U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-27-2011, 08:09 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
627 posts, read 1,132,081 times
Reputation: 598

Advertisements


Ethanol Expert David Blume Interviewed on KPTV Portland - YouTube

Do you think that this is "green"??? I know a bit about green living but my knowledge is limited by the information I have found.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-27-2011, 09:13 PM
 
39,211 posts, read 40,596,564 times
Reputation: 16081
It takes more fossil fuel energy to produce the ethanol from corn than you get out of it therefore it is not "green". Using the fossil fuel energy directly would be more environmentally friendly.

Note they use fossil fuels to process it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2011, 06:16 AM
 
12,266 posts, read 15,133,445 times
Reputation: 8068
Ethanol is a great ingredient in certain drinks, but I'm not sure about fuel.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2011, 07:29 AM
 
Location: DC
6,509 posts, read 6,430,643 times
Reputation: 3112
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
It takes more fossil fuel energy to produce the ethanol from corn than you get out of it therefore it is not "green". Using the fossil fuel energy directly would be more environmentally friendly.

Note they use fossil fuels to process it.
That's not true. Current ethanol plant are energy positive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2011, 09:18 AM
 
Location: Blah
4,153 posts, read 7,928,110 times
Reputation: 3057
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
That's not true. Current ethanol plant are energy positive.
Positively a joke.

It still takes a good bit of fossil energy to produce E85 and then it's such a high octane fuel, the average vehicle burns through it at twice the rate of gasoline. You basically have to refuel twice to get the same milage from one tank of gasoline. Then E85 is heavily subsidized by the government as well.

The idea of using plants to make fuel is flawed. What happens when you have a drought? The Western States like Texas is experiencing one of the worst droughts on record. It's so bad, the cotton farmers didn't even bother to plant this season. Then what about the soil? The crops used for E85 isn't food crops but it still uses good soil. There just insn't enough good fertile soil to raise enough crops for both food and our fuel.

There is way better technology available to power our cars with zero pollutants but no one wants to make the switch. Why, because oil companies would go bankrupt the first year and a lot of people would loose their jobs and their life's savings. E85 is just posturing!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2011, 09:29 AM
 
48,516 posts, read 83,700,460 times
Reputation: 18036
Yep even the alcohol industry says its 20% less mileage and Consumer Reports testing showed they got average 27% less milage per tank in same vehicle has non-aclohol additive gasoline.Then of course their is the intake value carbon problem being seen by mechanics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2011, 02:12 PM
 
Location: DC
6,509 posts, read 6,430,643 times
Reputation: 3112
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
Yep even the alcohol industry says its 20% less mileage and Consumer Reports testing showed they got average 27% less milage per tank in same vehicle has non-aclohol additive gasoline.Then of course their is the intake value carbon problem being seen by mechanics.
That's not an efficiency difference. That's an energy density difference. Ethanol has about 80 thousand BTU/gallon and gasoline about 120 thousand BTU/gallon
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2011, 02:13 PM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
30,638 posts, read 49,293,953 times
Reputation: 19024
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
It takes more fossil fuel energy to produce the ethanol from corn than you get out of it therefore it is not "green". Using the fossil fuel energy directly would be more environmentally friendly.

Note they use fossil fuels to process it.
Unless you do not use any.

People who do not use any petroleum to make ethanol, use no petroleum to make ethanol.

However people who do use petroleum to make ethanol, do use petroleum to make their ethanol.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2011, 04:22 PM
 
5,090 posts, read 9,830,095 times
Reputation: 3955
Lot of mis-information on this thread.

Not picking on you at all, but mind if I start with yours?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVTRay View Post
Positively a joke.
Ok. Good start.

Quote:
It still takes a good bit of fossil energy to produce E85
Well the 15% that is Gasoline is generally considered ALL fossil. But none of the rest actual or embodied energy has to be fossil. That is what makes it a renewable source. So if it were E100, (straight Ethanol) it could be 100% renewable.

Quote:
and then it's such a high octane fuel, the average vehicle burns through it at twice the rate of gasoline.
It is true that the standard Internal Combustion Engine that has been optimized for Gasoline IS NOT optimized for Ethanol. But in practice, the burn rate is usually only about 20% more by volume.

On the other hand, an ICE that has been optimized for Ethanol has a much higher compression ratio (12 to 15, typical). Pretty much racing engines. So they get MUCH more power than Gasoline ICEs ever could. Means if we actually dump and cut the ties to Gasoline, the Ethanol engines would be better than what we left behind.

Quote:
You basically have to refuel twice to get the same milage from one tank of gasoline. Then E85 is heavily subsidized by the government as well.
Already covered the mileage (mis)statement above. Actually curious -- do you have real world data that says half? My information is direct from small brewers and distillers that I do support designs for. I have looked over their numbers and it is pretty consistent.

ALL fuels are heavily subsidized by the .gov. We have covered and re-covered this repeatedly on here. Suppose we could do it one-more-time? At any rate the bottom line comes out that if All Subsidies and Pollution Permits were removed Fossil and Gasoline would already be gone bye-bye, so renewables would already be the going thing on their own.

Quote:
The idea of using plants to make fuel is flawed. What happens when you have a drought?
Very Rare to get a Nationwide Drought. But the larger demand for the crops makes for a larger supply. That tends to spread the risk and widen the load. Also in this case, keeping up a good price on the crop keeps up a good supply of the crop. Higher prices and demands support irrigation, solar distillation, and other advances that create higher yields.

Quote:
The Western States like Texas is experiencing one of the worst droughts on record. It's so bad, the cotton farmers didn't even bother to plant this season.
Am in Texas, as I write this. We have skipped until Fall planting. Had our first rain in months this morning. About 1/2 an inch. But it has the roadrunners running around happily eating the grasshoppers.

Quote:
Then what about the soil? The crops used for E85 isn't food crops but it still uses good soil. There just insn't enough good fertile soil to raise enough crops for both food and our fuel.
Suppose we can cover the Food v. Fuel stories in a whole other thread, but there really is not the make-believe conflict. If you would like the background start with where the false claims started -- google "Pimentel Ethanol."

But back to soil -- Soil can be built faster than degradation/depletion -- we are doing that for Organic applications -- but that is counter to business ethos of optimizing short term profits. Maybe would take (yet another?) tax incentive on the farming industry to grow soil with the crops. Geeezzz.

Quote:
There is way better technology available to power our cars with zero pollutants . . . .
Agreed. Straight up grid electricity (no batteries) could cover up to around 90% of ground transportation. Trains, Trucks, and Cars, included. Beyond the grid, various Bio-Fuels and Hydrogen could carry the rest.

Quote:
. . . . but no one wants to make the switch.

Why, because oil companies would go bankrupt the first year and a lot of people would loose their jobs and their life's savings. E85 is just posturing!
E85 is probably more like a half-assed "answer" to a half-assed question. That question being "How to reduce US Oil use in transportation."

I would submit that is a half-assed question. Question should be "How to TAKE US OFF OIL for transportation?"

Whole different question gets a whole different answer.

There are plenty of folks -- usually called "early adopters" who would make the switch, as you say, if it were available. But early adopters pay a higher price.

Dunno if you follow just how large "the switch" will be? This is bigger than the Apollo Moon Project, the Interstate Highway System and a couple of wars all rolled up together. The full switch will cause full employment for years.

This will take US 20 to 40 years to transition from Oil to the Next Thing.
If we started today, I would not likely live to see the end, and my kids might retire finishing it up.

I would not worry about the Oil folks going under during the process. Oil will be making plenty of money all the way back down the declining production curve.

Back to the early adopters paying more. Back in 1980 an Apple PC went for over $2000. Now a full blown notebook is under $500. An early VCR over $1000. Now a DVD/VCR combo is under $100. You may recall similar numbers on Cell Phones. Now they are often "free."

Same in autos. An early R.E. Olds "Oldsmobile" was around $5000 ($100K in current money). A decade later, Ford was cranking out Model T's for under $1000. Should follow the same on this technology transition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2011, 05:18 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
627 posts, read 1,132,081 times
Reputation: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip T View Post
Lot of mis-information on this thread.

Not picking on you at all, but mind if I start with yours?



Ok. Good start.



Well the 15% that is Gasoline is generally considered ALL fossil. But none of the rest actual or embodied energy has to be fossil. That is what makes it a renewable source. So if it were E100, (straight Ethanol) it could be 100% renewable.



It is true that the standard Internal Combustion Engine that has been optimized for Gasoline IS NOT optimized for Ethanol. But in practice, the burn rate is usually only about 20% more by volume.

On the other hand, an ICE that has been optimized for Ethanol has a much higher compression ratio (12 to 15, typical). Pretty much racing engines. So they get MUCH more power than Gasoline ICEs ever could. Means if we actually dump and cut the ties to Gasoline, the Ethanol engines would be better than what we left behind.



Already covered the mileage (mis)statement above. Actually curious -- do you have real world data that says half? My information is direct from small brewers and distillers that I do support designs for. I have looked over their numbers and it is pretty consistent.

ALL fuels are heavily subsidized by the .gov. We have covered and re-covered this repeatedly on here. Suppose we could do it one-more-time? At any rate the bottom line comes out that if All Subsidies and Pollution Permits were removed Fossil and Gasoline would already be gone bye-bye, so renewables would already be the going thing on their own.



Very Rare to get a Nationwide Drought. But the larger demand for the crops makes for a larger supply. That tends to spread the risk and widen the load. Also in this case, keeping up a good price on the crop keeps up a good supply of the crop. Higher prices and demands support irrigation, solar distillation, and other advances that create higher yields.



Am in Texas, as I write this. We have skipped until Fall planting. Had our first rain in months this morning. About 1/2 an inch. But it has the roadrunners running around happily eating the grasshoppers.



Suppose we can cover the Food v. Fuel stories in a whole other thread, but there really is not the make-believe conflict. If you would like the background start with where the false claims started -- google "Pimentel Ethanol."

But back to soil -- Soil can be built faster than degradation/depletion -- we are doing that for Organic applications -- but that is counter to business ethos of optimizing short term profits. Maybe would take (yet another?) tax incentive on the farming industry to grow soil with the crops. Geeezzz.



Agreed. Straight up grid electricity (no batteries) could cover up to around 90% of ground transportation. Trains, Trucks, and Cars, included. Beyond the grid, various Bio-Fuels and Hydrogen could carry the rest.



E85 is probably more like a half-assed "answer" to a half-assed question. That question being "How to reduce US Oil use in transportation."

I would submit that is a half-assed question. Question should be "How to TAKE US OFF OIL for transportation?"

Whole different question gets a whole different answer.

There are plenty of folks -- usually called "early adopters" who would make the switch, as you say, if it were available. But early adopters pay a higher price.

Dunno if you follow just how large "the switch" will be? This is bigger than the Apollo Moon Project, the Interstate Highway System and a couple of wars all rolled up together. The full switch will cause full employment for years.

This will take US 20 to 40 years to transition from Oil to the Next Thing.
If we started today, I would not likely live to see the end, and my kids might retire finishing it up.

I would not worry about the Oil folks going under during the process. Oil will be making plenty of money all the way back down the declining production curve.

Back to the early adopters paying more. Back in 1980 an Apple PC went for over $2000. Now a full blown notebook is under $500. An early VCR over $1000. Now a DVD/VCR combo is under $100. You may recall similar numbers on Cell Phones. Now they are often "free."

Same in autos. An early R.E. Olds "Oldsmobile" was around $5000 ($100K in current money). A decade later, Ford was cranking out Model T's for under $1000. Should follow the same on this technology transition.
Glad to see someone who actually knows about it instead of parroting. No offense to everyone else, but it seems you didn't watch the video. David Blume is not just someone spouting off his ideas to make profits. He's an educated man who worked for NASA.

Pay attention to what he is actually saying. He also has a 90 minute video you can watch on Youtube.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:02 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top