Energy Independence

[quote]vroom wrote:
Yeah, I’m with you, I wasn’t disagreeing with the concept when I mentioned the up-front cost issue.

I suspect an “easy” transition via something like flex-fuel and it’s ability to reuse many of our current distribution systems followed later by a slower transition to alternate technologies would be a likely scenario… assuming anything ever does happen.[/quote]

flex-fuel is a good way to start, alot of automakers have committed to making most of their cars flex-fuel compatible within the next several years.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Since we are still on the topic of automobiles what do you think of laws that would restrict driving?[/quote]

I think that’s a terrible idea. The whole idea behind owning your own automobile is that you can go anywhere at anytime.

You can do what you want with public transportation. Make it clean and efficient. I even support car-pool lanes to encourage people who can to travel together.

But having laws that tell me I can’t use this or that road during rush hour is not acceptable. I pay taxes for the road; taxes when I buy the car, taxes on tires and taxes on the gas I burn. If I agree to pay all that it’s because of the convenience a car affords.

I don’t think you could get any kind of public support for that kind of policy.

Yeah, don’t even think about making confusing rules that tell me when I can drive in various cities… and what happens if I’m just visiting and don’t know the rules?

I’d prefer to see intelligent city design so that people could choose to live in appropriate surroundings while being close to work as well as shopping and entertainment venues. Of course, this is a long term approach as well…

Conservation is the only alternative and that.

Neither ethanol nor hydrogen are viable substitutes to oil as it takes more energy to produce ethanol or hydrogen than either substance provides.

Oil is king and Bluetec is the wave of the future.

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Neither ethanol nor hydrogen are viable substitutes to oil as it takes more energy to produce ethanol or hydrogen than either substance provides.[/quote]

See? That right there is propaganda, pure and simple. Tell this to Brazil, for example, where they actually have widespread use of ethanol now.

Of course, it takes a lot of energy to produce ethanol or any other fuel, but in the case of ethanol much of that energy is called sunshine and it is harvested by the growing plant life.

Simply stating it is impossible shows you aren’t even seriously looking at the issue.

Can high performance automobiles run on ethanol just like they run on gas or will there be a drop in performance?

Marmadogg wrote:
Neither ethanol nor hydrogen are viable substitutes to oil as it takes more energy to produce ethanol or hydrogen than either substance provides.

[quote]vroom wrote:
See? That right there is propaganda, pure and simple. Tell this to Brazil, for example, where they actually have widespread use of ethanol now.[/quote]

You can not be that obtuse. Brazil has extremely cheap labor and their vehicles are much smaller and get much higher MPG.

You can not compare Brazil to the United States. That is like saying universal health care will work in the US because it ‘works’ in Germany or Canada. You have to account for economies of scale.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Of course, it takes a lot of energy to produce ethanol or any other fuel, but in the case of ethanol much of that energy is called sunshine and it is harvested by the growing plant life.[/quote]

It takes fertilizer to grow crops and in the US natural gas is what is used to produce fertilizer.

It also takes fuel to run the farming equipment as well as produce the ethanol from the harvested organic material.

Ethanol production utilizes more BTUs of fossil fuels than BTUs of ethanol created.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Simply stating it is impossible shows you aren’t even seriously looking at the issue.[/quote]

Never said impossible.

The bottom line is ethanol is not a viable option and Brazil has helped themselves more through conservation.

It would be a good idea for you to get up to speed on the facts of the issue and not buy into the MSM feel good ‘story’ about Brazil’s energy independence and how it can translate into the US solution.

[quote]40yarddash wrote:
Can high performance automobiles run on ethanol just like they run on gas or will there be a drop in performance?[/quote]

Indy racing is moving to ethanol from methanol. There is less energy per volume in ethanol than methanol.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Since we are still on the topic of automobiles what do you think of laws that would restrict driving? [/quote]

Bad idea.

And I am curious - how does such a regime square with modern liberalism’s desire for government to let people do what they want to do? Freedom of movement is a cherished freedom - and I am a little surprised that you would consider such an authoritarian move.

No one would seriously entertain this as an option.

[quote]40yarddash wrote:
vroom wrote:

Nobody else thinks the war on terror is a good enough reason to stop pumping riches into the Middle East?

Save a soldier, drive ethanol… :wink:

Yeah now that I actually think about it that’s must be how these terrorists get money to buy all their weapons. But even if America reduces its dependence on foreign oil you still have Europe and Asia and the rest of the world I don’t think it’ll make much difference. [/quote]

Exactly. Simple economics dictates the oil will be used preferentially as long as it is less expensive.

The world is not going to unite to turn their back on oil.

[quote]pookie wrote:
There were claims a few years ago that producing a gallon of ethanol required more energy than you could extract from a gallon of ethanol.

In other words, ethanol was not a viable energy source since overall, you ended up with a net energy deficit for every gallon you produced.

Has the tech progressed to the point where we pass the break even point and can actually produce energy from ethanol without investing more energy producing it?

Most alternative car fuels had similar problems too.

[/quote]

Yes. The numbers vary but a 1.3:1 ratio seems to be the latest.

Sounds like free energy until you consider the land space required to do it.

Ethanol is the wrong path driven by an unholy political marriage of Republicans sending pork to midwest voters and Democrats needing to look good on environmental issues.

[quote]pookie wrote:
lucasa wrote:
There is some debate as to whether there is a negative energey balance or not, the US DoE appears to have a pretty good (and somewhat balanced) overall view:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/altfuel/eth_energy_bal.html

The production of ethanol is energy efficient as it yields almost 25 percent more energy than is used in growing the corn, harvesting it, and distilling it into ethanol. The most recent findings show that corn ethanol fuel is energy efficient and yields an energy output:input ratio of 1.6.

Good news then.

Anyone knows what the energy balance for gasoline is? I’ve seen 0.74, but that makes no sense at all.

[/quote]

Looks like someone already posted a 1.6:1 ratio for conversion to ethanol.

Keeps getting better but it will never get high enough to meet our energy needs. We would all have to grow corn (or whatever) on every square inch of our yards.

Is the gasoline energy conversion you posted the amount of energy that can be put to work moving the car vs. wasted through heat generation?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Since we are still on the topic of automobiles what do you think of laws that would restrict driving?

Bad idea.

And I am curious - how does such a regime square with modern liberalism’s desire for government to let people do what they want to do? Freedom of movement is a cherished freedom - and I am a little surprised that you would consider such an authoritarian move.

No one would seriously entertain this as an option.

[/quote]

Driving is a privilege, not a right. If a person really needed to get somewhere there is always the city bus, subway, or lightrail. I do not think local gov’ts would consider such actions without reliable public transit in place in the first place. What I am talking about here is limiting the amount of traffic in certain high density areas like interstate highways and highly traveled roads in city centers for certain time periods. The police have the authority to block roads during certain events–isn’t this the same thing? I do not think it would be that bad. We are only talking about a 4 - 6 hour period of the day. The density of traffic is directly correlated fuel efficiency. Of course this would be regulated at a local level because there would be no need to regulate traffic in the boon-docks.

Do you really think this affects people’s freedom to move and travel?

The conversion ration leaves out numerous factors.

Conservation is the only answer.

Audi won every single race in the Le Mans series including the 24 hour race utilizing the first diesel power race car.

http://www.audiworld.com/news/06/2006archive.html

Le Mans 24 hour race record:

http://www.audiworld.com/news/06/2006archive.html

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Current statistics state that at maximum efficiency one acre of land can grow 40 bushels of corn. This equates to 56 gallons of conventional fuel per acre per growing cycle. The tractor used to grow this corn uses about 10% of this fuel/acre farmed.[/quote]

I didn’t read this post before, but common corn yields by contemporary methods are 150 bushels/acre. Your yields are out of date by about 100 yrs. I have suspicions that your tractor is 50 yrs. old too, but I don’t have exact numbers there.

There is nothing wrong with ethanol as a fuel and there is no reason it could not be utilized.

Of course, economics will tend to drive the decision whether or not to use it. However, the size of the vehicle and other nonsense like that really doesn’t have much to do with it.

However, I will agree that there may be better options than growing a traditional food crop such as corn that requires fertilizers and so forth.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Current statistics state that at maximum efficiency one acre of land can grow 40 bushels of corn. This equates to 56 gallons of conventional fuel per acre per growing cycle. The tractor used to grow this corn uses about 10% of this fuel/acre farmed.

I didn’t read this post before, but common corn yields by contemporary methods are 150 bushels/acre. Your yields are out of date by about 100 yrs. I have suspicions that your tractor is 50 yrs. old too, but I don’t have exact numbers there.

[/quote]
Ahh you’re right. I don’t know where I got that number or if I mis-typed and just went with it. As for the fuel consumed by a modern tractor it is not inconcievable that it would burn 5 gallons per acre over the course of a whole growing season. Anyway here are the most current numbers from the USDA.

http://www.usda.gov/nass/graphics/county04/pages/CR-YI04-RGBChor_gif.htm

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Is the gasoline energy conversion you posted the amount of energy that can be put to work moving the car vs. wasted through heat generation?[/quote]

I have no idea. Many alternative fuel sites throw around a lot of numbers without explaining what they mean or what they’re derived from.

I was looking for how much fossil fuel is required to extract more fossil fuel. I’m expecting a ratio similar to 1:50 or 1:100… maybe more. Basically I’m looking for the current baseline. It’s very nice to say that ethanol has a positive energy balance (although even that seems to be contested), but if you’re claiming victory with 1:1.3 or 1:1.6 while our current method offers 1:50, you’re still way way behind.

Personally, I think better solar cells coupled with better battery technology have a better chance of replacing the internal combustion engine than ethanol has of replacing fossil fuels.

I say, create the market by mandating flex fuel cars, and let the chips fly… if people can find a way to make a profit serving the market then it will happen.

That is the real beauty of our system.

There will be people that discover ways to increase efficiency or re-task marginal farmland. If it turns out nobody can find a way, then we can stop arguing about it.

It’s sort of pointless for both sides to “prove” it will or won’t work with our little calculators and slide rules. The market will figure it out, at least once there is a market.

That little addendum is key though, markets don’t perform until they are established… there is risk and hence an economic resistance to the creation of new markets.

[quote]vroom wrote:
That little addendum is key though, markets don’t perform until they are established… there is risk and hence an economic resistance to the creation of new markets.
[/quote]

Let the market establish itself. If gas prices rise enough, alternatives like ethanol, hybrids and diesel (ok, not technically an alternative, but good for conservation) will become attractive propositions for car owners. Once more alternative-fuel cars are on the road, gas stations offering ethanol and other alternative fuels will do more business, prompting competitors to also offer the alternatives.

The only thing preventing the market right now is that there isn’t any demand for it, as gas is still very affordable.