Alternative fuels vs oil

[grant23]

With all of the advancements in technology why are we still using oil? I think money is the big player here. its cheaper to pollute the Earth than Use better forms of energy. I think the increase in oil prices may be just a hidden way to fund this retarted war or rebuilding of Iraq.? I think the fuel cell is a awesome invention but why is it not being mas produced and replacing oil as a energy source? Probably because it is fairly new tech and there is still research to work out some bugs it probably has.
For now, Why not start producing large quanties of Bio deisel instead of regular petro deisel? Why not replace gasoline with Ethanol? Ethanol burns much much cleaner that oil. I know it takes about twice as much Ethanol to produce the same power as gasoline But its still a good alternative and current vehicles can be converted easily to run on Ethanol or bio deisel. This would in turn boost the farming industry by providing a high demand crop. The other good thing is both of the fuels are renewable. There are already plently of breweries producing Ethanol that we consume each year.

[novaderrik]

one of my friends that is against using fuels like Ethanol instead of gasoline uses the argument that at this point in time, it takes more energy to produce ethanol thant what you get back out of it. the tractors and what not that are used to grow the corn run on fossil fuels- diesel and gasoline. i just asked him what would happen if enough biodiesel was produced to run the farm equipment, and if the Ethanol processing plant were run on solar or nuclear, or wind power?
he didn't have a response.
i also pointed out that a century ago, it was thought that producing gasoline was thought to be too inefficient and expensive to allow for mass production, and that the diesel engine was originally invented to run on soy oil or something like that. well, they found a way around that then. and i think that if we wanted to, we could find our way around the whole cost/benefit deal today.
the only real problem i see with getting away from fossil fuels is political- not necessarily the oil companies, but all those governments around the world that live off the west's need for their oil. personally, i think that if we suddenly stopped using middle eastern oil, they would have such a huge breakdown over there and the whole region would fall into conflict, only united by their hatred of the west for not suppoting them anymore. so whatever terrorism threats we have now would be multiplied about 100 times over if we stopped propping them up. of course, they could still sell their oil to China, i guess, but they'd still hate us.

[cfgauss]

one of my friends that is against using fuels like Ethanol instead of gasoline uses the argument that at this point in time, it takes more energy to produce ethanol thant what you get back out of it. the tractors and what not that are used to grow the corn run on fossil fuels- diesel and gasoline. i just asked him what would happen if enough biodiesel was produced to run the farm equipment, and if the Ethanol processing plant were run on solar or nuclear, or wind power?
he didn't have a response.

Uhh, they would run out of fuel, because they wouldn't be capable of sustaining the level of production they need. With our technologies now, these ideas won't work. There isn't even physically enough land on the Earth to produce both the food we need and enough plants for the entire world's oil, either. The plants are also not as versatile, either. We can also do a *lot* more than just make gas with crude oil. Crazy conspiracies by oil companies and governments may be fun to think about, but in reality, no, it doesn't work like that!

Unfortunately, right now, there is no replacement for oil that is capable of sustaining our current needs (look the numbers up, they're *huge*). IMO, the best bet would be to try to genetically engineer a plant that would be ideal for this kind of thing, but this won't happen any time soon, because most of the pro-alternative-energy politicians are anti-genetically modified plants, because they aren't "natural" and they think they'll ruin the environment.

Although, electric cars are a good idea in theory, a lot of our power still comes from things like coal! And doing something like switching to all electric cars would only decrease oil use in one place to increase it at another. If we could have something like cheap, nuclear power, this would work really well, but again, most pro alternative-energy politicians cry when they hear the word "nuclear" because they think that it's evil (IIRC, MRI machines used to be called nuclear magnetic resonance machines, but they had to change it, because the word 'nuclear' in it scared too many people....)

[cfgauss]

Another point, even if we switch to some alternative energy, we'll still rely on oil for a long time. Are you going to sell your car for a $100,000 experimental car? I don't think so. Most people won't. Rich people with lots of money will do it to look like they care about the environment, but they will keep their Hummers, too! Businesses sure won't, either, especially ones with lots of heavy equipment. There's no way they could afford to buy all new equipment. Especially since the price of any gasoline-based vehicle would plummet, they couldn't sell them for much. Huge power plants that we rely on for power aren't about to suddenly switch over, either, that would be a big mistake, as it would be very easy for them to go bankrupt, or plunge us all into darkness (and then go bankrupt). They'd likely keep experimental plants going for years before thinking about doing something like that. Then you've got all kinds of things like commercial and private aircraft, that would have to switch over. Not to mention that the military runs on oil, too. Don't think we're about to trade in our tanks and bombers for electric ones any time soon! Then there's plenty of stuff that needs oil that alternative sources won't necessarily produce. Mainly, plastics, lubricants, etc.

So, even if some amazingly efficient replacement for oil is found soon, we won't be free of foreign oil for a long time. And trying to do it too quickly could possibly break the economy.

[Maha Vailo]

So, how radically would we have to change our lifestyles in order to have both fuel and food for ourselves when oil runs out/low? How will the world adapt to this? What all would we end up abandoning/cutting back on?

If you could answer all these questions in as much detail as you can, I would greatly appreciate it.

- Maha Vailo

[Argos]

For now, Why not start producing large quanties of Bio deisel instead of regular petro deisel? Why not replace gasoline with Ethanol? Ethanol burns much much cleaner that oil. I know it takes about twice as much Ethanol to produce the same power as gasoline But its still a good alternative and current vehicles can be converted easily to run on Ethanol or bio deisel. This would in turn boost the farming industry by providing a high demand crop. The other good thing is both of the fuels are renewable. There are already plently of breweries producing Ethanol that we consume each year.

Brazil has a large and ambitious alcohol program. A considerable fraction (some 20% and growing) of cars run exclusively on alcohol, and 90% of the newly manufactured cars are multi-fuel (they can run on gas alone, alcohol alone, or any proportion mix of the two). Also, a bio-diesel program was officially launched last month. There´s a new law demanding that the mineral diesel be mixed with bio-diesel at 3%, initially. Bio diesel is expected to boost the farming industry in the poor northeastern region. It will have a big impact on living standards there, besides the environmental benefits for all.

[Daffy]

Another point, even if we switch to some alternative energy, we'll still rely on oil for a long time. Are you going to sell your car for a $100,000 experimental car? I don't think so. Most people won't.

Of course, similar arguments were made against replacing one's horse and buggy with that bizarre tin lizzie contraption....

[pghnative]

For now, Why not start producing large quanties of Bio deisel instead of regular petro deisel? Why not replace gasoline with Ethanol? Ethanol burns much much cleaner that oil. I know it takes about twice as much Ethanol to produce the same power as gasoline But its still a good alternative and current vehicles can be converted easily to run on Ethanol or bio deisel. This would in turn boost the farming industry by providing a high demand crop. The other good thing is both of the fuels are renewable. There are already plently of breweries producing Ethanol that we consume each year.

Brazil has a large and ambitious alcohol program. A considerable fraction (some 20% and growing) of cars run exclusively on alcohol, and 90% of the newly manufactured cars are multi-fuel (they can run on gas alone, alcohol alone, or any proportion mix of the two). Also, a bio-diesel program was officially launched last month. There´s a new law demanding that the mineral diesel be mixed with bio-diesel at 3%, initially. Bio diesel is expected to boost the farming industry in the poor northeastern region. It will have a big impact on living standards there, besides the environmental benefits for all.

These two posts are inconsistent with:

at this point in time, it takes more energy to produce ethanol thant what you get back out of it.

If true, then it is silly to promote ethanol usage. Just because Brazil passed a law insisting on it doesn't make it a good idea.

And novaderrik's point (I should say, his friend's point), is likely true. Sure there are a lot of breweries producing ethanol. But they produce ~ 12% ethanol. Any higher percentage and the yeast keel over. That's an awful lot of water to boil off in order to produce the 90% ethanol needed.

Regarding

<snip> (what) if the Ethanol processing plant were run on solar or nuclear, or wind power?

That's irrelevant. If it takes more energy to run the ethanol processing plant than the ethanol itself supplies, then you are better off taking that solar or nuclear or wind power and running an electric car.

[fossilnut2]

As a geologist who has worked on and off in the fossil fuel industry for over 25 years I'm dismayed by the lack of perspective in the use of alternative fuels.

There's no eco systenm in N. America more destroyed than Great Plains (Prairies). A natural gassland may not be as scenic as an old growth forest Trees gow back...usually native trees. The grasslands? No, the heart is ripped out of the earth.
Brazil producing ethanol? Now there's a positive for the ecosystem. Good grief. Talk about jumping from the frying pan into the fire. Let's clear more forests.

The only practical solution to make more than a dent in issues revolving around fossil fuels is to use less energy and use it more efficiently. Nothing complicated. No mystery. Walk, ride your bike, turn off the lights, buy less 'stuff', have fewer kids, drive a smaller car, etc. Encourage $5/ gallon gas. Insist that your local utility triple its rates. Americans use about 20% of world oil. Americans make up about 5% of the world's population. The problem is not the Middle East. Look in the mirror.

[Taks]

Americans use about 20% of world oil. Americans make up about 5% of the world's population. The problem is not the Middle East. Look in the mirror.

this is changing as more 3rd world countries begin to develop. also, it's pretty easy to paint such broad strokes on the US. we may consume 20% of the world oil, but per unit work/production, we are MUCH more efficient than most of the rest of the world (the US GDP of $11 T is about the sum of the next three largest, which collectively use more fossil fuels than we do).

so don't be so quick to tell us to look into the mirror, because it's a two-way.

btw, it's nice to be able to say we should just "reduce our consumption" but in reality, that's not really feasible. the real solution would be to advocate safer, non-polluting fules such as nuclear power. get the activists off of their ill-informed tirade against the nuclear industry and we'll see major cuts in our consumption of fossil fuels.

taks

[Argos]

The american coalition for alcohol (ethanol.org) says the net energy balance of ethanol is positive, but I won´t take it into account because it´s obviously biased. I´m not sure if there´s a consensus on the matter. Case someone has a good independent source please post. It´s very strange that most of the Brazilian Scientific community support such a program. I should note that the USA is also experimenting with ethanol, since there´s an alcohol fuel program in Hawaii.

Now, there seems to be a consensus on that the atmospheric CO2 hijacking is better achieved with biomass in the growing phase. Sugar cane crops would be better CO2 sequesters than established forests. Anyway, the growing of sugar cane in Brazil doesn´t threaten the existing forests, because it´s currently grown on centuries-old prairies cleared in previous forest devastations, perpetrated by the European colonials.

With two sugar cane crops a year Brazil contributes significantly for the CO2 absorption. If you consider that part of this sequestered CO2 will take longer to get back to the atmosphere because of the ethanol cleaner burn, then the balance in fact seems to be fairly positive. Not to mention the jobs created in the countryside, oil dependence redux and everything else.

[antoniseb]

It's possible that Alcohol could be used as an alternative fuel. Basically, it would have to operate about the same way that Hydrogen would. That is, the fuel is not the source of energy, it is simply a medium for storing the energy. Some means, such as solar-thermal, or wind, or tidal, or geothermal, (or anything else) is used to provide energy someplace out of the way (like a vast desert), and energy is used to make the fuel (such as Hydrogen). The fuel is then distributed and used more or less conventionally. I assume (but don't know for sure that) methanol has a higher energy density than compressed Hydrogen.

[fossilnut2]

One can advocate alternate fuels forever but have to present practical technologies that will be successful in replacing fossil fuels. Or to put it another way: Reality

I've heard the same proposals for a couple decades and don't see any 'reality' in reduction of fossil fuel use. Our province is making billions and billions shipping more and more of it into the U.S. market. The only breakthroughs that have made a difference are in efficency of fossil fuel use by producing more energy with the same amount of fuel and by making that usage cleaner.(more fuel efficient engines and emission standards)

Alternate energies are nice but the real changes will be made by less energy use. Turn off the lights and ride your bicycle. Folks will claim to worry about global warming but then complain about higher gas prices. They should be applauding high prices. US gas demand was down 4% last week in California. I'm certain more folks at least considered getting a smaller vehicle next time around. Prices go down and fuel efficiency starts to leave the vehicle buying equation.

[Argos]

I live the reality of alcohol fuel, so someone has yet to prove me that the net energy balance (i.e. self-sustainability, for lack of a better word) of alcohol is negative to the point that it becomes inviable. Can someone present convincing arguments against it?

[Swift]

I think the answer is all of the above. I do not think a single solution will solve all of our energy needs, particular since the solutions for mobile uses (cars) will probably have to be different than stationary uses.

I think we need to investigate any and all alternative energy sources: clean coal, bio, wind, geothermal, solar, and nuclear (yes, some of us environmentalists are pro-nuclear). I think we also need to be more efficient in our use of power, and the "we" includes such countries as China and India. In the near term this is one of the cheapest, easiest solutions. But obviously we can't just "save", you also have to have an energy source.

What I find mind-boggling (maybe I'm just easily boggled) is that, at least in the US, the government is doing extremely little to seriously investigate and promote most of these technologies, and that this has been the case for more than 20 years.

As best as I can tell, the big federal push in this area (beyond pushing more oil exploration) is hydrogen. Most of the research efforts seem to be spent on hydrogen storage and fuel cell design. IMHO, the biggest problem with hydrogen is how to generate it. The most widely used current method is making it from oil, which defeats the whole purpose. In my mind, the only sensible ways would be nuclear (thermal cracking) or solar. Yet there seems to be little or no effort on either of these.

[Argos]

Brazil producing ethanol? Now there's a positive for the ecosystem. Good grief. Talk about jumping from the frying pan into the fire. Let's clear more forests.

You would prefer China burning coal, I presume.

About the forests, as I said somewhere above, grown-up forests don´t significantly sequester CO2. That´s a myth. There´s no such thing as Amazon-lung-of-the-world.

[novaderrik]

i never claimed to be an expert on the subject, and never in my wildest dreams do i think we'll get rid of oil anytiume soon as an energy source.
i just think it's stupid to stop trying to find a better way because it's too hard now.
my pie-in-the-sky ideal way of using energy would be to power all the "fixed' stuff- industry, housing, etc- with nuclear, solar, and wind power. once those sources of energy get deeply ingrained enough, there would probably be exccess energy left over from those sources of energy to make producing things like hydrogen and biomass based fuels for the "moving" stuff like cars, trucks, and airplanes and what not. mix in electric cars with solar panels and regenerative braking and what not, and things start to look pretty good. IF it gets adopted and used properly.
and i see no reason why i'd have to give up my old cars to make the switch- my 1984 Buick Regal T type runs great on E85 fuel- better, in fact, than it does on the premium grade gas i used to run. when i build my next engine for my 1974 Monte Carlo, it is going to be built to also run on E85 fuel. my cousin runs the stuff in his 1966 Chevelle with no ill effects. so a good chunk of the older cars on the road can run on the stuff, regardless of whether or not it came with a "flexible fuel compatible" sticker on it..

[Joff]

Ethanol production produces a slight surplus of energy over the production energy requirements, provided it's used in a reasonably efficient engine. Run a Hummer on it and you've lost, which probably accounts for the remarks.

I see some encouraging signs that the nuclear industry is finally being thought of in a positive light in all those countries where's it's had the status of pariah for so long. Once the reality of safe fission power is taken up and used properly, the production of electricity or hydrogen from these plants will give us time to develop something really good ... like fusion. Admittedly this has been "40 years away" for about 50 years, but I'm encouraged by something I read recently that talked about a fusion power station in 30 years time...

Renewables are great and we should pursue them but the level of power required would imply an awfully large land-area commitment to electricity generation. We would probably need to move to a more decentralised system (a solar roof on every house?)

[pghnative]

I live the reality of alcohol fuel, so someone has yet to prove me that the net energy balance (i.e. self-sustainability, for lack of a better word) of alcohol is negative to the point that it becomes inviable. Can someone present convincing arguments against it?

I made a big deal about it above, but no, I can't provide data one way or the other. My point --- and I think you agree -- it that that kind of data is really the crux of the matter.

I'm not so sure that market forces are to be ignored here. Someone here posted to the effect that "we've been talking about alternate fuels, and nothing's been done yet". The reason is that fossil fuels are still cheap. Now, you can make them more expensive (taxation), or wait for them to get more expensive on their own. The price for oil has tripled over the past few years. If the price keeps going up, industry will decide for itself when (if) it's economical to fuel cars with ethanol.

[Joff]

I should mention that ethanol production from sugar cane produces a surplus of energy over production requirements. Ethanol production from wood chips doesn't.

[fossilnut2]

[QUOTE=Argos]I live the reality of alcohol fuel, [/QUOTE

It's more likely that you live with the reality of a petroleum fuel with an alcohol portion (maybe up to 25% max)] And there was energy used to produce that 25% of alcohol (probably 35% or so). And that 35% doesn't include energy used to produce the vast amounts of herbicides, inseticides, etc. used on crops.

I was in Brazil on a geology mining tour in 1993. That's a while back so maybe things have changed for the better. One difference between Brazil and North America was the concern over the environment. Brazil may be the best in the world at soccer and have the best music but Brazil gets an 'F' when it comes to the environment. We were in a mining area and here we would all be thrown in jail if we caused such pollution to the land and to the water. Sorry, I don't believe for a second that the land used for ethanol production is all from colonial times, etc. as you state. Environment laws mean nothing in Brazil as long as a bribe can be given or nobody looks. We flew over areas where the forests were being burned so peasants could get land to produce crops, graze cattle and so on because other land that did (past tense) produce beans, etc. were forced into sugar cane production for ethanol. Government mandated ethanol percent requirements in Brazil is one of the major causes of forest destruction.

[Argos]

[QUOTE=fossilnut2][QUOTE=Argos]I live the reality of alcohol fuel, [/QUOTE

It's more likely that you live with the reality of a petroleum fuel with an alcohol portion (maybe up to 25% max)] And there was energy used to produce that 25% of alcohol (probably 35% or so). And that 35% doesn't include energy used to produce the vast amounts of herbicides, inseticides, etc. used on crops.

If you are asserting that the use of alcohol fuel is not viable economically and envionmentally, and that a country can only be dwelled by crackpots (besides the usual corrupts, etc) for having adopted such an idiocy, I´d like to see your numbers.

I was in Brazil on a geology mining tour in 1993. That's a while back so maybe things have changed for the better.

They have, thank you.

One difference between Brazil and North America was the concern over the environment. Brazil may be the best in the world at soccer and have the best music but Brazil gets an 'F' when it comes to the environment.

Not true. What mining has to do with sugar cane economy, btw? A recent census has shown that the deforestation rate has fallen very sharply in the last TWO years, as a result of positive policies. I´ll try to find additional info on the web, for later presentation. What do you say about Northe American and European performances? An "A"?

We were in a mining area and here we would all be thrown in jail if we caused such pollution to the land and to the water. Sorry, I don't believe for a second that the land used for ethanol production is all from colonial times, etc. as you state. Environment laws mean nothing in Brazil as long as a bribe can be given or nobody looks.

I think you are making a wholesale assertion, that simply does not correspond to the truth. Your statements are very, say, charged. Are you sure you are making an objective analysis?

We flew over areas...

You flew? A fine way to get acquainted with a situation.

Government mandated ethanol percent requirements in Brazil is one of the major causes of forest destruction.

And I say prejudices and superficial analysis are the worst causes of misinformation. Your assertions show you are poorly informed about the current situation.

[lek]

There's more in oil than just gasoline... It's needed in various plastic products etc.
Gasoline is actually a byproduct of oil refining, its toxic waste which would exist even if all cars were using biodiesel or whatever :/

[Ilya]

If it takes more energy to run the ethanol processing plant than the ethanol itself supplies, then you are better off taking that solar or nuclear or wind power and running an electric car.

Not necessarily. Ethanol may have half the energy density of gasoline, but it is still a lot higher than batteries (or compressed hydrogen, for that matter). And energy density matters.

I do not believe we'll lose internal combustion engines any time soon. But within a few decades, they will run on alcohol synthesized with nuclear power from water and CO2.

[Ilya]

So, how radically would we have to change our lifestyles in order to have both fuel and food for ourselves when oil runs out/low? How will the world adapt to this? What all would we end up abandoning/cutting back on?

Short answer --

Countries which embrace nuclear power will prosper. Countries which allow local nature-worshippers to dictate energy policy will... end up worshipping nature -- complete with human sacrifices (see Rwanda, East Timor and Yugoslavia*).

*I know, they do not actually worship nature in Yugoslavia. But the end result is about the same.

[Joff]

There's more in oil than just gasoline... It's needed in various plastic products etc.
Gasoline is actually a byproduct of oil refining, its toxic waste which would exist even if all cars were using biodiesel or whatever :/

I assume you're joking, because that's certainly not true. The light fractions of oil are the more valuable as chemical production feedstock. It would be a much better idea to use these for plastics production rather than fuel.

[Argos]

I do not believe we'll lose internal combustion engines any time soon. But within a few decades, they will run on alcohol synthesized with nuclear power from water and CO2.

That would be cool, really. So lets start with biomass (sugar cane).

[pghnative]

If it takes more energy to run the ethanol processing plant than the ethanol itself supplies, then you are better off taking that solar or nuclear or wind power and running an electric car.

Not necessarily. Ethanol may have half the energy density of gasoline, but it is still a lot higher than batteries (or compressed hydrogen, for that matter). And energy density matters.

Oh, OK. I see what your saying. So the ethanol is used to transport energy, not as a source, per se.

There's more in oil than just gasoline... It's needed in various plastic products etc.
Gasoline is actually a byproduct of oil refining, its toxic waste which would exist even if all cars were using biodiesel or whatever :/

I assume you're joking, because that's certainly not true. The light fractions of oil are the more valuable as chemical production feedstock. It would be a much better idea to use these for plastics production rather than fuel.

Good point, though gas and diesal are not light enough on their own. Nevertheless, presumably it would be trivial to modify the cat crackers to break gas and diesel down to C2 or C3 chains.

[Taks]

One can advocate alternate fuels forever but have to present practical technologies that will be successful in replacing fossil fuels. Or to put it another way: Reality

excuse me? nuclear energy is not practical why? sorry, but you're way off the mark here.

Alternate energies are nice but the real changes will be made by less energy use. Turn off the lights and ride your bicycle. Folks will claim to worry about global warming but then complain about higher gas prices. They should be applauding high prices. US gas demand was down 4% last week in California. I'm certain more folks at least considered getting a smaller vehicle next time around. Prices go down and fuel efficiency starts to leave the vehicle buying equation.

sorry, but reality is that the US will not be the primary user of fossil fuels in the very near future. developing nations will be. reality is also that it is simply not possible for people to just "ride a bike to work" as you suggest. try doing that when it's 100 degrees outside and you live 15 miles from work. try doing that when there's 2 feet of snow on the ground. reality, again, is apparently a little different for the rest of us living in the real world.

90% of the miles i put on my car are to and from work, a consequence of life that is unavoidable. i have my luxuries at home, and i pay for them as is my right to do so. advocating less energy use is great, but next to impossible for the country that drives the world economy.

taks

[publiusr]

Petrolium is with us. What we need to do is to stop this insipid war and spend on public works projects esp a Bering Strait Bridge/tunnel/pipeline to send oil out of Siberia. Stalin saw the future economic benefit and forced people to move there. With younger people moving out--it is only a matter of time before China makes its move north. Using rail to continue America's move west may be the only answer--with US oil proceeds going to Russia rather than to oil sultans and such.

The sad fact is that public works are opposed by BOTH sides of the political spectrum.

The primary purpose behind TVA was flood control, and then electrification. Were it to be propsed now--the right would hate it and want tax breaks, and the left would oppose it because of some snail darter or other.

America is losing the pioneer spirit that made the USA what it was--and we need to get it back.