Is ethanol the way to go?

[Iamme]

I recently read a nationally syndicated newspaper editorial where the columnist said that ethanol plants are government subsidized. (Really?) He said that anything that needs government subsidy to make it work, is not worth having if it can't make it on it's own merit.

Well, around my neck of the woods, you can read in the paper almost daily about the ramifications of ethanol plants regarding a community. There are ethanol plants near me and more are proposed.

*If* these things are subsidized because they can't make it on their own...then is it really wise to have some plant come into a small community...lets say a town of only 1500 people...and build such a plant, that requires 150 workers, additional electrical and water and sewer mains, perhaps a new municipal well, more housing and various support businesses?

*IF* there is a possible chance that the government decided, under pressure, to eliminate the subsidy sometime in the future after the plant is in, up and running, with all those things in place that I mentioned....wouldn't this be worse for a community to acquire such a plant, including all the things I listed, as opposed to never having it in the first place?

 

[Bjorn]

I recently read a nationally syndicated newspaper editorial where the columnist said that ethanol plants are government subsidized. (Really?) He said that anything that needs government subsidy to make it work, is not worth having if it can't make it on it's own merit.

Well, around my neck of the woods, you can read in the paper almost daily about the ramifications of ethanol plants regarding a community. There are ethanol plants near me and more are proposed.

*If* these things are subsidized because they can't make it on their own...then is it really wise to have some plant come into a small community...lets say a town of only 1500 people...and build such a plant, that requires 150 workers, additional electrical and water and sewer mains, perhaps a new municipal well, more housing and various support businesses?

*IF* there is a possible chance that the government decided, under pressure, to eliminate the subsidy sometime in the future after the plant is in, up and running, with all those things in place that I mentioned....wouldn't this be worse for a community to acquire such a plant, including all the things I listed, as opposed to never having it in the first place?

Much like farming?

 

[Ladewig]

I recently read a nationally syndicated newspaper editorial where the columnist said that ethanol plants are government subsidized. (Really?) He said that anything that needs government subsidy to make it work, is not worth having if it can't make it on it's own merit.

Well, around my neck of the woods, you can read in the paper almost daily about the ramifications of ethanol plants regarding a community. There are ethanol plants near me and more are proposed.

*If* these things are subsidized because they can't make it on their own...then is it really wise to have some plant come into a small community...lets say a town of only 1500 people...and build such a plant, that requires 150 workers, additional electrical and water and sewer mains, perhaps a new municipal well, more housing and various support businesses?

*IF* there is a possible chance that the government decided, under pressure, to eliminate the subsidy sometime in the future after the plant is in, up and running, with all those things in place that I mentioned....wouldn't this be worse for a community to acquire such a plant, including all the things I listed, as opposed to never having it in the first place?

In general, no, it is not worse for the community. Ultimately, it would depend on the size of the subsidy.

If the town ends up with an improved infrastructure and a new plant that can be sold or rented to another employer, then it would appear that the town is better off.

 

[hammegk]

Switch to ethanol; the methanol seems to be bad for your mental state.

 

[username]

I recently read a nationally syndicated newspaper editorial where the columnist said that ethanol plants are government subsidized. (Really?)

Just an FYI, the "ethanol plant" is corn. Corn is subsidized. That is why you see corn syrup in everything instead of other sweeteners. It is why corn is the primary ingredient in most dog food. There are precious few things that don't include corn in some form. Hemp plants actually make a more efficient fuel additive than corn, but the government doesn't seem too interested in that

Ethanol was basically a way to justify continuing corn subsidies since folks are starting to turn against the fattening corn syrup that is put into darn near everything and it seems hard to rationalize subsidizing it in an age where obesity is an epidemic.

The jury seems divided on whether it is a net plus or minus to use it in our fuel. Politically is it very dangerous to suggest ending corn subsidies because a few states economies depend upon corn. I believe it was John McCain who last spoke against corn subsidies while he was running against Bush in the primaries. He didn't even bother campaigning in the corn states. As history shows he also lost the nomination.

If the topic interests you, entire books have been written on government subsides, the politics behind those subsidies and the effects those subsidies have on the products we are offered. Interesting stuff.

 

[Bikewer]

A fellow (Ex-Cia guy, can't recall his name) who was on Diane Rehm last week was promoting ethanol production, but not with food grains. Essentially, using all manner of "junk" biomass to produce alchohol.

I have listened to various pundits who say that the energy required to produce (distill) alky from any plant matter greatlly reduces the overall efficiency of the process. Cooking up mash with petroleum products...

On the other hand, I don't see why large industrial scale solar cookers would't work. Years ago there was a guy promoting home-built solar "stills" which would allow alchohol production in your backyard.

 

[Bruce]

*If* these things are subsidized because they can't make it on their own...then is it really wise to have some plant come into a small community...lets say a town of only 1500 people...and build such a plant, that requires 150 workers, additional electrical and water and sewer mains, perhaps a new municipal well, more housing and various support businesses?

You hinted at something more important than subsidies. The extraction of ethanol from corn requires more energy than what it produces. Same goes for the production of hydrogen. If you trace that energy back to its source, guess what. You are still getting the energy from coal, oil, and nuclear energy, and you've wasted a large percentage of in the extraction process of ethanol. Ain't entropy a b**ch?

Not only that, but do you really want to run the economy on a food, especially when the nation has been known to be hit with a drought from time to time?

 

[Bruce]

On the other hand, I don't see why large industrial scale solar cookers would't work. Years ago there was a guy promoting home-built solar "stills" which would allow alchohol production in your backyard.

It's more efficient to store the energy in batteries. The problem with solar power is that it requires an enormous amount of surface area to trap solar rays and convert them to electricity. The most efficient solar panel that has every been invented is still pitifully inefficient at trapping and storing solar energy compared to the common house plant.

Nature is truly baffling at it's ability to utilize solar energy. Not only do plants sustain themselves on sunlight, but they absorb carbon dioxide from the air, and use solar energy to convert it to sugars. Not only is this a very steep thermodynamic incline, but the amount of carbon dioxide in the air is less than 1%. Think about that for a second. The carbon you see in all the green plants and trees surrounding you literally came from thin air! Scientist haven't even come close to such outstanding efficiency.

IMHO, if there is any hope in the discovery of an alternative energy to petroleum, it probably lies in LIVING plants. Unlocking the secrets of photosynthesis is still a holy grail for scientists.

 

[WildCat]

If all the arable land in the US were converted to ethanol production it wouldn't meet our energy needs and we'd have to import all our food. Of course, there's still that nagging problem of the fact that production of ethanol (and farming is by itself very fuel intensive) uses more energy than it produces.

Ethanol is a farm policy masquerading as an energy policy, and actually increases our dependence on foreign oil. Here in Illinois all gasoline sold must be at least 10% ethanol, much to the joy of OPEC, I'll bet.

 

[glsunder]

After looking more into alternative fuels, biodiesel seems like a better choice. Diesel engines are more efficient, which gives them an edge over gasoline or ethanol engines. The biggest advantage I see is we might be able to get biodiesel from algae -- 10,000 to 20,000 gal/acre according to wikipedia. I say might because it hasn't been done on a large scale commercially -- and you know how things often work out.

In my opinion, biofuels seem to have the best potential for a near future alternative fuel. Hydrogen is one of those "just 10 years away" techs that will likely be 10 years away for a while. There's just too many problems with it.

 

[Ladewig]

It's more efficient to store the energy in batteries. The problem with solar power is that it requires an enormous amount of surface area to trap solar rays and convert them to electricity. The most efficient solar panel that has every been invented is still pitifully inefficient at trapping and storing solar energy compared to the common house plant.

But if you are cooking corn mash to distill the alcohol, why convert the solar energy to electricity? Why not just use a lot of mirrors to raise the temperature of the still?

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Username
Corn is subsidized. That is why you see corn syrup in everything instead of other sweeteners.

There is more to it than this. In the US, corn is subsidized in a manner that creates more corn and lower prices. Sugar is protected in a manner that make it cost three time the market value.

It is the combination of cheap corn and expensive sugar that causes the ubiquity of corn syrup.

CBL

 

[Bruce]

But if you are cooking corn mash to distill the alcohol, why convert the solar energy to electricity? Why not just use a lot of mirrors to raise the temperature of the still?

Every time to convert one form of energy to another, you lose part of that energy in the form of heat. 2nd law of thermodynamics, IIRC. If you are lucky, you will get 50% efficiency for every energy transfer. Assuming that you can get 50% efficiency, let's look at gasoline powered vehicles:

combustion(gasoline)-work (50%)

You burn (or explode rather) the gasoline and it is converted to mechanical "work" to move your engine. Now let's take a look at electrical cars:

coal-electrical(power plant)-chemical(battery)-work (6.25%)

If you take all the available energy from coal, by the time you get it to your car, you're only using (at most) 6.25%. The rest is wasted in the energy transfer process.

Now let's look at your distillery:

sunlight-heat(water)-combustion(alcohol)-work (6.25%)

I'd like to add that there is tremendous energy loss when you use heat to boil water, not to mention that alcohol does not generate nearly the same combustion energy as gasoline because there aren't as many chemical bonds being broken. In other words, the amount of sunlight, time, and corn you would need to power a single automobile for one day would be absurd.

Are there any mechanical engineers on this board? How many btu's can you get from one gallon of gasoline, vs equivalent volumes of coal, ethanol, wood, etc?

 

[Bikewer]

All no doubt true; but solar is essentially free, once the infrastucture is set up, and non-polluting as well.

With increased development, solar power can hardly help but become more efficient. There are large areas of the world where extensive solar farms could be set up to run efficiently.

Gasoline is a wonderful motor vehicle fuel, both energetic and relatively clean-burning. It is rather finite, however.

 

[Bruce]

Gasoline is a wonderful motor vehicle fuel,

No, it's blooody awful, but it's the best we've been able to utilize. Hydrogen is probably the cleanest burning fuel, but there is virtually no hydrogen found lying around in nature (tends to drift out into space), so you need to use energy to make it. Hydrogen also destroys ozone, but nobody seems to be worried about that right now.

Sunlight is excellent, but we need people to hurry up and stumble upon better solar cells.