Now the whole “let’s use ethanol so we can displace foreign sources of oil” argument might actually have merit in this case. Using good ol’ USA coal to heat the plant, distill the mash, and generate the electricity needs of the plant - all to make a product that replaces gasoline made from petroleum.
Finally the ethanol folks are making some sense. Of course, it still is using more energy to produce the ethanol than the energy derived from the product, but at least it’s our wasted energy.[^]
But what will it do for air pollution. Coal is a dirty fuel[:(] Oil plants are much cleaner, but of course would not do much to reduce oil consumption. In the overall picture, using gasoline in autos is much cleaner than using ethanol produced by burning coal.
Well alright! At least we know someone from N.D. reads these forums enough to spot my idea![;)] Now, all they need to do is put up some windmills for extra electricity. Both Dakotas have a lot of buzz going on about wind energy right now. The main hurdle is always transmission lines, and a power company to work with. Maybe that wouldn’t be an issue, if the lines only had to run next door to the ethanol plant.[:D]
Ethanol won’t be a viable substitute for gasoline until we come up with a different feedstock than corn. Brazil is doing quite nicely using sugarcane and sawgrass is being suggested as the ideal raw material in this country. The use of corn as an ethanol feedstock could drive up the price of corn since it would add to existing demands for corn in food processing.
I read on the internet somewhere a couple of days ago, but I forget exactly where, that even if all of the corn grown in the US was converted to ethanol it would only replace 13% of the gasoline used.
From Lab Notes: Research from the Berkeley College of Engineering
Volume 5, Issue 3, March 2005:
In 2004, approximately 3.57 billion gallons of ethanol were used as a gas additive in the United States, according to the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA). During the February State of the Union address, President George Bush urged Congress to pass an energy bill that would pump up the amount to 5 billion gallons by 2012. UC Berkeley geoengineering professor Tad W. Patzek thinks that’s a very bad idea.
For two years, Patzek has analyzed the environmental ramifications of ethanol, a renewable fuel that many believe could significantly reduce our dependence on petroleum-based fossil fuels. According to Patzek though, ethanol may do more harm than good.
“In terms of renewable fuels, ethanol is the worst solution,” Patzek says. “It has the highest energy cost with the least benefit.”
From Lab Notes: Research from the Berkeley College of Engineering
Volume 5, Issue 3, March 2005:
In 2004, approximately 3.57 billion gallons of ethanol were used as a gas additive in the United States, according to the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA). During the February State of the Union address, President George Bush urged Congress to pass an energy bill that would pump up the amount to 5 billion gallons by 2012. UC Berkeley geoengineering professor Tad W. Patzek thinks that’s a very bad idea.
For two years, Patzek has analyzed the environmental ramifications of ethanol, a renewable fuel that many believe could significantly reduce our dependence on petroleum-based fossil fuels. According to Patzek though, ethanol may do more harm than good.
“In terms of renewable fuels, ethanol is the worst solution,” Patzek says. “It has the highest energy cost with the least benefit.”
Recently there was a show on TLC or Discovery channel about refining oil into all its component parts. They mentioned that it took more energy to distill the oil into gasoline than the energy derived from gasoline. I heard this mentioned twice since then in other places. It never seems to come up when people are discussing ethanol.
I’m pretty sure that ethanol plants using coal already exist.
About the corn supply argument: are they counting what can be grown or what is currently grown? Farmers are only going to grow what they can sell - simple supply and demand. But these professors can manipulate any info to say what they want it to say. They live in a world of theory, not of practice and application.
Nuclear: Yes it should be used more, ONLY if we can finally build a decent nuke waste disposal site. Also from what I’ve heard, they can re-use most nuclear waste depending what kind of reactors are built.
As far as ethanol - it is no silver bullet. There is no silver bullet. We will have to use a variety of sources, including straight electric for local trips perhaps. Or we can try to curb demand. Am I the only one getting ill from these new Hummer commercials?
But I’d rather subsidize a farmer rather than a Saudi.
“Partly because of these concerns about radioactivity and the cost of containing it, the American public and electric utilities have preferred coal combustion as a power source. Today 52% of the capacity for generating electricity in the United States is fueled by coal, compared with 14.8% for nuclear energy. Although there are economic justifications for this preference, it is surprising for two reasons. First, coal combustion produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are suspected to cause climatic warming, and it is a source of sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, which are harmful to human health and may be largely responsible for acid rain. Second, although not as well known, releases from coal combustion contain naturally occurring radioactive materials–mainly, uranium and thorium.”
biofuels aren’t going to cut it in the long run, at BEST they’re stopgap measures.
more energy research is needed to make advanced energy production possible. there are better nuclear power plant designs around (4th generation as opposed to the current 2nd generation ie pressurized water reactors that dominate the industry) And while it may sound like science fiction, I thik the only way were going to get around the current energy crisis will be to develop a viable fusion technology. any other combustable fuels will run out, at some point. And lets not forget we have to do this before the polar ice caps melt, the north altantic current stops, and the world gets kicked into a new ice age. It won’t happen overnight in the movies, but its a frighteningly real possibility in the next 50-100 years.
Using corn for ethanol may cause its price to rise as a food for human consumption. Has anyone studied the possibility of utilizing tobacco as a biofuel? Our society is trying to discourage its’ consumption by people anyway. If you remember history, the tobacco industry fought toothe and nail against virtually all of the current smoking restrictions. I have always wondered what would have happened if all this effort had been directed towards finding an alternate use for tobacco.
The raise in prices is half the reason many states (such as mine, Nebraska) support it. I read an article in the local paper that while the cost of farm equipment, fertilizer, and seeds have risen; the price of corn is still at '70s prices. However, I do like the idea of tobacco => fuel.
Don’t sweat the anthropogenic climate change claims, our nation has more important survival battles to address, energy independence being the most critical economic battle we face. Anything that reduces the need to import energy from potentially unfriendly nations while at the same time addressing the need for energy is a good thing. The more coal fired power plants, coal fired biofuels refineries, coal liquification plants, etc. we can get built and running, the better off we’ll be.
By Patrick Moore
The Washington Post
Sunday, April 16, 2006; Page B01
In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that
nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my
compatriots. That’s the conviction that inspired Greenpeace’s first
voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing
of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska’s Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my
views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to
update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change."
Actually I believe “catastrophic climate change” is a lot of hype and very little science, but nuclear energy is less poluting than other sources, and has proven safer too. Japan and France have been using nuclear energy for years (using US developed technology for both plant design and “waste” storage/disposal). The nuclear “waste” problem is hype. Most of the “waste” is actually a valuable resource and there are safe ways t
By Patrick Moore
The Washington Post
Sunday, April 16, 2006; Page B01
In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that
nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my
compatriots. That’s the conviction that inspired Greenpeace’s first
voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing
of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska’s Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my
views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to
update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change."
Actually I believe “catastrophic climate change” is a lot of hype and very little science, but nuclear energy is less poluting than other sources, and has proven safer too. Japan and France have been using nuclear energy for years (using US developed technology for both plant design and “waste” storage/disposal). The nuclear “waste” problem is hype. Most of the “waste” is actually a valuable resource an
You started the thread started with an article about burning coal as the energy source to convert crops to ethanal. This is wasteful and polluting. Nuclear produced electricity may be a better energy source.
I just had another thought (maybe crackpot). Maybe ethanal plants could be built in conjun
