Slashdot Mirror
Consumer Ethanol Appliance Promised By Year's End
Newscloud brings us news of a startup called E-Fuel promising to ship a home-brew ethanol plant, the size of a washer-dryer, for under $10,000 by the end of this year. We've had plenty of discussions about $1/gal. fuel — these guys want to let you make it at home. The company says it plans to develop a NAFTA-enabled distribution network for inedible sugar from Mexico at 1/8th the cost of trade-protected sugar, to use as raw material for making ethanol. A renewable energy expert from UC Berkeley is quoted: "There's a lot of hurdles you have to overcome. It's entirely possible that they've done it, but skepticism is a virtue."
That would take a LONG time to "pay for itself" and this doesn't even take into consideration the various restrictions on the use of such devices that will most assuredly follow shortly after competing interests start buying laws to that end. Further, what will the cost of unprocessed materials be? Ah yes, they'll go up in demand and the prices will rise too.
This doesn't strike me as a good alternative.
You've got the energy cost in growing the raw sugar, transporting a LOT of raw sugar, and distillation. WHich means a LOT of energy goes into this. And you only really save on taxes (beacuse otherwise, they could just do this in a big factory and bring it too, duh, gas pumps).
Test your net with Netalyzr
Then you just distill it to concentrate the ethanol. You'd probably have to make two or three passes through the still to get it up to E85 level.
There's a couple of fairly significant problems with this scheme, though. One is the energy that's used to operate the still; where does that come from, how much does it cost? And the other one - and one that'll be very difficult to overcome - is that ethanol is the stuff we drink. Dilute ethanol with distilled water at about 50/50 and you get some so-so vodka. Add this or that flavor and you've got a party.
The BATF isn't going to like this one little bit. Liquor taxes are an important source of revenue; they'll insist that you comply with their bureaucratic regulations if you're going to make any kind of product that contains ethanol.
And if this magic box will produce 170 proof at $2 per gallon - how much of that is going in the car and how much will be going into mixed drinks? Imagine the parties; gallons and gallons of alcohol and more being produced in every neighborhood every day. I suspect the law of unintended consequences is going to kick in on this one...
Is this "the answer" for our consumption and supply issues with gasoline? Of course not. There is not going to be a single answer, at least not until we figure out a better battery combined with a global solar grid. Meanwhile, prepare for a myriad of small solutions, like biodiesel, ethanol, heavy crude sources like tar sands and shale, converted coal, none of which are perfect on their own, but which, together, can bridge us to the next big thing.
I don't think that inedible sugar would cut into food supplies in the US. It is likely that the sugar is rendered inedible so that it isn't subject to tariffs on importation into the US. But if demand goes up, it's going to raise the price of the edible sugar in Mexico and elsewhere. Like corn-derived ethanol is making corn and corn-derived foodstuffs more expensive, so will this with sugar. Really, ethanol should not be made from foodstuffs, only waste. And if we're wasting foodstuffs, we should be reducing that waste, not making ethanol out of it. And the idea of poisoning a foodstuff just to get around import duties should be considered abhorrent.
When governments such as the United States' starts offering farmers subsidies if they switch over to growing switchgrass and corn for ethanol, those farmers stop making food. This is the reason for the rise in price of flour, bread, beer, etc.
Why? Because you can't understand the difference and don't understand how to check citations? Go ahead and just ignore the citation that links directly to the Oxford Journal of Occupational Medicine. Clearly you're the medical expert and not those idiotic MD's at Oxford...
Sinful ?
What does that mean ? It can vary from faith to faith, and within faiths, and even then changes as religion evolves along with society.
Calling things sinful, is simply meaningless, as it projects your theist views on others, who may have differnet interpretations of sinful.
Some followers of Yaweh, will tell me that the yummy, healthy, normal sex I has last night is wrong and a sin.
I can't take that crap seriously, so I can't take you comment about "sin" seriously.
This is NOT a signature.
This whole Ethanol idea is a disaster waiting to happen.
A simple fact - Mexico produces a total of 5 million tons of sugar a year. That amount, according to the article, is enough to make about 800 million gallons of ethanol. US consumes 400 million gallons of gasoline a DAY for transportation. That means the entire crop of Mexican sugar would be completely used up by cars in TWO days. What would we do the rest of the year I don't know. And guess what this would do to sugar prices. Also - no more sugar in your food either.
And if the proposition is to use this as an addition to oil-based fuels, well - we are talking less than 1% of total gasoline requirement from entire Mexican crop. This would hardly make a dent in oil consumption, but sure as heck would wreck havoc on the sugar and food markets.