Poll: Ethanol/Alcohol in gas, is it worth the price?

[Dags90]

There's still a lot of suffering in the world caused by hunger. Making ethanol a considerable fuel source would mean transforming up to half of the current crops, from food to fuel.

If the current problem is the awfully unfair distribution of food, after that there simply wouldn't be enough food.

It's not a bad idea to use ethanol, alongside gasoline for example, but it's just one smaller source and will not offer any proper solutions to fuel crisis.

I already posted a source on that. According to the World Hunger Organization, about 2700 Calories of food are produced per person per day. We have an excess of food, enough to make the world positively Rubenesque. The big problems are trade barriers, poverty, and economics in general. And this is with a fair amount of land going towards making meats, which are inefficient sources of food.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

Adding to ethanol, let's explore the utter horrific stupidity behind "Biofuel" taken specifically from Palm oil.

To make the biofuel you have to grow palm oil trees, which grow in the rainforest. So naturally to make enough eco-friendly fuel to commercialise they destroy the rainforest and turn it into palm oil plantations.

Spoiler: And I'm not exaggerating when I say the rainforest is destroyed...

What we are trying to do with renewable energy is create a perpetual motion machine. Take resources out of the earth, use them up, and somehow not have any adverse effect on the planet. It's just impossible to achieve, but instead of taking a step back and evaluating the full costs of "renewable energy" programmes and "environmentally friendly" productions, Our politicians are taking them at face value, giving them their full support and forcing their interests on the rest of the country, without questioning any of their methods, and it is slowing screwing everything up, there will come a point that it will explode in their faces, and heads will roll because this is such a serious issue, but there is currently no right answer.

In 30 or 40 years our grandchildren will be learning about the renewable energy push in the 90's, 2000's and 2010's, and how retardedly wrong we got everything, and how it did far more harm than good. Currently I am under the belief that the only, the only power source that won't totally screw up the earth is Nuclear Fusion, and it may well be impossible to create and commercialise profitably, and if we launch the little waste it does produce into space or something.

 

[Piflik]

\Do you care to prove it?

Honestly, I know nothing about this subject, so figured I'd read everyones sources and educate myself on the matter. Except nobody has provided any.

I think the "it's stupid to use land for fuel when people are starving" is a wash of an argument. People in Africa/Asia aren't starving because there isn't enough land in the U.S., they're starving because they'll never be able to afford the prices developed countries charge. It's simply not economical to buy farming equipment at U.S. prices, then try and sell the food to Haiti for almost nothing. About 2700 Calories are produced per person per day by food growers around the world. That's enough to make the entire world fat. [footnote]http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm#Does_the_world_produce_enough_food_to_feed_everyone[/footnote]

But the prices would be lower, if more area was used for food. Just look at the prices now, with all these crop failures.

Captcha: white bread...I think the captcha generator is a PreCog...

 

[Dags90]

But the prices would be lower, if more area was used for food. Just look at the prices now, with all these crop failures.

Captcha: white bread...I think the captcha generator is a PreCog...

The prices may be markedly lower in the U.S. and maybe Mexico/Canada. The change the surplus would create in prices for poor people in Asia would be minuscule by comparison. Trade barriers and economics affect the affordability of food in poor non-agricultural communities than anything.

 

[yeti585]

I am keeping it simple so here we go!

Ethanol destroys machines and makes food, gas and cars cost more, alcohol based alt energy needs to die, anyone care to debunk that?

Why yes, I would care to debunk that. Ethanol, a biofuel costs more because it is produced so scarcely right now. It will make the price of cars rise slightly for a small amount of time, but so did GPS mapping systems, disc brakes, automatic transmissions, etc. It will also raise the price of food if used more widely and not produced more widely.

Once it is produced more widely, fuel prices will drop. This is because We no longer have to find fossil fuels, mine them, transport them, and other steps we take now. It will also boost the amount of jobs in the country because more people will be needed to grow the materials needed to make the fuel. Another good thing about biofuel is that it makes farming, a relatively non-lucrative pursuit, lucrative again.

Some biofuels can also reduce emissions put out by the machines that use it. This is small compared to the fact that it is a renewable, domestically produced product.

 

[Darren716]

I hate ethanol because it has caused me to have countless problems with my small engine 2 stroke Mininuke that I didn't have before hand when the gas I used came from a gas station that used ethanol free.

 

[Paladin2905]

Ethanol is fine, just look at Brazil. They have been using sugar cane ethanol for years with no ill effects. The US just didn't think this through and decided that corn, the worst thing to use, was the best idea. We also use beets in some places, but mostly corn. This, despite having switchgrass which would also be a great alternative.

edit: Using it for fuel doesn't mean that the corn can't be used for food. The by-product is one of the better feeds for cattle, which frees up other products for human consumption.

As I recall from combustion systems, sugar cane ethanol is only about 20% efficient as far as energy yield / production goes. ~Twice as good as corn at about 10%, but still not that great of an idea. Switchgrass is still the best to be seen (35%) but the energy density of all of these fuels is absolutely abysmal compared to oil derivatives. I think the idea in the US was that we produced an imperial crapton of corn each year, so why not use it for fuel?

As much as I'd like to throw my hat in with one of these other theories being thrown around, I think the fact is that energy production and use is a giant charlie foxtrot anyways. Market forces and politics will continue to drive it in whatever way shows the least resistance, and those places may not be the best they could be. C'est la vie.

 

[Ryotknife]

Ethanol in gasoline is the stupidest thing politicians invented for quite some time...(even stupider than trying to shut down every nuclear power plant)

1. It uses agricultural areas that should be used to generate food. There are people starving everywhere. Especially in poorer countries people die because of this shit. The drought in the biggest crop exporting country (America) combined with 50% of the remaining agricultural area being used for fuel is devastating.

2. Ethanol contains much less energy than gasoline. This means that you will burn more fuel for the same distance. And this means the ecological 'benefit' is non existent. There might be less CO2 per liter (and even that calculation is not entirely kosher), but people don't drive liters, they drive kilometers (or miles).

I dont think tht is a problem in the US, seeing how the government pays farmers to burn their crops or not to farm at all.

When i worked in the south, I knew a few people whose homes are technically on farmland, and the government pays them to not farm.

 

[Senare]

It is very stupid and you are trading one problem for another. The meat industry, jumbo shrimps and palm oil all need to get taken down several dozen notches. Put research into fuel cells (or other forms of efficient batteries), design more efficent solar energy (by use of microbioligy) and use up space in deserts. Use electric cars. Also kick the petroleum companies who complain in the shins. Invest into autopiloted cars if you have some spare time after that - you want flying cars don't you? And all these ideas are oooold by now.

 

[Hoplon]

From what I remember some teacher saying, hydrogen fuel is not an effective replacement if you want to be eco freindly at least because the production of the fuel is really taxing in terms of pollution.

That's because currently most of it is produced from fossil fuels rather than cracking sea water with solar power.

Ironically setting up plants to crack it out of sea water would probably revitalise the flagging southern European nations and make them able to flip off Russia by stopping buying gas from them.

 

[Wolfram23]

The only "benefit" it has to an engine is that is is a higher octane rating that most normal gasolines (in the 95 AKI octane rating area).

The downsides are that it absorbs water, which drys out any seals that are susceptible to that and it has a lower energy content than gas which means fuel economy drops a lot. Sure, it's cheaper, but you can easily spend more per mile with E85 than regular gas.

I think a better thing before going full electric is using water/methanol injection and possibly much leaner air fuel ratios to drastically improve fuel economy and power for high performance engines.

Also, OP, you asked a different question in the poll than the thread title. So... there's at least 1 opposite vote on there. Additionally, if you're going to claim shit try to provide some evidence. There's a lot of info on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85

 

[Madgamer13]

Greets!

I have the perfect answer to the alcohol based alternative energy for fuel problem. The solution is simple, you need only put some moonrock into a conventional perpetual energy machine. Using the moonrock as fuel, the perpetual energy machine will create endless amounts of telekinetic perpetual energy with which to move the vehicle in the way the telepathic steering wheel defines the vehicle to go.

It all exists! Really! It'll also go at the low low price of five british pounds, since everyone knows that britain rules the world.

...Does all this really matter? Fuel has always had large profits for those who control it and currently, the governments of the world control the fuel. Even if that government happens to be some sort of cartel.

Information on fuel will always be believed and the bubble will finally burst when, suprise suprise, we suddenly run out. Then we'll see a moonrock powered telekinetic vehicle that bends the very space time continuum.

Untill then, cry over your fuel bill, it makes far more sense to me. Not that I'd ~ever~ tell anyone what to do, understand.

 

[Ravinoff]

I don't care about all this arguing about whether or not ethanol corn is food, what I care about is the effects of ethanol on engines not designed for it (that is to say, any vehicle that's not new, and anything with a two-stroke motor). Ethanol will not only crack and rot tubing and plastic parts, but it's absolute hell on a two-stroke to the point that you cannot use ethanol blends in them. Unless someone wants me to, I won't get into the technical details, but ethanol, when used in a two-stroke engine, will absolutely destroy it in one of a number of ways.

 

[NightHawk21]

From what I remember some teacher saying, hydrogen fuel is not an effective replacement if you want to be eco freindly at least because the production of the fuel is really taxing in terms of pollution.

That's because currently most of it is produced from fossil fuels rather than cracking sea water with solar power.

Ironically setting up plants to crack it out of sea water would probably revitalise the flagging southern European nations and make them able to flip off Russia by stopping buying gas from them.

After reading your post I thought I knew the problem with that (its the same as most renewable energy projects), and after doing some reading I think I was right. The problem with using solar water to crack sea water is primarily the cost. Going off what I read, currently making hydrogen is cheapest through the use of fossil fuels (that's a fact). If you use solar power, I would imagine that you're plants would have to be a lot bigger since you need a lot of area to capture the amount of energy needed to make hydrogen. You would probably also need to invest more into what I imagine is a more expensive tech. On top of that if you're cracking sea water you have to go through a heavy purification process to get pure distilled water first since the sea water would likely be full of contaminants.

Now I think a possible solution to the issue would be to do the hydrogen production offshore, or at least move some of the energy generation into the ocean (with those tidal generators and such), since this cuts down on the land required at least. The only problem with this is it doesn't fix the money issue.

What I also read is that some microbes posses the ability to convert water (I think) into hydrogen. This seems like a more reasonable scenario then waiting for the tech to develop.

 

[BaronUberstein]

Just checking: Is this the one about converting fucking CORN - you know, which is for FOOD - into fuel? 'Cause if so, I have a bone and more importantly two clubs to pick with some politicians.

Oh god corn ethanol. IT IS A TERRIBLE IDEA THAT WASTES PERFECTLY GOOD DRINKING WATER.

*storms off into a rage*

 

[EricKei]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we go through this "corn added to fuel" idiocy back in the 80's? Back when it was called "gasohol"? It was shown to be destructive to engines then, and the only thing that has really changed is that we now have "flexfuel" vehicles that can safely handle the stuff. The thing is, like any other "alternative fuel" vehicles, they are in a tiny minority of vehicles produced, let alone sold. Meanwhile. all of the other cars get torn up/replaced more easily, leading to more frequent new car sales. Coincidence? ~_~

 

[EricKei]

We actually just got it 'round these parts maybe a year ago -- either that, or we've had it for years and gas stations just recently started *mentioning* it because they were somehow forced to ~_~

My issue is, I drive a 2000 grand marquis...very possibly borderline as to whether it can safely use E90 or not, methinks. Also, non-ethanol fuel is almost impossible to find (I've found one station within an hour's drive that carries it, and it's more expensive. Not worth buying unless I'm out that way anyway).

growing: IIRC, corn used for fuel is a variety not suitable for human consumption. That being said, we could always use that land for edible food. Also, in the US in particular, the government pays farmers NOT to grow over a certain amount of many crops, in order to keep the prices from bottoming out.

why corn? : I always used to think that companies put corn in everything because it was practically cheaper than the dirt it was being grown in. This is definitely no longer the case, and yes, corn use (and therefore its price) has exploded in the past decade or so. I'm all for looking at alternate fuels and additives. Heck, I don't want corn in much of anything I eat (we can't digest it, after all, neither can our cats and dogs, and yet it's a HUGE component in things like cokes and pet foods, respectively)...

Also, even BEFORE corn's massive price increase, the cost of manufacturing a gallon of corn-ethanol was significantly greater than what it would ever sell for...So not is it an inefficient fuel, it's financially inefficient, as well.

Dags90 -- Another factor in why many of the worst-off nations in the world stay starving is one which you almost never see reported on; the last major "expose" on it I recall was done back in the 80's. Put simply, many of the governments of certain nations are allowed to control ALL imports into their country, even imports of humanitarian aid such as donated foods. By and large, the governments seized most of the food and sell it in order to line their own pockets. Put simply, they WANT the population starving. People who have to think about whether they'll be able to feed their kids have no time to think about revolution or other rights that many people take for granted. The US and other nations are prevented from just flying in and airdropping all the food the planes can carry because it would be sen as a military invasion.

Now, this may very well have changed over the years, but somehow, I doubt it. Feed The Children-type organizations have been collecting food and money to help people for decades now, and while they've had some effect, I suspect that much of what they gather is stil getting intercepted.

re: politics: Isn't Al Gore, corn's foremost champion, REALLY heavily invested in corn?

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

I am keeping it simple so here we go!

Ethanol destroys machines and makes food, gas and cars cost more, alcohol based alt energy needs to die, anyone care to debunk that?

Why yes, I would care to debunk that. Ethanol, a biofuel costs more because it is produced so scarcely right now. It will make the price of cars rise slightly for a small amount of time, but so did GPS mapping systems, disc brakes, automatic transmissions, etc. It will also raise the price of food if used more widely and not produced more widely.

Once it is produced more widely, fuel prices will drop. This is because We no longer have to find fossil fuels, mine them, transport them, and other steps we take now. It will also boost the amount of jobs in the country because more people will be needed to grow the materials needed to make the fuel. Another good thing about biofuel is that it makes farming, a relatively non-lucrative pursuit, lucrative again.

Some biofuels can also reduce emissions put out by the machines that use it. This is small compared to the fact that it is a renewable, domestically produced product.

And the fact we do not have a good enough engine designs to use it without costing more in maintenance?