Where ethanol is king

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:36:38 GMT

Don't they mean quadratriticale? 20th century western Canada hybrid? http://www.eeci.net/archive/biobase/B10381.html

Where ethanol is king

Alan Boyle — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:51:04 GMT

Ah, yes ... quadrotriticale. That was a 23rd-century descendant of triticale, made famous in one of the best "Star Trek" episodes ever, "The Trouble With Tribbles": http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Quadrotriticale

Where ethanol is king

Author Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 01:05:23 GMT

Even as an environmentalist, I’m not quite sold on Ethanol. It definitely seems ok as a backup/emergency fuel that can be produced at a very local level, but the real key to this entire mess is the ultra efficient battery technology you told us about a while back here on the log:

http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/18086/

Such batteries have 10X the storage density of lead acid batteries (which contain toxic metals), they charge in minutes, are more cost effective, last longer, and can now give a car a 600 mile range on a single charge! It’s AMAZING! With such technology, I firmly believe we can essentially just skip this whole proposed new era of alternative fuels (hydrogen/ethanol) and just power our cars right from the energy we can produce at the home level, which even if it's not much can still provide enough for such efficient batteries. Doing so and becoming "energy self-sufficient" right at the home level would greatly insulates us from the effects of disruptive disasters, as well as economic and geopolitical problems alike. Portable fuels will certainly be with us for a while and cars should have a small ethanol backup motor incase of a mass power outage, but there no longer such a need for some “mass conversion” if we play our cards right.

Every community should have small ethanol plants to convert Christmas trees, leaves, and grass clippings into ethanol for at least emergency use.

Where ethanol is king

Albert Johanson, International Falls, MN — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 01:38:54 GMT

I still need a real explanation how ethanol will save energy. You have to use more resources to make it (processing), contaminate more water and have to convert older engines to use it. I refuse to buy a new lawn mower, snowblower, outboard motor, or vehicles in order to use more energy resources and water to produce the fuel I use. I am willing to modify, adjust, tune or similar items to reduce my fuel usage.

Just as the Chicken Littles who cry "Global Warming" without looking at the geologic record (ice cores and pollen) and ignore global warming has and will continue to happen, those pushing ethanol are refusing to put all of the facts on the table. As a last aside on "Global Warming", researchers are saying the polar areas of Mars are showing signs of warming. We need to get those Martians to cut their auto, power plant and other emissions. Or maybe the sun is in a cycle where it is heating up (it happens in cycles).

Ethanol is the fuel where politicians, the uninformed and the misinformed can hide. Farmers love it for the income from their crops (nothing wrong there, they are trying to make a living). But unless you like to view clearcut forests in Brazil, polluted water in Minnesota, and motorized vehicles broken down due to the corrosive effects of alcohol on rubber, plastic and metals, then ethanol is a side show that has to be slowed down, if not stopped.

Where ethanol is king

Alan Boyle — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 01:41:05 GMT

By the way, here's the news of the day from President Bush's trip to Brazil, where ethanol was a top topic on the agenda:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17534327/

I have at least one more story in me about ethanol after this Iowa trip, and I'll try to address that issue of how ethanol production could work with other energy technologies to make the whole concept pay off. As Norm Olson of the Iowa Energy Center told me: "Just the carbon dioxide, sunlight and water ... that's all we take out of it."

Where ethanol is king

Bill, Chickasha, Oklahoma — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 01:42:09 GMT

I have to agree with Chris,electric is the way to go,even a small engine can generate enough electric power to do anything we need.Magnetic tracks to tow our electric vehicle from city to city require very little energy.Ethanol is just more of the same tecnology that really isn't that good for the earth.

Where ethanol is king

Robert mc Gillen North Mankato, MN — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 02:27:21 GMT

All batteries need to be recharged. All high density batteries carry an extreme fire risk even in standby mode. The Lithium metal Hydride battery, nee, Sony fiasco is just one example of the dangers of binary chemical batteries. Fuel cells suffer the the same risks in both standby and active mode. See Apollo 13 and the Challenger incidents.

It is true that under ideal operating conditions these power outputs are clean, but what about the fuel cycle needed to concentrate or reconcentrate the active ingredients. Every time energy enters a transfer cycle entropy increases i.e nuclear>electricity>battery recharge. Coal>electricity>hydrogen+oxygen production. Batteries and Fuel Cells add the most entropy to any cycle and both require either heavy metals or expensive materials and hard to maintain operating conditions. Hydrogen and Oxygen at -300F or 3000 to 20000 psi. THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH. ALWAYS ASK THE QUESTION: WHERE DOES THAT ELECTRICITY COME FROM? THE ANSWERS ARE NOT ENCOURAGING. SOLAR,WIND,NUCLEAR as POWER PRIME GENERATORS HAVE MANY SIDE ISSUES.

Where ethanol is king

Joshua Frazer, Kunsan, Republic of Korea — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 04:02:11 GMT

Biofuel is not intended to be environmentally friendly. It's not 'clean' energy, nor is it an energy saver. Its benefit lies in the fact that it can reduce our dependancy on oil as an energy transport medium. Oil is non-renewable, while biofuel can be farmed. Biofuel can also be domestically produced, leaving us with less interests to worry about protecting internationally.

Where ethanol is king

JJ South Dakota — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 05:33:54 GMT

Once again, everyone is ignoring the fact that corn can not yield ethanol nearly as efficiently as sugar cane, which is the source for Brazilian ethanol. The better solution would be processing plants that can turn agricultural byproducts into a form very similar to processed crude oil.

Where ethanol is king

John Nelson — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 08:16:43 GMT

In addition to the negative effects already mentioned, are we going to be able to grow enough crops to fuel our cars and feed ourselves?

Not to change the subject but there are also the compressed air cars from France.
http://www.theaircar.com/index.html

One television program even suggested that it might be possible to use an air car's motion to power an onboard air compressor - making it a quasi perpetual motion machine.

Where ethanol is king

Kevin Miller, Bay Village Ohio — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 14:56:16 GMT

The "questioned" link immediately after the "update" section towards the end links to an article that references the work of Cornell University ecology professor David Pimentel. According to his 2001 paper on the subject, making a gallon of ethanol takes "70 percent more energy than the finished product contains". The article then explains some of the rebuttals to Pimentel's work and his subsequent revision stating that ethanol only consumes 29% more.

Pimentel is by far the most often cited academic critic of ethanol I've seen. I'm guessing, but I'd say his name comes up in 80% of the articles questioning ethanol's value as a fuel. I don't have a problem with people being famous. I don't even have a problem with people being full of it. I do, however, have a massive problem with anybody who's full of it and somehow becomes famous for being an "expert". Therefore, I have a massive problem with Pimentel.

His most flagrant misrepresentations stem from his use of old data from the 80's on things like ethanol yields and distillation efficiency. He makes wildly unfair assumptions such as counting the gas used to transport agricultural workers as part of production process, even though those same inputs aren't counted for oil workers. Lastly, he uses extreme low or high estimates wherever one or the other will shade the energy balance against ethanol, but doesn't justify why he didn't just use a middle of the road estimate.

So why launch a scathing attack on his work? To answer that question, one needs to review his OTHER work, the stuff on overpopulation.

One of his more interesting pieces can be found here:

http://www.mnforsustain.org/pimentel_d_natural_
resources_and_optimum_population.htm

suggests how perfect our world would be if only 3/4 of us were no longer around. He is kind enough to suggest the "adjustments" could be made over a century. (Starting with whose family????)

In his overpopulation work, Pimentel draws a straight line between population and quality of life without bending for technology, medicine, politics, or much else.

Clearly ethanol contradicts his land=safety/quality formula. So to me, that provides a pretty clear explanation as to why his analysis of ethanol is so ridiculously slanted. However, I'd strongly encourage others to do precisely what ought to be done with Pimentel: Don't take my word for it. Look it up.

Where ethanol is king

Bruce B. Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 15:38:28 GMT

With all this talk about biofuel, has anyone ever asked how this will affect the research into Generically Modified products? If G M products are going to be used for ONLY biofuel and NOT human consumption. I'll will certainly invest my money into G M research companies.

Where ethanol is king

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 16:04:32 GMT

I still don't understand the the mentality behind E10 and E80 mixtures. This is like one extreme vs. another. Why not E50?? A 50/50 proposition.

The concept of biofuel should encompass far more than corn production. bio-diesel should have equal attention. Do you know that in Canada if a motor coach driver wants to use biodiesel they can't! It voids the warranty!

Society and the world has to find a way of changing their attitudes quickly. The future of the human race depends on this more than ever.

Where ethanol is king

Michael Hubbard, Santa Fe, TX — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 18:20:18 GMT

I agree that current biofuels are not satisfactory, but it is going to get substantially better as time goes by when we can use switch grass and all other kinds of biomasses and such. It isn't THE answer, but it is part of the solution... for now.

Where ethanol is king

James Stepp, Orlando, Florida — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 19:01:21 GMT

Corn!!! What a bunch of idiots. Hemp produces over 4x the ethanol of corn and over twice that of switchgrass, all with no erosion, pesticides or herbicides. Legal in every first world country in the world except the U.S. If you factor that efficiency level into profitability models and look at the history of hemp prohibition it gives a good indication why "marijuana" is illegal today. For someone who reads and thinks for themselves instead of following the government line like a lemming, anyway. Go Jack Herer!!!

Where ethanol is king

Richard Pearce, Topeka, KS — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 19:39:10 GMT

Ethanol is a lovely cash cow for farmers (mostly big corporations these days). They get more for their grain (with a restricted marketplace and government subsidies) and their livestock, too (higher prices for everyone). The fact that ethanol will greatly increase greenhouse gas emissions and have other unpleasant environmental problems is being glossed over since many powerful people want a seat on the money train. Ethanol use would allow the auto companies further time to delay environmentally safer solutions such as hydrogen burning engines. Such engines, if properly designed, would emit nothing but water vapor. Both ethanol and electric motors have unpleasant downsides. Ethanol engines (and the processes used to make the fuel) emit substantial greenhouse gases. Electric vehicles, even if recharged in an environmentally safe way (not using internal combustion engines) will still emit ozone like crazy. No one seems to be worried about this, but is a fundamental flaw in the electric car idea. Ethanol would be at best a stopgap fuel to be used only until internal combustion engines are retired to a well deserved graveyard. Those who think they have easy and simple answers to these problems are just shooting us all in the foot.

Where ethanol is king

James, Columbus, OH — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 21:05:29 GMT

...entropy isn't really a concern. The economic argument is.

Charging battery-powered cars with nuclear energy is extremely clean, and could very well be reasonably priced, which is what is important... Nobody says "oh, it generated X entropy", because that doesn't matter. Losses in efficiency might, but consider the source of the energy and how polluting it is before worrying about how much of it you might lose.

Where ethanol is king

Matthew Little, Morganton, North Carolina — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 01:28:24 GMT

In all of the various debates and pro/con arguments towards ethanol, I honestly believe that we're forgetting one basic point. If the goal for the United States is to be energy independent, then doesn't it make sense to use the resources we have at present while working on future technologies that can eventually support, supplant or replace those at present? Take the debate over ethanol; is it the be-all and end-all of biofuels? Of course not, but it is abundantly available at present from current sources such as corn and sugarcane, which makes it a biofuel that we can use readily now while various companies and others work on developing celluosic sources of ethanol in the future. Eventually, as Mr. Boyle points out in his blog, ethanol will have to stand on its' own without the subsidies it currently receives; then we will know whether it can be a viable biofuel. Until then, ethanol should serve as a first step on the road towards energy independence, not as the solution towards that independence.

Where ethanol is king

Tommy — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 03:07:04 GMT

We could grow a lot of sugarcane here in Alabama (and Mississippi and Georgia), if we had the infrastructure to use it.

Where ethanol is king

Jordan Yager, Batavia, New York — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 05:25:03 GMT

It is kinda comical in a way. Every day we are bombarded with the stories of impending doom mixed in with the next magic bullet fix. The truth obviously lies somewhere in the middle. Global warming is a relatively new developement. So are alternative fuels. They both have the power to change our lives. Neither will destroy us. The fact of the matter is these issues are the future of our economy. Billions will be made by a few large corporations. More importantly, hundreds of thousands of workers will make a living working jobs created to address these issues. Argue all you want, the steamrolller of the energy era is just warming up!

Where ethanol is king

Brian, Bush, La. — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 09:17:47 GMT

Is it possible to grow algae GM or otherwise that can be processed to produce ethanol or oil? Seems we could have ponds or verticle tower growing chambers that could help raise large quantities of the stuff. These could be placed on non-farmable land/desert or anyones back yard to yield some fuel. This is how they get some medicines by use of algae/microbes.

Where ethanol is king

Rufus Gibbons, Kennett, Mo. — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 11:36:24 GMT

Ifwe could make ethanol from kudzu the state of Georgia could be the "Ethanol Saudia Arabia".

Where ethanol is king

Larry Swafford — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 12:03:36 GMT

I just love to hear all the people spout off about how bad ethanol is when they know nothing about what they speak except what they have read in the papers. Those of us who have WORKED in ethanol plants know a little more I think. First of all there are two kinds of ethanol plants. Wet and Dry mill. Dry mill may take more energy than it is worth, I don't know. Wet mill , I have been there for 30 years. A wet plant runs all of its equipment all the time at full speed. It cost the same to run this equipment at half production as full production so they go flat out all the time. It keeps the cost per hundred weight down. Wet plants have the ability to change flows to meet the market because they make besides alcohol , starch, sugar, corn oil, feed by products. Making ethanol also contributes to feed by products which feed cattle. Nothing is wasted. Second the ethanol comes first of all from the part of the corn yeild that is not good enough to make starch or sugar. As farmers produce more corn wet mill plants can expand and make more of the corn yeild into ethanol as needed. Through it all they still run all the equipment all the time. In the end they will employ more people, put more money into our economy, the government won't be paying out money for farmers to set aside land, and we reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The product produced does not have to be 85% or 100% ethanol. It could be 50/50. E85 just happens to be what is currently drawing fire. By the way anyone who has used 10% ethanol (gasohol) already knows that the oil stays cleaner, and the spark plugs stay like new in your car. Making our own ethanol can only help the good ole usa .

Where ethanol is king

Mitch, Antigo, WI. — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 12:28:17 GMT

Reading the posts to date has reaffirmed my conviction that overpopulation of that most degenerate species, "Homo sapiens," is the REAL problem. All other so-called "problems" are only symptoms thereof.

Where ethanol is king

Norman Pettus, Ledyard CT — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 21:19:14 GMT

Done right, biomass energy is carbon-nuetral since the carbon released when it is burned is recovered when more biomass is grown. Electrical energy needed to make biofuels could be provided by wind-turbines since many of the farms involved are in high-wind areas. A long-term problem may be drought. GW projections indicate more drought and with a heavier dependence on biofuel that means both food and energy would take a simultaneous hit. No option appears worse than what we are doing now, which involves channeling a big chunk of our wealth overseas to oil producing countries that are absolutely not our political friends.

Where ethanol is king

Bill M — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:11:53 GMT

All this worry, about overfarming with corn for Ethanol production will come to naught. First of all Corn WON'T be the ultimate source of ethanol in the future...Algae plants will be the ultimate source. Algae, used in conjunction with Sunlight along with a feedstock of CO2 rich flue gas emissions(Coal fired power plants and factories) can easily yield 15,000 gallons of biofuel(either Diesel or Ethanol) per acre in comparison to corn. Its been tried on an experimental basis in Arlington Arizona and will be tried at an upstate NY power plant in Dunkirk.

Where ethanol is king

Camanche, IA — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:18:28 GMT

You need a comment from "where the corn grows".... There is a bio-diesel plant operating in the area now and an ethanol squeezer due to break ground in the spring. Big bucks from local big-bucks guys are involved in these projects. So, time to take notice beyond the tax breaks.

Where ethanol is king

William Brown, Owensville, MO — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:28:59 GMT

I believe that everyone is forgetting the mash left over from the use of corn to produce ethanol. Ask AB what they do with the leftovers. Hint: cattle and pigs love it. It is easier to digest and is safer to feed. Farmers in Missouri line up to purchase the used mash.

Where ethanol is king

Des Emery,The Carborundum Chronicles,St.Thomas,ON, Canada — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:55:25 GMT

Richard Pearce of Topeka worries about the ozone produced by constant battery recharging. Which would be a worrisome thing if those batteries weren't replacing internal combustion engines and seriously curtailing Big Oil's profits. In the absence of smog (no internal combustion to produce CO2 and a host of dangerous gases) the ozone would slowly rise through the atmosphere, replenish the ozone layer up there, and give us added protection from the harmful effects of old Sol down here. Another benefit for the general population from living progressively instead of preserving old-fashioned horse-and-buggy technology, eh, Richard?

Where ethanol is king

Dave MO — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:06:31 GMT

Mr McGillin is correct. And, I'm also not sure of the reliability and life of a charge on a battery powered vehicle. I'm not an expert on these vehicles, but it seems they are still in the development stage, kind of like different types of telecommunications products.. Buy what they're building today, and it'll change tomorrow. When it fails, you'll end up continuously gerry riggin' it...having pieces made, and trying to find wrecked vehicles in the bone yards scattered across the U.S.

Where ethanol is king

jeff — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:09:12 GMT

This biofuels stuff is looney! I think the oil companies and their politician friends are simply trying to avoid the day when energy is captured at the home from solar or solar derivatives such as wind, etc. Everything is driven by the Sun including the precious oil we now use with glee and abandon.

My question - why is there not a single politician that understands? I used to think the answer is money.

More and more, I'm beginning to believe that our kids continuing decline of interest in math and science over the years has seriously damaged our country's leadership. Then again, perhaps it is money. Homeowners that can finally afford to overcome all the roadblocks and install solar themselves will be in no mood, or perhaps no financial position, to fund political campaigns.

Where ethanol is king

Dwayne, Denver, Colorado — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:11:51 GMT

Has anyone done an analysis to determine exactly how much real-estate is required to produce even a small percentage of energy that American's demand each year.

I believe we are "being sold a bill of goods."

I did crude calculation:

Replacing gasoline completely would require three and a half states the size of Colorado worth of land for corn production. And that doesn't include crop rotation, area consumed by cities, roads, energy cost of producing ethanol, etc.

You can always scale it downwards. Still, it will require a huge amount of area.

Remember that ethanol has less energy than gasoline by approximately 40%. Means you have to burn more gallons of ethanol to a gallon of gasoline.

I like nuclear energy and batteries as some have suggested.

Where ethanol is king

John Mcclellanville SC — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:14:00 GMT

I would much rather my dollars go to an American farmer producing ethanol than OPEC and the chance my dollars are funding some one who wants to kill me. Ethanol as stated by previous posts can be made not just from corn. Sugar beets are another source and the residue is an excellent cattle feed. As far as green house gases the average human produces 2 lbs of CO-2/day, times that by 6 billion + people on this planet thats alot of green house gas. In the 70's there was a cartoon Pogo (earth day) "We have met the enemy and it is us" Over population is the root cause of all environmental degradation and until that is addressed nothing will be solved.

Where ethanol is king

steve smyth — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:10:17 GMT

Hi Alan,

The comments about creating Corn Barons, The Grand Dutchy of Iowa, and such, are exactly my point when referring to the Global Power shift. King Petro Chem doesn't want to surrender the throne. We can't just quit, and the King knows it. Real change will be doled out as oil supplies dwindle. International Petro Chem's already own the biofuel industry.

Learn more... http://smythspace.blogspot.com

P.S.: ... One of the comments above regards the potential for Kudzu Fuel...check it out...Kudzu is a starchy tuber...dried, macerated root should burn.

Where ethanol is king

Dave — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:30:19 GMT

I think the problem with your logic Dwayne. And the problem with alot of peoples arguments. Is the purpose of the new fuel. Its not to 100% rid the world of oil, its not to save the enviroment. Its to reduce/eliminate the US dependance on the rest of the world for oil. As to if theres enough food to spare on making the oil. I think considering US is the most overweight country in the world, and we simply waste half of the food we produce (as in thrown away in the trash) that the US has plenty of crops to spare to make into oil (which is estimated at 60% of which has to be imported)

Where ethanol is king

concerned citizen, Okla, OK — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:46:41 GMT

ORION PROJECT: MARKET CONDITIONS UNSATISFACTORY
Enid ethanol plant on hold ENID (AP) — Backers of a proposed ethanol plant in Enid say market conditions have led
them to put the proposal on hold.

“The money is there, but we have made a corporate decision not to build in the current economy,” said Tim Barker, vice
president of development for Orion Ethanol.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?
articleID=070227_Bu_E2_Enide12644

------------------------------------------------------------
Second ethanol plant on hold

By Robert Barron
ENID NEWS AND EAGLE (ENID, Okla.)

ENID, Okla. — Officials involved with a second ethanol plant planned for Enid say they are delayed in building the Oklahoma Ethanol project due to increasing construction costs and the price of corn.

http://www.enidnews.com/localnews/
local_story_058235032.html?keyword=secondarystory

[note: The original posting included the full text of these stories. Due to length and copyright concerns, I revised this to provide abstracts and links instead. - AB]

Where ethanol is king

Greg, Iowa — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:58:20 GMT

I don't understand how people could be so up on batteries and nuclear energy. To charge that battery has to come from somewhere, whether burning an ethanol based product or coal to produce the electricity in the first place. As for nuclear energy, great idea if you would allow for the reactor and waste storage to be built in your back yard. Other than that, what problems could you have.

Where ethanol is king

Alan Schroeder, Cleveland OH — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:15:11 GMT

Ethanol is not a technology we should be pursuing. It is a polictical solution that gets votes not a practical or scientific solution. It takes more energy to generate a gallon of ethanol then you get from it. If you use coal as your incremental source of energy you can reduce your dependence on oil but this will increase the green house affect and pollute the atmosphere (CO2 & SO2) more than if we just use gasoline.

All the hype of Brazil's ethanol production is being done at the expense of the rain forest. It is not a long term solution and in fact is a short term disaster for the planet. No rain forest, no O2 producing trees and CO2 levels skyrocket. We should not consider buying ethanol from Brazil it will only encourage them to continue pursing an ethanol strategy that will destroy the rain forests.

Fuel efficient vehicles is the short term answer. Technology is available to take 1200 lbs out of the average car (carbon fiber,aluminum and plastics). Add this to a combination gasoline powered turbine engine with electric power/generating motors and you have full sized cars that get over 60 mpg. Follow this with 100% electric cars after nuclear power capacity has been added. The high density capacitors and lithium batteries makes electic feasible.

Power for electric cars must first be generated by combining with a gasoline engine (preferably turbine - up to 40% efficiency vs 15% for piston) then after we build enough nuclear plants can start converting to all electric.

Before considering an all electric car we must first have nuclear power. The latest technology is fail safe and much cheaper to build then current technology. Without nuclear, electric cars pollute more then gasoline powered cars if you assume coal is the fuel for generating the electricity.

The greenhouse effect is real. CO2 keeps the heat in. This is an undisputable fact of nature. The more you have the hotter it gets. The only thing that can be debated is how fast levels are increasing and exactly when it will get too hot before we destroy the planet. But this will happen if we don't do something soon.

This is currently the best strategy to pursue with technology that is currently available.

We need to stop pursing ethanol, fuel cells and all the other technologies that don't make sense after doing a quick cradle to grave overall energy balance.

Where ethanol is king

G. C. Shultz, Kentucky — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:30:57 GMT

This is a very interesting article and covers a topic that should be on the minds of everyone who has driven a vehicle over the last year and felt the immense drain on the pocketbook due to rising oil prices.

However, the use of the term “emirate” and associating it with Iowa made me wonder exactly what the term means and even if Iowa could be called such a thing.

While the term emirate is used in this article in order to dramatically evoke a comparison to the Middle East nations that control the world’s oil production, according to Merriam-Webster Online an emirate is “the state or jurisdiction of an emir” and an emir is “a ruler, chief, or commander in Islamic countries.”

As such, it really wouldn’t be accurate or very PC, for that matter, to call Iowa an “emirate.” Maybe something a bit more geopolitically independent such as “region,” “territory,” or simply “state.”

"If America follows through on its biofuel aspirations and creates an "OPEC of ethanol," Iowa could well become one of its most energy-rich states."

Just a thought...

Where ethanol is king

Des Emery,The Carborundun Chronicles,St.Thomas,ON,Canada — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 05:47:01 GMT

Greg of Iowa worries about nuclear and battery power. Alan Schroeder answers him well, so I would just add that Greg could look up 'nanobatteries,' and he would see that these new battery types can re-charge from electricity within seconds for a full load. Their use could make the internal combustion engine as obsolete as the horse-and-buggy became. No CO2. The electricity is produced by nuclear power steadily and reliably. No CO2. That electricity could be distributed through 'service stations' where vehicle owners would pull in and 'fill up' faster than they do now with gasoline. Or ethanol. Just buy a volt instead of a gallon and you're on your way. Quietly. Economically. Happily.

Where ethanol is king

Michael Hubbard, Santa Fe, TX — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:04:52 GMT

Jeff, they are pursuing solar power. The problem is, it is extremely expensive to buy the technology to have it and it is no where efficient enough yet.

Where ethanol is king

Michael Hubbard, Santa Fe, TX — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:20:06 GMT

Jeff, they are pursuing solar power. The problem is, it is extremely expensive to buy the technology to have it and it is no where efficient enough yet.

Where ethanol is king

MCH, Santa Fe, TX — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 05:31:40 GMT

Ethanol is a technology we should be pursuing.

Switch grass ethanol gets you 6.3% of 2005 oil consumption with 17,000,000 acres (half of crop and pasture land in Oklahoma) at 5 to 6 dry ton yields an acre. The yield is expected to go up 25% in 2 to 3 years, and scientists believe they can get the yield up to 12 to 15 dry tons an acre.

The government also has a voluntary land preservation program that has 36,000,000 unused acres. Switch grass is good for the land. 5,000,000 is expected to be released for switch grass farming.

Then factor in scientists have found dozens of enzymes that will make making ethanol from plants more efficient...

...and the future for ethanol is bright.

Where ethanol is king

F Hermidas M — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:56:42 GMT

Ethanol. I use methanol for models (airplanes, helis) for many years. It's a clean burning combustible but expensive ($18.00 a gal). If the industries that are going to produce the ethanol, are going to raise the price, with no controls, the consumers may take another way, but not to use it as it should be. There is an increase of using li-po, li-ion batteries in these models, and more eficiently than combustions. More cleaner too. But for every thing there is a risk. The risk for an investment is, not take the risk. Fosil oils must be extinguished in the future, an then what?, the biofuels are renewable, then take the risk, go ahead. In Puerto Rico, where i live, the sugar cane was very popular many years ago, for sugar, and can grow again for biofuels. Count with us.

Where ethanol is king

M M S , Louisiana — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:03:04 GMT

I think it is about time our government gets off their back sides and do something to help consumers... Oil Companies are making billions of dollars $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$..they use every excuse under the sun to raise prices such as a snow storm, hurricanes, tornadoes, mud slides, earthquake, flooding somewhere, and they might even use the excuse someone messed in their pants so that they can use that as an excuse to raise prices...I say open more refineries.... I don't think our government has truely investigated them on how they continue to make billions in profits while the consumers are hurting ... I guess when you have an office you might not notice that the prices are going up in the grocery store, clothing stores, in the electric bill, water bill, and I could go on... if any of you tired of this why don't you all e-mail your representatives/senators/ legislators and even the president.... we have a voice to tell them help the people of this country too.....

Where ethanol is king

Michael S. Thomas St. Louis Mo. — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:18:21 GMT

according to some sources on the internet e-85 is supposedly 35-40% cheaper than regular gas but here in missouri e-85 has a wide range of prices. In St. louis area its only five cents per galon cheaper than regular gas, which doesn't make it very economical. especially if you have to drive some distance just to purchase it. Yet in the southern part of missouri it actually is what the internet reports. Why is that?

Where ethanol is king

D Smith, Decatur,IL — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:17:15 GMT

I've been reading all these comments and it seems to me that all the different ideas have merit. Ethanol, nuclear power, electric cars, solar, wind these are all emerging technologies and part of a solution that will be a good solution if only because of its diversity.

Where ethanol is king

J Overlin Vancouver Wa — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:55:35 GMT

Bah Humbug! It is still carbon based fuel and it will still pollute. The only real alternative is hydrogen. Pure water and oxygen as emmissions.

Where ethanol is king

Bryan — Tue, 15 May 2007 18:10:24 GMT

To me hydrogen seems like the dumbest idea of all. Someone please explain to me how hydrogen could ever be better? The way I see it hydrogen will come from two energy sources oil (might as well stay with gasoline) and electricity (via electrolysis, might as well charge a battery instead of creating more efficiency losses via conversion). Hydrogen from oil may eventually be better than today's gasoline technology, but it fails to address the limited fossil fuels problem. On top of that containment of enough hydrogen to have any kind of acceptable driving range is a HUGE problem. It is unrealistic to use a pressurized tank (bomb) and any other methods are going to be much much more expensive.

Where ethanol is king

sienna OConnor — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:00:51 GMT

I have read that Ethanol takes twice as much fossil fuel energy to produce as the end product. Makes no sense to me.
Just puts more hardship on peoples due to unbelievable rising prices for corn, milk , all meats and farmed fish and the farmers that raise their own meat . Corn is everywhere even in the 'crap in a bag' kibble pet foods that most people are not smart enough to know better than to feed.

Naturally Corporate America and other holders are greedy enough to use ANY excuse to bump prices up just as with the costs of fossil fuels.

Ever since the Corn ethanol rage most people cannot afford a quality piece of meat.

Where ethanol is king

Jeff — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 05:37:19 GMT

Michael Hubbard, you said, "Jeff, they are pursuing solar power. The problem is, it is extremely expensive to buy the technology to have it and it is no where efficient enough yet."

NO, they are not pursuing solar power. The politicians are continuing to spend billions subsidizing oil, electricity and natural gas. The subsidy to solar is comparatively a round-off error.

Don't believe me? Well, I'm sure you've heard mention of wars being fought to protect our oil interests. But that could get us into a political argument. I'm sure you've heard of the Rural Electrification bills that happened long ago. But let's talk about something more local.

Let's talk about your property and my property. Let's talk about the gas explosion that killed a construction worker near where I first worked in Minnesota. Or, any construction worker killed related to energy infrastructure. Or how about the natural gas pipe that crosses my property and how many tens or hundreds of millions of homes - that don't use natural gas, or heating oil, or other pipes, wires, etc., etc. or other infrastructure that gets to use my property for free.

I want them to stop being subsidized. I want them to be honest if they are fighting a war, having a police action, holding an expensive meeting - and have them keep track of how much was spent in the name of keeping the oil flowing. I want them to value the concessions made for developing power-generating plants. I want them to figure out what it costs to continue to pump out whatever it is we pump out that we later need to clean-up. And, I want them to calculate all those things and total all those things over the last 30 years - which is being generous.

Then I want the government to cut a check for each homeowner and send it directly to the photovoltaics or windmill supplier of the homeowners choice. And, I want the balance to be financed backed by government just like all the other disaster recoveries are financed.

With $300 a barrel oil coming soon, this is going to be a disaster of epic proportions. We need to start now.

And, by all means, we need to stop using food-stuffs to create ethanol. My food bill has never increased to the degree it has increased during this past year.

The politicians need to do something now!!

Where ethanol is king

kevin — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:29:57 GMT

Hi, good review. I have to agree with Chris, electric is the way to go, even a small engine can generate enough electric power to do anything we need.