The article and its implications is worth reading in its entirety. Corn-based ethanol is a farm subsidy, an inefficient energy solution, and it's bad for the environment (corn is grown as a monoculture) and its growth takes up a lot of water. Corn just grown for ethanol (with 10% in our gas) takes up 115,800 square miles -- or more than the entire state of Arizona! Imagine other things we could do with that land. With talk of increasing it from 10% to 15%, that's another half a state of Arizona dedicated to corn. It increases the cost of land. Growing corn involves adding nitrogen fertilizer, tractors, transportation, and the net yield of energy is barely more than the energy put into growing it. And yet our dysfunctional country can't seem to get enough of this terrible idea. How do we stop it?
Is Domestically Produced Ethanol Worth the Cost?
31–40 of 53 posts
Re: Is Domestically Produced Ethanol Worth the Cost?
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see why that needs to be extremely clear for this discussion. But regardless: Where the octane number is raised by blending in ethanol, energy content per volume is reduced. Gasoline has an energy density of almost 10,000 Wh/l and pure Ethanol only 6,000. Ethanol is inferior compared to basically any combination of gasoline + non-ethanol octane booster.
Volumetric energy density isn't the only consideration for fuels though. Ethanol burns cooler, faster, and with more stability. When you raise the octane rating to reduce detonation you also reduce wear on the internals, allowing the manufacturer to use cheaper components. The same is true for the lower exhaust gas temperatures with exhaust values and turbo inlets. Current mileage standards have also caused manufactu…
I also can't stand (in the overall discourse on the matter) when the article's points are used against the adoption of ethanol over petroleum. These aren't reasons against ethanol, they're reasons to work towards optimizing the means of production.
I agree, but I actually thought the article was pretty careful about specifying that it was ethanol produced from corn and sugarcane that they were talking about.
Re: Is Domestically Produced Ethanol Worth the Cost?
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
you can make the same argument that diverting corn to feed cattle raises food prices As far as I can figure out, diverting corn to feed cattle raises corn prices and lowers beef prices. Since beef eats up a much larger fraction of my grocery budget than corn (and is, additionally, far more delicious) I'm cool with this.
Yes that's his point I believe. It's ok for us wealthy nations full of meat lovers. But a billion starving people say otherwise. (At least that's my understanding of the debate).
Kind of my point. But it's only ok for wealthy nations if you don't care about oil consumption, either due to energy security or CO2 concerns.
Re: Is Domestically Produced Ethanol Worth the Cost?
#34The article and its implications is worth reading in its entirety. Corn-based ethanol is a farm subsidy, an inefficient energy solution, and it's bad for the environment (corn is grown as a monoculture) and its growth takes up a lot of water. Corn just grown for ethanol (with 10% in our gas) takes up 115,800 square miles -- or more than the entire state of Arizona! Imagine other things we could do with that land. Wit…
How do we stop it?
If oil prices reflected the true cost of using it, it would disappear by itself. Without cheap oil it's not cost efficient.
Re: Is Domestically Produced Ethanol Worth the Cost?
#35I don't know. I do know that upping ethanol levels in gas will not make all the motorcycle riders out there happy.
Because they will require tuning? I guess this is one benefit of the cat requirement for cars, the lambda sensor takes care of that problem.
A potentially serious problem with ethanol is that it can be incompatible with older rubber compounds. Also in higher concentrations it can cause corrosion to steel and aluminum that is a part of older motorcycle fuel systems.
Re: Is Domestically Produced Ethanol Worth the Cost?
#36I don't know. I do know that upping ethanol levels in gas will not make all the motorcycle riders out there happy.
Because they will require tuning? I guess this is one benefit of the cat requirement for cars, the lambda sensor takes care of that problem.
Re: Is Domestically Produced Ethanol Worth the Cost?
#37A million times yes, there needs to be more awareness of how ridiculous corn ethanol is. Corn ethanol is more an indirect way of converting coal to something your car can run on. There are many other more efficient plant sources that do not require large doses of fertilizer and herbicides, usually drawn from coal energy.
I'm not going to defend corn ethanol, but I do think this debate is misguided. The problem is not the corn ethanol , the problem is the corn . Corn is an indirect way of converting oil into sugar. It is just as inefficient at making food as it is at making fuel (though that's less obvious because the end product doesn't have the same units.) There's a great article in an old issue of Harper's called "The oil we eat"…
> If the real concern is feeding people, you eat vegetarian.
It is counter intuitive, but this statement is not exactly a fact. The corn->protein process via chickens is actually quite efficient. I'll give some sample numbers:
1 acre corn -> 150 bushels corn -> 10,000 lbs of corn -> 4000 lbs of chicken -> 1500 lbs of protein.
1 acre of peanuts -> 3000 pounds of peanuts -> 750 lbs of protein.
So the corn->chicken process is twice as efficient at producing protein as growing peanuts which are pretty efficient. Sure, a soy protein diet is the most efficient, but who wants to exclusively eat tofu?
Eating beef is wasteful, but chicken is comparatively efficient to eating vegetarian. Most vegetarians I know eat lots of tree nuts, avacados, etc, which from a food supply point of view, is far worse than getting protein from chicken or pork.
Re: Is Domestically Produced Ethanol Worth the Cost?
#38The article and its implications is worth reading in its entirety. Corn-based ethanol is a farm subsidy, an inefficient energy solution, and it's bad for the environment (corn is grown as a monoculture) and its growth takes up a lot of water. Corn just grown for ethanol (with 10% in our gas) takes up 115,800 square miles -- or more than the entire state of Arizona! Imagine other things we could do with that land. Wit…
How do we stop it? If oil prices reflected the true cost of using it, it would disappear by itself. Without cheap oil it's not cost efficient.
Minnesota signed into law that cars should require 20% ethanol (I think federal law requires 10%):
Source: http://www.mnsu.edu/news/read/?paper=topstories&id=old-1...
Anyone here good with changing laws? :)
Re: Is Domestically Produced Ethanol Worth the Cost?
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not going to defend corn ethanol, but I do think this debate is misguided. The problem is not the corn ethanol , the problem is the corn . Corn is an indirect way of converting oil into sugar. It is just as inefficient at making food as it is at making fuel (though that's less obvious because the end product doesn't have the same units.) There's a great article in an old issue of Harper's called "The oil we eat"…
> If the real concern is feeding people, you eat vegetarian. It is counter intuitive, but this statement is not exactly a fact. The corn->protein process via chickens is actually quite efficient. I'll give some sample numbers: 1 acre corn -> 150 bushels corn -> 10,000 lbs of corn -> 4000 lbs of chicken -> 1500 lbs of protein. 1 acre of peanuts -> 3000 pounds of peanuts -> 750 lbs of protein. So the corn->chicken proc…
So is it more or less efficient overall to eat vegetarians?
Re: Is Domestically Produced Ethanol Worth the Cost?
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not going to defend corn ethanol, but I do think this debate is misguided. The problem is not the corn ethanol , the problem is the corn . Corn is an indirect way of converting oil into sugar. It is just as inefficient at making food as it is at making fuel (though that's less obvious because the end product doesn't have the same units.) There's a great article in an old issue of Harper's called "The oil we eat"…
> If the real concern is feeding people, you eat vegetarian. It is counter intuitive, but this statement is not exactly a fact. The corn->protein process via chickens is actually quite efficient. I'll give some sample numbers: 1 acre corn -> 150 bushels corn -> 10,000 lbs of corn -> 4000 lbs of chicken -> 1500 lbs of protein. 1 acre of peanuts -> 3000 pounds of peanuts -> 750 lbs of protein. So the corn->chicken proc…
Interesting analysis. We've bred chickens, cows, and pigs to all produce more meat for a given diet, but I guess we've done this better with the chickens. Maybe we need to focus on breeding the cows into creatures that have no legs, fit within tightly packed rectangular cages, and don't need as much internal organ space dedicated to processing food, so that the space can be devoted to tender juicy muscle instead.