South America largely does not use ethanol. In South America, Brazil is the country that is huge into ethanol.
Brazil's large appetite for ethanol has a severe impact on the environment, not only does the alcohol production contribute CO2 and other global warming gases and smog, but the quest for more farmland to grow more crops has resulted in the destruction of the rain forest.
@Schemefighter Brazil was the country I was thinking of. Thank you.
Tailpipe emissions are much lower compared to gasoline and the CO2 from the production of ethanol is reabsorbed by the same plants that are used to make ethanol in a process called the carbon cycle. Besides, they make itout of the byproduct of refining their sugar cane. And they only use 1% of farmland to get their nation's ethanol supply.
Once again you are partly wrong. Burning alcohol produces more smog precursors than gasoline. I forget the name of it but there is allegedly some sort of byproduct that is created in the alcohol burning process that is toxic to the central nervous system and causes cancer. So in many respects alcohol produces more pollutants than gasoline.
I got my facts from many places. Engineering school, practical experience in engineering, manufacturing, farmers, agricultural experts, etc...
Where did you get your dishonest shallow platitudes from; Petrobras or Brazil-Japan Ethanol? You're spewing a lot of the fascist rhetoric from the global warming hysteria movement.
@Schemefighter It's not just for environmental reasons, it's to help America stop giving into the high prices of petroleum and to create buisness oppurtunities.
At the methodologies that you propose are likely to produce the very antithesis of the platitudes that you spew. By not letting the manure go back into the soil your depleting the soil which is unsustainable (nonrenewable). The methodologies that you propose sound less labor and energy-efficient. The methodology is it that you propose would make us more dependent on high priced petroleum based fertilizers.
Years ago the state hired me for my expertise to reduce automotive emissions. I moved on to other work because I found it frustrating to work with layman like you that think they know it all and spew myths, dishonest rhetoric, confabulations and junk science.
BTW for awhile I lived within sight of the Indy 500 racetrack and I used to get free pit passes. ;) I used to consult and drink/party with the racing teams. ;) I have never been affiliated with the oil industry.
I was familiar with the carbon cycle probably before you were born. I'm just amazed that many people that are advocating burning alcohol demonize the CO2 that is produced by burning gasoline, yet they embrace the CO2 that is produced by alcohol. It's a hypocritical double standard.
Using 1% of their farmland to get their nations ethanol supply? That's a lie, that's just not possible. They must not be counting what they are using from the rain forest they are destroying, they must not be counting agricultural byproducts that are normally used for fertilizer and feed. The rate that they are depleting the soil is not sustainable. They are harming the environment. And as I pointed out they are using dishonest statistics.
The energy that is used to convert the ethanol is from hydroelectric power plants have had a large negative impact on the environment. It's difficult to produce ethanol at a reasonable price unless there is a reasonably cheap source of energy. In the United States there is a shortage of energy. Energy is overpriced and short because there hasn't been an investment in infrastructure. Our energy costs are much higher also because we have much higher environmental and safety standards.
If you use cow manure then you're diverting raw materials that would be normally used for fertilizer for agriculture; so agriculture still suffers as that will drive the cost of food and fertilizer up. While in many respects it makes more sense to use manure than grains, fruits, wood, grasses, ect..
@Schemefighter Wasn't it manure-based fettilizer that created an ecoli problem for crops? It is a better source to make ethanol out of and it will hopefully be replacing crop-based ethanol by 2012.
It's not known for sure what caused the E. coli outbreaks in the US. It is thought that the E. coli outbreaks in the US was from runoff water containing feces from a nearby cattle farm, or from dear or wild pigs that raided the crops.
So if you object to using the manure based fertilizer, then what do you suggest? Depleting the soil till it's no good for farming like they do in many parts of South America and other parts of the world? Do you know it was practices like that that caused the dust bowl and reduced our agricultural production? Or are you suggesting that we use more man-made petroleum fertilizers? That would seem less environmentally friendly and less energy-efficient.
As I said before the safety and environmental standards are higher in the US so it makes things more expensive but safer. IIRC unlike in other countries; In the US manure can't be used directly on food crops it has to be composted and aged to reduce the bad bacteria and viruses. In countries in South America and Asia they allow fresh manure to be used on food crops and sewage water is used for irrigation. Which is partly why those countries have much more health issues.
I would think it would be more environmentally friendly and more energy-efficient to use manure as fertilizer rather than fuel. Are you connected to some profiteering industry like EarthRenew which is exploiting the environment and the hysteria from the global warming movement and the oil crunch?
With manure as with all of the raw materials there still is the fermentation process that requires a lot of energy to convert it into a concentrated liquid fuel that is strong enough that it can burn in our cars and more easily transported. Alcohol often requires more energy to produce (distill and process and handle) than the alcohol itself produces when it is burned. So it is highly inefficient.
the problem with corn-based ethanol is not the corn, it's the ethanol...and more so the way we make it. We can now use the same corn kernel and make food, fertilizer AND fuel. We can now "have our fuel and eat it too".
You fascist promoting this corn ethanol fuel are so ignorant and shallow minded. The technology to make food fertilizer and fuel from corn is nothing new, it's been around for decades. To make fuel and fertilizer from corn is largely expensive, energy inefficient, eco-inefficient, environmentally unfriendly, etc.. It is also reduces the amount of food available; so it drives food prices up and helps starve people.
I consider "corn fuel" just a stepping stone towards truly sustainable energy. For example, cellulosic fermentation from industry "waste" like corn stovers, arboreal waste and perennial grasses seems like a viable strategy imho.
Corn ethanol being a stepping stone toward truly sustainable energy; might be like Hitler's and Obama's socialized medicine being a stepping stone toward a utopia. Often the consequences is the very antithesis of the rhetoric, socialized medicine brought Zyklon B. Socialized healthcare brought forced euthanasia and sterilization and abortions. Work programs brought forced labor camps. Reeducation camps, would be more appropriately named death camps.
While there is some place for corn ethanol and corn oil to be used as fuels, I feel that it is being way overcommitted and is being abused in a way that is harmful to our economy, the environment and the health of the public. While there are some benefits to corn fuel, there are also some harmful consequences; it's not the Shangri-La that the fascist liberals are touting.
I think we should look more into methane hydrate (methane ice) as it is a global greenhouse gas that is being allowed to just be spewed into the atmosphere when it could be harnessed for use. Why should we resort to corn, and other agricultural things that will harm our environment, use valuable energy resources and strip nutrients from our soil and deprive us of food to feed our masses: when global warming gases like methane are allowed to contribute GW without being harnessed?
@Schemefighter Methane from cow manure is being harnessed as a fuel. A company called Panda Ethanol us using methane hoppers on their facility sites to power their machinery rather than relying on the power grid.
So is Panda Ethanol the company you are shilling for? The company is trying to use the carbon credit con to get money from the government under the guise of helping the environment when in fact it is helping to deplete agricultural soil? The company that filed for bankruptcy protection? You still haven't answered my questions, instead you just spew more manure.
I think it is foolish to waste time, money and resources vastly expanding our production of alcohol that is harmful to our environment and is horribly inefficient; when we are allowing methane to be wasted by venting into the atmosphere and increasing global warming. I suspect it would be much more environmentally friendly, energy-efficient to harness the energy of the methane that is venting into our atmosphere.
What the heck is wrong with you? Your reply has nothing to do with what I said. If you think your reply is relevant to what I said then you must not even have a high school level understanding of science. How come most of you ethanol supporters seem to be totally inept? You seem to be greedy ignorant shills just spewing simpleminded rhetoric. You don't seem to have a clue what you are talking about.
Methane is a global warming gas. Methane ice or methane gas is not something you spill into the soil. Perhaps I should use language that you might understand. Cow farts are largely methane gas. I'm tired on wasting my time on the dishonest moron like you. You can't even have an intelligent honest conversation. It's like trying to discuss the theory of relativity with a kindergartner.
You wouldn't have made such a fool of yourself if you watched the video. Like most fascist liberals you are just spewing dishonest ignorant platitudes. We should diversify instead of becoming so dependent on corn which will increase world hunger, hurt the the environment with air pollution like smog, increased carbon dioxide emissions and deplete the soil from over farming and lack of crop rotation.
I agree it's a bad idea. After you've made the ethanol from the corn, you've captured about 1% of the energy (or even less) from the sun shining on the corn plants. A good solar panel may capture 18%. From standpoint of land use, 18 acres of corn is equivalent to 1 acre of solar panels. Ridiculous use of land.
ethanol is only good for race cars. It burns clean emissions and you get a better mpg at high speeds only. The fuel's octane is high great for horsepower thats why IRL uses 100% ethanol. I think formula one should switch to Ethanol they would make much more hp.
Shinjitsu2: ethanol does not burn clean. In some respects it might be cleaner than gasoline. However ethanol produces more smog components than gasoline. So in some respects burning ethanol is actually less environmentally friendly. It can still produce nitrogen oxides that can become nitric acid and acid rain.
Ethanol mixed fuel sucks. Regular gas has a larger energy density than ethanol mixed fuel. Which means it diminishes fuel economy so you actually wind up losing money, since you have to buy more gas to drive the same distance you used to with regular gas. And they are trying to make it the standard, which means that soon we will all be filling up our tanks everyday reminiscing about how you used to be able to actually drive somewhere with half a tank of gas.
I just had a thought. You know that ethanol is produced by yeast fermenting sugars . It seems there is one other byproduct of this process . Hmmmm, what could it be. Oh yeah CO2, and a lot of it. Isn't that what some people believe to be a greenhouse gas?
Tjn0616: I dont know all the properties of ethanol on the top of my head; however I do know off the top of my head that ethanol attracts water; therefore in a roundabout way methanol can cause corrosion in many ferrous alloys. So at least in the abstract sense MECHAPIXEL is correct. I think the byproducts of burning ethanol are also more corrosive than gasoline. Ethanol combustion produces more smog.
ethanol attracts water in any fuel tank that is not completely sealed. boats are a prime example... this destroys gas tanks, fuel lines, and can ruin a motor. Its also less efficient in normal engines, reducing mpg by a factor that makes any benefit of emissions totally negated. This is not a feasible alternative to gas... we need to stop putting it in gasoline and find better alternatives, of which there are many
The only interest DC has in ethanol is how they can keep it dominated by the big players to maintain the centralized economy. Decentralized economics in fuel production is their worry but that is our security.
Ethanol, what a joke. Ya, it sounded good 30 years ago. That was before we knew Ethanol increased the evaporation rate of gasoline(which leads to pollutants that cause smog), and that more energy is consumed producing Ethanol, than Ethanol produces itself.
Like the video said, if Iowa wasn't such a big player in the election process, Ethanol would be a forgotten memory.
brilliantly written, the motivation to support ethanol is driven by a political system that is so scared to challange any so called green policy, never mind the fact or science behind it. The green movement (although well grounded and obviously cannot be ignored) has gotten way out of hand is in danger of self imploding due to what is happening with increased forest degredation, increase fertiliser use and like in the clip, the removal of conservation areas to supply land for this 'green' fuel.
You have to remember that engines designed solely for ethanol get MUCH better power/milage out of it than so called "flex fuel" engines.
Unfortunately these cars are not marketed in the US.
Race cars (and Brazilian vehicles) run at super high compression (14:1 or higher) to take advantage of the 116 octane of ethanol! Flex-fuel vehicles are limited to 10:1 compression in order to also use gasoline and that wastes the potential of alcohol.
I find it interesting. It takes one gallon of oil to produce one gallon of ethanol that translate into two gallons of fuel, to take me just as far as one gallon of gasoline did before. Is that dumb or what?
Corn is the problem--not ethanol. Corn only produces 500 gallons of ethanol per acre. Sugar cane will give 900, switchgrass 1,200, hemp and cattails 2,500. You can also use a digester to make methane gas from your byproduct that comes from the distiller, and then use that gas to heat your next alcohol batch in the distiller. There's no need to truck ethanol very far--there's always some crop that will grow anywhere that you can use to make it. And we could do away with polution control devices.
Corn based ethanol, and the guise that it can be used back and forth with gasoline in a vehicle is a political/ industry joke! Ethanol used in a higher than gasoline compression engine burns damn clean! Almost any liquid fuel will burn dirty if ignited at lower than optimum compression ratios!
Ethanol is a great fuel...people just have a very wrong idea about how to use it and where to derive it from!
Renewable energy ONLY. The same guys who screw me over when I buy a gallon of gas will happily screw me over when I buy a gallon of ethanol. I litigate against these people, they are scum of the highest order. AND, with ethanol, SAY BYE BYE to forests!!!
Most people are slowly learning that diverting food crops to make biofuel for inefficient SUV's is a "Crime Against HHumanity", but few people seem to understand the well-documented science of the deadly cancer-causing atmospheric "aldehydes" that are produced when ethanol from any source (food OR cellulosic) is burned in internal combustion engines. See YouTube video: "Burning Ethanol: DEADLY Aldehydes"
Biodiesel also produces these unhealthy aldehydes (like Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde).
I agree with you IQ174. When I first heard about the subsidized conversion of a valuable food crop such as corn simply to fuel our SUV's (read Stupid Useless Vehicles) I almost couldn't believe it. Talk about a mistake of biblical proportions! Stop the madness.
Another good reason against this is the weather. If one year our ethanol crops run into a drought, prices will skyrocket. This is just a political scam to get votes.
What the hell are you blaming President Bush for. E85 Ethanol is Al Gore's "Go Green" pet project and it's his idea backed by the Liberal left. Get a clue will ya.
It's easy for everyone to blame the president for their troubes, but how many of you have cut your use of gas down to try to help lower the price of gas and fuel?
Blaming George Bush for Al Gore's E85 Ethanol project is dishonest and foolish!!
It was an good idea to look for new fuels, however, they should have been able to see how E85 would disrupt the economy over the next few years. Sure, if ethanol production gets stopped and we gotta pay more for straight gas, but I'll take that over struggling to pay for the grocery bill as well as my gasoline.
And nevermind the fact that El Paso county CO. dropped ethanol because when used as a fuel, it creates even more pollution than straight gas. My 98' GMC makes 16 mpg on gas or 11 mpg on ethanol gas. Simple economics, and noone in Washington understands that.
Schemefighter: First, Bush has either fallen for the fradulent global warming B.S. or is playing political games, but you're basically correct, Bush has (in many ways) run this administration like a Democrat. Second, "corn" ethanol has always been known to pose production problems with fermentation, but other methods can create several types of alcohol fuels (including ethanol) without energy penalty and do not require corn/surgar biomass as feedstock.
Australia also has mandated that an E10 product 10% Ethanole is available for sale at petrol (gas) stations here. We however use the waste from sugar cane (that would normally be burnt) to produce it. Any product containing organic hydrogen (Organic material that will burn) Can be reduced by destructive distillation to produce ethanol.Why use a food crop? Our politicians are far dumber than yours but as we have a population roughly one tenth that of the US we cant afford such folly to win votes.
ChrisPCrunchy "Our politicians are far dumber than yours"
I find that hard to believe. ;) Though I don't know that much about you're your politics, so you might be right. Perhaps that's something all nations have in common, dumb politicians.
10% ethanol makes a fair amount of sense. Making it mandatory seems dumb.
10% ethanol in many cases can raise the octane cheaper and safer then other additives, though other octane additives are needed but not as much if ethanol is used. Ethanol is also beneficial in that it can absorb some of the water, thusly preventing rust and full line freeze up. However it can harm some cars and make pollution and fuel efficiency worse.
Ethanol can attack O2 sensors, and some seals, gaskets and floats, if it does, it almost always make fuel economy and emissions worse.
Ethanol can work if it's done right. Look at South America. They use sugar and it hardly affects their food supply.
IndyFan53 1 year ago
@IndyFan53
You don't know what you're talking about.
South America largely does not use ethanol. In South America, Brazil is the country that is huge into ethanol.
Brazil's large appetite for ethanol has a severe impact on the environment, not only does the alcohol production contribute CO2 and other global warming gases and smog, but the quest for more farmland to grow more crops has resulted in the destruction of the rain forest.
Schemefighter 1 year ago
@Schemefighter Brazil was the country I was thinking of. Thank you.
Tailpipe emissions are much lower compared to gasoline and the CO2 from the production of ethanol is reabsorbed by the same plants that are used to make ethanol in a process called the carbon cycle. Besides, they make itout of the byproduct of refining their sugar cane. And they only use 1% of farmland to get their nation's ethanol supply.
IndyFan53 1 year ago
@IndyFan53
Once again you are partly wrong. Burning alcohol produces more smog precursors than gasoline. I forget the name of it but there is allegedly some sort of byproduct that is created in the alcohol burning process that is toxic to the central nervous system and causes cancer. So in many respects alcohol produces more pollutants than gasoline.
Schemefighter 1 year ago
@Schemefighter Where did you get your facts? Exxon Mobil?
IndyFan53 1 year ago
@IndyFan53
I got my facts from many places. Engineering school, practical experience in engineering, manufacturing, farmers, agricultural experts, etc...
Where did you get your dishonest shallow platitudes from; Petrobras or Brazil-Japan Ethanol? You're spewing a lot of the fascist rhetoric from the global warming hysteria movement.
Schemefighter 1 year ago
@Schemefighter It's not just for environmental reasons, it's to help America stop giving into the high prices of petroleum and to create buisness oppurtunities.
IndyFan53 1 year ago
@IndyFan53
At the methodologies that you propose are likely to produce the very antithesis of the platitudes that you spew. By not letting the manure go back into the soil your depleting the soil which is unsustainable (nonrenewable). The methodologies that you propose sound less labor and energy-efficient. The methodology is it that you propose would make us more dependent on high priced petroleum based fertilizers.
Schemefighter 1 year ago
@IndyFan53
It seems that you are more concerned with shilling for industry than actually doing what's good for the environment or our country.
Schemefighter 1 year ago
@IndyFan53
Years ago the state hired me for my expertise to reduce automotive emissions. I moved on to other work because I found it frustrating to work with layman like you that think they know it all and spew myths, dishonest rhetoric, confabulations and junk science.
BTW for awhile I lived within sight of the Indy 500 racetrack and I used to get free pit passes. ;) I used to consult and drink/party with the racing teams. ;) I have never been affiliated with the oil industry.
Schemefighter 1 year ago
@IndyFan53
I was familiar with the carbon cycle probably before you were born. I'm just amazed that many people that are advocating burning alcohol demonize the CO2 that is produced by burning gasoline, yet they embrace the CO2 that is produced by alcohol. It's a hypocritical double standard.
Schemefighter 1 year ago
@IndyFan53
Using 1% of their farmland to get their nations ethanol supply? That's a lie, that's just not possible. They must not be counting what they are using from the rain forest they are destroying, they must not be counting agricultural byproducts that are normally used for fertilizer and feed. The rate that they are depleting the soil is not sustainable. They are harming the environment. And as I pointed out they are using dishonest statistics.
Schemefighter 1 year ago
@IndyFan53
The energy that is used to convert the ethanol is from hydroelectric power plants have had a large negative impact on the environment. It's difficult to produce ethanol at a reasonable price unless there is a reasonably cheap source of energy. In the United States there is a shortage of energy. Energy is overpriced and short because there hasn't been an investment in infrastructure. Our energy costs are much higher also because we have much higher environmental and safety standards.
Schemefighter 1 year ago
@Schemefighter That's why a good numer of ethanol producers power their plants with cow manure. It's dirt cheap and abundant.
IndyFan53 1 year ago
@IndyFan53
If you use cow manure then you're diverting raw materials that would be normally used for fertilizer for agriculture; so agriculture still suffers as that will drive the cost of food and fertilizer up. While in many respects it makes more sense to use manure than grains, fruits, wood, grasses, ect..
Schemefighter 1 year ago
@Schemefighter Wasn't it manure-based fettilizer that created an ecoli problem for crops? It is a better source to make ethanol out of and it will hopefully be replacing crop-based ethanol by 2012.
IndyFan53 1 year ago
@IndyFan53
It's not known for sure what caused the E. coli outbreaks in the US. It is thought that the E. coli outbreaks in the US was from runoff water containing feces from a nearby cattle farm, or from dear or wild pigs that raided the crops.
Schemefighter 1 year ago
@IndyFan53
So if you object to using the manure based fertilizer, then what do you suggest? Depleting the soil till it's no good for farming like they do in many parts of South America and other parts of the world? Do you know it was practices like that that caused the dust bowl and reduced our agricultural production? Or are you suggesting that we use more man-made petroleum fertilizers? That would seem less environmentally friendly and less energy-efficient.
Schemefighter 1 year ago
@IndyFan53
As I said before the safety and environmental standards are higher in the US so it makes things more expensive but safer. IIRC unlike in other countries; In the US manure can't be used directly on food crops it has to be composted and aged to reduce the bad bacteria and viruses. In countries in South America and Asia they allow fresh manure to be used on food crops and sewage water is used for irrigation. Which is partly why those countries have much more health issues.
Schemefighter 1 year ago
@IndyFan53
I would think it would be more environmentally friendly and more energy-efficient to use manure as fertilizer rather than fuel. Are you connected to some profiteering industry like EarthRenew which is exploiting the environment and the hysteria from the global warming movement and the oil crunch?
Schemefighter 1 year ago
@IndyFan53
With manure as with all of the raw materials there still is the fermentation process that requires a lot of energy to convert it into a concentrated liquid fuel that is strong enough that it can burn in our cars and more easily transported. Alcohol often requires more energy to produce (distill and process and handle) than the alcohol itself produces when it is burned. So it is highly inefficient.
Schemefighter 1 year ago
the problem with corn-based ethanol is not the corn, it's the ethanol...and more so the way we make it. We can now use the same corn kernel and make food, fertilizer AND fuel. We can now "have our fuel and eat it too".
annekeseley 1 year ago
@annekeseley
You fascist promoting this corn ethanol fuel are so ignorant and shallow minded. The technology to make food fertilizer and fuel from corn is nothing new, it's been around for decades. To make fuel and fertilizer from corn is largely expensive, energy inefficient, eco-inefficient, environmentally unfriendly, etc.. It is also reduces the amount of food available; so it drives food prices up and helps starve people.
Schemefighter 1 year ago
@Schemefighter
I consider "corn fuel" just a stepping stone towards truly sustainable energy. For example, cellulosic fermentation from industry "waste" like corn stovers, arboreal waste and perennial grasses seems like a viable strategy imho.
ZeroKelvin 1 year ago
@ZeroKelvin
Corn ethanol being a stepping stone toward truly sustainable energy; might be like Hitler's and Obama's socialized medicine being a stepping stone toward a utopia. Often the consequences is the very antithesis of the rhetoric, socialized medicine brought Zyklon B. Socialized healthcare brought forced euthanasia and sterilization and abortions. Work programs brought forced labor camps. Reeducation camps, would be more appropriately named death camps.
Schemefighter 1 year ago
@ZeroKelvin
While there is some place for corn ethanol and corn oil to be used as fuels, I feel that it is being way overcommitted and is being abused in a way that is harmful to our economy, the environment and the health of the public. While there are some benefits to corn fuel, there are also some harmful consequences; it's not the Shangri-La that the fascist liberals are touting.
Schemefighter 1 year ago
@ZeroKelvin
I think we should look more into methane hydrate (methane ice) as it is a global greenhouse gas that is being allowed to just be spewed into the atmosphere when it could be harnessed for use. Why should we resort to corn, and other agricultural things that will harm our environment, use valuable energy resources and strip nutrients from our soil and deprive us of food to feed our masses: when global warming gases like methane are allowed to contribute GW without being harnessed?
Schemefighter 1 year ago
@Schemefighter Methane from cow manure is being harnessed as a fuel. A company called Panda Ethanol us using methane hoppers on their facility sites to power their machinery rather than relying on the power grid.
IndyFan53 1 year ago
@IndyFan53
So is Panda Ethanol the company you are shilling for? The company is trying to use the carbon credit con to get money from the government under the guise of helping the environment when in fact it is helping to deplete agricultural soil? The company that filed for bankruptcy protection? You still haven't answered my questions, instead you just spew more manure.
Schemefighter 1 year ago
@ZeroKelvin
I think it is foolish to waste time, money and resources vastly expanding our production of alcohol that is harmful to our environment and is horribly inefficient; when we are allowing methane to be wasted by venting into the atmosphere and increasing global warming. I suspect it would be much more environmentally friendly, energy-efficient to harness the energy of the methane that is venting into our atmosphere.
Schemefighter 1 year ago
@Schemefighter Spilt alcohol is not as harmful to the soil as spilt oil is.
IndyFan53 1 year ago
@IndyFan53
What the heck is wrong with you? Your reply has nothing to do with what I said. If you think your reply is relevant to what I said then you must not even have a high school level understanding of science. How come most of you ethanol supporters seem to be totally inept? You seem to be greedy ignorant shills just spewing simpleminded rhetoric. You don't seem to have a clue what you are talking about.
Schemefighter 1 year ago
@IndyFan53
Methane is a global warming gas. Methane ice or methane gas is not something you spill into the soil. Perhaps I should use language that you might understand. Cow farts are largely methane gas. I'm tired on wasting my time on the dishonest moron like you. You can't even have an intelligent honest conversation. It's like trying to discuss the theory of relativity with a kindergartner.
Schemefighter 1 year ago
@annekeseley
You wouldn't have made such a fool of yourself if you watched the video. Like most fascist liberals you are just spewing dishonest ignorant platitudes. We should diversify instead of becoming so dependent on corn which will increase world hunger, hurt the the environment with air pollution like smog, increased carbon dioxide emissions and deplete the soil from over farming and lack of crop rotation.
Schemefighter 1 year ago
I agree it's a bad idea. After you've made the ethanol from the corn, you've captured about 1% of the energy (or even less) from the sun shining on the corn plants. A good solar panel may capture 18%. From standpoint of land use, 18 acres of corn is equivalent to 1 acre of solar panels. Ridiculous use of land.
real998877 2 years ago
ethanol is only good for race cars. It burns clean emissions and you get a better mpg at high speeds only. The fuel's octane is high great for horsepower thats why IRL uses 100% ethanol. I think formula one should switch to Ethanol they would make much more hp.
shinjitsu2 2 years ago
Shinjitsu2: ethanol does not burn clean. In some respects it might be cleaner than gasoline. However ethanol produces more smog components than gasoline. So in some respects burning ethanol is actually less environmentally friendly. It can still produce nitrogen oxides that can become nitric acid and acid rain.
Schemefighter 2 years ago
Ethanol mixed fuel sucks. Regular gas has a larger energy density than ethanol mixed fuel. Which means it diminishes fuel economy so you actually wind up losing money, since you have to buy more gas to drive the same distance you used to with regular gas. And they are trying to make it the standard, which means that soon we will all be filling up our tanks everyday reminiscing about how you used to be able to actually drive somewhere with half a tank of gas.
dodge69874 2 years ago 2
@dodge69874
Excellent comments!
Steve G. by the way ... what can I do to help stop the phony Ethanol lobbyists?
stevegyro 2 years ago
I just had a thought. You know that ethanol is produced by yeast fermenting sugars . It seems there is one other byproduct of this process . Hmmmm, what could it be. Oh yeah CO2, and a lot of it. Isn't that what some people believe to be a greenhouse gas?
snattler 2 years ago 7
for once democrats and republicans can agree that ethanol is a big scam
hitstick053 2 years ago 2
Ethanol is corossive to metal
MECHAPIXEL 2 years ago
no its corosive to ruber it takes out the oilthats why they use copper
tjn0616 2 years ago
Tjn0616: I dont know all the properties of ethanol on the top of my head; however I do know off the top of my head that ethanol attracts water; therefore in a roundabout way methanol can cause corrosion in many ferrous alloys. So at least in the abstract sense MECHAPIXEL is correct. I think the byproducts of burning ethanol are also more corrosive than gasoline. Ethanol combustion produces more smog.
Schemefighter 2 years ago
ethanol attracts water in any fuel tank that is not completely sealed. boats are a prime example... this destroys gas tanks, fuel lines, and can ruin a motor. Its also less efficient in normal engines, reducing mpg by a factor that makes any benefit of emissions totally negated. This is not a feasible alternative to gas... we need to stop putting it in gasoline and find better alternatives, of which there are many
BulletBlazerSS 2 years ago
Methane not ethanol. Methane from waste not ethanol from corn & sugar. Also, methane doesn't use fertilizer, it's usually a byproduct.
phildaguy 2 years ago
The only interest DC has in ethanol is how they can keep it dominated by the big players to maintain the centralized economy. Decentralized economics in fuel production is their worry but that is our security.
HowardSwitzer 3 years ago
Ethanol, what a joke. Ya, it sounded good 30 years ago. That was before we knew Ethanol increased the evaporation rate of gasoline(which leads to pollutants that cause smog), and that more energy is consumed producing Ethanol, than Ethanol produces itself.
Like the video said, if Iowa wasn't such a big player in the election process, Ethanol would be a forgotten memory.
CATMARK1 3 years ago
brilliantly written, the motivation to support ethanol is driven by a political system that is so scared to challange any so called green policy, never mind the fact or science behind it. The green movement (although well grounded and obviously cannot be ignored) has gotten way out of hand is in danger of self imploding due to what is happening with increased forest degredation, increase fertiliser use and like in the clip, the removal of conservation areas to supply land for this 'green' fuel.
thecvxman 3 years ago
You have to remember that engines designed solely for ethanol get MUCH better power/milage out of it than so called "flex fuel" engines.
Unfortunately these cars are not marketed in the US.
Race cars (and Brazilian vehicles) run at super high compression (14:1 or higher) to take advantage of the 116 octane of ethanol! Flex-fuel vehicles are limited to 10:1 compression in order to also use gasoline and that wastes the potential of alcohol.
tlgosser 3 years ago
I find it interesting. It takes one gallon of oil to produce one gallon of ethanol that translate into two gallons of fuel, to take me just as far as one gallon of gasoline did before. Is that dumb or what?
questioneverything8 3 years ago
Corn is the problem--not ethanol. Corn only produces 500 gallons of ethanol per acre. Sugar cane will give 900, switchgrass 1,200, hemp and cattails 2,500. You can also use a digester to make methane gas from your byproduct that comes from the distiller, and then use that gas to heat your next alcohol batch in the distiller. There's no need to truck ethanol very far--there's always some crop that will grow anywhere that you can use to make it. And we could do away with polution control devices.
petty1800 3 years ago
Corn based ethanol, and the guise that it can be used back and forth with gasoline in a vehicle is a political/ industry joke! Ethanol used in a higher than gasoline compression engine burns damn clean! Almost any liquid fuel will burn dirty if ignited at lower than optimum compression ratios!
Ethanol is a great fuel...people just have a very wrong idea about how to use it and where to derive it from!
Super73VW 3 years ago
Renewable energy ONLY. The same guys who screw me over when I buy a gallon of gas will happily screw me over when I buy a gallon of ethanol. I litigate against these people, they are scum of the highest order. AND, with ethanol, SAY BYE BYE to forests!!!
mcard476 3 years ago
Most people are slowly learning that diverting food crops to make biofuel for inefficient SUV's is a "Crime Against HHumanity", but few people seem to understand the well-documented science of the deadly cancer-causing atmospheric "aldehydes" that are produced when ethanol from any source (food OR cellulosic) is burned in internal combustion engines. See YouTube video: "Burning Ethanol: DEADLY Aldehydes"
Biodiesel also produces these unhealthy aldehydes (like Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde).
IQ174 3 years ago
I agree with you IQ174. When I first heard about the subsidized conversion of a valuable food crop such as corn simply to fuel our SUV's (read Stupid Useless Vehicles) I almost couldn't believe it. Talk about a mistake of biblical proportions! Stop the madness.
02bliss 2 years ago
Another good reason against this is the weather. If one year our ethanol crops run into a drought, prices will skyrocket. This is just a political scam to get votes.
finnbar108 3 years ago
What the hell are you blaming President Bush for. E85 Ethanol is Al Gore's "Go Green" pet project and it's his idea backed by the Liberal left. Get a clue will ya.
It's easy for everyone to blame the president for their troubes, but how many of you have cut your use of gas down to try to help lower the price of gas and fuel?
Blaming George Bush for Al Gore's E85 Ethanol project is dishonest and foolish!!
WYJT 3 years ago
Finally, someone with a brain.
packerfan445 3 years ago 4
ethanol is a good idea for racing because it exhaust so smoothly
orimabu 3 years ago 4
It was an good idea to look for new fuels, however, they should have been able to see how E85 would disrupt the economy over the next few years. Sure, if ethanol production gets stopped and we gotta pay more for straight gas, but I'll take that over struggling to pay for the grocery bill as well as my gasoline.
DarkIZero 3 years ago
And nevermind the fact that El Paso county CO. dropped ethanol because when used as a fuel, it creates even more pollution than straight gas. My 98' GMC makes 16 mpg on gas or 11 mpg on ethanol gas. Simple economics, and noone in Washington understands that.
kevinbentley 3 years ago 3
100% correct
BulletBlazerSS 2 years ago
Schemefighter: First, Bush has either fallen for the fradulent global warming B.S. or is playing political games, but you're basically correct, Bush has (in many ways) run this administration like a Democrat. Second, "corn" ethanol has always been known to pose production problems with fermentation, but other methods can create several types of alcohol fuels (including ethanol) without energy penalty and do not require corn/surgar biomass as feedstock.
JJCarbon 3 years ago 4
Australia also has mandated that an E10 product 10% Ethanole is available for sale at petrol (gas) stations here. We however use the waste from sugar cane (that would normally be burnt) to produce it. Any product containing organic hydrogen (Organic material that will burn) Can be reduced by destructive distillation to produce ethanol.Why use a food crop? Our politicians are far dumber than yours but as we have a population roughly one tenth that of the US we cant afford such folly to win votes.
ChrisPCrunchy 3 years ago 7
ChrisPCrunchy "Our politicians are far dumber than yours"
I find that hard to believe. ;) Though I don't know that much about you're your politics, so you might be right. Perhaps that's something all nations have in common, dumb politicians.
10% ethanol makes a fair amount of sense. Making it mandatory seems dumb.
Schemefighter 3 years ago
10% ethanol in many cases can raise the octane cheaper and safer then other additives, though other octane additives are needed but not as much if ethanol is used. Ethanol is also beneficial in that it can absorb some of the water, thusly preventing rust and full line freeze up. However it can harm some cars and make pollution and fuel efficiency worse.
Ethanol can attack O2 sensors, and some seals, gaskets and floats, if it does, it almost always make fuel economy and emissions worse.
Schemefighter 3 years ago