 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / May 2006As we who THINK, knew all along..
Amid the current panic about gas prices many people are embracing ethanol. But that's not such a good idea... http://www.businessweek.com/print/autos/content/apr2006/bw20060427_ 493909.htm  SignatureYeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price you pay..DEAL with it! > Amid the current panic about gas prices many people are embracing ethanol. > But that's not such a good idea... > > http://www.businessweek.com/print/autos/content/apr2006/bw20060427_ > 493909.htm Link doesn't work. YES, I cut and pasted the second line. SignatureScott W. '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/ Than you did not paste it back together correctly, worked fine for me... >> Amid the current panic about gas prices many people are embracing >> ethanol. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Link doesn't work. YES, I cut and pasted the second line. > Than you did not paste it back together correctly, worked fine for me... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>> 493909.htm >> Link doesn't work. YES, I cut and pasted the second line. Yup, it works here too. The article is spot on in terms of ethanol probably doing nothing to help smog and reducing gas mileage. So when that is listed as the primary reason for using it, I get a chuckle out of it. The *real* reason (Tm) they replaced MTBE with ethanol is due to problems with MTBE winding up in ground water and it's persistence in the environment. Cheers, >> Than you did not paste it back together correctly, worked fine for me... >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > problems with MTBE winding up in ground water and it's persistence in > the environment. Plus, does anyone but me see a big problem with depleting the soil just to produce fuel? I think preserving our ability to grow food for future generations trumps filling up our tanks. Also, it takes a huge amount of energy to produce a gallon of ethanol. Much more than sucking oil out of the ground. IMO, promoting large scale ethanol production is just trading one set problems for another. >>> Than you did not paste it back together correctly, worked fine for me... >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > out of the ground. IMO, promoting large scale ethanol production is > just trading one set problems for another. You're preaching to the choir on that. Ethanol production is a very energy intensive process. If they could find a way to produce it in a "green" fashion without having to inject energy produced from piggy sources, and if it was still viable without all the government subsidies, it wouldn't be the "case closed stupid" idea that it currently is. The same goes for the "hydrogen economy." Right now, the only somewhat clean process (barring accidents) that is capable of larger scale deployment is nuclear energy. >>>> Than you did not paste it back together correctly, worked fine for >>>> me... [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > subsidies, it wouldn't be the "case closed stupid" idea that it > currently is. The same goes for the "hydrogen economy." I think the answer lies in an energy system based on electricity. That means the development of electric cars and using various means to produce electricity like wind, tides, ocean currents, geothermal, nuclear and maybe one day solar power. The transportation of electrical power from one area to another is efficient and dependable. Hydrogen is just too problematic, IMO, to use on a large scale basis. At least with our current technology. If someone would build an electric car that has a 300-400 mile range and can recharge in less than five minutes they would be wealthy beyond belief. I think the technology could be developed over the next 5-10 years with a coordinated and well funded effort. > Right now, the only somewhat clean process (barring accidents) that is > capable of larger scale deployment is nuclear energy. It's those pesky radioactive byproducts though that seem to hold back the nuclear option. Plus, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island didn't help either. ;) > I think the answer lies in an energy system based on electricity. That > means the development of electric cars and using various means to > produce electricity like wind, tides, ocean currents, geothermal, > nuclear and maybe one day solar power. The transportation of electrical > power from one area to another is efficient and dependable. Not in those generation forms. Perhaps something far more exotic, say a way of tapping dark energy for instance. Anyway... Electrical energy is difficult to store for vehicles. If the energy from a windmill is turned into ethanol, then we have a great storage of energy for vehicle use. Ethanol is all about the process used to make it. Make ethanol stupidly, and it's not worth doing. Make it in a smart fashion and it makes perfect sense to do. Sugar cane works so well because sugar cane can also fuel the ethanol production. Corn isn't so, but if the energy used to make it into ethanol comes from say a windfarm, we're still way ahead in the end. We've turned resources that can't power a car, wind and corn, into something that can, ethanol. The only factor then would be competing uses for wind power and corn... But that's the same as saying do we want gasoline or plastics? >> I think the answer lies in an energy system based on electricity. That >> means the development of electric cars and using various means to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > is turned into ethanol, then we have a great storage of energy for > vehicle use. I can't see the usefulness of utilizing conventional agricultural practices for the production of ethanol whether it be with corn or sugar cane. It depletes the soil too rapidly to make it justified. IMO, it is worse than burning oil. Maybe there will be a way to use genetic engineering for the production of fuel but that isn't feasible now and I hope it doesn't rely on a material that is produced through conventional agriculture. > Ethanol is all about the process used to make it. Make ethanol stupidly, > and it's not worth doing. Make it in a smart fashion and it makes perfect [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The only factor then would be competing uses for wind power and corn... > But that's the same as saying do we want gasoline or plastics? One thing we have plenty of is water. Maybe if we can find an efficient way to use electricity to create hydrogen and oxygen from passing electricity through water. This would allow the electrical energy to be stored for later use. Plus the combustion byproduct would be <drum roll please>..... WATER!!! Talk about the ultimate renewable resource. I think the key is use a combination of centralized and decentralized electrical power generation points. This way energy can be transfered from where there is excess to where there is a need and it can be done very quickly and at a moment's notice. Then again, maybe the "Flux Capacitor" is about ready for prime time. ;) >>> I think the answer lies in an energy system based on electricity. That >>> means the development of electric cars and using various means to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> is turned into ethanol, then we have a great storage of energy for >> vehicle use. > I can't see the usefulness of utilizing conventional agricultural > practices for the production of ethanol whether it be with corn or sugar [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > hope it doesn't rely on a material that is produced through conventional > agriculture. Crop rotation. Food production would burn out the soil too if done stupidly. >> Ethanol is all about the process used to make it. Make ethanol stupidly, >> and it's not worth doing. Make it in a smart fashion and it makes perfect [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> The only factor then would be competing uses for wind power and corn... >> But that's the same as saying do we want gasoline or plastics? > One thing we have plenty of is water. Maybe if we can find an efficient > way to use electricity to create hydrogen and oxygen from passing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > from where there is excess to where there is a need and it can be done > very quickly and at a moment's notice. H2 still has storage problems and the energy losses are greater in its production. >Hydrogen is just too problematic, IMO, to use on a large scale basis. >At least with our current technology. If someone would build an >electric car that has a 300-400 mile range and can recharge in less than >five minutes they would be wealthy beyond belief. You forgot 175 mph top end and 0-60 speeds in under 5 seconds... -- lab~rat >:-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere? lab~rat >:-) wrote: >> Hydrogen is just too problematic, IMO, to use on a large scale basis. >> At least with our current technology. If someone would build an >> electric car that has a 300-400 mile range and can recharge in less than >> five minutes they would be wealthy beyond belief. > > You forgot 175 mph top end and 0-60 speeds in under 5 seconds... You know a gear head will make that happen. Beef up the electric motors and drain those batteries faster is all it would take. Not much different, in principle, than hot rodding a gasoline engine. ;) >lab~rat >:-) wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >and drain those batteries faster is all it would take. Not much >different, in principle, than hot rodding a gasoline engine. ;) Right, maybe shave the contact surface of the brushes for less drag? My point is that to compete with cars we have now, Those speeds, the range and the quick charge MUST ALL be a part of the equation. Normal people like us car folks won't settle for stepping back in performance for new technology... -- lab~rat >:-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere? lab~rat >:-) wrote: >> lab~rat >:-) wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > people like us car folks won't settle for stepping back in performance > for new technology... I think gasoline (or an equivalent, cleaner burning substance) will be available for a very long time. One hundred years from now I'm sure a gear head will be able to fill his 2007 GT500 and take it for a drive. >lab~rat >:-) wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >available for a very long time. One hundred years from now I'm sure a >gear head will be able to fill his 2007 GT500 and take it for a drive. And I'm hoping it will be synthetic gas. I mean, hey, I'm putting unleaded gas in MY old car... -- lab~rat >:-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere? > > Right now, the only somewhat clean process (barring accidents) that is > > capable of larger scale deployment is nuclear energy. > > It's those pesky radioactive byproducts though that seem to hold back > the nuclear option. Plus, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island didn't help > either. ;) Yeah, but us humans seem to think that because the smokestacks are real high that the pollutants will just disappear into space or sumthin. ;-) At least with nuke waste you know where it is and what it's doing. Ultracapacitors may eventually be a much better choice for cars: http://www.gizmag.com/go/5192/ -John O >>> Right now, the only somewhat clean process (barring accidents) that is >>> capable of larger scale deployment is nuclear energy. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > high that the pollutants will just disappear into space or sumthin. ;-) > At least with nuke waste you know where it is and what it's doing. I think nuclear power is a good thing at this time. Not a long term solution though. > Ultracapacitors may eventually be a much better choice for cars: > http://www.gizmag.com/go/5192/ Here is some information on the air powered car. I watched a TV show about this and it looked very interesting. http://www.theaircar.com/ http://auto.howstuffworks.com/air-car.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2281011.stm >If someone would build an > electric car that has a 300-400 mile range and can recharge in less than > five minutes they would be wealthy beyond belief. I think the > technology could be developed over the next 5-10 years with a > coordinated and well funded effort. We're not far from what you imagine: "Fuji Heavy Industries, the maker of Subaru brand vehicles, announced that it will release the R1e electric minicar by 2010, and that the vehicle will begin roadtests in Japan this year. Based on the R1 minicar, the R1e uses a lithium-ion battery can be recharged to 90% of capacity in five minutes. The current prototype can be driven 120 kilometers (75 miles) without recharging, but the distance is expected to be expanded to 200 kilometers (124 miles)." Source:http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003339.html -John O >> If someone would build an >> electric car that has a 300-400 mile range and can recharge in less than [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Source:http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003339.html That is an improvement but I think the range has to be the same as we expect from a gas powered car today. That will make the masses feel more comfortable with the change. >> Amid the current panic about gas prices many people are embracing >> ethanol. But that's not such a good idea... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Link doesn't work. YES, I cut and pasted the second line. sorry about that... it's a pain because you have to do two copy/pastes next time i'll also put a tiny link http://tinyurl.com/fhnkv SignatureYeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price you pay..DEAL with it! > Amid the current panic about gas prices many people are embracing ethanol. > But that's not such a good idea... > > http://www.businessweek.com/print/autos/content/apr2006/bw20060427_ > 493909.htm 1) He ignores the reduction in refining capacity. 2) energy for ethanol production can come from sources that cant be used in motor vehicles. So even as a 'battery' it has a great advantage. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.