View Full Version : Corn ethanol: for the loss
ArgonPlasma2000
2007-03-06, 23:55
Ive expressed my opinion and disdain for the current administration's focus on corn ethanol many times, but I want to start a discussion on it.
Currently, Bush's alternative energy plan concentrates on synthesizing ethanol from corn. The choice of corn is quite obvious as America is the worlds leading producer of corn with %44 of the worlds supply.
According to a PDF (http://tinyurl.com/th6ft) from engineers at UC Berkely, these are some very strong disadvantages for corn production:
1: %99 of corn fields are fertilized
2: Corn requires more fertilizer than any other crop
3: Highly errosive to soil
Ethanol by itself can support an economy. See Brazil for that, who produces much of its automotive fuel with cane sugar. Cane sugar grosses about 8 units of ethanol per unit of oil used to process it.
The fertilizers required for corn production is very energy intensive. The nitrogen fertilizers, for instance, require twice as much energy to produce as steel.
The engineer writing the report states the gasoline input is anywhere from .47 to .89 gallons of gasoline per bushel of corn; whereas a bushel of corn is about 18 gallons.
Efficiency for a plant under study shows that 2.3 gallons of ethanol is produced for each bushel of corn. The report also shows that when fertilizer, water, and processing energy are accounted for, there is a net loss of energy.
Unfortunately, Congress cant seem to get it in their head that science isnt going to be able to break even anytime soon. With oil reserves becoming increasingly volatile here and abroad, time is not something we have much of, especially to waste on frivolities like corn ethanol.
So, what are the alternatives? Fortunately, cane sugar nets a 8:1 fuel ratio. However, America's climate isnt suitable for cane sugar growing except in the deep south.
However, there is still not enough arrable land for cane sugar. I would suggest the sweet potato as a help to meet the need. In my home state of MS, sweet potatos (and potatos in general) grow very easilly, require almost no fertilizers, and are susceptible to few pests. The south grows much of the potato supply of the US. Potatos also can be harvested within 3 months of being planted.
%10 of volume of potatos can be converted to ethanol. This is comparable to corn ethanol synthesis yields, however if you factor in processing (which is not quite as intensive as corn), fertilizers, and water, there is a very large advantage to using potatos over corn.
However, the last hurdle to meeting the energy demands of the country come from the vehicles themselves. What really made me want to post this is that I saw an Escalade with the promotional "Go Yellow!" graphics from the commericals.
If you didnt know, Mississippi has only one ethanol fueling station, which is the privately owned Goddard Space Center, which is not open to the public.
Flex fuel engines can adjust the timing and fuel/air mixtures when switching from gasoline to a blend of ethanol and gasoline up to %85 blend. (Any further can damage the engine)
I found this extremely futile because of a very fundamental problem: you cannot adjust the compression ratio of a vehicle. I take that back, you can increase the amount of fuel burned, but that increases emmisions, decreases fuel milage, and is bad for the engine. Another alternative is to use water injection. Unfortunately for many of General Motors' engines, customers dont fill their water tanks up or take care of the cars.
Back in the 60's, the Oldsmobile division produced the aluminum block v8 with a turbo charger. Under hard throttle, the engine knocked badly. This was solved by injecting a mixture of water and methanol (I think the ratio was 50/50) in with the fuel charge to cool the air so detonation didnt occur. The motor was discontinued because customers didnt keep the tanks filled and the motor knocked itself to death.
This applies today, because if water injection was to be put into use in the Flex Fuel vehicles, customers wouldnt fill it back up once it was low, and the engine would have to cut spark advance, thus decreasing power and fuel milage.
The only alternative is to use an engine with standard compression ratio (typically 9:1-ish) so that gasoline can be used. Spark advance can then be manipulated when E85 is used. This doesnt give you the power of increasing the compression ratio, however, so fuel milage still isnt optimal.
A great alternative I found is propanol, which has an energy density only slightly less than gasoline, and whos octane rating is slightly higher and can be used in a gasoline engine without modification to spark or fuel mixture!
As you can see, production of ethanol from corn is futile and flex fuel vehicles are not helping the situation. Neither are hybrids.
The Chevrolet Sprint, Geo Metro, and some Suzukis come with 1L 3-cylinder engines which can get up to 60 mpg with gasoline. Keep in mind this is a 25 year old car with a carburator! The G10 engine is very powerful, despite its size. One racer has his compression set at 16.9:1, which is the highest I have seen in a gasoline engine. You can also boost it to obscene amounts without pinging or changing the timing.
Unfortunately we also have to have the biggest trucks with the baddest motors. Then we complain about gas prices. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) If I build a kit car, its going to have either a Isuzu or VW diesel engine, or a Suzuki G10 or G13b, all of which get exceptionally ood milage in the cars they were installed in. Factor in a short vehicle which weighs from 800-1000 lbs and the milage would be very high and performance would not suffer. (As I recall, VW's prototype Ecoracer roadster had great performance and had an 80 mpg diesel engine)
Its too bad no one really wants to be independant of foreign oil companies because if we really set our minds to it, we could easilly make ourselfs free within a matter of years.
Discuss.
[This message has been edited by ArgonPlasma2000 (edited 03-07-2007).]
boozehound420
2007-03-07, 03:59
I'd go for hydrogen if you want to stick with a combustion engine. Lots of power, 0 emmisions and 100% renewable. The world will never run out of water.
I dont know anything about the energy comparisons with the hydrogen process though. Does anybody?
I also think it would be fine if there was a variety of options to choose from.
-Pure ethenal (which is just moonshine), with a bit of gas added so you cant drink it to get hammerd, 1% is all you need i think. They do that for formula 1 racing now.
-Hydrogen combustion
-Hydrogen fuel cell
-Compressed air cars
-pure electric
All have proven methods and technology.
ArgonPlasma2000
2007-03-07, 04:35
Hydrogen will never be viable and its far worse than ethanol in terms of an energy sink.
One thing wrong is that hydrogen burning engines absorb hydrogen into th cylinder walls, pistons, valves, and manifolds. This weakens the metals and a brittle engine has potentially explosive consequences.
Another thing is that hydrogen has very little energy density and takes alot of energy to make. Hydrogen storage is a big problem as is, let alone extremely high pressure cylinders in cars. Ogrish had several articles on LPG tanks exploding in South America. To get energy densities close to propane, the hydrogen will have to be compressed to ridiculously high pressures.
Until solar becomes viable, hydrogen cannot work, and when solar becomes viable, there is no need for hydrogen.
Fuel cells too. Currently to get any sort of high power out of them, you need platinum. And the world doesnt have very much of it.
Ultimately, electric is the way to go with high powered liquid fuels forming the stopgap. There is no reason to get on board hydrogen, especially from an economical perspective.
boozehound420
2007-03-07, 04:52
I see what you mean, solar isnt the only option for electric either, hydro produces large amounts of electricity for one.
If ethanal is the answer, wouldnt it make more sense to use this oppertunity to reduce the MASSIVE amounts of sugar in unhealthy foods and put it towards fuel?
I wonder how much sugar in a can a coke that costs 50 cents translates into pure ethenal. And how far that amount would get you in a car compared to the price of gasoline.
quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:
If ethanal is the answer, wouldnt it make more sense to use this oppertunity to reduce the MASSIVE amounts of sugar in unhealthy foods and put it towards fuel?
I wonder how much sugar in a can a coke that costs 50 cents translates into pure ethenal. And how far that amount would get you in a car compared to the price of gasoline.
assuming 32grams of sugar in a can of coke, you get 8.6grams of ethanol, just under 7mls (ethanal is a different substance, it is actually what your body breaks down ethanol into and what gives you a hangover, before it is broken down further into acetic acid, which is the stuff in vinegar).
in my car (2.8L 6cyl) (10km/L) it would get me about 40meters.
procrastination is fun.
Trousersnake
2007-03-07, 05:29
quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:
assuming 32grams of sugar in a can of coke, you get 8.6grams of ethanol, just under 7mls (ethanal is a different substance, it is actually what your body breaks down ethanol into and what gives you a hangover, before it is broken down further into acetic acid, which is the stuff in vinegar).
in my car (2.8L 6cyl) (10km/L) it would get me about 40meters.
procrastination is fun.
Boy am I glad you're back on side http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)
alternative fuels derived from food will never make a sizeable percent of world transportation.
It basically amounts to using food to fuel your car and with a rapidly growing world population, erosion of soil, aquifier depletion and many other things the huge surplus of food needed to do this won't be available.
evil0verl0rd
2007-03-07, 21:01
May I suggest biodiesel?
Here in India, various studies are being undertaken in extracting biodiesel from a species of weed called Jatropha curcas. This weed is very hardy and grows particularly well in arid and semi-arid areas.
Using biodiesel from weed and not commercially grown crops saves farmland and other resources.
Crash2108
2007-03-07, 21:05
I think we are putting too much of a reliance on corn. Remember the potato famine?
quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:
Hydrogen will never be viable and its far worse than ethanol in terms of an energy sink.
One thing wrong is that hydrogen burning engines absorb hydrogen into th cylinder walls, pistons, valves, and manifolds. This weakens the metals and a brittle engine has potentially explosive consequences.
Another thing is that hydrogen has very little energy density and takes alot of energy to make. Hydrogen storage is a big problem as is, let alone extremely high pressure cylinders in cars. Ogrish had several articles on LPG tanks exploding in South America. To get energy densities close to propane, the hydrogen will have to be compressed to ridiculously high pressures.
Until solar becomes viable, hydrogen cannot work, and when solar becomes viable, there is no need for hydrogen.
Fuel cells too. Currently to get any sort of high power out of them, you need platinum. And the world doesnt have very much of it.
Ultimately, electric is the way to go with high powered liquid fuels forming the stopgap. There is no reason to get on board hydrogen, especially from an economical perspective.
From United Nuclear:
"The 3rd option is simply the only way to go. There are materials call Hydrides that absorb Hydrogen like a sponge absorbs water. Typically, the tanks are filled with granulated Hydrides, and Hydrogen is pressurized into the material. Hydrides have many advantages over liquid & gas. One is that the density of the Hydrogen stored in the Hydride can be GREATER than that of liquid Hydrogen. This translates directly into smaller and fewer storage tanks.
Once the Hydride is "charged" with Hydrogen, the Hydrogen becomes chemically bonded to the chemical. Even opening the tank, or cutting it in half will not release the Hydrogen gas. In addition, you could even fire incendiary bullets through the tank and the Hydride would only smolder like a cigarette. It is in fact, a safer storage system than your Gasoline tank is.
Then how do you get the Hydrogen back out? To release the Hydrogen gas from the Hydride, it simply needs to be heated. This is either done electrically, using the waste exhaust heat, or using the waste radiator coolant heat."
--Cr@sh
ArgonPlasma2000
2007-03-07, 21:34
The problem there is that it takes to much time to chrage a hydride tank. Even still, how are you going to keep the pumps from dying within a few weeks or the supply tank to explode from embrittlement?
Hydrogen is not a viable alternative and, I pray, will never be. We would spend far too much time and resurces on a problem that fundamentally cannot be solved on a production scale basis.
Time would be better spent looking for more oil reserves instead of hydrogen.
boozehound420
2007-03-07, 23:54
quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:
assuming 32grams of sugar in a can of coke, you get 8.6grams of ethanol, just under 7mls (ethanal is a different substance, it is actually what your body breaks down ethanol into and what gives you a hangover, before it is broken down further into acetic acid, which is the stuff in vinegar).
in my car (2.8L 6cyl) (10km/L) it would get me about 40meters.
procrastination is fun.
haha right on. So 50 cents gets you 40 meters. About the same as a hummer. But If Coka Cola switched from drinks to ethenal the price could go down, since there are alot of other ingredients, they already have massive fassilities that could be altered to ferment alchohal really quik. Imagine that, Coke Cola Ethenal, Coke Fuel!
The answer to switching to alternate fules will be different for each application.
To work and back drivers can go electric, Because 1 charge is all they need. Warehouse machines can go compressed air. Big rigs can go Bio-Diesel. Race cars, high performance can go Ethenal for the high performance.
Well those are switches we could make today. For every personal driver to go electric we would have too see some better batteries, but point A-B drivers could switch right now.
EtherFreak
2007-03-08, 01:55
I have 2 answers.
1, a steam car, it can run on coal, diesel, wood, propain (LP) (SP?) or anything else that can burn.
2 a car engine that runs on wood. this technology was used during ww2 when gas was practicly unavialiable for non military uses.
as for the origonal topic, I always have to say, why grow something to just burn it? what a waste of time. hydrogen is good, except the process to make it takes energy. electircal energy to be exact. we already use some very polutive ways to make electricity.
as for making super small cars, well america thinks that bigger car means safer. they also want to be able to do 0-60 in rediculus small time, this means big motors to get these big heavy cars moving.
ArgonPlasma2000
2007-03-08, 03:30
But I can take a small engine in a small car and do the same. I see it as America is in great need of a culture change to bcome less wasteful. The car I drive weighs 2600 lbs and is a very small car. It is also one of the safest cars on the road and its 23 years old. This is also accomplished without airbags, mind you.
Mass and safety are not always directly porprtional, and we need to realize that. Especially when we have had the means for highly efficient engines for decades.
GM doesnt like the Hummer. It knows that its fuel economy sucks and is bad for the environment. But they have said they make it because people buy it. That model sticks to every other car. Alas, we Americans want portable couches and trucks to move air. Its quite unfortunate.
Chevrolet has a 150hp diesel car thats sold in Europe, but it doesnt plan on bringing it over here. Their racing car of the same make is bosted to 200 hp. That much power in a diesel engine in a small car will make a very sporty vehicle. But, marketing plays a role in it and they wont make them here. I suspect them to get great gas milage like the VW TDI engines. (45-ish)
Anyone remember the GM cars from the 80s with the diesel engines? A fellow on a Fiero board converted his Fiero to run with a V6 diesel out of one of them. He got 32 city mpg and 36 highway mpg @ 70 mpg. The diesel engine technology of the time was similar to carburation technology 50 years ago. We have come a long, long way since.
Alas, marketting is not my friend.
CreamOfWarholSoup
2007-03-08, 05:03
Aren't you supposed to be able to make alcohol from mushrooms?
If so, could this alcohol be used as a fuel?
All mushrooms require to grow is organic waste that they'll decompose and they can be grown in a variety of environments. They also grow fairly quickly which would be another bonus if it's possible for them to be used to create fuel.
Is it possible? I had this idea about a month ago but I don't know the science of it so I can't get a solution.
This is a good, informative thread.
more_cake
2007-03-08, 05:19
In some of Isaac Asimov's Science-Fiction novels (the Robot and Empire novels, I think), he made reference to the fact that the people of the future rely on yeast as an energy source. I can't recall whether then distilled it somehow or used it in some sort of bio fuel cell, but I've heard many arguments as to the energy potential of yeast. At the current technology, however, this remains science fiction, and not science, I suppose.
And assuming it were possible, I don't think we're closer than 100 years to yeast-powered vehicles. But it's a thought.
You should probably look a shat's known as sugar sorghum. I't like sugar cane, but smaller and will grow at larger latitudes. It's estimated yeild is over 1,000 gallons/acre, where the best corn gets around 600 gallons/acre.
The nest thing you will probably see is a butanol co-processing facility. Ethanol from corn will be made the normal way, and the the leftover solid will be ran thought a ABE (acetone, butanol, ethanol) fermentation that will convert the five-carbon sugars to usable solvents and fuels, because the standard fermentation process will not break down 5-carbon sugars.
Additional work will be done trying to get a cellulose to ethanol process up and running.
Hydrogen car is invented will probably be powered by hyroden striped from ethanol.
Yeah, but corn tastes good.
-metalhead-
2007-03-08, 06:33
Ethanol is too expensive. FTL.
Real.PUA
2007-03-08, 07:10
Cellulosic ethanol for the win. Switchgrass will yield more ethanol per acre than corn (and I would guess sweet potato too) and it requires much less nutrients (probably less than sweet potato, but i havent checked).
Hydrogen as energy storage comes with a whole feat of technincal problems....but it can be carried through other chemicals like ammonia and methanol. Methanol kicks ass because it can be made from CO2 and H2..it's combustable (like ethanol), it's a liquid, it can be used in fuel cells, and it can be used to synthesize ethanol and a million other organic chemicals. It's very versatile...take a peak at the "methanol economy" on wikipedia.
moonmeister
2007-03-08, 08:43
If there is any substance to alt. fuels? why would they need any goverment subsidies? The world is awash with Capital.
Is anyone standing up & saying that they've taken their spare 1/2/3 Billion & said that they've got a viable non-subsidized fuel for the peoples?
Mutant Funk Drink
2007-03-08, 09:13
electric car
Real.PUA
2007-03-08, 09:52
quote:Originally posted by moonmeister:
If there is any substance to alt. fuels? why would they need any goverment subsidies? The world is awash with Capital.
Is anyone standing up & saying that they've taken their spare 1/2/3 Billion & said that they've got a viable non-subsidized fuel for the peoples?
Because there are many things that the "market" is incapable of doing (or at the very least doesn't do well). Some technology is not patentable, some technology is very risky, sometimes you need to invest in many high risk things to find one that will pay off...
BUT private investment in alt fuel is reaching an all time high. It DOUBLED for 2005 to 2006.
http://tinyurl.com/ynpy5y
From the above NY Times link:
quote:While still on the fringes of the energy mix, United States venture capital flowing into clean energy leapfrogged to more than $2.4 billion in 2006, well more than double that invested in 2005, and more than triple from 2004, according to Clean Edge, a research and consulting firm. The numbers are still small compared with the research budgets of the big oil companies, but the ascent of venture capital in renewable energy has reminded some Silicon Valley venture capitalists of the early flow of money into the Internet in the mid-1990s.
“Venture capital in energy has reached a critical mass,” said Daniel Yergin, the energy historian and consultant. “Enough is happening so that significant things will come out of this. With the same intent to do in energy what they did in biotech, they bring not only money and discipline, but they are results-oriented.”
Real.PUA
2007-03-08, 09:55
quote:Originally posted by Mutant Funk Drink:
electric car
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17481908/
moonmeister
2007-03-08, 10:18
But how much is just hype? Sweet propaganda to get investors/gov subsidies?
What about it taking 40% more arable land in the US than it has to provide all the substitute fuel to replace oil? That's All farmland + 40% devoted to fuel & none for food.
ArgonPlasma2000
2007-03-08, 17:09
quote:Originally posted by moonmeister:
But how much is just hype? Sweet propaganda to get investors/gov subsidies?
What about it taking 40% more arable land in the US than it has to provide all the substitute fuel to replace oil? That's All farmland + 40% devoted to fuel & none for food.
Care to share the source? That sounds about right if it were corn.
Then again, your source might be including the trucking industry which relies on diesel. The world has a very plentiful supply of sour crude that makes good diesel, but bad gasoline, so its still very cheap. That aside, trucking shouldnt be included because you cant make alot of biodiesel out of corn, if any. Diesel is still more plentiful than gasoline, so it shouldnt require us looking for alternatives in that field just yet.
But, I am interested in how they get the figure, nonetheless.
quote:Originally posted by Mutant Funk Drink:
electric car
It's the most reasonalbe alternative for most people who drive short distances on a daily basis,
The current issue with it is range, recharge rate, battery cycle and life, price of batery replacements.
Really I don't trust hyrids though because they have two systems, the electric and engine parts. There's almost twice as many things that can go entirely wrong. Plus the extra sytem means extra wieght witch means reduced effeciency of highways miles.
Real.PUA
2007-03-08, 21:41
quote:Originally posted by WorBlux:
It's the most reasonalbe alternative for most people who drive short distances on a daily basis,
The current issue with it is range, recharge rate, battery cycle and life, price of batery replacements.
Really I don't trust hyrids though because they have two systems, the electric and engine parts. There's almost twice as many things that can go entirely wrong. Plus the extra sytem means extra wieght witch means reduced effeciency of highways miles.
Do you know how hybrids work? They are pretty much like a regular engine but with really long pistons...this gives it shit for torque but extremely good efficiency. The battery powered part is basically just for the instant torque to the the thing moving.
Electric cars in general suck becuase they need electricity. That electricity is coming from fossil fuels.
ilbastardoh
2007-03-08, 22:59
quote:Originally posted by EtherFreak:
I have 2 answers.
1, a steam car, it can run on coal, diesel, wood, propain (LP) (SP?) or anything else that can burn.
2 a car engine that runs on wood. this technology was used during ww2 when gas was practicly unavialiable for non military uses.
as for the origonal topic, I always have to say, why grow something to just burn it? what a waste of time. hydrogen is good, except the process to make it takes energy. electircal energy to be exact. we already use some very polutive ways to make electricity.
as for making super small cars, well america thinks that bigger car means safer. they also want to be able to do 0-60 in rediculus small time, this means big motors to get these big heavy cars moving.
Yea pisses me off that assholes wait till rush hour before they go 90 on the emergency lane then hold up 4 lanes of traffic so that they can make their exit. Or that they floor it on the straights and go 2mph through the turns in their slow ass TANKS. If everyone drove compact sports cars, the world would be a better place.
quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:
Do you know how hybrids work? They are pretty much like a regular engine but with really long pistons...this gives it shit for torque but extremely good efficiency. The battery powered part is basically just for the instant torque to the the thing moving.
Electric cars in general suck becuase they need electricity. That electricity is coming from fossil fuels.
They are just like a regular engine except they're smaller and have less power and the non-hybrid model. The engind is hooked to the transmision witch is hooked the the driveshaft that turns the wheels. Additionally there is an induction motor on the driveshaft that will generate extra power when needed, and when breaking is will act as a generator to help recharge the battery. Between the battery and motore and extra 250 pounds are added. A small car with a three cylinder turbodesiel will giv you plenty of torque and much better mielage than a large car with a v-4 hydrid system.
moonmeister
2007-03-09, 04:38
Well, I don't know much about the solidness of the math of Bio-fuel. I mainly get my reporting about it off Counterpunch. They get their info from various other sources. Like everybody else. What the truth is...well? I hear hype & see figures that show it's shit. I haven't run across the 'smiley-faces' showing different? Gov money is sooooo goood, so there will be BS.
Is anybody in NorAm claiming that they have a real innovation? Isn't most of the talk just hype so far?
I have some interest is the kind of Hybrid that electrically driven wheels & a small continuously running fuel engine that charges batteries?
I'm waiting to see the outcome of a Dutch city bus with a new style wheel-mounted electric motor & CRFE configuration. There are advantages to an engine that runs at only one speed.
ArgonPlasma2000
2007-03-09, 05:13
quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:
Do you know how hybrids work? They are pretty much like a regular engine but with really long pistons...this gives it shit for torque but extremely good efficiency. The battery powered part is basically just for the instant torque to the the thing moving.
Electric cars in general suck becuase they need electricity. That electricity is coming from fossil fuels.
You mean long connecting rods. Longer connecting rods also give the engine more torque.
evil0verl0rd
2007-03-09, 07:26
I have seen the test results. And biodiesel is both economical(at around half the price of diesel), and less polluting(less CO and CO2). Higher level of Nitrogen oxides though...
Once production goes up, economies of scale come into play and prices fall even more.
Real.PUA
2007-03-10, 12:46
quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:
You mean long connecting rods. Longer connecting rods also give the engine more torque.
Whatever I meant it had something to do with increasing the thermodynamic efficiency of the engine but reducing the torque...I thought it was the stroke length (that's what I meant by pistons), but having checked that I think I was mistaken.
quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:
Whatever I meant it had something to do with increasing the thermodynamic efficiency of the engine but reducing the torque...I thought it was the stroke length (that's what I meant by pistons), but having checked that I think I was mistaken.
Have you driven an hybrid before? My Prius does a decent 0-60.
-N-
http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/car/112_04_coy_win/specs_price.html
blacksh33p18
2007-03-12, 10:43
As far as the E85 concept:
GM's Saab divison has been experimenting with adjustabke compression engines that adjust on the fly. Not like we need one when the concept of a an adjustable turbo blow-off valve has been around for years one would only need to plug one into the ECU and add nice reliable control solenoid for the valve itself.
and there we have both literal and technically controlled compression ratios. 15% gas to get you going in cold weather and then 85% methanol to get your octane WAY the fuck up there to make that 15:1 count. Fuck, the bio deisel people use a TINEY amount of actual original fuel first to get get it started and then to run out on why not have a 1 gallon gasoline tank for starts and stops and run the rest on methanol?