Corn as fuel

[SHRED]

Correct me if I am wrong but I heard that the main problem with corn is that it takes a lot of nitrogen based fertilizer to grow.

This fertilizer is petroleum based.
Hence the problem.

[Burma Jones]

1. It's inefficient

I have seen that when I use corn as fuel, some of it goes through my combustion system unused.....


I think you're correct regarding the fertilizer. Although, I have heard that the ethanol is extracted/derived from the waste product of making other corn products

[mrcheerful]

12. Gasoline also goes unburned thats why the government came out with

recycling unused gas back into the engine. Also gasoline tends to vaporize in storage.

[SHRED]

2. and...

....it takes mass water to grow plus creates erosion problems.

Why is corn even considered?

[FloridaPat]

5. Good lobbyists. High fructose corn syrup is in almost everything.

I have seen research this week that this might be one of the big contributing factors in overweight Americans. Seems it's doesn't let the brain know the stomach is full. Got to have some use for the leftovers I guess.

[mrcheerful]

3. Again repuke thinking at its best. If corn was used as fuel there goes oil

companies record profits and our dependence on them end of story. Why do you think oil men spend so much on lobbiests to stop any meaningful change over to alternative fuels?

[SHRED]

4. Corn is a good alternative?

Repuke thinking?
Get real.

[BOSSHOG]

6. president bush says

there is only a limited amount of corn and we have to eat some of it.

[SHRED]

8. Ahhh...the dangers of....

...an elementary schooler's brain in a world leader's body.

[Deja Q]

15. Limited amount of viable fields and I don't mind eating some either.

Besides, how many mention the reality that petroleum-powered-products are used to plant and harvest?

Bush is right in this case.

[FloridaPat]

7. Hemp as fuel.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1107833

[SHRED]

9. Yes...

http://www.hemp4fuel.com/nontesters/hemp4fuel/resources.html

[dysfunctional press]

20. but what about ethanol for gas engines...?

the fuel derived from hemp would be for diesel engines.

[dysfunctional press]

10. algae is better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel

For a truly renewable source of oil, crops or other similar cultivatable sources would have to be considered. Plants utilize photosynthesis to convert solar energy into chemical energy. It is this chemical energy that biodiesel stores and is released when it is burned. Therefore plants can offer a sustainable oil source for biodiesel production. Different plants produce usable oil at different rates. Some studies have shown the following annual production:

* Soybean: 40 to 50 US gal/acre (35 to 45,000 L/km²)
* Rapeseed: 110 to 145 US gal/acre (100 to 130,000 L/km²)
* Mustard: 140 US gal/acre (130,000 L/km²)
* Jatropha: 175 US gal/acre (160,000 L/km²)
* Palm oil: 650 US gal/acre (580,000 L/km²) <2>
* Algae: 10,000 to 20,000 US gal/acre (9,000,000 to 18,000,000 L/km²)

[SHRED]

11. true but what about ethanol for gas engines?

Can it be made from algae?

[dysfunctional press]

21. not as far as i know-

but gas engines could easily be phased out in favor of engines designed for bio-diesel.

[NaturalHigh]

36. I don't think so...

but it can be made from some native grasses.

[BiggJawn]

13. Well, that and the net energy loss.

Takes something like 131,000 BTUs to distill one gallon of fuel-grade ethanol, which has only 74,000 BTUs.

Unless you're burning something to heat the still that is as common as poop and as useless for other things as ReTHUGlicans, you're in trouble even before you factor in the petro-fertilizers and mass ammounts of Diesel needed to bring the stuff to market.

Maybe some kind of solar still, using a reflector field and transfer fluid to create high temps could be workable?

[Chemical Bill]

18. Link, please. n/t

[BiggJawn]

22. To what? n/t

I'm nae a mind reader.

[Chemical Bill]

23. Forgive me.

>Takes something like 131,000 BTUs to distill one gallon of fuel-grade ethanol, which has only 74,000 BTUs.

Please back this up.

Bill

[BiggJawn]

26. No.

Are you disputing me because you have different numbers, or do you just not know?

Go look it up, like I did.
Google is your friend, but I'll give you a hint.

Cornell University.

[Chemical Bill]

30. First off, "no" is not good debating technique.

It is an obstinate reply that could be from a petulant child.

Second, the Pimentel-Patzek study was never peer reviewed, and goes against the (peer reviewed) DOE study that said corn ethanol returned 1.6 times the energy invested. For return on petroleum, the DOE says we get back 6 times the ethanol as the petroleum we invest in growing the crops.

But what else would one expect from Patzek, who is the head of the UC Petroleum Consortium, conveniently funded by big oil.

You can find a good overview of the points I have raised here:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/altfuel/eth_energy_bal.html
as well as links to the DOE findings and refutation of the Cornell study.

Yes, google is my friend. So is the truth.

Bill

[BiggJawn]

35. I'm sorry, I didn't know we were debating.

As for the "petulant child" comment, I'll let that slide, since I'm actually a bitter cynical old man, which is just a petulant child with more years and scars.

Kunstler used the Pimental figures in "The Long Emergency", I suppose he's a fraud, too?

[Chemical Bill]

40. Anybody who uses the Cornell study is incorrect.

Kunstler included. I'm old and cynical myself, but I'm disheartened by the widespread belief in this oil funded group and their lies. I guess I'm not cynical enough.

As for debating, yes, I am not alone in thinking that the conversations on internet forums can turn into debates when two people disagree. I consider it proper to ask for references when faced with figures presented as facts. I considered it disrespectful that you would answer with a blanket "no". You will notice that rather than call you a petulant child, I directed my criticism at your remark.

BTW, did the link I provided give you enough information to refute the Cornell study? This is the point, after all.

Bill

[johnaries]

31. That report was refuted long ago.

http://www.energyprobe.org/energyprobe/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=5618

http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html

[Deja Q]

14. Not the whole problem. Guess what's used to plant the seeds then harvest?

Gas-guzzling machines.

Oops.

Anyone with a brain would see ethanol is anything but a long-term solution for domestic energy needs.

Something cheap like algae, sun, wind, water, grass (mow your lawn for energy!)

[sybylla]

16. You mean ethanol from CORN is anything but a long-term solution

Ethanol can be made from a variety of plant matter and many of them much more efficiently at the moment.

In fact, it was over a year ago I saw a report on the CBC about a business on the plains of Alberta developing a way to take straw, a byproduct of growing wheat and oats, and a microbe that digests it, then they process it a bit and turn it into ethanol. The digestion is what makes it possible and the fact that it's a byproduct maximized the use of any petroleum products to acquire it. They claimed in the story that very little outside energy is consumed by this process and I trust the CBC's investigative reporters far more than our stenographers.

I'm sure 150 years ago people complained about that black greasy stuff that came out of the ground and said it would never be useful for anything. Probably said the same thing about that nasty gas that killed our coal miners, too.

Blanket statements about an energy source and the current technology both using it and creating it will be outdated in months if not weeks. I would never go so far as to even preclude corn from future energy production. Technology changes so fast, who really is to say what's to come?

[Squeech]

17. All of the above

Ethanol is a plausible energy source for transportation. It was in fact in Henry Ford's original design, but he changed it to gasoline because at the time it was a widely available byproduct of kerosene processing (for lamps), and dirt cheap.

We use corn to make ethanol largely because that's what gets subsidized. This was one of Bob Dole's great legislative "successes," because it is thought to benefit Kansas farmers. Maybe it does, but the main beneficiary of the program as far as I can tell is Archer Daniels Midland.

Corn is not the best way to do ethanol. It does take lots of oil to grow and harvest it-- both fuel for big farm machinery and petrochemical-based fertilizers, because it's a nasty crop that depletes soil. Then there's the problem of collecting it and delivering it to the ADM distillery. I've seen literature to the effect that, even if we used best practices, it would still get us maybe 25% more energy out than we put in. And I have no confidence that we use best practices. (There's also the problem mentioned above that we promote corn sweeteners artificially with a high tariff on imported sugar, at great cost to our health, also denying cheap sugar producers like the Caribbean and Central America access to the American sugar market. This one is a lose-lose policy, unless you're a politically connected agribusiness.)

In Brazil they grow sugar cane, and get ethanol out of that, and pump that into a significant proportion of their cars. Between that and recent oil discoveries offshore, they're now pretty much energy efficient. And I don't even think they have the further step worked out to digest the waste cane, called bagasse-- this is the process where microbes break down your plant fibers into simple sugars for fermentation. This is the process our scientists are working on now, and when we get this on line, we can get fuel out of practically anything-- lawn clippings, lumber mill waste, recycled Lyndon LaRouche monographs, etc.-- for something like four or five times the upfront energy cost.

[johnaries]

19. There are many energy crops much better than corn.

As others have tried to point out. Read this short article from the Union of Concerned Scientists:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy_basics/offmen-how-biomass-energy-works.html

Or any of these articles on the same site:
http://www.ucsusa.org/search.jsp?query=switchgrass&submit=Search

[bmbmd]

24. Well-that was Elvis Presley's last thought.

"Hmmm-I don't remember corn."

[mandyky]

25. Biodeisel is better

Sunflower seeds, pumpkin seeds, etc. Most farm equipment is deisel so farmers could use some of what they produce to plant and harvest it.

[tammywammy]

41. I run bio in my car

it's an 06 VW Beetle TDI. I don't make it myself (don't have access to a garage), but buy B20 from a fuel station in Ft Worth. The car runs better on it too.

[madokie]

27. alcohol is dry so it makes an engine wear much faster

the dragsters use it because they're going to be rebuilding the engine soon anyway.

[Mr_Spock]

33. not really true

It's only when the ethanol actually get's "wet" that engine wear increases. Ethanol when contaminated with water forms formic acid while the engine is cold and this can cause engine damage. Normal "dry" E85 shouldn't increase engine wear.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

28. Corn =Corn Lobby..... Last night Bill Maher said that sugar cane

is 7 times more energy efficient than corn and the Brazilians have it right. He also said that the push in our country to use corn is due to the corn lobbiests. I cannot of course swear by his figures as to the 7 times, but he's usually pretty good when it comes to matters of conservation.

[Massacure]

29. How many places in the U.S. can grow sugar cane though?

[elehhhhna]

42. FL,,LA, TX -- way south coast.

[Chemical Bill]

32. The main problem with corn...

is that we can't drive to the mall every day using corn based ethanol, there isn't enough corn. It isn't the best crop for ethanol, but it does give more energy than the petroleum used to grow it (see my post #30).

BTW, we would have much more land for fuel crops if everyone were vegetarians. Think Joe Six-Pack will go for it?

Bill

[Mr_Spock]

34. Some Dem on radio said switchgrass has twice the energy density as corn

Bush did get that info from someone you know - a Dem claims he among others fed * the switchgrass info.

Here is a paragraph describing the differences compared to corn:

"Looking down the road, McLaughlin believes switchgrass offers important advantages as an energy crop. "Producing ethanol from corn requires almost as much energy to produce as it yields," he explains, "while ethanol from switchgrass can produce about five times more energy than you put in. When you factor in the energy required to make tractors, transport farm equipment, plant and harvest, and so on, the net energy output of switchgrass is about 20 times better than corn's." Switchgrass also does a far better job of protecting soil, virtually eliminating erosion. And it removes considerably more CO2 from the air, packing it away in soils and roots."

http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/switgrs.html

Remember, dumbya didn't invent switchgrass...

[Rosemary2205]

37. Corn Ethanol just plain sucks

hard to make, hard to store, hard to transport, terrible efficiency in the engine AND WORST OF ALL it produces more air pollution than fossil fuels (although not ozone depleting). If corn ethanol was so fabulous the industry would have grabbed it in the 80's. Other forms of ethanol are far superior but but come with a price of their own.

[roody]

38. Didn't the earliest cars run on moonshine?

[Rosemary2205]

39. No

The earliest cars were gas but some steam cars used gas, kerosene or coal.