![]() |
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 02 May 2006 21:10:36 GMT, Jose
wrote: I think it's 60% less by volume, but it is clean burning. How much gas does it take to run the farm equipment to generate the corn in the first place? It depends on whos figures/studies and results you are willing to believe. There is a tremendous amount of information out there, in libraries, text books, and on the Internet and there is less agreement in it than with the causes of global warming. "Near as I can tell" it takes the equivalent of one gallon of ethanol through the growth, harvest, and production cycle to produce roughly a gallon and a half of product. That is a very small, net energy gain and far from putting ethanol into a economically competitive position as an alternative fuel regardless of claims. Also the entire chain is heavily subsidized along with tax breaks which makes some of the figures even more suspect. You can spend hours looking over the results of studies that show everything from about a 25 to 30% net energy loss to a very large net energy gain, but nothing about the parameters used in those studies and the studies mean nothing unless you can see what they took into consideration. Having raised corn and still owning a small farm which I rent out, I can say with certainty the study that showed a large net energy gain had to have left out a lot of items in the cycle that use a lot of energy. Corn is heavily dependent on growing conditions as well as herbicides and pesticides. Dry years and wet years make for lean years. It also takes a lot out of the soil which has to recover several years before the next crop of corn. But is it clean burning... wait... I said that before, but it is clean burning. Actually it'll clean out an engine that's pretty badly carboned up. I do think is it a better choice in most cases than MTBE, but unfortunately not when used in aircraft systems. In Michigan we have the added problem that they no longer have to place stickers on the pumps telling what's in the gas. The stickers only state that the gas meets such and such a standard which may or may not include ethanol. I believe Michigan has used ethanol from the "get-go" and not MTBE as we've had Gasohol since the 70's. It took off in the 70's but a number of the producers went under shortly after the gas prices went back down. I know of no processes that were turning in a net energy gain back then. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com Jose |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Ethanol mogas | john smith | Owning | 16 | May 2nd 06 02:30 PM |
| MoGas Long Term Test: 5000 gallons and counting... | Jay Honeck | Home Built | 82 | May 19th 05 03:49 PM |
| MoGas Long Term Test: 5000 gallons and counting... | Jay Honeck | Owning | 87 | May 19th 05 03:49 PM |
| Ethanol Powered Airplane Certified In Brazil | Victor | Owning | 4 | March 30th 05 10:10 PM |