New ethanol study, 21 April 2014

Interesting!

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/04/21/study-shows-ethanol-produces-worse-pollution-than-gasoline-n1826957

Jon.

Doesn't matter. Politics and money rule..................Bob

A few months ago Al Gore confessed that he knew the whole gasohol project was a scam when he promoted it but he figured it would get him the farm vote. It didn't do him any good, and the American public is still paying for it.

Just to keep the record and discussion clear.........The study was only concerning biofuels made from left over corn stalks and cellulose based materiels. The study did not address ethanol made from corn grain.

Just to keep the record and discussion clear.........The study was only concerning biofuels made from left over corn stalks and cellulose based materiels. The study did not address ethanol made from corn grain.

Roger that, but my post #2 still applies.....................Bob

Just to keep the record and discussion clear.........The study was only concerning biofuels made from left over corn stalks and cellulose based materiels. The study did not address ethanol made from corn grain.

At the concentration used, ethanol is still ethanol regardless of it's source. It will even taste the same.

Several different processes are available for producing ethanol. The most commonly used method involves a combination of initial fermentation from grain etc.; however, this can only produce an ethanol concentration of approximately 18%. Just as an aside, it should be noted that (the dreaded) carbon dioxide is a bi-product of the fermentation process.:eek: Ethanol blended with gasoline must be as pure as possible to reduce the introduction of water into the fuel mix; consequently, the fermented or brewed ethanol must be concentrated by distillation, which yields ethanol that is approximately 96% pure. Once distilled, ethanol, be it made from grasses, corn husks, corn grain, wheat, sugar cane etc. is just plain old ethanol.

I prefer to have my ethanol in the evening ... over ice

Cheers,

Grog

So; they've spent all this time and $$$$$ to reduce global warming, and actually made it worse. I wonder what panic button they'll push now?

So; they've spent all this time and $$$$$ to reduce global warming, and actually made it worse. I wonder what panic button they'll push now?

Unfortunately, this isn't the only way they are battling global warming. Read up on Chem-trails. Scary!

So; they've spent all this time and $$$$$ to reduce global warming, and actually made it worse. I wonder what panic button they'll push now?

They probably couldn't reach one.

So; they've spent all this time and $$$$$ to reduce global warming, and actually made it worse. I wonder what panic button they'll push now?

It turns out there isn't any anthropogenic global warming. That is why they switched to Climate Change, which has the advantage of being so vague and meaningless it can't be disproven.

I've explained this so many times here that misunderstanding it now has to be deliberate. The CO2 emitted from any process that recently was CO2 before a plant made it into sugar doesn't count. It's not "new" CO2 released from something sequestered in the earth for millions of years.

But you guys don't care. Keep making yourselves happy by being smarter than the educated people who spend their lives working of these problems. Grumpy is addiction people of a certain age just can't resist.

Just don't think that it matters.

Not that anyone cares any more if what they're reading has any veracity or contains any truth, but....

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Townhall.com

BTW, if you google search for 2 minutes you can find mainstream summaries of this study that put it into much better perspective. I guess it depends on whether you want to approach the facts or if you want the facts to approach you.

I've explained this so many times here that misunderstanding it now has to be deliberate. The CO2 emitted from any process that recently was CO2 before a plant made it into sugar doesn't count. It's not "new" CO2 released from something sequestered in the earth for millions of years.

But you guys don't care. Keep making yourselves happy by being smarter than the educated people who spend their lives working of these problems. Grumpy is addiction people of a certain age just can't resist.

Just don't think that it matters.

Dave, your sentence structure in this post certainly does not make it easy for anybody to understand what you are attempting to convey. If you actually wish to impart knowledge, you may want to use clear sentence structure.

I wrote a paper in college in the 1960s regarding the coming Ice Age. The facts were clear, The matter was settled. All "right minded" scientists were in agreement, the Earth was cooling at an ever increasing rate. Sound familiar?

Jeff

Given the politicalk atmosphere at F & M today, I'll bet the papers on global warming could fill a garage.

Phil

Dave,

The concept of the differing environmental impacts of "Old" versus "New" CO2 is interesting and certainly warrants further study; however, I believe it was the intent of the Original Poster to initiate a discussion of the merits of the use of ethanol in motor fuels, not a discussion of the energy/chemical balance of the Earth's biosphere.

Did you infer that those of us who disagree with you are a bunch of grumpy old farts:eek: (that's me fer shure)? Uh, oh, this brings us to the EPA's recent attack on bovine flatulence ... but I digress.

I did take the opportunity to click on the link that you furnished in your second posting and found that it was a 7 year old assessment of a conservative organization (Townhall.com) by a liberal organization (Center for Media and Democracy). I then did as you suggested and did an online (not just limited to Google) search to determine what the "mainstream summaries" were saying about the Nature Climate Change study. Interestingly enough, they (Time Magazine, N.Y. Times, et al) were saying pretty much the same thing as the summary by Townhall.com.

I think the intent of the Original Poster (carbking, please correct me if I'm wrong here) was to just point out another unintended consequence of the use of ethanol as a motor fuel. I've looked for, but haven't yet found comprehensive studies on the energy cost of producing a unit of ethanol. Such a study should not only address the issue of fuel consumed in the farming of the source material (usually corn in the U.S.), but the fuel consumed in processing and distillation of the ethanol. These figures should then be compared to the fuel required to produce a unit of gasoline.

One of the problems with gasohol, is that it contains less energy (lower Energy Density or Specific Energy) than does gasoline; consequently, more gasohol must be consumed for a given result (e.g., powering an internal combustion engine). Gasohol which contains 10% ethanol has between 92% and 95% the energy of an equivalent unit of gasoline, and E-85 gasohol (85% ethanol) contains only approximately 71% - 72% of the energy of gasoline.

Another problem with ethanol is that it is hygroscopic (absorbs water) which plays havoc with most of the fuel systems in today's automobiles. It is especially tough on older cars. So many problems are associated with the use of gasohol, but the largest one, the rocketing cost of food due to the diversion of food grain to the production of ethanol, is rarely discussed in the "mainstream media". In 2013, it is estimated that 40% of the U.S. corn crop went to the production of ethanol for use as a motor fuel. Don't forget that the combustion of ethanol produces CO2 and water.

In my opinion, the use of ethanol in motor fuels is just an all around bad idea, and it is time to get rid of gasohol fuels. Hybrid vehicles seem to be working well, but I believe that the best answer to pollution caused by motor vehicles is the all electric vehicle, with electric power generated in nuclear power plants. Solar and wind energy generators, thus far have been relative failures.

Just sayin',

Grog

.............In my opinion, the use of ethanol in motor fuels is just an all around bad idea, and it is time to get rid of gasohol fuels. Hybrid vehicles seem to be working well, but I believe that the best answer to pollution caused by motor vehicles is the all electric vehicle, with electric power generated in nuclear power plants. Solar and wind energy generators, thus far have been relative failures.

Just sayin',

Grog

Where's the like button? "

LIKE!"

Jeff

Given the politicalk atmosphere at F & M today, I'll bet the papers on global warming could fill a garage.

Phil

Are you a fellow Dip? The atmosphere at F&M has changed in more ways than one. When I was there it was still all male.

Not that anyone cares any more

That covers it for me.

X2 here. I just want that crap out of my fuel.

Doesn't matter. Politics and money rule..................Bob

After this winter, which mine was spent in the southern states, no one here or anywhere else could ever convince me Bob's statement isn't true. Follow them both.................

Jeff

I was indeed a Diplomat for two years..then moved on to engineering.

Phil

No need to beat a dead horse to death. I have read plenty on Global Warming, from both sides. But when Goldman Sachs dumped their shares in the Carbon Credit Exchange they set up with Al Gore and other Global Warming alarmists, I knew the jig was up.

Too bad, I live in Canada and if I never saw another winter as cold as the last one, I would be happy. But Global Warming has been nothing but a giant disappointment to me.

Rusty,

I feel the pain of your disappointment in the failure of global warming to live up to the predictions of its most vocal supporters (i.e., Mr. "The debate is over", Al Gore). I guess with the rising temperatures and sea level rise, you were hoping for coconut palms and white sand beaches in Canada ... EH?

Cheers,

Grog

The question that is never asked when papers are written and submitted for public information or when these people are interviewed on TV is Who pays their wages or provides the funding source. I personally think that it should be mandatory for any one who supplies this information be required to state where their funds are coming from.

It appears that most of this information comes from lefty - green Governments and organizations or from people who work with companies that stand to make money from so called global warming. The scientists and others who are employed to collect this data certainly aren't going to say that it is not happening and cut off their money supply.

For a while in Australia<ST1:p all gas companies were required to have a supply of 10% ethanol at all their service stations as well as the Standard and premium pumps.

As people woke up to the fact that although it was cheaper to buy it gave less MPG and less power and actually cost you more so they stopped buying it and bought standard. All service stations except BP have removed the ethanol pumps and BP doesn't sell standard gas. I and many others haven't bought BP for years.

The only organizations that are still pushing for ethanol is the Farmers and/or the political people that rely on the farmer vote.

David,

I wish we had the choice to not purchase ethanol-laced gasoline in this country. While it is possible to purchase non-ethanol gasoline in this country, it is difficult to find. I'm sure that given the option of ethanol or non ethanol, the results would mirror those as you've outlined for Australia and that the demand for gasohol would become nonexistent.

What is a 1922 Metallurgique Torpedo? Do you have any photos/details?

Cheers,

Grog

Rusty,

I feel the pain of your disappointment in the failure of global warming to live up to the predictions of its most vocal supporters (i.e., Mr. "The debate is over", Al Gore). I guess with the rising temperatures and sea level rise, you were hoping for coconut palms and white sand beaches in Canada ... EH?

Cheers,

Grog

I had such high hopes for my beach front property on Baffin Island lol.

Al Gore's line was "the science is settled". This struck me as an extraordinary statement. Einstein's science isn't settled. Darwin's science isn't settled. Even Sir Isaac Newton's science is open for debate and revision in the light of new knowledge. Only Al Gore's science is settled.

That is not the statement of a scientist, it is the statement of a pope. Or what the Swiss call a "Cheesepope".

I really believed in Gasohol. Too bad it didn't pan out.

Hi Grog

The Metallurgique's were made in Belgium from 1900 to 1925. The Torpedo body is the European version of a Tourer.

My car is a 2 litre, overhead cam 4 cylinder engine, 4 speed gearbox, 4 wheel brakes. Factory guaranteed at 70mph

First restored in the 70's. Just completed another 18 month restoration.

Many of these studies are done by graduate students as research for dissertations in support of their candidacy for PhDs or other advanced degrees. Which do you suppose would more likely receive grant funding, a proposal that sets out to "prove" the popular current scientific thinking or one that sets out to disprove it? Remember, your academic future lies solely in the hands of the your PhD supervisor and the faculty who will vote on the worthiness of your research. Same reason all the new potential cancer "cures" are discovered around the first of the year, just in time for grant proposals to be written and submitted. Show me evidence that the average temperaure of ground water is rising world wide and I then might be more likely to accept "global warming". Watch your local weather channel. Seldom are new records set for either cold or hot. If you torture numbers enough they will give you any result you are looking for.

David,

Your Torpedo is a beauty! An overhead cam was pretty advanced for 1925. I'll bet you don't run her on gasohol.

Cheers,

Grog

The summery of all the facts in this post is as follows,

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull ****.

Lets see. To put it simply, more corn squeezin's in the good old Gasoline make the mileage go down in the ol Model AAA Ford Truck. More is burned to get the hogs and chickens from the farm to town. A side trip takes Ma to the General Store where see gets the weekly supply and Sunday fixins. This equals more pollution in the air because the corn squeezins don't have the kick for the ol truck that they have for the good ol boys round the still on a Saturday night. Moonshine is better for drinking than for diluting gasoline me thinks. Dandy Dave!

Dandy Dave,

Yer abspotutely right! Alcohol's fer drinkin', not fer fuelin'! Mebbe I could make up a T-shirt wif that thar sayin' on it.

Still preferrin' my ethanol over ice,

Grog

Now I'm confused. Plants breathe in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. How can I be anti carbon dioxide and pro reforestation at the same time.

@DavidAU and Restorer32 WHERE IS THE DAGGONE "LIKE" BUTTON WHEN YOU NEED IT?!?

But, the academics/intellectuals among us think we are not smart enough to figure out the workings of grant money vis-a-vis "desired outcomes"... outcomes that are "suggested" by the party paying for the study.

As an example, once I found out MADD funnels grant money to police departments based on the number of DWI/DUI arrests and convictions they make, I cut off the annual pledge I had made to them for many years. Not that I condone drunken driving, but that relationship just strikes me as borderline unethical. As do some of the funding sources on ethanol and other green darlings...

Now I'm confused. Plants breathe in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. How can I be anti carbon dioxide and pro reforestation at the same time.

For several years, we have acquired saplings from the Missouri Department of Conservation to set out in the spring. The saplings are exceptionally reasonable in price. I do not know if other states have similar programs, but I would wager many do.

As restorer32 stated, plants take in CO2 and give off O2. Seems a no-brainer to have a few trees in the vacinity.

Jon.

I don't even believe Global Warming exists.

I don't even believe Global Warming exists.

It doesn't. It is now conveniently termed climate change. We see the climate change every day. Most call it weather. Al Gore calls it a crisis.

It doesn't. It is now conveniently termed climate change. We see the climate change every day. Most call it weather. Al Gore calls it a crisis.

After a few years when nothing much harmful is happening it will be CLIMATE STAGNATION. Run run the sky is falling.......................Bob