New engine changes for 2011

[garyshell]

It may cost much more money, but at least we'll have a planet to live on. Anyway, off topic...

I think it IS on topic with the engines. Corn based ethanol is not going to do a thing toward saving our planet. The amount of petroleum used to produce a gallon of ethanol is a net LOSS not a net gain. Factor in the fertilizer and fuel needed to plant, maintain, harvest, transport and convert corn to ethanol and you use more oil than you conserve. We've been feed a bill of goods on corn based ethanol.

Now if you look at OTHER sources for ethanol the story is VERY different. The answer is NOT corn.

Gary

[ShiftingGears]

Renewable, yes but at what cost? The increase in grain prices due to the shift of arable land from food to energy crops? Careful what you wish for.

Gary

Well considering that without sustainable energy society won't have functioning machinery to plow the crops, and functioning logistics to supply the food, I think it would be a compromise worth making.

[BenRoethig]

No, but arable land is the only source. And that's the rub. Unless you want to cut down the rest of the rain forests, and just about everything else, to grow crops.

Nope. Ethanol can be produced from most organic material.

Cellulose ethanol: crop waste that would normally be thrown away.
There's also plasma arc which converts solid waste into a plasma gas that can be used to make ethanol.

[DrDomm]

I think it IS on topic with the engines. Corn based ethanol is not going to do a thing toward saving our planet. The amount of petroleum used to produce a gallon of ethanol is a net LOSS not a net gain. Factor in the fertilizer and fuel needed to plant, maintain, harvest, transport and convert corn to ethanol and you use more oil than you conserve. We've been feed a bill of goods on corn based ethanol.

Now if you look at OTHER sources for ethanol the story is VERY different. The answer is NOT corn.

Gary

I didn't say the answer is corn. I'm just saying that eventually, the answer won't be petroleum. Eventually, if we don't make changes now, we won't care what it costs (monetarily) to produce energy. We won't have a choice.

And all of this is a bit beyond what IndyCar decides is it's fuel for 2011.

[garyshell]

Well considering that without sustainable energy society won't have functioning machinery to plow the crops, and functioning logistics to supply the food, I think it would be a compromise worth making.

But because there is ZERO change in net use of petroleum when using corn based ethanol it is NOT a compromise at all. You use just as much petroleum to produce and process the corn into ethanol as you save by running cars on the stuff. It makes NO sense at all. It is a boondoggle of catastrophic proportions.

The cellulose based efforts look VERY promising. There was a great cover story on this in Wired a few months back. It was a real eye opener.

The big farm lobby has once again pulled a fast one on the government. We are giving them another handout. Meanwhile the smaller farmers are still scrimping to get by.

Gary

[garyshell]

I didn't say the answer is corn. I'm just saying that eventually, the answer won't be petroleum. Eventually, if we don't make changes now, we won't care what it costs (monetarily) to produce energy. We won't have a choice.

And on that I agree with you 100%.

And all of this is a bit beyond what IndyCar decides is it's fuel for 2011.

But here I disagree!!! Who is behind the effort to use ethanol in the series? As I understand it, the folks behind this are the corn ethanol folks. A agri-industrial group pushing their heavily subsidized efforts to a negative sum game. We and the government have been hoodwinked. I, for one, don't want to see the ICS used as a tool in the promotion of this scam. If it were the cellulose folks I would be behind this 1000%.

Gary

[Nethead]

Can ethanol be created out of plankton or other microscopic plants/animals that can be grown in the seas? That removes the arable land issue right away, of course, and also the issue of using crop foods for fuel instead instead of for sustenance.

The Nethead here is not a biochemist, but an oceanic equivalent of hydroponics might work--single-celled organisms are especially attractive because they reproduce by cell-splitting--and they do it often! And if a strain can be developed that feeds on waste products or the by-products of manufacturing, it could be even better (here, I'm thinking of those organisms that they use to "eat" oil spills--whatever they are called--or similar tiny creatures.)

Going a little higher in the food chain, wouldn't it be great if ethanol could be made from mosquitos and house flies?

[Bob Riebe]

The February issue of Technology Review had an excellant article of alternative fuels, especially alcohol and gave the pros which were pretty much demolished by the cons.
They spoke to people directly involved and at one point spoke to a scientist at the University of Minnesota, among other, who had glowing reports about alternative forms of developing alcohol, and how it worked so well in the lab; then they went down the hall-way to speak to another who dealt with the realities of mass-production verses micro-production, and reality bites pretty much shot the wunder fix out of the water.
One point made was the slurry (algea) method would require a continuous supply of raw material with at least six truck-loads having to be delivered every hour, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, without exception for a large enough quantity of alcohol to be produced to not lose money.
This does not even address raising a large enough quantity of base material, or getting from the source into the trucks, that go to the plant.

I do not kow if it is on-line but read the article if you can, it shows how pathetically obtuse the alternative dreamers are from the real world.
Bob

[usgrandprix]

You use just as much petroleum to produce and process the corn into ethanol as you save by running cars on the stuff.

I've read very divergent reports on this. The reports sponsored by big oil seem to feel that is the case and what is more feel comfortable proclaiming that it's not a moving target. More recently I've read there are exponential imporvements in the process and increased utilization of byproducts from the process. And I think everyone agrees it's still at its infancy. I happen to think there's room for imporvement and that it would be a shame if that was not explored for whatever ends up being the best application of this process.

The big farm lobby has once again pulled a fast one on the government.

There have been fast ones, no doubt, but big farm is miniscule compared to big oil, and that's who wants to equate "alternative fuel" (not just ethanol) with starving children. There is an irony in that if you look into Nigeria. They are just going after the low-hanging fruit now. They will never give up. Wait until it's a solution no one can argue with. Then it will get ugly.

Meanwhile the smaller farmers are still scrimping to get by.

Gary

Not what I'm hearing from Indiana friends and family.

I can tell you are pasionate about this, and I respect that. I just wanted to let people know there are other persepctives on all this and they should look into it for themselves. I'll even agree there are better solutions than corn down the road, but I'm not prepared to scrap the technology/process as completely refined. That attitude and we'd give up on fusion.

What I don't agree with is evaluating things too early and not giving new ideas a chance to catch their legs and be built upon--that just breeds an attitude that gets you more of the same. And always ask the question about who gains by undermining alternatives to oil in general and keeping more of the same.

[xtlm]

gen-eration hydro ?