Thread: Ethanol: Unintended Consequences?

Originally Posted by Priestess Angel

I'm surprised to hear that ethanol produces more pollution then normal from what I have read ethanol creates very little pollution when burned. This is an article I read from Wikipedia.

There's your problem........I hope that wasn't your only source on which you based your opinion. Also, be wary of industry-funded studies which support industry positions - ON ANYTHING. Look for INDEPENDANTLY funded studies. Also, be wary of studies which LOOK like they are "independantly funded". Sometimes you have to dig down deep enough to follow the money trail and see that studies are paid for and presented in order to support a certain cause.

Just my $.02

I actually found it from several sources in the news. You can google news it and find a ton of articles. Here is one however that covers it pretty well. It was originally printed in the Wall Street Journal and was reprinted on a Tech site for farmers.
Truth About Trade & Technology - Commentary: Very, Very Big Corn

Thank you very much. From the looks of it ethanol definitely has more bad effects than good. It makes me almost groan at just how bad it is. It's seems like Washington is determined to find some use to it somehow someway. It's crazy. What's the point in trying to resupply energy to our society when you are going to be destroying your planet in the process and potentially making economic crises.

There's your problem........I hope that wasn't your only source on which you based your opinion. Also, be wary of industry-funded studies which support industry positions - ON ANYTHING. Look for INDEPENDANTLY funded studies. Also, be wary of studies which LOOK like they are "independantly funded". Sometimes you have to dig down deep enough to follow the money trail and see that studies are paid for and presented in order to support a certain cause.

Well, I honestly didn't have an opinion on the subject. I wanted to read up a little bit more before I put it out there. I don't like saying what I believe in when I don't know both sides of the subject and such. I just know what I have heard and read. Most of what I heard was that it was good and for what I have read a mixture of the two. I also talked to my father about it and he's a mechanic and loves cars so he had a good notion or two about ethanol. I knew too also be wary of industry-funded studies because we all know they will go with the side that profits them the most. But thank you for the tips on how to get information that will be based on the truth.

Originally Posted by Arrianna

Has everyone heard about this?

Several places have been raising the amount of required production of Ethanol in the US. The idea is to lower pollution by using a renewable fuel. Problem is among other things... it causes smog.

Ok, so now that Ethanol is being implemented here is the unintended consequences:

1. Ethanol actually puts more nitrous oxides in the atmosphere which pollutes.
2. Making ethanol uses significantly more energy then producing gas and pollutes more not less.
3. World prices of corn have risen creating a crises in countries that depend on it for food.
4. The push to make Ethanol has also resulted in deforestation of the rain forest.
5. Grasslands in the US that had been set aside for wilderness reclamation may have to be plowed to provide for sufficient corn growth to meet future demand.
6. The production of Ethanol actually costs 16 times the abatement cost for removing 1 ton of carbon from the air yet only reduces car emissions by 5%.

So I am laughing... and crying at the same time. Big Oil may finally be deposed by... Big Corn, and it looks like of the two Big Corn will be the worse.

So do you think that the use of Ethanol is the solution to world energy issues or is the increase of pollution and loss of our nature reserves to high a price?

If people would get off their lazy arses, get a job, save up some money, and buy hybrids, while losing the "If its foreign made it sucks" attitude, america would be a better place.

WOw I didnt know ethanol polluted so much! im going to have to research this a little more. It seems people are going to have to start thinking outside of the box in order to find a self sustainable energy. OH MY GOSH I HAVE A SOLUTION!!! Lets walk everywhere.... oh no wait thats right, people are lazy and in a hurry, theyll never go for that.

Originally Posted by mellow maromi

If people would get off their lazy arses, get a job, save up some money, and buy hybrids, while losing the "If its foreign made it sucks" attitude, america would be a better place.

If people were just sitting on their lazy arses, why would they need a car?

Buying hybrids actually would make no differance in this problem. Hybrids while useing less gas or ethanol, would still use the same quantity of gas as it would ethanol if it were to use strait ethanol.

There are several American companys that offer hybrids. And whats wrong with wanting to buy products manufactured in your own country?

mellow maromi, you are out of your mind! Hyrbids are quite efficient FOR CITY DRIVING!

But consider this for a moment:

The typical internal combustion engine running at idle in a car (let's say at an idle speed of 600-1000 rpm) burns 1 part fuel per 8 parts air. This is far more rich a mixture than running at highway speed in optimum conditions, which, even for big block Chevy 572, is 1 part fuel per 12 to 15 parts air.

For the cases when you're running at idle, or in stop and go traffic, you're actually putting more wear and tear sitting with the engine idling than starting the engine, driving, then turning off the engine when you come to a stop light. It takes more fuel to just leave it running, and you're wearing the parts too quickly.

That is where the hybrid gets it's efficiency: when the gas engine kicks in to charge the batteries or directly power the electric drive motor, it's running at optimum efficiency-that 1:12 to 1:15 ratio.

However, the typical economy sedan only manages to get 15% of the chemical potential energy out of gasoline, putting it to kinetic energy at the wheels. The remaining 85 percent is used up from friction, and other parasitic losses.

Now, throw the same engine and couple it to a stator assembly/generator to create the electricity necessary to power your hybrid, and you've just added another energy conversion, which again, has parasitic losses. So, take that 15 percent, and multiply it by the percentage of efficiency of your stator assembly, the amount of resistivity in the conductors, and the efficiency of your drive motor. You're now BELOW 10 percent in operating efficiency.

Of course it doesn't matter if you're in the city, as you're getting more from the gasoline in city driving conditions. But America is a big country with lots of long distance roads, especially out in the midwestern states or the west coast. Hyrbids are useless for that kind of driving.

Finally, consider the fact that even when the Japanese or other countries need to haul stuff, a hyrbid can't make a good run to the city dump, or tow a trailer full of your stuff when you want to move to another home. Sooner or later, you need a big displacement engine that runs on gas or diesel to do the job.

Diesel would be the better way to go, as it's more efficient, burns cleaner (in chemical content, even though it looks worse than it really is), and with turbochargers, puts out the necessary horsepower to compete with gas engines. The diesel-powered vehicle speed record is now around 313 mph from a heavily modified Dodge Dakota pick-up running a twin-turbo diesel down at Bonneville. I think it was Team Bully-Dog that pulled that one off.

As for using Wikipedia, remember that Wikipedia articles are EDITED BY THE UNEDUCATED MASSES (aka, the "grassroots movement"). Are you really going to believe what some redneck chain smoker living in a trailer has to say about cigarettes, Three Mile Island, or the political situation in Iraq? Because, by Wikipedia's operating methods, that's what you're getting, unless actual sources are linked in the articles.

As for using Wikipedia, remember that Wikipedia articles are EDITED BY THE UNEDUCATED MASSES (aka, the "grassroots movement"). Are you really going to believe what some redneck chain smoker living in a trailer has to say about cigarettes, Three Mile Island, or the political situation in Iraq? Because, by Wikipedia's operating methods, that's what you're getting, unless actual sources are linked in the articles.

Do we really have to go through this again? Wikipeidia is a fine source to use. And just like every other source (including other encyclopedias) there are some incorrect statements. So, instead of just taking one sources word for it, take a look around at multiple sources and see what they all say.

There has been study after study after study done showing that Wikipeida is just as correct as Encyclopedia Britannica. And no, it's not redneck hicks that are making entries into Wikipeida. There are a lot of intelligent, highly capable people that make it an excellent resource to educate yourself. Yes, Wikipeida has it's 'political' problems (wrong entires, revisionist history, etc) but so does every other single 'source' of information. As long as you stay away from 'hot topic' issues (and use multiple sources if you do look them up) then your wikipeida searching will be great.