is in its infancy but if there was more funding I think its a better alternative than ethanol.
- waldo21, on 05/23/2008, -0/+3Ethanol prices in the US would drop dramatically if the import tarrifs were dropped.
- diggadigga, on 05/22/2008, -1/+4If it weren't for large government subsidies, corn would be impossible to make profit from. Why do our politicians keep doing it? Cuz Iowa is always the first primary.
- groverblue, on 05/22/2008, -1/+4hemp
- insperatus, on 05/23/2008, -1/+4Producing and burning ethanol leaves as large a carbon footprint as using gasoline. It burns inefficiently in your car and costs more to use because you need more of it to take you the same distance. The reason ethanol became a popular idea in the US was to make some rich farmers richer. It is not ecologically viable unless we learn to produce it from cellulose (stalk and husk.)
- Iztikeit, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3We need to get a more efficient source of ethanol....One that doesn't mess up the world's food supply.
- kday, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3Guess what? If you own a car in the U.S., chances are you are using ethanol. Usually around a 10% mixture. Look at your gas pump next time you fill up. It will tell you the mixture.
- FairDinkumMate, on 05/23/2008, -0/+3CORN ethanol won't work
- init100, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2"Ethanol is taking away food from the hungry, driving up food prices."
Good, I really have to get an ethanol-powered car then. I must do my part in keeping the population of the world down. :P - ferrazf, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2Bravo, I'm sick and tired of seeing ignorant jackasses like osmaker going around preaching their nonsense and perpetuating the misconception
- samoan27, on 05/23/2008, -1/+3You know corn isn't the only biomass that can produce ethanol, right? Now I'm going to try and speak slowly so you can understand: Corn is just a intermidiate crop to develop market acceptance because it was the only crop that was commercially viable immediately. Since it has proven profitable millions of dollars are now used to develop ethanol from other sources like switchgrass. Corn isn't the future of ethanol, and for the few years that it needs to be used there will be growing pains, that's what happens when innovations occur. Now in the future, when you don't know what you're talking about, don't try and ridicule those who do (it makes you look like an ass).
- shady8x, on 05/24/2008, -0/+2@dOOBiEx213
Because almost nobody eats US corn... even in US...
I think like 90% of it is used to feed livestock which can be fed with other things... - rizzo2008, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2Hemp or sugarcane is a more efficient way to make ethanol or other biofuels. By the way the internal combustion engine was never intended to run on petroleum oil. The Model T worked with ethanol that people distilled on their land and Rudolph Diesel's engine was supposed to run on peanut or other plant oils.
But along came prohibition... - FairDinkumMate, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2Brazil as of 2007 is a NET OIL EXPORTER & will become an even larger one once it begins to realise production from the huge deep sea oil fields Petrobras have recently discovered off of its east coast
- shady8x, on 05/24/2008, -0/+2That is why I like Hemp.
It grows everywhere on its own.
The government destroys 223 million wild hemp plants every year cause they can't stop it from growing...
Now what would happen if we used it for fuel? oh yes we wouldn't need to burn food...(or grow or cut down trees...)
Also Hemp is a food crop so even if they replaced other food crops with it, we would still have food...
It protects the soil from erosion so there is no reason not to grow it on lands which our government pays farmers not to use...(which would take care of ALL of our energy needs...) - iancgi, on 05/22/2008, -1/+3Its another scam people there, are far better technologies/sources that can be used for fuel that doesnt take away food from a world already running low on it.
Those in power have one thing in mind and that is how to keep you dependent on a commodity that can be easily controlled and manipulated.
Wake up its time for a change and we need to make it! - samoan27, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2Yes, technology can NEVER violate the laws of physics like say conservation of energy. But on a totally separate note I have a perpetual motion machine I'll sell you for just $100.
- Mononuclear, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2I live in Brazil so I speak from experience. In the northeast at least most of the cars use natural gas and gasoline with 2 separate tanks. Most gas stations have natural gas pumps as well as normal gasoline pumps. I could be wrong about other places in Brazil.
- FairDinkumMate, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2Please get some facts before sprouting absolute lies! Virtually all taxis here in Brazil have natural gas & gasoline/ethanol systems - ie. dual fuel(& therefore 2 tanks). Hardly any normal cars here use natural gas. Almost all new cars sold have 'flex fuel' engines which allow them to run on anything from 100% gasoline to 100% ethanol or any mix in between. This is done through an engine management system which recognises the mix of fuel present & adjusts the engine accordingly, but this is done from 1 gas tank.
- trumpydumpy, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2"University of Massachusetts at Amherst researchers have developed a streamlined technique which uses "catalytic fast pyrolysis" (heating to 400–600 °C followed by rapid cooling) and zeolite as a catalyst to produce cellulosic ethanol in about 60 seconds. They estimate improvements in the process should be able to generate ethanol at the equivalent of $1–$1.70/gal of gasoline. As of April 2008, the process has only been developed to work at laboratory scales.[11]"
The technology is very well matured. It just hasn't been implemented yet.
"Switchgrass is grazed by certain animals, used as ground cover to control erosion, farmed as forage for livestock.
Switchgrass is rich in cellulose, making it attractive as a source for cellulosic ethanol.[2] It is at the core of an alternative fuel strategy announced by Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen in January 2007.[3]"
Check out this picture of a switchgrass plant - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Panicum_virgatu ...
Now take a look at this cannabis field -
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/garrett714/ ...
http://www.hempcar.org
http://tinyurl.com/3wz6tw - FairDinkumMate, on 05/23/2008, -1/+3SOURCE? Please stop listening to biased US media reports. There are many arguments against CORN ETHANOL, but carbon footprint isn't one of them. According to the US Dept. of Agriculture(+ several independent studies) corn ethanol used as E85 results in a 29% reduction in carbon footprint vs gasoline.
You second point - yes ethanol only has about 70% of the efficiency of gasoline. Therefore, for it to be efficient from a solely economic point of view for drivers, it's price must be at or below 70% of the gasoline price(assuming 100% ethanol - US only allows up to E85 so that figure would be approx. 83% in the U with E85)
Your third point -YES, corn ethanol has been promoted in the US solely for political reasons(Iowa corn farmers are some of the first to vote in primaries!) but please don't write off all ethanol because corn is such a poor option. I am sure the US has the ability to identify a practical ethanol crop or other way to produce it that is efficient & cost effective. - inactive, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2Only because it is mandated here. Good product don't have to be mandated.
- Bovorik, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2For all the arable land devoted to the growth of crops for the production of ethanol, and rising food prices, first off we've seen rising food prices/shortages before (so it's nothing new) and, second, those rising prices are across the board. So we're seeing a rise in the prices of corn AND rice, for example. Why's that "interesting", you ask?
If corn supplies are tightening largely as a result of continued ethanol production, what's been causing the price of rice to skyrocket as well? You don't/can't grow ethanol crops on rice land, so what sort of REAL impact is ethanol production having on food prices across the board? - GeauxLSU, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2If you are so worried about food prices as your congressman....Why did you pass (and overrode the veto of) the pork laden Farm Bill that STILL pays "farmers" NOT to farm?
Congress is worried about oil subsidies, but loads the pork on the farmers who are also making record profits....HYPOCRITES!
Cellulosic Ethanol from farm waste and switch grass is the future....corn ethanol will be pushed out by the market. Algae oil also has much promise. -
Show 51 - 100 of 158 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
