With dependence on foreign oil being a hot topic these days, the government and the domestic automakers have been looking for alternative fuel sources. While several options exist, corn-based ethanol has seen the most support here in the U.S. While corn-based ethanol was originally touted as a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels, new reports are now finding that this is not the case.

A new report by Science magazine finds that biofuels actually produce more greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels when all steps of production are accounted for. In fact, the study finds that corn-based ethanol would double greenhouse emissions over the next 30 years.

The tremendous increase in greenhouses gases is a result of the energy required to fertilize, harvest and refine the biofuel, combined with the fact that the growth of corn replaces plants that help filter greenhouse gases.

According to another study conducted by Princeton and the Nature Conservancy, if the push towards corn-based ethanol continues, it could take up to 300 years to pay off the carbon debt.

However, some public officials are waking up to the dangers of corn-based ethanol. According to MSM.com, The UN is looking into the sustainability of biofuels and there is also word that Congress might reform the recently passed Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 — which calls for the increased production of biofuels.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/new-stud...sil-fuels.html

 

I saw something about this regarding ethanol.... its not all its cracked up to be. Less energy content vs. gasoline, worse mileage (?), costs more to process and now its more harmful for the environment? It seems like renewability and less dependence on foreign oil are the only pros of ethanol now.

 

I just read an article yesterday on ETOH fuel.... crazy.. in the 2008 Subby I just bought for my wife its a 25% DROP in fuel economy... and a friend said that once u start using it u need to saty with it... not sure about that.. anyhoo... just kinda disgusted!!!

 

That's all correct. Additionally, it requires more energy to produce than gasoline.

 

Same with hybrids...the batteries have to be produced somewhere and somehow, and eventually disposed of somewhere and somehow. The fuel "savings" may be realized by the end-user because he/she is spending less to drive per mile, but ultimately it is no better for the environment because it's the "out of sight - out of mind" mentality...the customer does not see the manufacturing and disposal process, they only see that they saved some gas while they had the car.

Same with hydrogen...how much electricity does it take to fill a hydrogen fuel cell? That electricity has to come from somewhere and that's usually from the burning of fossil fuels. Again, out of the end-user's sight, out of their mind that their product is harming the environment.

I read somewhere that coal can be processed into a very efficient fuel for on the cheap without much environmental impact, and much less environmental impact and more efficiency than burning it in a power plant to make electricity. And I hear sugarcane is much more environmentally friendly during the processing stage to make ethanol. I don't know first hand because I am not in these industries, but there are probably at least a dozen more technologies out there RIGHT NOW that are better for the environment from production to end-use, yet politics is what keeps these things from emerging as viable alternatives.

Knight Industries can produce a car that gets 190 miles per gallon with a combination of solar power and gasoline. Why can't all cars have that?

 

Not to mention that corn is used in so many other areas of agriculture that it's driving up prices of everything else.

The only good biofuels do is make people rich.

 

Back to the drawing board....

 

Corn ethanol will continue to be supported by the Federal Farm subsidy lobby, despite the inherent drawbacks in the business model - fat farmers in Iowa love teh cornification...

 

Shocking News!!!!!!

 

https://acurazine.com/forums/automotive-news-6/ethanol-news-discussion-thread-337931/

When the oil runs out, we're going to need something to power my Red Barchetta, so piss on the environment, and bring on the ethanol...

 

^^ Nice Red Barchetta reference

 

^^ what would you choose for a color for sarcacism...blue or red.. i keep getting confused.

 

Everyone here uses red for sarcasm

 

Here in Canada we get a series of ads for AIM Trimark (investment firm):
http://www.aimtrimark.com/

The series shows they look "deep" into the companies they invest in, unlike other people. They had an ad a while ago where a young energy company executive bought some farming fields. The old-timers ask him "why would you buy a bunch of crops, we're an energy company", and he makes everyone feel short-sighted by saying "the field grows corn, and ethanol comes from corn".

I bet that dude isn't feeling so smart now!

 

It's oviously blue.

 

nice try!

 

Ok so I remembered reading this thread, and yesterday I was sitting on the can and reading the last C&D and they have an article on Ethanol race cars. In the article they contradict the figures here. They say a study produce by Argonne National Lab says (and I'm going from memory), that corn-based ethanol is 18%-29% more energy-efficient than gasoline, when production is taken into account.

Who's right?

 

Algae diesel FTW

 

Well Argonne obviously has skin in the game so they are going to support their research position ... And someone out there is saying that Argonne is full of shit ...

Obviously, what is needed is a neutral 3rd party review of the research conclusions. As long as scientists are going to push their own agendas (and rightfully so as that's what their work product has produced) there has to be an unbiased review ... Otherwise it's all bullshit.

 

I think the thing here is that ethanol yields a higher octane rating, but has less energy content than gasoline. So its good for preventing detonation but you'll get crappier gas mileage and performance with it.

I read a post somewhere from someone... Ashburner maybe? He put E85 in his Tahoe and got 11mpg and consequently never used it again.

 

So you're accusing a study from a federal science lab of being biased and then calling for a 'neutral 3rd party review.' What exactly would constitute a neutral 3rd party?

 

I would consider a neutral 3rd party to be an agent or agency that does not have anything to gain from the results of the study.

If I put millions into a study that says "A" ... And then someone comes along and says "B" I'm not going to just say, "Oh LOLz U R right."

"Experts" with vested interests in a position tend to be unable to be objective

 

The sad thing is that the under informed "limousine liberals" are totally unencumbered by the thought process, and will continue to drive their Priuses or buy ethanol, all the while sticking their nose up in the air like they are morally superior.

The fact is that the internal combustion engine is the most efficient device for extracting chemical energy, and gasoline is still the cheapest form of stored, portable energy. Hydrogen ain't happening unless people get over their concerns about producing energy from nuclear, and even then it will be 25-50 years.

BTW, Nuclear energy is well accepted in most of the rest of the world. Overall it is way safer than coal (statistically).

 

Problem is we cannot eat oil but we can eat corn...so is it crazy to run food thru or cars when oil is more efficient and cost effective...esp if the base cause of corn gas is faulty...??
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...5001/home.html

 

All of this talk... and not one mention of "switchgrass" ... Google "switchgrass ethanol" or "switchgrass vs corn"

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...anol-than-corn

Here's a argument against...

http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/200...chgrass_to.htm

And Ethanol does have 25 % less power than standard petrol does. There's a bunch of studies/info online if you look around for it.

 

I think there's 2 distinct arguments being made out there, but the arguments blur into 1 in the eyes of most folks because neither side will bring up the other side's negative because they want their side to be viewed in the best light without a "con".

From what I can see, the arguments are:

1) U.S. energy independence (ie using our own shit instead of buying it from other countries)

2) Conserving energy and reducing emissions

The pro-ethanol people are all about being independent of foreign fuels/oil. They know that it is more harmful to the environment, but they cannot be willing to admit this because it would undermine the argument for their priority, energy independence.

The pro-environment group know that corn ethanol is bad for the environment and costly, but will not bring up the fact that it will help towards energy independence from foreign oil, because bringing up this aspect will undermine the argument for their priority, the environment.

These are distinct arguments/sides, but no one is willing to say, "Which do you want? Energy independence or save the environment?" There are groups that want both and will promote other fuel sources such as solar or wind power, but then the animal lovers then get involved.

Basically, what i see is a bunch of groups that are acting like spoiled kids...they want only what THEY want, damn the consequences and how it affects anyone else. Energy independent people will accept screwing the environment. Save-the-environment people will accept screwing the environment in other ways (dead birds). Bird people will accept screwing alternative energy sources, etc. etc. etc. I think we should just all die and let nature take over. I think humans are the only animals that can make fire. Before that, the only fire that was created was purely by non-animal nature (lightning, volcanoes, meteors). Nature's balance was fucked as soon as humans could make fire, and Darwin's theory was thrown out the window (the weak continue to survive and continue to bring down the rest of humanity).

 

Yay! More watered down gas!

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7...=2547-1_3-0-20

 

Fixed

 

I could care less if some company wanted to blend ethanol at whatever levels it wants - just don't force me to buy it.

 

^ agree. Keep that 10-15% or what ever they are going to make it next to the E85 stations. Its not good for the environment, my car, or any thing for that matter. I dont want to use it.