http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060419/...a_ethanol_dc_3

 

That explains it, failing engine seals have never bothered GM. Sorry if that was a low blow

 

Of course, hybridizing an ethanol car should help mitigate the FE loss from running E85 instead of gasoline.

 

Of course, hybridizing an ethanol car should help mitigate the FE loss from running E85 instead of gasoline.

 

Yeah. And although Ford introduced the E85-compatible Escape Hybrid at the DC auto show, it didn't sound like they were going to make it.

I don't get why it's got to be one or the other (other than added costs to hybridize and add E85 compatibility).

I want both.

Either a an E85 hybrid or a diesel hybrid I could run on biodiesel, I think, would be ideal. I lean towards biodiesel because I can make it in my garage, but I read recently that Kroger was committed to introducing E85 at their gas stations in Dallas and Houston... so if ethanol became available in the petrochemical capital of the US...

 

So have you done the calculations to figure out how much land would need to be devoted to biofuels, how much petroleum based fertilizer would be required, how much toxic insecticide would be required, and what the net energy gain would be when all was said and done?

 

Dead on. With people going hungry in the world WHY are we burning food? I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but this is a dumb idea. Ethanol can only make sense if net energy could be derived from leaves, stalks or other plant material that is not human edible.

Net energy gain is another riddle. To get alcohol you have to distill from a water solution. All is good until you reach 95% ethanol/water. Ethanol and water form a constant boiling mixture at 95.6%v/v EtOH with a boiling of 78.2 oC, a temperature near the boiling point of pure ethanol (78.5oC) and far away from that of water (100oC). To get that last 4.4% water out you have to expend a lot of energy. Unless processes has changed from the late 70's when the argument was fully debated, the best you can expect to do is break even.

What does it say about GM who has got the Go Yellow campaign if they can't even do the energy/human math of burning food in cars. Another shortcut rather than working the hybrid or fuel cell path.

Glowplug

 

Article in the paper this morning - we produce enough food to feed the world on a 4,000 calorie a day diet. We don't have a food shortage. We have a distribution problem.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong (which I might certainly be) but wasn't there a point in US history in which America DID distribute much of it's excess grain? ...AND didn't this "dumping" of all that excess grain harm the underdeveloped economies since local farmers had no way to compete with the Americans who were giving grain away for free?

Wasn't this part of the reason the government originally started subsidizing farmers for growing less or even none of a crop that they had previously grown?

It would seem that if the government it going to subsidize farmers for something, they should be subsidizing them for growing crops for fuel rather then growing nothing.

The use of pesticides and petroleum based fertilizers is another issue that I probably don't know nearly enough about, so I'll stop there and go do some research...

 

I'm right there with you, Toast.

The "let's feed the world, not our cars" angle is NOT the issue, here.
As others have mentioned, the energy/pollution expended to produce alternative fuels IS the issue.