NationStates Jolt Archive

Well folks, I'm sure alot of you have seen the commercials, or heard the buzz on Wall Street. Or maybe you've seen a news story or two about it.

It's looking like America is about to hit peak oil! Not peak oil, as in what's in the ground, but as in the amount we consume. And all thanks to Ethanol (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/02/06/8367959/index.htm?cnn=yes).

From all of the evidence I've collected so far, it seems Ethanol is about to explode (ok, not quite "explode") onto the American consumer.

When Ethanol was first dreamt of, it was in the minds of people that, while they had good intentions, didn't really have the "pull" to get it to be a viable fuel for the American public. For one thing, a lack of an inexpensive way to produce it made it cost more than gasoline, a big no no for the American consumer.

But now, it seems the big boys have stepped into the ring, and things have been buzzing around Wall street. To quote a CNN article, "powerful political lobbies in Washington that never used to concern themselves with botanical affairs are suddenly focusing on ethanol"

GM is even coming out with a new campaign (http://www.gm.com/company/onlygm/livegreengoyellow/)for their line of vehicles, including their most popular SUVs, that will run on E85 Ethanol, which are called 'Flex-Fuel Vehicles'.

GM's website has a fuel calculator, and according to it, the Chevy Suburban (GM's largest SUV) will run 15,000 miles with 22800 corn cobs worth of Ethanol.


So any comments, ideas, gripes, complaints?

BTW A list of Flex Fuel Vehicles already on the market can be seen HERE. (http://www.agriculture.state.ia.us/e85vehicles.html)

*raises hand*

Yeah... I've got a gripe.

Ethanol is probably the stupidest of the possible alternative feul sources. At the moment, we would waste cropland to grow plants for ethanol and create a great deal of waste in the process plus increasing pesticide output, which will release even more harmful carcinogens into the atmosphere.

I'm a big fan of TDP or Hydrogen myself.

I'm a big fan of TDP or Hydrogen myself.
[ starts his SUV ... explodes! ] ;)

Right now I think they should be looking into anything, up to and including happy thoughts, as an alternative. The cleanest, most renewable easiest to adapt to wins. Just about in that order.

[ starts his SUV ... explodes! ] ;)

Nothing like a bit of a jolt in the morning to wake you up, ya know? ;)

Nothing like a bit of a jolt in the morning to wake you up, ya know? ;)
Jolt. Wasn't that a drink of some sort? :D

Right now I think they should be looking into anything, up to and including happy thoughts, as an alternative. The cleanest, most renewable easiest to adapt to wins. Just about in that order.
I remember reading a story a year or so ago that recommended setting up wind farms in the Oklahoma/Kansas area and using the energy from that to crack hydrogen for fuel cells. The guy who wrote the article claimed that not only would it work, but it would only take some minor mods to make the current natural gas pipeline system carry it all around the country--yet another reason to locate it in Oklahoma/Kansas.

Jolt. Wasn't that a drink of some sort? :D

Yeah, actually.

If memory serves correctly it was pretty good.


But I doubt it would be a good alternative feul source. ;)

*raises hand*

Yeah... I've got a gripe.

Ethanol is probably the stupidest of the possible alternative feul sources. At the moment, we would waste cropland to grow plants for ethanol and create a great deal of waste in the process plus increasing pesticide output, which will release even more harmful carcinogens into the atmosphere.

I'm a big fan of TDP or Hydrogen myself.

Actually, ethanol doesn't create much waste at all. The only "waste" it produces during combustion is pure water. If you're worried about cropland, build the plants somewhere useless. And these plants are NOT something hazardous to living beings, so really, they can go anywhere. The biggest problem with ethanol is the startup cost.

[ starts his SUV ... explodes! ]
...Hydrogen doesn't go boom. 2:1 ratios of hydrogen to oxygen go boom.

Actually, ethanol doesn't create much waste at all. The only "waste" it produces during combustion is pure water. If you're worried about cropland, build the plants somewhere useless. And these plants are NOT something hazardous to living beings, so really, they can go anywhere. The biggest problem with ethanol is the startup cost.
But when you factor in the energy necessary to grow the plants to make ethanol, you wind up with not much net gain, as I understand the process.

I remember reading a story a year or so ago that recommended setting up wind farms in the Oklahoma/Kansas area and using the energy from that to crack hydrogen for fuel cells. The guy who wrote the article claimed that not only would it work, but it would only take some minor mods to make the current natural gas pipeline system carry it all around the country--yet another reason to locate it in Oklahoma/Kansas.
Now that's interesting. I'd be interested in hearing more about that. The last I had read about cracking hydrogen was using petrolium fueled plants, which i regard as seeing your watch on the wrist of the guy who installed your cable...but if that worked, sweet. I wouldn't be as reserved about the hydrogen cars. Though I still favor systems that use waste products (vegetable oil, thermodepolymawhatzit, biofuels, etc.) mostly because there is a retroactivity to it all, that the cars we have now can be adapted to it so we don't have to 'reset' the whole deal...

We could lower farmer subsidies and have them grow land of crops for ethanol. Also, the combustion of ethanol produces Carbon Dioxide and water. Any person in a basic chemistry class (like me) can tell you that C2H6O + 3O2->2CO2 + 3H2O. Unless the CO2 is part of the process?

But when you factor in the energy necessary to grow the plants to make ethanol, you wind up with not much net gain, as I understand the process.

If you're using oil to power your harvesters and run your refineries, sure.. but if those refineries run on wind or solar, and the harvesters run on biodiesel or something... that's probably the idea.

Edit: I must admit though, this whole thread makes me feel kinda guilty to only be getting 6mpg with my truck.. :(

Actually, ethanol doesn't create much waste at all. The only "waste" it produces during combustion is pure water. If you're worried about cropland, build the plants somewhere useless. And these plants are NOT something hazardous to living beings, so really, they can go anywhere. The biggest problem with ethanol is the startup cost.


The issue is that Ethanol comes from plants, right? That means we use farmland to grow crops we won't eat. Those crops also create waste and increase pesticide use.

See my problem?

The issue is that Ethanol comes from plants, right? That means we use farmland to grow crops we won't eat. Those crops also create waste and increase pesticide use.

See my problem?

Not really.. the corn grown for ethanol doesn't need to be food-grade.. ask any moonshiner.. some of the stuff they'll use... Ew. :(

...Hydrogen doesn't go boom. 2:1 ratios of hydrogen to oxygen go boom.

I'm probably gonna make myself look like a total idiot, but hydrogen to oxygen 2:1 is dihydrogen oxide. Isn't that just... water?

But when you factor in the energy necessary to grow the plants to make ethanol, you wind up with not much net gain, as I understand the process.

Wait a moment...grow plants? I meant plants as in energy plants. The buildings where ethanol would be synthesized. If you're going to somehow "harvest" ethanol from greenery, then it would be next to useless as far as I can comprehend it. Synthesizing ethanol is done by electolysis...which does require electricity, but when you use produced ethanol as that energy source, with ideal efficiency, you get a 60 - 70% net gain. I just know the organic-chemistry part; I don't pretend to know the economic portion of it though, maybe that is relatively low.

If you're using oil to power your harvesters and run your refineries, sure.. but if those refineries run on wind or solar, and the harvesters run on biodiesel or something... that's probably the idea.

Edit: I must admit though, this whole thread makes me feel kinda guilty to only be getting 6mpg with my truck.. :(I couldn't afford to drive a truck like that. I get 30 mpg in my Hyundai and I'm spending $25 a week for gas (at $2.50 a gallon).

I'm probably gonna make myself look like a total idiot, but hydrogen to oxygen 2:1 is dihydrogen oxide. Isn't that just... water?

Sorry, mea culpa--I should have been more clear. Yes, when the hydrogen and oxygen bond with that ratio, it's water, but if you take a bunch of H and stick it in a container with a bunch of O, it generally doesn't bond too quickly...it's more likely to create a reenactment of the Hindenburg.

I couldn't afford to drive a truck like that. I get 30 mpg in my Hyundai and I'm spending $25 a week for gas (at $2.50 a gallon).

Yeah, I spend just under a thousand dollars a week in gas, give or take.. it's expensive.. on the plus side though, I don't actually pay for it myself.. :p

We could lower farmer subsidies and have them grow land of crops for ethanol. Also, the combustion of ethanol produces Carbon Dioxide and water. Any person in a basic chemistry class (like me) can tell you that C2H6O + 3O2->2CO2 + 3H2O. Unless the CO2 is part of the process?

>.<!! Sorry, I wasn't thinking. You're right: CO2 and water, not just good ol' H20

I'm probably gonna make myself look like a total idiot, but hydrogen to oxygen 2:1 is dihydrogen oxide. Isn't that just... water?

Yeah, but they explode when you force them to react and fuse together.. I've seen it done once in a video, using a bomb combustion chamber, or whatever you call it. It's pretty sweet.

>.<!! Sorry, I wasn't thinking. You're right: CO2 and water, not just good ol' H20

Excess CO2 is the bad stuff isn't it?
Edit: Balanced chemical reaction ftw!

Yeah, but they explode when you force them to react and fuse together.. I've seen it done once in a video, using a bomb combustion chamber, or whatever you call it. It's pretty sweet.

Best random-out-in-a-field "party popper" ever: electrolysize water (separating the H from the O into two separate containers) put the H and the O together into a 1-liter bottle and shake it up a bit...stick a lighter in front of the opening, and BOOM! (a 2 liter bottle would work as well, but you'd better put it on something and not hold it...the recoil would be painful.)
The only problem is getting an efficient electrolysis...a car battery and a lidded bucket of water with two bottles on top works, but it's hard to make it efficient enough to be worth the time.

I'm waiting for the Margerine-powered car.

Excess CO2 is the bad stuff isn't it?
Edit: Balanced chemical reaction ftw!


CO2 isn't great, but it's better than CO, which is what you get with an incomplete combustion. ethanol doesn't require excess O to burn, so it pretty much ALWAYS goes to complete combustion. Gasoline spits out a lot of CO.

CO2 isn't great, but it's better than CO, which is what you get with an incomplete combustion. ethanol doesn't require excess O to burn, so it pretty much ALWAYS goes to complete combustion. Gasoline spits out a lot of CO.

The problem with that is it also creates random atoms on their own and an unbalanced reaction. Can that happen?

The problem with that is it also creates random atoms on their own and an unbalanced reaction. Can that happen?


Huh...There must be something I'm missing...My organic-chem class had ethanol in a vacuum and it combusted. Granted it didn't BURN, with an actual flame, but it combusted. I'll have to go look this one up.

And you are right that C2H40 --> C02 + H20 won't balance. Well, at least I can't see a way to do it.

The biggest problem with ethanol is the startup cost.



I thought the higgest problem with ethanol is that it is a net energy loss? i.e. it takes more than a litre of fossil fuels to get a litre of ethanol?

I thought the higgest problem with ethanol is that it is a net energy loss? i.e. it takes more than a litre of fossil fuels to get a litre of ethanol?

Yeah, that's why you use some other energy source to get the ethanol..

Yeah, that's why you use some other energy source to get the ethanol..

It's awful hard ... combines need fuel. Fertilizer usually contains fossil fuels of some kind.

It's awful hard ... combines need fuel. Fertilizer usually contains fossil fuels of some kind.

Combines can use electric or bidiesel, and most fertilizers don't have any petrochemicals in them.. simple manure will even do in a pinch.. :p

Combines can use electric or bidiesel, and most fertilizers don't have any petrochemicals in them.. simple manure will even do in a pinch.. :p

How many combines presently use electric or biodiesel? Simple manure works, but many farms use chemical, not natural fertilizers. Besides, if it takes more energy to produce than it produces, it doesn't matter what kind of fuel you use. You would be better off just using the biodiesel or the electricity to power cars.

The issue is that Ethanol comes from plants, right? That means we use farmland to grow crops we won't eat. Those crops also create waste and increase pesticide use.

See my problem?


Its not a problem.

The US produces so much more food than we actually eat, its insane,
Thats why we ship most of to other countries where they sell heads of american lettuce for 12 cents, and local ones for three times as much.
The local farmers of these countries cant possibly hope to meet the competitions price, so they sell thier crops for practically nothing.

The worst that would happen, is less of it would be shipped to other places.

So, really, we wouldnt be producing any more than we already do.