Slashdot Mirror
Vinod Khosla Talks Ethanol
IamTheRealMike writes "Vinod Khosla, venture capitalist and co-founder of Sun, has a new obsession these days. Ethanol is the fuel touted by many as an alternative to dwindling oil stocks, but is it all it's cracked up to be? Whilst Khosla is an avid supporter of ethanol as an alternative fuel (video link) his optimistic views have been rigourously challenged by Robert Rapier, an oil industry insider who is also engaged in a quest to discover alternatives. Recently the two debated via phone the merits of an ethanol economy, and Mr Rapier has now written up a report of the debate. What will be powering our cars 10 years from now?"
Probably oil.
Still.
Probably oil with 5% or 15% ethanol, to modify our current status slightly.
Ethanol powered drivers are already behind the wheel of many American vehicles. This seems more of a problem than a solution. Though the Fred Flintstone Engine would seem to work well, especially with enough ehtanol in your system that you don't notice that you just lost all the skin on your feet at the last red light.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
...that in order to replace gasoline, 97% of the land mass of the US would have to be nothing but corn to produce the amount of ethanol needed for the "world to keep turning." Not exactly possible.
:-P
Can someone refute or verify that claim? It was a reliable source I believe...I just can't remember where I got it from.
Ethanol has shitty energy density. The solution, if you are using liquid fuel, is to use biodiesel for diesels and butanol for gasoline engines. You can run E95, 95% ethanol and 5% gasoline, in diesel engines just by increasing compression and changing fuel delivery (not sure if it's increase or decrease; I'd guess increase.) You can run butanol in gasoline engines without modification, though low-compression engines may need to have their timing advanced since butanol has a higher octane rating than gasoline, IIRC.
Regardless what we make biofuel out of, the most important point is that it not be topsoil-based. Agriculture is the most destructive technology ever unleashed upon the Earth by mankind. Hydroponic crops make dramatically more sense as fuel feedstocks.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Ethanol does not give you better gas mileage... thus you have to burn more. Also, the price is not going to be cheaper with out federal subsidies to artificially lower it. And lastly, most ethanol is produced by corn in an extremely wasteful process that requires an enormous amount of energy which cuts in on its overall efficiency.
http://religiousfreaks.com/I myself support Biodiesal as an alternative fuel - just so much more 'waste' areas could be used. (Even LITERALLY! Human waste could be used) Clearly, there are still limitations to it, though.
Go cheap! Think: Yabba-Dabba-Doo! It's the easiest solution, getting off your fat ass and walking (or bicycling).
Who knew God needed funding? Hope the big guy didn't get burned in the internet bubble or finance one of those McMansions. He would be really pissed right now.
I'm at my work right now, where I am employed as an energy analyst. It is the opinion of every single person in the industry that there is no real possibility of replacing gasoline with ethanol. It would take the entire corn harvest of the United States to make that much ethanol, not even counting how much ethanol you would have to burn to harvest the corn. We will continue to burn gasoline until it becomes so expensive that people use alternate transportation, or until we all die in some horrible war. The whole ethanol thing is just another wall street fad that's brought in a bunch of suckers.
I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
I think all new cars will be supporting e85 gas (85% ethanol) within 10 years, but the most commonly used will still be the 15% stuff, cause of all the used cars on the market that can't handle e85. The biggest issue is going to be getting e85 gas stations out there (of course, as more and more cars start supporting it, more and more stations will popup). Here in Wisconsin, I've seen several e85 stations pop up in the last handful of years, so that I now know of 5 e85 stations within an hour of my home.
our cars in the future? While certainly economies of scale help a one fuel source solution, but are the drawbacks of such a mono-culture really worthwhile? People tend to constantly pull a strawman attack on others favorite alternative by taking their argument to the extreme(such as having to plant corn all over south america just to get enough ethanol to use as a fuel). However, we have to face the truth: nothing is going to be as scalable as oil. The ONLY absolute is conservation is much, much better than waste even if the energy is hog is using alternative energy.
We could make our current oil last a lot longer if people were to make small sacrifices. And I'm not just talking about SUVs, I'm talking about things like carpooling. 4 people commuting to work in a 15mpg SUV are still less than half the amount of fuel than they would if they all drove their 30 mpg Hondas(less than half because even though the SUV is big, it still causes less congestion than 4 smaller cars). Behaviors will have to change, end of story.
not the fuel itself but its engines, normal diesel engines with slight alterations can run on grease, fry fat, and a lot of other natural substances, why this potential has not been tapped more
is beyound me.
the largest cause of gas prices being so high? Oh yeah that stuff.
The US imports a majority of the ethanol from Brazil for mixing with gasoline, currently their is a shortage of that garbage which means higher prices. Ethanol is a pipe dream right now, but forced down our throats. Oil prices dont help the situation, but ethanol is a major cause of gas prices right now. Not to mention the gas companies have about a 100 different blends they have to make for every state and region and even in different counties.
The blending of ethanol with gas is not only worse for the environment, but it destroys your engine, causes a significant drop in MPG. Basicall the entire ethanol gas blend is simply a subsidy to Archer Daniels who crams that junk gas down our throats.
Supposidly pure ethanol is much better, but the mixed stuff should be outright banned. (Ever wonder why Iowa, one of the biggest corn producers for ethanol does not have or want the blended formula).
The US needs to stop wasting time worrying about gas taxes (and taking a nickle off the price) and get rid of mixed gas and come up with a federal standard for gasoline. Enough of the, 5 mile difference equaling different gasoline formula.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
What will be powering our cars 10 years from now?
Can you say Mr. Fusion?
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
making money.
He's a VC. He sells you on hype. You buy the stock of the companies that he invests in early. He cashes out at or shortly after IPO. He couldn't care less what happens to you afterward.
The only reason Vinod is interested in ethanol is because there is money to be made. For him.
Period.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
The question we should be asking is not what will be powering our cars, but how do shift to a society that needs less cars and less fuel in general. Buying locally grown food, riding a bike, telecomutingm and forcing our city governments to make our cities less car-dependent and more pedestrian and public transit oriented are the real answers to the issue of fuel shortage.
The oil people (Bush included) will do whatever to keep their monoploy - oil runs the world finances, so to actually admit oil is running out will destroy their wealth overnight. These people will not do a thing to move to other alternatives, nor either spend R&S to source them.
Welcome to Mad Max very soon.
I'd wager that in the future bacterially manufactured fuels, be it ethanol, butane, or whatever new thing comes along, will all be made via bacteria on waste--or a catalyst. Hell, we've got bacteria that eats grass and poops ethanol now, and you can "grow" a batch of bacteria anywhere. All we'd need is a plot of space for a big-ass building to house the stuff in and tubes that drain the fuel into external tanks. Once Economies of Scale kicks in, it's worth the massive start-up cost.
We'll have to do something, and bitching about energy efficiencies and densities isn't the answer, doing is.
There is a good chance that Coal-To-Liquid will gain quite a bit in popularity. The US is not lacking in coal
and the technology to convert coal into a clean burning fuel has been around for a long time (Fischer-Tropsch).
I believe South Africa started using this type of fuel when they were isolated over Apartheid.
CTL as an option to replace gasoline is on the radar:
http://www.theorator.com/bills109/s3623.html
It is not oil, ethanol, or [insert silver bullet technology here]; it is all of them together.
We don't need a 100% replacement for oil. If we can replace 10% with one economical technology, 5% with another, and 2% with yet another then good. Repeats as additional technologies become economical. Tony
"If there was no more oil. What would we use?"
Yes there's tons of oil left in the world. There's enough for at least 20 years if we don't find more and if we find more, more than 20 years. The problem is oil companies tend to think oil is the ONLY solution. So basically according to them once the oil runs out cars will stop running. That's a good theory, except it's wrong, and we'll find a way to avoid it soon.
But at the same time let's figure out what works. The oil company always says "that won't work" but why don't we get a reason. Is the refinery process to expensive (not meaning the cost of upgrading the refineries which is always a big number)? Is the fuel source too expensive (batteries)? Is it dangerous to contain (Plasma, Hydrogen fuel cells)? or is it too hard to come by on the scale we're talking about(nuclear power and fusion)?
That's not to say Ethanol is the solution. Solar power is certainly not (too expensive to update cars and parts).
Personally you have to give american and japanese car companies credit. They are at least trying to figure out the solution. European companies have basically ignored the alternatives and just switched to diesel acting like it is the solution. It too might be for the time. But at the very least we have to stop listening to the oil companies' opinions unless they are well thought out opinions. Not because they are bad people, or idiots but because they have something worth protecting (our reliance on them), and they won't just give that away or tell us "yes you CAN get energy from other sources".
Some form of gas or disel that we use now. There is a lot of infrastructure in place that can't be replaced (cheaply) in ten years. Either we'll have powerful hybrids, or super efficient gasoline/disel engines, but replacing the vast amount of infrastructure out there isn't going to happen quickly. I'd buy a total conversion in maybe 30 years, but in the short tern, we're looking at gas. There are research projects that are looking at making synthetic gasoline, and doing so would allow you to use the same infrastructure while reducing the CO2 that we add to the air. (Synthetic fuel would come from plants, plants use the CO2 in the air to grow.)
The question is, what will we be using to create that electricity?
the word economy after everything. Like when they say "hydrogen economy" wont work or "ethanol economy" is not viable. What they really mean is they havent totally figured out how to make you pay for it.
The first caucuses of the Presidential campaign season are always in Iowa. It's always the first news of the season, and the winner of Iowa gets huge amounts of free, positive press coverage.
Iowa is where the corn comes from. No politician who ever expects to run for President can afford to piss off Iowa. Even if you're not running today, if it's even on your mind, you vote the way Archer Daniels Midland (the immense agribusiness that can ruin your political life in the farm belt) tells you to vote.
We wouldn't even be talking about ethanol if it weren't for that little quirk of politics. I'd love to see some party say, "Ya know what? Let's make Iowa third rather than first and see what happens." We might still be talking ethanol, but we sure wouldn't be talking about getting it from corn.
If you want to get energy independent quickly and reliably, this is the answer. If you want to create a lot of sloppy hype and get people to spend stupid amounts of money on shoddy technology that's going to be under development for decades, then micro-pile atomic reactors are a better bet than Ethanol.
Ethanol is not perfect. It's only being hyped because GM et al are selling E85 engines. They aren't selling Diesel engines because they don't know how to make small ones. VW, BMW, Peugot, Reanault, and Mercedes all have decades of experience with small block engines. E85 is being pushed because if they pushed Diesel engines what little is left of the big three would collapse over night. Personally, I prefer Diesel. It isn't going to explode.
Ethanol sounds promising as a short term assistance to weening ourselves off foreign oil. Unfortunately tho, it's widely accepted by climatologists that the Ogallala Aquifer is on course to dry up within a few short decades, and this isn't taking into account the hundreds of ethanol plants that have been developed accross the midwest recently. There will soon be a demand for corn that will create a demand for water that will no longer exist.
Sometimes, when you are faced with a problem which seems to have only complicate answers, it's important to step back and try to understand what problem you were trying to solve in the first place. Let's take inventory.
i t
* We have people and things which need to move around. That's definate.
* We cannot instantaneously make them appear in their next location. That's definate for now.
* We have a lot of people and things and they have to get around one another to get to where they want/need to be.
Then there was a solution: A carraige. So now there other problems, a long line of solutions, and subsequent problems.
* The carraige needs to be pulled or pushed - get a horse
* The horse needs to be kept alive and poops - replace the horse with a gasoline engine.
* The engine makes the car' go very fast and it kills people when run into one another - plate the carraige in metal.
* The metal is very heavy and the car is sinking in the mud - make the tires larger and the steering better.
* The cars are going faster and the deaths are still occurring - make safety features.
* Enclosed or open, the cars are really hot - make an air conditioner and power it with the engine.
* Gosh I'm bored - add a radio and other entertainment
* I'm distracted and drunk and people are still dying - Add some laws and a highway infrastructure to keep the drivers in order.
* I'm hungry - Make some drive-throughs restaurants.
* There are more people - make bigger roads
* The more people are causing more deaths - make bigger vehicles
So on and one it goes. But the problem was people and things need to get from point a to point b, not I'm bored, I'm hungry or the ground is muddy.
So someone gets an idea somewhere in there - a train. more problems
* We aren't all going to the same place
* I don't like these other people
* You can't fit a train stop in my neighborhood
* trains bring hooligans
But if the main goal is point a to point b for people or packages, doesn't a personal rapid transit system seem more logical?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_trans
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
What's the point of replacing gasoline with ethanol when you have to use almost the same amount of fossil fuel energy, in the form of natural gas and coal, to make the stuff? Producing ethanol from corn produces little net energy, and the whole process produces nearly the same amount of CO2 as just burning straight gasoline.
source
Since 2 major university studies (See previous Slashdot articles) have shown that for every gallon of Ethenol produced, it takes 1-1.18 equivalent gallons of oil to farm, transport, and distribute, you are NOT PRODUCING ANY ENERGY ! You are transporting Oil Energy through Ethanol to the end user. The ratio has to be less than 1 to show a true source of energy.
Politians are not engineers. They repeat what is popular. People are not asking the right questions. There are viable bio fuels but the corn industry is popular for a lot of farmers, and businessmen making a profit on a growth industry based on a falicy.
As The New Republic has revealed, I use hydrogen in my 1972 Dodge Charger and 1996 Jeep Cherokee. Check the link in my .sig :)
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Bio-diesel and ethanol only address the concerns about the supply of oil.
They do nothing to reduce CO2 emmissions of our autos.
And what he doesn't want talked about is the fact that he would like to see oil companies taxed around $4B to subsidize this for California. Great, just what the public needs. More taxes on the cost of their already expensive fuel. Ethanol becoming cheaper? Sure "looks" that way when taxes artificially inflate the cost of oil even more.
I'm against subsidies, but if you're going to do them, then do it on things that make sense like that Tesla Roadster. If I were in CA, I'd be furious at this elitist ass who wants me to pay for a technology that is useless to me. If the people of CA are smart, they'll send a $100M in R&D funds to Tesla to build general purpose cars instead of this rich man's scheme to line his own pockets.
you don't need foodstock to create ethanol, you can use waste cellulose as a more ecologically friendly source of ethanol. Wiki article.
And as far as biodiesel gelling in cold temperatures (as another poster points out), you don't have to have 100% biodiesel all the time. You can use a coal-based fuel oil/biodiesel mix (not ideal, but better than 100% crude oil diesel) or you can mix with alcohols to change the properties of biodiesel as needed.
More music, fewer hits
The US uses around 880 millionTonnes of oil. However it's important to remember that when refined, 47% is gasoline.
I'm not sure about how the efficiency of ethanol compares but i'd estimate if has an energy density of around 75% of gasoline.
So to meet the US' needs for gasoline, it'd need 1.5billion tonnes of corn or 500million tonnes of ethanol. That doesn't seem an unreasonable target if the US ramps up it's corn production (more demand = more money = more farms). What it can't produce it can import from agricultural nations.
I'm hoping your comment was tongue-in-cheek. I cannot imagine any consumer wanting to handle coal (even if compressed nicely into little briquettes). It may be a decent energy source, but it is messy, and messy does not go with a power suit.
Besides, have you ever smelled some coals burn? Much of the coal mined in northern Illinois had so much sulfer in it that companies avoided using it when I was a child. Technology has improved much over the last 20 years, so that coal is used regularly, but whooooooo.... if you think car exhaust stinks now, I can only imagine...
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
If Congressman Fred Upton has his way, our engines will be running on 10% ethanol by 2012. This is a good policy that deserves consideration.
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
here is the mirror
c ffa3b5354c5adee/index.html
http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/64724e0f54184af8
If pollution kills algae, how the heck does this work?
Whenever someone pushes ethanol that hard, they're really pushing for corn subsidies. If he starts talking wood chips or sawgrass, that might be something worthwhile, but as it stands it's just another pork project.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Would that I had mod points, I'd mod you insightful. I think you're on to something...
I agree with you. I'm always surprised when so called progressives want to dramatically increase the tax on gasoline consumption. This only hurts those folks at the lowest end of the economic scale that have to spend a higher proportion of their income on gasoline. Take, for example, a recent immigrant who is starting his own gardening business. He has to drive his own truck to do his business. He's barely breaking even and then you double his fuel costs. Now you've taken a hard working free man, a potential employer, and you've wrecked his business. Now he'll be on welfare and haunting the ER everytime he has a cold. How is that progressive?
I guarantee you that oil will be used by a vast majority of the worlds vehicles by 2016, however there will be a few alternative fuel vehicles on the road *imho* at that time. What they are.. I have no idea, because if there's one thing history has shown us, that when we try and guess and tech advances.. 9 times out of 10 we look like utter fools in retrospect.
The best I can see in the energy as such is that some processes can be done in bulk, which reduces overall polution for that process. However, I doubt that makes up for the amount of energy used.
Also, I doubt that any soil could take the pressures of the necessary corn production. Perhaps with a lot of crop rotation... but in the end, it seems like more effort should be focused on transportation methods such as batteries and hydrogen, and energy sources like wind, nuclear, and solar.
I have freaks! I did something right...
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I can not spell this out enough! Use of ethanol means 7% - 10% worse mileage for every car using it. This in turn means higher consumption! This means higher demand. In turn, we already don't have enough ethanol to go around. This in turn means lower supply. Put it all together and we are now all paying even more for fuel! To make matters worse, ethanol from corn is stupid. The only people this helps are corn growers. We are paying two or three times for ethanol from corn. On top of that, I believe we are also importing it from Brazil, which is based on sugar cane rather than corn. At least that part makes sense!
AFAIK, the only currently viable sources for ethanol is sugar cane, sugar beats, and hemp. The later or which, Canada is currently testing. AFAIK, the other, often touted sources are very research intensive and experimental at best.
Unless you enjoy paying lots more per gallon, always say no to ethanol from corn! For now, we should all say no to ethanol, period. Ideally, we'll shift to hemp based ethanol! And note, hemp is not pot! If you smoke hemp, you get a killer headache, but not high. Pot can be used as hemp, but not the other way around. But wait, hemp is illegal in the US because it competes with oil, petrochecmial, and cotton industries. That's a short list of powerful enemies.
He believe as a company that the most important source of new energy is energy efficiency and the company is investment on a number of alternative energy search. Seems quite astute for an oil man.
Straight vegetable oil derived from wild plants that grow like weeds, that are innately resistant to pests, and drought tolerant are more viable. In India the IISc and IITs are reseraching on plants like jatropha. Indian Railways has a locomotive running on it. SVO is not viable for cold climate and it will need elasticizers to convert it into bio-diesel.
Methane derived from dairy farm waste can replace 15% of the crude oil imports and provide organiz fertilizers on the side.
I think some day we will have "artificial cow stomachs" that will accept all kinds of weeds and grasses in industrial scale as input, grind them, and use microbes to break down the cellulose and release methane.
Ethanol? It is a great fuel for politicians whoring for votes in corn belt and venture capitalists hyping up their investments before unloading them. Not for cars and homes. Just my humble opinion.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Even the numbers from the National Corn Growers's Association only indicate that ethanol from corn produces only 30% more energy than goes in. That's a poor energy return. Numbers from opponents of ethanol are much worse.
The more promising idea, if it can be made to work, is "cellulosic ethanol". The idea is to develop bioengineered enzymes that can digest agricultural waste (straw, corncobs, sugar cane, wood chips, etc.) into something more useful. But so far, no process to do that is beyond the pilot plant stage.
As a kid I went with my dad to his job in facilities for a large company. This company had a bank of diesel-powered generators in their basement - huge 24-cylinder beasts. On this trip there happened to be a 20 gallon bottle (think old water-cooler bottle) sitting on the floor with about 6 inches of diesel fuel in the bottom. I inquired as to whether this was a safety hazard - and then watched as a co-worker deliberately struck a match and dropped it in the bottle.
The match fell to the liquid and was extinguished.
As a slightly older youth I attempted to repeat this experiment - only this time with a) a plastic container, b) gasoline, and c) outside on the driveway.
I think my eyebrows grew back within a week or two.
I think we are using 10% ethanol already. At least here in Virginia. Maybe it's nothing, but I have noticed a slight change in the way my car sounds since they made the switch. It kind of sputters randomly if I deccelerate with the clutch engaged, and my car only has 46k miles. Spark plugs aren't due to be changed for another 14k... I hope it isn't related to this change, I know they were warning boaters against using ethanol blends in some cases.
"Sunlight energy: 1kW/m2 at noon measured at ray-perpendicular plane"
This is even aggressive for the equator (which is closer to 500 to 750kW/m2), certainly not realistic for +/- 30 deg lat.
"Corn sunray-biomass efficiency 5-10%"
Photosynthesis is approx 1% efficient.
Fermentation efficiency (sugars/cellulose to EtOH): 30-70%
Here you are under efficient, closer to 80% to 90% efficiency.
I think Germany invented it in World War II. I know it was used in Apartid South Africa though. I'd be shocked if we aren't still using some sort of fossil fuel. Solar is really the only other reasonable option and that's probably not practical for a good 25-50 years.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
It works very well as an additive to gas, according to the pumps, I've been burning 10% ethanol in the gas for like 30 years here in the Chicago area. Doesn't poison the groundwater like MTBE does, and helps clean the fuel system.
Not going to totally solve our energy needs, but it has a place in it.
My TDI VW will run on home-brew bio-diesel... as soon as I have the $$$ to buy a TDI VW...
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html
No one alternative will completely replace Petroleum based fuels.. But Ethanol from corn and non-corn based sources, as well as mass manufactured bio-diesel and home-brew bio-diesel, along with hybrid electric will more than likely make up the fuel for the majority of vehicles 10 years from now.
Just my $0.02US
It takes more energy to grow the stuff than it produces.
We don't need it anyhow.
There is plenty of oil.
Ten years from now we will be using oil...
http://home.earthlink.net/~root.man/sci.html
Americans need to be aware of the problems that their energy dependence on middle east oil causes. Granted Ethanol may not be the answer but if its even close, and if we can move to a marginal 25% of energy consumption to this source, this can be a significant strategic step in energy independence as well as reducing the image of imperialism which America carries in the Middle East. Khosla maybe professing pipe dreams, being a VC, but it's time we understood the bigger picture. For starters, watching Syriana maybe a healthy exercise for everyone interested in their progeny having a good life.
not to be terribly redundant...but it *is* all of them together. Have you ever seen a society, especially one based on capitalism, try to go backwards? We need as many options as we can find and as much innovation as we can sponsor...right now. That discussion over on that blog is pretty darned good. I, too, if I had any mod points would up the crap out of this idea.
.. then gas stations will have to be very very big. You'd lose most of the benefits driving around trying to find the right pump.
Sorry. I think you might have missed the point.
He wasn't talking about 37 different niche fuels - he's talking about using a bunch of different technologies that each contribute a small percentage toward reducing our petroleum consumption instead of waiting/hoping for a one-size fits all magic bullet.
For example, what if every state required E10 like NY,CT, HI and MN already do?
Now imagine that states required that all diesel be a B5 blend like Portland, OR or B2 like MN has done. That's millions of gallons of petrodiesel that the trucking industy isn't burning.
Now imagine that Detroit started selling Americans the diesels they already build. Diesels get about 30% better mileage (give or take) than a comparable gas engine. If even 20% of the cars on the road were diesels, that would save a small but very real percentage right there.
Now imagine that mass transit rideership use increases by just 5%. That's how many millions of cars that aren't on the road?
My wife and I just moved. Her commute is now under 5 miles compared to 25 before.
Nor do you need to focus just on transportation.
My brother in law's home heating oil supplier offers a B15 blend for a *lower* price than straight petroleum based home heating oil. At our old house, I switched every fixture that was feasible to a CF bulb and electricity usage dropped by 20 or 30%.
We shouldn't wait for a magic bullet when lots of little choices can, when aggregated, get us closer to where we want to be.
Oil? Nope. My prediction: Fred's big feet. (think "Flintstones")
On a positive note, all those oil company bigwigs'll be turned into Al Bundy-style shoe salesmen...
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
...that is the sole reason Mr. Khosla is interested. He is very VERY smart, and has made lots of money for himself and his venture firm (KPCB accounts for a significant percentage of ALL venture profits). KhoslaVentures,http://khoslaventures.com/resources .html> his new gig five and a half degrees apart from KPCB though they share office space, has some of his recent powerpoint presentations including the somewhat controversial ones on Ethanol. But if one goes through it rigorously, it can be seen that it is long on "collecting" other people's observations and short on brilliant insights contributed by Vinod Khosla. If I was to place a bet at this point in time, I bet he walks away having made a few hundred million $$ in 10 years time from this alternative/clean-tech investing. For more fawnish coverage on 'the man', see valley wag Om's http://gigaom.com/ and Matt Marshall's http://siliconbeat.com./
Err... couldn't you solve that by converting the coal to a liquid before selling it to the end user?
That depends on the coal. There are actually several kinds, catagorized by the amount of metamorphism they've experienced. I don't know about Lignite and Bituminous, but Anthracite (the hardest, most metaphorphosed form) is actually clean to handle.
The big problem with coal is not the logistics of it, but the fact that we can't afford to pump all that carbon into the atmosphere. I mean, at least oil is somewhat limited by the fact that we're running out, but there's so much coal that we wouldn't have an economic incentive to stop using it until the massive crop failures etc. from global warming started (and then it would be too late).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Money. For his oil company reps.
He works for the oil industry. I read that summary, which was surprisingly matter of fact as to what the viewpoints were, but it's clear he has a pro-oil viewpoint.
Using precious third world children going hungry as an argument against using corn as fuel? Wow that's stupid, didn't we just have a World Trade Summit where the fundamental argument was over first world countries killing third world farming operations with subsidies and the like? There's an oversupply of food in the world, it's politics and war that cause localized starvation conditions, usually by preventing aid supply operations from working properly. In cases of true localized overpopulation, there is no humanitarian solution, feeding over-procreating societies produces even more starving mouths. Plus, from what I've read, from a fundamental standpoint freshwater is the true limiting factor on human populations, not food availabilty.
I find it amusing this oil company shill can't beleive that a carbon tax is politically impossible. The lobbying of his industry is primarily responsible for this via fake research, extensive funding of pro-industry Republicans (and some Dems where needed), funding of environmentally hostile, anti-regulation, anti-taxation, radical free market think tanks, and right-wing media like Fox News, right-wing "commentators", and many others.
And please people, stop arguing as if corn is the only ethanol production potential. The reason it is the primary game today is the political bullshit known as agriculture subsidies, which the Republicans are now the staunchest supporters of (they own the breadbasket, so screw laissez-faire principles, bring on the subsidies). I'm no true expert, but every crop from soybeans to sugar shows substantive improvements over corn in ethanol yield. True scientific muscle hasn't been exerted on this yet.
Hey, I'm just your average shit and piss factory.
Think about it: given the choice between having enough food to eat and fueling our automobiles (and trucks, etc.) which do you think would win? (hint: it ain't us!)
We've created an insatiable beast that WILL be fed, or else.
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
If you RTFA, Khosla is against grain-based ethananol, he's pushing cellulosic ethanol - and I agree with him. Cellulosic ethanol means any type of biomass will do.
Many people believe that Ethanol and Biodiesel are the answer to the shrinking oil supplies and global warming. There are some major obstacles to overcome, though.
In the case of biodiesel, it actually produces more NOx than diesel. While other pollutants are often reduced, this is the major one that forms that orange cloud over heavily polluted cities. NOx is a major pollutant of diesel engines due to the high compression ratios and still has not been effectively solved. While particulate matter is less than diesel, it is still significant, far more than gasoline. While technologies exist to reduce NOx, they are sensitive to sulfur, and while sulfur is virtually eliminated from biodiesel, it would mean that an engine designed to run on it could not use regular diesel without destroying the NOx smog equipment.
For ethanol there are other problems. First of all is the amount of energy required to harvest the corn that is currently used in this country. The best efficiencies are around 20%. In other words, for each gallon of ethanol produced, 0.8 gallons are used for growing and harvesting the corn used. Additionally, a lot of fertilizer and fresh water is required for growing the corn. I am assuming no pesticides, though pesticides like glyphosphate (RoundUp) are also often used as well, even with GM corn. The fertilizer often ends up in the waterways, causing significant pollution, like the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Other sources of ethanol are better, such as sugar beets or sugar cane and possibly other sources. New techniques are being developed to produce ethanol from cellulose, meaning that agricultural waste and other crops like switchgrass or even hemp could be used to produce ethanol.
One other potential energy source is to use reverse polymerization. This process can convert almost any form of organic waste into oil and is fairly efficient and not very complex. This could easily supplement much of our current demand for oil. It can also use agricultural waste like ethanol.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Oh wait, Grandpa needs to lecture you some more. The world can not support all 6 billion people living like we do here in America. We take a lot of stuff for granted. Like clean water. Or a mostly-working electrical grid. It gets up over a hundred farenheit daily in Iraq and those poor bastards don't have much in the way of electricity or air conditioning. Mainly because we blew up their electrical grid. Most of us don't have to walk a mile or more daily to get water of questionable quality. Most of us have more than enough to eat. The world doesn't owe us each a personal vehicle. We have artificially high expectations and, well, I'm afraid you kids are going to have to lower yours. Personally I'm going to spend all your social security and die before I have to worry about it too much.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Who does understand the science? Talk to some grunt working for his Ph.D. in the labs of U.C. Berkeley. He knows. Yet, he will not get the air time that Khosla gets. The grunt lacks money and fame.
If you want to learn about the viability of ethanol and do not have a pal at U.C. Berkeley, just pick up an old copy of "Scientific American". It will elucidate the issues for you. When I say, "old", I mean, "dated before 1990". After 1990, "Scientific American" morphed into something like the now defunct "Omni Magazine", the "National Enquirer" of scientific journals.
Now the next useless fact: Gasoline does not explode in the engine either. If it does it is called detonation or knock and will eventually wreck the engine. Although it burns much faster than Diesel (hence gasoline engines running at much higher rpm) it is flame not explosion.
Finally, (and this perhaps needs to be posted all over this thread because a lot of people do not understand it) ethanol has a higher octane rating than standard gasolines and has more charge cooling. As a result it can be made to burn more efficiently in an engine because the compression ratio can be raised. A modified Atkinson cycle (compression ratio lower than expansion ratio) ethanol engine can have quite reasonable efficiency, not as good as Diesel but better than lead free gasoline. And it should lose less power in the catalytic converter.
Although the fuel tank needs to be bigger than that for a gasoline engine, because of the lower energy density, this has little to do with cost per Joule which is the important thing. It does not matter if I need 6l/100Km versus the 5 used by my Diesel engine if the cost per Joule is comparable.
And finally finally, ethanol fires can be put out with water and reduced in intensity very quickly with water mist. It is comparable in safety to Diesel, as is recognised by the experts - marine safety agencies. The main problem with ethanol is that it doesn't really mix that well with gasoline, but this is the only way to introduce it gradually.
Pining for the fjords
Whatever you think about the major oil companies, they aren't stupid. Of course now they're saying "this won't work" to any alternative (and they're mostly right), because there's enough oil for now. However, they are doing quite a bit of research into both other oil sources, such as shales or tar sands, and other alternatives, like solar or hydrogen.
Would you believe majority of ethanol plants in mid-west use COAL to burn/distill the raw beer into ethanol.
It was invented in the 1920s:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-tropsch
However, the Germans did use it quite a bit in WWII as more of their oil supplies were cut off.
Biodiesel also produces MORE NOx than regular diesel (look it up). It may reduce particulate emissions, but still puts out far more than gasoline. Now it might make sense to run existing diesel vehicles on biodiesel, but it still does not make sense to convert gasoline vehicles to biodiesel until these problems are solved.
The NOx problem with any form of diesel is caused by the high compression ratio required.
Now it may cut down on other pollutants, but NOx is still a significant one that causes that orange haze over polluted cities.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
I know the congressman's policies and he runs every other year on cutting pork. Unlike most politicos he really means it. There is a lot of corn production in his district, so that is the example he uses. I don't think he's ever spoken out against alternate means of production, but I'm not 100% sure.
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
Why not hemp? Some info
Proove of concept to be found here
Making your own bio-diesel here
The smog will solve road-rage at the same time (No, it won't)
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
For those not familiar with it, The Ergosphere is an excellent blog that tackles energy related issues from an analytical/scientific/empirical point of view, neatly cutting through any associated hype. Definitely recommended for anyone with an enviro-geek mindset. :-)
As a teaser, here's the conclusion to the article, after a lengthy analysis, complete with verifiable stats:
In my less than humble opinion, the powers-that-be are promoting ethanol because it serves up subsidies to various interests while not threatening the status quo (oil companies). If you can make an end-run around those interests, you could improve the environment, the economy and the prospects of the average American while making a huge pile of money. Isn't that better than just being a shill for GM, the corn farmers and ADM?
Actually, it's not nothing. They are warning boaters against using ethanol, becuase it dissolves fiberglass, which boat fuel tanks are made from. The interior of the fuel tank dissolves and gums up the engine, causing really bad things to happen.
In regular engines, there is evidence (informal, no scientific studies to date) that ethanol produces a buildup on parts exposed to combustion much more rapidly than regular refined fuel, which, in your case, would cause your spark plugs to need replacement sooner (you might pull them and check, it's pretty easy, really). I don't know of the effects on engine horsepower and torque, but it shouldn't be a drastic change from gasoline.
just an analog boy living in a digital age.
United Nuclear, everyone's favorite company, saves the day, again! http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/ One load will get you 500 miles, and it comes free with a solar-powered hydrolysis machine. (Still in beta testing, not for sale...yet)
key word is "measured outside the earths atmosthere". a good portion of the energy is lost to dissipative effects.
1kW/m2 at the equator is fair. 1kW/m2 in Wisconsin is not.
Not to mention cloudy days, rain, etc. All dissipative effects that further reduce effective energy transfer.
The Early Days of Coal Research
e ls_history.html
Wartime Needs Spur Interest in Coal-to-Oil Processes
In 1944 General George S. Patton's Third Army was racing across southern France. In his haste to be the first U.S. commander to cross into Germany, however, Patton overextended his supply lines. His armored columns ground to a dead stop. Faced the choice of waiting until he could be resupplied or draining the fuel of captured German vehicles, Patton chose the latter. His tanks and armored personnel carriers continued to steamroll toward Germany, powered by the German's own ersatz gasoline synthetic fuel manufactured from coal.
The leaders of World War II, on both sides, knew that an army's lifeblood was petroleum. Ironically, before the War, experts had scoffed at Adolph Hitler's idea that he could conquer the world largely because Germany had almost no indigenous supplies of petroleum. Hitler, however, had begun assembling a large industrial complex to manufacture synthetic petroleum from Germany's abundant coal supplies.
When Allied bombing of the German synfuels plants began taking its toll in late 1944 and early 1945, the entire Nazi war machine began grinding to a halt. More than 92 percent of Germany's aviation gasoline and half its total petroleum during World War II had come from synthetic fuel plants. At its peak in early 1944, the German synfuels effort produced more than 124,000 barrels per day from 25 plants. In February 1945, one month after Allied forces turned back the Hitler's troops at the Battle of the Bulge, German production of synthetic aviation gasoline amounted to just a thousand tons one half of one percent of the level of the first four months of 1944. None was to be produced afterwards. Lack of petrol meant the end of the war and the end of the Third Reich.
http://www.fe.doe.gov/aboutus/history/syntheticfu
...but I know from first-hand experience that a few cans of an ethanol solution at around 5% by volume will power me through a night's clubbing for a good 7 or 8 hours.
It's about 4x as expensive as petrol though (but it tastes a whole lot better)
It's official. Most of you are morons.
This is why the current the current crop of hybrid cars annoy me. Just give me an electric car with a plug for the power source. I can go all electric when I'm local, and drop in the ethonol/petrol for a long trip. When Mr. Fusion becomes available, I don't need a new car. Just a new power module.
Anyway methane(CH4) is odourless. Almost all the livestock odours come from Hydrogen Sulfide H2S and Ammonia NH3. Infact natural gas is methane. It has no natural smell. They add a very highly stinking compound to the gas to make it detectable. Since methane/CH4/NG/CNG are gases they are always stored, sold and used from sealed containers and you get much less chance to smell them.
Getting fuel out of farm waste benefits all.
1. The farm waste is contained to capture methane, that also captures H2S and Ammonia thus reducing stink for the neighbourhood.
2. Captured methane originally came from the atmosphere, so it does not add any extra green house gases to the atmospher. When it is burnt the carbon in CH4 is released as CO2 from the tail pipes, which is 100 times better for the atmosphere than releasing all that unburnt methane into the atmosphere like we are doing now.
3. After extracting the combustible compounds from the farm waste, what is left behind is high quality organic fertilizer.
4. USA has 100 million cows and about 200 million pigs. The methane released from their excreta can cut our oil imports by 15 to 25%. Saudi Arabia will be begging us to buy their oil at 10$ a barrel if we alter the supply/demand equation by 25%.
The only downside is that we have to go through a phase where we have to endure sophomoric jokes about cow farts from every newscaster in this country.
No new tech breakthroughs are needed. The basic technology is more than 30 years old. What is needed is making it economically viable. As oil price goes up, they will become viable. It is just a matter of time.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
My petrol car died at the weekend, and I got myself a diesel this time. Soon, I will be fitting a kit to it that will enable it to run on vegetable oil. It's cheaper than regular dino diesel, is renewable and CO2 neutral.
-- Fuck Beta
Whew...would have to be better than THAT to catch on. I can't imagine having to worry that I'm on my last hours worth of gas....to have to plan to drive that far to refill.
Until it gets to where you are about 1-2 min from nearest e85 station....that ain't gonna work.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You have to remember that this is a technology that is in the very begining, this would be like us talking about the first computer replacing typewriters, when all it was was a huge machine that turned on lights for yes and no answers, now fast foward 30 years and and look what computers can do, another example of an item that took over 100 years to improve is the good old fashioned light bulb!! Now replace with Compact Flourencent Bulbs that last 10 times longer and use a third of the energy, the bottom line is give them another 5 years of research and when they start to be able to use other crops like switch grass and improve the corn out put by 20 to 30 % then we have a legitiment alternative fuel source to help supplement, not replace oil.
Plus, you only get to use the solar energy that hits the earth during the corn's growing season -- Approx. `May to Oct.
yeah I thought about pulling my plugs and checking, but in the subaru impreza wrx they are in the side of the engine. I havent gotten around to removing the washer reservoir and undoing the coil packs yet... I called the subaru dealership and asked hwo much it was, after they got thru make / model/ year the guy said $385 "because it is such a pain in the ass"... /sigh
By 1996 we will have at least 3 bases on the moon... by 2000, the world will have ended...
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
Brilliant! I can't wait to roll up to a gas station and have 30 pumps to chose from! That's economy-of-scale for ya!
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Not only are Pimental's figures grossly incorrect for corn, but there are much more efficient feedstocks that blow them completely out of the water.
This doesn't even account for ethanol from cellulose. If we can devise a way to efficiently break cellulose down to sugar, then ethanol become trivial to produce.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
We really need to change as a society, not just some states, countries or continents. We need to evolve as human race. Stop wars, change habits, stop wasting resources and abusing nature.
We need to find a way to fit in our planet instead of just changing it all over the place. A lot of people say that global warming is just another rumor, what if it's happening. Is it really hard to think that all of our pollution is not affecting nature, ask people living in London, Los Angeles, Mexico City, Sao Paulo, etc.
So we really need to change, we need to build better cities, walk and use bicycles. Stop wasting electricity, how many homes do you see with the lights on all the time and there is no one inside, or the AC at 72 all day, do we really need to be at 72 (Fahrenheit) during summer, all those lights to take a bath, or outside our home, people living the TV on so their pets don't feel alone? How many buildings you see at night that have the light on and nobody is working.
How much food we waste, with all the waste from restaurants, and big food companies we could feed twice the population on Earth.
I agree with some of you that have said that all that matters now is money, big companies just want to make more money to have happy investors, some time ago there were great companies doing something good in their communities and making some money, not record profits.
WE NEED TO CHANGE NOW.
If price is no object, you should check out Tesla Motors's roadster. Although I believe a recent Wired article on the company stated they're planning a more average-joe sedan in the not-too-distant future.
Actually coal mining is still hugely dangerous and more people die in coal mining accidents worldwide every year than have died working in (say) nuclear power over the history of mankind.
The mining operations themselves have huge negative environmental impact, as well.
The biggest problem with coal is everything.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Get off your high horse. Besides, maybe if american cars were gulping down less gas per mile we might be able to save a few years to develop alternatives. Just a thought.
This sig is intentionally left blank
One word: bicycle. OK, want another one: Scooter. How about four: Left foot, right foot. Like "conserving" is a new concept. If you are driving something that gets less than 30 MPG you are a pig.
So am I.
Right, and if we can devise a way to offer copies of naked women through bittorrent, slashdotters can get laid.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's happening
As gasoline prices rise, other solutions become economically viable. As they become viable, resources are spent to develop the techniques even further, increasing their viability.
When the demand for ethanol reaches levels tens or hundreds of times what it previously was, investments that wouldn't be profitable in the past become so. Right now the prices are spiking because of increased demand while suppliers are lagging a bit behind. It takes time to build an ethanol plant, after all, and the switch away from MTBE and states requiring it as an additive aren't helping.
I don't read AC A human right
Except that E85 vehicles are simply gasoline vehicles that have been modified to not contain any parts in the fuel system that dissolve or corrode in the presence of high ethanol blends. An E85 vehicle works fine on gasoline. The ignition control computer automatically adjusts the mixture to compensate for whatever blend you happen to have at the time.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
"Err... couldn't you solve that by converting the coal to a liquid before selling it to the end user?"
Great idea! We could call it....gasoline!
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
And that's a fact. Even if you got all 1.3 billion tons/year which ORNL believes might ultimately be available (after years of reforming to make it possible), you'd only get enough alcohol to replace about 65% of US gasoline consumption. That leaves nothing for diesel, heating oil, jet fuel, LPG, chemicals, or other fuels like coal and natural gas.
I've detailed all of that in my own open letter to Vinod Khosla. Supporting information is all over my blog.
This can only lead to disaster when the salvation that people have been waiting for, fails to arrive (like the Ghost Dance). What's scary is that Khosla has to know this... but he's still pushing it as hard as he can. I can only think that he intends to clean up from the misery of the American public.
If you think Khosla isn't blowing smoke, tell me where we'd get the biomass and what kind of yield is required. Otherwise, shut up.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
Butanol is a dead end mostly because it's only fit for the same 15%-efficient internal-combustion drivetrains which are wasting so much petroleum today.
Old thinking isn't going to solve this problem. The mountains of horse poop on city streets weren't solved by making poopless horses, and the problem of piston-engine inefficiency and pollution isn't going to be solved by better piston engines. We're going to have to go with batteries of some kind, because electricity is the sine qua non for clean and efficient.
Since we have to scrap the internal combustion engine anyway, we might as well go for a scheme which is tailored to get renewable energy down to wheels as efficiently as we can. Zinc-air fuel cells are a really good one (you can use bio-carbon to reduce ZnO to metal, or regenerate using electricity from any source) and direct-carbon fuel cells are also pretty good if not so flexible (they require a source of carbon, not just electricity).
Sustainability and energy independence essay
No shit, Sherlock! The difference, though, is that it would be gasoline from a vastly larger, domestic source. And remember, making it as "gasoline-like" as possible (in terms of ease of use, compatibility with existing infrastructure, etc.) is one of the goals of just about all of these alternative fuels.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Nah, people dying only makes it a big problem. It would still pale in comparison to the big problem, which would be everyone dying because global warming made Earth uninhabitable by humans.
Never the less, point taken. I wonder how it compares with oil drilling?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Brilliant! I can't wait to roll up to a gas station and have 30 pumps to chose from! That's economy-of-scale for ya!
Petroleum is used for more than gasoline. What is saved in other areas may be applied to gasoline demand.
Brazil's vehicle fuel mix has about twice as much diesel as gasoline; ethanol is up to about 60% of the gasoline number, but Brazil's "miracle" is 90% oil drilling vs. 10% ethanol.
And yes, my blog IS the first on Rapier's blogroll. That ought to tell you something.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
If I understood it correctly, Rapier claims that using corn for alcohool would diminish American corn exports and cause the third world suffer from hunger.
Oh please... the USA has certainly done some nice things for the world. However, killing the local farmers from Africa with their subsidized food is not one of them.
Dilithium. It's the future of energy.
There is a lot of corn production in his district, so that is the example he uses.
Case closed... He is pandering to the corn lobby, that spends hundreds of thousands each year forcing legislation down our throat that requires us to use Ethanol... This is all about handouts for corn farmers... A big part of the reason why gas went up to $3 a gallon was the combined aftermath of Katrina with the Ethanol requirements passed after heavy lobbying by the corn lobby. Refiners couldn't get easy access to Ethanol, but the law required it, therefore gas prices jumped.
No thanks, I don't need to pay an extra $0.25 a gallon just so that corn farmers in Nebraska can make more money.
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
http://www.qdb.us/63572 i had to submit your story!
Oil is always going to be a winner here. Other fuels must be manufactured. With oil, you just dig a hole in the ground and it comes gushing up.
If the solution fails, what is the cost?
Only politicians and people with an agenda think there's going to be just one solution. Besides ethanol, we need a serious conservation effort. I think all new cars, light trucks, and SUVs should get 20 MPG four years from now, 25 MPG eight years from now, and 30 MPG 12 years from now.
If ethanol is cheaper, why has rack price been higher for 25 years?
Because the price of gas at the pump doesn't include the cost of sending troops to the Gulf every 10 years to make the world safe for cheap oil.
Environmental issues with ethanol
This is funny; coming from an oil industry shill.
Corn growing pushed to marginal lands
There's no shortage of land for growing crops. Here in Wisconsin, lots of acreage has been put into 10-year conservation reserve programs that pay $80 per acre. If the farmers could get paid more than $2 per bushel for corn, they'd take that land out of CRP and grow corn on it again.
What's more, we've gotten GOOD at growing crops on marginal lands, e.g. new hybrid corn that resists drought.
If ethanol is so cheap to make, it doesn't need subsidies
Neither does oil, but the oil industry gets them anyway.
This is already driving up grain prices
Fucking bullshit. Corn has been $2 per bushel for the last 20 years.
9. Potentially better solutions {snip}
- Electric cars
So there's not going to be a breakthrough in cellulosic ethanol or leguminous corn, but there's going to be a breakthrough in battery technology?
After a little digging, I found that he has talked about other sources of Ethanol. Imagine reducing our foreign imports of oil by up to 10%. That would be good for everyone involved, including the enviroment. And don't be so quick to dismiss the midwest farmer. Farmers have fallen on hard times. The way that I see it, Ethanol would create fewer corn subsidies because of the rise in demand. Gas prices are high in part because there are not enough refineries. Ethanol prices are high because there are not enough refineries. The difference is that there are many Ethanol refineries under construction.
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
Reading his passionate but weakly scientific arguments, I am impressed by the ability of alcohol to dull human mind!
Don't like that idea? Then get your fat ass out of that SUV, and WALK the three blocks to the 7/11 for your goddamn pack of smokes you lazy fucking moron. conserve gas as much as you can NOW so you MIGHT have some later. But, given Jevon's paradox, it might not even be there then...
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Accelerated decay of radioactive waste could make nuclear power much more practical:
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/7/13/1
That would allow us to power electric cars off the grid.
It virtually always requires more input energy to create stored potential forms of energy than can be recovered from it later to perform useful work. We got petroleum "for free", because it was created by biologic and geologic processes over millions of years. Solar cells and batteries require energy-intensive industry to manufacture and maintain, and ethanol and biodiesel require processing and, if produced and used in quantities comparable to petroleum, would completely deplete soils to the point of making them useless.
There is no free energy lunch.
This is why we've met no extraterrestrial aliens: they passed their own peak-oil crises without first establishing a self-sustaining presence in space, and were then stuck on their respective rocks with the consequences of their shortsightedness. It's what we're about to do as well... peak oil for us is likely to arrive before we even get a base on the moon at the rate we're going.
Get used to subsistence farming and horse-drawn buggies, because they'll be enjoying an unexpected renaissance soon enough.
Neither you nor the other respondents seem to understand the difference, in IC terms, between a controlled burn and an uncontrolled explosion. The core problem is that you don't really have an in-depth knowledge of what goes on in the combustion space, you are just parroting and trying to make paper points.
Anyway, to recap: detonation is an explosion in the cylinder head with excessive and uncontrolled rate of temperature rise, usually caused by hot spots (exhaust valve, carbon deposits.) It can occur after the spark in engines with early ignition; the symptom is an initial controlled pressure rise with a sudden spike, as fuel remote from the flame propagating from the spark gap suddenly explodes. What you are referring to is pre-ignition. The use of either of the low MW alcohols - methanol and ethanol - have significant benefits in reduction of carbonisation and reduction of tendency to detonation. That happens to be true.
Pining for the fjords
See my other post in reply. Your definition of "explode" is deficient. What does "sudden" mean? It is not a term in physics that I recognise. The difference between an explosion and controlled flame propagation is not the subject of debate in IC engineering - at least, not since the 1920s - and was exhaustively explained by Sir Harry Ricardo before WW2. Please refer me to a real engineering textbook that uses the word "detonation" to describe the normal combustion process in an IC engine.
Pining for the fjords
Why don't we just remove ALL the subsidies, all the tax breaks that exist purely to prop up failing forms of agriculture, and all that other bullshit. Then we can let all of these different forms of fuel compete and evolve. Natural gas, petrol, diesel, ethanol (from diferent sources), butanol from algae, oil from therman depolymerization, etc -- let 'em fight it out. In fact, I'd say it's this ridiculous idea of "technology X will replace gasoline" that is holding us back. Let some people drive electrics, let some people drive ethanol/biogas dual-fuel engine cars, let long-haul truckers gradually use up the last of the petroleum, etc. Multiple solutions, recognizing that what we actually have is a whole bunch of different problems. The free market, despite its weaknesses in some areas, can absolutely stomp the power "crisis" to pieces, if we just ditch the protectionism and corporate welfare.
Either that, or you're the worst analyst in the world and lack the basic mathematical skills necessary to analyse corn yields.
Parent is correct about oxygenated fuels.
Here is a quote from EPA documentation to that effect:
"In a vehicle with a properly functioning oxygen sensor, the feedback control of the air/fuel ratio acts to defeat the purpose of adding oxygenate to the fuel. The vehicles that will benefit the most from oxyfuels are high emitters, generally older vehicles or newer vehicles with broken emission control systems (PRC, 1992)"
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/ostp-1.pdf
-- Terry
For example, in Poland, 30% of sold fuel is prophane-butane. In germany some buses use hydrogen.
Popularity of gasoline with addition of bio sumplements also rises (in europe).
In Brasil, gasoline contains 25% of ethanol produced from sugar cane.
The current trend is to mix pure fuel with suplements producent from biological material or to use "what you have".
So there is no need to discuss ethanole-powered cars. It is already economicaly proven idea in coutries where sugar cane grows good.
...and part of my day job involves keeping track of how surprisingly successful Brazil has been at doing exactly what the parent says can't be done. How a real grown-up energy analyst like the parent can have failed to notice, I'm not sure :)
Brazil's success, of course, is due to the fact that they had vast swathes of sugar cane and the political will to make large-scale changes in energy sourcing. The US has neither of those things (at the moment) but a much bigger problem is the corn lobby. A mini version of the energy switch actually played out previously:
US: World, you must use high-fructose corn syrup in your soda, because although it doesn't taste as nice and it causes diabetes and obesity, it's all we can make from corn at the moment and a vast proportion of the US is covered in cornfields and there's a powerful lobby and corn isn't all that useful.
Brazil: Hm, no, as sucrose is better and equally available, we'll use sucrose.
US: (forgets about Brazil and goes off the bully the EU instead)
Brazil: (takes a sip of Coke)
In general, though, the corn lobby is a US-specific problem that affects all biological energy within the US, not just fuel ethanol. In other countries, conversion occurs if/when the local economics are right -- which in Saudi Arabia is 'never', but in equatorial countries with miles and miles of sugarcane is 'already'.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Irony overload. Big Oil man doesn't like ethenol and questions opponents motivation. In the article he refers to the Energy Return on Investment and ethanol is only viable is because of the subsidies. This in relation to corn ethanol. Yet Brazil can manage to replace 40% of its forign Oil demand with ethenol. A viable long term solution that actually returns revenue to the local economy through the cultivation of sugarcane.
.. corn ethanol would be around as long as the subsidies were there."
...
* assuming Big Oil actually pays for the oil and doesn't invade some country and liberate it.
* EROI = Energy Returns on Ethanol Production.
"I started off on the energy balance of ethanol versus gasoline. We went back and forth on efficiency versus EROI
"The Brazilian ethanol industry is based on sugarcane; as of 2004, Brazil produces 14 billion liters annually, enough to replace about 40% of its gasoline demand . Also as a result, they announced their independence from Middle East oil in April 2006"
"In my recent essay Vinod Khosla Debunked, I challenged Mr. Khosla to a written debate on his recent ethanol claims"
Why is it deemed necessary to 'debunk' Mr. Khosla. If wrong, then the Ethanol market will wither through the action of the market. I see here you dispute the 40% claim.
Oh, wait it gets even funnier. "Many so-called oil subsidies don't benefit the oil companies at all; they benefit consumers". And I suppose the reverse being that ethenol subsidies only benefit the companies"
Quite frankly I am confused with all these graphs and acronyms that I never heard of. I have a few simple question:br>
How much does it cost to produce a gallon of sugarcane ethanol?
How much does it cost to produce a gallon of oil?
What subsidies/tax breaks do the oil companies get?
What subsidies/tax breaks do the ethanol producers get?
Include the cost of drilling and Oil Rig construction
Include cost of clean up of any environmental damage
I'm sorry but this get even funnier. "I did indicate that as we continue to ramp up corn ethanol, our corn exports will fall and people in 3rd world countries will go hungry". The ethenol industry will steal food from the 3rd world. This is even more bizarre considering it is first world subsidies to the food industry that is currently destroying third world agriculture.
You're just one big shill for big OIL
davecb5620@gmail.com
Somehow I can't feel very enthusiastic about the increasing use of ethanol.
I can only think of how many more acres of forests in developing countrie will be lost to cultivate corn to power cars.
That and the fact that it will promote monoculture which is much more difficult to substain, it increases you need and eliance on fertilizers and pesticides... at least we won't be eating that one... unless a mistake happens, you know we weren't supposed to eat the corn geneticaly engineered for animals, ut it has happenned. I wonder what new varietry of corn will be engineered to produce ethanol.
The way that I see it, Ethanol would create fewer corn subsidies because of the rise in demand.
Sure, people voluntarily using Ethanol would be fine, that's the way free markets are supposed to work. When the corn lobby (don't think small farmers, think Archer Daniels Midland) forces refineries through law to add Ethanol to our gas, raising the cost of gas for everyone, and lowering our gas mileage, that is called a subsidy. The government is mandating that we buy it, how else is that anything other than a handout?
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
Thanks, I knew they were big in it then, and know I saw that article some time ago, but had forgotten that it had been around for some time.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
According to the Energy Information Alliance of the US Federal Government, production costs and company profits account for 65% of gasoline cost. The same agency also reports that the American average price of gasoline is $3.00. Some rough math says that the cost of producing a gallon of gasoline is $1.95, more than Ethanol.
Once all of these new Ethanol refineries are built the cost should drop substancially. Also as technology increases over the next 5 years or so the efficiency of Ethanol will grow dramatically. This will make it cheaper for the consumer and better for the enviroment. The only loser here is OPEC. The state of California, not known for supporting corn growers for the hell of it, may be voting this November to require all new vehicles sold there to be able to run E85.
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
... and do some Googling. Brazil is NOT closing in on self-sufficiency.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
> I'm hoping your comment was tongue-in-cheek.
maybe by coal power, he means take the radiation from coal, and we will have nuclear powered cars (transported by a electric battery from the actual generator I hope.)
Consequently, the energy content of nuclear fuel released in coal combustion is more than that of the coal consumed!
basically if you were to break up into small enough piecies, and burn the nuclear waste from nuclear plants, releasing all waste to the atmosphere. The population around these plants would have less exposure (per Kw electricity produced) from nuclear power, than that of the current coal power.
Because you are seriously incorrect here. For example BP Oil is investing in ethanol research, and has acknowledged it's potential to supplant gasoline. Shell is actually the largest ethanol purchaser of ethanol and marketer of ethanol blended fuels. Shell is also investing in cellusic ethanol technology (they have also partnered with IOGen) Thus your first statement is totally without merit.
There are several facts about Ethanol you are either ignorant of or avoiding to make your biased point.
1. An ethanol driven infrastructure is more efficient.
Flex-fuel E85 vehicles today only get slightly betyter to a little less mileage on E85 than gasoline due to the need to run low compression for gasoline. An engine only running E85 can be run at approximately 19 to 1 compression ratio. This means better economy. By way of example, diesel only has about 12-15% more energy by content but generally acheives 25%+ better fuel economy. The source of the increase is the higher compression. While E85 has less energy, you get more energy out of it. What good is having more energy than you can extract? There is no good there. I'd rather have a system that extracted 40% of 80 than 20% of 100.
Also, higher compression (and even "low compression") E85 engines are more efficient under load. This means you can run a smaller engine in place of a larger one without the performance and economy losses of the larger engine. A four cylinder E85 engine can generally substitute for a G100 (gasoline) six cylinder engine. This, too decreases overall fuel consumption. Indeed, E85 is a more efficient fuel under a broader engine speed range than a gasoline engine is.
Reductions in fuel consumption for an E85 driven infrastructure are on the order of 35-50% better than gasoline. Better fuel economy means you need less. Thus your "calulations" (and I do use the term lightly here) are based on woefully inaccurate assumptions. If tomorrow the entire US car/truck fleet and infrastructure were magically converted to E85, we'd see a reduction in US transportation oil demand of about 70%. The fuel demand for ethanol would be about 35-50% less than the current demand for gasoline.
Additionally, ethanol is a distributed system. By colocating ethanol plants with other industries[1] the production of transportation fuel is spread out and localized. This increases security by redundancy as well as reduces the need to transport as much fuel as far. This reduces pressure on the trucking/transport industry.
Yield increases. Even short of "full blown" cellulosic ethanol plants (see below), the addition of current cellulosic technology is underway. DuPont, for example, is working to add corn stover processing to existing plants. This would use the stalks and leaves that currently the farmers don't have a use for. This one change doubles the ethanol output of a field of corn. This one technology would allow all existing US corn fields to collect their current "wastes" and convert them to ethanol. No additional fertilizers, no additional fields. The only additional energy use would be transporting the wastes to the processing plant. Larger farms installations would do this locally keeping transportation costs and pressure low.
Indeed if we were to accept your claims above, that it would take 100% of todays corn fields, this one change would supply over 50% of our need. Using yo
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
"All we'd need is a plot of space for a big-ass building to house the stuff in " ... and everyone would be going "... but not in my backyard!" I've been following the wind generator movement. Everyone loves it until you offer to put it anywhere near them. That attitude will only disappear when people's backs are well and truly against the wall. As is always the case.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Probably oil created from processing oil sands and shale.
(Though maybe there will finally be a biodiesel seller in my area by then??)
Termites efficiently convert cellulose to ethanol in a room-temperature, carbon nuetral process. Whoever is the first the duplicate *that* trick on an industrial scale will become very wealthy.
I have been running 10% ethanol in my truck since it was new. I have 55k miles on my plugs and no adverse performance. With ethanol I get slightly lower mileage per tank, but I have no water in my tank either. I also haven't had any problems with injectors or overheating. Not even on days like today when it's 103 and idling with the AC on.
Ethanol is also used in some summer blends of gasoline. Cities that have air quality problems are requiring it. It the past it was the same price as regular unleaded, with an 89 octane. Now, with the push for ethanol, high gas prices, and EPA requirements for cleaner fuel blends, ethanol prices are way up and I pay 4 cents a gallon more than regular.
It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit. -- Harry Truman
I had two ideas, but one would have involved armed men summarily executing anyone who used the phrase "two-party system". The other would have involved people thinking before they vote, and hopefully not voting for parties that behave in ways that are diamterically opposed to the philosophies that they claim to follow. The former idea is almost certainly the more realistic one.
EG: why does America still have medicare and medicaid? Bush has had 6 years to scrap it; instead he just lets them stink up the national debt to the tune of 2 trillion dollars a year, despite the fact that they help very few people. A conservative would have scrapped it, cut taxes, and let the improved economy make it easier for people to afford their own health care; ergo, Bush is not a conservative.
Similarly, why doesn't America have universal healthcare? Clinton had 8 years to implement some kind of solution. A liberal would have developed a brilliant blend of public and private care, public and private health insurance, job-benefits and welfare programs, and ended with most people covered and vast numbers of new jobs to run the beauracracy; ergo, Clinton was not a liberal. Both of these presidents have NOTHING stopping them, since they both had/have near-total support in congress. Bunch of jackasses, I tell you.
Why not methanol?
Pure Ethyl or Methyl alcohol gives horrid economy.
Simple example, numbers close but not perfect:
10 gallon tank.
Burn 100% gas: 200 miles per tank
Burn 100% alcohol: 50 miles per tank
Burn 75 alcohol & 25% gas? 180+ miles per tank.
Point is that you can dilute gas a lot while maintaining most of the energy density, as a bonus all the oxygen in the alcohol reduces emissions to ridiculously low levels. Subsidies are not required once production begins in earnest. Maybe reduce the tax rate on blends to encourage consumption preference but that's it. The cost of production will drop to low enough amounts quickly.
Other option? Biodiesel.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
You can run gasoline rich, too. The only bad things it will do are reduce power, kill your catalytic converter, and spew unburned hydrocarbons into the atmosphere. In fact, you want to run slightly lean if you can, retarding timing to avoid knock as required. The engine is most efficient there.
I meant richer than gasoline. Ethanol may have certain simularities to gasoline, but it is a different chemical, with different properties. Burning ethanol in the same air/fuel ratios as gasoline is running it extremely leanly. That may be why some states are requiring 'oxygenates'(which ethanol is) to be added to gasoline. It's forcing engines to run at an effectivly leaner level, reducing pollution. You have to put more fuel into a given cylinder with ethanol to have it run at the same effective leanness level. Because it's oxygenated, that means more fuel for any given amount of air in the chambers.
I drive 30 miles to work. If I should have to leave a couple hours in, I won't be able to, and when my batteries start to degrade, I'll probably notice because I won't be able to get there.
Why wouldn't you be able to get there? I'm talking about a PHEV, not an EV. Your IC engine would start up on the way back to get you home. You'd hardly notice, other than needing to fill up a little more often if you live outside of the 'electric only' range. That's why I said: 'charge the batteries at night enough that at least the shorter commutes don't even need to use it's IC engine.' (it refering to the PHEV vehicle).
PHEV stands for 'Plugin Hybrid Electric Vehicle'. It's a hybrid with an EV style charging system, and some additional battery capacity to be able operate in a pure electric mode for a longer period of time. Less than a full EV, of course, but they have all the range of pure gasolines and hybrids, maybe even a little more. You can even get the battery to be cheaper per kw/h of capacity(as compared to a standard HEV), as you're spreading the load across more battery, reducing the load. More battery to absorb the many watts pushed into it during regenerative braking, more battery to provide the amps for acceleration.
For example, my commute is 26 miles a day. If I get a PHEV rated for a 30 mile range, I might use a tenth of a gallon per trip, because highway speeds take more energy(which most of my commute is), so it'd probably start up the IC during the acceleration to highway speeds, plus a little bit at the end if the batteries run out. Probably use more in the winter, of course, as it gets cold up here(I hardly use AC, but heat is necessary in winter). Right now I use most of a gallon each day. That requires me to fill up every other week. That would switch to about three times a year with the PHEV. If it's rated for 50 miles, I'd actually have to worry about adding fuel stabilizer to my tank, I'd fill up with fresh so little. It'd be mostly for my trips to see my parents (700 mile trip).
I don't read AC A human right
That's triply true in the case of fuel cells. Hydrogen fuel cells are outrageous because they (until now) require hand-fabrication, have short membrane lifespans and need precious metals to catalyze their reactions. Zinc-air doesn't need precious metals, and direct-carbon fuel cells run hot enough to get by with thermal activation. These technologies require some R&D to get them to mass-production status, but they are potentially very cheap.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
Uh, thanks, I guess...
All things equal, coal is better than nothing, and it has the advantage of being the floor of Pennsylvania and eight other states. Which do you think is more dangerous: funding middle eastern princes using religion as an excuse for territorialist expansion (it's been going on for thirty years,) or losing two dozen miners a year? All things equal, yes, it's a tragedy that these good men and women are dying, but it's quite a bit better than the three thousand a year that have been added to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Yemen's death toll since the black gold started flowing in earnest.
I certainly don't want to see coal go back into use. I come from Pittsburgh. I know exactly how bad coal is. But it's better than going to an economy without energy, and I'm of the opinion that we're going to have to start finding some alternatives in 10-15 years. I don't buy into the peak oil concept, but production is going down, and demand is going up; simple market economics show that the current quadrupling of gas prices is the start of something much worse. E85 isn't viable in the long term, and it's unclear whether the political mess around nuclear can be cleared up in time to make hydrogen as a storage source a viable way to construct a portable nuclear economy. Commercial fusion is several decades away.
The simple fact is, we need options. Coal may be bad, but it's not as bad as it used to be. Natural gas isn't an option. Wind isn't a realistic option. Hydro doesn't scale to demand. Solar isn't reliable enough. Either we can go back to horses and carriages, or we can use coal and aggressive filtering to make a hydrogen economy. Hydrogen isn't a fuel, it's a storage mechanism. The power has to come from *somewhere* .
And look, if you've got a better idea, prepare to be the next Rockefeller. Find a way to stop diverting 1/8 of the US economy to Persia, and the world will beat a path to your door.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
the US isn't 'relying' on the middle east for oil. us oil imports have never been more than 20%. however the US is interested in the mideast's CHEAP oil.
_ publications/company_level_imports/current/import. html/
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=19165 3&cid=15748549
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data
--- widget evolution: enhanced, plus, super, ultra, extreme, exxxtreme, ultra-extreme,
Other option? Biodiesel.
I like Biodiesel much more because it has higher energy density than alcohol or gasoline, but I see your point about reducing emissions. That's why they mix ethanol with gas right now during the winter in cold areas.
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
Hydrogen is a fuel, and a storage mechanism. We don't pump gasoline out of the ground, either.
I don't think that coal is the right answer. I think nuclear is the right answer. It actually pollutes less and we do have technologies to allow us to use nuclear in an efficient factor - breeder reactors, to reprocess the fuel, which will reduce the amount of fuel needed by something like three orders of magnitude. I realize that the political situation is a huge SNAFU.
I have a way: kill all the big oil execs. Unfortunately the people have not yet congregated at my house to begin the pogrom.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Hydrogen is a fuel, and a storage mechanism.
Not in current settings, it isn't. Hydrogen is only a fuel if it can be acquired at less energy cost than it can be used. Currently, the hydrogen for our hydrogen fleet is gotten by electrolyzing water, which costs more power than the hydrogen in turn generates. Once we can do wacky stuff like mining the solar wind, or once we get a semipermeable membrane that can sort hydrogen out of the atmosphere at near-zero energy input, then it will be a fuel.
Until then, it is only a storage mechanism.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Does that mean that gasoline isn't a fuel, because in order to get it, we have to spend trillions of dollars, which represent energy input?
Anyway, maybe you should look up the definition of fuel which says absolutely nothing about ratio of energy input to energy output. To borrow an already liberally-used phrase, I do not think that word means what you think it means.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Quote from a NOFX song:
35% of accidents
are caused by pixilated
the other 65 are not
alcohol related
what does this tell us
about the drunk drivers
they seem to have a
better record than
the sober team
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Probably oil. The corporate bunch, i. e. neo-cons, immediately bad mouth any likely competition to oil. The present mess is destroying the power and prestige of the U. S. but all that oil money is keeping the monied aristocracy in power around the world. Notice any complaints from Wall Street about oil prices? When Georgie Porgie goes home, oil prices will come down.
Ought... implemented...nice....