Wal-Mart and E85...
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,079
Likes: 0
From: Pikesville, MD
Here are a few links:
2005 Article - Energy Piracy
Some quotes:
July 2006 - For Now, Gasoline Is Our Only Cheap Fuel
2005 Article - Energy Piracy
Some quotes:
Ethanol already gets an indefensible tax break at the pump of 51 to 71 cents a gallon, but Congress now wants to compel everyone to add it to their tanks. But doing so would leave us with less fuel at higher prices. Why? Because there is much less energy in eight gallons of ethanol than in the seven gallons of gasoline it takes to produce it.
Efficient fuel? Check the official mileage estimates at www.fueleconomy.gov. A Dodge Stratus gets 20 miles to the gallon in city driving on gasoline, but that drops to 15 mpg on E85 (the 85 percent ethanol fuel) -- and highway mileage drops from 28 mpg to 20 mpg.
July 2006 - For Now, Gasoline Is Our Only Cheap Fuel
Ethanol made out of corn is probably the closest thing we have to a domestic alternative to gasoline. But no matter how nice "growing our own fuel" might be in theory, it's uneconomically expensive in fact. Even after 30 years of lavish federal subsidy, ethanol (defined as fuel that is nine parts gasoline and one part ethanol) has only managed to capture a bit more than 3 percent of the automotive fuels market, and even industry participants concede if the subsidies and consumption mandates were removed today, the entire industry would collapse.
Ethanol proponents frequently point to Brazil as an example of how low-cost ethanol production is possible with the more aggressive subsidies and mandates.
But production costs are lower in Brazil because the industry there is using sugarcane, not corn, as a fuel input. Ethanol from sugar has about eight times the energy content of ethanol from corn, but unfortunately, the U.S. is one of the most costly sources of sugar in the world. So unless global warming grants us the heat and humidity of Brazil, that country's experience has no bearing on what we might expect from the ethanol sector here at home.
But production costs are lower in Brazil because the industry there is using sugarcane, not corn, as a fuel input. Ethanol from sugar has about eight times the energy content of ethanol from corn, but unfortunately, the U.S. is one of the most costly sources of sugar in the world. So unless global warming grants us the heat and humidity of Brazil, that country's experience has no bearing on what we might expect from the ethanol sector here at home.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
From: SW MO
Originally Posted by vader716
I'll try to locate the sources but here is one major hiccup in that debate.
While plants grow from energy received from the sun the current high productivity we receive from each acre of land is due to the use of fertilizers. Those fertilizers require vast energy sources to produce. The amount of ethanol energy generated from an acre of land doesn't equal the amount of energy that is put into the entire planting, fertilizing, reaping and manufacturing process. It just doesn't add up. I will try to find the report for you but it is very long and boring at parts...
And yes Darth is fine
While plants grow from energy received from the sun the current high productivity we receive from each acre of land is due to the use of fertilizers. Those fertilizers require vast energy sources to produce. The amount of ethanol energy generated from an acre of land doesn't equal the amount of energy that is put into the entire planting, fertilizing, reaping and manufacturing process. It just doesn't add up. I will try to find the report for you but it is very long and boring at parts...
And yes Darth is fine
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,079
Likes: 0
From: Pikesville, MD
Another for you. This one is long but discusses both sides.
http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=9434
Just to show you it is balanced.
This sums up my position pretty well:
Last one I swear
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/...ostly.ssl.html
And links to one long, informative, (and boring) study
http://www.coe.berkeley.edu/labnotes/0305/patzek.html
http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=9434
Just to show you it is balanced.
The Science report also claims that, from creation to its being burned in an engine, corn-based ethanol produced about 13 percent less greenhouse gases than gasoline.
"If corn-based ethanol reached the level of demand as gasoline now enjoys, we couldn't possibly produce enough of it," says Sandy Nordmark, legislative director for Michigan Farmer's Union. Ethanol may be an important piece of the country's alternative fuels puzzle, she adds, but it can't be the only piece.
"We are looking at corn ethanol as a silver bullet when what we really need is silver buckshot," she says.
Last one I swear
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/...ostly.ssl.html
And links to one long, informative, (and boring) study
http://www.coe.berkeley.edu/labnotes/0305/patzek.html
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
hi vadar,
i read over the articles you posted. very intersting reading. what i found most interesting was one group of scientists say it has a negative energy coefficient and the other group says it has a positive coefficient. i guess in the long run, one of these guys has to be wrong.
i think the only way this will work is if it makes people money. that's why walmart wants to do it. you can bet they won't do it if it won't make them some cash. i'm interested to see what they do.
but i am an optimist and think that over time (a number of years) we can improve the fermentation process to put the positive/negative question to rest, improve the cellulistic method and also start to collect some of the byproducts from the process. Pacific Ethanol collects the CO2 and sells it and it also sells the wet distillers grain to farmers to feed to their cows. This sounds good to me. I'm going to stay open minded. this won't happen in a few years.... its going to take a while. its going to morph as it does. if its not the right way to go it will fizzle because nobody will make any money from it..... and we all know that the bottom line.
personally i hope it works. i hate the idea of importing foreign oil. i would rather spend my $$ inside the country.
i guess only time will tell.
see ya - oaw
i read over the articles you posted. very intersting reading. what i found most interesting was one group of scientists say it has a negative energy coefficient and the other group says it has a positive coefficient. i guess in the long run, one of these guys has to be wrong.
i think the only way this will work is if it makes people money. that's why walmart wants to do it. you can bet they won't do it if it won't make them some cash. i'm interested to see what they do.
but i am an optimist and think that over time (a number of years) we can improve the fermentation process to put the positive/negative question to rest, improve the cellulistic method and also start to collect some of the byproducts from the process. Pacific Ethanol collects the CO2 and sells it and it also sells the wet distillers grain to farmers to feed to their cows. This sounds good to me. I'm going to stay open minded. this won't happen in a few years.... its going to take a while. its going to morph as it does. if its not the right way to go it will fizzle because nobody will make any money from it..... and we all know that the bottom line.
personally i hope it works. i hate the idea of importing foreign oil. i would rather spend my $$ inside the country.
i guess only time will tell.
see ya - oaw
