|
|
Post a New Comment
neat Posted by brian nice, good perpsective. It's definently an issue that it's hard to find stations that have e85. perhaps more developed refining processes will help alleviate the massive amount of corn needed. perhaps we will see hybrids using this, so it runs on batteries and e85. No Subject Posted by Some Anonymous Whim Reader You know what would be sweet? If the government could royally screw up freemarkets by subsidizing the companies who produce this type of ethanol. By mandating a certain percentage that the gas companies would have to buy, then they could raise our gas prices through the roof. That would be awesome. Mike ..why are you repeating an outdated study Posted by Dan M You said your self it is "dated" . Not one respectable scientist (that isnt paid by the petroleum Petroeum Industry) bothers to quote it because the study was based on 30 year old technolgy. Even as far back as 12 years ago we started seeing a Positive ebnergy gain with Ethanol "Corn ethanol is energy efficient, as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.24, that is, for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol, there is a 24-percent energy gain. Moreover, producing ethanol from domestic corn stocks achieves a net gain in a more desirable form of energy. Ethanol production utilizes abundant domestic energy supplies of coal and natural gas to convert corn into a premium liquid fuel that can replace petroleum imports by a factor of 7 to 1." http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm There are 11 studies showing a positive net energy of Ethanol on only 2 Negatives 3 of which are Pimentals ! And not one of our Americans Kids had to lose their lives to "protect our oil interests" That fact alone makes Ethanol a viable option for many Americans. Ethanol is not a total soultion it is an ALTERNATIVE ..and ALternative that is available today and that is inexpensive option for most Americans to use . Hybrids Cars are great but are still far to expensive to make them a priocing alternative. True electric and Hydrogen vehicles are still decades in the future . Ethanol is now and that's what makes it a viable option . The Auto manufacturers are working on increasing MPG on ethanol vehilces and that will happen , in the meantime the consumer also has options to increase their fuel economy as I have done here http://e85vehicles.com/converting-e85.htm Instead of waiting for some holy fuel energy grail many Americans have already said enough to the Oil Companies .. Many Americans have already stopped contributing to OPEC and well continue to demonstrate that to a person you dont have to be held hostage by the Oil Companies . Ethanol is a part of the overall diversification solution that lowers our dependence on Oil ..and that certainly does make it a part of the "Answer" saying the same thing Posted by Michael Conner Isn't that what I said in the article? E85 is not THE answer, but an alernative, and be helpful in lifting our country off its petroleum dependence. Also, like I said, I am making a case for E85 to not become a total replacemenet for gasoline, but rather an alternative. So, you are basically just repeating what I am sayinig. People can't go out buying an E85 capable car believing they have a total alternative for gasoline, this is simply not the case. Furthermore, Most people are not aware of the downsides of E85, so knowing what they are, they will be in a better position to understand what E85 is and why it will be great to help get rid of our dependence on oil, and not THE answer. This point, however, is not being expressed to the massses by ethanol supporting companies. Our country is too quick to make conclusions on alternative fuels, they need to be used and we need to replace oil as a source of fuel, but a multitude of alternatives need to be used; no one is the magical fix. Also, I said dated in the meaning that it is not a couple months old. Seeing as the study is still only a few years old, and the fact that the study was done by Cornell University, not the petroleum industy, and the fact that the technology has not changed THAT much, the study still stands. Also, I highly doubt every new facilty and farm will be using the very best technology in producing ethanol, so studies using older technology are MUCH more realistic. I believe you may have a more biased opinion about ethanol since you are part of the E85 movement, just like the opposite side has, which you pointed out; like the oil industry holding hostage the American people. So you are welcome to your opinion, of course, but independent studies and research are where the REAL answers are found, with no biased backing. Also, did you look at the date of the study you linked in your post? 1995? It is much more dated than the Cornell study. This being the case, that study is MUCH more dated.... so your post of pointing out my use of an 'outdated' study is crazy since you are linking an even more 'outdated' study.
And protect our oil interests? Please. I had no political references in my article, and I did not receive a check from President Bush or Exxon to negate E85; I am not even negating it, I am showing BOTH sides. I researched the subject and the numbers are there. I have a brother in the military, so I know the risks that they take. So do not try and play the patriotic card in trying to somehow negate my article, although, in the end, you are saying exactly what I am saying: E85 will be a great alternative, but it is not THE answer. Acreage... Posted by Larry Gude You show: 'U.S. corn acreage yearly need to produce enough ethanol: 1,700,000 acres * 365 days = 630,000,000 acres" and go on to state we need 5 earths per year yet every thing I can find shows total US farm land as around 900,000,000 acres You post 1 acre = to 4 sq. km. My math shows it is .004 sq km. In other words, we can replace ALL of our gasoline needs with ethanol in terms of acreage needed. Obviously, we can't just eliminate what is on those 600 million acres now but, we don't need no 5 earths nither. In any event, improvments in irrigtation and other farming techniques may yield enough room to at least make a serious dent. acreage conversion Posted by mm Yes, your acreage conversion is wrong. One acre of land = 0.004046856422 km According to the CIA World Fact Book, The land area of the United States is 9,631,420 sq km. Divide this number by .0040... and the result is ~2,380,008,895 acres of land. Arable land accounts for about 18% of this according to the same source or about 428,401,601 acres. Of course, all arable land cannot be used, since you and I are probably living on some of it. The actual land available in the U.S. still appears to fall well short of the 630,000,000 acres stated in your article, but not quite as bad as the equivalent of ~5 Earths. No Subject Posted by Michael Conner Thanks guys, I realized the mistake a few weeks ago as well, but there was an issue with the password change on the server, so I was not able to login and make the necessary changes until now. Good article Posted by Jeremy I am really for pushing a greater use of E85 so I liked hearing the reasons why it is not 100% feasible. I think your most important point is that it is an "alternative." Obiviously my biggest current hangup is our dependence on oil, specifically foreign oil. I can tolerate, to a degree, the current price level, but it is the uncertainty and continuos price fluctation for a good that is not so much a luxury as it is a necessity that irritates me. Having a comparable and accesible alternative, such as E85, will help lessen our depedence on normal gasoline at the pump. If we all had the option to choose what we wanted in our vehicle (choice being driven by price) simple economics would dictate a lowering of the prices, until it reached the price floor. Of course my explanation is quite simplified. We as Americans need to convince ourselves that it is not a bright idea to wait until our hand is forced by a crisis in oil supply. Yes we need to sacrifice some until alternative fuels are more feasible. But waiting until they are 100% better than current options may be a bad idea. Could you imagine what would happen to the country if our oil supplies were cut off? Now I don't know how we can work around the shortage of farmable land thing. But that like the poorer fuel effeciency are things that I am confident our engineers and others can improve upon with time. I think a greater national demand to use E85 would help drive those improvements as well as the discovery of a more permanent and feasible energy source. Bottom line, we need to stop waiting till it hurts before we seek help. Nice article and good comments. Thanks. No Subject
|
Related Articles
Inside Whim
Visit Our Sponsors
|