Food for thought on Bush and alternative fuels

[NapaBavarian]

I hear bush pushing alternative fuel, but I don't believe it, he is pushing a pipe dream, he is looking for the hardest way to get there and endorsing it because it will make reasearchers millions of dollars and not cut into the dino oil market.

There are 2 fuels that can be implemented right now, and both are to some degree, ethanol and biodiesel, ethanol has been arround since long before Mini Bush (AKA Bush Jr.) so if bush really wanted to cut our dependance on foreign oil and increase our farmers income why dosn't he push Biodiesel? It dosn't require any new infrastructure and can be blended just like ethanol, perhaps he just wants to sound like he loves the enviroment

[bwb3]

Audi won Sebring this weekend, with a diesel. Commentators were saying this will be the performace engine of the future.

[Red SVX 92]

Anybody have articles/data for or against ethanol as an alternative fuel? I've heard that it takes more energy (i.e. fossil fuels) to make it than you can get from it.

[NapaBavarian]

I have heard this as well, but it's gotta be a crock, if it did in fact take as much energy as they say then you would need to pay for all of that when you buy ethanol, in other words if it took 1.5 gallons of fossil fuel to produce 1 gallon of ethanol then when you buy ethanol you would need to pay 1.5 times the cost of a gallon of fossil fuel, plus all the farmers expences, plus all manufacture expences, plus depreciation on all equipment used from seeding to pumping into your tank, it would cost 3x or more what gasoline costs.

[AppStateSVX]

Originally Posted by NapaBavarian

I have heard this as well, but it's gotta be a crock, if it did in fact take as much energy as they say then you would need to pay for all of that when you buy ethanol, in other words if it took 1.5 gallons of fossil fuel to produce 1 gallon of ethanol then when you buy ethanol you would need to pay 1.5 times the cost of a gallon of fossil fuel, plus all the farmers expences, plus all manufacture expences, plus depreciation on all equipment used from seeding to pumping into your tank, it would cost 3x or more what gasoline costs.

that's what I heard as well, I think that is why the "alternative fuels" have never really caught on. I think Hydrogen Cars are going to be the eventual replacement. BMW has a 7 Series that runs off hydrogen, it is in it's final stages of development

[dcarrb]

We'll see no significant progress in regard to petroleum costs, reserves, imports or alternatives, so long as the presiding U.S. administration is wholly owned by Big Oil. Ditto global warming. Stock-up on sunscreen.

A mainstream news item I saw just within the past couple of days asserted that the capacity to produce biodiesel fuels can never meet existing U.S. demand, even if every acre of land in the lower 48 were planted in oil-producing soybeans. (Wish I could remember the figures.) Simply put, it takes an ocean of oil to run this country.

There's not likely to be one simple, revolutionary technological breakthrough to solve our dilemma. The only plausible short term solution lies with ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen, hybrids, and electrics all employed in concert... along with good, old-fashioned thrift (read: conservation).

dcb

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by AppStateSVX

that's what I heard as well, I think that is why the "alternative fuels" have never really caught on. I think Hydrogen Cars are going to be the eventual replacement. BMW has a 7 Series that runs off hydrogen, it is in it's final stages of development

Hydrogen is the way to go, and the technology is available. But right now, the cost of extracting and storing the fuel is pretty high.

It has to be extracted from water before the car turns it to water again.

[Red SVX 92]

Originally Posted by NapaBavarian

I have heard this as well, but it's gotta be a crock, if it did in fact take as much energy as they say then you would need to pay for all of that when you buy ethanol, in other words if it took 1.5 gallons of fossil fuel to produce 1 gallon of ethanol then when you buy ethanol you would need to pay 1.5 times the cost of a gallon of fossil fuel, plus all the farmers expences, plus all manufacture expences, plus depreciation on all equipment used from seeding to pumping into your tank, it would cost 3x or more what gasoline costs.

That makes sense. Perhaps the costs would increase significantly if output were to be ramped up to level that could sustain our economy? Sounds counterintuitive, but I don't know the processes used.

[NapaBavarian]

Don't forget that a large part of polution produced by pure biodiesel or the biodiesel part of B20 was absorbed by the oil producing plant a few months/year earlier, so it is cycling the polutants from air to solid to liquid and back to air, not adding what was essentially stored for millions of years in oil deposits.

I went to this site

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/bymanuNF.shtml

and compared gasoline VS diesel engines of the same year in the same vehicle with the same transmission and found that consistantly the diesel engines without much polution controll (late 80's early '90s) and with mechanical injection (could be most closely related to a carbureted gasoline due to the non closed loop aspect) emited lower anual green house gasses than their gasoline brethern with electronic closed loop fuel injection, catalytic converters and extensive polution controlls.
Now I fastforwarded to 2002 VW since it is the only mainstream diesel availible in the states curently, 1.9L diesel emits 20% less greenhouse gas than 2.0l gasoline, and when compared to the larger gasoline engines the difference is even greater.

With the advances in computer controlled diesel engines particulate mater has been drastically reduced in stock power plants, sadly not in some overly modified vehicles though

[NapaBavarian]

Originally Posted by Red SVX 92

That makes sense. Perhaps the costs would increase significantly if output were to be ramped up to level that could sustain our economy? Sounds counterintuitive, but I don't know the processes used.

Probably, it isn't the only solution, more people using mass transit would be great, but in the sparcely populated areas out here ridership would be inadequate to support it a 15 minute drive across town would take almost 2 hours by bus so what is the point of saving a couple dollars to ride the bus? I looked into building a little electric car to drive arround town, but it would be so expensive to build that by the time it half way paid for its self I would need new batteries.

I'd love to see a hybrid diesel electric that could get 100+mpg