[Moshineko]

REGISTER TO REMOVE THIS AD

At the moment, one of the shining stars of alternative energy is Ethanol. For those who don't know, ethanol is a petrol/gasoline-like fuel made from the cellulose in plants. At the moment, the most popular form is corn ethanol, made from the edible parts of the plant.

Ethanol is cleaner-burning than gasoline, for the most part, and is a renewable fuel, meaning the everpresent worries about petroleum supply could be averted by using a higher amount of ethanol in gasolines, and, perhaps, eventually as an alternative to gasoline.

Ethanol is a much cleaner alternative than liquid coal fuel, less potentially disatrous than nuclear energy, or at least without the long-term byproduct issues, and is currently a more viable source of power than solar, wind, tidal plants or thermopower plants.

Criticisms of ethanol include the fact that, at present, factoring in the use of current crop production methods, refining, and fertilizer use, making ethanol is actually a waste of energy. That is, given the methods used by agribusiness in the US and other First World countries, there is actually more energy spent making ethanol than is in the ethanol. Haven't seen the figures in a couple years, but last I knew, there was a net loss of 0.1gal of ethanol per gallon (taking 1.1gallons to produce 1 gallon).

The technology, though, is still in its infancy, and with cellulotic ethanol production, hopes are that this energy loss will disappear.

The other major criticism is that the corn used to produce ethanol is being diverted from foods. Specifically, foods for poorer nations, where grains are the most affordable foodstuffs. Thus, creating ethanol is the cause of what is being known as the "Food Crisis", i.e: higher prices for food and higher prices for fuel making food very expensive.

So. Is ethanol a viable route for alternative energies? Is it a dead end that will starve too many to do any good? Is there another fuel source we should be looking at instead? Is there some other way to stop the over-use of fossil fuels and still keep an acceptable standard of living?

Bleah, bleah, you know the rules. One and two, I report you. Flame and bait and it's you we'll hate. Get arguin.

[sirloin600]

Over all ethanol is a dead end not because the amount of energy needed to produce it but because there is a "better" alternative that is much higher yield. The main problem with ethanol is that it does not function in current infrastructure. what I believe will be the new fuel of the future is algae. The only down side that I see is that it is not as eco-friendly as ethanol.
more info on algae-oil http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22027663/

[Fipherion]

The 'energy crisis' will be solved by innovation and enteprenuership in the next couple of years. I don't believe that ethanol will be the 'winner' in the end but its a good first step. As of right now, it takes a gallon of gasoline to to produce a gallon of ethanol but ethanol is also 30% less efficient. Its a net loss of energy production and the only effect is to drive the cost of corn way up. As a result of the increased demand and profitability of corn, carbon monoxide absorbing trees and forsests are being cleared to create more farmland.

In the end, ethanol is contributing more to the problem, not eleviating it at all. I have no idea what the next big energy source is going to be. Personally, I'm a fan of nuclear but they've got plenty of kinks to work out of that too. The next couple of years are going to be quite exciting in the realm of technology and innovation.

[nairb168]

I doubt that our energy crisis will be solved in the next couple of years, maybe by our children's generation. It would take more then a few years to develop new technology that is affordable and feasible and it would take more time to change everything to something new. But i agree that ethanol isn't the right answer. I think there was an article in TIME about it, and although I didn't read it too in depth, it did talk about how ethanol is negatively taking away from our economy. I think nuclear is pretty good too, but i'm leaning a bit towards solar. Another problem with nuclear is that if you start experimenting with it, bush might think that you're a terrorist and trying to make nukes and try to take over your country...but we're getting a new president. xD

[Fipherion]

I guess I kinda mispoke. I didn't really mean a "couple" of years. More like 10-20ish.

[OwL]

Food crisis or Energy crisis? More like both, isn't it? Oil is like, 100 dollars a barrel at this moment. And the U.N. has already warned us about the food shortage crisis going on.

I completely disagree with ethanol as the next energy source, not for it's today lack of efficiency and technology, I have a more Fidel Castro-ish idea on here. ("Are we feeding the machines instead of the humans?")

Ethanol is a serious issue in Third World countries. Take for example I am a corn producer in the Third World, why would I sell my corn to poor people who can barely pay for it when I can sell it to the developed countries so they produce ethanol? Yeah, that's how supply/demand shit works, but what about the social part? D:

Some sort of this happened in México recently (I think it was called the 'Tortilla' crisis out there or something.) Like, some guys were storing huge amounts of corn (waiting a while for the price to rise so they could sell it outside) instead of giving it out to the market, causing tortilla price to rise. At the end we had to import (MORE than we are already importing) tons of corn from the U.S.

Sooo, ethanol producing leads to speculation in the already-affected-by-global-market countries, and this is a no-no in my eyes.

[woxxy]

There would be a speculation on it that it would be unbeliveable.

Only future for now is massive use of nuclear energy, when the end of petroil will come. It's clean enough and doesn't lead to speculations. In worst case, send radioactive crap in outer space, we won't leave earth for a while anyway.

Ethanol looks like a flop, and I think it's safe to say, luckly.



Also, I believe there's enough to 'burn' on the earth, that energy crisis sounds more like a joke. Petrol wars can happen, but over that, we rely on it less than they make us think. World won't go down because we won't have petroil. It will just need a change, and wi probably be towards some combustible that works better than petroil, not worse.

Still, we already have ways to survive, so calling it crisis is just wrong.

[nairb168]

Originally Posted by woxxy

Only future for now is massive use of nuclear energy, when the end of petroil will come. It's clean enough and doesn't lead to speculations. In worst case, send radioactive crap in outer space, we won't leave earth for a while anyway.

Off-topic, but we can't just keep sending stuff into space...

Originally Posted by Space.com

> 8,927 man-made objects officially tracked (up from 8,841 in July 1999)
> 4 million pounds of stuff
> 110,000 total objects 1 centimeter and larger
http://www.space.com/spacewatch/space_junk.html

@OwL: That's pretty serious. If people are hoarding food to make money off of it and cause other people to starve, ethanol should be stopped. I knew ethanol was hurting the food supply, but not that extremely.

[Green_Shinobi]

The food crisis is a direct result of the energy crisis, from what I have seen, due to the fact that trucks/trains/etc. have to transport the food to its given destination...increasing the cost of transportation in general will obviously drive the prices of the cargo up.

[bhamlaxy]

Only future for now is massive use of nuclear energy

I forget the exact numbers, but it was something like in order to replace fossil fuels in the world, it would require the construction of 10,000 new nuclear plants, and the worlds uranium supplies would be exhausted in 30 years.

Also, I believe there's enough to 'burn' on the earth, that energy crisis sounds more like a joke. Petrol wars can happen, but over that, we rely on it less than they make us think. World won't go down because we won't have petroil. It will just need a change, and wi probably be towards some combustible that works better than petroil, not worse.

I disagree. Our entire economy, way of life, and international structure assumes large availability of cheap and extremely energy-dense oil. We need to replace it, or we will face some very, very, very serious issues.

I think we can all agree ethanol sucks ass.

[craz101]

Originally Posted by bhamlaxy

I think we can all agree George Bush and his administration along with the meaningless war in Iraq that causes everything to inflate and that you know people can sell barrels of oil cheaper but choose not to out of personal greed sucks ass.

fixed

[Suinia]

I believe they said something on the radio something along the lines of:

The use of ethanol has slowly increased over the years, so it does not make sense that a food crisis would SUDDENLY appear like this, and that it should have occurred over more of a steady rate.

AND (apparently) according to the UN, there IS enough food out there. (It's just not being circulated to the right places) (Like some places are receiving MORE then they should while others are simply not receiving enough)

The people on the radio discussed that the issue is food being sold more because it is able to be sold more.

Not some BS about Chinese eating too much lololol.

Thanks.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by nairb168

Off-topic, but we can't just keep sending stuff into space...

Sure we can. Who says we have to put it in orbit? It'll just cost a bit more and we can launch it into deep space. If we're considering that, we've given up on requiring a solution to be cost effective anyway. I mean it costs what, 15 thousand dollars per pound to launch something into orbit?

Anyway, there's really no good replacement for oil at the moment. There are alternatives, but they're either no cheaper than oil currently is, or even more expensive. We may just have to accept that there are no cheap alternatives coming any time soon and focus more on reducing our energy consumption. I'd suggest we replace as much oil use as we can with other forms of energy and try to conserve the rest. Then throw massive amounts of money to fusion research.

[bhamlaxy]

The use of ethanol has slowly increased over the years, so it does not make sense that a food crisis would SUDDENLY appear like this, and that it should have occurred over more of a steady rate.

It grew at a pretty steady rate, increasing by a few million gallons a year for a while. From 1990 to 2000 US production went up by about 700 million gallons, not even doubling. Between 2000 and 2003 production doubled, and production in 2007 was quadruple what was produced in 2000. Hell, even between 2006 and 2007, production grew by 33%, an unprecedented increase. The increase in ethanol production is a very recent event.

AND (apparently) according to the UN, there IS enough food out there. (It's just not being circulated to the right places) (Like some places are receiving MORE then they should while others are simply not receiving enough)

Well yea, no one really argues the fact that there isn't enough food out there. The point is that food is getting so expensive that the poor can't afford it.

[nairb168]

Originally Posted by bhamlaxy

Well yea, no one really argues the fact that there isn't enough food out there. The point is that food is getting so expensive that the poor can't afford it.

But then if the poor can't afford the food, help them grow the food.

Originally Posted by TIME magazine

The first is to scale-up the dramatic success of Malawi, a famine-prone country in southern Africa, which three years ago established a special fund to help its farmers get fertilizer and high-yield seeds. Malawi's harvest doubled after just one year. An international fund based on the Malawi model would cost a mere 10 dollars per person annually in the rich world, or $10 billion total.