What is Digg?101 Comments
- FactorX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10soulpunisher:
"This is a bunch of crap! We should never go with any kind of fuel like this. We should have cars at the very least run on water. It is the most abundent source on this planet there is no reason to use anything else for now."
Have you ever gotten better than a D- in a chemistry class? One cannot extract energy from disassociation of water. To do so takes a lot of energy. Show me your car that runs on water, and I'll eat a horse. You have suggested a physical impossibility.
Ethanol may work, as long as the growth output is high. Brazil's sugar cane fields seem to be doing ok - they will be building a refinery per month for the next five years. But I think the overall global efficiency (soil input, deisel machines, water resources) may be limited.
I want a multi-faceted approach. Wind. Biodiesel (rapeseed). Ethanol. Nuclear. But even Uranium is a limited resource!
FX - ErraticAssassin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Yeah, ethanol has less energy than an equivalent volume of gasoline; however, it does provide a higher octane rating, which is perhaps what you were thinking of. So better acceleration, though still worse gas mileage.
There's some good information on ethanol and other alternative fuels here: http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/altfuel/altfuels.html I recently read an estimate (in a science magazine, can't remember which one at the moment) which said that to run all our country's cars on ethanol would require that 70% of all our farmland be devoted to growing corn.
I personally think hydrogen is a good alternative. Here's a site that's developing a kit to change any car to being powered by hydrogen cells: http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/ The main obstacle at this point seems to be hydrogen embrittlement -- hydrogen gas seeps into the metals of the engine over time, and causes them to become brittle and, eventually, crack. Though, now that I read the update on the site, seems like they maybe have a solution for that. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9interesting stuff...........I was always under the impression that cars that ran on ethanol got better gas mileage. They actually get WORSE mileage. But it's worth it if we can be less dependant on oil.
- probeta, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I remember things too. Whether they're true or not...
- waldo21, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8We can also not use corn as the sole feedstock for ethanol, but the corn lobby is so powerful, it will take awhile. There is a genetically engineered organism that transforms any cellulose feedstock into ethanol. It is very efficient and high yeild. The only problem is that the university that developed the bacteria licensed it to a single company. That company, Iogen, is building plants, but has complete control over this new bacteria that has so much potential.
There is some more hope: Craig Ventor has started a company genetcially engineering bacteria for all kinds of things including ethanol production. - leedh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9You are right- you know why farmers are willing to keep selling corn based ethanol? Because the government pays them to do it. Corn is not economical and it is not environmentally friendly. It is just heavily subsidized.
- theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I am very familiar with EtOH. It is a main ingredient in many of my favorite beverages.
- colinrgodsey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Water is one of the most stable compounds around. It basically takes massive amounts of energy to do anything with it. And as far as Ocean water, an ionic water solution (like salt water) is even more stable. You would have to expend tons of energy to get the salt out so you can expend even more energy to do anything with it (like make hydrogen) just so you can combust it and make water again. Thermodynamics- read about it.
- davetd02, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7A good study is at: http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm
Basically it says that using modern techniques and positive assumptions you get 26% more energy out of a gallon of ethanol than you put into making it. In other words, for every gallon of ethanol you produce you've spent about 0.8 gallons of ethanol making it.
Or, in other words, filling an SUV up with 20 gallons of ethanol really takes 100 gallons of ethanol energy use. It's net-positive, but barely. - GetAnAxe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5corn is not the ONLY thing you can make ethanol from.
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2005/Update49.htm - sithmat, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Another interesting tip: Ethanol can be consumed as a mood enhancing drug.
No wonder Bush is promoting it so much. - Doggpound, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I have also seen that it take a very large amount of produce to make ethanol. It has been said that if all cars ran on ethanol we would not have enough land in the US to make enough ethanol.
- tmiller51, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5soulpunisher,
How about making cars that run on lawyers? I mean, they're pretty abundant--especially in big cities where there's lots of cars. Or even better, cars that can run on the vacuum of space! Talk about abundant! - ellingswin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Ethanol can be a great thing if we use it properly. Ethanol cannot be the only solution to our energy problems. I think the best solution would relying on multiple sources instead of putting all of our chips into one basket as the government seems to be wanting to do.
Currently, the 10 percent ethanol is being served almost everywhere where I am from. - deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8At this point more drilling is pointless. We just need to confront the problem before it's too late. It will help the environment too. It's worth it.
- FactorX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4What energy do you propose to use to compress said air? It takes a bunch.
FX - colinrgodsey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Et = eth, a 2 carban organic base. -OH = alcohol. EtOH = C2H5OH = Ethel Alcohol = Ethanol
- wiggles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5To the comment by ErraticAssasin: Higher octane does not necessarily lead to better acceleration. Higher octane allows for higher compression ratios inside an engine, which can lead to better overall horsepower.
What the Ocane rating means is the resistance of the fuel to spontaneous detonation when compressed. The higher the value, the less likely the fuel is to detonate prematurely, which causes damage to standard internal combustion engines. If your car requires premium gas, it requires it because the compression ratio of your engine is high enough that lower octane fuel could prematurely detonate, causing "knock". If your car does not require premium gas, you will be wasting your money if you use higher octane fuels.
More info here: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question90.htm - terminalpariah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Doggpound: well all cars run on oil and we can barely cover 40% of that ourselves. I don't see why Ethanol would be any different.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I hope this doesn't turn into a political debate. I was hoping for more conversation around the ethanol issue.
- thepotoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@TomtheWombat:
You surely are an expert on biodiesel.
Therefore, you must know that in can be made from used cooking oil, which would otherwise be thrown away. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5doesn't say anything about oil and gas companies. read the article before you comment
- metallikop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@addakorn:
Actually diesel costs quite a bit less. I have family in Germany and they heavily rely on diesel fuel. Diesel is cheaper to use and cleaner for the environment, but yes it does smell due to the unburned carbon compounds.
Sources:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine#Advantages_and_disadvantages_versus_spark-ignition_engines - Andronicus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Uranium is limited, and actually the easily-refined ore most suitable to process into fuel rods is only available in quantity in just a few places on earth.
Now the good news.. We don't necessarily need to mine ANY more of it for generations. Why? Current reactors only use 5% of the energy in their fuel.. FIVE PERCENT! New advanced designs can convert 95% of this spent fuel waste into energy, discharging their own nuclear waste which is far less dangerous and remains radioactive for a far shorter period (think smaller volumes of waste, sequestered for 100s of years, not 1000s).
Better still, these reactors can eat plutonium, serving as a safer and more useful means of disposal for the dangerous cores of nuclear weapons.
We've built enough bombs that they alone could power the world for generations in these modern reactor designs. When that runs out, we can burn through all the waste that current nuke plants produce(d). Mining would not be needed again for 1000s of years. No more coal-fired CO2 belchers. No more global warming threat. Generate hydrogen for our fuel-cell cars. Hell, keep driving on petroleum.
Read this: http://www.nationalcenter.org/NuclearFastReactorsSA1205.pdf - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ethanol is a viable source of renewable energy *IF* we find a better way to produce it. Ethanol from corn will simply not cut the mustard.
But, it's entirely feasible to increase the yield of ethanol from waste materials that come from farming processes through engineering of specialized bacteria and such. These engineered bugs will basically eat the stuff we don't use and ***** out ethanol (and some other stuff). That has a good potential of working and working well.
If they are successful at that sort of thing, then the switch to ethanol WILL happen. But without that sort of breakthrough, ethanol will remain an additive, at best. - skrapinov, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3There is plenty of land to supply the fuel. We have a huge surplus of corn right now and literally don't know what to do with it. Corn is damn cheap. The problem is that it takes a huge amount of oil in the form of pesticides, herbicides, and especially fertilizer to grow corn. What is basically occurring is oil is taken and turned into the 'cides and fertilizer, then to corn and finally to ethanol. All of these steps reduce the amount of energy you get from a barrel of oil. You end up with a product that is difficult to use in current cars, less efficient, and even more wasteful then gasoline. Not to mention the environmental effects of growing all this corn. It's a ridiculous way of getting rid of our corn surplus and continuing our dependency on fossil fuels.
- miaow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2any of these alternatives are temporary until we get cars running on green energy. Im disappointed in what I read about ethanol, although I still would prefer it to oil for the non-financial reasons. Hopefully if everyone switched then the price would come down. Corn doesnt seem to be an efficient source. Bush mentioned switchgrass in his speech.
Apparently most of Brasils cars run on E85 with the flex power cars (you can still run on petrol). Apparently they are now self-sufficient with their oil needs.
Politically and environmentally, ethanol seems a better alternative, but only until something better comes along. Making the cars hybrids as well would likely help. - probeta, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5source please?
- miletwo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No actual description of how Ethanol is produced or distributed. No digg.
- ErraticAssassin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3That is a myth, though it does seem to be somewhat debatable. From http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/altfuel/eth_energy_bal.html:
"The production of ethanol is energy efficient as it yields almost 25 percent more energy than is used in growing the corn, harvesting it, and distilling it into ethanol. The most recent findings show that corn ethanol fuel is energy efficient and yields an energy output:input ratio of 1.6.
...
One of the biggest critics of fuel ethanol is David Pimentel, Cornell University. He asserts that it takes about 70% more energy to grow corn and make ethanol from it than what goes into the ethanol. Among other things, however, his analysis is based on old data and does not give any credit for the energy value of the animal feed co-product of making ethanol." - genericface, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"You are right- you know why farmers are willing to keep selling corn based ethanol? Because the government pays them to do it. Corn is not economical and it is not environmentally friendly. It is just heavily subsidized."
For now the economy/efficiency trade off is about even, but it does reduce the amount of oil needed. More importantly, there is a lot of room for technological approvement so it does become very economical and environmentry friendly, and that's the important part. - skunkman62, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3dude, sell your piss. you'll make millions!!1!
- johndi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2And they'd have got away with it too if it weren't for you kids.
- addakorn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Very well stated! Every gallon of crude oil saved is a gallon closer to the answer.
- ramiro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Reported as lame. It must have been a joke to write that GM "leaves out a lot of the basics" while the article only talks superficially about ethanol. The Popular Mechanics article was much better than this.
- TheslaminJ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Combine the "EBS Solution" with a hybrid-like electric motor and you have a super efficient engine. In effect, creating a double hybrid.
- MrDolomite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow, great article, I've been walking around all mis-informed :)
- colinrgodsey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Show me your car that runs on water, and I'll eat a horse."
True true. Gotta love gen. chem! Offered in high schools across the nation. - colinrgodsey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1One must mind that the hydrogen cell functions VERY similar to a common battery. Water can be split up by electricity (although there are other ways to produce it, its difficulty to store and capture makes this inneficient also) and rejoined to create it. Very similar to the lead acid batteries used now. It's not really an energy source as much as it is an explosive (literally) storage method.
- codyman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is a good idea on future use of ethanol...
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/26/hybrid-fuel-efficiency-for-one-fifth-the-cost-and-no-batteries/ - Andronicus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think food is for eating, not for driving. Something about the whole ethanol thing as it is just sets me off.
According to Wired magazine, we have enough land to do it and still feed ourselves, but what they don't account for is all the EXTRA DIESEL that'd be needed to farm all the extra corn growing land. In the end, it seems like Ethanol works, but at a higher premium to petroleum due to lower overall system efficiency. Right now that's being artifically masked through government subsidy (read: you're paying the difference indirectly).
But...don't let them sell you on soybean based biodiesel! There isn't enough arable land on the whole planet to grow enough soybeans to make enough biodiesel to replace just the diesel use in the US alone!
We still need to eat, too. And damnit, there are poor Africans who need our food aid! - johndi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4It basically says we didn't like the estimates that other guy used so we found some numbers more friendly to the Cause. Oh, and damn him for including farm equipment, that just screws our numbers all up, very bad for the Cause so we will through those inconvenient numbers out.
- Writher, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3This is a very important writeup on potential drawbacks of ethanol and what will happen as we hit our peak oil.
http://digg.com/science/Life_After_the_Oil_Crash_3 - UltravioletMars, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2There seems to be some confusion about ethanol fuels. It has never been suggested that ethanol would replace fossil fuel 100 percent. If there were a wide spread use of blended fuel (ethanol/gasoline) instead of 100 percent Gasoline, we could reduce our dependence on foreign sources. This is not a complete switch from gasoline to ethanol. It is not an either/or type of proposition. A reduction in the use of fossil fuels would give a little bit of breathing room so that other forms of energy can be perfected.
- deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Also commonly known as "snake oil" Ethanol isn't a viable replacement for oil on any large scale.
- waldo21, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Related - http://digg.com/science/HOW_THE_SWITCH_TO_ETHANOL_ACTUALLY_BENEFITS_THE_OIL_INDUSTRY
I'm surprised that nobody has even explored the possibility that there may be more than meets the eye behind the MTBE / Ethanol switch. Yes, it a link to my own post, but I just want to generate some intelligent debate. - addakorn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@thepotoo Used cooking oil, or Waste Vegetable Oil (WVO), is not thrown away. It is processed, then used to make soap, lotions, makeup, and even pig feed. The collection and resale of used cooking oil is a multi billion dollar industry.
On a side note, I am all for biofuel (even though it is not THE answer) as I believe that every gallon of fuel that I burn that is made from a renewable resource is a gallon of fuel further that our lifestyle will continue. - angryredplanet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ tmiller51
"Or even better, cars that can run on the vacuum of space!"
You don't know how accurate you are! Heard of zero-point energy? Theoretically, we exist in a sea of energy.
This concept excites me greatly. Not only will the oil tycoons suffer, it could end oil wars and end poverty but if harnessed responsibly the environment will be given the break it really needs to recover from what we have ***** it with for the last 200 years. It could also potentially make interstellar space travel a reality. I'm not going to even try to explain it but you can check it out here: http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html - kabewm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1dihydrogen monoxide, the deadly killer . . .
http://www.dhmo.org/ - ptang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ soulpunisher
Hydrogen CANNOT create energy. It's simple thermodynamics. The disassociation of water will ALWAYS (due to inefficiencies) require more energy that the recombination can give. Even if both processes were 100% efficient, one still gains EXACTLY zero energy. -
Show 51 - 97 of 97 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is