Ethanol Impact

Environmental safety is a risk factor to the American budget. There should be a larger amount of crops invested and available for ethanol plants prior to manufacturing wholesale. A shortage of oil is already lavishly fucking the economy, it’s not burdensome to avoid with preparation.

There are trace amounts of sugar in nearly all bio-matter,
And that can be turned into ethanol via simple yeast.
Bio-matter can also be reduced to acids via bacteria,
And that can then be reduced to DC electricity via the principal of batteries.

Completely organic fuels have been possible and existent for a long time, and to produce such, would only require a large amount of organic compost.

I am sure if people put enough effort into it, they could even turn their own sewer-water into power somehow, at the same time as treating it…

But oil and coal were here first. They fueled the industrial revolution. They monopolized and they want to stamp out anything that gets in the way of their economic dictatorship.

Apparently it takes a gallon of oil to produce a gallon of corn-based ethanol when you look at all the oil used in the machinery and production. Or I should say you have no net gain in usable energy in producing ethanol. With the way our economy and agribusiness is set up it is very difficult to make anything without using large amounts of oil and that goes for ethanol as well.

Whether ethanol or biodeisel production, there are relatively inexpensive processing systems available. There is a significant net energy gain as long as the entire process is localized (sorry, Seb), but in order for the system to pencil out in the black, there has to be a market for the crop residues. A viable beginning-to-end system of production is a lot more complex than what the current ‘popular’ stories present.

That said, as oil prices continue to creep up, bio-mass production of fuels become more doable. After all the noble sentiments of ‘green’ independence for energy production, it will always come down to the economic viability, and we’re close. Very close.

You can’t afford the amount of landspace required for both feeding people and creating crops for ethanol yield …

Oh, and the process of creating ethanol is twice as caustic as the one for petroleum … so you still aren’t helping the environment. Not to mention there is only about 8% emissions reduction with ethanol …

It’s called “being sold the bill of goods”.

Not true economically … even at full processing/marketing, the ROI is less than petroleum, which isn’t going to attract investors.

Hi Mas,

I have a few friends who farm and apart from that slight misstep, they’re good businessmen. All have rejected the ethanol proposals because the scale has to be too large, and you’re right, it doesn’t pencil out. But biodeisel production of oil crops looks pretty good. A lot depends on the exact location and the right circumstances to allow a localized return on all aspects of the production, but here in Ideeho, it looks quite good.
There is still lot’s of oil left, but at what cost? I’m not suggesting that biofuels are our saving grace, but they will be a stop-gap component until we pull our heads out and come up with some coherent energy policy.

Biodiesel is okay, and may actually be feasible … but the environmental impact is the same as petroleum or ethanol … methane leaves a number of “less than friendly” dioxides hanging in the wake.

There are better alternatives, that just need proper infrastructure modelling, and complete lifetime process models …

Nevermind, that would require people to think.

All forms of extraction from the environment has adverse consequences, both natural processes as well as man made. That is one of the biggest lies we face. That as extractive animals, we can have what we want/need without environmental consequence.

I live in a “tea cup” valley with mountains north and south, and high desert east and west. A few days a year we have air quality problems which conventional wisdom says that there are too many cars pouring hydrocarbons into the air. No one ever mentions the hydrocarbon outgassing of the pine trees north and south of us that is about ten times the hydrocarbons produced by cars…

The cleanest energy source we have is hydro-electric power, but even that comes at a tremendous cost to the environmental changes brought by dam construction. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.

You’re right everything does have some kind of negative impact. Imagine we covered much of the earth with solar panels, that would make the earth “blacker” and result in global warming. At some point gathering wind power would change the wind currents and result in weather change, not to mention bird deaths. Put in enough dams for hydro power and you could slow the rotation of the earth over time, and there is also the local habitat loss.

But this doesn’t mean we should throw up our hands and say there is nothing we can do (I’m not saying anyone here is suggesting this btw). While there might be no free lunch there are certainly lunches that are cheaper than others, or better for you than others. The net impact of the solar panels is much less than burning petroleum, and more easily reversible, it is fairly easy to destroy the panels compared to taking carbon out of the atmosphere.

Back to ethanol question. Certainly if you localize everything that would make ethanol more efficient. There are probably a number of ways (which may or may not be economically feasible) to produce ethanol without using as much oil. My guess is that Brazil is producing ethanol using less oil, they’re just cutting down the rain forest to do it. But simply planting more corn for ethanol with the way we are doing things now is not going to help, and all of the acreage we are using now is not really helping. We might be close, but we aren’t there yet.

You know developing filters is the best bet. Filters and filtration systems are fairly rudimentary right now. It sure would solve alot of problems. Eventually the refuse that is trapped in filters can probably get recycled somehow.

Instead of developing a whole new industry revamp an old one.

Kriswest, go grab a cup of coffee lady, you are way off the cuff.

Filtration is massively expensive, and many things, (think nuclear waste), can’t be recycled. Toxins that are trapped have to be eliminated in some fashion ~ or else they wouldn’t be toxic.

The other problem, probably greater than the energy/conservation problem, is getting all the countries across the globe, in knowledge, economics, technology and cooperation to work towards a unified solution ~ is virtually impossible.

I bet we burn out this little blue mudball, long before we solve the problem.

The best solution is to stop consuming everything on the planet at the furious rate we now proclaim as need. The problem is letting the air out of the balloon slowly, and my old age cynicism says it ain’t bloody likely. Our greatest strength is the ability to adapt to changing conditions. Our greatest weakness is the ability to adapt to changing conditions. We will continue our profligate ways till the lights go out. Then perhaps we might begin trying to find ways to live with the world instead of on top of it.

Expensive compared to what? What makes it so expensive? Massive amounts of unregulated profit? Or B.S. waste?

Research to filtration systems and filters can be aproached more economically and be highly successful.

Toxins that cannot be recycled somehow can be removed from the ecology in safe ways.

Slowing down consumption means cutting back human population and doling out rations. Are we commited to doing that? LOL Oh sure let me hold my breath.

Uh oh … he’s obviously one of “those” people. Might not have taken his meds today.

Okay Mr. Crazy Guy, calm down. In the really real world … we own this planet … pfff … nutjob … tinfoil helmet?

Filters can only hold up so long. Those for energy processes, cannot be refurbished once used. They must be replaced.

Toxins still have to go “somewhere” … removing them from the biosphere does not eliminate them … so then you have a build up that has to be contained, (again, think nuclear waste). We are hominids, ergo we have “The Stupid®” … so we just stuff the ground full of those toxins because we can’t get rid of them … and if we can’t see them any longer, well obviously, they don’t exist any longer. Hmmm, nevermind, maybe you are right …

:astonished: :astonished: :astonished: Um Mas i did say research didn’t I and to revamp this already existing industry.?. At what point did I say the existing filters and filtration systems are acceptable and will work?

Well you can bury the Toxins, or you can remove them like I said. Bury is not removal. But, if you condone burying could you please do it on your side of the country?Ummmmm, No wait hold on which river flows North again? Ok just don’t bury it near water that flows South.

I really do suggest its removal though. The thought of real 4 eyed great grand kids makes me queasy for some reason.

Ummmm, Kriswest … when they are “removed” … then what?

Mas,

One of “those” people? Nope. I didn’t have granola for breakfast and I don’t have wild rice stored in a hand-thrown earthenware pot in the kitchen. I do not hug trees. But your sarcasm is noted and appreciated.

Kris,

What are you talking about? Filtration of anything is simply a process of concentrating whatever is being filtered. It doesn’t make the bad stuff go away. Here in Idaho we have a nuclear R&D site that sits on top of the aquifer that covers the southern half of the state. It has been used as the collection point for all sorts of nuclear ‘bad stuff’ for the last 60 years. The government has had one hell of a time find a place to bury this shit, since some of it has a half-life of, oh, maybe 20,000 years. So after it’s ‘filtered’ into a hole in the ground, it’s still here - and in a highly concentrated form. Like you, eveyone is saying NIMBY ans so filtering doesn’t really solve the problem does it?

::giggity:: Score!!!

I’ve often wondered, and feel free to take your turn at sarcasm and criticism, but what is the impediment to jetisonning the material into space?

Space is a radiation litter box … we run the space shuttle up often enough, wouldn’t it be economically beneficial for NASA, to do a little bit of global janitorial service for our country and others who use nuclear energy … ??? Or is there something not plausible with this scenario???