Interesting take on Ethanol and flex fuels

it's bullshit lip flapping; hydrogen fuel makes the most sense, universally available, easy to produce and a significant source of energy; this flex fuels nonsense is just more footdragging by the small minded herd mentallity pandemic in detroit. gm is in a fight to survive and these imbecile execs waffel over flex fuels- it will be justice when they are begging for change on the street corner in a few years. morons !

Thanks for the info Oppie, a very good read. While working a brief stint for Chevy last year, I had the opportunity to speak with a GM corporate trainer about E85, known to us old-timers as ethanol. What he said shocked me and mirrors exactly what your post says. He said that it takes an excessive amount of corn to produce enough E85 to fill the tank of a Avalanche, in other words, it takes enough corn that would feed a family of four for a year to produce a single tank full of E85 to fill a large SUV.

Furthermore, common sense says that it would take farmers more money to produce corn, just doesn't grow overnight, get plucked and regrow again overnight, it takes alot of money, time and resources to maintain a field of corn. BTW, I ought to know , I live in farm country in SC, which just happens to be one of the few pilot areas for E85 and talk to farmers alot.

S. America produces their E85 from sugar cane, which again, requires lots of land to cycle crop growth and again, money and time. For whatever reasons, the US is stuck on corn based E85.

Then there's the trickle-down effect. If it costs farmers more to produce corn, the price of corn-based foods goes up, including animal feed, so guess what? Now you are paying more for food. Also, E85 burns at almost twice the rate as gas, so you do the math. The bigger the vehicle, the more E85 it consumes. Is this really a viable alternative? Hopefully consumers will wake up and realize how they are being hoaxed by the big companies and how the CAFE laws are being skirted right beneath their noses.

The new Algae-based fuel merit much more research than what the US is currently doing. Likewise, Solar power is another (abandoned) alternative that absolutely works and can be manufactured today at a lower cost than it was available 30 years ago when the US abandoned the technology as a viable primary fuel alternative, but that's another story.

Hydrogen cars. As far as the Honda Clarity, refer to the Saturn EV1, mark my words, history will repeat itself once the leases are up. (ref: Who killed the electric car?)

How about Mr. Garrison's "IT" vehicle in the South Park episode? Personally I think it makes more sense than E85.

The whole business of alternate fuels is a lot of smoke and mirrors between big businesses, government and physical science. E85 is 15% 'gasoline' and

I've heard that Ethanol from sugar cane is more viable than from corn. We don't grow cane here in any large quantities so I can assume that it is a good opportunity for the commodities traders to make a profit on a resource and shaft the rest of us.

I have not read much about Hydrogen production. Whether it is separated from the air by a liquefaction process or separated from water (by electrolysis or heat) will require lots of energy.

Solar power - at this point, photovoltaic panels still have low efficiency and are expensive for large scale use. Efficiencies are getting better but it will be a while before new developments make it to mainstream. There are some solar farms that concentrate the sun's heat on pipes that make steam to turn conventional power generation turbines. I haven't seen efficiency figures on it though.

Wind power - There were several proposals made for wind power farms offshore in the Atlantic. Jersey had a bill signed to put a wind farm 12 miles off the coast. From what I've read, all the proposals have been shot down by shore property owners that argued that their peace and quiet would be disturbed by the woosh woosh of the mills, not to mention their view of the sea would be marred... Personally, I would find the noise less disturbing than that of a jet ski zipping about.

Nuclear? In spite of my name being Robert Oppenheimer (no relation to the scientist), not going there. It looks to be the only viable long term power source but I still question what is the total cost in terms of making the fuel rods, operating and safety costs and then finally spent fuel costs.

Oppie

I forgot about catalysts that reduce the energy needed to break molecular bonds of water and separate it into H2 and O2. energy still needed but less than straight electrolysis. I found one recent breakthrough that looks exciting.

** Posted from

We were talking up this on the Ford trucks board, and as I stated there, separating the hydrogen out of water will not realistically work. Water is the "ash", (if you will) of burning hydrogen in the first place and can not be separated from water to produce any negligible energy...It'd be like trying to start a fire from campfire ashes with the mentality that "well this stuff was once a tree, it should burn".... Yes, the ash is still the wood from the tree, but it's energy has been used & depleted.....Same with water. Besides, thank God it can't be done. Can you imagine the consequences?? How long before we inhabit a dustbowl due to destruction of our water? Heh - you want to talk about some real global warming and climate changes!!

I still say the answer is when Black & Decker finally comes out with the "Mr. Fusion" as seen in "Back to the Future". Throw in a banana peel and beer can, and your off to work! :)

IYM

Most chemical processes are reversible given the correct amount of energy. The lead-acid battery in the car is one example. It has a sulfuric acid electrolyte and lead/ lead sulphate plates. As it charges, the sulphate goes into the acid, when it discharges, the acid goes into the plates (off the top of my head, I can't remember the exact electrochemistry). In water, the combination of a molecule of hydrogen (H2) and a molecule of Oxygen (O2) makes H2O + H and gives off energy. To reverse the process, you supply enough energy to break the molecular bond and separate out the component gasses. As far back as the 1700s, hydrogen was made by passing steam over red hot heated iron filings. This was enough energy to break the molecule and the resulting O2 was absorbed by the iron to become iron oxide. Very inefficient process but made enough hydrogen for observation balloons. Electrochemical electrolysis came next where an electrical field was able to separate the molecules. The Hydrogen was formed at the negative electrode and Oxygen at the positive electrode. The process works well on a small scale. Too much electrical current though and the water simply boils and hydrogen/oxygen separation is a moot point.

The case I cited was using a catalyst to aid in the separation of the molecules. By definition, a catalyst moderates a chemical reaction though does not enter directly into the chemical equation. Most catalysts of this type have a high surface energy that boosts the effect of an otherwise weak external force. This would be electricity produced by some other process. The idea of any viable alternate fuel is first to be renewable but made with an economic process. I hear that corn to ethanol actually uses more energy to produce than it delivers. Ethanol by sugar cane is closer to breaking even. Hydrogen production by a catalytic assisted electrochemical process is a promising technology still to be proven. Biological converters such as Algae that use sunlight and some food source to make methane is also a promising technology.

I looked up the story of the ev1 you refered to, very interesting. I've got who killed the electric car ? on order, looking forward to seeing it. I think some important lessons may be learned from that

thank you

The answer to "Who Killed the Electric Car?" is "Physics and Chemistry."

No battery ever built can store enough energy (at a reasonable weight) to compete with hydrocarbon-fueled engines.

how about in terms of emissions ?

What about when you use the dilithium crystals in the engine?

Huh?

Unless your original source of electricity is nuclear, hydro, wind or solar, all you are doing is transferring the emissions to another location.

In any event, batteries are STILL a very inefficient means of storing motive energy -- they are limited by the laws of physics and chemistry

-- subjects with which most environmentalists and politicians have, at best, minimal knowledge.

I am aware of transference of emissions; I think even your coal fired generators are cleaner to produce the electricity to charge a battery than gas to go the same distance

Don't dilithium crystals require a matter-anti-matter reactor? I think we have to wait for Ephram Cochrane to invent it. :)

I agree! Most of the "alternate energy" movement is pure hype, including alcohol and batteries.

Hey moron, do you know how much energy it takes to produce hydrogen fuel? How about the cost to build production facilities? You got a clue as to the distribution and refueling problems? Obviously not.

Not only that, but pure hydrogen has a very low density, requires either very high pressures or extremenly low temperatures (around 30 K), has a combustible range in air from 3% to 97%, burns with a clear flame and is colorless and odorless. Most hydrogen comes from natural gas, not electrolysis.

Hydrocarbons are a far more efficient and safer means of carrying fuel. The Fischer-Frosch process converts coal to usable hydrocarbons, if we cannot get them from petroleum.

it's still possible to develop solar and wind powered hydrogen farms; the investment in such facillities would be way way cheaper than your average refinery. eventually transportation will have to move away from using non-renewable resources, so the question becomes when are you going to start ?