Ethanol Won't Solve All Our Energy Problems

[Janus]

Ethanol is far from a cure-all for the nation's energy problems. It's not as environmentally friendly as some supporters claim and would supply only 12 percent of U.S. motoring fuel — even if every acre of corn were used.

Study: Ethanol won't solve energy problems (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060710/ap_on_sc/ethanol;_ylt=AgZ2tHPKYKJ_vDmVYQmxI58PLBIF;_ylu=X3o DMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--)

We all know that the entire process behind ethanol requires oil (harvesting, etc.) so it is pretty reliant on petroleum. However, I doubt that few people believed in ethanol as our sole answer to today's energy demands.

I think that one of the alternatives would be decentralized and diverse energy production in order to prevent gridlock inefficiencies (and deal better with energy demand) and because different areas are more suitable for different energy methods.

[Kia]

Have to agree thoroughly. Ethanol is not a renewable resource so that immediately rules it out from being the savior of the worlds current and looming energy crisis. Renewable energy sources are the only things that will be able to help prevent the world from having an energy "apocolypse".


I think that one of the alternatives would be decentralized and diverse energy production in order to prevent gridlock inefficiencies (and deal better with energy demand) and because different areas are more suitable for different energy methods.

I think there is a buckminister fuller idea that basically figured out a way to use very little energy to power most of the world.

[ComradeRed]

I dunno, I've read that recently there have been new solar cells made that is 30% effecient. If you place the entire uninhabited Sahara desert with these things, you'd have in a single day double what the world consumes annually in energy. Or something gigantic like that.

Imagine what it would be like if it could be closer to 100% effeciency :huh:

[razboz]

Janus decentralising energy production might not be a good idea. What would, for example, happen to jungle living communities? They would be forced to cut down trees for enery, or deforest areas to place various enrgy farms (wind, solar etc). Different areas have different enrgy needs and abilities. This also means that some areas have no abilities but massive needs, whiole others have massive abilities but n needs (like central Sahara.) I agree that in principle it sounds sound but i think it would rapidly collapse due to the immovable conditons on the ground.

[Janus]

If you place the entire uninhabited Sahara desert with these things, you'd have in a single day double what the world consumes annually in energy. Or something gigantic like that.
The entire Sahara? Solar energy is only practical in certain areas.


Janus decentralising energy production might not be a good idea.
I'm talking about decentralizing it more to an acceptable point. Obviously, if a community has no way to produce energy, energy would have to be routed there. Also, managing the outgoing energy in accordance with demand during the day would also be good.


I agree that in principle it sounds sound but i think it would rapidly collapse due to the immovable conditons on the ground.
Not really. Creating one huge plant is just inefficient and creates a lot of gridlock. All, I'm saying is that rather than one huge plant, we could create little plants closer to the communities.

[ack]

Well, ethanol is pretty amazing stuff.
But we can't slip into the trap of dependency on one resoure again, we need to use solar power and hydro power and all that jazz.
Oh, and why are we arguing about this?
WASTE OF TIME.

[ComradeRed]

The entire Sahara? Solar energy is only practical in certain areas.There is no special pre-requisite for solar energy other than the sun shines there (check!).

Yeah, the Sahara desert, one of the hottest damn places on Earth with perhaps the most sunlight hitting it, is a good location to place solar cells. Why not?

If it could generate such a huge quantity of energy in one location that's consumed by everyone, then why not go ahead and build it? :huh:

It's sunny all day, it's a desert!

[Shadowlegion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 02:18 AM


The entire Sahara? Solar energy is only practical in certain areas.There is no special pre-requisite for solar energy other than the sun shines there (check!).

Yeah, the Sahara desert, one of the hottest damn places on Earth with perhaps the most sunlight hitting it, is a good location to place solar cells. Why not?

If it could generate such a huge quantity of energy in one location that's consumed by everyone, then why not go ahead and build it? :huh:

It's sunny all day, it's a desert!
sandstorms, and a bunch of other factors would hinder it from being effective in a lot of the desert, you'd might as well build it on the ocean.

I think it's important to have decentralized and diversified energy sources, so they can all get attention and be developed. the distributed network would be awesome.

[ack]

Have any of you seen the designs for these super windmills that are being built all across Europe? They're awesome. I saw them in Newsweek about a year ago, but I haven't heard anymore about it.

[Janus]

There is no special pre-requisite for solar energy other than the sun shines there (check!).
Yeah, but it's just not practical to put it in certain areas since the costs outweigh the benefits.


sandstorms, and a bunch of other factors would hinder it from being effective in a lot of the desert
They'll have to be maintained but you're right, the Sahara isn't all that suitable due to that.


you'd might as well build it on the ocean.
What? Waves could easily cause more damage. And we could harness the power of waves and the ocean itself rather than waste money building suspenders for solar panels.


Have any of you seen the designs for these super windmills that are being built all across Europe?
They're mainly only effective in areas that get a lot of wind which is somewhat unreliable.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 04:39 PM
Study: Ethanol won't solve energy problems (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060710/ap_on_sc/ethanol;_ylt=AgZ2tHPKYKJ_vDmVYQmxI58PLBIF;_ylu=X3o DMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--)


That article says ethanol only produces 25% more energy than is consumed making it. Sounds like ethanol's not a solution at all; it's part of the problem.

Corn-based ethanol is basically kept alive with government subsidies, which in turn are kept alive by lobbyists for Archer Daniels Midland. (An agrobusiness giant. Bob Dole was long known as the Senator from ADM.) It's also hyped by companies like Ford as a way of making themselves look green without actually having to do much.

More generally, subsidies for energy sources don't make sense; they slow rather than accelerate the research to make those sources cost-effective enough to be widely used. Why bother, when Uncle Sam will help you make big bucks with them as is?

The whole approach is oddly both market-based and market-distorting; all the drawbacks with none of the advantages of the market.

It'd make more sense to put that money into research projects for new or improved energy technologies, not subsidies for existing flawed or highly limited technologies.

****

Yes, if the whole Sahara was covered in solar cells, it'd produce lots of energy. Or if it was covered in hamster wheels hooked up to generators, for that matter.

The question is, how do you make that many solar cells. They're not cheap to make, in money or energy. Their production also results in a fair bit of toxic waste.

[Janus]

That article says ethanol only produces 25% more energy than is consumed making it. Sounds like ethanol's not a solution at all; it's part of the problem.
Depends on what type of base you use for the ethanol. In the US, corn would be used and we all know that large amounts of oil are needed in order to get it to that point through harvesting, etc.

However, I've heard that Brazil has had pretty good successes with a sugar cane base.