Ethanol's other shoe starting to drop

[lovuian]

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=e878cf7de10795e4

U.S. motorists are grumbling at the increasingly high price for ethanol, a trend the could drive Washington to rethink its protection of the industry.

The price of ethanol, normally 5 cents to 10 cents cheaper than regular gasoline, is now 5 cents more expensive, KELO-TV, Sioux Falls, S.D., reported Tuesday. And that differential is expected to grow as summer driving season advances.

That it's $2.85 a gallon is ridiculous, it costs a lot of money, said Danielle Sickinger.

more...
Its so obvious that this whole thing is about money!!! Lets have the electric car and be done with it!!!

[benburch]

1. Ethanol is only an option if you have lots of corn you aren't using.

But all of the cropland in the country already has buyers for its output, and new cropland is not being broken. In fact, the number of acres under agriculture is declining.

[zreosumgame]

8. or other plant matter

hemp for Industry, hemp for Defense!


(Ok, a cookie for whomever can identify where that was ripped off from? Clue, it was shoes originally ;p )

[newblewtoo]

17. Hi I'm Joe Beat

So where can I get a really good deal in a Christian atmosphere?

So, don't Crush that Dwarf.

[Ferretherder]

40. Hand me the pliers.

...here in The United Snakes.

[colonel odis]

68. shoes for industry, compadre!

[Ferretherder]

80. You don't happen to have any...

...little groat clusters on you, do ya'?

[PurityOfEssence]

85. No, but I've got plenty of Bear Whizz Beer

so leave me alone

[colonel odis]

106. i'll take a pizza to go with no anchovies.

and slaw. tubs and tubs of slaw.

[Chemical Bill]

109. Where's regnad kcin when we need him? n/t

[colonel odis]

111. funny. i watched the maltese falcon sunday on tcm and kept thinking about

rocky roccocco and professor catherwood.

[Omaha Steve]

20. Hemp High-top Sneaker 100% vegan, sweat-shop free

:-)

http://www.nosweatapparel.com/miva/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=5040&Category_Code=NSS&Product_Count=4

Our first eco-sneak is finally here! Introducing the premier sneaker in our collection that is 100% vegan, sweat-shop free and now environmentally-friendly as well. The 100% hemp upper of this sneaker was organically grown, then thoroughly washed to give it a smooth and bright look and feel. Now your feet can feel really good without stepping on the worker or the plant that made your shoes!

Also available in Child & Petite Sizes!

See our Store Locations page for a list of retail outlets that currently carry No Sweat’s sneaker line.
Click here for info on Wages and Benefits of the workers that produce these shoes.

[Tesha]

43. But "other plant matter" doesn't act as a sop to Red State politicians.

> or other plant matter

But "other plant matter" doesn't act as a sop to Red State Republican
politicians; only corn does that. So even though it is completely ridiculous
to produce ethanol from corn, that is the path we're hurtling down, to both
our financial harm and harm to the planet as a whole.

Tesha

[dysfunctional press]

71. algae is a much better option for biodiesel.

but industrial hemp definitely has it's place.

[ThomWV]

9. Which Requires Lots Of Nitrogen Fertilizer

[ThomWV]

10. Which Requires Lots Of Natural Gas To Make

[ThomWV]

11. Which We Import More and More From Canada

[ThomWV]

12. Who's Production Is DECREASING At A Rate Of About 8% Per Year

[bunkerbuster1]

57. yeah, I hate ethanol too.

I always saw it as a craven pandering to a teensy constituency that benefits directly from its subsidies. But maybe that's just the old DLCish New Republic reader in me.

[trogdor]

91. It makes a good fuel additive, though.

Occasionally, I find a station that sells 10% gasohol, and I find that my car runs MUCH smoother on it. I guess the ethanol cleans the fuel injectors out.

[Jack from Charlotte]

14. DOH! Someone needs to watch those tricky Canadians. (nt)

*

[Matariki]

32. *sigh* - monoculture crops. can't be good, really.

[KittyWampus]

55. Also, this is too highly centralized. Producing fuel locally from trash

made in our backyards is the only way to go.

Thermal Depolymerization plants across the country. You take your trash to the dump and fill up with fuel made from the trash in one go. :)

[killbotfactory]

2. would they prefer the toxic oil-based alternative

that gets in the water supply?

[greenman3610]

3. there are better ways than corn

to make ethanol, and as the market grows,
producers will discover the greater efficiencies
of, for instance, algae-(hundreds of times more
productive).

[KittyWampus]

56. there are better ways then ethanol, period. Ethanol simply replaces the

product in a flawed, highly centralized and inefficient energy grid.

The goal should be to produce fuel locally using local waste products.

Very little waste in transportation and production.

[MadHound]

4. Biodiesel is a better solution

Cleaner, cheaper, and runs in regular diesel engines. And the neat thing is that we can produce all the biodiesel we need to fill our fuel needs without having to take up on acre of farmland.

There is an algae that can be used for all of our biodiesel needs<http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html> And the thing is, we can use this algae in every single wastewater treatment plant across the US. Thus helping clean the water and fuel the country at the same time.

And biodiesel is much cleaner than gas, dino diesel and ethanol. The emissions are ninety percent less than what a gas engine puts out, and the waste products from refining biodiesel are water and glycerin, which can be used to make soap.

We should drop ethanol and instead mandate that all new vehicles are made with diesel engines. Get ourselves off of oil and onto biodiesel.

[nealmhughes]

7. Thanks for the UNH link!

I've been researching this is a cursory manner, and have not yet run across the Durham research. I also have found some interesting stuff on a eco village in India that will grow palm oil for their own fuel, but it is in an arid area and the palms are in a ring around the living and crop area. The electricity now is coming from a cascade of centrifugal pumps which are run "backwards" thru the water, acting as a generator. There are no dams involved, only the natural fall. The cascading is exactly that, the water flows thru one, produces its power, then another downstream, then another, then another, as long as the incline can support it. Sounds fantastic to me. That is just using old pumps -- can one imagine small sized cascading water turbines of low head high flow design?

[Up2Late]

16. I agree, but please try to remember, we have a massive surplus of...

...Corn and Soybeans in this country. The more that can be diverted to BioDiesel, the higher the Per Bushel price for Farmers, and that could then lead to the lowering of Federal Farm Subsidies, which I'm sure most would be happy about.

Here's a good article about the surpluses: <http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/36348/story.htm>

More Good info here: <http://www.biodiesel.org/>

[4dsc]

45. Use the surplus??

How selfish of you to believe we should use our surplusses so you can continue along with your wasteful ways.. I guess we don't have enough gasoline for the wasteful public, we'll use our surplusses to make sure you get to the malls to buy and waste on the latest fashions..

[Up2Late]

99. How obnoxious of you to make such prejudicial statements about...

"...MY wasteful ways..." with YOUR(?) surplus! What the hell do you know about me to make such outrageous statements?!?

For Your info, I'm unemployed/working at home to re-train myself in new technologies, so I only drive my 4-cylinder 1998 Toyota car about once or twice a week, and I have no money to "...buy and waste on the latest fashions...." And even when I had a job, I didn't drive to "...the Malls..." to buy the "...latest fashions," In fact, I can't remember the last time I bought anything "Fashionable" at "the Mall," It's probably been 20 years since I did that.

What do you know about Farming? Does living in Iowa somehow make you an expert on Corn surpluses? I think not, because if you were, you would know that this surplus grain is not grown for Human consumption, it cattle feed, a practice that leads to the over use of Veterinary Anti-biotic's, which contributes to making Americans unhealthy, and creates a need for Federal Farm subsidies to keep Corn prices from falling to level that would discourage the over production and more Federal Farm subsidies.

Or it's turned into "High Fructose Corn Syrup" which is then added to just about everything we eat, another practice that adds to American's poor health in the form of diabetes and obesity, among other problems.

I also grew up in the the Mid-west, in Northern Indiana, surrounded by Corn and Soy fields. And we DO have farmers here in Georgia too, in case you didn't know.

Biodiesel is NOT Gasoline, it's a eco-friendly replacement for DIESEL fuel! I don't even own a Diesel vehicle, but if I had a well paying job, I'd most likely would buy one.

DIESEL fuel is used in Trucks, Buses, Trains, Ships, Farm Equipment, and to a lesser extent, Automobiles. Substituting Biodiesel in all those engines, that are now burning Petroleum Diesel, would go a long way to helping this country reduce it air pollution and our dependence on foreign Crude Oil.

Biodiesel is the best emerging technology that is here today. My advocacy of it has nothing to do with MY greed or Love of Gasoline. :spank:

[politicat]

84. Actually, the price per bushel doesn't go up.

Which puts farmers into a bind. The only time the price per bushel goes up is when there's scarcity, like after a bad weather year. The rest of the time, mono-cropping farmers have to contend with prices going up for their fixed costs, while the price per bushel goes down or remains static. Since the introduction of direct payments rather than the previous process (thanks, Nixon... yet another republican fuckup), crop prices have consistently dropped even when there's demand for them. The problem is that the restructuring was done by the big agribusinesses, who got their own way.

The biodiesel answer and the agriculture answer is the same: diversified crops. There is no reason that someone with 500 acres under cultivation can't be growing corn, soy (for consumption), sunflowers/mustard (fabulous for biodiesel, and sunflowers can be used for paper and other cellulose applications), and pasturing livestock.

It is a harder life, but it's far more productive and profitable. Yeah, it's hard to snow-bird to Florida if you have cows to look after, but since most farmers can't afford to snow-bird to Florida anyway....

[reprobate]

25. Count me in on the biodiesel wagon. Some links:

http://www.energybulletin.net/2364.html

www.greenfuelonline.com/news/algaefuel.pdf

http://www.solaroof.org/wiki/OilFromAlgae/20050607

http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3153.

http://synthesis.typepad.com/synthesis/2005/05/algae_into_biod.html

http://biodiesel.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/frm/f/1501000031

http://www.castoroil.in/reference/plant_oils/uses/fuel/sources/algae/biodiesel_algae.html

Just a few to get started. There are some big advantages to biodiesel. Every waste treatment plant can produce biodiesel by feeding the algea the human waste for it's neutrients and using it to make the biodiesel.

This will get us out of our dependance on major corporations for our fuels. I'm sure they'll love that!

Can't you see a biodiesel hybrid vehicle that uses NO petroleum products? That's a sure way to lower the greenhouse gas situation.

edited to add: I think with the right algea we could even get the size of the production equipment down to the point that we could even use our own composet and yard waste to generate our fuel.

[DoYouEverWonder]

42. The diesels are coming

because the US has finally decided to start using cleaner fuel, which these many of the cars they already use in Europe require. In the next 3 years we are going to see a lot more options in this area. I can't wait until they finally come out with diesel/hybrids. That will be the best of both worlds.

[w4rma]

61. The shift to biodiesel could be started with a required use by some

large trucks with limited round trips.

[MadHound]

65. Better way to start the switch than that

Simply pass a law mandating that each and every new vehicle and engine, from lawn mower to motorcycle to cars and trucks comes complete with a diesel engine. Put the compliance time at something reasonable, say five to ten years. Do this, and within twenty year the vast majority of vehicles on our roads would be running on biodiesel.

[w4rma]

66. That's not going to happen because the gas stations don't sell biodiesel

and the public would get rightfully ticked off at whomever passed such strong-arming legislation and that politician would be gone very very fast.

[MadHound]

72. That's why you allow a five or ten year break in period

To allow the infrastructure to switch over gradually. Say start this year, you would only need one biodiesel pump at a station. As the years progress, you would see more and more of the pumps switch from gas to biodiesel until ten years from now all but perhaps one pump at your corner station would be running biodiesel. We've made this sort of transition before, the last time was when they phased out leaded gas, I'm sure we can make a switch again.

And good lord, why would the public be ticked off? Biodiesel is cheap, clean, and by being produced completely here in the US, it would create a lot of well paying jobs. In fact about the only downside to biodiesel is that it can have a smell, but that is easily corrected by running it through activated charcoal before your final rinse.

[Chemical Bill]

93. I like the smell. n/t

[Chemical Bill]

92. I've gotten biodiesel at gas stations and oil dealers.

Gas station could sell biodiesel more easily than CNG or hydrogen, as the pumps and tanks required for gasoline can pump biodiesel too. In the 1980's you had to go out of your way to get petroleum diesel, now it's at plenty of gas stations. I hope biodiesel doesn't take so long to become mainstream.

Bill

[benEzra]

94. Would make more sense to start with heavy trucks...

since they use exponentially more fuel. Diesel cars currently have trouble with U.S. NOx emissions regs (European NOx regs are a lot looser than ours), so you need really fancy emissions controls to keep the NOx and particulates down. Biodiesel helps with the particulates, BUT you need the production capacity to keep prices reasonable.

If trains, ships, locomotives, trucks, industrial plants, and home heating used biodiesel instead of petroleum distillates, I suspect we'd have PLENTY of petroleum for passenger vehicles.

[leveymg]

5. Particularly since E-85 fuel range is 25-40% less than gasoline

That makes the real cost of E-85 about $4.25 a gallon.

Thanks for pointing that out. There were a bunch of sock puppets posting at DU a few months ago for the auto manufacturers -- GM and Chrysler -- and ethanol industry astroturfers. Haven't seen them around much, lately.

Guess we've been had, again.

[nealmhughes]

6. Ethanol = ADM

Big ag and corporate interests will continue to push this. In short term analysis, i.e., decreased dependence on foreign oil, sounds good. What doesn't sound good is the fact that corn is a terrible crop from which to derive ethanol. The distillation process is an incredible net energy drain. Most of the proces is lost to entropy. I remember enough of my steam tables to know that latent heat of vaporization is a tremendous amount compared to bringing the liquid to boiling point. Corn fermentation by yeast only yields about 18% alcohol max. The yeast dies above that percentage. That is why when Port wine or sherry is made, to get the alcohol content above 18% the fermentation is stopped by adding brandy. A "regular" bottle of wine is at most 14% or so, with some Eisweins and other sweet unfortified wines being near 18%. That means it has to go thru a still -- actually many times to get it to be at the proof for running an internal combustion engine.
With all of the petro chemicals used as fertilizer, the diesel oil for the plows and combines, and then the electricity or other heat source for making the alcohol, why bother? It seems that noone wants to do the obvious: conversion of vegetable oil Diesel engines. There is little or no conversion needed. Only those in far northern climes would even need petro Diesel to get the dieselling started in cold weather, and then heaters and glow plugs are already used in standard diesel engines. Diesel invented the engine to run off of veg oil for farm equipment!
The only drawback is that countries in the tropics are starting to grow massive amounts of palm oil -- presently the most oil yield per acre - to the detriment of farm land and hastening deforestation. Malasia is one of the chief culprits.
To me, it seems that a non-intensive seed oil crop is the answer such as sunflower, safflower and rape. If it's good enough to eat, it ought to be good enough to burn!

[alfredo]

15. What is the environmental impact of corn? Is it damaging like

cotton and other such crops?

[leveymg]

44. Thank you, Mr. Hughes!

Finally, someone with a good technical education to set us straight on these issues. Greatly appreciate your obviously well-informed contribution to this subject.

[krispos42]

48. Wind-powerd ethanol plants

I'm not going to repost what I wrote elsewhere in this thread, but it seems to me that ethanol plants with their own dedicated wind-turbines to supply electricly-heated distillation would be an environmentally-friendly way to do it. And it would let us export Midwest wind power in a liquid form, without waiting decades and spending billions to upgrade the electical grid.

[Strelnikov_]

108. I Agree

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=40097#40130

[KittyWampus]

58. You've still got the transportation of crops and fuel wasting net energy

Again, fuel must be produced locally and made from local waste products. And made from a large variety of waste at that.

Growing a crop for fuel is not going to work in the long run.

Having to transport fuel that is made in a few national, central localtions isn't going to work.


Ethanol is simply the Corporate way of continuing control of energy sources and the US population.

[Strelnikov_]

107. Actually, The Corn Ethanol Plants Being Built Near Here

are owned by farmer owned co-operatives. The farmers (admittedly BTO's), like any businessman, are trying to produce a value added product from the raw material they produce, in lieu of selling grain at the market price.

[Captain Hilts]

13. Ethanol is wildly expensive to produce. It is not economical. nt

[newblewtoo]

18. It is also

highly corrosive if I remember correctly and requires more expensive stainless steel. I agree with the bio diesel folk at this point.

[Tellurian]

19. Why CORN when there's SUGAR CANE/Hemp Oil/Beet Sugar?

Brazil is almost completely independent of Petroleum!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/world/americas/10brazil.html?ex=1302321600&en=03adc82c67600388&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt


PIRACICABA, Brazil — At the dawn of the automobile age, Henry Ford predicted that "ethyl alcohol is the fuel of the future." With petroleum about $65 a barrel, President Bush has now embraced that view, too. But Brazil is already there.
Skip to next paragraph
Lalo de Almeida for The New York Times

Ethanol, or alcohol, is popular at a São Paulo station and across Brazil because it costs less than gas.

This country expects to become energy self-sufficient this year, meeting its growing demand for fuel by increasing production from petroleum and ethanol. Already the use of ethanol, derived in Brazil from sugar cane, is so widespread that some gas stations have two sets of pumps, marked A for alcohol and G for gas.

In his State of the Union address in January, Mr. Bush backed financing for "cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn but wood chips and stalks or switch grass" with the goal of making ethanol competitive in six years.

But Brazil's path has taken 30 years of effort, required several billion dollars in incentives and involved many missteps. While not always easy, it provides clues to the real challenges facing the United States' ambitions.

[hedgehog]

62. Not to mention swamp willow

I've heard claims of a 12-1 or 14-1 energy gain (units out for units in) for making ethonal from swamp willow. Here in NYS it's under serious study.

[Igel]

69. The difference is that ethanol from

sugar is a snap; ethanol from cellulose is a bear.

Even though cellulose is simply a polysaccharide, i.e., lots of sugars strung together.

Swamp willow, vegetable scraps, switch grass, logging waste ... all require decomposing the cellulose in an efficient way to get to sugar. Or some workaround. Solve one, solve them all. Stay tuned, from what I hear. With gas prices up, ethanol demand increases and ethanol prices increase; suddenly there's more profit in ethanol production and greater consumer outcry about high prices, so industry turns to finding ways to cash in and government puts money into reducing consumer outcry.

[laundry_queen]

83. Why corn?

One word pops into mind (I could be way off on my thinking, I'm admittedly pretty uninformed about ethanol). Monsanto.

[Winston702]

21. Many Ethanol Plants are just begining construction

I ran E85 in my care and did a cost comparison. Despite the lower cost of E85, the $/mile cost was the same.

There is a closed cycle ethanol process being built in Mead, Nebraska that reports to be 90%+ efficient.

Samuel Adams has their hands on a strain of yeast that will ferment naturally to 25% alcohol content. This alone would reduce the energy needed to produce E85 by 15%.

Bio Diesel is nice as long as the price of glycerin does not go through the floor.

As for Brazil, they only became energy independent after they found a huge oil fied off their coast.

[Zan_of_Texas]

22. Ethanol is adding expense, I saw that firsthand.

Houston has required an ethanol component in its gas, to fight its air pollution. Unfortunately, availability is not so great, and the component costs more than what it replaced.

So, on a recent driving tour through nearly every state in the Southeast, the most expensive gas I saw was in Houston. The Houston Chronicle did a story, and said it was the ethanol component driving up the price.

Since most of the people and cars in the US are in cities, and most of the corn would be, um, on farms, that means there is an automatic cost for transportation for most ethanol.

That said, I'm not against ethanol. I'm for creative thinking, outside the box of corporate and slimy political interests, to get a mix of energy sources working, as well as incentives and assistance to get energy consumption down.

Our mayor did one thing early in his administration, and he said he never imagined he could be so popular for that one thing. He spent money and hired experts and he revamped the timing on the traffic lights at major intersections and major travel routes. God knows how much gas (and aggravation) he saved.

[Winston702]

24. It's going to mirror the Paper Recycling Craze of the mid 90's

There is a huge amount of capital available, tax incentives, and EPA mandates for the use of ethanol. This will cause many production facilities to be built. More than the market can support. Net result will be that investors will loose alot of money. ADM, Cargill etc will come out on top.

[hpot]

23. How about Water?

Someone made a hydrogen generator capable of producing plenty of hydrogen with less power required. It is highly efficient and uses pulsed electricity to split water into hydrogen.


http://www.icubenetwork.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=98

Technical specs
http://f6.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/cEOPRGxToyHRIiAxBZnPqI1NtdlBT9DNX9weGNinX48WPQUOTXVD1reHen4Z-KG8a9NXvlfBHkLM0UQG4OUc3hXgOaHc/MeyerRep.pdf

[Winston702]

26. Pop Mechanics did a piece on this.

To store the equivilent amount of energy in a hygrogen tank as a gasoline tank, it will need to be 4 times the size.

The amount of water needed for galvanic hydrogen production in the US alone, if hydrogen replaced gasoline, would be equal to the amount of water that flows over Niagara Falls in 3 months.

[hpot]

28. No storage tanks needed

The hydrogen can be produced as it is consumed. Besides, you wouldn't want to store mixed hydrogen and oxygen since it is easily explosive.


"GAS = 137cc
CURRENT TRUE RMS = 0.1875 Amps
TIME=21 Min
VOLTS ACROSS CELL TRUE RMS=1.5Volts+2.4 Volts Cell Potential
=3.9 Volts
POWER WATTS =0.73"

http://www.icubenetwork.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=98

[kevlinsky]

29. You don't know about thermodynamics, do you?

The hydrogen can be produced as it is consumed.

No it can't. I mean, it could, but why the hell would you convert water to hydrogen and oxygen only to turn it back into water? You would be losing energy in the process.

[hpot]

30. Yes, I do

The conversion process can be practical only if one can lower the amount of energy required to split water. Under known standard electrolysis it requires huge amounts of wasted energy. We are dealing with a different configuration here.

The device is an invention by Stanley Meyers which was successfully replicated by an independent tester. It uses much less energy than standard electrolysis methods and I believe there should be more independent replications. The specs are posted for anyone interested.

[kevlinsky]

31. Obviously you don't

You can not get more energy from combining hydrogen and oxygen than you would put into splitting water. Look it up. If splitting water required less energy than you would get from burning hydrogen, then we would have free energy. Here are the stoichiometric equations:

2 Water + Less Energy -> 2 H2 + O2
2 H2 + O2 -> 2 Water + More Energy

Adding the two equations together:

2 Water + 2 H2 + O2 + Less Energy -> 2 Water + 2 H2 + O2 + More Energy

Cancelling out:

Less Energy -> More Energy

NOT POSSIBLE (given thermodynamics, which, last I checked, was still in effect)!

[hpot]

33. How can you explain the working unit?

Specs are available.

http://f6.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/cEOPRGxToyHRIiAxBZnPqI1NtdlBT9DNX9weGNinX48WPQUOTXVD1reHen4Z-KG8a9NXvlfBHkLM0UQG4OUc3hXgOaHc/MeyerRep.pdf

The device is not using standard electrolysis. Its alloys are specially conditioned and the electrical charge is specific along with polarity configuration. There is more involved here than just hard splitting with electricity. Did you even bother to read the specifications before making a final conclusion?

[kevlinsky]

34. Your link does not work

Document Not Found

The document you requested could not be found.

Wow, that's some great reading there. And I wouldn't have to read the specs if this were true. Something like this would be earth-shattering, not only in the scientific community, and I would have heard about it. Note how in my previous post, I said "given thermodynamics, which, last I checked, was still in effect." Thermodynamics is one of those iron laws in science. If something broke those laws, there would be a publication in every newspaper, magazine, etc.

As far as the iCube Network Forum link, I did not see anything claiming that his method of electrolysis used less electricity than would be recovered by burning hydrogen. You really need to understand science before you go pushing perpetual motion.

[hpot]

36. Alternate Link

Can run on less than .50 Amp

Specs
http://www.recountflorida.com/files/hpot/energy/myers/MeyerRep.pdf


Other Related Links:

Stanley Meyers
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3333992194168790800

"Joe Cell" (most reliable video, lots of disinfo on other sites)
http://www.archive.org/download/Joe_Cell_-_Two_Enthusiasts_1993-1996_VideoCameraRecordings/Joe_Cell_-_Two_Enthusiasts_1993-1996_VideoCameraRecordings.avi

[kevlinsky]

81. It's a hoax

As one other user posted, this was a hoax to try to lure investors. Wikipedia (granted, not the most reliable source, but in this case it matches my research) has a good summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyers

I smelled bullshit when I saw the videos with supposed experts talking about zero point energy and Meyers was talking about how he was not able to get funding. If this invention was true; that is to say, he could manufacture energy out of thin air, he could easily have made billions without any investors.

[hpot]

82. Maybe, Maybe not

"Meyer has presented his fuel cell device to Professor Michael Laughton, Dean of Engineering at Queen Mary College, London, Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin, a former controller of the British Navy, and Dr Keith Hindley, a UK research chemist. According to the witnesses, the most startling aspect of the Meyer cell was that it remained cold, even after hours of gas production as his system appeared to operate on mere milliamperes, rather than the amperes that conventional electrolysis would require. The witnesses also stated:

After hours of discussion between ourselves, we concluded that Stan Meyer did appear to have discovered an entirely new method for splitting water which showed few of the characteristics of classical electrolysis. Confirmation that his devices actually do work come from his collection of granted US patents on various parts of the WFC system. Since they were granted under Section 101 by the US Patent Office, the hardware involved in the patents has been examined experimentally by US Patent Office experts and their seconded experts and all the claims have been established. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyers

An experimenter (Dave) claims to have successfully replicated the device and is very knowledgeable in electronics. There are even videos of his working unit along with detailed specs. I think it warrants further investigation.

In addition, how can it be a perpetual device when there are no basic calculations on potential energy output? How much energy potential is in the hydrogen it creates compared to energy used? All we know is that it creates more hydrogen than conventional hydrolysis.

If the fuel cell has a high efficiency rate, it can be usable for internal combustion engines. I wouldn't mind filling with water and recharging drained batteries after 100 miles. It should be much cheaper than buying gasoline.

[kevlinsky]

89. Why are you defending this thing so much?

Look later in the wikipedia article:
The vehicle failed to work during a required demonstration of the water-fueled car in a 1990 court case. An Ohio court found Stanley Meyer guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" in a case brought against him by disgruntled investors. The court decided that the centerpiece of the car, his water fuel cell, was a conventional electrolysis device, and he was ordered to repay the investors $25,000.

I will answer your points sequentially:

An experimenter (Dave) claims to have successfully replicated the device and is very knowledgeable in electronics. There are even videos of his working unit along with detailed specs. I think it warrants further investigation.

This is an argument from authority. Dave is "very knowledgeable" so we must examine further. If Meyer wasn't able to defend his claims in court, I doubt much further investigation is necessary. You believe that science is a closed community too much. I recall reading about a Russian device in which the inventor believed he had found cold fusion. He published his design, it was replicated, and debunked.

In addition, how can it be a perpetual device when there are no basic calculations on potential energy output? How much energy potential is in the hydrogen it creates compared to energy used? All we know is that it creates more hydrogen than conventional hydrolysis.

That's not what Meyer was saying. In that video link you sent, it was claimed that the machine could output more energy in the form of hydrogen than was input. That is why one of the guys was talking about zero-point energy, which is a favorite of sci-fi junkies ever since Arthur C. Clarke brought it up in one of his books.

If the fuel cell has a high efficiency rate, it can be usable for internal combustion engines. I wouldn't mind filling with water and recharging drained batteries after 100 miles. It should be much cheaper than buying gasoline.

But why not just use the batteries directly? You would be more efficient, since you aren't losing energy in the Water->Hydrogen->Water steps, and then electrical motors are more efficient than gasoline engines. Besides, to quote Dana Carvey, "You can't piss into a Mr. Coffee and call it Taster's Choice." Gasoline engines can't just run on hydrogen.

[hpot]

96. I would like to see more than 1 independent replication

This is an argument from authority. Dave is "very knowledgeable" so we must examine further. If Meyer wasn't able to defend his claims in court, I doubt much further investigation is necessary.

There are no court transcripts so I don’t know what happened. From what is available online, we know the court based their judgment from 3 witnesses at the trial. Normally, I'd consider it an open and shut case but someone else has come forward with a working unit and published the details openly. That is only 1 replication; it would be great to see more. The device's efficiency should be easy to verify.

it was claimed that the machine could output more energy in the form of hydrogen than was input.

4:22 – “Appears to produce several hundred percent more energy than it consumes.”

5:28 – “1700% greater efficiency than conventional electrolysis”

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3333992194168790800

Appearances can be deceiving. Without any real calculations we are left with speculation. How efficient is conventional electrolysis?

But why not just use the batteries directly?

Reason is, most engines are internal combustion which requires something combustible to do work. With proper modifications, such engines can run on hydrogen. That is a scientific fact.

[kevlinsky]

98. Then replicate it yourself

In the links you posted, there were schematics and diagrams. Go ahead and do this. Put your money where your mouth is, as it were. If it is much cheaper to run your car like this, and that it is practical, then you can stand to make a lot of money.

I'm gonna go with the courts on this one; Meyer did not allow anyone to inspect his invention and his car did not work as grandly as he had claimed when it was tested in court. In addition, the efficiency of his vehicle is always measure in miles per gallon. This is retarded, becuase the exhaust is water, which is the same as the input. Why not just recapture the exhaust, and reuse the water? OMG INFINITE MILES PER GALLON!!! Really, too many things about this have an air of buzz, but without anything tangible behind it.

[hpot]

102. That is one of my goals

I'm not interested in dimantling my car's engine but it would make a great blow torch welding unit or fuel for a propane engine.

http://media.putfile.com/HHO-GAS

http://www.parts-ol.com/honda/honda_gxv340/honda_gxv340.html

[jberryhill]

105. Nonsense

Since they were granted under Section 101 by the US Patent Office, the hardware involved in the patents has been examined experimentally by US Patent Office experts and their seconded experts and all the claims have been established.

Oh man, I can't believe the scammers are still recycling this line nearly verbatim.

ALL patents are granted under 35 USC 101:


§101. Inventions patentable

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

It is the intro section to the patent laws, and simply says that if you invent something, then you can get a patent, subject to the requirements laid out in the following sections of title 35 of the United States Code.

No, the USPTO does not test inventions. They can require a test in rare circumstances, and I mean very, very, very rarely. The feeling at the USPTO is, generally, if the thing doesn't work, then there's no harm in granting a patent on it anyway.

However, one can get patents for all sorts of things. Typically in these free energy investment scams, the inventor will roll up a collection of patents on tangential things - e.g. some new configuration of electrical connector - which indeed are used in his contraption. The actual subject matter of the patents, of course, has zip to do with the overal energy machine itself.

(btw, I am Registered Patent Attorney No. 36452
http://des.uspto.gov/OEDCI/ )

[markam]

64. There is no point in reading

You cannot bypass the laws of thermodynamics. You cannot turn water into hydrogen and oxygen, then turn the same hydrogen and oxygen back into water and have a net energy gain. That would even be better than a perpetual motion machine.

It is a scam. It uses electric power to split water, either from a large battery or from a gasoline engine and alternator. Electrolysis is very energy intensive and a stupid way to make fuel. You would have much higher efficiency if you just used the electricity directly to drive the engine and skipped the hydrogen step.

Hydrogen will never be a transportation fuel. It is a form of battery storage and a very poor form of storage.

[K-W]

74. Perpetual motion machines will save us all! EOM

[nealmhughes]

39. You would not believe how much electricity it takes on a

nuclear sub to run the Oxygen generators! The water also has to be demin as well. Electrolysis is hard and fickle in batch ops. Plus we have to remember that H2 is explosive between 4 and 94% if I remember my chemistry correctly. Below 4 it is "safe" and above 94 it is safe. Generators are cooled by demin water passing thru a H2 fan. The H2 has to be purged out with CO2 when maintenance is done to below 4%. When it is fully charged, it is safe to be around with an open flame, but when one starts lowering...watch out, kaboom city.

There isn't going to be a "simple" solution. One study I read tonight said that to run a car using solar panels would require 4 houses covered with panels to get enough electricity to run one car for 45 mp day.

It looks like biodiesel/electric is the best option. Ethanol is NOT. Anything that uses more energy to produce than the end product is just dumb. All the heat to run the stills has to come from somewhere. Most of it will be lost to atmosphere. I don't care what the process is, Carnot never got above 30% efficeint. Each step in batch processes results in more loss of energy.

Gee, I knew getting thru Nuclear Power School would make Admiral Rickover proud of me one day! Submarines once, submarines twice, holy...

[krispos42]

46. Yes you would, but...

It depends on the energy you waste. For example, if a wind-powered electralysis was used to seperate water into hydrogen and oxygen, then you would be converting wind-power into a format that was portable, non-toxic, and produced only water vapor as am emmission. You would lose about half of the wind power generated in the process, though, but that might be an acceptable trade-off for energy independence.

We could probably save more pollution by simply replacing the oldest coal plants with wind power, but the problem is that where the wind is is not where the demand is.

I have not heard of any reason we can't have a wind-powered ethanol plant. The major energy use is distillation, which can be electric heating elements as easy as natural gas. I personally envision ethanol plants around the Midwest with adjacent dedicated wind turbines feeding them. And how about wind-powered biodiesel plants? Turning corn, soybeans, and sunflowers into fuel?

If we pull off the perfect circle, then tractors buring biodiesel harvest the crops, where wind turns them into fuel, which is distributed around the country in trucks that also burn biodiesel.

[kevlinsky]

76. You missed the point of my post

hpot was contending that you would not need expensive storage tanks for hydrogen powered cars becuase you could simply store water, split that into hydrogen and oxygen, and then use that hydrogen to power the fuel cells. I was trying to explain that this was a wasteful proposition, since you would actually be losing energy in the process, so you might as well use batteries directly. Frankly, I'm waiting for a Mr. Fusion to power my car.

<>

[krispos42]

49. They tried that on Mythbusters

All they got was a few tiny bubbles after a few minutes. Nonwhere near enough cubic feet per minute of H2 to run a car.

[Pithlet]

52. I remember that episode.

It was very interesting.

[hpot]

53. I saw the schematics they used

MythBusters got it off the Internet and their setup was very basic. Unlike the Mythbuster cell, this unit produces plenty of hydrogen using pulsed electricity and nonmagnetic high grade stainless steel cylinders. The arrangement of the cylinders are also different. This unit can run on less than 1/2 of an Amp.

The inventor (Stanley Meyers) discovered that the key to more hydrogen production is with high frequency pulsed current. Preparation of the alloys are also important. The whole process is described in the pdf file.

http://www.recountflorida.com/files/hpot/energy/myers/MeyerRep.pdf

Videos:

http://www.icubenetwork.com/files/watercar/non-commercial/dave/videos/

Edit: high frequency pulsed

[slackmaster]

60. Welcome to DU

Hydrogen generators like the device described in your post do nothing to save energy. It takes power to split up water, and that has to come from somewhere.

[lovuian]

27. I think we are going to Need EVERYTHING Ethanol Oil

BioDiesel Wind Solar and Nuclear...

We have an insatiable appetite for energy...

[sybylla]

35. Ethanol will never be cheaper than petroleum as long as

petroleum companies are in charge of the market. That's was a claim made yesterday at a global trade forum I attended in Madison, Wisconsin. He was unafraid to cite statistics that show ethanol is far cheaper to produce from surplus corn than its $3/gallon pricetag. But, he said, as long a petroleum marketers are the ones selling it, it will never be cheaper. They don't want the competition. They don't want to give the industry the shot in the arm it would get if we could pay the true price for it.

Surprise, petroleum companies are in charge and they will do anything they can to keep it that way.

[krispos42]

47. supply and demand

Ethanol only costs about $1.20/gal to make, but market demand is driving the price up. Now that it's virtually required as an additive, people that own ethanol plants are making a killing. Don't worry too much; dozens of plants are under construction across the country, and the price will hopefully fall. There are a lot of local and regional ethanol plants, instead of the petroleum monopoly we have now.

Remember, it only costs OPEC countried about $10 a barrel to pump crude out of the ground. The other sixty-odd dollars are damn market demand.

What kills me is that Minnesota is still paying a per-gallon subsidy to it's ethanol industry, even though it's now hugely profitable.

[truthisfreedom]

37. it was never a terribly good idea. lots of things are wrong with ethanol.

it requires heating as part of the process, which takes some form of fuel... that produces tons of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas. it's really more of a boon to farmers than a substitute for oil.

[Winston702]

78. and gasoline doesn't take heat to produce??

Ethanol takes less energy to refine than gasoline.

Hell, it takes more energy to boil water than to boil ethanol.

[Bhaisahab]

38. try this car - it runs on AIR! (no kidding)

The car with a compressed air engine, MDI. Costs less than a penny a mile. New technology expanding worldwide.

http://www.theaircar.com/

[leveymg]

41. "Continuous combustion system" - fancy name for a steam car

Been there, done that. Might not be a bad idea, particularly as an external combustion-electric hybrid vehicle -- but, someone needs to explain how this reciprocating powerplant, with its heavy articulated connecting rod assembly, is inherently more efficient than the Lear steam turbine of the 1960s.

It's not an "air car." It burns hydrocarbon fuel -- apparently gasoline, even though compressed natural gas would burn cleaner.

[Tyler Durden]

63. examine the entire site.

There are at least 4 derivations of the engine that run completely on compressed air and precompressed outside air.

There are a couple of semi-gas/hybrid versions, but the original concept runs on nothing but compressed air.

[krispos42]

50. Electric with Auxillary engine

What we can do now that we have better battery technology is make an electric car with an auxillary engine tied to an alternator.

Make an electric car or SUV with a big battery pack. Make is so it can plug into either a standard 115v/15amp household plug or a 230v/30amp plug (like the kind that powers stoves and cloths dryers). This way you could charge up your car anyplace, like at a cabin in the woods or your grandma's place during the holidays.

Now, add a single-piston, 4-stroke, air-cooled auxillary engine of 10 to 15 horsepower tied to a matching 230-volt alternator. Of course, the auxillary would be a quiet, clean, efficient model, like a Honda engine or something.

Now you can charge up your car even when you're not on the power grid!

The car would have two modes: local and highway. In local mode, the auxillary engine would not kick in until the battery dropped to like 15% or so. The idea being to charge the car up at your house during the night. If the car had a 150-mile battery range, this would be adequete for most people on most days.

In highway mode, the auxillary would try to keep the battery at 100%. While it would not be able to competely make enough power to keep the car cruising on the highway, it might be able to cut battery consumption by 60% or so, turning a 150-mile range into about 350. Maybe more if attention was paid to the car's aerodynamics.

An added benefit of highway mode is that the car would charge itself while you were wandering through a tourist attraction, eating lunch at a highway stop, shopping at the mall, or sleeping at a motel bed.

This would cut down on foreign oil because the motive force for the car mostly from electricity, which can come from a variety of sources such as coal that we cannot readily convert to an automotive fuel.

And, if our electric grid was powered by wind, waves, dams, nuclear, and solar, the cars would not be directly or indirectly contributing to global warming.

The auxillary engine could run on high-octane gasoline. Let's face it, when regular costs $2.95 and premium $3.15, the extra 20 cents for better thermodynamic efficiency is worth it!

It could run on E85 ethanol, which would enable the engine to take advantage of ethanol's naturally high octane by using a high-compression engine for greater thermodynamic efficiency. That would make up somewhat for E85's inheirent lower energy density.

They could also run on diesel/biodiesel, propane, or natural gas. In fact, since many people already have natural gas lines going to their house, installing a simple meter (to collect fuel taxes) and some fittings would enable people to 'gas up' their cars in their home. And the propane engines could use standard barbeque cylinders, so you can just pull up to Wal-Mart and swap your empty for a full one.

Eventually we would go to fuel-cell cars powered by hyrdogen, but until then, what I outline should be possible.

[leveymg]

51. Liked everything but the coal. Swaps one problem for another, even dirtier

fuel source. Public investment should be going into creating a photovoltaic and wind-power grid. Every roof in America should be covered by photovoltaic fiber and every windy spot should have a electricity-generating turbine. These should be paid for by tariffs and taxes on other energy sources, particularly imported oil.

Every Interstate should have a lane with a flush third-rail. That would take care of most of the problem of limited range electric cars and trucks.

For what we've paid for the Iraq War, we could do this.

Screw hydrocarbon fuels. Screw the multinational energy companies. Screw the Republicans.

This route to energy independence should be the cornerstone of the Democratic platform.:kick:

[krispos42]

70. Coal can be very clean

Assuming that modern technololgy is used, coal can be very clean. Our problem is that many of our coal plants are decades old and are grandfathered in under very old rules. And of course it is cheaper for the utilities to whine, bitch, and lobby than upgrade the old plants or shut them down and replace them with cleaner plants.

Of course, burning ANYTHING will contribute to global warming, but will take time to get off the convenience of combustion. It will be easier to get off foreign fuels than to get off fuels entirely.

I personally can't WAIT for us to not need foreign oil. All those countries that call us the 'Great Satan', well, let them deal with a very angry and very fuel-hungry China.

[leveymg]

73. Clean, compared to what?

Burning peat moss?



Environmental Costs of Electricity, a book by the Pace University Center for Environmental and Legal Studies (Oceana Publications, 1990), summarizes rates of carbon dioxide and other emissions from various power plants. Table 2 in Chapter IV of the book, "New Coal Plant Emissions," summarizes studies by PLC Inc. and the Oak Ridge National Laboratories for the U.S. Department of Energy. http://www.seen.org/pages/db/method.shtml

Coal

According to these studies, a new coal fired power plant will release between 1.96 (PLC) and 2.09 (DOE) pounds of CO2 per kilowatt hour of operation. For our report, we assume that any given coal-fired power plant will emit 2 pounds of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

A power plant with a one megawatt (1,000 kilowatts) name plate capacity will produce the equivalent of 8,760,000 kilowatt hours annually at full operation -- that is, 8,760 hours multiplied by 1,000. At this rate, such a plant would emit an estimated 17,520,000 pounds, which is the equivalent of 8,760 short tons or 7,947 metric tons of CO2.


Natural Gas

Pace's table 3, "Emissions for Natural Gas-Fired Generation," puts the rate of emissions for these type of plants at 1.14 pounds (PLC) and 0.99 pounds (DOE) of CO2

per kilowatt hour. For this study, we assume that 1 pound of CO2 will be released per kilowatt hour; that is, a plant with 1 megawatt capacity will release 8.76 million pounds per year -- 4,380 short tons / 3,973 metric tons.

Oil

Pace's table 4, "Emissions for Oil-Fired Generation," puts the rate of emissions for oil-fired plants at 1.65 (DOE) to 1.75 (PLC) pounds of CO2 per kilowatt hour. For this study, we assume that 1.7 pounds of CO2 will be released per kilowatt hour, or the equivalent of 7,446 short tons / 6,754 metric tons of CO2 per year per megawatt.

This table also summarizes the PLC-determined rate of emissions from diesel-fired plants: 2.19 pounds of CO2 per kilowatt hour, the equivalent of 9,592 short tons / 8,702 metric tons of CO2.

[krispos42]

87. I didn't say it wouldn't

Anytime you burn anything, you get carbon dioxide. I addressed that in my post. What I was addressing was the other crap that can fly up the smokestack. Particulates like soot, and the joys of mercury, sulphur, nitrous oxides, and whatever else happens in the complex combustion chemistry of carbon and the trace elements contained within.

Natural gas doesn't have that kind of crap in it, so it burns naturally cleaner (no pun intended!). But a lot of our natural gas is imported, which leaves us at the tender mercies of the free market and international politics.

I frankly wish that the government has taken the $500,000,000,000 we've blown on chasing insurgents in the sandbox and used it develop practical nuclear fusion in a "Manhattan Project"-style project. With tons of pollution-free electricity available, we could junk all of our natural-gas water heaters, our oil-fired furnaces, and our coal-burning power plants. We would make enough domestic oil to supply our transportation and lubrication needs, at least until we developed the electric car to the point it would actually work.

And if we had unlimited fusion power, we could convert water very easily to hydrogen for use in fuel-cell cars. The 50% power loss in the electralysis would be acceptable if the source of the power was both cheap and non-polluting, like nuclear fusion.

[NickB79]

75. Yeah, if you don't mind CO2 production

Which is destroying our planet's climate....

[schmuls]

54. Here in Wisconsin, the Governor wanted to change all the pumps

to ethanol. It was protested because of the fuel inefficiency and because it really tears up engines.
The bill was defeated.

[w4rma]

59. More ethanol use = more research in its use = more production efficiencyt

= less reliance on foriegn oil = less control by big oil = less control by foreign oil. More ethanol use is a good thing, in my book.

[leveymg]

77. That's what they said about domestic oil and LPG production, and

they got some hugh tax breaks. Did the cost of oil and natural gas go down?

[maxsolomon]

67. waa waa stop bitching, south dakota

$2.85/gallon? that's 30 cents LESS than i pay for regular.

we will not continue using energy at the same rate. its a fact. prepare for it.

[Winston702]

79. Closed loop production

http://www.e3biofuels.com/nm/publish/news_12.html

[Copperred]

86. Electric Car Not, could we please get BULLET TRAINS ACROSS THIS COUNTRY

THere needs to be a MAJOR COUNTER-DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN to educate the public that SOCIALISM...IS NOT COMMUNISM...that they are not mutually exclusive as the RIGHT of this country has been trying to fool everyone into.

Most Americans u say Socialism to them...they think Communism... this mis understanding has to end.

[formercia]

88. Starvation

in the Third World. When surplus grain that historically been donated for famine relief get used for ethanol production.

People in the Third World have to pay the same market prices that we do for grains unless it's subsidized.

Increased demand for feed stocks to produce ethanol will have some unintended consequences down the line.

The whole process needs to be well thought out.

[M155Y_A1CH]

90. Does anyone else remember this?

Mountains of Corn and a Sea of Farm Subsidies (corn pile photo)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1912088


So much for surplus corn. What's up with that?

[JackRiddler]

95. ethanol is a scam - anyone here know what they're talking about?

Okay, science heads, your degrees and fancy terms are impressive, but for some reason it falls to me to mention the only measure that matters in a world where the hydrocarbons we depend on for 90 percent of our energy (and food!) do ultimately deplete: ethanol often requires more energy invested to produce than it generates when burned, and at best has the lowest energy output per unit investment of any major source. The salient measure is called Energy Return on Investment, EROI, and it is the first thing to consider when evaluating any alternative energy source. (Any process with a high EROI will ultimately prove economic; anything with an EROI below 1 is actually consuming more energy than it produces!) Follow the link for a brief introduction, and note that ethanol at best has the worst EROI numbers, which increased efficiency will hardly improve sufficiently to justify its being presented as an alternative to oil.

http://www.eroei.com/eval/net_energy_list.html

Ethanol requires the stuff for it be grown first. Corn on a large scale requires fertilizer, pesticide, harvesting, transport, processing - all of which represent significant energy inputs - before it turns into ethanol. At its most efficient, and with assumptions generous to ethanol, you get an EROI slightly above 1 (compared to EROIs of 5 to dozens on hydrocarbon). You would also need to convert the continent into one giant corn field to meet a significant portion of the energy needs.

The focus on ethanol is a scam to subsidize a handful of agrimultis and a criminal waste of energy, both literally and mentally given that it distracts from the real issues on a matter of life and death by presenting a hope that its promoters know to be false.

As for you waste enthusiasts, biomass is a very worthy technology to pursue in increasing efficiency overall - one that will make absolutely no difference in solving the energy crisis. It's good not to throw away waste product, instead putting it to further use. But you've got to understand that this is what biomass is - waste product, which comes from processes that consumed a factor more in energy than is left over in the waste product. The less biomass (manure or trash) you produce in the first place, the less energy you are consuming overall. Efficiency on the consumption end (incidentally reducing the total amount of available biomass) will pay off in far more energy gain total than any biomass-based technology, no matter how clever or efficient.

[Chemical Bill]

97. Only measure that matters?

First off, the DOE says that corn ethanol returns 67% more energy than you invest to get it. That is what an EROI of "slightly above 1" translates to.

http://www.oilcrisis.com/NetEnergy/NetEnergyBalanceCornEthanol2004.pdf

Second, that energy comes from both petroleum, and sources other than petroleum.

Mostly, I disagree that EROI is the only measure that matters. There is a war in Iraq over oil. Any blip in the use of petroleum is worthwhile in the face of this war.

That said, I don't think that corn is the best source of ethanol, or that we can replace our gasoline with ethanol, or that conservation or electric cars are useless. Personally, I use biodiesel.

Bill

[JackRiddler]

100. lies, damned lies, statistics

So you put 3 to 4 units of oil in to get 5 to 6 units of energy out at most. By the best measure (DOE!), by other measures net negative energy output. At best a blip, as you say. Nothing that can replace the awesome output required in hydrocarbons to run the present civilization.

Compare to EROIs of 4 to 20 with conventional sources. How do you replace that? Obviously not with ethanol.

No, EROI's not the only measure that matters. It's decisive, but measures of environmental impact are obviously important too.

[Chemical Bill]

101. Are you saying I'm lying?

That would be insulting.

Since you don't reference your source for the "by other measures net negative energy output" statement, I can only assume you mean the Cornell study by Patzek and Pimental. Am I correct, or did you have a source that is peer reviewed? Please provide your source.

I did agree that ethanol will not replace gasoline. Biodiesel will, according to the UNH study referenced elsewhere in the thread.

And since we are talking about lies and EROI, did you know that EROI studies which include energy from sunlight as an energy input are technically correct, but not relevent to the current energy situation? Sunlight is, after all, free and non-polluting. Do your EROI figures include sunlight as an energy input?

My opinion is that you are discouraging people from trying to avoid petroleum. Is that what you want to do?

BTW, does "measures of environmental impact are obviously important too" mean you care about the people we kill for oil or not?

Bill

[JackRiddler]

103. oh please

what a set of leading questions.

No, "chemical bill," I am not saying you're lying. You never heard the phrase lies, damned lies and statistics before? Mark Twain. Great guy.

So how is enough biodiesel produced to replace gasoline?

No, I hope for real alternatives to petroleum. Ethanol would not qualify at an EROI of 1 or less, would it?

No, obviously I don't care about the people you kill for oil. Kill them all, burn the planet, turn Asia into a corn breadbasket, pump the oil straight from Saudi to the Ukrainian fields so we can produce ethanol and drive at a net energy loss. That's my program!!!

[Chemical Bill]

104. You haven't produced a reference for your ethanol EROI. n/t

[Strelnikov_]

110. GM Is To Ethanol What The GOP Is To Democracy

Good underlying concept, but perverted and implemented primarily as a marketing tool.

In any viable future, we will still need a source of energy dense liquid fuel, primarily for mobile equipment. Biodiesel for the big stuff, and ethanol for the little stuff, that cannot be practically electrified. But marketing either of these as an energy solution for continuance of the easy-motoring SUV life is fantasy.

Producing corn ethanol as an Energy Carrier is perfectly viable. Most of the food value remains following processing (more ‘human’ food from wet vs. dry milling, less ‘net’ energy) so the ‘fuel or food’ argument is not an issue. The only question, for me, is where does the energy input for production of the ethanol come from (most of which is consumed in the fuel plant) since corn ethanol is not an energy source. Using natural gas or coal makes no sense from an energy standpoint since liquid fuel can be made from these sources directly with a viable EROEI (5+). Using these sources to produce ethanol is essentially throwing away 4 units of potential liquid fuel energy for every one unit of corn ethanol energy produced.

Why not renewables, such as wind generated electric, as the process energy source? We would then be converting renewable wind energy to a readily storable, energy dense form.

Basically,

1 Unit Corn + 1 Unit Energy -> 0.8 Unit Food (Corn Equivalent) + 1 Unit Energy (liquid fuel)

And as for why so much corn is grown? Storage, yield and adaptability to the major growing region in this country. Sugar cane has to be processed as soon as it is cut, sugar beets similar (unless frozen, as they used to be able to do in the Red River valley), whereas corn can be readily stored for long periods. Humans were growing lots of corn long before ADM and Cargill.

As for soy biodiesel, 80% of the food value of the soy remains after processing, so this is also not a ‘fuel or food’ issue. And as others in this thread have pointed out, the process energy required for biodiesel is less than that for corn ethanol. Again, run the crushers, millers and dryers off of wind generated electricity, and you are converting wind to a storable, energy dense liquid fuel with minor loss of net food production.