 | |
Re: And, from the same article:
Toyota Discussions related to Toyota cars and trucks (alt.autos.toyota)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#1
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: And, from the same article: -
10-23-2005
, 08:24 AM
|
So, it appears that those who say producing ethanol takes more energy than it returns only gave us half the story: Energy balance in the United States One study has concluded that the use of corn ethanol for fuel would have a negative net energy balance. Namely, the total energy needed to produce ethanol from grain - including fermentation, fertilizing, fuel for farm tractors, harvesting and transporting the grain, building and operating an ethanol plant, and the natural gas used to distill corn sugars into alcohol - exceeds the energy content of ethanol. However, all subsequent studies have concluded that ethanol production yields more energy than it consumes (most agree on a ratio of 1.34:1) This is remarkable when one considers that the two primary sources of fuel for transportation (diesel and gasoline) have a negative energy balance. Both consume about 20% more energy than they yield. [9] |
gas tank?
TIA
#2
| |||
| |||
|
|
So, it appears that those who say producing ethanol takes more energy than it returns only gave us half the story: Energy balance in the United States One study has concluded that the use of corn ethanol for fuel would have a negative net energy balance. Namely, the total energy needed to produce ethanol from grain — including fermentation, fertilizing, fuel for farm tractors, harvesting and transporting the grain, building and operating an ethanol plant, and the natural gas used to distill corn sugars into alcohol — exceeds the energy content of ethanol. However, all subsequent studies have concluded that ethanol production yields more energy than it consumes (most agree on a ratio of 1.34:1) This is remarkable when one considers that the two primary sources of fuel for transportation (diesel and gasoline) have a negative energy balance. Both consume about 20% more energy than they yield. [9] |
#3
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:06:19 -0400, Josh wrote: "Hachiroku" <Trueno (AT) ae86 (DOT) gts> wrote in message news  an.2005.10.23.02.50.21.672532 (AT) ae86 (DOT) gts...So, it appears that those who say producing ethanol takes more energy than it returns only gave us half the story: Energy balance in the United States One study has concluded that the use of corn ethanol for fuel would have a negative net energy balance. Namely, the total energy needed to produce ethanol from grain — including fermentation, fertilizing, fuel for farm tractors, harvesting and transporting the grain, building and operating an ethanol plant, and the natural gas used to distill corn sugars into alcohol — exceeds the energy content of ethanol. However, all subsequent studies have concluded that ethanol production yields more energy than it consumes (most agree on a ratio of 1.34:1) This is remarkable when one considers that the two primary sources of fuel for transportation (diesel and gasoline) have a negative energy balance. Both consume about 20% more energy than they yield. [9] Shocked? I had always heard the reason for NOT using Ethanol was that it took more energy to produce than was returned. i never heard this about fossil fuels. So, what's the holdup, then? |
#4
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:06:19 -0400, Josh wrote: "Hachiroku" <Trueno (AT) ae86 (DOT) gts> wrote in message news an.2005.10.23.02.50.21.672532 (AT) ae86 (DOT) gts...So, it appears that those who say producing ethanol takes more energy than it returns only gave us half the story: Energy balance in the United States One study has concluded that the use of corn ethanol for fuel would have a negative net energy balance. Namely, the total energy needed to produce ethanol from grain — including fermentation, fertilizing, fuel for farm tractors, harvesting and transporting the grain, building and operating an ethanol plant, and the natural gas used to distill corn sugars into alcohol — exceeds the energy content of ethanol. However, all subsequent studies have concluded that ethanol production yields more energy than it consumes (most agree on a ratio of 1.34:1) This is remarkable when one considers that the two primary sources of fuel for transportation (diesel and gasoline) have a negative energy balance. Both consume about 20% more energy than they yield. [9] Shocked? I had always heard the reason for NOT using Ethanol was that it took more energy to produce than was returned. i never heard this about fossil fuels. So, what's the holdup, then? |
of 2 ethanol plants a year. By my house, you can buy e-85 for about 70 cents
less a gallon than regular gasoline.
I just wish Toyota would pull their heads out of their asses and make their
cars compatible with it.
#5
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Hachiroku" <Trueno (AT) ae86 (DOT) gts> wrote in message news an.2005.10.23.19.19.53.763523 (AT) ae86 (DOT) gts...On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:06:19 -0400, Josh wrote: "Hachiroku" <Trueno (AT) ae86 (DOT) gts> wrote in message news an.2005.10.23.02.50.21.672532 (AT) ae86 (DOT) gts...So, it appears that those who say producing ethanol takes more energy than it returns only gave us half the story: Energy balance in the United States One study has concluded that the use of corn ethanol for fuel would have a negative net energy balance. Namely, the total energy needed to produce ethanol from grain - including fermentation, fertilizing, fuel for farm tractors, harvesting and transporting the grain, building and operating an ethanol plant, and the natural gas used to distill corn sugars into alcohol - exceeds the energy content of ethanol. However, all subsequent studies have concluded that ethanol production yields more energy than it consumes (most agree on a ratio of 1.34:1) This is remarkable when one considers that the two primary sources of fuel for transportation (diesel and gasoline) have a negative energy balance. Both consume about 20% more energy than they yield. [9] Shocked? I had always heard the reason for NOT using Ethanol was that it took more energy to produce than was returned. i never heard this about fossil fuels. So, what's the holdup, then? There is no holdup. For the last year, we have been averaging the building of 2 ethanol plants a year. By my house, you can buy e-85 for about 70 cents less a gallon than regular gasoline. I just wish Toyota would pull their heads out of their asses and make their cars compatible with it. |
#6
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 08:29:25 -0500, Dan J.S. wrote: "Hachiroku" <Trueno (AT) ae86 (DOT) gts> wrote in message news an.2005.10.23.19.19.53.763523 (AT) ae86 (DOT) gts...On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:06:19 -0400, Josh wrote: "Hachiroku" <Trueno (AT) ae86 (DOT) gts> wrote in message news an.2005.10.23.02.50.21.672532 (AT) ae86 (DOT) gts...So, it appears that those who say producing ethanol takes more energy than it returns only gave us half the story: Energy balance in the United States One study has concluded that the use of corn ethanol for fuel would have a negative net energy balance. Namely, the total energy needed to produce ethanol from grain — including fermentation, fertilizing, fuel for farm tractors, harvesting and transporting the grain, building and operating an ethanol plant, and the natural gas used to distill corn sugars into alcohol — exceeds the energy content of ethanol. However, all subsequent studies have concluded that ethanol production yields more energy than it consumes (most agree on a ratio of 1.34:1) This is remarkable when one considers that the two primary sources of fuel for transportation (diesel and gasoline) have a negative energy balance. Both consume about 20% more energy than they yield. [9] Shocked? I had always heard the reason for NOT using Ethanol was that it took more energy to produce than was returned. i never heard this about fossil fuels. So, what's the holdup, then? There is no holdup. For the last year, we have been averaging the building of 2 ethanol plants a year. By my house, you can buy e-85 for about 70 cents less a gallon than regular gasoline. I just wish Toyota would pull their heads out of their asses and make their cars compatible with it. Why isn't the car compatible with it? Mods are needed to run ethanol? |
possibly rust. You also have to program the computer to work with the higher
octane and lower BTU of ethanol. A properly programmed car will only lose a
little less MPG.
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.