As you said above, one could argue either way with conviction.
I am just playing devil's advocate here, because many people read a single-side of the argument and never even THINK about the other side.
I don't think ethanol is the ultimate solution either to be honest, but I do advocate the work and development simply because it may open new doors to technology we don't yet know about. We certainly need to do SOMETHING to reduce the consumption of crude/fossil fuels in combustion engines.

Interestingly enough, there's not really such a big difference between the fuel cell approach and the dry-cell battery approach to providing energy to a closed system. Bottom line in both cases is you desire portable energy to allow you to go long distances without a chord continuously attached to a wall outlet.

Developing an alternative chemical fuel is different in nature from a "battery" to be sure, but the same economics can still drive the demand, pricing, and development of the technology. All I was pointing out is that the "more energy to make it than it gives back" argument is not a 100% sound case for negating technology, and I cited an example we all would know of.

Nice response too BTW!

 

On a side note let's not forget this study was conducted by a University in California. I'd like to see a similar study in the agricultural midwest from like Purdue or whatnot. See what they have to say then compare. I never take one study and put complete faith in it.

They didn't even mention grain......

 

You're wrong, you're way wrong. I'm not sure how to explain this but its very simple.

If we end oil use today and start producing 100% ethanol, and we lose energy in every production cycle, at some point you run out of ethanol to run tractors and equipment before you can create more to run the next cycle on. The whole point is that all energy sources on earth are simply ways of harvesting stored energy. You're going to grow a crop for 6 mos and expect it to release as much chemical energy as sludge that's been compressed under the earth's crust for millions of years? Like I said, except for energy from the sun, every "source" on earth isn't an energy producer, it is like you said an energy carrier. I would think the law of entropy would dictate that you can never get as much energy out of a cycle as you put in, hence why even the sun will eventually burn itself out.

If we end oil use and go 100% ethanol, where's the extra energy going to come from we have to put into each cycle in order to come out = ? Electricity from nuclear you say? Well then K.I.S.S. why not just go directly to =100% electric cars and skip the complex added step of changing electricity into chemical energy in the form of Ethanol?

 

It takes time for any newer product to be developed to the point where it is thoroughly viable. The thing about ethanol is that it can't be exhausted as a resource like fossil fuels can. And there aren't foreigners playing with the supply and causing havoc in your economy.

As time goes on ethanol will become more and more economically viable.

 

Bah....corn is only good for whiskey!

I skimmed the article and it didn't seem to mention anywhere how much land would have to be used to provide enough ethanol for the US fleet? Last time I read something about ethanol as a Fuel source it required everybody in the US becoming a corn farmer and then mowing down the rest of the planet for corn fields and still not having enough ethanol.

 

They've been trying to get a net energy gain out of ethanol for over 100 years. Still waiting........................

Its not "new" technology by any stretch.

It renewable but if its your only source of energy you'll dwindle in each cycle until you are at zero, then you're screwed. Something else has to donate energy to the production process, and that would have to be either coal, oil, nuclear fuel, whether directly or through electricity production.

 

There is no uranium or plutonium at the heart of our sun, only iron left over from lighter elements combining together in nuclear fusion. Probably other trace elements too, but nothing nearly as heavy as plutonium.

Doesn't mean we still couldn't just send the crap to the sun anyway. Not like its gonna hurt anything over there, for those last few seconds it would stay solid matter.

 

Nothing wrong with sending it to the sun ... provided you can get it off the planet safely. Rocket launches aren't exactly the most reliable things going and the consequences of failure are pretty stiff.

 

Yup. One rocket failure while the payload was in the upper atmosphere could ruin the entire planet pretty easily. Look at the fall-out from chernobyl, and that was a ground level explosion within a somewhat fortified reactor. Imagine blowing up the waste from a few reactors a mile or more up.

 

No, ethanol is not "new" at all. But the mass production of it for automobiles has only began in the last 10 years. There's a big difference between the volumes needed for gas line antifreeze and what's necessary for filling tanks daily. It took 100 years to get to where we are with fossil fuels and we still can barely refine enough. How much energy do you think it takes to cross the ocean with the oil and refine it into gasoline?

And refining ethanol doesn't have to require fossil based energy. They can use other types of energy in the future. The point of the whole exercise is that fossil fuels won't last. The Chinese are driving up demand for fossil fuels and there simply isn't enough.

So, either save for a hydrogen car or get on the ethanol bandwagon.

 

Another overblown assertion that is parrotted time and again without regards to facts.

I'll repeat here what I said in a previous thread over concern about China's appetite for oil. What ulitmately matters is not Chinese consumption, but rather global consumption, and that grew at about a 3% rate last year. That's a bit higher than it has been recently, but hardly alarming.

However if you want to worry about China, their oil consumption is growing at a rate of about 7% per year, which is almost exactly the amount their economy grows. In other words, their oil demand will grow in lockstep with their economy. The Chinese government is already worried about their economy overheating and so it's highly unlikely that their economy, and thus their oil consumption, will ever grow at a rate approaching 10%. When averaged out over the entire global demand, it is a very manageable increase.

As to the concern about oil being a non-renewable resource and we'd better do something now, dammit: well, I don't buy that one either. For the past few years our known and recoverable reserves have increased by more than we consumed. Ever since the dawn of the automobile (and maybe even before), people have been predicting the end of our oil supplies. I think back in the 1920s some scientists said we'd run out in precisely 10 years (from that point). Obviously it never happened, and we never seem to be getting anywhere near the end of our reserves even though our consumption is steadily increasing. No doubt at some point technology and exploration won't be able to uncover any more usable oil and we will indeed start using up the last of the world's reserves. But I'm quite that certain no one reading this forum willl ever see that day.

 

A lot of people are refuting the Dino Oil theory. There is a theory about oil being created INSIDE the earth. Do a search it's out there. (Has to do w/ methanol I believe - gaining momentum especially since expelled reserves are filling miraculously back up).

I don't buy the oil is gonna dry up tomorow theory either.

 

That's my whole point? Why not make cars that run directly on that "other" source rather than adding in another step where energy is wasted?

 

I think gaining momentum is a little generous, but I also think the idea is interesting nonetheless.

 

Are you going Freudian on me here or what?

You can't explain "simple" things?
Me no understand.