Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Hybrid Vehicles Ethanol - E85 FlexFuel The Inconvenient Truth About Ethanol
921 messages, Last post on Oct 07, 2009 at 10:53 AM
You are in the Ethanol - E85 FlexFuel Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer
|
Replying to: yerth10 (Jun 27, 2009 8:46 pm) I have several issues with your broad statement. Most are answered by your own link. If there is a breakthrough in cellulosic ethanol development, that might change the equation.” Cellulosic ethanol promises larger yields than corn-based ethanol, but processes to produce it in any substantial quantity are still being developed. “Corn is not the right crop for biofuels,” Mr. Chu has said. Last month, the Energy Department announced that $786.5 million in stimulus funds would be used to speed advanced biofuels research and demonstration projects. That is exactly what I have posted since this thread was started. Corn ethanol is NOT a good choice for America. From your second link comes this statement on Cellulosic ethanol R&D. It is FAR from becoming viable. The process is at the same point it was 5 years ago. Not commercially viable. What is so hard to accept about that? It takes more energy to produce ethanol than you get out of it. Shell and Iogen are no longer pursuing U.S. Department of Energy funding for a second commercial-scale plant, in Idaho Falls, Idaho, but have not ruled out building the facility as part of a broader commercial fuel rollout, noted David Williams, a Shell spokesman in London. "The vision is large-scale production and significant commercial availability," Williams said. "However, cost-competitive advanced biofuels in substantial quantities we estimate are five to 10 years away." More R&D should be done before they experiment with peoples cars. So far corn ethanol is a BIG ZERO. |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jun 28, 2009 5:23 am) I can provide you with links but they are in portuguese (guess you can still use google translator) as proof. As for being damaging to the rainforest, it´s just BS for a simple fact: sugarcane does NOT grow well in the amazon, as the land there is sandy and too moist. So nobody grows it there simply because of that: it does not grow well. period. Now, if you say they are deforesting for cattle I´ll keep quiet because I know that´s true (even though last year deforestation had a 82% drop). I do agree however that corn ethanol is financially unsound. America could just import ethanol from Brazil and get it over with.
|
|
|
Replying to: galonga (Jun 28, 2009 5:49 am) You probably know that this is at least a 100 year old battle on what to use in our cars. Henry Ford wanted to continue running on alcohol and Rockefeller wanted to use his waste product from heating oil production. That being gasoline. It is very interesting reading how Rockefeller won the battle.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jun 28, 2009 5:35 am) Actually, that's a pretty good reason to keep chipping away at it from an R&D perspective, though it's also justification for not doing so. No, there's no money in it right now so the market doesn't really want to invest in it...one of the reasons is careful manipulation of gas prices by certain countries.  The smart thing to do would be to continue research on it so that when someone shuts off the taps again and/or oil gets scarce there is at least one alternative ready to go. Waiting until after the oil is scarce to complete the R&D is a bad move and could be catastrophic to our economy. The market isn't always good at planning ahead, and to be frank, having a sudden loss of our primary fuel source with nothing even remotely in place to replace it has major national security implications as well. Mind you, I'm talking about stuff like switchgrass and other biomass. Not that whole idiotic corn-ethanol giveaway to big Ag. |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jun 28, 2009 5:58 am)  Incidentally, that's also a good parallel to today: people are using the same reasoning to justify using waste cooking oil, etc, waste biomass, etc. |
|
|
Replying to: yerth10 (Jun 27, 2009 8:46 pm) The proof is in the pudding. If ethanol were so crucial to our “petroleum Independence” there would not be a $0.50 per gallon subsidy to farmers (because the price would be added at the pump) and we would certainly not have a $0.50 per gallon tariff on ethanol imports. Another word on corn/ethanol subsidies; Don’t hide the true cost of ethanol in subsidies, put it on the price at the pump so the public can see just how much it is costing them. Patting me on the back and telling me that ethanol is good for the country and then steeling the money out of my pocket is not impressing me. Ethanol is a negative energy source; with all the energy used to plant, fertilize, harvest, process and transport, the damage to the land and 10% reduction of MPG for E10, it takes more energy to produce ethanol than is gained. Ethanol is pure politics and until the subsidies and tariffs are removed you will never convince me otherwise.
|
|
|
Replying to: jkinzel (Jun 28, 2009 6:49 am) The real cost to American taxpayers for this totally wrong approach to foreign oil dependence should include the real and total costs of clean-ups and also include the shorter lifespans of boats, boat motors as well as cars. There is nothing good about ethanol in fuels for the US consumer. |
|
|
Latest news by yerth10 ... Another news is in year-2008, the Oil consumption in US fell by over 6% and Worldwide, it fell by 0.6% even after including Ethanol (which actually grew 40%). Ethanol would have taken some market share from Oil. ... Re: Latest news [yerth10] by jkinzel ... Ethanol is a negative energy source; with all the energy used to plant, fertilize, harvest, process and transport, the damage to the land and 10% reduction of MPG for E10, it takes more energy to produce ethanol than is gained. ... Corn-based E10 is good for greedy corn conglomerates and crooked politicians, but is very bad for the economy, the environment, worldwide food production, and a fair number of engines (marine, yard equipment, etc.). The Green movement is losing credibility over E10. It's time to admit E10 was a mistake. |
|
|
The ethanol industry has applied for a waiver to increase the ethanol content from 10% to 15%. EPA is accepting comments until July 20, 2009. The corn-ethanol industry has many lobbyists working for it. But this is our chance to be heard. Often regs pass or waivers like this one are allowed because the regulatory agency received no opposing comments. If we don't take the time to comment, then we have ourselves to blame as well as the ethanol producers. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2009/April/Day-21/a9115.htm
|
|
|
Replying to: morin2 (Jun 28, 2009 1:42 pm)
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Hybrid Vehicles Ethanol - E85 FlexFuel The Inconvenient Truth About Ethanol
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
