Re: Alternative "fuel" I see being perfected in the future.

by bigredlaguna Thu Jan 27, 2011 12:31 am

I don't have an opinion one way or another concerning ethanol, but I do dispute the food price increase being blamed on ethanol production.

Maybe it's different in the midwest, but here in my area, we also grow corn and we now have a few ethanol facilities. The corn that is grown around here is almost exclusively grown to feed cattle. When some of the bigger stills got made, everyone still planted feed corn.

The stills got some volume that would have been sold directly to feedlots if they weren't there. The by-product of the distillation (mash) is sold to the feedlots to feed the cattle. In the end, no cow goes hungry because of an ethanol producer.

Just what I see every day.

Milo is also used to make ethanol. Nobody I know eats that stuff.

by abajc3 Thu Jan 27, 2011 7:33 am

i just had an exam about these things a few weeks ago.

the problem with ethanol is that while it does burn clean, you need so much oil derivates to grow, harvest and process it, that running your car on good ol gas actually results in 20% lower fuel consumption (overall) than running on ethanol.

U.S. used one third of its corn in 2006 to make ethanol and yet it was sufficient for just 2% of the cars (this number seems a bit low to me, but thats the number from the book). since introduction of ethanol the new trend has appeared, where food prices grow in corelation with oil prices. this has never before been the case.

if you were to chop down the patch of forest to grow corn on, that field would have to be used for at least 125 years to save the same amount of co2 than the forest would thansform.

about electricity, just as many before me have said, its not that ecological when most of it comes from unrenewable resources. and although there may be a lot of coal left, its one of the dirtiest options available. yes there are filters and stuff, but this makes electricity much more expensive. the same is with some alternative sources. i still believe that the cleanest energy possible is nuclear energy. but then there is a problem of nuclear waste...

my favorite alternative fuel however is wood, provided that you have your own forest. we use it for heating and when i compare numbers to our neighbours we save about 2000$ or more in a single winter and mind you, we live in a wam climate! offcourse it takes some physical labour, but then again, so does earning 2000$! all you need is some diesel for the tractor and some gasoline for the chainsaw. and you can sell it for a really good price too.

by The Dude Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:05 am

I'm with you on wood's usage. No wood goes unused in my area. Hardwoods are good for wood stoves, but more importantly I use it for smoking. Especially fruit & nut woods. I typically smoke at least once a week & this includes throwing the beans, asparagus, potatoes, or whatever else I want cooked on the smoker as well. Rotten wood makes nice bonfires, softer woods I don't really mess with but they do serve their purpose for shade & housing animals.

But enough of that, surely there is a way to make a truly clean vehicle. Did anyone look at the links that I posted? Wonder how some of those steam powered cars are heated?

by Pdawgie Thu Jan 27, 2011 1:55 pm

Ran the numbers from my area and it's not super bad, lower than the national averages.

Non-Hydro 2.3
Hydro 48.6
Nuclear 3.3
Oil 0.3
Gas 10.8
Coal 34.4

by IndyG3 Thu Jan 27, 2011 2:26 pm

Screw it. Someone get to work on Flux capacitors. They convert trash into energy. Watch BttF 2.

by wokrdan AKA BU Balls Thu Jan 27, 2011 3:18 pm

Take a look at the Furd Nucleon. Sounds like a great idea, until you get a fender bender and scram your car out. (Yes, my job is to operate a nuclear reactor.)

by wokrdan AKA BU Balls Thu Jan 27, 2011 3:20 pm

Wait a minute...Everytime I spell F*O*R*D on here, it comes up as Furd.

by Roadcaptain S3 Thu Jan 27, 2011 3:33 pm

IndyG3 wrote:Screw it. Someone get to work on Flux capacitors. They convert trash into energy. Watch BttF 2.

But I just wanna go to the store, not 1955....

by IndyG3 Thu Jan 27, 2011 9:22 pm

Roadcaptain S3 wrote:

But I just wanna go to the store, not 1955....

Well then go back in time to when you had all of your groceries, grab them, then head home. Now you won't need groceries! lol!

by pila Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:25 am

No easy answers to the fuel situation. Cars in Europe get good mileage I'm told. Small engines? At 6 or 7 bucks a gallon, I can see why they have to get good mileage.

by 74Malibu383 Fri Jan 28, 2011 11:15 am

Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads.

by The Dude Tue Feb 08, 2011 10:42 am

Hydrogen powered Honda already on the market:
http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/

by lars Sat Feb 12, 2011 12:57 pm

Personally I don't think deconstructing the fabric of the water molucule is a good idea for energy. Yes, It would work, but the water we have has been on the planet since it's formation, and by 'deconstructing' the molecule we eliminate the water. It would be the situation that we have with oil. (We will never run out, we have soo much). I don't want that to be an area my generation and the next have to worry about.

Also, The Furd Nucleon was a great idea, but they never even worked on a reactor for it, they just had the idea and the design team came up with a body shell.

by lars Sat Feb 12, 2011 1:08 pm

Also, The supposed Ethanol really is worse for the environment then petrol. I have read many an article about this. Ethanol was a way created (sorry for this) by the Western farmers who needed a market for their corn. the actual process of turn corn into ethanol actually uses more fossil fuels to create it then it actually produces. Ethanol doesn't carry as much energy as gasoline(which is bad for engines.
see- http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=13652

It is also undesirable due to the fact that the world is increasing in food consumption, an increase which might not be met.
see- http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/04/science_magazine_ethanol_bad_f.html

Sorry to crush your blossoming ideas, but being a 16 year old, and thinking of this out right for a real while makes me have to inform.

by The Dude Sat Feb 12, 2011 3:12 pm

lars wrote:Personally I don't think deconstructing the fabric of the water molucule is a good idea for energy. Yes, It would work, but the water we have has been on the planet since it's formation, and by 'deconstructing' the molecule we eliminate the water. It would be the situation that we have with oil. (We will never run out, we have soo much). I don't want that to be an area my generation and the next have to worry about.

Also, The Furd Nucleon was a great idea, but they never even worked on a reactor for it, they just had the idea and the design team came up with a body shell.

Actually, you aren't using up water at all. It actually emits water as it exits the engine by combining with oxygen (H20). Think of it as rain. When it rains, the water eventually evaporates & re-enters the atmosphere creating clouds until they eventually fill up & it rains again. The only real problem that I foresee is a possible increase in precipitation throughout the year. Is this good or bad? You decide.

I'm not huge on ethanol, but if you read through everything that has been posted here including articles, you will see a lot of good ideas have been mentioned. Sure they none are perfect or scientists would have already found a solution, but then again this is the reason for this debate topic.

by Sponsored content