digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

See the original image at kansascity.com

Ethanol gas costs more to use, delivers less energy

kansascity.com — "Mileage can suffer by about 25 percent with E-85, according to AAA. Over the course of a year, that amounts to an extra 300 gallons of E-85 to go the same distance as when using conventional gas. That means an average household, when the total cost of conventional gas and E-85 are compared, would spend nearly $100 more per year for E-85."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Scaryclouds, on 04/28/2008, -3/+74Last year I was researching the usage of alternative/biofuels in cars and I found out about this, it totally turned me off of ethanol. 5-10 years from now we are going to look back and wonder how we could have been so easily duped into using ethanol. What an utter waste of resources.
    • Dewhead, on 04/28/2008, -0/+12Lets hope the government will reverse itself and this stupid mandate. It was an idea that didn't work so lets admit and move on to other things that might.
      • VAXcat, on 04/28/2008, -4/+13HA! You are such a dreamer. The US government never, ever, under any circumstances admits it has made a mistake, and it doesn't care how much money has to be wasted or how many people have to die to avoid doing so.
        • oderdigg, on 04/28/2008, -4/+5People can and will digg VAXcat down, but s(he)'s right.
      • shadekeiko, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3My dad has degrees in petroleum engineering and geology and has been saying this for YEARS. I tried telling this to people and they just scoffed at me. I'm glad people are finally realizing this. I'm all for finding alternative fuel sources, but ethanol is not the way to go.
    • Hangly, on 04/28/2008, -16/+6Not all biofuels are ethanol.
      The best ethanol doesn't come from corn.

      Isn't it obvious that all this recent trashing of biofuels is coming from the oil industry?
      • notadiggtard, on 04/28/2008, -3/+7No.It is coming from people who have the sense to look at the facts.
        Care to let us in on how it is "obvious?"
        I didn't think so.
        • Hangly, on 04/28/2008, -3/+5It's obvious because the article is trashing the most inefficient and expensive biofuel there is: corn-based ethanol.
          Since it fails to bring up varieties that DO work, it's essentially a strawman argument.
          • Mothrog, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2Except the idiots in Washington that are pushing ethanol are pushing corn-based ethanol to make farmers happy. That's the reason corn-based ethanol is spoken about.
          • Hangly, on 04/28/2008, -2/+2^^True, but the honest thing to do would be to mention that ethanol isn't the only biofuel.
          • Mothrog, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2It would be, but most science reporting in the mainstream media is pretty awful, so unfortunately only the buzz biofuels like corn-based ethanol get discussed.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3The article is not about biofuel, it's about corn based ethanol.

          Nice strawman.

          It's about corn based ethanol because that's what the governments and the OIL companies, the ones who make it, are pushing right now, causing a rise of grain prices and inflation through corn production incentives and subsidies.

          Oil companies like ethanol because most fossil fuels already contain ethanol additives. They made it a requirement, by law, to "reduce CO2 emissions". Most fossil fuels you buy at the gas station contains about 5-6% ethanol.

          This means they made it a law that you purchase their terrible alternative fuel, to combat CO2 emissions, with the hopes of increasing the ethanol levels until the oil completely disappears, following the consumption of the last reserves.

          In other words: they got you by the balls.
      • jbaut, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4^^^ This is an important point. The net energy ratio of producing corn-based ethanol is low because a corn crop is comparatively difficult to maintain. Corn, a starch, must also be converted to sugar during the refinement process. The production of cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass and certain waste products has a higher net energy ratio but costs more ($$$ cost not energy cost) to refine. If the cost of refining cellulosic ethanol decreases, it will be a viable option for fueling your vehicle.
        • oderdigg, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3How true. There is a term called net-energy or something like that. Oil is virtually free / cheap to extract because it's there and the cost to get it out isn't high, yet. Corn, well *****.. Corn you have to have land that you maintain, till land, seed crop, water crop a lot, harvest etc etc.. Hydrogen is much smarter.
          • Hangly, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3Yes ethanol is a net energy loser, but biodiesel is not. We had a thread on it just a few weeks ago.
        • jbaut, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2You can't grow and harvest hydrogen directly at all, though. You could power an elecrolysis plant for producing hydrogen from biofuels, but I encourage you to look up how much an automobile's hydrogen fuel cell would cost. It is prohibitive. Hydrogen might be a useful way of storing energy for the production of electricity, but you won't put it in your car anytime soon...unless you have money for a $100,000 car. Cellulosic ethanol has the potential to be economically viable.
          • popfrogs, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1What's holding the industry back from CNG in vehicles? Alot of cities have fleets of CNG cars (Dallas for one) and at today's oil prices, it's definitely cheaper. CNG is a win-win and home compressors are making it even more viable for regular people to own and operate CNG vehicles.
          • jbaut, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Natural gas is a fossil fuel, and the US would be forced to import more of it. We would have the same energy security and price volatility issues that we are experiencing now with gasoline. Compressing a gas also has a high energy cost. Why not use plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles that accept electricity directly instead of converting that electricity into mechanical energy inefficiently to compress gas?
      • ElAssoWipo, on 04/28/2008, -6/+2The oil industry is the one who supports ethanol.

        Environmentalists don't. Ecologists don't.
    • Zarokima, on 04/28/2008, -2/+7Even ignoring the usage, it's horrible because of the the production -- it's an abhorrent waste of corn we could be selling to nations with less food, or even using ourselves to increase supply and bring down the cost of living a little (not just on corn, but on everything corn is used for like chicken feed, bringing down the price of chicken and eggs). If they're going to throw perfectly good food away for ethanol they might as well just hand it out to starving people for free.
    • vikingcoder, on 04/28/2008, -0/+9We were duped into corn-based ethanol exactly like we were duped into high fructose corn syrup.
    • linagee, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3"People can't make an informed buying decision."
      Because they are idiots? The article makes several mentions to "if the price per gallon of gas were the same for a gallon of ethanol". Well.... Ethanol is supposed to be cheaper per gallon anyway. If you drop the price of ethanol by 25% to compare the two and ethanol is still higher, yes gas stations are gouging you. (Maybe it's more expensive for them though?)
      • expert01, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2My local gas stations charge $2.50 per for ethanol and $3.50 per for unleaded gas (plain, not premium). By the article description's logic, since I'll be using more ethanol (25% more) then to directly compare their value I should add 25% to the cost of Ethanol, making it ~$3.13 per gallon. $3.13 per gallon is cheaper than $3.50 per gallon, so ethanol is still doing good in my book.

        Doesn't matter, I'm all for hydrogen anyways. It makes a good energy storage medium until it can be combusted, and if it's generated using hydro, air, and solar power... ummm... well, lost my train of thought.
        • Abomonog, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Hydrogen has the same big issues that ethanol has. It costs more energy to produce it then it produces.
          • expert01, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1It costs more energy to produce oil than it does to produce hydrogen. Oil comes from decomposed life. Plants soaked the sun's energy, then animals ate them, they all died. So oil's energy comes from the sun. Hydrogen, unless it's produced by geothermal or wave power, would also have to be produced by the sun.

            It doesn't matter how much energy it costs to produce, so long as the product is inexpensive, easy to transport, and has high energy potential.
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1Duped? All it takes is for someone to say "it's good for the environment" and it's a done deal. MTBE was a disaster too.
    • darkciti2, on 04/29/2008, -3/+4Inaccurate. Ethanol is only less efficient if the engine isn't tuned to use it!!
      Ethanol is 103 Octane. If you put it in a 91 Octane vehicle, you're losing energy... If you did the same test with an engine tuned for 103 Octane, it would produce more horsepower per gallon (as compared to gasoline) which works out to be MORE EFFICIENT.
      • rbanffy, on 04/29/2008, -1/+6And since I live in Brazil and drive a car designed to run on sugar cane ethanol, I can tell you it's a marginally better fuel than gasoline. As for cost per mile, it's about the same as gasoline, as market forces would eventually dictate, but it pollutes less (it's like giving back the carbon the plants absorbed) and is nicer to the engine (less carbon build-ups, longer life for spark-plugs...). The engine is also more powerful (about 8%) at the same displacement.

        As for the corn ethanol used in the US... Well... That's dumb. Really.
      • kirstpo, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. Octane rating tells you how much 'knock' the fuel will have in the engine. A higher octane level means you'll have less 'knock' which means a 'cleaner' combustion. It has nothing to do with the energy you get. Ethanol yields less energy than gasoline in combustion, a chemical fact. Ethanol or any biofuel would also be many times more expensive without the subsidies the government gives out, and it should be more expensive than the gasoline prices now. Biofuels from whatever biomass is bad for the environment in more ways than gasoline. Many people claim it's carbon neutral. It is NOT. the whole process of harvesting the fuel, deforestation, plundering of the soil, making nitrogen for crops, combustion of the fuel allows for just as much emissions if not more.

        Again, I comment that electric cars already exist, and they are completely marketable. If people looked past all the propaganda about biofuels, hydrogen, and hybrid cars, then they would realize that. http://www.teslamotors.com/ is one such electric car company.
    • TheUngod, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1It's amazing how Digg shuffles over to whatever is popular. A year ago everyone was all about the ethanol.
  • crinzema, on 04/28/2008, -6/+71Ethanol is HORRIBLE! It is only going to increase prices of corn, but more frightingly, it will increase prices of meat! Supply and Demand. Corn $+=food $+=Meat $+=Me dead
    • ohearn, on 04/28/2008, -0/+19That's because corn is a horrible plant as far as amount of ethanol per acre you can harvest from it. Switch grass, sugar cane, or sugar beets are much better, it's just that most of the US doesn't have a good climate for sugar cane or sugar beets.
      • Zandarrr, on 04/28/2008, -3/+6Any form of Ethanol is a waste of time and simply a distraction. Wind, solar, and water!
        • masterm1nd, on 04/28/2008, -1/+5Those are only a part of it, at best. You're basically demanding a perpetual motion/energy device. Granted if we were really technologically advanced we could harvest more than enough energy from the sun, but we aren't.
      • Hangly, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2I thought most of the worlds sugar beets were produced in Utah and Idaho.
      • linagee, on 04/28/2008, -3/+1Our stomachs are very hungry for fuel just like cars are very hungry for fuel. It's just that cars eat WAAAAAY more than people. (150HP car would be equivalent to 450 strong atheletes each producing 1/3 HP energy each.) We all seem to have this sick fetish to travel around so much, we usually don't even realize how much energy we are all consuming!
        • TheNik, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4Culturalization isn't a sick fetish. We just need a better method of traveling. And sugar cane wouldn't be a problem if we weren't still being pissy about Cuba.
    • KMartSheriff, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Captain Obvious falls to his knees and explodes.
    • Zandarrr, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1It already is increasing the prices.
    • MortalynFlux, on 04/28/2008, -0/+5Don't forget the price of chicken feed. That raised the price of eggs.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 04/28/2008, -1/+4This was a great bonanza for ADM. They got to raise the price of all their crops. The Oil Companies get to use just as much fuel to produce it. And the Right wing shills get to point to this miserable failure and blame Al Gore.

      It is a trifecta of profit and propaganda for the NeoCon's and their corporate sponsors.
      • mboudro, on 04/29/2008, -1/+4It was almost solely the Democratic party that pushed the E-85 though Wisconsin, the state where I live, and the majority of the other states which require its use.

        Another leftest spewing ignorance.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 04/29/2008, -2/+2All politics are local, In IOWA, yes it is bipartisan; http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/469753/sweepi ...
        It is, however, a darling of BigAgra and Archer Daniels Midland. It has big investors from both sides of the isle -- but it is NOT being pushed by Liberals. And we have been highly critical of people "called" Democrats for supporting it. This is more of corporations running Government -- that is fascism.

        Corruption is rampant in our government. But it is right wing shills who point this out as if it was spearheaded by Al Gore. They have corporate backers who directly benefit and then they get to blame the Left -- that's what I'm talking about.
    • saigumi, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Petroleum is HORRIBLE! It is only going to increase prices of corn, but more frightingly, it will increase prices of meat! Supply and Demand. Oil $+= Corn $+=food $+=Meat $+=Me dead

      Seriously, do you realize how much petroleum goes into fertilizing, pesticiding, growning, harvesting, transporting, manufacturing, and shipping to you is being used? And you want us to stay dependant on a foreign source of it. Lame.
  • piper999, on 04/28/2008, -22/+11$100 a year for no more dependence on oil? Count me in.

    Also, when the price of oil doubles, triples, and so on that $100 increase is going to look like peanuts.
    • Berkana, on 04/28/2008, -3/+20Uh, no. We're just as dependent on oil; in case you didn't know, the corn is fertilized using petroleum derivatives, and is processed using petroleum derivatives.
      • linagee, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1source?
        • saigumi, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1How It's Made
          Google
          Working on a farm for 32 years
      • lwgoodman, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Actually natural gas is used to make hydrogen which is then combined with nitrogen to make ammonia. Eliminate natural gas (like using electrolysis) and you eliminate dependence on foreign gas.
    • valkyries, on 04/28/2008, -1/+5you didnt read what crinzema said,
      its not just the 100$ more then oil but it also raises the cost of food.
    • cockmonger69, on 04/28/2008, -6/+2not only what those two other dude's said, but we'll just be exchanging the dependence on oil for dependence on corn.
      • thebigbradwolf, on 04/28/2008, -2/+3yeah, but we can grow our own corn.
        • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1What are you going to plant the corn with?
        • linagee, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2Ethanol powered tractor. What do you transport gasoline with?
      • CrushThemTorg, on 04/28/2008, -6/+2... and fertilize it with petroleum-based products. WIN!
        • thebigbradwolf, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2Turns out corn has existed since before petroleum-based products...as have a myriad of other plants that (PERHAPS unlike corn) don't need our help to grow, for instance kudzu...
          • Mothrog, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Yeah, they'll grow alright, but not as well. Oh, and FYI, modern corn bears little resemblance to what corn used to be like.
      • notadiggtard, on 04/28/2008, -2/+3Are we willing to use up every arable acre of land to grow corn,etc.?Remember agriculture uses lots of petroleum,tons of water resources,and land.Boifuels are for idiots.Look at what we use now.It is absolutely impossible to replace any significant portion of it with bio.Get real.Use your head.
        • floorman56, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1Boifuels are for idiots
          Then quit whining and start drilling 1/2 the fuel we use is to make and grow food you can't make a electric "john deer"
          • notadiggtard, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1If only they would let us!The enviro-nazis have put most of the US coast and all of ANWR off limits.Of course the same people have always WANTED $4 gas,they are just upset that we didn't get it by raising taxes.
        • linagee, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1Stop stomping on the gas pedal when the light turns green.
    • brstilson, on 04/28/2008, -2/+9Actually, the description is wrong. Gas isn't 33 cents a gallon. It's more like $1,000 a year more for E-85. Plus, you'll end up paying more for food as well.
      • vuke69, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3Plus you ALSO need to add in all those corn farm subsidies that are handed out to make ethanol, which would otherwise be almost twice as expensive, competitive with gas.
    • bjswanner, on 04/28/2008, -6/+1Plus that's $100 a year for an average household...There are a lot of households that don't burn much gasoline...the fact that you're digging indicates to me a lifestyle which would put you above average...at least with respect to the ammount of gas you burn.
      • linagee, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Parent comment was burried by everyone using SUVs and everyone who stomps on the accelerator when the light turns green.
    • piper999, on 04/28/2008, -2/+6It turns out after actually reading the article that the $100 extra is for gas with only 15% ethanol.

      I guess if it was 100% ethanol then the extra cost would be more than $600.

      Oh well, still better than burning a non-renewable energy source.
      • warriorscot, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2Not really because while cars burn fossil fuels you can live without a car, you can't live without food because that's what you burn, you've just got to decide what is more important taking the time to find a good alternative to petroleum fuelled vehicles or people eating.
    • zacharytelschow, on 04/29/2008, -1/+3University of Minnesota researchers calculated that if we used all US corn to produce ethanol, it would displace just 12% of our current gasoline consumption. Thinking ethanol will replace oil is a fantasy.
  • mlrigsby, on 04/28/2008, -2/+38And this is news? Ethanol has long been known to be a racket. Unfortunately, enough states grow corn that it is politically, if not scientifically, viable.
    • had3l, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3Really? Because of $100 a YEAR? Less than $2 a week... I can see how reduced mileage is a problem since you have to do more stops along the way, but I spend more than that a year on beef jerky (And i don't even eat that much beef jerky).
      • RungeKutta, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1I don't know, $100/yr on beef jerky seems quite a lot to me. What is it $1 - $2 per stick?
      • crazypooljunkie, on 04/29/2008, -1/+0But extend that to the entire U.S. population. That is a big economic effect.
  • ariGme, on 04/28/2008, -5/+20I live in the midwest and can truthfully say I lose $6~10 a tank of gas if I fill with ethanol just in the mileage lost, even though its $.05-.10 cheaper. Its the difference of 8-12mpg vs. 16-18mpg.
    • BitKid, on 04/28/2008, -5/+2Totally. I am sure that people would be willing to spend an extra $100 a year to help decrease global warming.
    • darkciti2, on 04/29/2008, -2/+4That's because your engine isn't tuned to use the extra octane of Ethanol.
    • jakeson2, on 04/29/2008, -3/+2You better take your vehicle to the shop. It seriously needs work. My friends, when they can get E85 tell me they get equally good mileage with ethanol as they do with the overpriced gasoline. YOU should not condemn a product because of your personal shortcomings.
    • DalamarArgent, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Those are some extremely random "facts" you just invented there. Maybe some actual stats instead of just hearsay and completely random numbers.
  • MaleMaldives, on 04/28/2008, -3/+4Just tell us which one to buy already.
  • spikes, on 04/28/2008, -2/+17Have you figured out why they bother to dilute regular gas with ethanol yet?
    Tip: It's not because it works better in the winter.
    • ultrasparc, on 04/28/2008, -6/+3It actually does help keep water from separating from the gas numb nuts.
      • spikes, on 04/28/2008, -2/+4The amount required to do this is very minuscule compared to the amount they use. Also care to explain why the ethanol is still there in "summer" gas?
        Oh, we used something called "gas line antifreeze" many years before this ethanol ***** came into play.
  • lilwagon, on 04/28/2008, -20/+6BushCo GIVEAWAY to Archer Daniels Midland ACCOMPLISHED
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 04/28/2008, -4/+1I have to wonder about the idiots who dugg this comment down.
      • dmadzak, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4Probably because they know that just about every politician on both sides of the aisle is in on the racket. If it was stated another government giveaway to business then that would be correct. Problem is that this is digg and we can't bad mouth the left here. Funny thing is as much as I hate McCain, I think he is the only one right on this issue.
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Bush, right, he's not the only culpret, the libtards in CA put this in our CA gas in a heartbeat a while ago.
  • BigglesPiP, on 04/28/2008, -9/+16Biofuel = FAIL!

    Hydrogen burning internal combustion four strokes are the way to go, produce the stuff from sea water with nuclear powered electrolysis.
    • teh_techie, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3Now we're talking!
    • Hangly, on 04/28/2008, -11/+10Hydrogen is not an energy source, it's a form of energy storage. You still have to expend the energy to create the hydrogen, probably with a stinky coal power plant.
    • fishinabarrel, on 04/28/2008, -1/+5Don't count out all biofuels because of the current ethanol/ corn crisis. There is also bio diesel from algae and gasoline generated plastic woody by products. Both methods are much more appealing than ethanol because they do not deplete food sources.
      • ghinch, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Appealing unless you're a corn farmer paying a lobbyist to promote ethanol
    • Mothrog, on 04/28/2008, -2/+5Why bother converting the electricity into hydrogen, then the hydrogen to mechanical energy through internal combustion (which is ridiculously inefficient), when you can just use the electricity to power electric cars?
      • Hangly, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2Don't electric cars have a problem with being ridiculously underpowered? I think I read somewhere that hydrogen cars don't have this drawback.
        You're right though, hydrogen is essentially electricity storage.
        • Mothrog, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3"Don't electric cars have a problem with being ridiculously underpowered?"

          It depends on the design, and the target cost. They don't have to be, and many people have done conversions that handle just fine on the road.

          "I think I read somewhere that hydrogen cars don't have this drawback."

          They don't, but hydrogen cars have significant problems with the cost of the vehicle itself, transportation of the hydrogen, refinement of the hydrogen, and the cost of the infrastructure necessary to distribute the amount of hydrogen that we would need to replace gasoline. Electric cars aren't perfect, but there are just too many problems with the economics of hydrogen cars for them to become practical any time soon.

      • BigglesPiP, on 04/28/2008, -3/+4Because stepping the voltage up for transmission, transmitting it, and then stepping it down to 240V (or 110V for you pussies over the pond), charging a battery, then discharging a battery is also very inefficient.

        Electric cars are bad.
        • Mothrog, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3It may be inefficient, but nowhere near as inefficient as electrolysis and then combustion of hydrogen. Most ICE get something like 10% efficiency... They're horrible.
        • NonLeftistDiggr, on 04/29/2008, -1/+3 and then stepping it down to 240V (or 110V for you pussies over the pond),

          Classic!
    • popfrogs, on 04/28/2008, -2/+2Why not save a step in the process and just use nuclear power to generate electricity for electric cars?
      • xexx, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Because batteries have not advanced enough yet to to store the energy efficiently. You're not going to get 400 miles out of batteries and charge them up in 3 minutes at a gas/hydrogen station and go another 400 miles like you can with hydrogen - but of course hydrogen requires electricity to make.

        That of course isn't to say we shouldn't be working on it.
    • GreyFlcn, on 04/28/2008, -1/+0Asside from the fact that Nuclear power and Hydrogen are both bigger boondoggles than Ethanol.
      http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080512/parenti
      http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
      -
      Electric cars powered by solar thermal electricity, now there you got something.
      http://www.esolar.com/
      http://greyfalcon.net/electriccars.png
      • Pittance, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2Solar is inefficient due to our panel technology not yet being advanced enough. Hydrogen is a better battery essentially and nuclear power is the safest and cleanest controllable (i.e., not waiting around for hydro, wind or solar) power source we've got.
  • magamiako, on 04/28/2008, -16/+8So at the end of the day, You're concerned with how much money it saves you than whether or not it's a renewable energy source?

    It may not be perfect, but it's good that we're starting.
    • NachoPirate, on 04/28/2008, -10/+2Exactly what I was thinking.
    • boredrph, on 04/28/2008, -1/+12what about people concerned about little things like... oh, I don't know.... eating?
    • BlakeEM, on 04/28/2008, -1/+14It's not renewable when it's dependent on so many non-renewable resources (coal power plants provide the power for production/refining, fertilizers, tractors fuel, etc). This is just a waste no matter how you look at it. Not to mention food shortages it causes from being government subsidized so people are forced into using something that isn't even better then what we have been using.
    • strathound, on 04/28/2008, -8/+1Thanks Magamiako. I'm glad to see someone in the din of mediocrity around here sees the big picture. I'll try and explain for those that just buy into whatever the latest Digg article is telling them. Renewable fuel = good. FOSSIL FUEL requires dead plants and animals ... lots of them. That's why they are called "fossil" fuel.
    • notadiggtard, on 04/28/2008, -1/+12"It may not be perfect, but it's good that we're starting."
      Doing the WRONG thing just to be starting=idiocy
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 04/28/2008, -3/+2No -- what he is talking about is that it lays the groundwork for an efficient infrastructure. It isn't a bad notion. You can start with ethanol (which is terrible, inefficient, and supports corn growing) -- but later replace that with many other biofuels when we have more honest politicians who are looking out for the people involved.

        The problem I have is with alcohol based rather than oil-based biofuels. Oil does not require distillation to remove.
      • notadiggtard, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1I'm just saying look before we leap into another boondoggle.
        • strathound, on 04/30/2008, -0/+0When I was growing up in the 70's, they actually had curriculum in science devoted to alternative energy sources like solar and wind energy. We've been researching and discussing the need for new energy sources for decades now. How long would you like to wait? Again, fossil fuels will eventually be gone. We've done enough waiting. It's time to try something.
    • SouthsideIrish, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3The actual problem with corn based ethanol is not that it is made with corn, it is the damn subsidies the government continues to pay farmer's for this program. Corn prices go higher, because farmer's would rather sell there corn to the oil companies rather than for feed. So prices for chocolate, milk, cheese and beef goes up. Use your corn based ethanol, but pay for it, and stop the subsidies.
    • koft, on 04/28/2008, -2/+1This has nothing to do with being green or reducing prices. It's entirely about reducing the dependency on foreign energy. Of course it's going to cost more and be a bigger pain in the ass.
    • XtheXlanternX, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1Water is not a renewable resource. When you factor in the water it takes to irrigate the corn fields, it takes approximately 785 gallons of water per 1 gallon of ethanol produced. If you take out the irrigation water, it still takes between 3 and 4 gallons of water per 1 gallon of ethanol. With the rate at which we use oil currently, it is pretty much incomprehensible how many gallons of water we would use in a year for ethanol production if it increases.
    • Mothrog, on 04/28/2008, -1/+4Probably because corn-based ethanol is not renewable, since you end up with a net energy loss, and using corn for fuel instead of food drives up the price of food.
      • GRTWHT, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2Finally someone sums up the problem in a short simple statement!!
        Thank you!
    • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2They said on NPR last week that in order to make one 25 gallon tank of ethonal, you need enough corn to feed a human for a year.
  • KingRat6, on 04/28/2008, -2/+1What's that they say about something too good to be true?

    Oh yeah....
    • darkciti2, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2They say you don't know what you're talking about, or something like that.
  • dherman, on 04/28/2008, -4/+15Can anyone same Farm Subsidy?
    • fishinabarrel, on 04/28/2008, -1/+13I can SAY it.
    • fried, on 04/28/2008, -0/+5Yeah the same Farm Subsidy that gave us High Fructose Corn Syrup
  • nomadofthehills, on 04/28/2008, -3/+9We already have a corn monoculture, bio fuel is not the answer. We simply don't have the room to grow the corn.
    • saigumi, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Biofuel is an answer. I just wish we had more areas capable of high yields of sugar cane.
  • nutniqs, on 04/28/2008, -4/+3Hydrogen Cells, now!
    • notadiggtard, on 04/28/2008, -0/+6Hydrogen produced how?
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2You can use it to store solar energy from electrolysis.
        • Mothrog, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1Yeah, after you blow a ridiculous amount of energy using electrolysis.
          • VitriolAndAngst, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2If you are storing solar energy, it is 100% more than what you would have had. There might be some better electrolysis efficiencies found with salt water and a catalyst that some scientist is working on (forge the article). I'm merely trying to point out one of several ways Hydrogen can be produced without Fossil Fuels. The other is nuclear.
          • Mothrog, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1"If you are storing solar energy, it is 100% more than what you would have had."

            If you're going to convert solar energy to electricity, why not use the electricity instead of going through a wasteful conversion process, only to end up converting it right back to electricity?
          • miket, on 04/29/2008, -0/+0what about the inefficiencies of getting power to your house and charging/discharging the batt?
          • smurfsahoy, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1"If you're going to convert solar energy to electricity, why not use the electricity instead of going through a wasteful conversion process, only to end up converting it right back to electricity?"

            Because you can't charge a battery in a minute or so?
        • NonLeftistDiggr, on 04/29/2008, -1/+2and a ridiculous amount of energy mining (silicon), manufacutring, installing, and maintining solar plants the size of entire counties, if not states.
        • smurfsahoy, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1@nonleftist, You have been misinformed. 1 square meter of land receives on average 164 watts of solar energy. A square kilometer thus receives 164 megawatts. Nevada is 285,000 square kilometers, for a total of 40 terawatts of electricity potential.

          The entire Earth's energy consumption right now is about 15 terawatts for all energy sources combined, so Nevada could provide almost 4 times as much energy as the entire planet needs if it were covered in solar panels.
      • floorman56, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2 From hydrocarbons
        Hydrogen can be generated from natural gas with approximately 80% efficiency, or other hydrocarbons to a varying degree of efficiency. The hydrocarbon conversion method releases greenhouse gases.
    • Mothrog, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2Hydrogen cells are worse than ethanol. There's no real good way to produce hydrogen efficiently, except of course refining oil, the fuel cells themselves are expensive, and the infrastructure to provide hydrogen on the scale necessary to replace oil would cost tens of trillions of dollars.
  • Hangly, on 04/28/2008, -2/+15Ethanol has always been a loser. Biodiesel, however, is not.

    Methinks someone is engaging in Microsoft-style disinformation.
  • Berkana, on 04/28/2008, -1/+24Brazil has a successful ethanol program, but they use sugarcane instead of corn. What about cellulosic ethanol? How's that coming along? Simply using corn to ferment into alcohol is not working out, is it?
  • bethehammer, on 04/28/2008, -2/+11corn based ethanol is crap thats why we need cellulose based ethanol which uses trash and refuse to fuel our cars - btw everyone is just pissed at ethanol now because the subsidized corn is used for fuel (which makes more money for farmers) and not to give us cheap food (which makes more fat Americans)
    • BadseedJR, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2If you pay attention to anything at all, you'd know that the food crisis is not in America, it's in the poorer countries like Haiti.
    • fried, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1I wonder how many will die, for this Environment Saving Measure probably not as much as the DDT ban
      • burningmanstan, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1I never knew disinformation from good ol' Steve Milloy was so prolific until I started reading digg. There has never been a worldwide ban on DDT for public health use. That includes the ban in the US (there is an exemption allowing for use in public health emergencies). So regardless of the effectiveness of DDT the claim that there was some kind of world wide ban is entirely wrong. DDT use for large scale agricultural application was banned in many places. Why? Because spreading around an environmentally persistent chemical is never a good idea AND its environmental persistence promotes insect resistance. Yes, that’s right, mosquitoes can become resistant to DDT especially when they are exposed to sub-lethal blow off from agricultural application. Also DDT use has been discontinued is some places because it just didn't work. DDT is not some kind of miracle cure, it is just another pesticide in a long list of pesticides that may or may not work for a given application. The god-like status it has among some groups in the US is pure marketing hype. Why is Milloy pissed about the DDT "ban"? Because agricultural and other uses for DDT were a large portion of DDT sales and as a good little shill he had to try to keep sales up by defending every questionable use for DDT. But don’t ask me just gobble up everything that the Competitive Enterprise Institute spews out.
  • comedianX, on 04/28/2008, -2/+6If you have an engine that is built for pure ethanol and harvest that ethanol from algae and not corn then those problems would go away.
    • BadseedJR, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3We would still need room to grow crops of algae. Not to mention, anything that is new or innovative is bound to be blamed for any problem someone else has, which is then used as an excuse to raise the price of something else. It will never end.
      • burningmanstan, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2you don't need crop land or fresh water to grow algae
    • veridiac, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1No they wouldn't.... ethanol fundamentally has a lower energy density than gasoline. It will always require more ethanol to deliver the same amount of energy as an equal volume of gasoline.
      • ferrite, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1He's partially right
        Ethanol may have a higher octane rating than traditional gasoline at 100+, but it contains 31.1MJ/kg as opposed to 44.4 in the cheap (I wish) low grade gas.
        So your tank might weigh more, feh.
  • MadOgre, on 04/28/2008, -3/+1So you burn more of it... nice. And that means it needs more corn to make up the difference... Less corn flakes in your bowl.
    • SouthsideIrish, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3Do you really understand what corn is used for. A lot of corn goes to feed all of those cows that give milk, and get butchered for meat. If feed prices go up, then milk, cheese, ice cream, chocolate, meat, popcorn, corn oil and even corn flake prices will go up. The government is causing all of these prices to go up, by giving kickbacks to the corn ethanol industry. This is a 30 year old technology, and they shouldn't be getting these kickbacks.
  • Berkana, on 04/28/2008, -1/+5What ever happened to the other biofuels besides ethanol? What happend to dimethylfuran, and bio-butanol, and others? I heard those were safe, and have energy densities comparable to gasoline, but the corn growers would prefer to fixate on ethanol.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 04/28/2008, -2/+1And CorpGov and BigOil want it to fail -- it's a win/win.
  • offcenter, on 04/28/2008, -2/+14Ethanol only did two things well: keeping the Big Ag and Big Oil happy.

    If it was worth doing it would have been done by now, without the interference. Let the scientists figure this out, not the politicians.
    • bpmanning, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1It also makes little ag happy as well. Any small increase in price helps small farmers everywhere.
  • emanpa68, on 04/28/2008, -2/+3If only you could feel my hate through the internet... I might be ocd, but honestly i will argue to no end when someone says, "we really gotta get everyone on ethanol" ooooo how my blood boils!
  • boredrph, on 04/28/2008, -1/+8$100 isn't even close to the real number.... once you consider the subsidies on every level of the process
  • wrathbone, on 04/28/2008, -2/+13Corn is one of the worst crops to grow environmentally. The amount of fertilizer used and the runoff from it results decimation of water sources. Same goes for sugar cane from Brazil grown using slash and burn methods.

    Going green is great, if you actually help the environment instead of displacing the destruction.
    • Hangly, on 04/28/2008, -0/+5If you're against corn you should first swear off pork.

      And if you're opposed to slash-and-burn deforestation... that's right, no more coffee for you.
      • wrathbone, on 04/28/2008, -2/+2I'm against ramping up the growth of corn for a worthless endeavor that causes more destruction than it fixes.

        And I don't drink coffee. So I'd be okay with that.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 04/28/2008, -0/+5I'd love for companies to quit putting corn syrup in food instead of sugar --- we'd all be a lot thinner if they did. Corn is a crappy food and a crappy source of bio-fuel. It is almost indigestible, aside from the high-calorie syrup which lowers your metabolism.
        • Hangly, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3Corn produces more calories per acre than any other grain, and you can grow two, sometimes three crops a year. That's why people grow so much of it.

          You're right about it not being the best thing in the world for you though.
          • VitriolAndAngst, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Aren't we trying to cut calories? Other than as a fuel, that more calories than any grain doesn't sound like a benefit.
          • darkciti2, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Uhm, I think you guys are arguing for the same thing.
  • Pedestrian101, on 04/28/2008, -8/+14Lol, thank you idiot liberals for pushing crap like this.
    • notadiggtard, on 04/28/2008, -7/+4The law of unintended consequences gets them every time,but they never learn.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 04/28/2008, -3/+7LOL -- thanks for not noticing that Liberals are not pushing Ethanol.

      Idiot.

      Take a look sometime as to who is promoting Ethanol and who it benefits... yeah, I know, you will never research these Republican talking points and that is why you are still listening to Reich-wing Radio.

      Idiot. The idea that his nonsense gets blamed on the Left and Environmentalists must make the people who benefit so very happy.
      • Pedestrian101, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Wow, you liberals were looking for a solution, worse, you were looking for one from the Republicans, and you sure got one.
      • notadiggtard, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1True!A lot of idiot republicans pushed it!Were any liberals against it?In this case it's more a case of getting reelected than whats best for the country,and republicans can fall into that trap too.
    • XtheXlanternX, on 04/28/2008, -0/+5First, I'm a liberal who does not support ethanol subsidies. Second, I honestly couldn't tell you who pushed it through Congress, but if it was the left or right, they are both idiots for doing it. Third, the ethanol "boom" is more a friend to big business (huge corporate farms) than to the environment (the territory of the right-- not the left).
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1He's certainly dead on about the roots of it, although you commenters are correct that the republicans and democrats alike representing farm heavy states caught on to what it could do for farmers.
    • pilobilus, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1This time the blame lays squarely on the major ag biz and fuel corporations' lobbyists. Not a liberal OR conservative in the lot, just NeoCons looking to score big before cashing out.
  • slabdigger, on 04/28/2008, -3/+15Ethanol from CORN is the problem. Big oil hopes we will get jaded before we can develop non-food crop ethanol.
    Also - check the source AAA?
    http://www.nrdc.org/amicus/01win/aaa/aaa.asp
    they've been lobbying for big oil and against environmentalists for years - decades.
    • jpete71chevmal, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1No, ethanol is the problem. It has less BTU output so you are paying more and getting less. You could somewhat offset the problem by making an engine to run on pure alcohol. Indy cars do it, it's no problem, you just need high compression ratios. But then you can't run on regular gas anymore. Any "flex fuel" type vehicle is a compromise and therefore never as optimal as an engine built for one fuel or the other.
    • jakeson2, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2Sire, what you don't understand is this! IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS WHAT I DO WITH THE CROPS I GROW ON MY FARM. IF I choose to sell it for food, PAY FOR IT. If there is a better market for it, I WILL sell to that better paying market. WHERE DID YOU PEOPLE GET OFF ON THE IDEA THAT THE OUTPUT FROM MY FARM IS FOR YOU TO DECIDE WHAT USE I PUT IT TO? I go to a lot of expense to grow it and I always don't get a good crop to sell, so I better put it to good use when I do.
  • Prototek, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3Ethanol is a prospective technology which in the near future will be created from inedible plants such as grasses. While currently sugar from sugar cane or corn is needed, the current research is directed at making cellulosic ethanol which breaks down cellulose (a sugar polymer) into simple, monomer sugars for fermentation into ethanol. The current benefit and disadvantage of ethanol is that it increases the market value of corn which helps American farmers increase profit and decrease the necessity of government subsidies in order to keep American farms.
  • Smooooth, on 04/28/2008, -0/+17What we really need is a 'Mr. Fusion".

    You can put banana peels, beer (and beer cans!), and random trash in it.

    Problem is that it makes your car top out at 88mph.
    • ultrasparc, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2Roads? Where we're going you don't need roads!
    • j3ff86, on 04/29/2008, -0/+0Mr. Fusion powers the time circuits and the flux capacitor. But the internal combustion engine runs on ordinary gasoline.. it always has!
    • Uchdryd, on 04/29/2008, -0/+0Who in the name of the good Lord will spend beer to power a car?!

      Enough beer can make you fly.
  • MortalynFlux, on 04/28/2008, -4/+5Government-subsidized production of ethanol. Mandated distribution of ethanol with gasoline. Smells a lot like socialism to me. What happened to letting the markets fix themselves, Mr. Bush? Oh yeah, not when it comes to helping your friends at Exxon and Ford.

    This is nothing more than appeasement. We are being appeased into going green by a bunch of crooks.
    • magamiako, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1What "markets" to fix themselves? Just because a bunch of oil diggers "assume" that there is gasoline in places like the ANWR doesn't mean it exists. The fact is, there is no "market" on oil other than the few countries who control their reserves. It's not like you can come up with an idea and just market oil. And certainly, this isn't like The Beverly Hillbillies where you can just walk out into your backyard and strike gold.

      The only alternatives *are* things like biodiesel, ethanol, and others. But most people (like yourself) won't change your driving habits nor give up your SUVs or "super fast horsepower cars" to switch to a reasonable alternative.

      You'd rather get somewhere at 100mph on $5/gallon fuels than get somewhere at 60mph on far more renewable energy.
      • MortalynFlux, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1My point is that the Bush administration does things for its own benefit and then finds the spin and ideology to justify it. I think we can make this transition to green sources of energy, but it's going to be a major undertaking with the cooperation of government and private industry.

        I don't think ethanol or biofuels are the solution. They are merely distractions. There are much better solutions. The technology for electric vehicles improves by the year. But the car companies are moving in that direction very grudgingly. EV's require fewer parts and less maintenance. That means you will be buying less spare parts from the dealership or manufacturer and will have less motivation to buy new vehicles. And imagine an 8 hour ride with no stops for gas? I'm sure the Exxons do not like that version of the future. And they will do everything the can to stop it, to make sure you at least have SOMETHING that they can refine that your car will require to burn. That's why they love the hybrids, the CG vehicles, and the hydrogen fuel cell idea.

        Ford killed its own EV1 program. Toyota's RAV4-EV SUV's were a success, but as soon as the lease was up, they recalled them and DESTROYED them. The patented tehcnology of the successful EV-95 NiMH batteries in the RAV4 were bought by the oil companies and shelved. Chevron-Texaco don't make them, and they won't allow anyone else make them. The production line has to make them has been torn down and dismantled. Now the hope is that lithium ion technology will get us there. Let's hope this technology does not follow a similar fate.

        In addition, the technology for solar energy is also advancing. Solar energy can provide an additional charge to a vehicle. The technology is available so that the paint of the car can be used to gather the sun's energy and charge the battery.

        The greenest energy is the one that you can plug into the grid. Some say that the power from the wall comes from coal plants, so it is not really green. But a stationary coal plant will be much more efficient than any portable plant under the hood. In addition, electric cars will allow us to be infrastructure-ready. So say we move our existing transportation infrastructure to electric. When we move to atomic power, or say, fusion power, or some other solution, the whole world will be ready to plug in overnight.

        The only reason those who manufacture ethanol make a profit is because it is subsidized. It costs more to make ethanol than what you get when you sell it. It also takes more energy to make ethanol than what you get from burning it. And ethanol factories have recently been identified as river polluters. So you and I are funding world hunger and the pollution of our rivers. Great idea, Bush!

        We mobilized during WWII to defeat Hitler's Army, created the most destructive weapon man has ever seen, put a man on the moon, have several observatories in space that can see into the beginning of time, created a communication network that has changed the way people live, and now scientists in Europe have created an artificial black hole... but we can't come up with a better solution than ethanol? Sure we can.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2I agree with you -- but it is Fascism when government provides regulation and money to benefit corporations -- not Socialism. Socialism is rules forced on business to benefit Citizens. I don't know why "Socialism" is a bad word -- sounds like a better deal every day.
      • vvelox, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1I've never understood why fascism is considered bad and socialism is considered good.

        The end results are the same and the differences are arbitrary.
  • rohanch, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Here in the UK (and most of Europe) E85 is taxed a lot less so it actually does work out cheaper. And a well designed engine conversion will give you more power -- check Saab for example: http://www.trollhattansaab.net/images/biopower/bud ...

    It's not a long-term solution though due to the issues of growing it, yes, we all know that.
    • notadiggtard, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Taxed less?In the us it is Subsidized!Not only less money for highways and bridges,ALL taxpayers pay each time someone fills up,even if they don't own a car! Thanks farm state congressmen!
  • FortyCaliber, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3It is simple chemical physics: Ethanol has less Carbon-Hydrogen bonds which means less potential energy.
    Too bad there is no such thing as vaporous sucrose... because sugar is chock full of potential energy and the south could sure use a boost in the economy.
    The fryer oil-biodiesel thing is a good idea for the few people who manage to get the oil for free from restaurants.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 04/28/2008, -4/+1The BushCo government is promoting Ethanol so that they can point to Alternative Energy as a failure -- and because it makes money for ADM.
  • dmoffitt, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1been saying it for ages. stoichiometric ratio on ethanol is far richer (aka more fuel less air for the same optimal-power ratio) and you use WAY more to make the same power. that's fine on a race car, it is nice since the extra fuel cools the engine. not so much on a family sedan.... just plain wasteful and STUPID
  • thebigbradwolf, on 04/28/2008, -0/+5diversified energy makes more sense, don't put all the eggs in one basket, some cars run on gasoline, some on biodeisel, some on kudzu fuel, ethanol, some on solar, small single passenger cars for the small single passenger trips (like the trip to work everyday). A 4-day work week with 10 hour days to cut out 1/5 of the driving, telecommuting when it's possible...lower demand, and spread it across the entire market, and if one source gets scarce one year, it doesn't kill the entire economy.

    I'll believe the price of gas is too high when people start driving 60, instead of 85.
  • Griberal, on 04/28/2008, -7/+5Thanks, Al Gore. I wonder how much money he made off of this boondoggle.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 04/28/2008, -3/+4Zero -- and a lot less than Rush Limbaugh makes telling you that anyone outside of the ADM and the Bush administration likes this idea.
  • Asheis, on 04/28/2008, -0/+225%... isn't that about how much ethanol they add to normal fuel to make biofuel? ;)
  • voodoochild461, on 04/28/2008, -4/+3As a species, we've just about failed.
  • Beanbones, on 04/28/2008, -3/+1For every tree you save, I will cut down two.
  • Quintios, on 04/28/2008, -1/+10THIS IS NOT NEWS. Holy crap, everyone knows this. Right?? At least, I *thought* everyone knew this. Except maybe for our government... Ugh...
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1Our government has well connected Washington Insiders who are going to make great returns on this investment -- since the Gov is the one pushing this useless distraction as an alternative. Then they can point to Alternative Energy and say; "See, it doesn't work."

      Like everything, they provide the failures to say that things don't work that they wanted to get rid of in the first place.
  • 13B1303, on 04/28/2008, -1/+4Here's where it gets real shady, MI has repealed the law that requires the amount of ethanol per gallon to be posted at the pump if it's 10% or less (E10). So now you have to use more gas and at $0.544 per gallon in gas tax = more tax dollars and you're none the wiser. Thieves I tell ya!!!
  • Railoc, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2This is news? I've known this for a long time. What we need are true, cheap electric cars, but no car company is willing to seriously consider them.
  • ourhearts137, on 04/28/2008, -2/+4The yield from a marijuana plant is four times as much as corn, and can be harvested multiple times a year, but the current war on drugs has prevented the global economy from tapping into this natural wonder plant.
    • darkciti2, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1You mean Big Republican Oil companies have kept the War on Drugs going to prevent this from stopping them.
    • GreatSunJester, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Only problem is it take 4 times as long to harvest because of the munchies breaks needed by the workers! :)
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 04/28/2008, -1/+6Ethanol is a boondoggle for the Mega-Factory Farms that endorse it and the states that have lots of corn. It is NOT something that Environmentalists are pushing. Please make sure, you slap anyone repeating the Republican talking points blaming the price of food on Green Peace or Al Gore.

    thanks you for your attention to this matter.
    -- V&A
  • FaithclubDotNet, on 04/28/2008, -2/+3Corn ethanol is a bad idea it takes 1.1 gallons of gasoline to make 1 gallon of ethanol currently.
    Combustable gasofication and bacteria ethanol is promising though: http://sg.us.biz.yahoo.com/bw/080425/2008042400666 ...
    People like to rant that ethanol uses land that food can be grown on, but not all small time farmers can grow food to sell. Also, garbage can be used to create Ethanol which lowers landfill costs, and rewards the garbage collectors with cash for their garbage!
    I think whatever is lost because food isn't created could be possibly gained by the lower transportation costs of food. It is definitely something new to think about.
  • Abdo375, on 04/28/2008, -0/+7Ethanol = Iowa Primary.
  • OSuX, on 04/28/2008, -3/+2Ethanol has a much higher octane value than current pump gasoline, an "ethanol-only" engine, properly setup with a high compression ratio and taller gearset would solve the mileage problem. Which leads us to the other problem, we don't like to buy cars when we don't have enough fuel stations that supply a particular fuel.. Even now, in 2008 people still whine that there aren't enough gas stations that sell diesel to justify buying a diesel powered car even if that means better fuel mileage.
    • 13B1303, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1you are correct that it has a much higher octane rating (E85 is 105 octane!) but there is no way you can use that extra octane to compensate for the ***** energy density of ethanol. Advanced timing, higher CR, forced induction, you still don't get that big of a jump in actual engine efficiency.
      • darkciti2, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1You don't need a gain in engine efficiency. You're putting in cheaper fuel and getting more power out of it. If the vehicle is tuned to use higher octane fuel, it gets equivalent performance to Gasoline. Also, because Ethanol burns cooler than Gasoline, it's better for your engine and your engine will last longer. It will also result in less maintenance costs of your engine.
        • 13B1303, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1no you get less power out of it, Ethanol has significantly less energy per gallon than gasoline. You are contradicting yourself
          "You don't need a gain in engine efficiency."
          "If the vehicle is tuned to use higher octane fuel, it gets equivalent performance to Gasoline. " < this is called efficiency... increased output for a given input, yet you still wont gain enough efficiency from running ethanol to make up for the crappy energy density and less rich air fuel ratio required to run an ethanol engine.
        • 13B1303, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1As to the reliability, where do you get the idea that it will last longer? Ethanol has a tendency to wash the oil off the cylinder walls during cold starting causing increased wear. It also seeps into the crankcase easier and dilutes the oil reducing the viscosity. It is also very corrosive and will likely increase maintenance costs due to parts being made of much higher grade materials (stainless steel, teflon, viton, etc.)
  • yvesoft, on 04/28/2008, -1/+4Well, that isn't quite true. Ethanol is a great fuel, but for that you must know how to get the best of it. For instance, corn isn't the best source of alcohol, but sugar cane. Less energy? Here in Brazil all new cars are ethanol hybrids and, with the right engines, you get more horse power with it than with gas. Checkout Ford's Brazilian website for instance and you'll know what I'm talking about. There is even ethanol alcohol in our gas for environmental reasons.
  • spamcrusher, on 04/28/2008, -5/+3McCain opposes government subsidies for ethanol fuels, while Obama proudly supports government funding for corn growers to produce corn for ethanol. Not only are you being robbed by higher food prices as more corn goes into fuel, your government spends about $30 billion per year on ethanol subsidies. However there is a growing movement that is now realizing the error of not only corn based ethanol, but the ripple effect the subsidies are having with higher food prices. I can only hope politicians like Obama can admit they were wrong and back support, before a bag of Fritos costs $8.
  • pennvneff, on 04/28/2008, -2/+4It's because we're using corn and grains to produce our ethanol here in the US instead of switching to other crops. Sugar cane can be eight times better than corn for ethanol but we don't use it. Why? Because Ethanol here in the United States has been and always will be a sweetheart deal cooked up by the Washington fatcats and the Corn Lobby.
  • Projektorboy, on 04/28/2008, -1/+5I can't say it enough. Diesel, diesel, diesel. It has the highest energy density of the common fuels that we're accustomed to and it's overall cheaper to manufacture due to the minimal refinement process that it goes through. A public shift to diesel will offer higher mileage without causing all our vehicles to have the speed of a golf cart. The refinements are there for diesel to be eco-friendly in NOX and CO2 emissions too. If the public would get their heads out of whatever dark place it's in, and speak with their dollars we could move forward.

    IMO Diesel would be a good transition fuel for the public to adopt for 15-20 years to slow down oil consumption while the finishing touches are being put into alternative technologies. Ethanol was the worst idea I could have imagined once the ripple effect is revealed.
  • zippy757, on 04/28/2008, -2/+51 Gallon of E85 = Food for 20 for a month.

    Doesn't seem right.
    • darkciti2, on 04/29/2008, -1/+2Nice equation you just pulled from your ass there. Too bad it doesn't make sense.
    • jakeson2, on 04/29/2008, -3/+12.6 to 2.75 gallons of ethanol to one 56 pound bushel of corn. That makes 585 gallons of ethanol per acre. A quarter of corn is 160 acres. That is 93600 gallons of ethanol from each farm. Bitch, bitch etc. Ethanol is good and much better than buying terrorist oil. GET a LIFE AND GET OVER IT.
      • popfrogs, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Terrorist oil? We buy oil from everywhere including huge reserves in Venezuela, Mexico, Brazil, Africa, etc. Way to generalize on a global resource.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.