Ethanol: The future is now.

[Hasty8]

Back from the dead

Sorry to drop off the face like that all.

I've been on a non-stop, whirlwind tour of the east coast to get my clients in the spending mood.

I'll try and look everything over but with the holidays and the year coming to a rapid end don't expact anything in the immediate future.

One point that I do want to make, and have been trying to make rather pointedly.

When comparing the hydrogen production model against the current gasoline model, yes, gasoline is by far the more efficient.

How,ever, if we break from that mold and setup significantly smaller production sites, which also act as distribution points then, according to most materials I have read, hydrogen costs essentially plummet and become a far cheaper product to produce.

Also, the automotive technology is far from perfect as modern hydrogen fuel-cell powered cars are prohibitivly expensive. Keep in mind though that all first run technological inventions usually are.

The first computer, the first radio, the first tv, the first vcr, the first cell phone. All were huge, clunky and rather inneffective but their price quickly dropped as the quality increased.

My unclearly made point is that we should not be looknig to stop-gap measures, such *** ethanol and other burning fuels. We should be concentrating, full-bore, on the next step which inevitably will be some form of hydrogen, if all the indicators from major automotive producers are accurate.

Just my two cents. More to follow.

Eventually.

[Hasty8]

The less than serious comedy at the end certainl made the thread seem like it was on its death bed, But does no one have anything more to add?

Where'd you go Hasty8? I'm still waiting for links to algae produced hydrogen.

I'm also waiting to know if you bothered to read the information at the links I provided.

http://www.zetatalk.com/energy/tengy14r.htm

aol article

[jamescell]

My jeep runs like s$%% when I use gas with high ethenol content

[SlartyBartFast]

My unclearly made point is that we should not be looknig to stop-gap measures, such as ethanol and other burning fuels. We should be concentrating, full-bore, on the next step which inevitably will be some form of hydrogen, if all the indicators from major automotive producers are accurate.

So, in a few years time you're advocating that all ICE vehicles be scrapped? Rubbish.

I still haven't seen the inevitability of any alternative. The only inevitability is that petroleum WILL become too expensive to waste in ICE vehicles.

And indicators from the automotive industry? Sorry buddy, but you've been doing a lot of selective reading if you think they're concentrating on only hydrogen. The last major effort by the big 3 automakers was the 80mpg cars produced during the Clinton administration (which were diesel). Before that was the wave of electric cars. It's just that the automakers concentrate on whatever is currently receiving the most public money.

Alternative fuels for ICE engines are not stop gap solutions. They're an evolution. If you can't get the economy to evolve, you'll never be able to trash it wholesale to replace it with something different.

Small local producers and distribution is MASSIVELY inefficient. Doesn't matter what product you're talking about. While some distributed production is useful, I can't think of a single product/consumable that doesn't depend mostly on mass production and distribution. And you have yet to address the fact that the small scale production of hydrogen is currently ALL based on natural gas (so a substitution of one finite resource petro-chemical used in an inefficient and polluting manner, with another). Nor have you addressed if the production really changes to electrolysis where all the electricity is going to come from.

Good to have you back.

[SlartyBartFast]

http://www.zetatalk.com/energy/tengy14r.htm

aol article

Did some searching and couldn't find original data. Got any further links?

Seems promising if not too good to be true (or comercially viable), but would have to compare the return of that process with using the algae to produce oils.

Or, if ultimately producing hydrogen, if other methods such as solar energy aren't better.

[Hasty8]

So, in a few years time you're advocating that all ICE vehicles be scrapped? Rubbish.

not in a few years but perhaps, hopefully, in a few decades, yes the need to burn to produce energy will disappear.

BTW - here is just a short list of things that "experts" said were fads and would never last.

Phones.
Cars.
Airplanes.
Computers.
Cell Phones.
Faxes.
Bicycles.
Cigarettes (once, only women smoked them).

All new technologies are inherantly scoffed at.

It is human nature to laugh (and fear) what one does not understand.

I still haven't seen the inevitability of any alternative. The only inevitability is that petroleum WILL become too expensive to waste in ICE vehicles.

that is because, like most humans, you refuse to see the wall until we are right up on it. I would rather strive for a system that produces no emissions than one that provides less. As for the "inevitability" of it, we are rapidly approaching it. A dwindling supply of raw oil to dreg up will eventually force us to deal with it.

And indicators from the automotive industry? Sorry buddy, but you've been doing a lot of selective reading if you think they're concentrating on only hydrogen. The last major effort by the big 3 automakers was the 80mpg cars produced during the Clinton administration (which were diesel). Before that was the wave of electric cars. It's just that the automakers concentrate on whatever is currently receiving the most public money.

I never said only but the vast majority of future-based intiative tend to mention hydrogen and not corn.

sorry.

Alternative fuels for ICE engines are not stop gap solutions. They're an evolution. If you can't get the economy to evolve, you'll never be able to trash it wholesale to replace it with something different.

Actually they are stop gaps. An evolution would be to flow from producing electricity via gas refining to using the electricity to produce hydrogen then flowing into a manner within which hydrogen can be produced without any need of hydrocarbons.

Ethanol, on the other had, is entirely a stop gap. It lowers the emissions now while we figure out ways to bring them down further or even eliminate them altogether.

Small local producers and distribution is MASSIVELY inefficient. Doesn't matter what product you're talking about. While some distributed production is useful, I can't think of a single product/consumable that doesn't depend mostly on mass production and distribution. And you have yet to address the fact that the small scale production of hydrogen is currently ALL based on natural gas (so a substitution of one finite resource petro-chemical used in an inefficient and polluting manner, with another). Nor have you addressed if the production really changes to electrolysis where all the electricity is going to come from.

Good to have you back.

Says you but numerous studies have shown that small, local production of hydrogen can put it in the car for less than what we currently pay per gallon of gas.

All in all. I have more than made y point and my desire to continue repeating myself grows thin. I have posted numerous reports that support my claim, yet Ihave seem little from the proponents of ethanol to support their claims.

I'm done.

This is Mork from Ork saying "Nanu-Nanu!"

[Southpaw]

I think we should just develop effecient cold fission/fusion that would solve all the energy problems anything else is just a stopgap.

[frop]

I think we should just develop effecient cold fission/fusion that would solve all the energy problems anything else is just a stopgap.

I'm hoping you mean fusion, I don't wanna turn into some ghoul from fallout.

[SlartyBartFast]

I'm hoping you mean fusion, I don't wanna turn into some ghoul from fallout.

Both fission AND fusion create fallout. A-bomb = fission bomb, H-bomb = fusion bomb.

[SlartyBartFast]

It is human nature to laugh (and fear) what one does not understand.

I have no fear of hydrogen, and I'm scoffing at your unewavering support of a single definite "inevitable" solution.

that is because, like most humans, you refuse to see the wall until we are right up on it.

I see the wall. Don't insult me as short-sighted.

I would rather strive for a system that produces no emissions than one that provides less.

You've refused to address even the simplest point I've made. Ethanol and Biodiesel ARE zero emissions (or more technically emmissions neutral). Hydrogen is still decades away from zero emissions as cheap plentiful zero-emissions supplies of electricity have yet to be exploited.

I never said only but the vast majority of future-based intiative tend to mention hydrogen and not corn.

Perhaps the "vast majority" that you're reading and paying attention to. But, hydrogen does get a lot of media attention because it's "sexy".

An evolution would be to flow from producing electricity via gas refining to using the electricity to produce hydrogen then flowing into a manner within which hydrogen can be produced without any need of hydrocarbons.

That would be INCREADABLY wasteful of resources.

Says you but numerous studies have shown that small, local production of hydrogen can put it in the car for less than what we currently pay per gallon of gas.

Funny how all the studies seem to be from the same place. Also funny how you refuse to admit these studies are flawed because they are based on steam reformation of natural gas. Which means they depend on the dual fallacies of a hydrocarbon dependant production and cheap natural gas prices.

All in all. I have more than made y point and my desire to continue repeating myself grows thin. I have posted numerous reports that support my claim, yet Ihave seem little from the proponents of ethanol to support their claims.

I read your reports and commented on them. Actuially got a real laugh out of the Hydrogen producing algae (31 cents per killowat hour for electricity produced that way.).

You've avoided all direct questions and not shown signs of reading the links I've provided.

I'm done.

Oh well. Peace.

[frop]

To my knowl;edge, fusion in and of itself creates no radiation. It's that achieving fusion a la H-bomb uses fission to initiate it.

[SlartyBartFast]

To my knowl;edge, fusion in and of itself creates no radiation. It's that achieving fusion a la H-bomb uses fission to initiate it.

Yes, a fission explosion is used to initiate fusion in an H-bomb.

But consider: Our sun runs on fusion. Think: cosmic radiation and gamma rays.

So both unquestionable create radiation, but I'd have to do more reading to know the exact components of fallout.

[frop]

Yes, a fission explosion is used to initiate fusion in an H-bomb.

But consider: Our sun runs on fusion. Think: cosmic radiation and gamma rays.

So both unquestionable create radiation, but I'd have to do more reading to know the exact components of fallout.

Through a tiny bit of further reading, I found that the primary emissions of a fusion reaction in a toroidal reactor are neutrinos and beta particles. The beta particles are contained by the 'magnetic bottle' in place around the reaction. The neutrinos however, are not. These are restrained by physical shielding around the reactor. The shielding and neutrinos may react in such a way that radioactive particles are produced. Also, the primary source of radiation is from the tritium used to sustain the reaction, as it is eaiser to use isotopes of hydrogen as fuel.

I get the feeling that we're both right, I'm just bored enough to argue,but not so bored to d o research

[hitech]

Hydrogen storage and safety problems solved. And it looks like a very good solution, even if it is not cost effective, yet...

[FactsOfLife]

Bio-Diesel > cornahol