As we who THINK, knew all along..

Amid the current panic about gas prices many people are embracing ethanol.
But that's not such a good idea...

http://www.businessweek.com/print/au...06/bw20060427_
493909.htm



--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!

"Backyard Mechanic" > wrote in message
...
> Amid the current panic about gas prices many people are embracing ethanol.
> But that's not such a good idea...
>
> http://www.businessweek.com/print/au...06/bw20060427_
> 493909.htm

Link doesn't work. YES, I cut and pasted the second line.
--
Scott W.
'68 Ranchero 500 302
'69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
ThunderSnake #57
http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/

Than you did not paste it back together correctly, worked fine for me...

"Blue Mesteno" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Backyard Mechanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Amid the current panic about gas prices many people are embracing
>> ethanol.
>> But that's not such a good idea...
>>
>> http://www.businessweek.com/print/au...06/bw20060427_
>> 493909.htm
>
> Link doesn't work. YES, I cut and pasted the second line.
> --
> Scott W.
> '68 Ranchero 500 302
> '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
> ThunderSnake #57
> http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/
>

My Names Nobody wrote:
> Than you did not paste it back together correctly, worked fine for me...
>
> "Blue Mesteno" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Backyard Mechanic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Amid the current panic about gas prices many people are embracing
>>> ethanol.
>>> But that's not such a good idea...
>>>
>>> http://www.businessweek.com/print/au...06/bw20060427_
>>> 493909.htm
>> Link doesn't work. YES, I cut and pasted the second line.

Yup, it works here too. The article is spot on in terms of ethanol
probably doing nothing to help smog and reducing gas mileage. So when
that is listed as the primary reason for using it, I get a chuckle out
of it. The *real* reason (Tm) they replaced MTBE with ethanol is due to
problems with MTBE winding up in ground water and it's persistence in
the environment.

Cheers,

"Blue Mesteno" > wrote:

>
> "Backyard Mechanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Amid the current panic about gas prices many people are embracing
>> ethanol. But that's not such a good idea...
>>
>> http://www.businessweek.com/print/au...06/bw20060427_
>> 493909.htm
>
> Link doesn't work. YES, I cut and pasted the second line.

sorry about that... it's a pain because you have to do two copy/pastes

next time i'll also put a tiny link
http://tinyurl.com/fhnkv

--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!

Ritz wrote:
> My Names Nobody wrote:
>> Than you did not paste it back together correctly, worked fine for me...
>>
>> "Blue Mesteno" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> "Backyard Mechanic" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Amid the current panic about gas prices many people are embracing
>>>> ethanol.
>>>> But that's not such a good idea...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.businessweek.com/print/au...06/bw20060427_
>>>> 493909.htm
>>> Link doesn't work. YES, I cut and pasted the second line.
>
> Yup, it works here too. The article is spot on in terms of ethanol
> probably doing nothing to help smog and reducing gas mileage. So when
> that is listed as the primary reason for using it, I get a chuckle out
> of it. The *real* reason (Tm) they replaced MTBE with ethanol is due to
> problems with MTBE winding up in ground water and it's persistence in
> the environment.

Plus, does anyone but me see a big problem with depleting the soil just
to produce fuel? I think preserving our ability to grow food for future
generations trumps filling up our tanks. Also, it takes a huge amount
of energy to produce a gallon of ethanol. Much more than sucking oil
out of the ground. IMO, promoting large scale ethanol production is
just trading one set problems for another.

In article >, Backyard Mechanic wrote:
> Amid the current panic about gas prices many people are embracing ethanol.
> But that's not such a good idea...
>
> http://www.businessweek.com/print/au...06/bw20060427_
> 493909.htm

1) He ignores the reduction in refining capacity.
2) energy for ethanol production can come from sources that cant be used in motor
vehicles. So even as a 'battery' it has a great advantage.

Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
> Ritz wrote:
>> My Names Nobody wrote:
>>> Than you did not paste it back together correctly, worked fine for me...
>>>
>>> "Blue Mesteno" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> "Backyard Mechanic" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Amid the current panic about gas prices many people are embracing
>>>>> ethanol.
>>>>> But that's not such a good idea...
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.businessweek.com/print/au...06/bw20060427_
>>>>> 493909.htm
>>>> Link doesn't work. YES, I cut and pasted the second line.
>>
>> Yup, it works here too. The article is spot on in terms of ethanol
>> probably doing nothing to help smog and reducing gas mileage. So when
>> that is listed as the primary reason for using it, I get a chuckle out
>> of it. The *real* reason (Tm) they replaced MTBE with ethanol is due
>> to problems with MTBE winding up in ground water and it's persistence
>> in the environment.
>
> Plus, does anyone but me see a big problem with depleting the soil just
> to produce fuel? I think preserving our ability to grow food for future
> generations trumps filling up our tanks. Also, it takes a huge amount
> of energy to produce a gallon of ethanol. Much more than sucking oil
> out of the ground. IMO, promoting large scale ethanol production is
> just trading one set problems for another.


You're preaching to the choir on that. Ethanol production is a very
energy intensive process. If they could find a way to produce it in a
"green" fashion without having to inject energy produced from piggy
sources, and if it was still viable without all the government
subsidies, it wouldn't be the "case closed stupid" idea that it
currently is. The same goes for the "hydrogen economy."

Right now, the only somewhat clean process (barring accidents) that is
capable of larger scale deployment is nuclear energy.

Ritz wrote:
> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>> Ritz wrote:
>>> My Names Nobody wrote:
>>>> Than you did not paste it back together correctly, worked fine for
>>>> me...
>>>>
>>>> "Blue Mesteno" > wrote in message
>>>> . ..
>>>>> "Backyard Mechanic" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Amid the current panic about gas prices many people are embracing
>>>>>> ethanol.
>>>>>> But that's not such a good idea...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.businessweek.com/print/au...06/bw20060427_
>>>>>> 493909.htm
>>>>> Link doesn't work. YES, I cut and pasted the second line.
>>>
>>> Yup, it works here too. The article is spot on in terms of ethanol
>>> probably doing nothing to help smog and reducing gas mileage. So
>>> when that is listed as the primary reason for using it, I get a
>>> chuckle out of it. The *real* reason (Tm) they replaced MTBE with
>>> ethanol is due to problems with MTBE winding up in ground water and
>>> it's persistence in the environment.
>>
>> Plus, does anyone but me see a big problem with depleting the soil
>> just to produce fuel? I think preserving our ability to grow food for
>> future generations trumps filling up our tanks. Also, it takes a huge
>> amount of energy to produce a gallon of ethanol. Much more than
>> sucking oil out of the ground. IMO, promoting large scale ethanol
>> production is just trading one set problems for another.
>
>
> You're preaching to the choir on that. Ethanol production is a very
> energy intensive process. If they could find a way to produce it in a
> "green" fashion without having to inject energy produced from piggy
> sources, and if it was still viable without all the government
> subsidies, it wouldn't be the "case closed stupid" idea that it
> currently is. The same goes for the "hydrogen economy."

I think the answer lies in an energy system based on electricity. That
means the development of electric cars and using various means to
produce electricity like wind, tides, ocean currents, geothermal,
nuclear and maybe one day solar power. The transportation of electrical
power from one area to another is efficient and dependable.

Hydrogen is just too problematic, IMO, to use on a large scale basis.
At least with our current technology. If someone would build an
electric car that has a 300-400 mile range and can recharge in less than
five minutes they would be wealthy beyond belief. I think the
technology could be developed over the next 5-10 years with a
coordinated and well funded effort.

> Right now, the only somewhat clean process (barring accidents) that is
> capable of larger scale deployment is nuclear energy.

It's those pesky radioactive byproducts though that seem to hold back
the nuclear option. Plus, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island didn't help
either.

In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:

> I think the answer lies in an energy system based on electricity. That
> means the development of electric cars and using various means to
> produce electricity like wind, tides, ocean currents, geothermal,
> nuclear and maybe one day solar power. The transportation of electrical
> power from one area to another is efficient and dependable.

Not in those generation forms. Perhaps something far more exotic,
say a way of tapping dark energy for instance. Anyway... Electrical
energy is difficult to store for vehicles. If the energy from a windmill
is turned into ethanol, then we have a great storage of energy for
vehicle use.

Ethanol is all about the process used to make it. Make ethanol stupidly,
and it's not worth doing. Make it in a smart fashion and it makes perfect
sense to do. Sugar cane works so well because sugar cane can also fuel
the ethanol production. Corn isn't so, but if the energy used to make it
into ethanol comes from say a windfarm, we're still way ahead in the end.
We've turned resources that can't power a car, wind and corn, into
something that can, ethanol.

The only factor then would be competing uses for wind power and corn...
But that's the same as saying do we want gasoline or plastics?