Why haven't we gone to Ethanol?

[superart]

theres plenty of land to grow enough grains to make fuel ethenol.

The US currently pays many farmes not to grow crops, and still has a surplus.

with ethenol fuel, those grains would be in more demand, and the surplus would get eaten up, then the government could stop paying farmers not to grow, thus saveing the government money, and increasing GDP.

However, the oil companies would get royaly screwed, and would fight any rollover to an ethenol based economy tooth and nail.

[Coventrysucks]

However, the oil companies would get royaly screwed, and would fight any rollover to an ethenol based economy tooth and nail.

Not so, because the oil companies have more than enough money to buy land and grow the required materials.

[superart]

true.

[taz_rocks_miami]

Not so, because the oil companies have more than enough money to buy land and grow the required materials.

It's not just a question of buying the needed land. Their current investment in infrastructure is enormous. If they made the switch to methenol, all of their drilling equipment, refineries, pipelines ect would become obsolete and to make things worse (for them) they would have no one to sell them to. New infrastructure and personel retraining would be needed. The cost would be huge, it's far more profitable for them for things to stay as they are

[superart]

there will always be a demand for vaseline

[Rockefella]

Damn the oil companies to hell. You can let the CEO's fill their pockets with cash but when the petrol is gone 100%, I'd like to see them use the cash they made as gasoline. It's time to convert, and the time is now.

[taz_rocks_miami]

Damn the oil companies to hell. You can let the CEO's fill their pockets with cash but when the petrol is gone 100%, I'd like to see them use the cash they made as gasoline. It's time to convert, and the time is now.

I couldn't agree more, untill a viable alternative fuel is mass marketed, we're at the mercy of the oil companies. I think methanol is a great idea, alcohol (not booze guys) could work also. It's widely used in Brazil I believe. Here in Mexico there are companies that convert you petrol burning engine to a natural gas burning engine, and you know what? I've riden in a few buses and trucks that run on it, and haven't noticed any loss in performance. I've seen a few cars run on it too.

We have the fuels and the technology, we just gotta get on the ball.

[henk4]

It's widely used in Brazil I believe.

I was going to say that, but may I also add that in Europe bio-diesel (also a renewable energy source) is getting more and more attention. There is a French racing series with Peugeot coupes that run on biodiesel. Interestingly they are also sponsored by Total, as the pic shows

[superart]

It is actually pretty easy and strait forward to convert a car from gas to alcohol.

I remember a website that described the process in detail, but I lost the link when my hard drive died on me a while ago. I will google for it when I have a chance.

It was a pretty cool site. It showed how you can convert your engine to alcohol with relative ease, and how you can make your own ethenol for fuel (I guess, in a way, that would be moonshine, right?). So effectively you would be self sufficient, and not pay any more money for fuel.

[fpv_gtho]

Doesnt Ford US have some Mustang that can run on petrol, alcohol or a mix of the 2? IIRC, the car made about 50hp more on pure alcohol, although i think the engine was already nearing 10L, so its not much gain per L when you scale it down.

[culver]

From memory:

Methanol vs Gasoline:
Methanol is more expensive per gallon to produce. Methanol has lower specific energy than gasoline but you can run a higher compression ratio and end up with more power for a given engine displacement. However, the fuel consumption will also be higher and will be higher for a given power level. This is somewhat analogous to diesel vs gasoline. Diesel has more energy but diesel engines are typically less powerful for a given engine size.
Methanol burns clear which is a safety hazard but, unlike gasoline it’s easy to extinguish with water because it’s water soluble.

Ethanol vs Methanol:
I don’t remember as much about this one. I know ethanol is less toxic than methanol. I don’t think ethanol produces formaldehyde when burned. It also doesn’t contribute to global warming because the carbon emitted by burning ethanol was taken from the atmosphere while the corn was growing.
However, coming from corn is leads to some of ethanol’s limitations.
1. It takes a lot of land and energy to make a large quantity of ethanol. I don’t think the US even grows enough corn to fully meet our fuel demands if we went all ethanol. Per BTU of energy ethanol requires more energy to produce than gasoline. This makes it more expensive than gasoline.
2. It must be transported from where ever it’s grown to where it’s used. This doesn’t work well for places like California since the ethanol would have to be pumped over the Rockies, transported by truck or train or shipped around South America. Any of which would be costly.

Basically it’s tempting but I don’t think it can easily replace gasoline. I think most consumers would protest when they have to pay at least 2x as much per gallon and they get lower mileage. Perhaps the tax laws in Europe could pad that blow with lower taxes on ethanol but I figure European politicians are like US politicians, they say the tax is to promote this or that but once they get used to the revenue they are unlikely to give it up with out a fight.

Aside: In Oregon politicians are worried about the success of hybrid cars on the local automotive market. The politicians fear that hybrids may reduce fuel consumption to the point where gasoline tax revenues will fall or at least not keep up with the cost of maintaining the roads. The logic is roads for a hybrid Civic cost just as much as roads for a regular Civic but the hybrid uses less gas thus pays less for road maintenance. They tax fuel to encourage conservation. When people start conserving they decide they need more money so they are looking at a per mile tax instead.

[KELSA]

doesn't all champ cars run on ethanol?

[culver]

doesn't all champ cars run on ethanol?

Currently they run methanol

[Cedric]

In that respect: I have heard today that the EU will not meet the Kyoto norms. Now EU-politicians and especially the Belgians are planning on taking on cars starting from September. I do not know what they are concocting, but as is often the case with politicians, it isn't very promising. I sincerely hope they will not crack down hard on ol cars, cos mine emits a helluva lot more carbondioxide than any new car. Maybe they will tax polluting cars (in that case I and many other people will be screwed), maybe they will spur people to use public transport by making it cheaper. I pray they go for the latter. and now that I come to think of it, perhaps a good thing Bush didn't sign the Kyoto protocol, since the only victims will be people that enjoy cars (and the industry of course, but then again that's not on an individual and emotional level).

Switching to ethanol might be a good option for some cars in Europe (and why not, the EU is supporting farmers not to grow crops, they'd better do something with the farmland, why not corn for cars). Nevertheless, people will not be in favour of paying even more for the high production costs, which will eventually be reflected in the consumer price.

[superart]

There is plenty of land and farmers available to grow enough material to supply fuel ethenol needs. Also, to produce ethenol, you don't necisarely need corn. Any starch or carbohydrate will do. Yeast is not a picky eater .

Methanol would not be as good a fuel as ethenol from a renewable energy standpoint. To produce methanol, you need wood, and wood takes a lot more time, and is a lot harder to grow than grains.


Where did you hear that ethenol takes more energy to produce than oil? grains grow on their own with solar energy, so thats pretty much free. Then to harvest, that takes a good ammount of energy in the form of tractors and the like. However, I don't think it takes close to as much energy as drilling for oil. After harvesting, the mash is fermented in water with yeast, this takes negligable amounts of energy. Then it is heated in order to distill the water from the alcohol. This takes energy, but it does not need to be heated nearly as long or as hot as crude oil, so you save on energy costs there. Transportation costs are pretty much close to or the same as petrolium based fuels, so the comparison there is pretty much even. Also, with alcohol, the mash can then be sold off to farmers as high-quality animal feed. This serves to recoup some of the costs associated with destilling alcohol.