You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
Interesting Article in this months Car and Driver on the realities of Ethenol. Unfortunately it isn't on their website yet. They deduced that presently it is nothing more than a corn subsidy for farmers and creates only between 5 and 20% new energy because of the energy it takes to create. Further more users of flex-fuel vehicles can expect a 30% decrease in fuel economy when using ethenol and the price is about the same as gasoline.
They said that the main reason that the domestic auto makers are embracing it is because of a giant loophole in CAFE standards. Apparently with flex fuel vehicles CAFE only counts the mileage of the 15% gasoline, making the vehicles appear to get great mileage as fare as CAFE and raising the mileage of the automakers fleet dramatically.
According to the article, in order for the U.S. to reach the goal of 10% of our fuel being Ethenol, we would need to increase farmland by 25%. This would make going beyond 10% very difficult. They did add that future technologies could allow us to use switchgrass or the entire corn stalk, which would help increase output.
I encourage everyone to read it if they get a chance.
Ethanol works a bit better if you use a better plant species. Corn, as the article points out, is next to useless. Sugar beet and sugar-cane are better. Cellulosic (from biomass) is the best ethanol approach.
However, regardless of plant-species used, for a given amount of land, taking the biodiesel route will yield vastly more energy (and gallons) than the ethanol approach.
I wouldn't waste my time reading such an article. The agenda they have is pretty clear. They are simply continuing to frame the discussion on ethanol solely around corn. This is a tactic used by anti ethanol groups, most noteably big oil. They keep talking about ethanol, but only about corn ethanol. They know corn is not a very viable source of energy, so as long as they can keep the word ethanol linked with corn, then they have nothing to worry about.
Sugar cane/beets yield 3-4 times the energy it takes to produce it. Switchgrasses yield 8-10 times the energy. And soy biodiesels even more than that. Plus biodiesel will run with no alterations in almost any diesel engine produced today.
Bottom line. This petty bickering about ethanol is ridiculous. We have the means, we have the technology, we could even use the same distribution chain. The only thing preventing us from being 75-80% energy independant in 5 years big oil & people with piles & piles of money.
"Speed doesn't have anything to do with mileage. My truck has an overdrive gear for a reason." - Credited to an unnamed Freeper reguarding changing the speed limit back to 55MPH.
30% FE hit? Where? With what vehicle? Even the crappy FFVs today are doing better than that- between 22-25% hit for all classes, and the gap is narrowing each year.
A vehicle optimized for E85 only would almost be able to match the FE (within 5-10%) of a gas-only version. It's not just about the Joule energy stored; its also about how it gets employed to do work. Having such detonation-resistant (high octane) stuff lets one do wonders with combustion tricks to gain back some FE benefits.
True enough about the amount of corn, etc. But all realistic scenarios use corn-based E85 as a supplement only until cellulosic conversion is feasible on an industrial scale- less than 10 years. It cannot be done today, however- not on the scale we need to supply the US. But it will get there. Patience.
In the meantime I'll eat, drink, and drive my corn, thank you very much. Its a start.
Its well established that until now FFVs were a stunt given to the big 3 by the EPA to balance out their CAFE a la what Arch summarized. BUt that was then- now its more serious; its up to we consumers to keep them that way.
Ethanol works a bit better if you use a better plant species. Corn, as the article points out, is next to useless. Sugar beet and sugar-cane are better. Cellulosic (from biomass) is the best ethanol approach.
However, regardless of plant-species used, for a given amount of land, taking the biodiesel route will yield vastly more energy (and gallons) than the ethanol approach.
The article did indeed point this out and discuss it at length.... but it also said that the technology wasn't here yet. Sure they could have speculated, but then they would have really been bashed for bias.
Ethanol viability
