Can a believer in global warming be against the cheap ethanol that is replacing oil?

Question

I'm talking about the cheap ethanol that is in particular sugar cane ethanol...

It's clear the question...

Answer 1

I currently run ethanol (corn alcohol) in a 1999 Dodge 3500 truck. But all Cummins engines were modified from the factory to run on BioD since around 1992 without any modification.

Most vehicles are already equipped to run on Alternative Energy. In fact you’re probably even driving one right now and didn’t even know it. Go to www agua-luna com for a list of this vehicles

The following are a couple types of products to make ethanol easily. There are however many materials one can use including sugar cane, corn, wood, etc. The information was cut directly from a guide I offer at www agua-luna com, it is complete but if anyone’s interested in other types of foods to use or a more specific step by step of the process, including building your own still legally, visit www agua-luna com

"THE usual sources of raw material for alcohol Ethanol production from starch are cereal grains such as corn, wheat, rye, barley, milo (sorghum grains), rice, etc. Other types of starch are available from potatoes of all kinds, Jerusalem artichokes, and other high-starch vegetables. Starch conversion is the standard method of production and the one we will discuss here.

It is possible, however, to make alcohol from sugar-producing plants (saccharine material) such as sugar beets, sugarcane, fruits, and others. These substances need no milling (as do grains), but they do require some kind of grinding or squeezing process. Rapid, efficient fermentation of these sugars has not been as well explored as the process using starch.

A third source of fermentables is cellulose, as found in wood and waste sulphite liquor. This more complex process requires the use of acids to reduce the material to wood sugars. Consequently, most do-it-yourselfers should stick to either starch or sugar.

MILLING

All grains must be ground before mashing to expose the starch granules and help them remain in suspension in a water solution. The grain should be ground into a meal -- not a flour! -- that will pass a 20-mesh screen. On a hammermill, however, a 3/16" screen will suffice.

Potatoes and similar high-moisture starch crops should be sliced or finely chopped. Since potato starch granules are large and easily ruptured, it isn't necessary to maintain the hard rapid boil which is required of the tougher, dryer "flinty" starches found in grains.

CONVERSION WITH ENZYMES

For small batches (5 bushels or less), fill the cooker with water (30 gallons per bushel), and add the meal slowly, to prevent lumps from forming. (When, cooking with steam, or at higher temperatures, it is possible to save energy by using less water at the beginning. But for the "small batcher" with an ordinary cooking apparatus, the most complete conversion is obtained by using the full amount of water right from the start to encourage a rapid rolling boil.)

Next, add 3 measuring spoons -- as provided -- per bushel of Alpha Amylase Enzyme (mixed in water) to the mixture and raise the temperature of the mash to 170 deg F (77 deg C), the optimum working environment for the enzyme. Hold the solution at that temperature for 15 minutes while agitating it vigorously.

At this point all the starch available at 170 deg F has been converted to dextrins, so it's time to raise the temperature of the mash to the boiling point. The concoction should be liquid enough to roll at its own rate -- if not, add 2 to 3 gallons of water. Hold the boil for 30 minutes to complete the liquefaction stage. All the starches are now in solution.

Now reduce the temperature to 170 deg F, using the cooling coil, and add 3 more measuring spoons per bushel of Alpha Amylase Enzyme (mixed in water). After 30 minutes of agitation at this temperature, all the previously released starches will have been reduced to dextrins, thereby completing primary conversion.

During secondary conversion the dextrins are further reduced to simple sugars (maltose and glucose) by the beta, or -- to be more exact -- glucoamylase enzymes. You need Alpha Amylase Enzyme and the yeast necessary to carry out secondary conversion and proper fermentation simultaneously, you can add 6 measuring spoons per bushel of the fermentation powder (mixed in water) as soon as you've brought the temperature down to 85 deg F (29 deg C) using the cooling coils."

Hope this helped, feel free to contact me personally if you have any questions if you’d like assistance in making your first self sufficient steps, I’m willing to walk you step by step threw the process. I’ve written several how-to DIY guides available at  www agua-luna com on the subject. I also offer online and on-site workshops, seminars and internships to help others help the environment.

Dan Martin

Alterative Energy / Sustainable Consultant, Living 100% on Alternative & Author of How One Simple Yet Incredibly Powerful Resource Is Transforming The Lives of Regular People From All Over The World... Instantly Elevating Their Income & Lowering Their Debt, While Saving The Environment by Using FREE ENERGY... All With Just One Click of A Mouse...For more info Visit:  

www AGUA-LUNA com

Stop Global Warming, Receive a FREE Solar Panels Now!!!

Answer 2

Yes.  Corn ethanol is neither cheap nor efficient.  The factors that matters the most for biofuel are the inputs and the biomass yield per acre.  There are better alternatives than corn such as switchgrass or willow.  The highest yields are from aquatic plants.  Secondly, it is more efficient to burn the biomass in a heat/hydro co-generation plant.  The waste heat can be used for district heating and the electricity can be used to drive an electric vehicle.  About 42% of the energy value of the fuel is tranfered to to the wheels compared with 25% for a conventional internal combustion engine.  Another 40% of the energy could heat buildings.  Several contries (Sweden, Denmark, Poland, Lithuania +??) operate facilities of this sort.  If energy is used more efficiently, less is needed to do the same job and that means lower costs for consumers and a cleaner environment.  If a biomass generating plant had a carbon sequestration facility, the process could actually be greenhouse gas negative and would thus help to stabilize the earth's climate.

EDIT davem:  CH3CH2OH is the same whether from corn or sugar. Perhaps you meant to say that the production process from sugar is more efficient.

Answer 3

Considering what the ethanol craze is doing to food crop production and the tropical rain forests, it would be consistent.

Answer 4

Sure.

But a more thoughtful approach is to support ethanol made from low value plants, like sawgrass, instead of ethanol made from corn.

Seen in that light ethanol from corn is merely a transitional stage, to encourage the manufacture of vehicles that can use ethanol as fuel.

Answer 5

Yes, and they should be (against it).

First off, ethanol is not really replacing oil, it is only being partially substituted for it. The much ballyhooed E-85 is still 85% petroleum product with only 15% ethanol.

Secondly, ethanol is inefficient as a motor fuel because it actually takes more volume of ethanol to produce the same power as gasoline. In order to use pure ethanol your engine would have to use nearly twice as much fuel to go the same distance at the same speed. In other words, your 20 MPG vehicle would become a 10 MPG vehicle.  

Lastly, ethanol is not "cheap" or economical to produce in meaningful quantities. And as others have said, it is depleting food supplies as well.

All in all, ethanol is not a viable long term solution, and not even a very good stepping stone to alternative fuels.

Answer 6

Yes.

Here is an article on the Greenpeace International website that discusses the negative effects of ethanol.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/...

Answer 7

I would say yes because ethanol is not necasarly cheaper or better for the economy. The price of ethanol is raising the price of other farmed products because people are growing the grain instead of other products and using more land to grow those products which hurts the environment. It also raises the price of grain because there is a higher demand for it. Also from the research I have done  greenhouse-gas emissions from corn  exceed or match those from fossil fuels so it produces no greenhouse benefits and it doesn't go as far as gasoline meaning that you need more of it to fuel your car.

Answer 8

Yes the production of Ethanol causes more carbon offset than all of industry and the emissions of cars put together

So it adds to Global Warming ,http://byderule.multiply.com/journal/ite...

read about ethanol production

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

And adds to the causes of world famine,since more than half of the world food production is diverted towards the production of ethanol,http://byderule.multiply.com/journal/ite...

Answer 9

The two are not linked.

Whether you believe in GW or not, the current shift to largely corn based bio-fuel is definately a poor idea. There's simply not enough suitable land on the planet for us to replace oil and coal with bio-fuel, and the consequences of swapping land use from food production to fuel production has already created very undesireable consequences.

We in the west have noticed that our food costs have gone up significantly, but for those in poor and developing countries the consequence of  this increase has pushed 100's of thousands into starvation.

Untill other large scale replacements for oil and coal are developed the only alternative currently available is nuclear power generation and vehicles powered by electricity.

Answer 10

same tired anti-ethanol responses.

As far as i'm concerned, right now ethanol is the only thing I can put in my car that's not oil that works.  There is no perfect fuel that's easy, cheap, better, and won't effect other things.

Ethanol is not perfect, but that's what research and science is for.  Hopefully cellulosic ethanol isn't too far off.

You can be against it all you want, but while you wait for a miracle, i'll keep using ethanol.

edit:  People are starving to death because we're using corn for ethanol?  That's not true - seriously around here we used to pay farmers to not farm, or to burn their crop to keep prices competitive.  Was CRP killing people?

Answer 11

Ethanol is not cheap.  The price paid is higher food prices, gas prices that won't be any lower, fuel that will be less efficient, no surplus anymore which will lead increased starvation worldwide and at food banks at home, more tax dollars going into this costly scam, and more money going into agribusiness and chemical companies involved in this scam (see Monsanto, Cargill, and Dow Chemical).  It's all just a scam that will waste even more resources and money and will harm people's health and well-being in the process.

Dead and stunted rats because of GM crops like soy (which is in many baby formulas for humans!):

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/...

But AGW advocates will tell you that this is the only viable solution or the world will starve because of global warming!  That's not true and people have been using irrigation technology to grow natural, non-GM crops in deserts for years!

Answer 12

Some are.  They've realized corn ethanol is expensive to produce in terms of energy required.  It takes as much energy to produce it as it gives back.

The Brazilians have the right ethanol answer.  Pull up to any pump there and look for E85...it's sugar ethanol and gives seven times the power that corn ethanol can.  They've become self sufficient and don't import any oil anymore.  Petrobras and the sugar industry have given them the energy they need.

But that's really no good for the rest of the earth...there can never be enough sugar cane grown to be useful on anything more than a small scale.  I think ethanol is proving itself to be kind of useless in most cases.  Food production must come first, and therefore not enough ethanol can be produced.  It is not a long term solution, even with some success in the trials.

Answer 13

Of course.  The jury is still out on whether or not ethanol has a net positive or negative effect on GW.  There are other solutions that avoid ethanol completely.  There is no connection between believing in AGW and thinking that more ethanol is a good idea.