patrick.net

From my understanding, Ethanol is fairly inefficient as a fuel as it's burn rate is 25% less than gasoline. There are many factors that indicate that there isn't enough land to produce the "fuel", but the alternative method for now is mixing ethanol with pretroleum. Even if the mixture were say 25% ethanol, 75% gasoline, the effect would be sunstantial in terms of fuel prices. Perhaps in the intervening time, other forms of biochemical proceses, ones that may not require land to produce it may come to light. Hard to tell.

Neither do I. I wasn't exactly arguing for or against subsidies.

"Nevermind Bush, Cheney, etc. are from the OLD OIL SCHOOL.
Solar has been around a long time, but oil interests did not want it, just as the car industry did not want high mileage cars."

That's why I wanted $6/gallon gas, to reflect the environmental and infrastructure costs associated with gasoline use. A society can modify behavior either through taxation or subsidy. With subsidies, we're dealing with an extra layer of bureaucracy compared to taxation, so I'd rather the government doesn't do it unless there's no other way to correct for the existing negative externalities.

nomadtoons2,

How does ethanol look after taking away all government subsidies for corn and ethanol?

given that the thread is called 'i don't know what to think', i think i'm pulling above weight on being on topic, heh...

Robert Cote,

Then the 69% loss isn't all that bad. Even natural gas furnaces can't capture anywhere near 100% of the chemical energy contained in natural gas.

nomadtoons2,

I just read the question and realized it sounded accusatory, which was not my intention. I'm just curious about how renewable the practice of generating ethanol actually is, and was hoping you knew.

these guys ran an 80 year old car on 100% ethanol for 1000s of km to prove a point.

"The actual engine conversion from petrol to ethanol, done by local automotive engineer, Syd Norman, proved to be ridiculously simple – put bigger jets in the carburettor, play around with the timing and add an upper cylinder lubricant, that's it!"

http://carpoint.ninemsn.com.au/car-news/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabID=500648&ArticleID=7907&R=ce7907

Atrid,
Perhaps if Ethanol became a major product of US agriculture , it wouldn't be as affected by taking away government subsidies. I know for a fact that government subsidies actually pay some farmers NOT to produce anything, and yet still more goes to farmers as insurance over market fluctuations in a given product. Corn will grow just about anywhere. The need and market rate would be reliable. In essence, corn could become a market asset similiar to the way fuel is traded now, placing it in a totally new category.

I'm also all about hydrogen technology, but since the production methods at this point still rely on some form of petroleum, perhaps it isn't ideal for now until a non pretoleum method that is as cost effective as natural gas is developed.

i think the anti-ethanol thing is a confusion with methanol, which can do damage. i guess once the mechanics working for all the big car companies heard it was dangerous as a rumour, they probably told their customers at service time and talked about voiding warranties, and so it spread...

for climactic reasons, the US is limited to corn and grain distilled ethanol, australia has sugar cane in the tropics which is pretty high yield...

Robert Cote,

It seems that we're operating under different definitions of efficiency.

nomadtoons2,

As long as
annualized energy yield of an acre of corn - annualized energy input into an an acred of corn (including machinery and fertilizer)

is greater than

annualized energy output of an acre of alternative energy source - annualized energy input into an acre of alternative energy source

Then ethanol certainly sounds promising.

Also, are the farming techniques for these renewable energy sources (sugarcane and corn) sustainable?

I hope we can figure out how to make efficient and non dripping hydrogen cells very soon so we can do away with this battery business

i just left a meaningless comment on your blog, robert, hee hee.

i don't agree with some of the commentary on ways and means of controlling housing, and the 'entitlement' thing... but you are in the centre of some of the worst inflation there - many parts of america are still affordable - and there are different types of control in europe. pity australia where virtually no programs have been implemented, lagging even the US...

Also, are the farming techniques for these renewable energy sources (sugarcane and corn) sustainable?

i think so - they grow tons and tons and tons of sugarcane year after year in Qld. if growing plants is not sustainable, what the hell is? not to say they would be able to meet world demand...

in a funny irony, also directly up the road from me, within 200 yards, was the original CSR - Colonial Sugar Refinery - plant, from the early 1800s, in the settlement of Sydney. apparently they use to burn down huge piles of bones to make charcoal, stinking out the residential neighbourhood downwind every morning. the houses in my area were often timber shacks, there was typhoid and people often lived very badly indeed. now CSR is a giant conglomerate which manufactures building materials as much as producing sugar...

annualized energy yield of an acre of corn - annualized energy input into an an acred of corn (including machinery and fertilizer)

the energy balance comes from the sun, effectively - provides the energy to allow the plants to grow... so ethanol is harnessed solar energy, in a way... not counting the chemical process of fermentation...

robert, you would probably become firm friends with wendell cox at www.demographia.com - altho i am busy trying to disprove his thesis...

I was thinking of energy input of men for the crops.

DS,

Depending on soil fertility, water availability, etc, certain agricultural practices can exhaust the soil fairly quickly, slash and burn Amazonia for grazing comes to mind

DS,

No, I meant energy inputs like tractor fuel use, fertilizer, raw material for plastic, steel refining, etc.

As far as ethanol-based fuels, the problem is very minor. It burns slightly hotter and in extreme hot weather can cause Vapor lock, which can happen with regular fuel. It can also damage things like fuel lines and fuel pumps in older cars( we're talking vintage 70's and 80's stuff here), so the threat is minumal. At the very least, if ethanol was sold along with gasoline, this would potentially increase readily available fuel by double digits and hence lower or at least tame fuel prices.

SFWoman,

Agreed, that boycott has failure written all over it.

In fact, I dislike this sort of chain mail in general so much that I may go a little out of my way to patronize mobile and exxon this summer.

Depending on soil fertility, water availability, etc, certain agricultural practices can exhaust the soil fairly quickly, slash and burn Amazonia for grazing comes to mind

oh, absolutely, the amazon is terrible farming practice by desperately poor people - the jungle soils are very fragile and poor, and are quickly exhausted.

however, the sugar farms at mackay, queensland have been going for decades, and i think they know what they're doing... this isn't 1930s dustbowl farming... need to google it of course... farming is a science now, altho they're still learning...

To add to the topic at hand, I find it rather interesting that some of the culprits of gas hog type vehicles, like GM and Ford with their Suburbans,Hummers, and Explorers are now producing versions of these that get pretty amazing fuel economy for such big vehicles. The new Suburban gets 22MPG. The H3 gets close to 25MPG. They do this via engine management without hybrid systems. They do have hybrids in the works, which means even better economy. I'm impressed because my tiny 4 banger toyota truck gets 26 MPG max. SO in reality, the new Suburban pound per pound is about 30% more efficient than my truck. On the other hand, the new tacomas get WORSE fuel economy. I was looking at a few new ones a couple of months ago, and the V6 versions gets between 15-18 MPG. Seems almost like a regression. Perhaps the fuel crunch is good in many ways in that it forces car makers to produce more responsible cars.

SUVs are also irresponsible vehicles because their size make them more likely to cause death of other people on the road. And they use a lot more steel without being able to carry much bigger loads.

But mostly, I hate how they block my sight line so I don't know what the hell in happening in front of me.

DS,

Thanks for explaining. As long as renewable energy sources are truly renewable, I'm happy to use them.

But mostly, I hate how they block my sight line so I don’t know what the hell in happening in front of me.

and the thing is, the salesmen tell potential SUV buyers they will be able to see traffic problems ahead before the next guy, etc, as a selling point - what do you call that in gaming theory, where one person's gain is everyone else's loss? (never mind trying to reverse park one of the tanks or getting stuck in a low ceilinged garage...)

i think it's the same attitude that says you should admire someone with 10 investment properties...

it's zero sum game...escalating into arms race that bad for almost everyone involved.

DS,

That be okay with that person with 10 investment properties if he or she rented most or all of them out.

hybrids don't even make sense in the colder parts of this country, because of battery limitations.

I wish more of those hybrid car drivers would look into diesel engine cars. They deliver similar miles, are much cheaper than hybrids, and the new ones are pretty clean.

"People will buy what they want. Making them use less resources should be the key goal."

Once again, perception and reality are out of alignment. I wonder if there are arbitrage opportunities there...

I wish more of those hybrid car drivers would look into diesel engine cars.

diesel engines are torquier, noiser, and pollute more. what's the advantage?

diesel fuel here is about as expensive as ordinary petrol... some people are looking to get LPG fitted like the taxis - pressurised, liquefied petroleum gas... cheaper, but all still non-renewable fossil fuels...

mercedes or someone have come up with a system that takes in methanol, reduces it to hydrogen then burns it, all in one vehicle (a bus)

gm are doing stuff with hydrogen fuel cells:
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/400_fcv/fc_challenges.html

Why this idea is indeed "moronic", to quote someone great (referring to the OP):

The consumer pricing of gasoline in the US is the textbook example of game-theory in practice. I mean, literally, economics textbooks use case studies of how companies price gasoline to illustrate real-world examples of collaborative pricing that is not illegal in the US system.

In simpler terms: for any given region/area where many gas companies compete (and therefore a consumer can easily substitute buying gas from one establishment if the other prices higher), the companies will use "signaling" techniques to coordinate gas prices. All that happens if people stop going to Mobil and Exxon is that those two companies *raise* prices, not lower them. This gives more room to the lower-priced competitors to raise their prices, so that the high-priced guys can come down a bit and then they're all similarly priced, but *at a higher average price* in the end. If the low-price guys fail to comply, then the high-priced guys "price punish", but dropping their prices just low enough to hurt the other guys. They do this long enough to send a message (we're bigger and can bleed longer than you can), then the game starts all over again.

"Economics of Strategy", Besanko et. al., is a good intro to how this kind of gaming works in the real world.

Robert Cote,

I found you had a comment in moderation this morning (I don't know which thread). I approved it so it is now wherever you tried to post it.

Has the old idea of far-earth orbital solar energy been cost-justification disproved? I seem to recall the idea was to deploy massive solar arrays in far-earth orbit, then focus beams of microwave energy from those arrays to a relay satellite(s), that then return the energy to fixed earth stations. Was the problem that the cost of orbiting materials is still too high? If so, why aren't we investing in space elevators to solve both the energy and eventually the resource problems with a common infrastructure? (and notice I didn't even once invoke the controversial "nuclear" 3rd rail solution)

The debate here about alternative fuels & technology was very informative. Just a couple of questions (for the experts here):

1. Last time I checked, corn production for ethanol (which is pertrochemical-intensive) was a net energy USER, not net energy PRODUCER. In dummy terms: you have to burn more than a gallon of conventional petrol in order to produce a gallon of ethanol. Is this still true?

2. Hydrogen fuel cell technology (which may or may not turn out to be less environmentally destructive than conventional batteries), is still NOT AN ENERGY SOURCE --it's an ENERGY STORAGE MEDIUM. In dummy terms: you still have to expend energy (and lots of it) to produce the liquid compressed hydrogen, which is burned to run the car. At the moment, this means fossil fuels, nuclear, wind, solar, etc.

@Robert Cote,

Next time you paste in text, could you please delete the carriage returns? They make your posts much harder to read. I've already deleted some of them for you --thanks.

I don't think anyone here sleeps, SQT. They may not even be people, just software that's smart enough to grab factoids off the net. (j/k)

I love reading the discussions, but they just keep going. (Not a bad thing; just more used to seeing this level of activity on IRC or Usenet instead of the Web.)

ObHousing: I'll be moving later this summer, and am trying to decide whether the extra cost is worth not having roommates. Don't care too much about gas since I don't have car payments to worry about, but avoiding bridge tolls and cutting commutes would be nice. Damn, that makes me sound like an SUV owner with too much cash. :(

/ Doesn't own an SUV
// Prefers safer smaller cars