Arthur Collins says:

Ehanol is a good alternative as long as we avoid pumping additional CO2 into the atmosphere. Unfortunately, my research group is working on catalysts that convert natural gas into Methanol which can be burned within internal combustion engines or run fuel cells. The oil companies feel this is preferred as an intrim step to going directly to hydrogen as it allows them to use their existing processing, transport and delivery infrastructures.
So, I’m working on a new catalyst that recovers exhaust heat and further reduces carbon dioxide and monoxide into carbon black as a solid and releases pure water, as the only by-product exhausted into the atmosphere.

Steve K says:

Your ethanol article, (really an anti-ethanol article) - once dissected - goes a long way to explaining why people dismiss good ideas out of hand when they are only exposed to ideas from folks like you who stack the deck with bad figures. Besides the wrong figure for yield of ethanol via corn harvest- as discussed by Mr. Wang -you also go out of your way, seemingly, to paint ethanol as some kind of FAILURE because it can’t (get this) COMPLETELY replace the U.S. daily gasoline usage as fuel. C’mon! Who ever said it could? The point of ethanol is to REDUCE our dependency on regular gasoline thereby reducing dependence on foreign oil. No one ever claimed it would completely eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. Your article goes out of its way to base its “math” on an absurd mission that ethanol could not hope to fulfill and then come up with pollution and pesticide figures based on YOUR OWN original fallacious and absurd assumption. Shame on you.

A question comes to mind: How can you be so sloppy when it comes to your premises and facts? After all, this is your career.

An alternative question would be: Why are you such a heavy-handed conservative stooge? Why not support an idea that has some measured merit?

I can offer an answer but at the moment, it seems to involve some four-letter words, sir. Also, I suspect you would never embrace a decent idea- until one of the puppetmasters who control your lapdog mentality - which masquerades as ’science writer’ told you to do so.

Some sad shit.

Finally, if you are going to talk about “doing the math” then at least get the math RIGHT.

Sincerely,
Steve K.

Andrew says:

You want to tell me where I got the math wrong, or are you simply going to make an assertion without backup?

My figures come from Cornell. If you think they’re wrong, let me know where.

And as for “The point of ethanol is to REDUCE our dependency on regular gasoline,” it can’t do that very well if it takes more fuel to produce it than it yields. Planting, watering, harvesting, and processing the corn to produce ethanol takes a tremendous amount of energy.

I realize it’s convenient for you to ignore this and thus end up with “math” that shows ethanol can reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but the reality is different.

Further, your argument that anyone who points out the shortcomings of an alternative fuel is a “heavy-handed conservative stooge” is pathetic. We cannot adopt new technologies and new energy sources simply because they sound neat and nifty.

I want to reduce our oil consumption. I realize that ethanol is not the way to do that, and believing otherwise will shift our focus away from alternatives that *can* work.

We’re on the same side here, I suspect. I just don’t embrace any technology that has a “Green” sticker on it.

Pascal says:

How about this

Plan to reduce consumption first….then realistic steps to reduce dependence or dependency are surely easier to come by.

Air conditioning, impulsive driving, waste production - all by products of a growing economy - contribute dramatically to our problem. The thought that 6 billion humans should enjoy such luxuries - we are advertising the American Way of Life, are we not - is worrying. Science obviously cannot quite keep pace with population growth…Scientific solutions seem to hit the market long after the damage has been done.

Let’s look at the environmental impact of an American vs. European or South American. Could mindsets be changed?

I now live in a country that produces no cars. Speed limits on highways are such that the excellent trains travel at slightly higher speeds than cars. Fuel costs 5 USD + per gallon. City centers are off-limits to cars. Bikes abound. Some people ride around in three-wheeled electric vehicles charged with electricity from hydroelectric plants. Obesity is only beginning to show its face - or backside…

Not a bad strategy to reduce dependence on foreign oil, don’t you think?

John H says:

I’m afraid I did not see the original article in USA Today on ethanol. But, I found this related site while searching the internet for specific data on ethanol.

I’ve got to admit up front, it’s hard for me to understand the current frenzy over ethanol. It must be mostly polically driven, because from a science, technology, or economic standpoint the arguments for ethanol are just not that compelling.

A few observations–

1. Ethanol is not nearly as rich in energy as gasoline. Gasoline has an energy density (LHV–lower heating value)of ~35 kWh/gallon and ethanol only about 22 kWh/gallon. So, assuming the same engine efficiency, you’d have to carry quite a bit more ethanol for the same driving distance.

2. The arguments about ethanol being carbon/carbon dioxide neutral require some “footnotes”. The crop (e.g. corn) used to produce the ethanol took CO2 from the air for growth by photosynthesis. For corn taken to harvest, about 9 short tons of CO2 are removed from the air per acre, and this is a key point, at the farmland. Now on the usage end of the ethanol, it is modeled to be burned primarily in internal combustion engines. It is not hard to imagine that the great majority of the CO2 emissions coming from the vehicular combustion is going to occur in urban and suburban locations, not anywhere near the farmland. So, the process would take the CO2 out of rural air and redeposit it in cities, towns, and surrounding areas. That may be carbon neutral on the whole, but not on a local scale.

3. An average acre of corn will produce about 300-400 gallons of ethanol per year. On the other hand, the US consumes about 140 billion (with a b) gallons of gasoline per year. (Current annual US production of ethanol is approaching 5 billion gallons/year.) So (assuming the same energy content for ethanol and gasoline, which is generous, see point 1), if you do the math, to replace just 10% of the annual US oil-source gasoline with ethanol, you’re talking about ~30 million additional acres of corn, and production facilities. Key question–where do those acres come from? US? Elsewhere?

4. One thing you rarely (never?) see published in an article on ethanol is the price per gallon. That’s because this “clear white gold” is not cheap, although I’m not certain that we have settled down with a stable ethanol price. We all know that to be truly viable, an alternative fuel to gasoline has to be be cost competitive with gasoline, equally available, and compatible with existing vehicles. Right now, ethanol depends on high oil prices and government favor (and, no, I’m not opposed to it) to meet the first two criterion.

I’d like to close with a few observations about another alernate fuel, which I and dozens of my US and international colleagues have been working on.

This one–

* Is a liquid (e.g. vs hydrogen) at nominal temperatures and pressures

* Burns totally cleanly (no CO2 or other greenhouse gases, and no NOx).

* Has ~52% of the energy density of gasoline (only slightly lower than ethanol, and with all the energy coming from hydrogen, not carbon)

* Cost competitive with oil-source gasoline, today, and going to get much better with US source coal.

* Centralized production from coal gasification facilities with carbon sequestration will solve the carbon-cycle challenge.

* Can be used directly in an internal combustion engine, OR, in oxide-type fuel cells.

* Is already produced/consumed to the tune of 130 million tons (~50 billion gallons) worldwide, albeit currently for a non-fuel application (fertilizer)

* Has an existing distribution network

You’ve probably guessed it by now. Anhydrous ammonia NH3 (18% hydrogen, no carbon).

Contact me if you want to hear more.

Here is the link to the last two annual Ammonia Fuel conferences.

http://www.energy.iastate.edu/renewable/biomass/

Go to this page and go the the bottom left for the direct link.

The next Ammonia Fuel meeting will be in Denver this October 9-10. Contact me if you’re interested in participating.

John H

aruun prakash upadhyay says:

sir
i am working on the ethanol as a fuel in my final year project of engg. so please help me on this topic by sending the matter related to this on my e-mail

Leland says:

Steve K, visibly angered slammed down the key board and pounded out the the following words, “An alternative question would be: Why are you such a heavy-handed conservative stooge? Why not support an idea that has some measured merit?”

**Hahahahahahaha… **

This guy hasn’t read much of what you write, has he?