A challenge for Jay 02 ws6.

[Roger in Kensington]

Jay, you extol the wonders and virtues of alcohol fuels in a previous thread. It's a good discussion and you are a knowledgeable individual on the subject.

If I understand your argument correctly, you contend that the production of alcohol fuels offers clear (perhaps Everclear ) energy advantages compared to the production of petroleum-based fuels. I contend that this is not correct, that we would need to use more methane or petroleum to produce alcohol than if we simply used the methane or petroleum directly.

Patrick Bedard's column in the October 2005 issue of Car and Driver dissects the arguments of the hydrogen-power advocates. His arguments regarding hydrogen production parallel my arguments regarding alcohol production.

You are obviously a good writer. So I challenge you to respond to his article for neglecting to mention the (Ever)clear advantages of alcohol fuels.

If you do this, and Car and Driver prints it, let's see how Bedard responds.

Whaddaya say?

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

Roger,

I really do feel that we are arguing two different points, and that, for the most part, we are both correct.

You seem to be coming back to the point of how much better of a fuel oil is than alcohol. This I will not dispute. One pretty much only needs to pass a high school chemistry class that teaches stoichiometry to realize that.

A Toyota Corolla that gets 40 mpg on gasoline, will get about 24 mpg if converted to run on ethanol.

The problem is that continuing to use oil as we do today simply is not practical, nor will it be possible if we don't begin to learn to develop other sources of energy.

While oil is a much better fuel, alcohol produced from plants is a far better resource.

No one is suggesting that tomorrow everything that currently burns oil needs to burn alcohol. No one is suggesting that it needs to happen fast... but it needs to start shifting that way. And I am CERTAINLY not suggesting that all cars should run on alcohol that is procuded from burning oil. I hate it when people say hydrogen cars are the answer... because I'm aware of how many fossil fuels need to be consumed to produce that hydrogen, and the energy deficit it causes. It's like running a TV signal through your VCR before heading to your TV - the signal loses a little quality. In other words, as we go from one energy source to another, the energy used to produce that energy means we're going to lose energy over all because there are no perfect systems. So how do we transition to this?

There are three levels of energy consumption.

The way I see it, the transition to alternative fuels needs to begin with the primary consumers first - the power plants. Nuclear power should be mainstream, solar power should be supplemental, and wind and hydroeletric power should be used where appropriate. Every home should have some solar panels to at least power a percentage of itself... likewise for new skyscrapers. "Green engineering" I believe it is called is even developing some skyscrapers that will ADD power to the power grid.

The second consumers are industry - the refineries, the production platns, etc. When they begin doing their works using energy produced from those methods, then they can start to alter their production methods. Refineries for oil can become distilleries for alcohol fuels for example.

The last step of the transition is the private sector. As people begin buying electric cars - which are now going to receive a charge produced from nuclear, solar, wind, or water energy, after having been built in a plant that uses energy from those sources as well... fossil fuels have now been completely removed from the automotive circle. There wouldn't really be a need to give up internal combustion engines if we didn't want to - but we could certainly run them on different fuels. Ethanol - or even hyrdogen, ONCE WE HAVE THE PRIMARY ENERGY PRODUCERS IN PLACE. (We will be in 100% agreement that an electric car, hydrogen car, or ethanol car is doing us hardly any favors at all, if those forms of energy were produced by burning fossil fuels.)

1,2,3...

We're a long ways away from it, but it has to start somewhere. I really believe that once oil is cut out from the loop, we'll see how nice it is. We can continue to plant more and more corn to continue making more and more ethanol, continue to mine for uranium, and obviously - the sun will keep shining, the wind blowing, and the rivers flowing.

We are going to run out of everything one day. Uranium, corn, water... everything. One day the sun will stop shining too. The second law of thermodynamics says that one day there won't even be any matter left in the universe - the "entropy death of the universe"... but of this is going to happen before we're out of oil.

Look, we need to make some sacrifices. Oil might just be the "perfect fuel". Maybe that's why wars have been fought over it... but you are absolutely kidding yourself if you think we can just continue to consume oil as if there is no tomorrow. There is no quicker, more short-sighted way, to sabotage our future... both in the sense of our way of life, as well as our economic prosperity.

[Roger in Kensington]

As the Mayans and Aztecs found to their dismay . . .

. . . growing corn rapidly depletes the soil. The only way we grow so much corn in this country is through the use of large amounts of fertilizer which is produced from methane.

Brazil is finding this out through their alcohol production program that uses sugarcane, with similar effects to raising corn here in the states. They've "handled" the problem by abandoning depleted lands and clearing ever more of the jungle (excuse me, "rainforest"). Without the huge energy inputs (from fossil fuels) required for sugarcane production, the soil becomes depleted. Brazil has a lot of "rainforest" to destroy and they don't seem much bothered by destroying it, but they will eventually reach a limit.

The energy inputs for alcohol distillation can be mitigated by burning the "trash" (i.e. the cane stalks after crushing or the corn stalks after harvest) to power the distillation. However, when the high-nitrogen trash is used this way, its potential contribution to soil improvement is lost, necessitating the use of fertilizer.

Most of the farmland in this country suitable for corn production is already used for that purpose. We can't simply "continue to plant more and more corn to continue making more and more ethanol" without either using lands unsuitable for that purpose or displacing other crops.

Considering that ethanol production must be subsidized (as in Brazil) to make it economically competitive with other fuels, one can reasonably conclude that ethanol cannot make it in the marketplace by itself.

I am NOT saying that oil is a "better" fuel than alcohol. I AM saying that alcohol production will NOT reduce our consumption of fossil fuels.

I have failed to convince you of this. A lot of people --especially farmers and large corporations (like ADM) that stand to benefit from ethanol subsidies -- are not convinced of this.

Nevertheless, the facts speak for themselves and we delude ourselves if we think otherwise.

We use the "low-hanging fruit" of cheaply available energy first before looking for alternatives. We've got oodles of coal, and we know how to convert it to gasoline. But it is relatively expensive, so why do it? Much better is to use the available oil we've got and -- as I pointed out previously -- THIS country has 270 years-worth of oil available right now at competitive prices in the form of oil shale deposits which have been known for almost 100 years.

We could even use them to produce alcohol, if you want.

But it would be a waste of energy.

[Trash man]

instead of having 5 different grades of gas, make it all 93 octane and call it a day(sorta)? any car will run on 93, and it lets us hi-preformance guys still drive our cars. has any1 thought of that? i kno im prob. missin the downside but in theory it doesnt seem half bad as to slow down the consumption a lil

[bru333]

instead of having 5 different grades of gas, make it all 93 octane and call it a day(sorta)? any car will run on 93, and it lets us hi-preformance guys still drive our cars. has any1 thought of that? i kno im prob. missin the downside but in theory it doesnt seem half bad as to slow down the consumption a lil

That isn't going to slow down consumption. You'd still be using the same volume of fuel, actually might increase useage, my car doesn't run well on 93 due to the low compression ratio of my 2.8l. Less power on 93 and poor mileage.

[wolfdogs]

long as is does'nt make a shortage for the coors light breweries.......









hahahahahahahaha

[2Fbodcru]

long as is does'nt make a shortage for the coors light breweries.......









hahahahahahahaha

Thats what I was thinking

Speaking of the Mayans though, they had a calendar that they created over 3,000 years ago, that is just as accurate as ours is today. According to their calendar, the world is going to come to an abrupt end, exactly on the Winter Solstice, 12/21/2012. Video If this is true, then we will only have to worry about this stuff for another 7 years! The "Bible Code", also predicts this, in the form of a comet, which is supposed to annihilate the Earth in 2012.

[Joe 1320]

Thats what I was thinking

Speaking of the Mayans though, they had a calendar that they created over 3,000 years ago, that is just as accurate as ours is today. According to their calendar, the world is going to come to an abrupt end, exactly on the Winter Solstice, 12/21/2012. Video If this is true, then we will only have to worry about this stuff for another 7 years! The "Bible Code", also predicts this, in the form of a comet, which is supposed to annihilate the Earth in 2012.

without stepping on anyone's toes, I really hate these kind of prophecies.......... ironically, how many of them have not come true? More of them than people ever care to admit. It reminds me of psychics. if they were real, why don't more of them win the lottery?

[Dave M]

Just because the Mayans had an accurate calender doesn't mean they could predict the future. The calender on my wall is accurate, and it seems to end on Dec. 31st. Should I be worried? I really don't understand how having a calender that accurately predicted the locations of the sun and moon means you know when the world will end.

[2Fbodcru]

If everyone will note - I didn't say that the world was going to end in 2012, I said that the Mayans thought that it would end in 2012, and the people that invented the "Bible Code" computer program believe that. I was really actually trying to make a joke, in that we wouldn't have to worry about all of the energy problems if this were true. Also, note that I hate these kinds of prophecies too.

[braindeadracefan]

Just in case, I think we should schedule a board BBQ on 12/20/2012...

[Steel2686]

Just in case, I think we should schedule a board BBQ on 12/20/2012...

Sounds like it's already been scheduled the next day....