Dave,

How can you call Ethanol a "Starry Eyed Approach" when we are already
putting close to 4 Billon gallon into the Nation's Energy supply/year?

Also; before you damn Ethanol's cost let's see just how much cost is
involved in fossil fuel. We both know it's not free. I can offer 77%
return on Ethanol. What do you say is Oil's % of return on a gallon of
Mid-East Crude delivered to Long Beach, Calif.?

http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage

Not only that but according to my calculations oil will be at 213 a
barell by 2010.

Nuclear power is the way to go IMO.
No waste problems, we can use the depleted uranium in Iran.

With todays technology we can make nuclear power plants for autos,
boats, home's ect.

Using wind to power anything will never happen.

Capt. Suzy
35s5
NY

"SUZY" wrote
Nuclear power is the way to go IMO.
With todays technology we can make nuclear power plants for autos,
boats, home's ect.

But as Dave pointed out, not with today's mindset and the triumph of faith over
reason.

Blind faith tells many that Nuclear power is bad. If advertising can convince
the same fools that Ethanol is the way to go, we will, no matter what the cost.

Vito,

I didn't know you had an Eye Problem.
It should clear up with Ethanol. 85% less emissions (G)

http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage

"Thom Stewart" wrote
Vito,

I didn't know you had an Eye Problem.
It should clear up with Ethanol. 85% less emissions (G)

I simply don't believe that, although I trust you do. What emissions does it
have 85% less of?

Again, before 1970, US and other cars made good use of high octane gas in high
compression engines. But these high compression engines made NOx, not from
gasoline but from compressing and heating air. So EPA dictated that all US
engines had to run on lower octane unleaded gasoline, which required lowering
compression ratios significantly. The new cars typically got 40% poorer gas
mileage and thus produced more COx *per mile* even with expensive catalytic
converters - but they did make less NOx. OK?

In fact, we could reduce gas consumption by that same 40%+ over the next 5 years
by simply requiring that all new cars have high (12:1+) compression engines and
that refineries provide the high octane gasoline they'd need. The "Ethel" Corp.
would be back in business!

Moreover, if you used high octane gas in a low compression engine, designed for
unleaded regular, you will get less power and poored mileage than from running
regular - and make more carboniferous smog. This is because the high octane gas
will not be fully burned in the lower compression motor.

Ethanol has an even higher equivalent octane rating than leaded gas. That's
what made it an attractive racing fuel. It permitted 14:1 and higher compression
ratios that made more power (especially with a tad of nitro). But, for that
reason, it cannot burn efficiently in a low compression motor any more than
super-high octane race gas will. It follows that, if you build motors to use
ethanol efficiently, then they will perforce make more NOx. Alternately, if you
retain low compression, you cannot burn the Ethanol properly and will get both
poor milage and thus make more COx per mile. It is inescapable.

Magic bullet proponants try to cover up these facts with half-truths by pointing
to mileage achieved by tiny light cars running E85, but never mentioning that
these cars cannot pass DOT safety spec's and would do just as well on gasoline -
just as they hide the unfavorable balance of energy in/out by ignoring the
energy cost of growing corn. You are prone to the same when you cite the cost of
oil. The dollar cost of crude oil is meaningless to the energy in/out equation.
Question is "How much *energy* does it take to get that crude and make enough
gasoline to propel a typical US car say 100 miles?" versus "How much energy does
it take to grow the corn and make enough Ethanol to push the same car the same
distance with the same level of performance?".

Vito,

I'd like to remind you that this whole OT discussion started about "High
Price Of Imported oil" I must be missing something in your Posts. I'm
not sure you have ever addressed the problem of dependence on foreign
imported oil.

You haven't, as yet, address todays Ethanol technology production of
Cellulosic Ethanol. Vito, if we are using switchgrass to make Ethanol,
it cost us nothing to grow Corn! Switchgrassis a Perennial and doesn't
need to be plowed or planted, just cut like Hay. It will grow on very
poor soil, where food crops can't grow. The same can be said for Popular
trees, sugar cane stalks, even urban wastes. This also produces enough
heat to Co-Gen Electricity.

Vito, I've heard it said that swtchgrass growing on unusable land could
free us from foreign imported oil.

As far as emissions; probably the same as gasoline but some 85% less.
Even if we burn another 1/2 gallon for the same energy, the emissions
are still less, plus its "MADE IN AMERICA"

http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage