Ethanol is NOT "Green"

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 04:26 AM
link   
Facts:

The burning temperature of corn ethanol is far lower than gasoline. In fact, ethanol needs 99,119 BTUs of heat to produce a gallon, which will yield 77,000 BTUs of energy when burned in an automobile.

Ethanol is produced by burning fossil fuels as ethanol cannot be burned to produce ethanol.

One gallon of gasoline will propel a vehicle longer than one gallon of ethanol, due to ethanol having far less energy stored within it per gallon.

For you green people, for every pound of ethanol produced, an excess pound of carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere.

While ethanol may appear cheaper at the gas pumps, it is not cheaper to the end buyer, as their tax money is being used to subsidize the cost of the ethanol. This is on top of existing corn subsidies.

The corn is grown far from the plants, and must be shipped via truck and train to the ethanol plant, as corn obviously can't be shipped via pipeline. The same goes for the ethanol, as it's too corrosive for pipes, so diesel tankers have to carry it across the country.

When we assume the ethanol production process is fully renewable, it would take all the corn in the country to displace about 3.5 percent of our gasoline consumption — only slightly more than we could displace by making sure drivers’ tires are inflated properly.

The United States is responsible for over 40 percent of the world’s corn supply and 70 percent of total global exports. Even small diversions of corn supplies to ethanol could have dramatic implications for the world’s poor, especially considering that researchers believe that food production will need to triple by the year 2050 to accommodate expected demand.

Sources:

Dvorak, Blake. “Ethanol's Nine Lives.” The American Enterprise 12 September 2003. 15 October 2007.

Eaves, James, and Stephen Eaves. “Neither Renewable Nor Reliable.” Regulation (2007): 24-27.

Etter, Lauren. “Politics & Economics: Ethanol Industry Is Losing Clout In Congress As Food Prices Climb.” The Wall Street Journal 10 November 2007.

Fellin, Edward. “News-Leader.com | Readers' Letters.” 15 October 2007.

Reisch , Mark. “A Rational Approach to Energy.” Chemical And Engineering News 85.43 (2007): 32.

Tyner , Wallace, and Justin Quear. “Comparison of a Fixed and Variable Corn Ethanol Subsidy.” Choices Article 2006. 15 October 2007.

Wagner, Matt. “Blunt Brothers Deny Connection To Cousin's Ethanol Plant.” Springfield Business Journal 13 November 2006. 15 October 2007.
edit on 12-5-2011 by joesomebody because: formatting
edit on 12-5-2011 by joesomebody because: formatting




posted on May, 12 2011 @ 05:40 AM
link   
Butanol is a much better fuel and can be made from a larger number of feed stock and by a number of methods.

It can be made using biowaste. trash, sewage, Not from food like ethanol

Butanol is largely compatible with and in some ways better than, gasoline. It's air/fuel mixture (Stoichometric A/F Ratio) is 11.2 (Standard Gasoline is 14.7, ethanol is 9.) which allows butanol to, just about, function in a standard gasoline engine. Its energy content is about 105,000 Btu per US gallon (Standard Gasoline has about 114,000 Btu per US gallon). In effect butanol has about 92% of the energy of gasoline. In actual driving conditions, as butanol has a strong power and torque content, drivers will use a lighter foot on the accelerator and hold a higher gear longer, fuel efficiency will approximately match that of gasoline. It can be mixed with gasoline in any ratio in unmodified engines. Additionally, as butanol has a very low vapour pressure point (RVP 0.3) and a high Flash Point (FP 37 degrees Celcius) it is a very safe fuel to use in high temperatures. Butanol can be produced at an estimated cost of 85 cents per gallon, and is a direct replacement for gasoline, which ethanol cannot be. Butanol also has a high cetane number (CN25, diesel averages CN45, ethanol CN9) which allows butanol to be blended with petrodiesel and with vegetable oils (where it also reduces the gel temperature point and the viscosity) to produce biodiesel, with some positive environmental effects. Consequently, butanol is a very versatile fuel and fuel extender in both gasoline and diesel engines. It can do things that ethanol will never be able to do. Its manufacture from biomass will enhance the progress towards a biofuel World.
peswiki.com...:Butanol

Butanol can also be used in direct alcohol fuel cells and being a liquid is can be stored in fuel tanks not high pressure tanks

any standard fuel station could be used to sell Butanol.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 05:48 AM
link   
nice thread



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 05:51 AM
link   
Great post, S&F!

Ethanol is stupid for anything other than drinking! In addition to being a bad idea as far as the environment goes, it also does damage to cars that aren't built or modified to use it. Most older cars are having fuel system problems related to the percentage of Ethanol used in all gasoline.

We need to keep trying...

Although what does show promise is biofuels like algae and waste cooking fat fuel. Not to replace oil completely, but I know a few people that grow algae (initial investment is kind of high, and takes awhile, but pays for itself REAL quick) and one person that uses purified waste cooking oil to power their diesel trucks.

Both of these technologies actually have a benefit, where as Ethanol does not, other than to make people feel good by giving them a false sense of eco-friendliness.

Now we just need more vehicles with diesel engines to take advantage of this. Not everybody wants to drive a truck or some old VW.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 06:17 AM
link   
Thing is, no one except the corn industry ever advertised it as being "green." Those of us who actually have an interest in environmentalism have been pointing this stuff out for a good long while - not only is everything the OP said spot-on, but it also diverts food supply into fuel production - and provides incentive to turn more agricultural land into cash crop land, making more corn for more ethanol.

You want green energy right now? Get your fat Taco Bell-eating ass on a bike and start pedaling. 100% green, and it's good for you.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Thing is, no one except the corn industry ever advertised it as being "green." Those of us who actually have an interest in environmentalism have been pointing this stuff out for a good long while - not only is everything the OP said spot-on, but it also diverts food supply into fuel production - and provides incentive to turn more agricultural land into cash crop land, making more corn for more ethanol.

You want green energy right now? Get your fat Taco Bell-eating ass on a bike and start pedaling. 100% green, and it's good for you.


Man, your replies just make my day.


I try to tell people bad times are a coming. One of the metrics being oil. They just seem convinced that some magical savior will wave a wand and "presto" new cheap energy source. This confounds me. I think serious people built this nation and casual people are ruining it. Where has intellectual thought went? There is no critical thinking. There is only irrational idealism and that scares the crap out of me. Has "Idiocracy" already arrived?

They don't realize that when this cheap source of energy goes away that all of the bipedal hairless simians which it caused to increase in numbers on the earth must go away also. On top of that it will likely be a very unpleasant departure since people have become so self centered and cruel.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Yeah, i learned well over 10 years ago, what a load of lies n crap ethanol is..its the powers to be making/forcing us to buy and use it* for thier own selfish political and profitable reasons. thats the only real reason ethanol is eexistance..sad but true. just like when bush was ranting about the hydrogen car, back in 2000-2002 it was the future* well looks like a forgotten memory hugh//just like the elctric car* if mobil, and the other big oil companys made equal , dominance profit different story. but thier not gunna do that...without oil, theyde fold and close shop* and here we are today, aying an arm n leg almost for corrosive carbon releasing intentionally prodcut* ethanol gasoline* lies lies lies



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
So is wind power, but most people think it is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

...ask me how I know



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by armtx
 


Okay, I am asking! LOL

Great topic! And I agree, ethanol is not green. Not one bit.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by joesomebody
 


not to mention the inefficany of ethanol. it takes thrre earths with thier land masses covered in corn to produce enough ethanol to power our civilization. at least according to james lovelocks estimations



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Wind energy is not green because they require close to 500 gallons of OIL monthly to lubricate the machine.

The oil can be recycled once and than it needs fresh oil...kinda like a car.

I have a client that supplies about 40% of the oil to the wind farms in this country and although his company is making a living out of keeping the machines lubricated, it seems the wind industry is making a killing fibbing to the genral public about that actual "green" value a windmill provides.


At the end of the day, wind has very little impact on "green" with the amount of oil used every year.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Don't forget that the land dedicated to raising corn for fuel is land that cannot be used to grow foodstuffs. It is not a coincidence that the price of commodities has been on the rise since laws mandating the use of ethanol were enacted. The "ethanol energy economy" is not sustainable. I agree; get out and walk.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by armtx
Wind energy is not green because they require close to 500 gallons of OIL monthly to lubricate the machine.

Wind turbines also creates pollution and spreads radiation in the extraction of Neodymium for the permanent magnets.




In China, the true cost of Britain's clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale
This toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what's left behind after making the magnets for Britain's latest wind turbines... and, as a special Live investigation reveals, is merely one of a multitude of environmental sins committed in the name of our new green Jerusalem

Read more


To be honest, there is no such thing as a green energy source, at least not with current technology. Prehaps on a small scale, wooden ships driven by sail or windmills made by natural resources and with manual labour could be called green. But these can't provide enough energy for the current civilization.

On topic:
Ethanol from corn is the worst type, in many cases you end up with less energy in the ethanol than in the diesel/petro products used to produce it.

Another fairly new discovery about most types of ethanol is the Indirect land use change (ILCU) which means that ethanol in most cases contribute to significant carbon emissions. Some report I read even concluded that most types of ethanol required hundred of years before the carbon emissions were even (because of the carbon emissions released due to removal of growth), in some cases it never got even this means that those types of ethanol were worse than using gasoline or diesel.
edit on 24-6-2011 by ingeborgsjon because: On topic



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by joesomebody
 


it's not "green" or worthwhile here in the states simply because it's made from corn...we can make it from other plants more effectively, with higher yield, and higher output...we just don't...there are better alternatives than corn for sure



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
I have been lurking on this site for many years, however for my first post I just gotta jump in here. Its amazing for a site like this to simply regurgitate some of the fallacies about alcohol as a gas that you read in the major media. First off when you make it from corn it doesnt cause food shortages, thats silly. Know where most of the corn we grow here goes? To feed cattle. The cattle eat the corn then poop most of it back out (just like we do). Well when you make ethanol from corn you use up this "waste" starch and whats left is called distillers grain which is a much more nutrient dense than corn. However corn is actually not even close to the best crop to make ethanol from. There is so much misinformation about ethanol its amazing. If its so horrible then could someone please explain what's happening in Brazil? To solve our energy needs we are gonna have to hit the problem from every angle using biofuels , solar, wind. There are websites that blow holes in alot of the fallacies about ethanol. Heck you can even make methanol from the waste generated during ethanol production. There is so much about this subject I can't list it all here. Go to the website alcohol can be a gas and read up. No its not gonna solve all our problems, but it can be a small part of the solution.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Couldn't say it better myself, our own fat asses are the greenest source of power we have, now get on that bike and start pedaling. To big for the big, start waddling alot.

From Mike Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil , those who know, know, those who don't, read the book.
The questions listed below created criteria for evaluating the claims of alternative energies like the renewables: wind, solar, and hydro, as well as ethanol. It was his response to those who advocated replacements for oil and gas which produced flat or negative energy return on energy investment EROEI, like ethanol.


1. How much energy is returned for the energy invested (EROEI)?

2. Have the claims been verified by an independent third party?

3. Can I see the alternative energy being used?

4. Can you trace it back to the original energy source?

5. Does the invention defy the Laws of Thermodynamics?

6. Does the inventor make extravagant claims?

7. Does the inventor claim zero pollution?

8. Can I see the blueprints, schematics or a chemical analysis of how it works?

9. Infrastructure requirements: Does the energy source require a corporation to produce it? Emphasis mine

10. How will it be transported and used?

11. Will it require new engines, pipelines, and filling stations?

12. What will these cost?

13. Who will pay for them and with what?

14. How long will it take to build them?

15. What do you think of these questions in regards to evaluating alternative energy? Are they sufficient?


If we had a sane, sustainable, equal access to all, national energy policy, we would probably still be using candles. But the direction we are headed with this bat# crazy negative EROEI policy, we will be using candles again soon.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 





Thing is, no one except the corn industry ever advertised it as being "green." Those of us who actually have an interest in environmentalism have been pointing this stuff out for a good long while - not only is everything the OP said spot-on, but it also diverts food supply into fuel production - and provides incentive to turn more agricultural land into cash crop land, making more corn for more ethanol.....


Correct.

You want to know WHO was behind this Con Job???


Dwayne Andreas worked for Cargill and then worked for Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADMC) becoming CEO in 1971. He is considered the TOP campaign donor in the USA.



...Dwayne Orville Andreas (born 4 March 1918) is one of the most prominent political campaign donors[1] in the United States, having contributed millions of dollars to Democratic and Republican candidates alike....

In 1971 Andreas became Chief Executive Officer of ADM, and is credited with transforming the firm into an industrial powerhouse — so powerful that by 1996, ADM had been investigated for price-fixing and was assessed the largest antitrust fine in United States history: 100 million dollars....

Andreas commands much respect among Washington politicians for his largesse. As part of the investigations surrounding illegal campaign fundraising linked to the Watergate scandal, Andreas was charged with (but acquitted of) illegally contributing $100,000 to Hubert Humphrey's 1968 presidential campaign. In 1972 Andreas unlawfully contributed $25,000 to President Nixon's re-election campaign via Watergate burglar Bernard Barker. Other recipients of Andreas's "tithing" — as he puts it — have included George H. W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, Michael Dukakis, Jesse Jackson, and Jack Kemp.

According to Mother Jones magazine:


“ During the 1992 election, Andreas gave more than $1.4 million in soft money and $345,000 to individual candidates, using multiple donors in his company and family members (including wife Inez) to circumvent contribution limits.”

en.wikipedia.org...



The other key player is Dan Amstutz. He was a chief negotiator for agriculture under Clinton as well as Reagan and Undersecretary of Ag (Under Clinton???) He was in charge of Agricultural Reconstruction Efforts in Iraq (senior ministry advisor for agriculture). Can you say HELLO seed patents??? Source


... Amstutz was President and CEO of the North American Export Grain Association, the association of U.S. grain and oilseed exporters. Previously, he served as executive director of the International Wheat Council, London, now called the International Grains Council.

He was part of the Reagan Administration for 6 years. First, as under secretary of agriculture for international affairs and commodity programs (1983-1987), and then as ambassador and chief negotiator for agriculture in the GATT Uruguay Round trade negotiations. He played a key role in helping achieve more trade liberalization for agriculture than in all preceding multilateral trade rounds.

Before joining government, Amstutz was a general partner of Goldman, Sachs and Company, the New York investment bank, where he initiated the firm’s commodities trading and futures brokerage businesses...”. archive.gipsa.usda.gov...


The Biofuel law (Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 )goes into effect and Archer Daniels Midland cleans up big time on biofuel. www.newsweek.com...




The Biofuel business - Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) saw its profits increase throughout all its segments year-over-year, after it formed a strategy to enhance crop-sourcing and processing capacity.... The company reported net earnings of $1.9bn and segment operating profit of $3.2bn for fiscal 2010...” SOURCE




“...Today three companies, Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, and Bunge control the world’s grain trade. Chemical giant Monsanto controls three-fifths of seed production. Unsurprisingly, in the last quarter of 2007, even as the world food crisis was breaking, Archer Daniels Midland’s profits jumped 20%, Monsanto 45%, and Cargill 60%. Recent speculation with food commodities has created another dangerous “boom.” After buying up grains and grain futures, traders are hoarding, withholding stocks and further inflating prices....” www.globalissues.org...



A bit of background on the broader picture: "Control food control people" - Kissinger 1970



The IPC ( international Ag Cartel) was behind placing food and agricultural products “on the trading table” during the formation of the World Trade Organization.

2001 Issues for the Agricultural Talks and WTO Trade Round, Mr. Auxenfans of Monsanto speaking:

“The un-scientific so-called “precautionary principle” is unfortunately being successfully and constantly misused as justification to immobilize science and its applications, as well as to confuse the public....

...The internationalization of the food chain demands that identification, registration, tracking and tracing systems also become internationalized...."
After 31 years with Monsanto, Mr. Auxenfans, retired from the Monsanto Corporation at the end of 1999 as the former Chief Operating Officer (COO) of the Agricultural Division, and its Chairman for the Europe-Africa operations. He is a member of the Board of Directors at both the IPC and the IAMA.” www.agbioworld.org...



Amstutz wrote the 1996 farm bill called Freedom to Farm known to farmers as the Freedom to Fail Act multinationalmonitor.org...

It caused over production, very cheap grain and a major farm crisis with many US and third world farmers bankrupting. The law also changed US grain reserve policy. By 2008 the USDA declared "Our Cupboard is bare" And the Ag cartel reaped HUGE profits from soaring food prices across the world as children starved. www.usatoday.com...


"Freedom to Farm" legislation of 1996. Cargill played a significant role in pressuring the US government to move away from its farmer support programmes and eventually adopt the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act archive.corporatewatch.org...


April 16, 1999 A veritable who's who of corporate agribusiness writes a letter to Clinton about WTO meeting in Seattle: They want to establishment a three year goal, and a more effective set of trade rules for the agricultural sector www.thecalamityhowler.com...

Don't Forget Amstutz also worked for Goldman Sachs:
Gramm, head of the CFTC, helped firms such as Goldman Sachs gain influence over the commodity markets. At the end of 2006, food prices across the world started to rise, suddenly. Wheat had shot up by 80 per cent, maize by 90 per cent, rice by 320 per cent.


“...Then, in spring 2008, prices just as mysteriously fell back to their previous level. Jean Ziegler, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, calls it “a silent mass murder”, entirely due to “man-made actions.” Through the 1990s, Goldman Sachs and others lobbied hard and the regulations [controlling agricultural futures contracts] were abolished. Suddenly, these contracts were turned into “derivatives” that could be bought and sold among traders who had nothing to do with agriculture. A market in “food speculation” was born. The speculators drove the price through the roof....” www.independent.co.uk...



“...Today three companies, Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, and Bunge control the world’s grain trade. Chemical giant Monsanto controls three-fifths of seed production. Unsurprisingly, in the last quarter of 2007, even as the world food crisis was breaking, Archer Daniels Midland’s profits jumped 20%, Monsanto 45%, and Cargill 60%. Recent speculation with food commodities has created another dangerous “boom.” After buying up grains and grain futures, traders are hoarding, withholding stocks and further inflating prices....” www.globalissues.org...



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Your technology knowledge is lacking.

A internal combustion engine with a compression ratio of 8.5 to 1 made to run on regular unleaded will NOT run well on Alcohol (Ethanol). It will run, but run like CRAP.

The new GM "flexfuel" vehicles only have stainless steel fuel lines because alcohol corrodes aluminum fuel lines. Those GM vehicles DO NOT have a compression ration to properly burn Alcohol (ethanol).

If you took those internal combustion engines and changed the compression ratio to properly BURN the alcohol, it would outperform a gas burning engine. WHY? Alcohol creates more horsepower.

If you doubt this go talk to the Formula 1 or Top Fuel Dragster boys. They can only generate the horsepower they do with Alcohol (ethanol). If YOU think you can beat them by burning gasoline in an engine....go for it.

You could never do it.

Alcohol requires a higher Compression Ratio in an Internal Combustion engine to release it's full BTU/power potential. Putting it in your GM Flexfuel vehicle is just stupid. It'll run like crap...because it has a retarded compression ratio so it can also run on regular unleaded gasoline.

Take that GM Flexfuel vehicle and modify the engine so it has a higher compression ratio....so it will never run on gasoline again....only use Alcohol (ethanol)...you would get better MPG and much more horsepower.

edit on 2-7-2011 by Pervius because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


Ok, redo all of the engines to run alcohol and change out all of the gas stations to offer the new fuel. Who's going to pay for all this infrastructure change? Where we gonna grow all of that corn? On the first point, I don't think anybody is going to be able to pay for diddly in a couple years. The logistics of idealism blow chunks.



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
again research ethanol, corn is actually one of the worst things to make ethanol out of. Its kinda sad to see all the misinformation about ethanol repeated here. Its hardly a panacea tho we need a combination of everything out there to wean ourselves off oil. Heck you can get a free permit from the government and make 5000 gallons a year to fuel your own cars if you want. And the above poster is right if you make an engine to run ethanol only you get the same mileage as gasoline.





top topics
 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join