Hyundai Genesis Forum banner

461 - 480 of 545 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,705 Posts
they use corn to make fuel while it would be much much easier to produce ethanol with hemp..
 

·
I'd rather do it myself
Joined
·
18,275 Posts
I live in the heart of corn country and hemp was a big product during WWII. Now all the do is spend tax dollars trying to kill it off. Illegal to cultivate thanks to the prohibitionist.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,705 Posts
using 8% of the surface of those corn fields to grow hemp would produce enough fuel to supply north/south america
 

·
Advenio Pariter
Joined
·
3,829 Posts
Corn is the staple of the American diet. Turning "food" into fuel makes no sense.

The creation of corn ethanol requires more energy to produce than the energy liberated later on when we burn it. This makes no sense. Brazil has proven "sugar ethanol" does make sense, however.

Ethanol has a lower energy content and hence lower mileage. I would postulate MORE pollution as a result of the lower mileage.

This is nothing more than a political boondoggle started by GW Bush and extended by the current regime. Once again, market distortion.
 

·
Advenio Pariter
Joined
·
3,829 Posts
I guess hemp is part of the "war on drugs" we have been losing for decades.
 

·
I'd rather do it myself
Joined
·
18,275 Posts
I guess hemp is part of the "war on drugs" we have been losing for decades.
Yes it is and it is quite the versatile product. Industrial hemp has many uses but getting a buzz is not one of them. It's called ditch weed around here and into western Indiana. In Illinois they kill it, in Indiana they stake it out and bust the people harvesting it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
Corn is the staple of the American diet. Turning "food" into fuel makes no sense.

The creation of corn ethanol requires more energy to produce than the energy liberated later on when we burn it. This makes no sense. Brazil has proven "sugar ethanol" does make sense, however.

Ethanol has a lower energy content and hence lower mileage. I would postulate MORE pollution as a result of the lower mileage.

This is nothing more than a political boondoggle started by GW Bush and extended by the current regime. Once again, market distortion.
It's true that ethanol doesn't contain as much energy per unit volume as gasoline. Ethanol is blended in to reduce emissions that are harmful to human health, not to reduce carbon dioxide emissions or get you better gas mileage.
 

·
I'd rather do it myself
Joined
·
18,275 Posts
It's true that ethanol doesn't contain as much energy per unit volume as gasoline. Ethanol is blended in to reduce emissions that are harmful to human health, not to reduce carbon dioxide emissions or get you better gas mileage.
Ethanol was originally used to reduce emissions. But emission control is so much better now it is not needed. It's really nothing but a boondoggle anymore and no need to use it as a motor fuel.

Much better uses for corn out there than spending $4 to make $4.50 worth of fuel, and get worse gas mileage and mess up small engine carbs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
Ethanol was originally used to reduce emissions. But emission control is so much better now it is not needed. It's really nothing but a boondoggle anymore and no need to use it as a motor fuel.

Much better uses for corn out there than spending $4 to make $4.50 worth of fuel, and get worse gas mileage and mess up small engine carbs.
It still does reduce emissions. By using the word emissions I'm not referring to the non-toxic water and carbon dioxide, I'm referring to carbon monoxide, particulate matter and other chemicals that are toxic to humans. Adding ethanol makes the oxidation of gas more complete and reduces the harmful emissions I just listed.

Sure it's more expensive, but that's why the government is there to enforce it's use. If it were up to business they would go the cheaper way and spew as many toxic chemicals as they wanted in the pursuit of larger profit. They originally used methyl tert-butyl ether because it is cheaper, but that stuff is really toxic and was finding it's way into our water supplies.
 

·
I'd rather do it myself
Joined
·
18,275 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
It was introduced in the 70s to help with the pollution. I believe emission control has advanced quite a bit since then. I don't see how it improves the emissions just because there is an O atom attached when you can precisely control the fuel O2 ratio now.

Ethanol-Gasoline Fuel Blends May Cause Human Health Risks and Engine Issues | Environmental Working Group

You realize ethanol cannot be transported in pipelines? This means it all has to be trucked or by train.
All that article does is question things and says increasing the minimum to 15% may do something. It's good to question things, but that's not proof that adding 5-10% ethanol doesn't work.

When you blend in ethanol it makes more oxygen available during combustion. Sort of like using nitrous oxide instead of molecular oxygen makes the gas oxidize faster. Blending in ether or alcohols that contain oxygen makes the combustion process more complete. The results are simple enough, all you have to do is monitor the emissions with pure and blended gas. Governments have done this and the results are the same; blending in ethanol reduces harmful emissions.

If you don't like the way it's currently being done than you have an argument. Maybe we should produce the ethanol differently. Maybe we should use a different additive instead of ethanol that is also non-toxic. If you have an alternate solution to the problem that is cheaper you can make yourself a billionaire pretty quickly.
 

·
I'd rather do it myself
Joined
·
18,275 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
If you want to add O2 to the fuel mix then just open the throttle. In the end ethanol is a net loss in petroleum and a gross polluter when used as an automobile fuel. It only helps older cars that have ancient emission control.

Ethanol Fuel from Corn Faulted as ‘Unsustainable Subsidized Food Burning’
I read that article and the conclusions you are drawing from it are incorrect. That article says nothing about the reduction in toxic emissions when burning ethanol blended gas. You can't just add more oxygen to the fuel air mix to achieve the same results.

The article is from an agricultural specialist and is about the economics of it. It's not about the chemistry of the combustion process or the health and environmental consequences of toxic emissions, which is the whole reason for using ethanol in the first place.

What the article claims, and I don't disagree with, is that based on the way ethanol from corn was produced in the 1990's it isn't realistic to run all cars and trucks on 100% ethanol. It would require over 90% of the land and cost more, so it's not a good idea.
 

·
I'd rather do it myself
Joined
·
18,275 Posts
What does ethanol do to the combustion process?

Adds an O atom, increases octane. Just how does it reduce deadly emissions on a new car? It requires more fuel per mile, about 5% from what I see. Some new cars actually leave the air cleaner than what went in depending on where you live.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
What does ethanol do to the combustion process?

Adds an O atom, increases octane. Just how does it reduce deadly emissions on a new car? It requires more fuel per mile, about 5% from what I see. Some new cars actually leave the air cleaner than what went in depending on where you live.
When you burn gasoline combustion is always incomplete. You also get by-products because of impurities in the gas. Think of what happens when you burn a piece of wood. Most of the mass turns into carbon dioxide and water while a lot of ashes remain as incompletely combusted wood. The exact same thing happens when you burn gasoline. Catalytic converts help convert some of the by-products to less harmful forms but can only do so much. When you blend in ethanol you reduce the amount of unburned gas.

If you want more detailed information take a look at this

http://http://www.greenfuels.org/uploads/documents/22_nec-whitten.pdf
 
461 - 480 of 545 Posts
Top