"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
George Z. Bush wrote:

"D. Strang" wrote in message

Ethanol is a welfare program. It has nothing to do with future energy.

You don't know what you're talking about. When you pour a gallon of it into
your gas tank, that's one less gallon of gasoline that you're going to need,
because it's supposed to burn just about as good as gasoline does. That has
to
do with reducing gasoline consumption, the way I see it. Unfortunately, for
some reason, it never caught on with consumers.

I like ethanol. My car does that is. Seems to run a little smoother
when I'm cruising across Iowa where "gasohol" can be found in
abundance.

But from an energy conservation point of view, it really isn't very
good sense. How much energy does it take to create ethanol from
corn? How much energy do you get back from burning it with gas?

It's a net energy loss IIRC.

Maybe it's because I don't fully understand how it works, but if, as you say, it
runs as smoothly in your car as does gasoline and if the stuff is made of
surplus corn not otherwise needed to nourish human beings, why doesn't its
manufacture in far larger quantities than presently help to extend the life of
our oil reserves? For every gallon of ethanol-containing gasohol that is burned
(made of stuff that otherwise would likely rot and be of no value to anyone),
would that not represent at least a portion of a gallon of gasoline that won't
be burned in its place, therefore extending the life of our petroleum reserves?
How can that be an energy loss?

Is the fact that there might not be as much profit in a gallon of gasohol as
there is in a gallon of gasoline what inhibits an expansion of the amount of
ethanol manufactured?

If so, should our national energy policy be based on the profitability of the
fuel used by our nation's consumers, or should that factor have any influence at
all?

it has been stated that if diesel prices reach $2.00 a gallon, that the
current technology in algae production would be able to match that price,
with future prices going lower as production increases, and technology
improves.

That's all well and good, but 25+ years after they started looking into the
possibilities, there is still nothing available that is cost-effective
enough to
put on the market. Since no one denies that we ought to be able to rub our
bellies and scratch our heads at the same time, why haven't they created
greater
demand on vehicle manufacturers to produce engines capable of simultaneously
reducing fuel consumption and expanding the life of our petroleum reserves
and
stocks while, at the same time, continuing to explore alternative sources?
That's a rhetorical question, and I'm sure you know the answer as well as I.

Because oil is what drives the economy, and because no satisfactory
alternative is anywhere on the horizon, with the possible exception
of hydrogen driven fuel cell technology in perhaps 20 years.

The infrastructure is set up for oil and whatever replaces oil should
fit that same infrastructure for best effect.

The idea you're going to "stick it" to oil companies with some new
technology is naive.

As I recall, they said just about the same thing way back when most cars could
only get 10 or 15 mph, and the federal government mandated that they needed to
improve dramatically as their contribution to our national energy policy. It
took a few years, but after that, just about every vehicle on the market was
capable of getting 25-30 mpg from our existing fuel supply. I don't think
anyone is claiming that the efficiency of existing auto engines have reached any
sort of pinnacle. I suspect that, if pushed, the manufacturers will again
produce, just as they have in the past. Call it naive if you will, but many
people think it possible.

.....The oil companies will become the "hydrogen companies", or "solar
companies" or "wind
companies" of the future.
They're not going away and until fusion nukes come along, energy is
always going to be a hard to come by, costly resource.