Jamie said:
The whole alternative energy problem is very simple to me.
The production of gasoline results in a net gain of energy. The production process creates many, many products -- gasoline, diesel, kerosene, petro chemicals, etc. You get more out of it than you put into the production of it.
The same goes for things like coal. You simply burn it -- there isn't a complicated process of generating the coal.
With the exception of nuclear, most energy we have available
to us is essentially solar.. Including gasoline and coal.. fossilized
plants and animals become fossil fuels. The sun's energy
is responsible for their existence, as well as the geological action needed
to produce the current form. The fact that there's a 60-million-year
disconnect between them dying and us burning them makes fossil fuel
essentially an interest-free loan issued 60 million years ago.
Jamie said:
Ethanol as a fuel yields a net loss of energy. It takes more energy to make it than you get from it -- and that's not counting the energy of the sun from growing the corn or suger cane. Ethanol production doesn't really create energy, it's basically storing electrical energy (needed to brew it) in alchohol form. Compounding this fact is the seldom-stated fact that internal combustion engines require about 20-25% more ethanol per volume than gasoline, further depreciating it's viability as an alternative fuel.
The last part of this is true, but the first part isn't true anymore. For one
thing, corn is one of the least efficient feedstocks you can use. You only
hear about it because there are very large corn-growing interests pushing
it as a viable alternative fuel. The USA doesn't have a sugar cane industry
like Brazil does, which is too bad because sugar cane yields a lot more
ethanol than corn. Advances in technology, use of less fertilizer and
energy/fuel during the farming process have all contributed to give
ethanol a net energy gain, even from corn.
According to USDA Economic Research Service Report #814 ,
published in July of 2002, ethanol has an energy ratio of 1.34.
So you get a net gain of 34%.
The most inspiring work in making ethanol viable seems to come from
Iogen. They've invented a process to produce ethanol
from cellulose material, the fibrous part of the plant, like stalks,
husks, etc. To the rest of us, that means lawn clippings and leaves.
This uses genetically modified organisms to make glucose from
cellulose, which can then be fermented and distilled.
Can't really argue with the BTU per gallon. The solution to that is
25% more fuel capacity or 25% less range. Eventually (hopefully
within our lifetimes) we'll see aircraft designed around the specifics
of ethanol or biojet/biodiesel.
Jamie said:
Same deal with electrolysis. Electrolysis requires a *lot* of energy to break down the water molecules. If it didn't, we would have solved the world's energy problems a long time ago using the world's oceans. Interestingly, this is one of the major problems with hydrogen fuel cells in vehicles. Harvesting the hydrogen often takes a lot of energy.
We need to find alternatives to gasoline, but we need to do it with a basic knowledge of the problems involved.
Absolutely. Efficient electrolysis will only come from nuclear power,
and that didn't turn out so good last time around. The new designs are
safer and more efficient than the classic fission pile, but the cultural
and political opposition to the pursuit of nuclear energy is nearly
insurmountable.
