Pitfalls of Ethanol Fuel
 |
||
Please keep all comments and debates civil, no vulgarities, ECT...While I think that ethanol has some very limited potential as a fuel it's far from practical at this time and is questionable if it could be with such high populations and automotive usage.One of the follies of ethanol is that it produces a lot of smog emissions.The major pitfall is that it takes a lot energy to take the raw materials of agriculture and convert them into a burnable ethanol. It's one of the problems with producing hydrogen also, unless you take a shortcut and produce hydrogen from petroleum, that doesn't take as much energy or cost as much; but it hardly weans us off of petroleum.Not only does burning ethanol produced more smog than petroleum, since it requires so much energy to process ethanol, the energy source also probably produces masses amounts of emissions. So not only will be the burning the ethanol, we will probably increase our burning of coal and other fuel sources to process the ethanol. The one fuel but I know of that might be able to make the processing of ethanol economical would be nuclear. Unfortunately it would probably take decades to get approval and build the nuclear power plants, something I feel that we should start doing now. If we wait until we get desperate, that means we would rush things and that could be dangerous. Another problem with nuclear power is there it is so much bureaucracy that it can reduce its a cost effectiveness and in some cases safety.Al Gore and his liberal fascists are creating global warming hysteria, instead of playing politically correct global warming games. We should be working with industry to keep us in oil until big business can get the infrastructure and technology for alternative energy sources.Unfortunately Bush the weak Republican which I think his quasi liberal has partly given into the global warming hysteria by jumping feet first on the ethanol bandwagon. I think it was good to increase our production, however I'm not sure the rate of change and extent of change is wise. Because it is surging our food prices, increasing emissions, and could possibly be devastating to our farmland by depleting the soil in the long-term.I don't know if it's practical or feasible; but from what I hear there are vast fields of methane ice that is thought to be able to renew itself faster than we are consuming energy at the moment. If we could find some way to harvest it and get it to the user economically, I think it would be a good alternative energy source. Though it would likely wreak havoc on the ocean life. However by using the source it may prevent a catastrophic sudden release of global warming gases that could cause an extinction event.
Canal: News & Politics
Añadido: March 19, 2008 at 1:57 am
Autor: Schemefighter
Duración: 05:26
Puntuación: 4.30
Reproducciones: 5902
Etiquetas: alcohol alternate Beck energy fuel gas gasohol gasoline Glenn independence
Recomienda este vídeo
Agregar a Favoritos!
Comentarios
|
packerfan445 (May 18, 2008 at 6:42 pm)
Finally, someone with a brain.
orimabu (May 7, 2008 at 11:32 pm)
ethanol is a good idea for racing because it exhaust so smoothly
DarkIZero (April 26, 2008 at 1:16 am)
It was an good idea to look for new fuels, however, they should have been able to see how E85 would disrupt the economy over the next few years. Sure, if ethanol production gets stopped and we gotta pay more for straight gas, but I'll take that over struggling to pay for the grocery bill as well as my gasoline.
kevinbentley (April 25, 2008 at 6:28 pm)
And nevermind the fact that El Paso county CO. dropped ethanol because when used as a fuel, it creates even more pollution than straight gas. My 98' GMC makes 16 mpg on gas or 11 mpg on ethanol gas. Simple economics, and noone in Washington understands that.
JJCarbon (April 18, 2008 at 2:31 pm)
Schemefighter: First, Bush has either fallen for the fradulent global warming B.S. or is playing political games, but you're basically correct, Bush has (in many ways) run this administration like a Democrat. Second, "corn" ethanol has always been known to pose production problems with fermentation, but other methods can create several types of alcohol fuels (including ethanol) without energy penalty and do not require corn/surgar biomass as feedstock.
USAGymnast (April 9, 2008 at 5:55 pm)
Ethanol is also a low quality energy source along with hydrogen fuel cells.
Schemefighter (April 1, 2008 at 12:53 pm)
10% ethanol in many cases can raise the octane cheaper and safer then other additives, though other octane additives are needed but not as much if ethanol is used. Ethanol is also beneficial in that it can absorb some of the water, thusly preventing rust and full line freeze up. However it can harm some cars and make pollution and fuel efficiency worse.Ethanol can attack O2 sensors, and some seals, gaskets and floats, if it does, it almost always make fuel economy and emissions worse.
Schemefighter (April 1, 2008 at 12:51 pm)
ChrisPCrunchy "Our politicians are far dumber than yours"I find that hard to believe. ;) Though I don't know that much about you're your politics, so you might be right. Perhaps that's something all nations have in common, dumb politicians.10% ethanol makes a fair amount of sense. Making it mandatory seems dumb.
ChrisPCrunchy (March 31, 2008 at 11:44 pm)
Australia also has mandated that an E10 product 10% Ethanole is available for sale at petrol (gas) stations here. We however use the waste from sugar cane (that would normally be burnt) to produce it. Any product containing organic hydrogen (Organic material that will burn) Can be reduced by destructive distillation to produce ethanol.Why use a food crop? Our politicians are far dumber than yours but as we have a population roughly one tenth that of the US we cant afford such folly to win votes.
|