Ethanol vs. electricity

James Batcher — Thu, 07 May 2009 18:21:02 GMT

Destroying OPEC sounds like a GREAT idea to me ....

That aside, I agree, both options are needed with emphasis on ethanol for cars. Enough debate already, lets get going!!!

Ethanol vs. electricity

steve smyth — Thu, 07 May 2009 18:22:07 GMT

switchgrass will take over every square inch of the midwest within five years...betcha!

Ethanol vs. electricity

Axel, Philadelphia — Thu, 07 May 2009 18:23:01 GMT

Ethanol is not the only biofuel out there, there needs to be a greater focus on Algae based oil production (already tested with aircraft and the DOE is looking at algae growth as a use for CO2 emissions from coal power plants as they consume CO2)...

Ethanol vs. electricity

Howard J Flint — Thu, 07 May 2009 18:32:34 GMT

Cattails could yield up to 1,000 gallons of cattail (ethanol) alcohol per acre, as opposed to the 200 gallons possible from corn or 640 gallons from sugar cane, according to experimental research.

If you are a farmer in a Missouri River Valley wetlands area or other river bottoms where it floods frequently you may already have a cattails. Cattail plants grown in boggy wetlands that doesn't compete for agricultural cropland. You can harvest it, ferment it, distill it right there on your farm and run your farm machines, truck, and tractor with it. Maybe if all of you get together, you will have enough cattail alcohol to sell to your neighbors in town.
Clean the water and air:
Cattails clean the water using some pollutants as nutrients. Cattail farms could be located next to sewage treatment plants and could clean troublesome nitrogen and phosphorus from effluent. Cattails use the sun's energy to remove carbon dioxide from the air to produce starches and sugars through photosynthesis.
Wetlands are extensive and largely unused. According to one estimate, the United States has 140,000 square miles of wetlands from Alaska to the tip of Florida. Minnesota is estimated to have 10 million acres where cattail could grow, which theoretically could supply enough Cattail alcohol for them to meet the state's entire energy needs. Harvesting cattails in strips is compatible with preservation of wildlife and makes replanting unnecessary.
Don't need to reseed:
Cattails renew themselves spreading with underwater stems called rhizomes annually. Cattails are a yearly renewable resource, whereas coal, oil and peat take thousands or millions of years to form.

Ethanol vs. electricity

Marcel Williams — Thu, 07 May 2009 19:01:22 GMT

Why convert switchgrass into ethanol when you could convert it into methanol? Methanol is cheaper than ethanol and doesn't require food or feed for its production.

Methanol can also be produced from urban biowaste.

Methanol could also be utilized in fuel cells which would be twice as efficient as gasoline engines. Combined with plug-in-hybrid technology, a methanol fuel cell automobile would be the ultimate light vehicle.

Ethanol vs. electricity

Jacob, Omaha, NE — Thu, 07 May 2009 19:06:55 GMT

i dont think switchgrass will be able to cover every square inch of the midwest. Once that happens, or even gets close, the demand for corn, soybeans, and wheat will sky rocket and farmers will plant that crop. No matter what there will always be a balance of products.

Ethanol vs. electricity

S.B. Stein E.B. NJ — Thu, 07 May 2009 19:08:35 GMT

Once we have the technology to convert switchgrass (and other possible fuel sources), then we will have less need for oil from anywhere. The best thing really is electric cars that can be recharged by solar panels which would keep them off the grid.

Does anyone think that we could have small local refineries so that people could grow their own materials and get locally produced biofuels? That would be good to me.

Ethanol vs. electricity

Brian Smith, Dallas, TX — Thu, 07 May 2009 19:14:51 GMT

Did the study take into account the batteries used in the electric vehicles and their impact on the environment? If not, could you imagine an additional 30-50 million batteries having to be "recycled" and/or kept out of landfills. Because like all batteries they will need to be replaced.

[ALAN ADDS: The researchers said they took the cost of vehicle disposal into account. "The life cycle assessment includes accounting of the fuel cycle energy (energy input needed to grow the feedstock and convert it to either electricity or ethanol) and vehicle cycle energy (energy input needed to manufacture and dispose of vehicles)." They cite Burnham et al., "Development and Applications of GREET 2.7 - The Transportation Vehicle-Cycle Model," Tech. Report No. ANI/ESD/06-5 (2006); and Delucchi, "A Multi-Country Analysis of Lifecycle Emissions from Transportation Fuels and Motor Vehicles," Tech. Report No. UCD-ITS-RR-05-10 (2005). I realize this doesn't directly address cost of battery recycling/disposal, but I would guess there is some accounting for that.]

Ethanol vs. electricity

ONTIME — Thu, 07 May 2009 19:32:27 GMT

This rush to jump into using a product that is still mostly theory is another show of political handout and repayment. Maybe some time in the future there will be a better fuel but to stick the public with this experiment and cause engine damage and pollution concerns is a lot like the MTBE runaway program used by the politicians in KaaaLeeePhornyaaaa. My this water taste wierd, don't it Ahhnold?

Ethanol vs. electricity

PMT, East Aurora, NY — Thu, 07 May 2009 19:39:58 GMT

It seems that all of the discussion of biofuels these days focuses on electricity and transportation. The technology to convert switchgrass or reed canary grass into fuel briquettes has been well developed in europe. A significant use of oil in the northeast is for space heating in areas not serviced by natural gas. Fuel briquettes produced from grasses and there is equipment readily available (see bhsenergy.com)

Ethanol vs. electricity

StevenR — Thu, 07 May 2009 19:51:10 GMT

Ethanol vs. electricity

ahhnold los angeles, KAAALEEEPHORNYAAAA — Thu, 07 May 2009 19:59:29 GMT

no it tastes fine to meee i just pumped it full of steroids (ahhnold laugh)

Ethanol vs. electricity

enzo — Thu, 07 May 2009 19:59:49 GMT

a BLEND OF TEN % ethanol gives ten per cent less gas mileage than pure gasoline, and ethanol corrodes aluminum parts in fuel delivery systems. What's the point? For performance and mileage, especially with motorcycles, we need to have pure gasoline avaiable everywhere. I hate stinkin ethanol. I get ten per cent less gas mileage with it.

Ethanol vs. electricity

E.Patrick Mosman Pleasantville NY — Thu, 07 May 2009 20:45:58 GMT

Gasoline consumption in the US today is approximately 9,000,000 Barrels per DAY, that is 378,000,000 gallons per Day. Ethanol has only 66 percent of the energy content of gasoline and is more volatile and completely soluble in water and to fully replace gasoline with ethanol would require a production of 567,000,000 gallons per Day or the equivalent in Kw if the US is foolish enough to opt for an all electric energy policy. Those who oppose drilling for oil also oppose the use and development of coal, shale, dams, nuclear and even wind mill(NIMBY Liberals) as energy sources all of which would be provided by investments by corporations while preferring to place their hopes in investing tens of not hundreds of billions of dollars wrested from taxpayers in the hopes that sometime in the future energy sources will be developed that will not only replace the today's energy sources but will keep up with increasing demand of the future. The ultimate source for this future energy world be it sun, wind, crops or waves is dependent on the fickle whims and fancies of mother nature an often brutal and unforgiving taskmaster.

Ethanol vs. electricity

Lois,WA. STATE — Thu, 07 May 2009 20:55:59 GMT

I thought the long term goal was to get people out of private auto.,build workable modes of transportation,high speed rail, more efficiant ferry services bus services that serve local neighborhoohs.
Sounds to me like most of the studies are funded for autos

Ethanol vs. electricity

mpayne, IL — Thu, 07 May 2009 20:58:34 GMT

For the near and probably mid-term, we should be calling these "alternatives" by a more correct terminology "supplements". Wind, solar, ethanol, methanol, bio-anything are at best supplements to the energy picture, none of them will in the next 20-25 years be a viable alternative.

Ethanol vs. electricity

Dave, OK — Thu, 07 May 2009 21:06:07 GMT

The technology for commercially and economically viable cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass (or cattails, for that matter) has been 2-5 years away from the market for the past 20 years. I personally know people who have been researching the economics of switchgrass ethanol since the 1970s, and few of them are confident of any major changes in the next couple years. Cellulosic ethanol will not come online very soon, and what we are left with in the mean time is sugar ethanol from cane and grain, neither of which are economically viable in the U.S.

Ethanol vs. electricity

Chris Rude, Manhattan, KS — Thu, 07 May 2009 21:51:14 GMT

If we switch to switch grass production we still have a problem with the food supply, it would increase the cost of producing beef. The land that is "useless" is actually used to produce protein from a form of carbohydrate that humans cannot utilize. Its still using food for fuel, just not directly. I agree with the cattail argument, but have one main concern destruction of wetlands for fuel which would harm waterfowl populations. All of these option sounds nice and makes us feel better, but neither would solve the problem. I agree with waste products being used for fuel production, but not growing a specific crop in order to produce fuel. A quick way to reduce fuel consumption is improvements in efficiency but again this does not give the unknowing public a warm fuzzy feeling. Personally I believe the answers lie in life and biochemistry, no other system is as efficient in converting energy from one form to another.

Ethanol vs. electricity

Slim Pickens — Thu, 07 May 2009 21:58:42 GMT

Ethanol is a great idea. Although i really get tired of hearing how corn is one of the only ways to produce ethanol. In turn food prices go up. When really corn is one of the worst plants you could produce ethanol from. The number ideal plant to produce ethanol from would be the hemp plant . This fuel was approved by the clean air act of 1992. The technology and know how have been around for atleast a century. Thats why don't understand why they're looking at woodchips for ethanol. Any plant material with a glucose base can be converted to ethanol. With hemp no pesticides are needed,the plant grows to usable capacity within 3 to 6 months,helps replenish nutrients in old soil,and would only take up to 6% of U.S. soil to grow enough to make us completly dependent on ourselves for fuel. Which would create jobs for americans and take us off our dependncy for foreign petroleum. If the powers that be were really serious about change then they would talk about hemp as an option but instead they completly ignore this fact. Back in the 1930's Henry Ford was trying to get the industry to switch to ethanol. Around this same time Ford if I remeber correctly built a car that had a body made from hemp fiberglass and ran on hemp ethanol. A little fact, the first motor built by Diesel in the late 1800's ran on peanut oil. However people like Andrew Mellon who owned Gulf oil and Lamount Dupont who created an additive that helped turn petroleum into synthetic products like nylon,plastic,and vinyl just to name a few,and we can't forget William R. Hearst who owned the pulp paper industry and a large amount of the media at the time . These people are the reason hemp is illegal and one of the big reasons america is so dependent on oil. These industries were going to be obsolete because of hemp, like Henery Ford said hemp can be used to create any product that is made from petroleum. Not to mention the thousand other uses for the plant that are better for the enviroment. The problem that I see is until capitalist put there greed aside we will continue to use oil until it's completly gone and they've made every last penny they can.It seems to me that the american nobles need time to figure out another way to take over another industry for there own benefit and not for the better of america.

Ethanol vs. electricity

Tex Geoas, Dallas, TX — Thu, 07 May 2009 22:09:47 GMT

Ethanol damages auto engines. Ethanol is much less efficient than gasoline. Ethanol for fuel competes with and causes food shortages and high prices. Of course, NONE of this matters because ethanol is politically (bribery) driven. Ethanol is NOT a viable alternative for fossil fuels.

Ethanol vs. electricity

Evilbino, Plattsburgh, NY — Thu, 07 May 2009 22:18:06 GMT

We need a better way of producing electricity for power. Nuclear power is great and we have the technology. Better yet give projects like the ITER "tokamak" fusion reactor more funding and finance more research in this field. I think we one day will have fusion power if we survive long enough.
Also, please get the ethanol out of my gas and put it to some other use. It sucks, it's F'n up my engine, and I'm pretty sure that my car isn't any better for the environment because of it. It messes up the evaporation system (part or what cleans your emissions) which sets a check engine light. In order to get a car inspected (newer than 1995) this system must be functioning. This is resulting in costly repairs for many people. It is possible to get gas without ethanol, though difficult usually. In NY state gas pumps are required to specify the ethanol percentage, yet many do not even specify if the contain any. I have also fount that it leaves crystalline like deposits in the carburetors of many small engines. I now buy only gas with no ethanol for them (1/2 hour drive) and they run fine and have had no problem since.
You know what just occurred to me? That's why we didn't bail out the auto industry; because we are all going to be buying new cars after few years of running ethanol in them.
Oh yeah biofuel sucks, and is a bad idea. There's going to be a lot more people in the world, real soon. Biofuels require massive amounts of fresh water especially corn. Lets not forget the biofuel production means more poor people are going to go hungry so more rich people can drive SUV's.

Ethanol vs. electricity

kerry beauhrt, Fairfax VA — Thu, 07 May 2009 22:30:43 GMT

Well, this study, although I cannot read it in its entirety, seems to at least provide thought for the whole - not just energy output of this versus that. As mentioned, we are not in a position to choose either electric cars or ethanol burning vehicles. We already have 250 million private vehicles on the road, all of which either can or easily can be made capable of using ethanol. We don't have any practical electric car on the road. Period. At least not until either the Chevy Volt, or BYD F6DM or F3DM hits the roads in the next year - in limited quantities. So there's no question we need ethanol. We can easily make all of the carbon-free electricity our vehicles need simply by building nuclear plants, which do not require huge tracts of land nor cost a fortune (like wind or solar). A $7 billion nuclear plant can provide 5 to 6 cent per kilowatt hour electricity at any time we need it and easily power six million vehicles. Or you could build and erect 3400 windmills, using thousands of square miles of land at a cost of over $7 billion, that would last less than half as long as the nuclear plant's 60 year lifespan, making the true comparative cost of those windmills well over $16 billion.

Don't think that the lack of fuel costs would mean very much - a nuclear plant is far more reliable than a windmill (which has high maintenance costs) and its nuclear fuel costs less than .4 cents per kilowatt hour, and royalties must be paid to all those 3400 landowners hosting your windmills.

Ethanol vs. electricity

Dan Lincoln NE — Thu, 07 May 2009 22:51:06 GMT

Biomass for vehicles and nuclear for electricity. That combination is best for the environment and not dependent on foreign energy sources. The wind does not always blow, even in Nebraska, so wind generation can only be supplementary.

Ethanol vs. electricity

Dan, Madison, Wisconsin — Thu, 07 May 2009 22:57:28 GMT

You guys have to remember what got us into the situation that we are in. For the past one hundred years we have used one source for a transportation fuel and roughly one source for electricity. We need to have diversity when it comes to transpo/electricity. There is absolutely nothing wrong with pulling up to a gas station and seeing 89/93 octane right next to cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, and a plug in for your electric car. As it stands right now there is no way we can grow enough feedstock to make enough ethanol to completely take over for a transpo fuel. Diversify my friends!! Diversify.

One more thing it takes a lot longer to charge an electric car than just 10 min. Google the Tesla electric car. By the way it costs over 100k if you're interested in buying one.

Ethanol vs. electricity

Jeff, Sherman Oaks, CA — Thu, 07 May 2009 23:03:17 GMT

no one is talking about the one answer to these energy problems.

A gradual energy gas tax.

-higher gas prices keep people more efficient in their habits.

-fosters more investing in alternatives

-the revenue itself can be used in a huge number of ways to make us energy independent and clean(subsidizing battery technology, more tax incentives for cleaner energy, real investment in smart grid, clean coal, wind, solar, etc...)

-ability to regulate dramatic price swings on oil to minimize impact on public(see last summers price swings)

I know it's not popular in a time of recession, but say the federal government announces 10 cents on the gallon gas tax to start in six months, the following year or two it's an additional 15 cents, additional twenty-five in the years after that. Just increases it gradually to allow public to adjust their own habits accordingly buy buying AFFORADBLE plugin hybrid flexfuel cars(via tax incentives and government investments from revenues generated from gas tax

maybe politically impossible right now, but in my view it's by far the best option

Ethanol vs. electricity

Michael — Fri, 08 May 2009 00:36:32 GMT

We Should be using Free Energy which would be a better alternative than nay of these solutions though the government will never go thru with it.

Ethanol vs. electricity

Jim, London UK — Fri, 08 May 2009 02:26:22 GMT

Alan, my query is the phosphorus (I'm British) sustainability of co-firing cellulosic biomass with coal.

With a dedicated biomass boiler the ash would generally be fine as fertilizer, recycling the phosphorus. With co-firing surely you would have phosphorus oxides mixed in with the fly ash, which poses problems for the food chain/wildlife if used extensively as a fertilizer/soil improver? Or is there a process for re-extracting the phosphorus with high purity?

With tree plantations, phosphorus would concentrate more in the leaves and bark, that can be mulched.

Ethanol vs. electricity

Donna, Midwest, Nebraska — Fri, 08 May 2009 02:27:10 GMT

""He pointed out that it takes just a couple of minutes to put enough ethanol blend in your gas tank to go more than 100 miles. "Imagine trying to put that much energy down a wire in a minute, or 10 minutes," Zubrin said.""

I can imagine it easily. You pull into a service station and they plop a new power cell into your vehicle and take the old one to recharge. Same as the soda and beer bottles used to get refilled. Duh.

This guy sounds like a schill. MSN get a clue. America when your car breaks please consider at least a hybrid.

Ethanol vs. electricity

JD, Seattle, WA — Fri, 08 May 2009 03:04:25 GMT

It continues to amaze me that so many people at the dawn of the early 21st century are so easily influenced by what I like to call "biobabble" . . .

Several years ago, I surveyed the general landscape and made a few changes in my transportation activities based on verifiable physics, where the first thing I did was to remove all the electronic modules, computer chips, pollution and smog control, non-essential filters, valves, recirculating pipes, and widgets, which overall rolled-back the clock to the marvelous days of the late-1950s and early 1960s when Detroit heavy metal ruled the roads and regular people actually could do their own automobile repair and maintenance, noting in particular that this also involved installing a set of tuned exhaust headers, converting a single exhaust system to a dual-exhaust system, and tossing the catalytic converter and replacing it with quasi-legal street-racing glass-packs and resonators . . .

Once this was done, overall fuel efficiency and noise output increased significantly, which then set the foundation for the second phase of the plan, which for the most part focused on doing a bit of research and development with a virtual festival of maps and computer software, all toward the goals (a) of denying oil companies as much of my money as possible, (b) of optimizing my shopping excursions, and (c) of disturbing the early morning sleep of as many people as possible . . .

Based on all this diligent work, today I do all my grocery shopping early in the morning once a week at a time when there are no vehicles on the road (other than an occasional law enforcement or emergency vehicle), and I do the shopping that must be done during normal hours in a careful optimized "loop", where one "loop" is sufficient for a virtual festival of essential daytime shopping, with the overall result that I only need to drive at most 10 miles a week or perhaps 50 miles a month, which based on the increased fuel efficiency of my rolled-back Detroit heavy metal "big block" engine maps to one full tank of gasoline (33 gallons) lasting for 12 months or longer, depending on whether I can avoid the daytime shopping expeditions (which with a bit of planning actually can be limited to once a month) . . .

Basically, I drive less than 500 miles or so each year, and I get to make a lot of noise when I drive, which is all the more FUN when the noise is made a 3:00 AM as I drive through neighborhoods where it is quite likely that most of the folks have virtual festivals of $50,000 hybrid-fuel vehicles, drive tens of thousands of miles each year, and have to take strong sedatives to sleep at night . . .

Stated another way, the problem has nearly nothing to do with adding more expensive stuff to already outrageously priced new vehicles, with devising more ways to divert scarce botanical food sources from feeding starving people to making elite liberals feel good about their vehicle gluttony, and transferring billions of dollars of taxpayer money to pay for Utopian pseudo-science projects . . .

On the one hand, it might be true that a Detroit heavy metal engine with an Edelbrock racing carburetor and Hooker headers is a bit of a fuel hog, but when you only drive it 50 miles a month, who cares . . .

Not me!

And I suggest that my 50 miles of driving per month has a significantly lower "carbon footprint" that one might imagine, especially when one primarily is motivated by goofy beliefs rather than verifiable physics . . .

Thanks!

Ethanol vs. electricity

Rob, Victoria, BC — Fri, 08 May 2009 04:35:30 GMT

It's frustrating to see so much ignorance. Here's the truth: For personal transportation, electric cars/trucks will be the only thing for sale in 10 years.

Better Place (the company) will make that a reality.

Ethanol vs. electricity

J Moore Gulfport ms — Fri, 08 May 2009 04:43:52 GMT

Just what is the price to produce one gallon of ethanol? (this encludes the cost of growing the corn, the anount of water and heat to produce the ethanol, doing away with the waste product of all of this) I think it would cost more to produce a gallon of ethanol then it would a gallon of gas).

Ethanol vs. electricity

Chsrles Alailima, Seattle — Fri, 08 May 2009 05:43:57 GMT

An electric car with plug in battery and an easily removable bio-fuel generator. At home charge from the grid (where power is generated from biomass, solar ect) and use battery for daily use. For longer trips just attach electric generator and fill tank with biofuel.

Ethanol vs. electricity

Stephen Klaber — Fri, 08 May 2009 11:46:45 GMT

Think less about switchgrass and corn, and more about cattail. There is an enormous amount of cattail (Typha spp) infesting the waterways of the world. It is one of the driving forces in desertification. Its resilience means that control is a never-ending task, which requires a profit to maintain. It is a problem worldwide, but the worst case is Africa's Lake Chad. There are tens of thousands of square miles of this plant in the Lake Chad basin alone, probably hundreds of thousands worldwide. It is one of the most productive plants in the world. When grown in clean water, it is also an excellent food plant, so food vs fuel is back again, with a bigger pie to divide. Side benefits to controlling this by harvest would be reduced desertification and flooding, and reduction in many diseases like malaria.

Ethanol vs. electricity

bobk Allentown PA — Fri, 08 May 2009 12:18:47 GMT

There's no such thing as The One Answer to *any* problem, there really never has been. Tax and funding, demand reduction, conservational devices, ethanol, methanol, nuclear, ocean thermal, soalr panels, wind frams; anyone who insists that any option be off the table is making thigns worse.

Ethanol vs. electricity

Frank Weigert, Wilmington, DE — Fri, 08 May 2009 12:24:23 GMT

Burning hydrocarbons in our cars and electric power plants need not cause a greenhouse effect. The problem only occurs because we now burn fossil fuels. The world's fuel industry is 10,000 years behind the times, mired in a hunter-gatherer mentality. We no longer get our food by hunting mammoths or picking berries. The fuel industry needs to modernize.

Botryococcus braunii is a pelagic algae that grows in the Indian Ocean. Its various strains make isoprene oligomers with different average molecular weights, mostly centered around n=6. What matters most is that the dry weight of the most prolific strain is OVER 70% HYDROCARBON. This is algae truly is a fuel plant.

Oil companies could feed these hydrocarbons directly into existing refineries. Electricity generators could directly replace coal with them. Because the hydrocarbons contain no sulfur, nitrogen, metals or ash, most existing pollution abatement and catalyst guard investment could be shut down as unnecessary. This is a really sweet feedstock.

For more details and some economic background see the website:

http://alum.mit.edu/news/WhatMatters/Archive/200111/

Ethanol vs. electricity

Rick S. — Fri, 08 May 2009 13:46:44 GMT

Energy storage must improve to make any electric vehicle feasible. Current storage technology just doesn't have the energy density that burning liquid fuels in an engine does the electric cars don't have the range required and the recharge time is exessive. Unless these problems are overcome the electric car won't appeal to consumers.

Ethanol vs. electricity

Angela Reyes, Woodlake, CA — Fri, 08 May 2009 14:18:52 GMT

Using plant fiber- either for the production of ethanol or electricity- for all of our transportation needs is unsustainable. We need our land to grow food for the growing world population and even marginal land, with a water source, can be used for this service with the use of aquaponics. We would be better served if we used electricity, for all of our personal transporation needs, that was generated from solar troughs and excess heat energy stored in molton salts or solar salt ponds for continious base load operations, even throughout the night. These can be placed in desert areas where water is scarce and the land least useful for other purposes. And once it is constructed, other than repairs and maintenance, these fuction continously without any other inputs- unlike growing any yearly crop, even swtich grass.
With the idea of changing out electric car batteries as you travel, the electric car is no longer limited in range. Our other transportation needs- airplanes, trains, semi-trucks- would still need to use biofuels but it would reduce the carbon footprint enormously and it is a viable option, compared to other senarios I have seen.

Ethanol vs. electricity

Mike O , Pearl City, IL — Fri, 08 May 2009 14:51:43 GMT

All the "bio"'s energy comes from the sun. Raising corn, switchgrass, or sugarcane is just collecting solar energy. Even the crude oil and coal are stored solar. So why don't we go directly to the source?

Instead of wasting our food producing croplands on energy for our cars, collect the solar on the deserts of the southwest and convert it directly into electricity. Read Scientific American's jan 2009 article on the "Grand Plan for Solar"

Ethanol vs. electricity

Loyd, Springville, CA — Fri, 08 May 2009 14:55:09 GMT

Come on, one process converts ethanol into mechanical power directly. The other, converts ethanol into mechanical power indirectly. How stupid do you have to be to see the drawbacks of the second process?

Ethanol vs. electricity

Eric, Salinas, CA — Fri, 08 May 2009 15:56:35 GMT

Great article Alan! Looks like for now we'll need both ethanol and biomass electricity. I'm more concerned about finding a better alternative to corn being used for making ethanol and switchgrass sdounds good but I do like the suggestion by one commenter that cattails are even more efficient than switchgrass. We need to get away from using a food crop like corn so that corn prices don't go sky high.

Has anyone noticed that this year we're not seeing the usual runup in gas prices because of the impending summer driving season and switch to more biofuel? Just goes to show that the oil companies have conspired to keep their production levels artifically low so that they could gouge us every year before Memorial Day by raising prices.

While biomass electricity sounds good it still relies on coal and that makes it a dirty alternative we need to steer clear of until the science gets us to a point where biomass electricity is truly clean by not using coal at all. Yeah we're going to have to pay more but it's about time the economic girlie men stop their whining about the cost and look towards helping future generations have clean abundant energy. I still hope that more money gets invested in fusion power generation as that is the best alternative of all but will take a long time getting ready for prime time.

Ethanol vs. electricity

Gabriella Cleveland OH — Fri, 08 May 2009 16:19:18 GMT

I think that ethonol and electricty are equal. Like Buring gas is the same as running an electrical car. I think it uses the same ammount of energy. So the best thing that we all can do is to ride a bike. Or horse and buggy!

Ethanol vs. electricity

denver — Fri, 08 May 2009 17:57:24 GMT

Ethanol: Ethanol reduces carbon monoxide and other air pollutants. Ethanol is a strong solvent and can damage elastomer seals, hoses etc and can increase corrosion in carbon steels. E10 is less fuel efficent, but E25 thru E30 has been shown to increase fuel efficenty up to 5%. Methanol is less fuel efficient than ethanol (~60% energy of gasoline) and is toxic.

Feedstock: A typical corn ethanol plant produces 100 million gallons a year (annual US production is ~10,000 Million gallons per year). To feed that sized plant with corn stover (cellulose) would require a volume which would fill the superdome. It is a logistical nightmare.

Electric Vechiles: Part of the transportation solution but liquid fuel will never go away. Planes, ocean shipping, construction equipment, and warfighting vehiles cannot rely on batteries.

Biomass: Biomass will be an increasing important role in the energy picture. First things first, an infastructure to capture, collect and process biomass from forests, garbage, agriculture, aquaculture, and sewage treatment. The technology to convert biomass to energy will continue to improve. Create the market for biomass with the technology today instead of waiting for the silver bullet which will never come.

Ethanol vs. electricity

David, Chandler, AZ — Fri, 08 May 2009 18:19:35 GMT

very balanced and well written, Alan

Ethanol vs. electricity

Kirk, Traverse City, MI — Fri, 08 May 2009 19:28:20 GMT

The big drawback for electric cars is the amount of time it takes to charge up a battery capable of powering the car 200 or so miles, right now you're probably talking at least six hours. So instead of building recharging stations, why not just swap out batteries like we do with propane tanks? We'd still need to come up with faster recharging technology, but on a much larger scale that would be more efficient. Swapping out batteries would be just a matter of minutes similar to the time it takes to fill up a gas tank.

Ethanol vs. electricity

donee, Chicagoland, IL — Fri, 08 May 2009 23:42:32 GMT

Hi All,

The problem with the $100 ethanol modification is that it is crap technology. The fuel energy in the high ethanol blends is not efficiently used with these simple mods. Ehtanol needs higher compression ratio to yeild its full energy, similar to what gas does in present gas engines. To do flex fuel vehicle that means something, you need either what the Prius has (although not used for flex fuels) the Atkinson engine, or a variable waste gate turbo charged engine. Neither of these are $100, $3000 for the Prius Hybrid system, and $1000 for the turbo system.

Ethanol vs. electricity

debbie — Sat, 09 May 2009 02:06:47 GMT

we don't need garbage piling up at the dump sights. whatever the alternative to fuel is going to be will have to be practicle for the long haul. millions of batteries will pile up fast.

Ethanol vs. electricity

Marc — Sat, 09 May 2009 23:51:29 GMT

Al,
I live in an area with on-street parking.
Where do the plug-in people expect me to plug-in?
I need a liquid fueled vehicle.

Ethanol vs. electricity

Chris, BC, Canada — Sun, 10 May 2009 04:42:37 GMT

I don't think biofuels are a solution. The population of the world is increasing rapidly and we already have a waning supply of food stores. People fail to consider the number of meals it takes to feed our cars on biofuel. Stalk conversion alone will do nothing in the grand scheme of things.

What we really need is responsible consumption. Last summer, I biked the city for everything, just like people do in China. The result was 44lbs of weight loss and no measurable gas consumption. I put loads of coin back into my pocket too. There's plenty of fuel if we just use it wisely.

The approach isn't restricted to travel. A home with energy efficient appliances uses 10-15% of the typical home with older ones... with no decrease in quality of life. It's not a new fuel we need right now, it's efficiency. If we all really used only the fuel we need, the decreased consumption would make a lot of these 'alternative' fuels more feasible. Our fossil fuel stores would also have a much longer lifespan giving us more time to innovate a solid solution.

Ethanol vs. electricity

Egon, Antrim, NH, USA — Sun, 10 May 2009 21:05:09 GMT

No matter what you burn you will be omitting CO2. The only clean, practical and benign form of generating electric power is light conversion into DC-AC current.
Photovoltaic cells and systems are very economical and will be even more so if we use such technology and increase our knowledge what is what in all alternative energy uses. We have missed 30 years of practical applications of this technology and now still searching for more carbon active fuels. There is too much confusion and talk about all the pro and cons. The government should do an annual review of all alternatives and publish such findings facts as guidelines to us all.

Ethanol vs. electricity

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Mon, 11 May 2009 15:51:48 GMT

Egon, "No matter what you burn you will be omitting CO2."
The truth of your statement makes me laugh. Of course, whatever you grow will take CO2 out of the atmosphere. So biofuels are just moving carbon around. Unlike fossil fuels that release otherwise captured carbon, adding to atmospheric. And I agree with you, there is definitely too much confusion about the pros and cons. Any idea what the total carbon footrpint is for the power produced by photovoltaic cells compared to other sources? The total footprint would include parts production and maintenance over the life of the unit.

Ethanol vs. electricity

RiviRivi Miami, Florida — Mon, 11 May 2009 19:31:04 GMT

I want to know why the conventional gas automakers think we are all tremendously stupid. All the trillions of $$ they say they are using for these ethanol and electric and vs what studies when there IS RIGHT NOW the know how and technology to make CARS WHICH RUN ON AIR AND EXPELL ONLY AIR. Do the world a favor and google air cars and see for yourselves. Then you will understand all these studies is BIG HOGWASH.

Ethanol vs. electricity

Jose Nose Long Beach California — Mon, 11 May 2009 20:19:00 GMT

"We don't use electric cars because, unless you're talking about specialized applications like forklifts or golf carts, they are not terribly efficient," said rocket scientist Robert Zubrin, who gives biofuels a strong boost in a book titled "Energy Victory."

whot??? this is not even wrong. This guy is using efficient on the sense that 'I just want to fill my tank in 2 minutes and I do not care about oil dependency, enviroment, pollution or whatever, Cheap oil is my constitucional right and I will sue the EPA if I do not have it. All that silly stuff that it is better to wait 2 hours for electric charge SUCKS'. So in plain words, this seems like a REDBRRAINNECK and the argument is not based on FACTS but on what he like, demands and is willing to shoot people for. He clearly suffers from strawberry chemotherapy sindrome: aka, he has cancer, doctor says chemotherapy is required, and he says ok, but he puts a gun to the doctor and demands to be cure overnight, for 20 cents, that it tastes strawberry and no silly lost of hair, vomits or other complications. Otherwise he will sue the hospital for torture.

As someone else already pointed, the energy efficiency of the pure electric vehicle is much better than the Internal combustion engine (ICE). Electric efficiency does not mean that people is gonna like it better. But even if people does not like, it does not mean it is not the right thing to do.

Alan Boyle seems to have some Vulcan Syndrome too: aka, he believes people make statements and write books only because it is logical, science blessed, rational etc. In this case he seems to fail to see that the man is just trying to force his way trough to obtain what he wants and that is the only reason to be in the argument. Dunno, I should actually read the whole energy victory thing, but I am afraid my relativity equations may not like the new redneck neighboors.

thanks

Ethanol vs. electricity

Jose Nose Long Beach CA — Mon, 11 May 2009 20:55:53 GMT

and also someone stop all this nonsense to seeing what they want to see. This is an engineering/maths/physics situation. Please take all your human bias to american idol and use Vulcan ways instead

ENERGY is well, energy. There is no electric energy, ethanol energy, wind energy and all that stuff. Energy is energy in the physics definition. All the rest just adds noise. Wind energy is actually energy capture from the wind and use to create electricity as a way to transport/consume

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY: that is puppetician jargon. And it adds the noise that is an option and we can actually afford the luxury to choose. ALTERNATIVE makes the assumption that we can keep using oil and coal forever and we will never run out. Sorry, it is not the case. After oil or coal is no more, guess what, those ALTERNATIVE ENERGY are gonna be the only energy available. Where is gonna be the alternative then: YOu have the 'ALTERNATIVE' to run your car or not. The choice is yours

OIL PRODUCTION: there is no such a thing. They call it that way to hide the truth: OIL STEALING (LEGALLY!) is more accurate. Someone else a whiiiiile ago put oil down there, someone discovered it, found he could sell it and make money. Never got into any problem besides putting the oil on the surface and dispatch it. That is the same than a jewel thief saying JEWEL PRODUCTION when he actually takes the jewels from someone else, that actually did the hard job, One day he will get caugh by police and in a similar way all this oil-stealing-wasting civilization will get caught by the rules of common sense: aka, things are finite, specially good things.

ENERGY SOURCE: I am not sure on that one. but I believe there is no one energy source on the universe. Energy can not be created or destroyed, just move around. I believe the idea is that the universe had some gazapatillion amount of energy from the big bang, and since then the whole amount remain finite. Humans (suckers) made that oxyMORON (pun intented) of coining ENERGY SOURCE. There is no such a thing. ENERGY can be captured and transported and set free. Has the nature of something that FLOWS, not the nature of something that IS or STAYS. When you say 'i use energy' is because you are to much of a REDBRAINECK to see how it really works: the energy is being released and its way out you can obtain some usefull thing (WORK in physics)

ENERGY SOURCE (if any) is not the same as ENERGY STORAGE. Oil combustion does not 'produce' energy. Energy from the sun was capture be plants a whiiiiiiileee ago. Some crazy process took those plants and pack them. The energy was packed(STORED) in the form of chemical bonds. aka OIL. So just because you are stealing it or paying somebody else to steal it for you (do not confuse to be a consumer with be a freaking 'fence') please do not believe no one had to any hard work to get the energy and pack it. It wasn't you, I know, cause you are the thief/fence, but physics mandate someone/something actually did. And I know the original owner is not around anymore, cause it got killed to get the damn stuff or died from natural causes, what makes humans a scavenger.

Food for tough. so you can see how much noise we add for not calling things what they are, but how we like it

AL-TERNATIVE ENERGY : does it mean AL Gore is producing it??

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY: does it mean it is alternate, comes up and down, on and off , back and forth like ALTERNATE CURRENT does

ALTERNATE CURRENT: we may get less waste if we tell it to stop runnning so it does not get tired

WIND ENERGY: someone blow that one, right?

GREEN ENERGY: looks like racist to me.

FOSSIL FUELS: who is intested in trowing fuel to a bunch of rocks?

Ethanol vs. electricity

Twinkie Eating Cockroach in Your Cupboard — Tue, 12 May 2009 01:48:37 GMT

Humans produce CO2 when they breathe - they should be wiped out. Start with athletes, since they produce the most. Then go from the most active (young) to the least (old, fat). And, the more humans that are eliminated, obviously, the fewer cars on the road, so a huge CO2 savings. Of course, if there's a single volcano, *ever*, all bets are off. It's too bad there's no way to ... oh, I don't know... grow more trees. Not that any of you would think of something as politically unsavory as that.

Golly, we can't wait until your species becomes a greasy rock stratum that we can drill for and use to power our Hummers. Believe me: we won't have reservations when it comes to depleting that, "natural resource."

Carbon footprint. You crack me up.

Ethanol vs. electricity

USA, Afghanistan — Tue, 12 May 2009 10:23:19 GMT

If we really want more electricity, we have all the roof tops in America just WAITING to get solar panels slapped onto them. Sure, it won't be a complete solution, but it'll certainly greatly diminish demand during peak hours. Now if we could only get our government to "boost" the idea with a more reasonable tax credit...

Ethanol vs. electricity

Mike — Tue, 12 May 2009 18:52:34 GMT

It is still mind boggling to me how little people actually understand math. All the captured CO2 released by burning fossil fuels around the world in an entire year is less than .1% of all the carbon (typically as CO2) emitted in that year. The problem is not carbon emissions, despite what is politically correct or convenient to say. All things being equal, we would need to continue to release that .1% of 'captured' carbon for 100 more years before the actually amount of carbon in the atmosphere is raised appreciably. The problem is that the ability of the world to recycle that CO2 is decreasing. The ability of the worlds oceans and forests to act as carbon sinks using the carbon in the atmosphere is declining steadily. Stop cutting down forests and depleting ocean resources and we could even easily increase carbon emissions with no worries. To bad its not politically correct to point out that controlling carbon emissions doesn't really help a damn thing.

Ethanol vs. electricity

OneVoice, Frederick MD — Wed, 13 May 2009 16:17:17 GMT

Too bad the comparison didn't consider Hydrogen fuel cells. They can be fueled just as fast as gas engines, don't require a duel engine system and the fuel can be made directly from electricity (splitting an available water source). There is no pollution except for generating the original electricity and no harmful batteries to dispose of. Seems like the the authors had their own preconceived ideas about what 'best' bioelectric approach was rather than considering all of the available options.

Ethanol vs. electricity

oneVoice, Frederick MD — Wed, 13 May 2009 16:31:38 GMT

PS. For all of you who are concerned about loss of food producing crop lands, there is one very big thing that you can do about it. Plant a vegetable garden in your backyard. You will get exercise and fresh air. You can eat healthier foods, cut down on you own CO2 footprint by having less yard to mow. You'll also cut the fuel use, pesticides and fertilizer run off that the farmer would have used to grow your foods for you. You can compost to reduce your landfill pollution and add rain barrels to reduce both run off and your own water use. (beleive me, the veggies don't need the Chlorine or Fluoride in your drinking water). And you'll be inspiring your neighbors and your children to be more responsible and closer to nature.

Ethanol vs. electricity

Dag Johansen, Menlo Park, California — Fri, 15 May 2009 21:51:48 GMT

Electricity has a large efficiency advantage and thus wins. Period. Biofuels should be made to mix into petro-fuels but not be viewed as a long term solution. We will still have oil for many decades to come. The objective is to reduce oil usage, not completely eliminate it. Oil will still be used for long-haul driving and air travel. But light-duty commuting should be transitioned to electric drive starting now. The Volt, the Aptera, the Tesla, and the Th!nk City are all good starts.

Ethanol vs. electricity

matt , mcallen tx — Sun, 17 May 2009 16:55:41 GMT

i remember reading a science article on how they have developed ways to recharge batteries within minutes. why not apply this to cars and have "power stations" rather than "fuel stations"?

Ethanol vs. electricity

Frank Lennon — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:21:34 GMT

The think we need to remember is that everything has its efficiency limit. There is no perfect engine or power source that gives you 100% of the energy you put in back. So a car getting 35mpg is about as good as it gets without other energy sources. Same thing with power plants. We need to be smart work together...get china following some EPA guidelines, and mother earth will nurse itself back to great health.

Ethanol vs. electricity

Bulletproof Vests, Lincoln, NE — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:40:47 GMT

The whole total carbon footprint stuff is complete crap. Everything we do we create carbon. If we start a fire and cook organic meat we are still emitting carbon. I thin we have taken this a little far. We just need to use our heads to be more efficient. Its a cultural deal.