With the drought how viable is ethanol? [Archive]

View Full Version : With the drought how viable is ethanol?

Belmont31R

07-20-12, 01:14

Just curious because Ive seen the corn crop doom talk ALL OVER the web, and I already don't like corn going into my gas tank. Not only does it cost more but lowers my MPG and ruins small engines eating away at rubber fuel lines, gaskets, ect.

Now that this years corn seems ****ed maybe we can finally start realizing relying on crops is not a good way to supply everyday energy, and its a product that already sucks. It has lower energy potential than pure petro gasoline (lowers MPG), eats rubber fuel lines, we have to deal with farm subsidies, increased cost, ect.

Can we please go back to natural petro gasoline, and remove the import tariffs on sugar? Why does corn have to be in everything from corn syrup to corn this, corn based fuel for cars, corn this and corn that. Grow something else for ****s sake.

Moose-Knuckle

07-20-12, 03:05

Corn products have been pushed down our throats (pun intended), ethenol isn't going anywhere anytime soon though prices could spike which would cause a price increase on consumer products across the board.

Special Report on Drought and Biofuels
http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2012/07/special_report_on_drought_and_biofuels.html

Here are some sources to stay up on the situation.

http://www.thebioenergysite.com/news/category/4/ethanol

http://www.ncga.com/

The_War_Wagon

07-20-12, 06:07

And people wonder why FOOD costs so much. :rolleyes:

SomeOtherGuy

07-20-12, 08:36

I dunno, ask a starving child in India or Egypt how they feel about us burning the cheap grain for SUV fuel.

I'd also like to know why I had to replace a catalytic converter at 78,000 miles on a vehicle that's never been abused or seen leaded or bad gas.

IOW, I agree with you.

ralph

07-20-12, 08:36

SomeOtherGuy

07-20-12, 08:42

A few years back I worked on a new ethanol plant..millions were spent,thousands of feet of stainless pipe, vessels, etc,It ran for about 6months after it was compleated.. About that time, oil dropped in price, it was shut down and now it just sits...It's never ran since...

We have two closed ethanol plants near where I live. One ran for maybe a year before closing, the other one is a near-completed plant that never opened. Huge white elephants. The one that never opened was financed by farmer-investors and each of them must be out close to a million dollars. I got to hear the CEO of the one that opened speak triumphantly about how some wonderful new future was upon us, a month or so after it opened.

Cellulosic ethanol could make sense "someday". Ethanol from sugar cane makes sense in Brazil, but incredibly cheap labor is a large part of why it works. Corn barely makes sense as food, and largely because of farm subsidies and mechanized agriculture. It's ridiculous to see the disparity between what goes into a cornfield vs. a wheat or soybean field.

Icculus

07-20-12, 09:40

While it has some drawbacks as well; I'll never understand why we jumped on the ethanol bandwagon as opposed to methanol. Well other than then fact that these decisions are made by politicians instead of scientists.

EDIT:
Obviously there is lots of info out there but here's one halfway decent article on the topic.
http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/05/21/methanol-versus-ethanol-technical-merits-and-political-favoritism/

montanadave

07-20-12, 09:42

Shit like corn ethanol reflects the corrupt and convoluted legislative appropriations process. Just look at what gets tossed into the mix in the massive federal omnibus Farm Bill. It includes everything from farm subsidies to food stamps, crop insurance to energy policy, water quality regulations to commodity import/export quotas. These farm bills, which roll around every five years or so, impact almost every facet of our lives, have direct effects on billions of dollars of business and trade, and attract hundreds of millions of dollars spent by various industry and special interest lobbyist groups seeking to stack the deck in their favor.

The real kicker is they have a little (or a lot) in the pot for politicians from both sides of the political spectrum, thus insuring that nobody gets too nasty about breaking the opposition's rice bowl for fear they'll get the same treatment in return.

It's a process which virtually assures that the wheat never gets separated from the chaff and boondoggles like corn ethanol survive despite all the evidence proving it is a loser.

glocktogo

07-20-12, 12:14

Without the massive .gov subsidies, ethanol isn't viable regardless of the crop conditions. To me that means it's not viable under any circumstances. Ethanol should be relegated to racetracks where the powerheads want it (without subsidies).

chadbag

07-20-12, 12:22

While it has some drawbacks as well; I'll never understand why we jumped on the ethanol bandwagon as opposed to methanol.

Probably mostly politics, but methanol is also much more corrosive than ethanol and much more damaging to seals and tubing and that sort of thing.

THCDDM4

07-20-12, 12:33

Ethanol can be produced efficiently on an individual/personal basis, but on a mass scale it is not viable.

I make my own Ethanol; out of anything and everything I can get my hands on to ferment & distill- it is cheap as hell for me personally, cents on the gallon as I use anything I can find around the property- a lot of things are fermentable; you'd be surprised, even old chicken (And other animals...) gone bad can be fermented into ethanol and distilled/purified.

The leftovers from producing cow/sheep/goat milk can be fermented with special strains of yeast and then distilled into fuel as well.

Virtually everything can be fermented with the right yeast and controlled environment.

Just like wind and solar, as individuals we can make it viable to have a personal system, but when we try to do large arrays and send the power down line it is all wasted time and energy as it is expensive, unviable and could never fill 1/10th the need with current technology.

The subsidies for ethanol/corn are maddening; as the subsidies for wind/sun farms are as well. Make it viable on a mass scale or get over it.

The new frontier/future of energy production will be based on individuals creating the energy themselves at their own homes.

Hmac

07-20-12, 12:41

It takes about 4 gallons of water to manufacture 1 gallon of ethanol. That doesn't count the water necessary to grow the corn. If that is added in, it takes about 1700 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of ethanol.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119258870811261613.html

ForTehNguyen

07-20-12, 12:49

Probably mostly politics, but methanol is also much more corrosive than ethanol and much more damaging to seals and tubing and that sort of thing.

methanol burns with an invisible flame (UV actually), that wouldnt be fun

Icculus

07-20-12, 13:18

chadbag

07-20-12, 13:24

Yeah but methanol has been used in automobiles as a fuel and power additive in many arenas for years, can be produced cheaper than ethanol, doesn't come from a food source, etc.

Yes it's corrosive but then again so is ethanol. Plus with all our technological prowess and with all the money we're dumping into alternate fuel sources can we not develop some more robust hoses and seals to stand up to it?

Stating that methanol is more corrosive does not mean that I support ethanol.

Ethanol is a lot less harmful to existing engines than methanol. While you can buy cheap ethanol based anti-moisture additives (HEET etc), I would avoid them like the plague. When I lived in a humid area and used that sort of thing occasionally (high humidity, cold nights can mean lots of condensation), I would buy the slightly more expensive Isopropyl versions.

With a fuel, you need to deal with the engines as they exist in the market now. Not how you would like them to be. If you want to do methanol on a widespread basis, then introduce methanol compatible engines now for when you introduce methanol based fuel in 10 or 12 years.

As for the clear burning; I don't plan on looking at it burning while its in my engine. Of course I guess there is always this.:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxDqRy9bhtc

Icculus

07-20-12, 13:52

With a fuel, you need to deal with the engines as they exist in the market now. Not how you would like them to be. If you want to do methanol on a widespread basis, then introduce methanol compatible engines now for when you introduce methanol based fuel in 10 or 12 years.

It doesn't take that much actually to convert an engine to run off of M85. And most engines will run off of M15 without any changes whatsoever. Several methanol compatible engines are already out there. And why does it have to be a whole hog change. Just because we make the switch to methanol fuels (hypothetically) doesn't mean that we have to completely do away with gasoline for those engines that won't support it. Why can we not have both and reduce our gasoline consumption/emissions in the mean time? Waiting for a complete cut over to any other fuel source till its 100% compatible with everything means nothing will ever get done.

EDIT: Sorry didn't mean to thread drift completely away from the OP's original topic of ethanol, corn, ,etc.

chadbag

07-20-12, 14:47

It doesn't take that much actually to convert an engine to run off of M85. And most engines will run off of M15 without any changes whatsoever. Several methanol compatible engines are already out there. And why does it have to be a whole hog change. Just because we make the switch to methanol fuels (hypothetically) doesn't mean that we have to completely do away with gasoline for those engines that won't support it. Why can we not have both and reduce our gasoline consumption/emissions in the mean time? Waiting for a complete cut over to any other fuel source till its 100% compatible with everything means nothing will ever get done.

EDIT: Sorry didn't mean to thread drift completely away from the OP's original topic of ethanol, corn, ,etc.

Because if it is to replace Ethanol, which is in most gas in the country up to 10% to replace MTBE which was in gas for pollution purposes to oxygenate the fuel, it has to be something that will work in most vehicles on the road today.

And for it to have any meaning it has to be done on a scale to make it mean something economically.

-

Icculus

07-20-12, 15:04

Because if it is to replace Ethanol, which is in most gas in the country up to 10% to replace MTBE which was in gas for pollution purposes to oxygenate the fuel, it has to be something that will work in most vehicles on the road today.

Again it already can. Instead of using 10% ethanol you can use 10-15% methanol. If I'm not mistaken M15 will run in virtually every vehicle on the road today. It's only the high concentration methanol blends (M85 for example) that require engine modification. And that's no different than with ethanol--I can't just go dump E85 in my 4Runner either. Plus at least with the methanol my cornbread doesn't cost an arm and a leg to make because all the corn is going to fuel.

http://www.methanol.org/Energy/Resources/Alternative-Fuel/MI-Comments-on-Shanxi-Methanol-Fuel-Standards-Fina.aspx
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/pdfs/mit_methanol_white_paper.pdf

And for it to have any meaning it has to be done on a scale to make it mean something economically.

And there in lies the real problem--the politics, not the science.

ETA: I'm no expert on the subject but I appreciate the debate. It's better than talking about the Colorado Batman stuff.

Redmanfms

07-20-12, 15:09

Ethanol from sugar cane makes sense in Brazil, but incredibly cheap labor is a large part of why it works.

And when they deplete the soil after a season or two they can just slash and burn some more rainforest.......

NWPilgrim

07-20-12, 15:10

Ethanol = Archer Daniels Midland = corrupt politicians such as Bob Dole and most from midwest states.

chadbag

07-20-12, 15:14

Again it already can. Instead of using 10% ethanol you can use 10-15% methanol. If I'm not mistaken M15 will run in virtually every vehicle on the road today.

I am not an expert, but the methanol is more of a problem for the seals, and other parts of the engine like the. The rubber/polymer parts. I have read many places to not even use Methanol based HEET type products and that is much lower concentration.

It's only the high concentration methanol blends (M85 for example) that require engine modification. And that's no different than with ethanol--I can't just go dump E85 in my 4Runner either. Plus at least with the methanol my cornbread doesn't cost an arm and a leg to make because all the corn is going to fuel.

http://www.methanol.org/Energy/Resources/Alternative-Fuel/MI-Comments-on-Shanxi-Methanol-Fuel-Standards-Fina.aspx
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/pdfs/mit_methanol_white_paper.pdf

There is a difference between an engine being able to run Methanol as a fuel versus being able to use it in low concentrations as a fuel additive.

I am not trying to support Ethanol and poo-poo Methanol. I am just saying, as far as I understand it, there are a lot more barriers to Methanol use than Ethanol use as an additive due to the corrosive properties of Methanol compared to Ethanol.

I am not really in favor of any forced additives myself.

And there in lies the real problem--the politics, not the science.

Sorry to not be clear. I did not mean "mean something economically" from a political standpoint, but from an economic standpoint and scientific standpoint. Not as some gesture to score political points, but if you are going to roll out Methanol as a gasoline additive nationwide, you need to do it in an economically feasible way and cheaper or other compelling reasons compared to how you are doing it now

ETA: I'm no expert on the subject but I appreciate the debate. It's better than talking about the Colorado Batman stuff.