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.
Ethanol is produced with field corn or milo. Neither of which is suitable for human consumption.
however the mash made from feed corn is far more digestible by livestock than feed made from the same corn that is unprocesssed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigchuckie
Putting a less desirable crop to replace our food supply is even dumber. Would sugarcane or switch grass make more sense?
sugarcane and switch grass both make far more sense than corn for ethanol production, and hemp makes far more sense than corn for biodiesel production.
Putting a less desirable crop to replace our food supply is even dumber. Would sugarcane or switch grass make more sense?
The economics of other inputs aren't as favorable. Processing corn and milo into ethanol has the benefit of certain bi-products that create additional revenue. The left over distillers grains are sold as livestock feed, and the oils from the stillage are collected and sold.
Ethanol isn't the mean and nasty product that big oil is leading a lot of people to believe. The misnomer that ethanol drives up food price is largely false.
sugarcane and switch grass both make far more sense than corn for ethanol production, and hemp makes far more sense than corn for biodiesel production.
Soy beans are typically used in biodiesel production. There are a few biodiesel facilities that use corn oil as the input and they are buying or sourcing that corn oil that is recaptured from the stillage in ethanol production.
See this is an issue where both liberals and conservatives agree....but no one in Washington will listen.
corn ethenol is one of the worst things taking place in America right now. and it will just keep on going
Agreed. Ethanol was one of the stupidest ideas we ever put into practice. Popular Science even declared it to be the biggest environmental disaster of the US in the 21st century. Every way you look at it, it shows negative returns. Even wind power is better than ethanol.
Biofuels, including sugar cane and switchgrass still are awful. We use up soil and land and species resources in order to get a little more fuel for our input of gas into the harvesting and processing of these fuels. There are huge externalities that everyone just turns a blind eye to when it comes to biofuels.
Soy beans are typically used in biodiesel production. There are a few biodiesel facilities that use corn oil as the input and they are buying or sourcing that corn oil that is recaptured from the stillage in ethanol production.
actually a wide variety of used cooking oils are used to make biodiesel, everything from used cooking lard, to corn oil, to soy bean oil, to vegetable oil, to peanut oil etc. and the by product of making biodiesel ia glycerin, which is then used to make soap and other products from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P
Agreed. Ethanol was one of the stupidest ideas we ever put into practice. Popular Science even declared it to be the biggest environmental disaster of the US in the 21st century. Every way you look at it, it shows negative returns. Even wind power is better than ethanol.
Biofuels, including sugar cane and switchgrass still are awful. We use up soil and land and species resources in order to get a little more fuel for our input of gas into the harvesting and processing of these fuels. There are huge externalities that everyone just turns a blind eye to when it comes to biofuels.
sugar cane is already grown in large enough quantities that it wont hurt to take perhaps half the total sugar production in one year to make ethanol. and you dont have to use sugarcane either, you can use sugar beets as well. as for switch grass, as i understand it, it is fairly easily grown and harvested, but correct me if i am wrong on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesjuke
This is well known by all levels of government but they push to increase it instead.
10% ethanol also means a 10% decrease in miles per gallon.
Some gain........not! All while destroying engines at the same time.
ok, please stop with the information that is not only way out of date, by about 20 years or so, but is also flat out WRONG. ethanol does not destroy engines. ethanol is a hydrocarbon fuel rather like diesel, gasoline, and propane and methane and natural gas. the hydrocarbon chains are slightly different between each, but none the less they are all still hydrocarbon chains. ethanol has been used as a motor fuel for decades, in fact henry ford built his early engines to run on ethanol.
take the damn plastic out of the fuel system, and replace the neoprene lines with something more alcohol proof, and there are no issues running ethanol. as for the fuel economy loss, you are wrong on that as well. ethanol does not have the latent energy that gasoline does, but it is no where near as bad as methanol. and if you were to actually TUNE your engine to run on ethanol you might find a much smaller fuel economy difference than you realize. on the order of ten percent if you run STRAIGHT ethanol over straight gasoline.
See this is an issue where both liberals and conservatives agree....but no one in Washington will listen.
corn ethenol is one of the worst things taking place in America right now. and it will just keep on going
Yes, it's a good example of democratic dysfunction. The power of special interest money trumps the will of the people.
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.