+- +-


Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 51
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 15784
Total Topics: 267
Most Online Today: 54
Most Online Ever: 201
(December 08, 2019, 11:34:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 6
Total: 6

Author Topic: Ethanol  (Read 7230 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32573
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Ethanol
« Reply #15 on: January 17, 2016, 04:40:35 pm »
Elephant Grass and Prairie Switchgrass: Second Generation Biofuels to Power American Cars

Tim Radford, Climate News Network | January 17, 2016 11:21 am

In tomorrow’s world, it won’t be just the corn on the great American plains that is as high as an elephant’s eye. It will be the elephant grass as well.

To deliver on U.S. promises to reduce fossil fuel use, American motorists in future will drive on miscanthus—as elephant grass is also known—and prairie switchgrass.

Elephant grass has a high biomass yield and grows rapidly to over three metres tall.
Photo credit: Tony Atkin / Wikimedia Commons

Researchers led by Evan DeLucia, professor of biology at the University of Illinois, report in a new journal, Nature Energy, that to exploit biofuels—which recycle carbon already in the atmosphere, and are therefore technically “carbon-neutral”—Americans will have to think again about how they manage the change away from fossil fuels.

Right now, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Renewable Fuel Standards foresee that by 2022 American motorists will start up their cars with 15 billion gallons (57 billion liters) of ethanol from corn. But this could be augmented by 16 billion gallons (60 billion litres) of biofuel derived from perennial grasses.

Energy Source   

The switch to the prairie’s native switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) and Eurasian elephant grass (Miscanthus giganteus) will be necessary because there are problems with corn as a source of energy.

One is that, in an increasingly hungry world, it reduces the overall levels of food available. The second is that corn requires annual planting, fertilizing and harvesting. Perennial grasses simply grow, and can be mown once a year.

So by turning over surplus land to swift-growing grasses, and at the same time reducing the levels of carbon dioxide released from cultivation, the U.S. could meet its target of a 7 percent reduction in its annual transportation emissions by 2022. If farmers went on gradually to switch from corn to the grasses, the reduction could get as high as 12 percent.

Professor DeLucia said: “Greenhouse gas savings from bioenergy have come under varying levels of attack, and this paper goes a long way to showing that, contrary to what some are saying, these savings can be potentially large if cellulosic biofuels from dedicated energy crops meet a large share of the mandate.

“This is a viable path forward to energy security, reducing greenhouse gases and providing a diversified crop portfolio for farmers in the U.S.”

The researchers used a climate model to test what would happen if land now being used to grow corn (Zea mays) for ethanol—currently, 40 percent of the corn harvest is used for biofuel—was switched to the two candidate grasses.

Store More Carbon   

“Our results were staggering,” Professor DeLucia said. “Since both of those plants are perennial, you don’t till every year. The grasses also require less fertilizer, which is a source of nitrous oxide, and they store more carbon in the ground than corn.”

The switch could turn the U.S. Midwest from a net source of greenhouse gas emissions to a “sink” absorbing them. The study assumed that, rather than the most productive soil, the low-yielding land would be converted to grasses for biofuel.

It also factored in some of the other consequences: if the extra billions of gallons of fuel led to a fall in fuel prices, would Americans drive more, and eliminate the carbon savings? Even if that did happen, such a change has the potential to reduce U.S. emissions overall.

But growers have to be sure that energy policies will be consistent, according to the paper’s co-author, Madhu Khanna, professor in the Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics at the University of Illinois.

“The moral of this whole story is that we need to find a way to expand the production of second generation biofuel crops and maybe even displace corn ethanol,” she said.


Agelbert NOTE: Nice article. 

Unfortunately, the mandatory baloney from a fossil fueler  gets spewed out every single time the benefits of ethanol are pointed out in an article...  ::)

rusty hesson
With a 7-30 % reduction in fuel milage Ethanol never has or will "replace oil".

Agelbert responds to propagandized idiot:

That has ALWAYS been a lie fostered by the fossil fuel industry. Once engines have the proper compression ratio, E100 (100% ethanol) gives the same or better mileage with LESS engine wear BECAUSE there is LESS waste heat from the combustion process.

The alleged "greater energy density" of gasoline versus ethanol is based on enthalpy calculations that measure EXTERNAL combustion (i.e. boiling water in an OPEN flame). It is true that gasoline produces more raw heat. BUT, a significant portion of that HEAT is WASTE HEAT that merely increases engine wear and DOES NOT translate to mechanical energy in INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES. Not only must gasoline combustion waste heat be SUBTRACTED from it's energy density, the INCREASED FRICTION created by that WASTE HEAT must be subtracted as well.

.. the irrelevancy of Btu as a measurement of ethanol performance compared to gasoline that gets into a lengthy dialogue about what a Btu measures and a discussion on engines. “The whole creation of Btu rating and understanding was to determine what it takes to heat water one degree. This was important (and still is important) when dealing with steam engines or water heaters or cooking using fire. Btus have no importance in internal combustion engines. Engine optimization is the key.

Op-Ed: Big Oil Tells More Lies About Ethanol, Only Idiots Believe Them

The truth that the fossil fuel industry propaganda wishes to hide by erroneously claiming ethanol is not a better fuel than gasoline (even though Thomas Edison and the U.S. Naval Laboratories said ethanol WAS A BETTER FUEL way back in 1906!) goes way beyond mere fuel economy.

Modern technology from studies HERE and in Brazil have determined the following inconvenient (for the fossil fuel industry) FACTS:

1) A high compression engine designed specifically to run on ethanol
is at least 33% lighter because the alloys do not have to be engineered to handle the high waste heat of gasoline. Said engine will have BETTER mileage because of the consistency of the fuel (ethanol is only one consistent chemical compound at a consistent and predictable combustion temperature, unlike gasolene) reduced weight, lower maintenance and longer life from running consistently at lower temperatures. Of course, using gasoline in it would be prohibited. Running on the witches brew of volatile organic compounds, industrial solvents ( up to 40% of a gallon of NON-hydrocarbon content of gasoline that dissolve plastics quite well) and various DIFFERENT long chained hydrocarbons called gasolene would ruin such an engine. So you can see how the fossil fuel industry would not be happy campers about allowing such an engine to be manufactured in, or imported to the USA. In fact, your beloved fossil fuel crooks and liars have made it a LAW in the USA that ethanol MUST have a certain amount of gasoline in it in the USA. The threadbare excuse is "to prevent people form drinking unlicensed booze" (LOL!). Brazil is not amused. They use E100 without ANY difficulty whatsoever.

2) Ethanol DOES NOT require REDUCING the amount of crops grown for food,
either for people or animals. WHY? Because crops such as switchgrass, Hemp and SEVERAL OTHERS can be grown on NON chemically fertilized land considered NON arable land for food crops.

3) As Abengoa has demonstrated, the cellulose refuse from food crops, hitherto thrown out (stalks and roots from corn) CAN be processed into ethanol without making a dent in the acreage used for food crops. So the crocodile tears from the fossil fuel industry about ethanol taking food out of people's mouths is ANOTHER LIE.

from the refining of crude oil. John D. Rockefeller used to poison horses and cows that drank in the rivers of Pennsylvania (downriver from his refinery)  in the late nineteenth century when he would flush it down the river at night (the farmers tried to mob him for it!) when his main product was lubricants. Rockefeller began the Fossil fuel tradition of "externalizing costs" FROM THE START.

It was John D. Rockefeller that convinced Henry Ford to MODIFY his Model T engines so they run on gasoline instead of what they ALREADY ran on, ethanol.

It was John D. Rockefeller who FUNDED efforts at Prohibition that ended up FORCING farmers to run their tractors on gasoline instead of ethanol. Yes, sports fans, Prohibition WAS NOT really about booze. It was REALLY about cornering the fuel market on behalf of Jon D. Rockefeller's, WASTE product.

It was John D. Rockefeller's fossil fuel Standard Oil empire that introduced LEADED gasoline (tetra ethyl lead additive from Du Pont) when ethanol was accidentally on purpose outlawed as an engine fuel during Prohibition (ethanol has a higher octane than gasoline so a replacement was needed for high compression engines) .

For those who say that leaded gasoline has been outlawed so that is no longer a problem , let me enlighten you.

TO THIS DAY, internal combustion engine powered small aircraft in the USA STILL use LEADED GASOLENE when the technology to run those engines on E100 has been available for several decades. It is LEGAL to run that green died stuff called avgas containing TETRA ETHYL LEAD.

Every single bit of damage to humans and other life forms in the biosphere from leaded gasoline going all the way back to Prohibition, including the children of people living under the approach path to runways of general aviation airports is an "externalized cost" that we-the-people have been FORCED to subsidize for the benefit of fossil fuel industry profits.

It's time to return gasoline to the category of WASTE PRODUCT again. It's time for the fossil fuel industry to PAY WHAT THEY OWE we-the-people for the environmental DAMAGE caused by its waste products, ALL OF THEM. 

Prosecute Exxon For Deliberate Climate Denial

Renewable is the cheaper energy option without fossil fuel and hidden nuclear subsides.
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23


+-Recent Topics

Money by AGelbert
03 Apr, 2020 16:15

Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda by AGelbert
03 Apr, 2020 14:36

New Pandemic? by AGelbert
03 Apr, 2020 13:30

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
03 Apr, 2020 12:19

Future Earth by AGelbert
03 Apr, 2020 12:08

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
03 Apr, 2020 07:53

Darwin by AGelbert
02 Apr, 2020 23:47

Comic Relief by AGelbert
02 Apr, 2020 23:12

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
02 Apr, 2020 22:25

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
01 Apr, 2020 23:13