What?rf134a wrote: ↑ Ethanol has an energy equivalent of 1.1 barrels of oil for every barrel of oil equivalent in production... if you ignore the transportation factors and effects on land due to no crop rotation, etc.
https://www.reuters.com/business/enviro ... 022-02-14/
When corn ethanol was first floated as a viable fuel, the reports from USDA and the corn ethanol distillers association said that it takes 1 barrel of oil equivalent of energy to produce ethanol that has the energy of anywhere from 1.1 to 1.35 barrels of oil. I.E. there's a net energy gain. When these reports were peer reviewed, it showed that they excluded the energy required to transport the corn from the field to the distillery, missing the cost and transport of fertilizer, the amount of fuel used by the tractors and equipment, or some combination of these. The full cycle analysis is that the energy produced is done to as little as 0.9 barrels of energy for every 1 barrel of energy input.tebore wrote: ↑ What?
Edit: You mean to produce a 1 Barrel of Ethanol it takes the same energy of producing 1.1 Barrels of oil?
Mass adoption of Ethanol happened around 2003 when the US was under one of the most publicly corrupt presidential administrations in recent history.
So it doesn't surprise me.
It's a farm subsidy to buy votes that ended up changing our diet and our food's diet on top of being a fool's errand when we figured out how to frack for oil.
Nah, the student comes from a corn-farming family in the mid-west U.S. (Iowa?)
Not to mention the quantity of water required.rf134a wrote: ↑ When corn ethanol was first floated as a viable fuel, the reports from USDA and the corn ethanol distillers association said that it takes 1 barrel of oil equivalent of energy to produce ethanol that has the energy of anywhere from 1.1 to 1.35 barrels of oil. I.E. there's a net energy gain. When these reports were peer reviewed, it showed that they excluded the energy required to transport the corn from the field to the distillery, missing the cost and transport of fertilizer, the amount of fuel used by the tractors and equipment, or some combination of these. The full cycle analysis is that the energy produced is done to as little as 0.9 barrels of energy for every 1 barrel of energy input.
Plus the 'corn' that's primarily used for ethanol is most likely unfit for human or even animal consumption. Using it as a fuel additive is probably the best current thing to do with it. But, why limit your options. Somewhere, somehow, some of this sh!t has most likely entered the food chain.ES_Revenge wrote: ↑ Gonna have to disagree on this one. Many engines, particularly turbocharged, perform better with "ethanol-laced" gas. Yes pure gasoline will give better mileage in theory but engine output and running are a different story. Even with the same octane rating it has been proven that ethanol-blended fuel still performs better in such engines. In fact pretty sure one test found 87 octane ethanol-blend performed better than 91 octane pure gasoline.
I think the main problem is there's not a choice which there should be. There should be pumps/stations with pure gas in 87, 91, 93, as well as those with ethanol blended. And vary prices accordingly. Give ppl a choice as to what they want to use/where they want to buy from.
Instead what you have is you have to buy a certain octane (always premium) at only certain stations, in order to get pure gasoline. And even that is going away now with everything replaced by ethanol blend.
Given the choice I'm still picking the ethanol-laced, unless it's for storage; but, other ppl may want pure gasoline instead.
No, entire fields are dedicated to plant corn for the sole purpose of ethanol production.ob2011 wrote: ↑ Plus the 'corn' that's primarily used for ethanol is most likely unfit for human or even animal consumption. Using it as a fuel additive is probably the best current thing to do with it. But, why limit your options. Somewhere, somehow, some of this sh!t has most likely entered the food chain.
Actually the corn grown for ethanol has stricter standards and is actually better than corn they feed us!ob2011 wrote: ↑ Plus the 'corn' that's primarily used for ethanol is most likely unfit for human or even animal consumption. Using it as a fuel additive is probably the best current thing to do with it. But, why limit your options. Somewhere, somehow, some of this sh!t has most likely entered the food chain.
Like any "bio" stuff it only works when there are only a few people doing it.
Please let us know where this info is from, I could only find the opposite to be true...ES_Revenge wrote: ↑ Actually the corn grow for ethanol has stricter standards and is actually better than corn they feed us!
