Ethanol Production causes harms the environment!

[john9001]

Originally posted by LePaul
Its too bad they havent developed oil shale production....this can be processed into synthetic crude oil.  
 

Canada is producing oil from oil shale, and it's not synthetic, it's real oil.

[Casca]

Originally posted by Angus
There is a problem with out good old gasoline.
You see, we're going to run out of it....

Anyway, why is the USA so hot on making ethanol from corn? As I understand it, it's not nearly the most efficient way for biofuel, and the only explanation I have heard for the mass is that the soil on large areas is unsuitable for many herbs because of exessive herbacide usage.

Anyone informed on this?

Yes.  "...soil on large areas is unsuitable for many herbs because of exessive herbacide usage." as you put it sounds like boilerplate from the PANNA website.  There is no basis in fact for the statement.

[Casca]

Originally posted by crockett
Get your facts straight.. Corn ethanol gets worse gas milage. The crap they are trying to push on us because of the farmers lobbyist.  Not other forms such as sugar or algae oil.

Hoist on one's own petard I'd say.

[WWhiskey]

Originally posted by mora
Yes. Alcohols should be forgotten and the focus should be in Bio-Diesel. It offers superior energy return. It can be made from anything and there's allready the equipment to use it, unlike ethanol.

ethanol is a primary ingrediant of Bio-diesel

[Donzo]

Originally posted by alskahawk
Dont know about ethnanol harming the envoirment, but these ethanol plants are popping up all over. So it's probally the future whether we like it or not. I've been to a couple of dozen in the midwest and haven't seen much visual evidence of harm. Most of the plants such as corn etc. that are being removed are planted for removal. Its not like chopping down a hundred year old tree.
 I think the real problem is cows farting. Maybe we should quit feeding them beans. Or maybe we should legalize cow hunting!

Granite Falls, MN...during the first year of operation, the new ethanol plant so badly depleted the ground water they had to start pumping water from the Minnesota river just to keep operations going.  It takes 4-5 gallons of water to make 1 gallon of ethanol.

Falling over ourselves to "fix"a problem that hasn't even been proven to exist is really turning out to be a not so good idea.

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by Donzo
Granite Falls, MN...during the first year of operation, the new ethanol plant so badly depleted the ground water they had to start pumping water from the Minnesota river just to keep operations going.  It takes 4-5 gallons of water to make 1 gallon of ethanol.

Falling over ourselves to "fix"a problem that hasn't even been proven to exist is really turning out to be a not so good idea.

This was the other fact I forgot to mention.  Ethanol production is also impacting local water supplies in areas where ethanol is being produced.  

You liberals can keep trying to sell this ethanol scam all you like.  I am not buying until some conclusive facts prove it is the right direction to head.

[Mark Luper]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Ethanol in gas causes roughly 30% less gas mileage.

That would depend a lot on the quantity of ethanol I would think. We run E10 here in the DFW metroplex.  That's 10% ethanol.

A 30% reduction of gas mileage would mean that a car that got 30 mpg would then suddenly only get 21 mpg.

My car is EPA rated at 29 mpg and I have gotten as much as 32 mpg for short stretches. This was done on E10 gas.

I actually don't beleive you would increase your gas consumption to 30% even on E85 which is 85% ethanol. I don't know what it would be and I would expect an increase in consumption since ethanol does not have as much energy as petroleum gasoline but I find it dificult to beleive it to be as much as 30%.

Mark

[Tigger29]

E85 results in a 25-30% decrease in fuel economy, but a slight increase in engine power.

E10 which is always used here in Missouri, would result in a slight decrease in economy, but it would be too marginal a difference to really make much of a difference.

I have a flex fuel Ranger, and 90% of the time I run E10, but every now and then if I'm in the area, I'll fill it up with E85 (There are only two stations in my area that sell it right now.. neither of which is convenient).

My truck loves the stuff.. runs much smoother.. peppier... kind of like giving it a treat.  It's also about 30-40 cents cheaper than E10 here, but still more expensive to use in the long run.  It also cleans out the fuel system nicely!

I agree, there are much more efficient ways to get ethanol other than Corn.. and we'll get there eventually, but Corn is the big thing right now.. for whatever reasons.

I'm kind of thinking this is a bit of a "test" to see how well we can adapt to alternative fuel sources...  Looks like we're failing.. miserably.

[SD67]

I've seen plenty of cars with seal issues due to ethanol blended fuels, and I've also seen engines and pumps that have damage from water content in the fuel.
If you want to know if you have ethanol in your fuel (some stations have been known to sell it without advertising it since it's a little cheaper) here's a simple test.
Take a graduated container and half fill it with the fuel. Now add 1/4 volume of water and shake. Once the solution settles and separates take note of the readings. If it is not blended fuel, the separation line will be at the same volume 1/4 water and 1/2 petroleum, the petroleum will be on top. If the fuel is blended there will appear to be more water than you added, this is because the ethanol has mixed with the water and is now separated from the petroleum fuel.
This test also rather graphically demonstrates the danger of using blended fuel, this separated contaminated fuel will sit at the bottom of the tank and make its way into the pump and engine first, damaging the components it passes through. In cold conditions ice can form in these components and create further troubles.

[rpm]

Originally posted by Maverick
RPM,

How many production plants are there for switch grass in operation?

I think at the moment there is one. All the other plants are geared for corn production. Bush called for a switch to switchgrass (cellulose) production at last years SOTU. It will take a fundamental shift in production technique to get rid of corn based ethanol. Archer-Daniels-Midland has no stake in switching to cellulose based ethanol. They grow corn, not hay.

If Congress would redistribute subsidies to switchgrass production you would see vast amounts of "unsuitable" land put to use growing a crop that would fuel a good portion of our needs at a reasonable cost.

[AWMac]

It's a sad day when the O'Club discusses crap like this...

Needs more Cow Bell.

[mora]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Well, with about a 30% reduction in mileage, you end up using the SAME amount of straight gas as before, and you're spending 50% more.

There is 85% of Ethanol in E85 and 15% gasoline as a stabilizer.

[mora]

Originally posted by Mark Luper
That would depend a lot on the quantity of ethanol I would think. We run E10 here in the DFW metroplex.  That's 10% ethanol.

A 30% reduction of gas mileage would mean that a car that got 30 mpg would then suddenly only get 21 mpg.

My car is EPA rated at 29 mpg and I have gotten as much as 32 mpg for short stretches. This was done on E10 gas.

I actually don't beleive you would increase your gas consumption to 30% even on E85 which is 85% ethanol. I don't know what it would be and I would expect an increase in consumption since ethanol does not have as much energy as petroleum gasoline but I find it dificult to beleive it to be as much as 30%.

Mark

Around 30% with 100% Ethanol. And everyboby conveniently forgets that gasoline 100% hasn't been sold in years.

[Xasthur]

Originally posted by mora
If you use a 2-Stroke engine which hasn't been properly tuned problems might arise. Yet you would have been using gasoline with an oxygen component for years allready.

From end users perspective there's no difference whether the fuel contains a little bit of ethanol or "MTBE" or equivalent.

That really depends on what engine you're putting it in.

My mate put fuel with ethanol into his car without realising (the sign saying that the petrol station used ethanol in its fuel was very small and behind the counter behind the clerk). He drove 10 minutes down the road in his XM Falcon and it started spluttering, back-firing and cutting out. He had to fix a bunch of things from 10 minutes of accidental use.

I run my car on high octane unleaded from a smaller service station that cleans its tanks regularly and does not use ethanol blended fuels. I don't fill up anywhere else


What about BMW's hydrogen fuelled engine idea?

[Maverick]

Originally posted by mora
Around 30% with 100% Ethanol. And everyboby conveniently forgets that gasoline 100% hasn't been sold in years.

If you are referring to straight 100% gasoline, no additives like lead you are correct and also splitting hairs. That was not a very good fuel for engines that develop much horse power. If you are referring to gasoline that does not have something like alcohol or MTBE you are in error.