Posted on 05/05/2007 6:19:15 AM PDT by truthfinder9
Until you can get the sugar lobby to roll over meekly (rotsa ruck; the timeline for that is never), importing sugar to produce ethanol is a pure fantasy.
You are exactly correct and you will be more than likely flamed for it.
In the past several months there have been news stories from all over the world about the affects of ethanol on the food supply. In Mexico corn meal, a major food staple, prices sky rocket. In China there is a disruption in the the food supply that is already strained. In Germany farmers are switching crops causing barley for beer to jump in price. Just last week a new report in my area warned that this summer meat and milk prices were going to jump because of ethanol crops affecting the feed supply.
I also have a major problem with basing a major part of our economy on a crop that is so susecptale to weather and simple defoliants. It would not take much to completely disrupt the entire transportation system in the US. That sounds like a recipe for utter disaster.
You forgot 25% less gas mileage and an increase in pollution. Here's an article from business week from last year on e85:
The reason ethanol is being pushed is because of the strong farm lobby. Follow the money.
==> “Th(e) Hydrogen economy can’t get here fast enough!” <==
I hate to burst your bubble, but Hydrogen is the real fraud. The good things about it are really good, but the bad things are truly awful. Hydrogen (as fuel) is useful only for either stationary or “cost is no object” applications, like piped natural gas or the space shuttle.
I am repeating below some facts about fuels that clarify the non-utility of hydrogen for transportation.
1. Petroleum hydrocarbons are the second most abundant source of hydrogen on Earth, after the oceans.
2. Gasoline is a mixture of hydrocarbons - chemically similar molecules, all with a straight or branched chain of carbon atoms, plus a number of attached hydrogen atoms. Collectively, all can be represented by the generic formula:
H - (CH2)n - H
where “n” can be any number up to perhaps 40 or so. The lightest is Methane (CH4), the major component of natural gas. Carbon has an atomic weight of 12 and Hydrogen 1, so Methane has a molecular weight of 12 + 4 = 16, 25% of which (by weight) is Hydrogen.
3. Propane, which can be liquefied at ambient temperatures and relatively low pressure, is C3H8, with a molecular weight of 12 x 3 + 8 = 44, and is 18% Hydrogen by weight.
4. Gasoline is a mixture of medium weight liquid hydrocarbons, but can reasonably be represented (on average) by Octane, C8H18, which has a molecular weight of 8 x 12 + 18 = 114, and is 15.8% Hydrogen by weight.
5. One “mole” of Hydrogen gas at Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP = 68F, 14.7PSI) has a volume of 22.4 liters (6 gallons) and weighs 2 grams. Liquid Hydrogen has a specific gravity of 0.070. This means 1 liter would weigh 70 grams, and 22.4 liters would weigh 1568 grams.
6. Six gallons of gasoline would weigh approximately 6 x 8 x .75 = 36 pounds, x 16 oz/lb x 25.4 grams/oz = 14,360 grams. 14,360 x .158 = 2269 grams of Hydrogen, in the same space, without compression.
7. 2269 / 2 = 1135, x 14.7 = 16,677 PSI pressure required to achieve the same density of Hydrogen in the same size tank. This would be 2269 / 1568 = 1.45 times as dense as LIQUID Hydrogen, and beyond current production technology.
8. Low molecular weight hydrocarbons are the most efficient way to store Hydrogen that God ever designed, and if you want something better, you should ask Him to do it. According to His rules, the fuel of the future will not be much different from what we use today, whether we continue to find and refine it, or manufacture it from other sources of Carbon and Hydrogen.
NOTE: I realize that I used a mixture of units, but I wanted to use familiar terms and measures where possible for clarity, while using constants and characteristics that would be easy to verify.
btt
I'm waiting for my metallic hydrogen powered vehicle. Just throw another cube of fuel in the tank.
We are subsidizing every Arab oil producing country thru military protection and various other gimmicks dreamed up by the oil companys and our hokie state department. Saudia Arabia and Kuwait being the prime example of our tax dollars receipients.
Ethanol is produced in America and by American farmers and companies for the benefit of Americans - get it?
Because it's bullshit-laden with taxes and regulations. For example, Brasil has excess sugar cane they are more than willing to sell contracts for. They de-weeded a swamp called a rain forest to grow sugar cane. Now they can't export the excess stuff to us because of blowhards in D.C.
All you need is 50% gasoline, 48% alcohol, and 2% nitrous oxide which will desolve in it. That will make gals driving Ford Echos burn rubber, throw the ciggie out and put the cell phone down. That's a good thing.
If only they could do it without screwing the American taxpayer.
Just how many aircraft carries would you recommend selling if oil shale became productive enough to supply our petroleum needs? How many bombers would you decommission? How many battalions would you retire?
And who has been making hundreds of millions from the sugar tariff for decades?
Let the Brazilians make some dollars importing ethanol while we see just what the impact is. Sounds like a sound capitalist experiment.
Yeah, cheap Brazilian ethanol is more corrupt than expensive American ethanol. How's that work exactly?
I expect that will happen within a few years. There is also work underway on varieties of sugarcane that can grow further north. The market will continue to evolve. Adjustment of tariffs and subsidies tends to lag because of the political friction involved but they will change eventually. I will hazard a guess and say that will happen within five years.
Biodielsel is more heavily subsidized than ethanol. Ethanol is viable right now without subsidy. Biodiesel is not. With the subsidy, however, biodiesel production is ramping up very rapidly. We produced 2 million gallons in 2000 and 245 million gallons last year. The USDA projection is 375 million gallons for 2007 rising to 700 million gallons by 2010. Still a drop in the bucket, however.
Can you provide some information concerning that claim? Thanks.
Waiting is OK, but don’t hold your breath....
Yeah, right!
While they were hyping ethanol, they increased their offshore production, formerly way behind times, nine-fold. May I suggest that if we were to increase our offshore production nine-fold we too would be energy independent.
yeah it may cause more use and expensive than oil but it will allow this country to be free from OPEC. I would pay 4 dollars a gallon to see them lose money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.