Slashdot Mirror
Once-Darling Ethanol Losing Friends In High Places
theodp writes "It's now conceivable, says BusinessWeek's Ed Wallace, that the myth of ethanol as the salvation for America's energy problem is coming to an end. Curiously, the alternative fuel may be done in by an unlikely collection of foes. Fervidly pro-ethanol in the last decade of his political career, former VP Al Gore reversed course in late November and apologized for supporting ethanol, which apparently was more about ingratiating himself to farmers. A week later, Energy Secretary Steven Chu piled on, saying: 'The future of transportation fuels shouldn't involve ethanol.' And in December, a group of small-engine manufacturers, automakers, and boat manufacturers filed suit in the US Court of Appeals to vacate the EPA's October ruling that using a 15% blend of ethanol in fuel supplies would not harm 2007 and newer vehicles. Despite all of this, the newly-elected Congress has extended the 45 cent-per-gallon ethanol blending tax credit that was due to expire, a move that is expected to reduce revenue by $6.25 billion in 2011. 'The ethanol insanity,' longtime-critic Wallace laments, 'will continue until so many cars and motors are damaged by this fuel additive that the public outcry can no longer be ignored.'"
...and so it ends up everywhere, from our stomachs to our gas tanks. High-fructose corn syrup anyone?
I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
The "newly-elected" Congress hasn't been seated yet.
Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
I'm not exactly sure, but I don't think they've actually done anything yet. Everything so far is the lame duck congress.
http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
Alcohol: the cause of, and the solution to, all of life's problems.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
While even the most polluting motor technology can be made more efficient compared to previous generations, the real issue in the end it the amount of energy that is consumed. Whether it comes from oil, electricity, ethanol, etc, it's really just shifting the problem from one area to another.
The electrical car will not help, btw. It will only shift the problem of pollution elsewhere. Smaller (lighter) cars are the only solution. Consuming fewer pointless goods imported on ships from the other side of the world is part of the only solution too!
Ethanol is a relatively safe octane booster. As long as temperatures are not too high, it is a great idea to add some ethanol to the fuel, even if you lose a little bit of range.
With current production methods you really should not try to use it for its energy content though, except perhaps if you have access to a lot of area where you can grow sugar cane. Wasting corn on making ethanol should not be encouraged.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Corn ethanol: bad
Switchgrass ethanol: good
There's nothing inherently wrong with ethanol (unless you're under 21 - shame on you majority of populace!) but how we get our current stock is a terrible deal. Corn and farm policies are troublesome, and current ethanol mandates are indeed another subsidy for a growing and yet still ailing production force, but it need not be. Convert some fields into sugarcane or switchgrass, which is vastly more effective for creating biofuels, and that's without all the genetic advances corn has had. We'll get more efficient energy production, another crop will become incredibly profitable, and the corn cycle of "grow more causing prices to drop so grow more" - that's a win-win-win situation.
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
Maybe now we can stop trading food for inferior gasoline and get further ahead on things that make some sense. Trading food and water for something less efficient than gasoline but requiring almost all of the same cumbersome infrastructure? I still can't believe anyone went crazy for ethanol in the first place.
Here's a great article about what is happening today with ethanol:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/too-much-alcohol
"He explains that the legal limit is 10% but that all the fuel distributors cheat and mix in some extra alcohol so they can make a buck. When the mix gets to 15% it’s toxic for two cycle engines. And that is what killed my machines."
Kiss your chainsaw or gas boat motor goodbye. And your car engine, if the EPA gets their way of increasing the "limit" to 15%.
Ethanol was never about the environment it was always about the corn lobby. Corn is a lousy way to produce ethanol. Sugar cane is far better but we don't produce enough sugar cane in this country. Brazil did it by cutting down half the Amazon rain forest which is far from environmentally friendly. A small percentage of the fuel we need can come from ethanol produced by waste and excess but it'd never be more than a few percent. There's hope that cellulose based ethanol might contribute a higher percentage but that's years off and it'll never be a gasoline replacement.
I've been running the two old family cars on E85 since 2007 now, without as much as a hickup. In both cases, the only modification was aftermarket chip tuning of the injection.
Only thing you notice is that mileage went down 35% and the cars don't smell as bad anymore.
I don't care to argue about eco friendliness, what I care about though is where my money goes. In my case the choice is between brazilian farmers and some saudi trillionaire.
Unfortunately ethanol requires even more land use, in an already overcrowded planet.
If ETOH were actually worth anything (i.e., didn't harm engines, was *really* energy balance positive, didn't put aldehydes into the atmosphere, cause food prices to go up, could be produced from cellulose, etc.) it could survive without a government subsidy. The only reason it's still lurching along, taking up 40% of the corn produced in the USA, is because the lobbyists, farmers and ETOH producers can continue to suck $$ from the US gummint.
Believe that, and I've got a bridge you can buy.
Guess who had an 84% "good" rating from the National Right to Life anti-abortion group when he as a Congressman?
Rural folks are over-represented in our political system thanks to the electoral college. Thus, this is welfare for farmers.
Table-ized A.I.
I have stumbled on "real 100% gasoline" three times in a 2008 Honda Element. Each time, my mileage increased for that tankful from 265 miles to 300 miles.
Honda: 10% Ethanol, 13 gallon tank mileage to fill up (about 12.25 gallons).
265 miles. About 21.6 miles per gallon.
Honda: Gasoline, 13 gallon tank mileage to fill up (about 12.25 gallons).
300 miles. About 24.4 miles per gallon.
12% more miles with gasoline than with 10% Ethanol.
You see the problem, right?
When using 10% ethanol, I actually burn MORE GASOLINE to travel the same number of miles.
So ethanol is worse than useless.
I keep putting this out there so hopefully someone who can reliably get 100% gasoline can perform a formal study.
This is increasing the amount of gasoline we use, not reducing it.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Corn ethanol diverts field corn from the already-mammoth agribusiness industry that pumps field corn into just about every foodstuff in the country-- everything from livestock to all processed foods and fast foods (corn oil, high fructose corn syrup). It thus encourages the expansion of that industry, which uses vast amounts of fossil fuel and its derivatives to grow corn-- that's why many experts say that you don't get nearly as much bang for the buck as you do when you process sugar cane into ethanol. And that doesn't even account for the fertilizer and pesticides/herbicides that end up in the Gulf of Mexico due to runoff (not that it will matter much for the foreseeable future).
It would be a lot more worthwhile for the government to reduce corn subsidies and use that savings to either cut the deficit or invest in things like renewable energy infrastructure or non-corn biofuel research or even tax breaks for efficiency upgrades. Alas, ADM and Monsanto contribute hugely to PACs of Congressmen who vote to continue the subsidies (and no doubt hire them as lobbyists when they retire), therefore we do not see any change in this regard.
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
The issue with Ethanol is really 2 fronts.
1, corn has a low output per crop for food or for fuel.
2, Ethanol is hard on an engine, even an engine designed to handle it.
We are propping up the corn industry claiming that we are saving farmers. The subsidies that keep those farmers on corn is also keeping the from switching to a more appropriate crop.
Ethanol really tears up engine components such as gaskets and seals. As these items wear at a faster pace with Ethanol, they become less efficient and less reliable.
I understand the draw for ethanol, it acts sort-of like gasoline which keeps the many millions of cars on our roads compatible with the 'next-gen' fuel. The problem is that it is from a low yiel crop and has an intense and expensive manufacturing process.
We could product a diesel-compatible biofuel much more easily and out of crops with significantly higher yield. A significant percent of fuel used in America is diesel through trucks and tractors and a push for a more sustainable fuel in a diesel form would change the focus of automakers selling cars in the US.
It is easier and cheaper to make diesel from corn rather than ethanol, but still not efficient.
Rapeseed can be be broken down by simply crushing the seed which is ~40% oil. This crop produces about ~127 Gallons per acre. The US in 2009 used about 137Billion gallons of gasoline.
with some math 137B/127Gallons = 1.07Billion acres. The US is 2.428Billion acres. There are only 922Million acres of farmland.
hmmmm, so we dont have enough land to grown a renewable fuel unless we both a, stop eating AND b, come up with something that has a ~50% oil content.
You dont have to be a rocket scientist to do the math from numbers freely available at usda.gov. I would think that any person pushing to eliminate our need for foreign oil or oil in general and actually expecting some level of success would have done a tiny bit of research. We can't grow our fuel, or at the very least we cant grow all of it. We are going to have to use technology to handle this issue, not brute force.
And on that subject, only ~27% of our energy usage is in transporation. petrolium is about 38% of our energy sources.
So the real question is, should we really be looking at changing the fuel source for cars right now? Shouldn't we continue to improve out technology for electric and/or hybrid systems, batteries, and more efficient engines while targeting industrial and commercial power uses? This way in the future we can make a much better change in cars when the technology is ready? We could reduce our need on oil by a massive amount with nuclear power and converting many fuel burners to electical heating and cooling. With nuclear power alone we could see as much fuel energy savings as completely replacing the fuel in our cars. We already have nuclear power technology and building more plants will push that technology further ahead. btw, nuclear is just 8 1/2% of out power source.
I am not saying that we should ignore oil use in cars, just that it is not the best place to start. Batteries and power production, probably nuclear, is what I think is the best route. if we try, we might actually be doing nuclear fusion this century, but fission is proven and reliable and safe.
Dump petrol! Petrol sucks!
For long range - Diesel engines! My Yaris D4D has more torque, better acceleration, top speed and fuel economy than the petrol equivalent of the same car. I reckon I could do 900+ miles of motorway driving on a single tank easily! And unlike the biofuel for petrol, biodiesel *is still diesel*!!
Not powerful enough for you?
Use a bigger turbo! Unlike petrol, you can turbocharge a diesel engine as much as you like as it's immune to 'knocking'!
For short range - Electric vehicles - More torque, faster and yet more fuel efficient! Go for a run in a Tesla; They're great fun and you can generally get 200-300 miles off a charge.
I'm so fucked, man.
So we have several industries, including the political arena, all essentially vying to increase profit or get the upper hand, regardless of whether it is beneficial to anyone or society.
At this point, the only thing I trust is that little voice in the back of my head, reminding me how much of our society is full of shit. Perhaps it was my own fault for thinking I could trust anything other than that.
/works for a group who does non-political ethanol economic analysis
First the jury has been in for a long time that in terms of Energy per dollar Corn or sugar based ethanol are never going to be a good idea in the US for feedstocks that come from the food chain. However cellolosic ethanol (switch grass, poplar tree, cellulosic waste, etc...) may be quite a good idea. There are strong arguments for them that have yet to be defeated. They need less irrigation and can be grown on lands or seasons otherwise unsuited for crops.
The big bug-a-boo with these is that they are waiting for a scientific breaktrhough for a process to change cellulose into simple sugars or directly to ethanol or gasoline. There's lots of ways to approach this but all of them are not at the efficiency needed yet. It's not an easy proposal: if digesting cellulose was super easy then more bugs would do it already. It's actually not the cellulose that's the biggest problem, it's the lignose which is about 30%+ of the plant thats slightly harder to deal with biochemically.
It's likely that some breakthroughs will occur. Theres lots of irons in the fire. Some of them may scale. But if you had to do it tommorrow chances are you'd bet on the wrong pony if you went with one particular approach.
Thus the primary role that starch and sugar based ethanol plays now is that it seeds the pipeline with ethanol now, so the infrastructure will be in place when cellulosic ethanol comes on line.
Now why ethanol and not something else more energy efficient. Butanol for example. Or other liquid fuels. THe problem is that when you ad up the cost of replacing our fleet of existing internal combustion engines and fuel infrastructure it's a huge huge huge sum. You can't just pick the "optimal" fuel purely from an maximal energy standpoint. You have to have a way there that does not start with a non-starter like chucking out all the existing engines. Hence Ethanol looks like the common denominator. It's not bad. It's easier to produce ethanol from grains now than it is butanol or gasoline. and it works in the cars we have up to a point.
As long as we are comminting to cellulosic ethanol, some use of food crops to produce grain-based ethanol now is justifiable. It just can't continue in the long run.
Another route is commit to bio-diesel from algae. This too has some issues to solve to make it scalable. It can use lower quality water. it can use low grade lands. it is easier to "dry" than ethanol because it is not water soluble so there's less energy waste in turning it into fuels. And you might be able to think of some byproduct for the waste stream from algae (maybe animal feed or fertilizer). SOme of the challenges here are very simple sounding, though no one has entirely solved them yet: how do we quadruple the lipid yield, and how to we get enough CO2 into the water (without burning fuel to create it and pump it.).
There is enough bad land to fuel the entire nation if we can solve those scaling products.
It has a path forward through the trucking system (diesel) and through aviation fuels and military fuels. The latter can pay premium prices to subsidize the product effectively since those fuels are more expensive than consume fuels.
Eventually however that path requires replacing the automobile fleet. But given the path forward in the near term this may not be a non-starter.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Some people talk about the ethanol succes in Brazil, but Ethanol in Brazil is not a success, thats only political propaganda. The only reason ethanol flourishes in Brazil is because of federal subsidies. They even have to subsidy the development of a new kind of motor to support the alcohol adoption to stop motors from damage. Today, ethanol is about 70% of the price of gasoline in Brazil, considering energy efficiency, this means both are the same, and also, the price of sugar have skyrocketed in the last years.
(1 Lt of ethanol = 0.7 Lt of Gasoline, in efficiency)
There are almost 8 billion people on the earth at the moment and more than enough food to go around. It's just not...you know, equitably distributed.
Oh, did Al Bore make his millions on Ethanol already? Maybe he'll invent something else, like Internet poop fuel. It's good enough to power him.
Well, I think your full of BS, and here's why...
Why are you using ethanol blend gasoline when you can purchase ethanol free gas?
[Non-ethanol gas is available in every state, and I can't find data that shows regular unleaded not being available in any municipality. I really can't imagine filling a gas can with anything but non-ethanol gas.]
Your buying gennys that cost around $650?
[Those are either overpriced picnickers with an upcharging brand name, or they are the crappy low end of the contractors grade. Could be your just buying crap gennys with crap motors]
Informative and insightful. thank you.
Could this lead to a embrace and surge in biodiesel use?
Multifuel vehicles run on gasoline, ethanol, methanol, and other fuels. Brazil has them. They don't cost much more than our vehicles (I think the difference is about $35).
Alternative fuels based on algae include both oil and ethanol. The oil gets squeezed out and the remainder is fermented into ethanol.
We will need it when the price of petroleum oil skyrockets, which it is expected to do in the next few years -- permanently, due to peak oil and the disappearance of the excess capacity in the oil industry (supply over demand).
The DoD JOE report expects the problem to start in 2012 and get bad by 2015. The report is the Joint Operating Environment report found at www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2010/JOE_2010_o.pdf
Also, in slide 8 of the presentation at www.competecoalition.com/files/PHEV-Conf...sentation_Toyota.pdf there is a curve showing the price of gasoline skyrocketing in about 2015 because of the disappearance of excess oil capacity.
Ethanol contains less chemical energy than an equal volume of gasoline, just like gasoline contains less chemical energy than an equal volume of diesel fuel. This is known, but studiously ignored.
Regards;
Ethanol has multiple problems. Three of the biggest are:
1: It's simply not economic. If it was there wouldn't be the need for subsidies or mandates to include it in fuel.
2: It's really stupid to burn food, which is what is happening here. Especially with other, lower cost, fuel alternatives remain available now and for at least the next couple of decades -- after which it's impossible to predict with any certainty what we'll be facing anyway. If you can make it efficiently out of non-food biomass this argument is mitigated somewhat, but we're not doing that yet.
3: It isn't that environmentally clean or carbon neutral when the entire process is considered.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Pardon me if this has been said but can somebody explain how ethanol is suppose to be harmful to engines?
Don't they use ethanol in Indy car racing?
Maybe ethanol can be used in some kind of fuel cell.
Me either. I can get race gas 50 miles (and a canyon) away but that's a. 118 octane, b. leaded and c. spendy.
Got any regular unleaded non-ethanol blended fuel for me?
Was there ever any doubt EtOH was bad for automotive engines, lawnmowers, generators etc?
My elders complained about EtOH automotive problems in the late 70's. Then it was billed as an oxygen bearing gasoline additive to help with emission controls.
What percentage of US government ideas have produced a positive outcome on its citizens? My sense is it is less than 50% of them. My other sense is a few made a lot of money pushing EtOH our way.
To quote Forest, "Stupid is as stupid does." It may sound like 20/20 hindsight, but is not. EtOH from corn as a fuel was always a bad idea an we should be pissed the about yet another sham U.S. idea to use excess grain (in this case corn) for fuel.
Another appropriate quote, "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." Thank Albert Einstein for it.
The USD should be losing value, it's the natural evolution of a currency from a country with a trade deficit. America is uncompetetive with low infrastructure investment precisely because the USD has not been allowed to fall by it's trading partners (which have printed money and buying up dollars to make sure that doesn't happen). In the short term the Chinese rather have US factories through outsourcing than factory output, and is selling it's citizens into slavery to make it happen.
Of course the US should never have gone along with that scam, since at some point the Chinese will decide they have enough factories ... and divert factory output to internal consumption, at which point the US will neither have the cheap goods nor the factories and will be properly double fucked
Ethanol is a big [problem for boats that often have fuel tanks made of plastic or fiberglass. Some of the plastic gets dissolved by the ethanol, and then ends up clogging various engine parts. The Boat US association has done extensive tests of that: http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/fueltest.asp#results. The real worse case comes if ethanol is mixed with diesel, transforming a basically safe fuel into one that can explode. Really not a good idea.
What do you do on your 35 acre plot though? Honestly asking. You are really in a minority in the developed world.
You're right. Those of us lucky/determined/strange enough to live on our own land, can do a vast many things you cannot conceive of in your urban apartment. Bear in mind, it might take me longer to drive to the grocery store, I may be pretty far from a city where I would fill my giant American vehicle with meaningless consumer crap but here's a short list of the things I might be able to do on my 35 acre plot (keep in mind I may be able to do many of these simultaneously given the size of this plot of land)
1. Grow my own food.
2. Grow my own weed. (you'd be surprised by how rewarding this can be, personally)
3. Have an off road motorcycle track (had a buddy with one)
4. Drive your own, unregistered vehicles, 100% intoxicated (totally underrated)
5. Shoot your firearms
6. I dunno, think of ANYTHING you can't do in an apartment...
Its definitely a real world security through obscurity scenario.
Oh, and get the fuck off my lawn.
A station close to my parent's place recently switched to 10% ethanol. My father cuts his own firewood to heat his home and cannot use ethanol gas in his chainsaws. He now has to travel at least 10 miles now to get the fuel that he needs. This whole mess has riled both of us up. A quick search yielded this website http://pure-gas.org/. I'm not affiliated in any way with them.
Its not much but its a start. If you feel the way we do, support stations that sell pure gas.
My pellet stove also burns corn, and corn produces a slightly higher btu per unit, where available. Alas, as no-one raises cows nearby (10,000 ft. mountains) feed corn is not cost effective nor easy to come by, so I purchase wood pellets instead.
10 mile trip to Home Depot, 250 bucks later I've got abundant heat for another month and a half, or two if the weather is kind.
Ocean is land, covered with water.
Honestly, I hadn't really paid attention at the pump, but is there any way to find gas without Ethanol? (from the discussion so far it sounds like some people do sell it but many don't) And is there a good way to be sure about what you are getting?
Aside from damaging engines, ethanol creates crop contention with foods. There is only a finite amount of land that can be used for growing crops, and every bit of that land that is used to produce ethanol fuel is a bit of agrable land that isn't used for crop foods. Even switchgrass will require circulating other crops out of plantation. With a big part of the world suffering from undernutrition, I would think it should be criminal to dedicate cropland to fuel production.
Recyced, cellulosic ethanol is of course another beast altogether.
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2007-06/america-headed-food-shortage
Will be powered by a nuclear reactor.
I will chime in here, anon, since I've "slightly modified" my TDI VW, but even though I've nearly doubled the power from stock, I still see 40+ MPG in the summertime, and 38 in the winter on the winterized D2 we're privy to here.
Bigger turbo + some more fuel = way more power + shit eating grin. Diesel FTW!
I used to be in the big truck club, but this car stole me away. I can't imagine going back to a typical vehicle at 20 MPG best case scenario...
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
Ethanol ended up increasing food prices. That is all it did/does.
In the short term the Chinese rather have US factories through outsourcing than factory output, and is selling it's citizens into slavery to make it happen.
I think the Chinese leaders viewed the problem a little differently. They probably thought something like this: "whatever will we do with these 300-million extra people that we don't need as farmers anymore?"
Someone here pointed out recently that 90+% of the US population used to be employed in agriculture. According to this page, at the beginning of the 20th century, 41% of the US population were farmers, but now it's less than 2%.
That same shift has been taking place in China over the past few decades, but because they're playing technological catch-up, it's happening much quicker over there than here.
The US needed to finance a world-wide military empire, and China needed jobs for 300+million displaced farmers. Sounds like a match made in heaven to me.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html
On Bullshit
Stop re-telling climate change bullshit unless you really known what it is about.
It will kill us all, including all animals and life on earth. So, before you bullshit, please remember UN have a climate change summit and some very serious international conventions.
Is it collectively people will hurt themselves? Or the organization of our society should have changed?
Ethanol was never a green solution. It could be a solution in case fossil fuels run out in the next 100-500 years. However, ethanol in contemporary times have two HORRIFIC consequences: sever reduction of rain forests and dramatic increase in cost of grain foods. Just these two effects of pursuing ethanol have damaged the environment and increased the spread poverty.
Ethanol blended fuels pollute more than fossil fuels alone. It take more than 2x the energy to produce ethanol than it delivers. Countries in fuel scale production of ethanol are cutting down trees (deforestation), burning the organic by product (pollution), and blanching the soil (creating deserts). Ethanol propelled vehicles are limited to about 1/5 the distance of fossil fuel propelled cars ie costing 5x more to use and producing at least 5x more pollution. Both types of vehicle use combustion.
Besides switchgrass based ethanol, there is no logical reason to use ethanol instead of fossil fuels.
Whatever it is they did with the winterized diesel this year it killed OBS Ford diesel fuel pickups all across the nation.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
But my ethanol cars work as reliably and have similar life cycles to my former gasoline ones.
Have I been misled in using ethanol in the last 20 (twenty) years?
Is everyone who buys a flex car in Brasil wrong? (flex means able to run on ethanol and gas).
Maybe American engineering cannot duplicate our Brazilian technology? My, we're advanced, but I guess it's not such a big deal...
Maybe American cars cannot stomach alcohol?
That's funny, too, because GM and Ford sell lots of ethanol cars here in Brazil. Curious, huh?
You never cease to surprise me... (hint: this is not a compliment).
Though, to be 100% clear, making ethanol out of corn is BS.
The government owes me an engine rebuild. 2jz's dont just blow rings. Mine started burning oil about 2 months after their shit gas got in my tank. Assholes. This won't be cheap.
W/neo-cons pushed this to help them at the polls. The reason is because it supported oil rather than hindered it. This same garbage will keep going on when politicians can be bought.
What needs to happen is that we instead say what the subsidy is intended to do. For example, we should have said that we will subsidize an energy source that is none polluting AND not imported. Had we done that, then it would work for Nukes, Solar Thermal, Geo-thermal, Solar PV, bio-ethanol, bio-deseal, etc. But what is important is to change it to start HIGH and then go down over time. In doing that, it rewards those up front that take the most chances, and establishes the markets.
Likewise, we should have offered a 2'nd subsidy of saying any of the above that was also 24x7. The reason is that becomes base load power. That means that items like nukes, geo-thermal would qualify for extra subsidies.
And then finally, once last subsidy of STORAGE. Again start high, and end over a period of time. That would get companies started with creating new energy storage ideas.
Until we change how things are done, we will continue to see nightmares like ethanol occurring.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I am concerned with what it will be replaced by in our pump gas.
Remember what the methylbutyleither (MTBE whatever) crap did to us.
So what is the next waste product that will fill our gas tanks? (naturally it will be federally subsidized)
Rick B.
1. The infrastructure to deliver it is already in place and is far less complicated than say what is needed for a hydrogen system.
2. The conversion costs are small and will work with most vehicles. Pickup trucks being the easiest to convert. (Cool trucks, no gay hybrids required.)
3. It's readily availabe just about everywhere. You can drill a hole in the ground to get it. You can make it with crop and animal waste on the farm. You can make it from sewage waste in the city. You can collect it as a by product from the petrolium industry. You could make your own fuel in your backyard if you were so inclined and had the space.
4. It is environment friendly. No bad polutants when you burn it and can come from "carbon neutral" sources if you still buy into such things.
5. We can make it in our own country and stop funding the overseas assholes. Let them try to eat their oil after we stop buying and see how far that gets them.
Win, win, win, win, win.
The problem is not the fuel, but how the fuel is produced. Ethanol can be viable as long as it is produced efficiently enough. Corn based ethanol production is not a viable replacement for $4/gal gasoline. It can be viable either by fuel prices increasing, or ethanol production being produced more efficiently. Cellulosic biomass fermentation has the potential to produce fuel efficiently enough to be viable. However, the technology is not mature, and politicians like Gore decided to force the issue with mandates that couldn't be met any other way than by building out corn-ethanol production. Short-sighted and stupid. And now, the pendulum is going to turn the other way and ethanol is going to become a bad guy, so that if/when cellulosic fermentation becomes viable, it's going to have to fight against the perception that ethanol is simply a hand out to farmers and a technological dead end.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
I used 10% ethanol blend (since it is hard to find anything else here in Illinois) in my Sears lawn mower for 20 years; finally replaced that lawn mower last year. I'd say 20 years is a pretty good run for a lawn mower, ethanol blend or not. I didn't even take particularly good care of it -- I frequently left the gas in it over the winter, and changed the oil maybe once every 4 years or so. Given that Sears could make a small engine that ran fine on ethanol blend 20 years ago, I have a hard time understanding what everyone is whining about.
That said, I agree the economics of corn-based ethanol make no sense; the current system is little more than a subsidy to corn growers. IMO we should be pouring all that money into research on better ethanol production methods instead, and requiring engine manufacturers to produce ethanol-ready engines (many Chrysler vehicles have been E85-capable for years, so this isn't exactly rocket science).
IMHO If it means climate change due to CO2 emissions is reduced in intensity and Peak oil is delayed, then ethanol is well worth the disadvantages of higher food prices, a few broken engines and a little less mileage. But I have to agree, there are better alternatives. If you want to stick with ethanol, then buy from the most efficient or cheapest source. If Importing sugarcane ethanol from tropical countries in SE asia or S america is cheaper, then do it and dont be afraid to give the finger to american corn farmers. If they can't compete then let them starve Butanol seems to be a promising alternative since you can sometimes use non-food plant products, its not hygroscopic and AFAIK you can use it in unmodified diesel and gasoline engines Dont put politics and emotions into this decision. Use hard math.
The production of ethanol requires more energy than is provided by the fuel itself, creates more pollution, the combustion of ethanol in vehicles causes more smog.
Vehicles also consume more fuel because Ethanol has a lower energy content per mass and volume than gasoline.
My car gets 3MPG better on non-Ethanol fuel - so thank god there's a gas station near me that sells UL87 mogas that does not have ethanol in it.
Hopefully the Obama administration will deliver some of that "hope and change" and ban ethanol as a motor fuel..
In the short term the Chinese rather have US factories through outsourcing than factory output, and is selling it's citizens into slavery to make it happen.
Reading stuff like this I have to wonder if the writer has a clue as to what's happening in China. Since China opened it's doors to businesses the lives, livelihood, and incomes of the Chinese has grown by leaps and bounds. The fourteenth richest person in the world is Li Ka-shing. The 2007 Chinese mainland billionaire list has 63 names on it, only beat by the number of billionaires the US has. And with 670,000 millionaires China comes in third place in how many millionaires the country has, behind the US and Japan.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
it's more than just corn oil or HFCS. The following typically have large amounts of corn based ingredients:
Baking powder, Caramel, Cellulose, Corn Flour, Diglycerides, Ethyl acetate, Fructose, Fumaric Acid, Gluten, Invert Sugar, Sorbic Acid, Sorbitol, Sucrose, Xanthan Gum, Xylitol, Zein
Nearly everything you eat in the US will have some large percentage of its ingredients derived from corn products, due to these subsidies.
Whether or not this is a problem is up for debate.
maybe someone will register on their forum and post the suggestion http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/frm/f/9701967776
There is no reason to support this. It's creating a coalition of free marketers and environmentalists.
Since many have given the environmental case, let's quickly review the free market case against this. The government subsidizes ethanol. It still isn't cheap enough so they have to force people to buy it in increasing amounts. They create an oversupply and then the government has to force us to destroy our engines with it.
No thank you.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Ethanol is the worst thing you can put in a lawn mower, boat, or other motor that isn't run every day.
No, ethanol is a bad thing to use as a fuel in an engine that is not designed to use it. Engines that are designed to use alcohol run good with it though.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
From a envinonmental point of view, ethanol IS better than solar, etc. Solar cars need to use toxic components on the batteries,
And corn isn't grown with toxic chemicals? Or is not genetic engineered? If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you. Corn has to be grown year after year using more and more chemicals and fuel whereas the equipment for solar installations lasts for years and years. Then when the equipment needs to be replaced it can be recycled.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The US doesn't subsidize beets? You better tell that to the US Department of Agriculture.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The only thing that we did wrong with ethanol was trying to make it from corn. Look at Brazil, they were able to dramatically reduce their petroleum imports by using domestically produced ethanol. Corn doesn't give us enough return on investment because of its utility as a staple food product, something else would be a much better source.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
The corn grown took fossil fuels to plant, grow, and harvest. So the energy return on investment was very low. Cellulosic ethanol is still years away. The ethanol boondoggle basically became a big giveaway to agribusiness (Cargill and ADM) and did nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The other problem is that even if we could grown all our corn organically, there would still be competition between growing crops for fuel and crops for food. We cannot put enough land under cultivation at our current consumption rate.
The only organic fuel that has the potential to replace fossil fuel on a large enough scale is biodiesel from algae. It could produce more oil per acre than almost any other plant but there are still problems to be worked out and scaled up. We'll still have to drastically change our lifestyle to live in more compact cities with greater public transportation. Even if we could go all electric with solar and wind, we still would have to use tremendous amounts of lithium and I don't there's enough in the world to make that possible.
My point is we are running into hard physical limits and to solve those problems require vast leaps in technology and energy production ability that are beyond what is even feasible with our rate of technological change. We can transition away from fossil fuels but it won't be easy and it's going to be a bumpy ride.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
There are more than enough resources left on earth to reach that goal but our great civilized cultures would rather see the starving masses die off than elevated to our own level if one is to believe people like you.
I agreed until I got here. Besides thinking the planet's ecosystem would not survive if everyone became as wasteful as the average American, many person could actually die. As has happened in the past, US hunger for coltan, used in cell phones, DVD players, video game systems, and computers has fueled fighting and massacres in the Congo.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I work in the marine engine trade. (western U.S.) Ethanol has been a boon to the gasoline engine repair and maritime rescue business. It is estimated by marine trade originations that gasoline and ethanol mixed fuels currently cause about 70-85% of engine failures. Not really a type of additional work we want.These engines (and outboards) and fuel tanks were never designed for this fuel. Unlike modern autos, marine fuel tanks are vented and absorb moisture rich air. Water related corrosion adds to the alcohol damage. I do not think anyone has worked out just the cost in lives lost at sea, lost boats, and the damage to the marine trades has resulted from this fuel. We only get to work on the boats that made it back.
The Problem is getting people to contribute.
That shouldn't be so much of a problem as it is made into...
The MISCAST Problem is that welfareites don't contribute in allowed, authorized ways, as regimented by their controller.
( workfare )
Fractalize gov't:
make the local stuff locally-controlled, so the people THERE can manage THERE.
Make inclusive definitions of 'contribute', instead of authorized gov't+private slave-"jobs",
so someone who can manage to volunteer 3 days a week, does,
instead of pushing more and ending up in $10 000 / week hospitalization.
Make it so those who CAN contribute 3 days / week do,
instead of having their human validity beaten on by 'administration'...
The WON'T-FIX attitude is what ought be killed, not the lives trod on by money's whims.
( & yes, I know that it is the pushers of money, not money itself,
who distort world to demise life for money's sake )
Cheers,
Captain Obvious
There's nothing wrong with the Adam Smith theory of free markets.. But that theory is so far divorced from reality as to be counter-productive to society.
What's counter productive is saying free markets brought us all the ills you list. You say the government should make the world's life/death decisions. Guess who has killed more people than any other thing... Government, that's what. Counting just Jews the NAZIs exterminated 600,000 people. While they were doing that Stalin massacred 20 million people, and south of the Soviet Union Mao killed an estimated 50 million.
Now how many people have businesses killed? There may be something that killed more people, I don't know, but Union Carbide's Bhupal disaster only killed an estimated 15,000.
I dare you to find a company that has killed more people than the governments listed above. Heck, to make is easier you can even include the USA, try to find a business that killed more than the US. However when doing so don't leave out the estimated 4000 Cherokee who died on the Trail of Tears, the 400 who died at Wounded Knee and all the other massacres of American Indians. But you don't need to consider the 200,000 East Timorese who were massacred after Indonesia invaded East Timor with President Ford's and Kissinger's support. Or all the other foreign adventures the US had.
Oh, one more thing. Who do you think is the world's biggest polluter? The US Military. Add in all the other agencies of the federal government and the US government beats everyone when it comes to pollution.
Should there be a Law?
The "biofuel industry", and ethanol in particular, is a huge sham hoisted on Americans. It's cost us $huge_lumps_of_cash, and it's something we'll never be able to get back.
The early biofuel 'pioneers' were promising to investors for over 10 years that they'd be "as economical as petroleum based fuels in a year or two". Even with gas at $4/gallon, this wouldn't be true, for a number of reasons: They use substantial petroleum during the production of biofuels - all along the production chain. When considering the fuel required to plant, harvest, etc. biofuel, it's not a net gain, it's a net loss. And then, they blend it with diesel.
2) Ethanol is even worse. It is horribly destructive to vehicle injection systems (clogging the injectors and lines), and will erode the feed lines and pumps.
Honestly, between all the shit the US gov't has done in the automotive industry and American automotive travel in general, I have a strong suspicion of either supreme incompetence (the best gov't example of efficiency, yet) or the actual intent to destroy American transit/the economy/etc.:
* In respect to GM, the "Cash For Clunkers" auto industry payday - which was neither green nor provided any actual value to the consumer, more often than not. If it had been green, those 'junk' vehicles, many with less than 100k miles on them and good body/exterior - wouldn't have had their engines destroyed outright. "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle."
* Ethanol, and the mess it's caused to many gas-based vehicles.
* Requirements on engine oil zinc content (the newer stuff, which will quickly kill an older vehicle, contains insufficient zinc)
* restrictions (moratorium!) on domestic drilling and refineries
* the coastal drilling wells going to Chinese companies
* the cost hikes on diesel caused by regulation requiring ultra low sulfer (more processing required, less cetane, etc.)
* Now, the OTR truck requirements for basically injecting piss (urea) into the engines. Yeah, like pushing the trucks' engines lives to half their current distance and reducing MPG is going to really make the trucking industry survive. (Hint: provide a superior alternative before you kill the status quo, it'll result in less pain and suffering.)
I'm sure there are a couple more. The gov't just needs to push off, as it regards these things.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
The cars need the corn more than we do. We have other foods we eat. In fact we have too much corn so why not use the excess in cars?
Make the case for why we can't eat anything other than corn.
If 100% of all corn in this country went into our cars we'd just eat rice or potatoes. What is your point?
I don't think it is and nobody has made the case for why any other feed shouldn't be used. What difference does it make? So we give the cows something other than corn.
Despite all of this, the newly-elected Congress has extended the 45 cent-per-gallon ethanol blending tax credit that was due to expire
The term of the newly elected Congress begins January 3, 2011. The newly-elected Congress hasn't taken office, much less passed any laws yet.
We don't need anymore corn for food. We eat too much of it as it is.
Are there any vitamins in corn? yes or no? And which vitamins in corn are so essential that you can't get them from something else?
This is like deciding we shouldn't use apples for fuel because we need our apple pie.
I'd rather we use ethanol. But if we must use both, at least ethanol has some positive attributes.
And that would be a good thing right?
Yes, I can make biofuels cheaper than that, both ethanol and biodiesel. And if I had 35 acres I could grow a lot.
I have actually advocated user fees or taxes. Not only raise fuel taxes but institute a mileage fee. Another thing I'd like to see, but probably won't for too many years, are trains I can drive right up onto so I can then ride the train into the city. I know there's a pale implementation of this in the US, Amtrak's Auto Train. It only runs between Lorton, Virginia, south of Washington DC, and Sanford, Florida, north of Orlando in Central Florida.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Not every food will be used to make ethanol. We'd just eat different foods.
High fructose corn syrup has a negative nutritional value. It's a pesticide.
They're putting a pesticide in food for humans? Not on the crops but the actual food people will eat?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
most small farmer don't get much or any subsidies for corn production
Most farmers get little subsides no matter what they grow. Who gets large subsidies are the ADMs and Cargills.
You may also want to consider the reasoning behind subsidies as well. It's essentially a safeguard so that American food supply will be adequate on a yearly basis. If you let market forces run it entirely, there would be large swings in price and availability.
Bullshit! If that were the reason for subsidies then those small and family farmers would be subsidized.
The society we live in today would not be possible without subsidies to encourage farmers to plant even when there is excess.
This is bullshit too. If food production goes down, food costs go up. And higher prices means more people will farm. As it is now it's hard for small farms to compeat against ADM and Cargill because they get those subsidies. Heck these large corporations can even grow, export, then sell corn to Mexico cheaper than Mexican farmers can grow it. And corn originated in Mexico.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
North America has precious little land suitable for Sugar Cane. Beets many. Switchgrass maybe.
Switchgrass is native to North America, it grows natively from Canada to Mexico.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Food prices doubled or more in many parts of the world. This was due to climate change + use of crops for bio-fuels.
Actually Canada and Saudi Arabia are about the same on imports.
Bullshit! The United States imports more oil from Canada than from any other country. Nigeria is second, far behind Canada, with Mexico third. Saudi Arabia comes in at fourth.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
You pay (currently) about 13% less at the pump for E85 [e85prices.com] but you get 35% less mileage:
When subsidies are added E85 is more expensive.
you've made a fools bargain.
What was made was Corporatism which is what Benito Mussolini said Fascism should appropriately be called.
E85 has never been cost effective at the pump IN SPITE of the massive subsidies and tax breaks.
By the same token oil would be more expensive if it wasn't subsidized. Oil subsidized? Yes, oil is subsidized in the US.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
And the other problem is it takes two barrels of crude equivalent to manufacture one ethanol equivalent of a barrel of oil.
Citation, citation, citation, or its Bullshit! Here are som eof my own citations, which only took a couple of minutes to get and type up: Brazil has an energy returned on energy invested of between 8:1 and 10:1 for ethanol. In the US corn based ethanol may have an EROEI of about 1.1:1, just barely positive. While the EROEI for petroleum currently ranges between 16:1 and 20:1 ethanol does have a positive EROEI in the single digits.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/
The minimum guaranteed income in most country I know of which practice it, does not allow a good standard of living, you get a crappy roof, crappy food, minimum care and that's about it. I am a lazy ass, but there is no way I would live a life like that. think about it : no distraction, no alcohol (too expansive, unless you starve yourself a few day) no computer (ditto) no telephons (ditto) no internet (ditto). If you think the minimum money given , as practiced in some country, to survive would allow you a lazy life, you are fully and utterly mistaken. It only allow you to , at best, survive.
Now what some bastard do , is to say they have no job, get the minimum money from the gov, and then work on the "black market" making a normal sum.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I live in Argentina and we have a solid Compressed Natural Gas distribution infraestructure. Its a lot cheaper than gasoline and the conversions are relatively cheap especially on old cars.
BUT, it has a lot of issues. You should go electric ( full, not hybrid) and skip methane.
Heres why:
1. Safety: We have had some nice explosions here until very strict safety measures and regulations where in place. You are driving around with a big steel cilinder at high pressure (200 Bar about 2900 psi ) in case of a fire there are safety valves and the tank should not explode, but it surely burns completely everithing near it. Not too different from gasoline now that I think of it. Stations will refuse to refill if you dont have all the certificates for the tank or tanks (they are risking their lives otherwise). This involves hydraulic tests every 5 years and if the tank doesnt pass its destroyed, cant be repaired.
2. Weight: Only steel tanks are allowed. There are nice alumium reinforced with carbon fiber tanks, but these had caused many explosions. The fiber reinforcement breaks easiy with friction from the mounts or in a fire and they were banned many years ago.So, heavy steel tanks and heavy mounts for safety, these are less important in big pickups or trucks, but for small cars implies reinforced suspension.
3. Autonomy: Its increasingly dangerous and technically difficult to use higher pressure than 200 Bar, so the tanks have limited capacity. Tipical ranges are around 120 Km ( 75 miles) for a small engine ( 2 liter or less ) and a big tank.
4. Less power: Methane occupies more volume than vaporized gasoline, so the ideal mix in the engine gives less energy, some say about a 10 % less in my (subjective) experience seemed more than that.
5.Engine stress: One way to offset the power loss is to change the engine computer settings, this can be used to get more HP from an engine running with gasoline, and I used to get more from the engine while running with methane. This increases temperature, leading to early engine failure, its especially hard on the exhaust valves.
Some years ago I had a relatively long commute to work, so I bought a new car ( a Citroen Berlingo, a small van) and get to convert it to what was at the time state of the art in CNG. I had three small tanks for better autonomy ( about 200 km, 124 miles ) had to reinforce suspension, changed the engine settings for more power, and used an additional engine computer to regulate the methane mix ( there were cheaper conversions that use a kind of carburetor ). All this looked like a better deal than the same vehicle with a modern diesel engine, and the fuel was a lot cheaper. A year and half later, after two expensive engine repairs and 90000 km ( 56000 miles) , I had sold the car ( and the engine wasn't in great condition). The cost of the car+conversion+repairs+fuel was almost exactly the cost of the diesel version plus the fuel for that mileage. I had saved nothing economically and the car was heavy, with little autonomy and high maintenance.
I think the best you can do with methane is to use it to generate electricity. Modern combined cycle generators are way more eficient than the internal combustion engines in cars, and this offset the distribution and battery losses.
So please, skip the methane in cars, it's not worth the bother.
I wonder how this would effect airplanes. Years ago the FAA changed regulations to allow the use of auto fuel in certain aircraft (non-commercial use, private aircraft with certain engines). At least in aircraft there is a sump drain at the lowest point in the fuel system where water is trapped and a required pre-flight inspection calls for draining the sump until no water is detected in the fuel. With pure avgas there is usually a few cc's of water in the sump if the plane hasn't been flown for a week or more in humid weather. I don't know what ethanol will do to an aircraft's fuel system. BTW, the original use of ethanol in motor fuel has been as a replacement for chemical (lead) based anti-knock compounds required in unleaded gas. In this use it's concentration is under 10% (depending on the desired octane rating).
This sounds like the kind of research that the Mythbusters should look into!
That was a pleasure to read, thank you!
.
Don't assume that public aid would give you enough for a private room. I don't know. Providing enough for 'food' (what we were discussing) is a different option than also providing free lodging as well (a laudible goal, but perhaps not as practical, though providing public warehouses, that you could sleep on a cot out of the elements would be 1 step above what we provide now --- maybe your own, private 6x6 room and a sleeping space in a communal area) could be provided for as a low cost alternative for those who want to drop-out.
Certainly if people are determined to live off of nothing, then I'd question the utility of forcing them to provide useful work for someone. It might be less costly for society to warehouse such individuals than force the rest of society to bear the burden of putting up with such people's shoddy work and ancillary costs (perhaps stealing on the job, or lowering overall service levels for the rest of society).
The effect of people being forced to work long hours at jobs they don't like is difficult to exactly quantify, but overall, compare the drop in customer service as more of these types are forced into customer service positions. It might raise the standard of living for the rest of society to stop forcing such people to work and providing low-cost warehousing alternatives. In the long run, it might weed out such types from the population (less likely to reproduce if they have little private space).
Another obvious measure, is America's relatively low position (not sure if it is even in the top 10) for worker productivity measured in $$-earning-power per worker-hour). Even 'socialist' France comes out ahead of the US by that measure. The only reason the US is competitive is that people are forced to work the most hours of any modern country (25-50% more -- as many more people in the US have to hold down 2 jobs to keep their productivity up).
This has a bunch of hidden costs to society, besides the overall increase in unhappiness and lower measures for quality of life. Given a sufficiently negative attitude toward working , it would probably be better for society if such people weren't required to be in the workforce with their attendant side-costs.
Ultimately it becomes an engineering problem for the car makers more than anything.
I said as much myself in posts above this one. I specifically mentioned Brazil which has had cars running on ethanol as well as flex-fuels since the 1970s. And they're smarter there than politicians are here, they use sugarcane to make the ethanol and not corn. With the same amounts of inputs sugarcane produces more ethanol than corn does.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
When I was in college in 1999 I remember talking to a fellow student from Brazil. They've apparently been using ethanol for many years. Possibly decades. Anyway he was telling me how it was cheaper but no recommended because it damaged the car engines. Then years later in 2005 the hype engine around ethanol was starting to ramp up and a co-worker of mine was excited by it since obviously this would be a viable gasoline alternative and look how successful it is in Brazil. I tried pointing out it wasn't so great as defined by a native Brazilian but my arguments never seemed to make a dent.
So now, a mere 12 years after this Brazillian who ought to know as well as anyone told me ethanol was no good even Al Gore apparently admits it wasn't any good. Too bad he didn't talk a Brazilian in 1999.
Of course one of the main gas stations in my little town just finished installing a E85 pump like three weeks ago. Too bad for him eh?
"UNIX is very simple, it just needs a genius to understand its simplicity." -Dennis Ritchie
Yet the median barely budges
it's not the rich which create demand, it's the poor and middle class.
The rich do create demand, just not as much as the middle class and poor. However the rich create jobs which boosts income for the poor.
I have provided links and data backing up what I said, now can you do the same? As they show the uneducated and rural population has had the lowest rise in income, but that population changed from 80% of the total population to 30%. More and more rural people leave the country er farms and move to cities where they get better paying jobs and more education. If you can prove I'm wrong then my mind can change.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Just found this site after reading article. If you are looking for ethanol free gasoline in your area try this link.
http://www.pure-gas.org
it could survive without a government subsidy
And what of oil subsidies? What of those who died for oil? What of the pollution created by getting and using oil?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Almost: In American political discourse, only unpopular subsidies, especially those that present some risk of giving money to poor people(some of the brown persuasion, even!), are referred to as "welfare".
Not even! Where I come from subsidies are called corporate welfare. Archer Daniels Midland is A Case Study In Corporate Welfare.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
there is certainly evidence that the manufacture of ethanol consumes as much or more fossil fuel than the energy content of the ethanol.
And it's known producing ethanol requires no fossil fuel. Saving seeds year after year, so there's no fossil fuel required to obtain the seed, I can grow corn every year in my garden. I grow it organically then harvest it with no fossil fuels. I can then mash it and make ethanol. No fossil fuels needed. Using a solar still it can even be distilled without the use of fossil fuels.
Of course if these methods are used then ethanol is not commercially feasible currently.
Open Source Beer Project by Flying Dog Brewery.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I would think that any person pushing to eliminate our need for foreign oil or oil in general and actually expecting some level of success would have done a tiny bit of research.
Oil billionaire T Boone Pickens did the research for his Pickens Plan. Of course some accuse him of using the plan to hide his plan to steal water.
We could reduce our need on oil by a massive amount with nuclear power
Yea, and create more problems. Nuclear power is not profitable, it is hooked on subsidies.
On the other hand, there's A Solar Grand Plan: "By 2050 solar power could end U.S. dependence on foreign oil and slash greenhouse gas emissions". There's also Wind: "The United States has enough wind resources to generate electricity for every home and business in the nation."
To tell the truth there is not one energy source operating on large enough scale to power the US that does not get subsidies. Even oil gets subsidies.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Could this lead to a embrace and surge in biodiesel use?
Biodiesel has the same issues ethanol does, engines have to be designed to use it and it will take a lot of farm land to grow the feedstock on. What may be the best step now is to increasingly use plugin EVs. Of course that requires the total rebuilding of the electrical grid. By making it smart though, geothermal, solar, and wind sources can be added.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Just because you didn't like my points it doesn't mean I didn't make them.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Sorry to read that. As a brazilian, my car is ethanol powered, I bought it 5 years ago and it work flawless since. As a mechanic engineer I can't see the diferences in maintenance costs or the "Damages the engine" point of view you have. What I see is cheaper oil and cheaper oil filter, cheaper exaust pipe maintenance and cheaper fuel. This fuel is used in this country for 40 years. In the 80's, the ethanol cars surpasses the gasoline cars. If a country with the size of Brazil cannot be used as example of the viability of ethanol, I don't now which one can be. Sure Brazil is a HOT country and start the car in the cold is not a problem. That was the only disavantages of ethanol, but this issue was fixed with the advent of eletronic injection.