What is Digg?84 Comments
- michaelpinto, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18This is the first story I read in plain English that did a fair job of explaining the pros and cons of ethanol - and addresses the issue of "does it take more energy to create ethanol that it produces" - a worthy digg.
- eean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15I think we're due for a Mr. Fusion. Going 88 MPH on apple cores and old soda.
- Luke13, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14It is about time this got out!
- StarCrusher, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Ethanol, done the way the US does it, is a joke. Corn is just not a decent source of sugar needed to be converted to alcohol. I've never seen a study that doesn't show ethanol production from corn to be a net energy loss.
Ethanol, done the way that Brazil does it, can be a partial solution to our energy woes. If the US government insists on keeping the tariff on foreign ethanol, they should at least subsidize sugarcane and sugar beet production here at home. The problem is that corn growers and gasoline companies have very effective lobbys. - kcasper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11It is a very good story and favors ethanol. I like. I'm hoping to see butanol in the future of our fuels.
We do have a number of challenges. In strictly my opinion and I expect some to disagree with me:
- We should establish Industrial Hemp growing programs
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/375707069
- We need to invest in butanol development and continue with ethanol expansion. Hopefully we will switch to butanol a number of years down the road.
http://www.butanol.com/
- continue developing alcohol hydrogen reforming technology. Takes ethanol and butanol to hydrogen. Then we can use the current supply setup to fuel a hydrogen economy. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9So when can I start pouring cheap vodka into my tank?
- cyclotron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I researched this a few weeks ago. Sugarcane and corn ethanol are worse for the environment than gas when you include the whole process (including deforestation and soil blanching). Sugarcane is also limitied to tropical and wet climates. Additionally, for the US, importing ethanol would harm our agriculture industry greatly.
Right now, only 3% of American vehicals can use E85. Most of US cars are already using E10 and are limited to E10. Additionally, sugarcane and corn ethanol do not get the same mileage as gas. It cost more and you will have to fill up more often. (The cost of sugarcane and corn ethanol is the motive to import it.) Also, why become dependant on foreign ethanol inspite of dependance on foreign oil?
What the US needs to do is develop switchgrass ethanol. It has about a 300% yield. Switchgrass is easier to grow and harvest. You cut it, you dont tear it out, and American agriculture can grow it, limiting our dependance on foreign fuels. At full production it would be cheaper than sugarcane and corn ethanol. - ScottyQuest, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Technically Mr. Fusion only powers the flux capacitor. Bad planning on Doc Brown's pat, as (cited in Back to the Future: III) Marty got stuck in the past with a cut fuel line.
- scott1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10what ever happend to hydrogen?
- fohat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Probably being buried because your headline is sensationalist in nature. FTFA in your digg "People are not currently exposed to engineered fullerenes in consumer products, but their use is expected to increase in the future".
- vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5If Ethanol isn't he answer, what is?
We'll hit peak oil in 20 years and trying to come up with a replacement system when gas is $6-$12 a gallon will be more painful then rather than if we start now. - StarCrusher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Clarification: Ethanol production from corn costs more than gasoline. Ethanol production from sugar cane does not. In Brazil, ethanol produced from sugar cans is about a dollar a gallon. By the time the bagasse (the roughage left after the sugar is extracted) is burned and the energy used in the ethanol production plant, there's a positive energy ratio and a positive cash flow. Burning bagasse is much more environmentally friendly than either oil or coal. There's no sulfur and is much more ash concentrated. Most ethanol production facilities in Brazil are energy independent.
A good article on ethanol production in Brazil is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil
While it's true that a gallon of sugarcane e85 yields less energy than a gallon of traditional gasoline, it's MUCH cheaper. I'm not married to sugar cane. Sawgrass is a viable alternative. I'm just not in favor of trying to force all ethanol production into growing corn on every square inch of American farmland. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6This also helps with all of the excess crops from subsidies.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7a bunch of crap if you ask me..
ethanol from corn is insanely stupid.. maybe other plants make better ethanol and are feral so they dont need so much energy to produce. this also has the wonderous effect of making it cheaper..
Brazil is energy indpendant by using ethanol. But they are not insane enough to make theirs with corn. - eean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Ethanol is just carted around in trucks and boats. Like, it doesn't seem to be a very sophisticated supply setup. Might as well just ship the hydrogen itself.
Edit: well now I read that you can pipe butanol. - bayonetblaha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5TYPING YOUR COMMENT IN CAPSLOCK IS RUDE NO MATTER HOW URGENT YOU THINK WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY IS!
- cyclotron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Clarification: sugarcane and corn ethanol costs more to the consumer than gas.
In my opinion switching to ethanol at this time is more of an environmental smoke and mirrors, rather than a cost effective and useful plan for the future. THe cost of gas right now is high due to politics and emotion, not a limited supply. - Keiser, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"fair" job? It tells the truth but it is still bias as *****. The reason it cost 3 dollars (more than gasoline) is because it isn't being produced nearly as much as gas is. If the US got rid of all gas and went to pure ethanol or e85 then ethanol would be cheaper (and much more stable price wise) than gasoline. Saying that it can't be moved via pipes is also true, but it isn't pumped from the ground like oil is, the crops can be collected close to distilleries so there is no need as it would not be centralized. Bias as ***** if you ask me, oh and you can drink it if they dont denature it.
- cyclotron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Except that biodiesel is not in abaundant supply. Currently waste biodiesel is already being used.
- anodari, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"and addresses the issue of "does it take more energy to create ethanol that it produces"
Yes, this is what it says: (From TFA)
"Some ethanol skeptics have even argued that the process involved in growing grain and then transforming it into ethanol requires more energy from fossil fuels than ethanol generates. In other words, they say the whole movement is a farce.
There's no absolute consensus in the scientific community, but that argument is losing strength. Michael Wang, a scientist at the Energy Dept.-funded Argonne National Laboratory for Transportation Research, says..." - arthurbarnhouse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'm not an oil mogul, the link doesn't have anything to do with ethanol. It doesn't even have anything to do with pollution, it's an article about nanotechnology.
- ricksite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It is often said that Ethanol doesn't contain as much energy as gasoline. This is true but it is also important to note that combustion engines are very inefficient with either fuel. One advantage of E85 ethanol is that it is around 110 octane which makes it ideal for a turbocharged engine. Engines can be made smaller for efficiency when cruising with the turbo on standby for when extra power is needed. This is similar to the VW TDI (turbo direct injection) diesel engines which are very efficient.
- Pile, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I am kind of suspicious of a magazine called "Businessweek" showing all sides of an issue like this.
- mccoy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2> I've never seen a study that doesn't show ethanol production from corn to be a net energy loss.
How odd, since except for the widely discredited studies from David Pimental, _all_ studies of ethanol show it to be a net energy gain (even when factoring in the energy cost for production, including the oil-based fertilizer.) Sounds like you need to do a bit more research. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hydrogen can only act as a way to store energy. There has to be a way to generate the energy first.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2corn isn't the savior everyone thinks it is:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5342514 - tom6a, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There is an interesting article on OmniNerd about peak oil that also discusses alternatives like ethonol.
http://www.omninerd.com/2006/05/17/articles/52 - jaywhy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Sugar and corn ethanol are myths within themselves. The reality is corn and sugar ethanol can be a small part of a solution. But, not THE solution for replacing gasoline wholesale. Before you flame me let me explain.
Currently the U.S. produces every year 1.5 billion gallons of corn ethanol, which consumes 6% of the annual corn production. The U.S. consumes every year around 120 billion gallons of gasoline. Replacing gas the U.S. would need 80 times more ethanol than produced today. More importantly, the U.S. would need 80 times more farm land to produce corn needed to make ethanol. There just isn't enough land. You can't make ethanol for fuel, feed people, and feed animals(the ones we eat). Even if we were to double the efficiency of all vehicles in the U.S., the numbers still wouldn't add up.
The article also mentions cellulosic ethanol in sort of a passing reference. Sadly, there is no corn/farm lobby behind cellulosic ethanol. So passing references, except in scientific news/journals, are common in the media for cellulosic ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol is made from agriculture/farm waste like corn stock, urban waste, forest waste, etc. Most of this waste is either burned off or landfilled now. Cellulosic ethanol's use can cut down on emissions by 85-90% over gas. Comparing that to corn ethanol were you get just a 15-20% savings in emissions. Most importantly unlike corn ethanol the numbers do add up for cellulosic ethanol. With more more efficient vehicles you could replace gas with cellulosic ethanol and not have millions starving. - SaintDogbert, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3All the ethanol mandates so far have just been big fat corporate welfare checks to ADM. If ethanol is so great it can stand on it's own without government subsidies. The oil companies shouldn't get government help nor should ethanol companies.
- BSpolice, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3People really need to stop pimping their articles every chance they get (AND MULTIPLE TIMES IN THE SAME COMMENT SECTION, mRgENERIC!)
- Scottamus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2OBKenobi sounds I little to crazy for me, (hempcar.org? give me a break) but I have to agree that AFAIK corn is terribly ineffecient to make into ethenol. I've read that brazil's conversion of sugarcane is about 10 times more effiecient that corn. i.e. for every BTU of energy we put into the total process we get about 7 back for sugarcane compared to 1.3 with corn.
- MrGeneric, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Ethanol is a good idea, any clean fuel is a good idea and better than the current situation.
Diesel is not clean, Biodiesel is a lot better but still needs technologies such as hydrogen injection or a plasmatron to keep the exhaust clean. Not C02 free, clean, i.e. not toxic. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/news/news_detail.html?news_id=6829
Pollution from Diesel Soot contains nano particles such as Carbon60, also known as Buckyballs or Fullerenes. This is proven here http://db.wdc-jp.com/mssj/search/pdf/200602/ms540039.pdf
Also recently these nano particles were shown to be very toxic, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-03/acs-ob031904.php
This is relevant to ETHANOL because ETHANOL BURNS CLEAN.
Just in case it is not obvious:
Petroleum Diesel (not Bio!) makes soot, the soot contains Fullerenes which are also called buckyballs, buckyballs have been shown to cause significant damage to living tissues.
Therefore if you breath in lots of traffic pollution (the sort that makes your snot dark) then your body is being oxidized at a rate far higher than normal and this causes or worsens many types of illnesses."
USA has a lot more motor vehicles than the UK. http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_609925.pdf
That is why perhaps that the health levels are, overall, twice as good in the UK as they are in the USA (recent USA Gov. study). There are also many other recent studies including one from L.A. that showed that the particles were even making diabetes worse than it should be, but they did not know why as they had not made the connection to Carbon 60.
So what does all this mean? ETHANOL is a VERY GOOD IDEA, even if it costs more (up front) because in the long run it will cost you a lot less in harm to humans and the environment. Only hydrogen or LPG are better, but they have other issues, at the moment.
There is more info here, http://digg.com/technology/Perhaps_this_is_why_the_USA_has_double_the_illness_levels_of_the_UK.
It amazes me that some people still don't get it, even when it is spelled out to them in such obvious terms. - MattH, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Traditionaly ethanol production has been based on waste products even when it comes to potable alcohol (Spirits) and some cheap achohol from from products like whey ,out of spec grains and sugar cane and even vegtables (vodka comes from potatoes or grain) .The problem is you need alot of heat that needs to be aplied for a long time in traditional distalation but new methods like reverse osmosis membranes can draw the alchol from the wash .
- arthurbarnhouse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Read this statement carefully: The article you link has nothing to do with pollution. The article is about nanotech. You have clearly misread the article. Now, please stop linking this as it is not relevant.
- velocipenguin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Another advantage of ethanol: It gets you tanked.
- Continuum, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3people keep burying it because it is a shameless self promotion of your own article that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. This would not be completely horrible but it was already a topic on the front page a few days ago.
(http://digg.com/technology/Bad_News_for_Nanotechnology_:_Tiny_Toxins)
Thanks for trying though. - zcreem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Finally it is OK to drive under the influence of alcohol :)
- sTiVo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I heard a guy named Howard Bloom do an interview on Coast to Coast and he posed an extrordinary arguement for ethanol as a "flex fuel". I always have my guard up on that show for potential crack-pots so it's interesting to hear someone cooberate his claims as well as showing the cons, which is important. The truth is out there ;)
Link to show recap with links:
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2006/02/12.html - dissident, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1this whole article got me thinking to just how much we have to pay for booze in america with the taxes... add in a few toxic chemicals to make it deadly to consume and the stuff is relatively dirt cheap.... wouldn't it be nice to get pure ethanol without impurities, essentially a bottle of everclear, for .. what is the going rate for E85... about $2.35 a gallon right now... so add on a bit for the extra 15%... lets say 3 bucks a gallon? Heaven. :)
- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Addresses it...in the sense that they say there is not a clear majority consensus, then pick one of the scientists who says it takes somewhat less energy for their sectional quote.
- scriabinop23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The point isn't complete substitution - this (as well as other alternatives to crude oil) lets us reduce our import dependence. If you do hybrid cars that run on ethanol (produced from cellusic sources, too), mandate higher mpg standards, etc. etc. you will see a net reduction in oil dependence. Its all a stopgap, and I agree on that point.
We need to consume less, and the only way to achieve that is change our lifestyles. Unfortunately, it'll probably take economic stimulus (extraordinarily high energy prices -> economic recession) to make that happen.
Its either that or an evolution to battery/electric powered cars charged on the grid, of course requiring a doubling or tripling of our nuclear power plant capacity. - Sizzor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm not sure how much of this article is true. It says gasoline is available in New York for $2.28.
Gas hasn't been that cheap for well over a year. - ACalcutt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yes we've seen your article like 4 times on this page already...stop posting it...its just going to continue to be dugg down
- tom6a, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The Omninerd article was just published a couple days ago. I just submitted it to digg. Hopefully it will generate a good discussion here on digg about peak oil.
http://www.digg.com/technology/What_You_Need_to_Know_about_Peak_Oil - spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1now i know why we don't actually use ethanol. many of the enviromentalists make it sound like the evil oil companies are keeping us from using ethanol, when really there are logical problems. of course, its just easier to use a scapegoat than to use logic, but who said the enviro-extremists ride on logic?
- DaWolfman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Any article that puts the word beer in quotes, as if it were some foreign concept, needs better editing IMO.
- mccoy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1> Currently the U.S. produces every year 1.5 billion gallons of corn ethanol, which consumes 6% of the annual corn production.
This is simly not true. You are taking the 6% used for ethanol production and assuming that we currently use 100% of the corn crop we produce. Take a trip to the midwest sometime and you will see mountains of corn sitting on the ground outside of grain elevators. We do not use all of our corn crop and increasing the percentage of the crop dedicated to ethanol production will not require a 80x increase in our production. Right now the limiting factor in ethanol production is lack of production capacity in ethanol generation facilities, not the feedstock. - arthurbarnhouse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2If the US is going to start using Ethanol in any large quantities, assuming of course that it doesn't take more energy to produce than can be made by burning it, there is still the problem of corn ethanol, which is what we would undoubtedly use in the US. Producing corn in such large quantities had a bigger environmental footprint than just using oil.
- bmcnett, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3The article does contain one piece of slyly written disinformation:
"Now, Wang says, the delivery of 1 million British thermal units (BTUs) of ethanol uses 0.74 million BTUs of fossil fuels. (That does not include the solar energy -- the sun shining -- used in growing corn.) By contrast, he finds that the delivery of 1 million BTUs of gasoline requires 1.23 million BTU of fossil fuels."
This appears to be an argument for ethanol, but it is actually an argument for gasoline. Rewritten more clearly:
"To get 1 mbtu from ethanol, you must burn 1 mbtu of ethanol *PLUS* 0.74 mbtu fossil fuels, for a total of 1.74mbtu. To get 1mbtu from gasoline, you must burn 1.23mbtu of fossil fuels." - CaptRR, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Interesting read on Butonal, though I am still not convinced it is the silver bullet. Its still seems like butonal would suffer from the same problem as ethanol, in that it would take more land to grow enough to meet our needs than we have land here in the country.
-
Show 51 - 81 of 81 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