Wow, thanks for explaining this. Autoline Detroit is only a 30 minute TV program, they mentioned many things, but some items/subjects had to go unexplained and only mentioned as subjects.

EDIT:
Does "grass, wood, debris" = hemp?

That would be too funny.

All of this is true, but you still can't make enough to replace fossil fuel. And even to make a 'difference' would mean using huge amounts of our land. Please refer back to the above calculations.

Having grown up in Brazil and being the grandson of one of the key people in the Brazilian ethanol project, I still cannot understand why America has a hard on for making ethanol from corn. It does not take a genius to figure out that sugar cane is the way to go. Ethanol is a very good energy source, so long as it is made from something other than corn which has a very low yield. But here, this is a good read
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Business/070605_cafta.html

On a different note, being a car guy there is a lot to like about ethanol. Other than changing a few parts around in order to deal with corrosion, any vehicle can be cheaply converted to run on ethanol. Including the cars we talk about right here on this forum. Then there are the higher compression ratios that one can run when using ethanol. Again, while we care about the environment, we are car guys as well. Want to be both, go with ethanol. But don't buy into the corn lobby bull*****. Sugar cane is the best source right now.

But here is something else to keep in mind. The US and most of the Americas are almost cater made for sugar cane production. Believe me when I say that we can produce a *****load more sugar cane than can Kuwait or any of the Emirates. That is one hell of an opportunity. So wake up folks. The argument should not be about the viability of ethanol. The argument should be about the source.

The corn lobby is stronger than the sugar lobby. That's why most soft drinks in the US are made with corn surup rather than sugar even though most people think sugar tastes better.

We have more area that can support Corn than SUgar Cane. OTOH, we can also grow sugar beets.

Actually, some would argue that if it were not for the work of Dr Norman Borlaug, decades ago there would not have been enough land to sustain wheat production to feed the world. Much less today. That single man has probably done more for humanity than anybody else on the planet. Who is to say that some re-engineering of sugar cane could not be done in the same way. A massive worldwide demand for sugar cane would certainly warrant the research. To to mention growing it in places that haven't been used in the past.

Extraordinary demands require extraordinary solutions. All doable when one is talking about a renewable resource. Here is what was done for wheat.
http://www.aworldconnected.org/article.php/311.html
The same could be done for sugar cane. Or maybe even corn.

Please people, read my post way back up. The most we can do is some help around the edges. E85 is not a viable replacement to gasoline. CNG would be a better fuel until we have electric vehicles figured out.

Red-beard, perhaps using both is a better solution. After all, why does one fuel have to be the answer. Right now we already use two in the form of diesel and gasoline. But really, the argument that there isn't enough land to support it pales in comparison to Dr Borlaug's views of this particular century and wheat needs. Seems to me that fuel is the least of our worries when compared to food and water. Read about what he says here (as written in the link I pasted above):


"Africa, the former Soviet republics, and the cerrado are the last frontiers. After they are in use, the world will have no additional sizable blocks of arable land left to put into production, unless you are willing to level whole forests, which you should not do.

Future food-production increases will have to come from higher yields. And though I have no doubt yields will keep going up, whether they can go up enough to feed the population monster is another matter. Unless progress with agricultural yields remains very strong, the next century will experience sheer human misery that, on a numerical scale, will exceed the worst of everything that has come before."


I don't think anybody on this board has the clout to argue with his opinion on this matter. Whichever way you look at it, food or fuel, this is going to be one tough century. Keep in mind the low percentage of Chinese or Indians who own cars today. Wait until more of them start driving and consuming like us. The way I see it, our future generations will have better toys to play with. Or maybe not (no internal combustion). Everything else like quality of life or room to breathe will be worse. Who knows, maybe it's my reason number thirty something for not having any kids.

Has anyone else gone to the web pages that give you statistics on fuel mileage on E-85? It drops by about 20 - 25%. Here in Missouri, it is not cheaper, even the 10% blends. You would be buying more fuel to drive the same miles, thus "taxing" yourself to use ethanol. A recent article from the AP stated that ethanol plants in Missouri have raised the price of corn 20 cents a bushel. Farmer's got another market competing for his crop.

Didn't I also read that burning ethanol doesn't create the carbon monoxide that fossil fuels do? (Except for the 15%, of course.)

Bush Blames Cuts at Energy Lab on Mix-Up
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060222/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush;_ylt=Am.A0n8cKv6SHuRPBGzRpRyyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMT A5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--
Bush Blames Cuts at Energy Lab on Mix-Up

Why is a slowly increasing gas tax a tax on the "poor"? Go by the projects in my neighborhood and you see plenty of SUVs. If we drove the cars the Japanese and the Europeans drove, we would be using A LOT less gas..

And what is so polluting about wood and hard coal? Wood might be a bit smokey in densely packed suburbs, but a well run stove in a rural area is a thing of beauty.

Perhaps this IS where crop genetic engineering is appropriate. Develop a high yield plant for the purpose fuel production. Utilizing a few technologies instead of looking for one magic bullet is the way to go.

There already is one, it's called hemp..............and I understand you can burn it too.:D

I can see the bumper stickers already:

"My Car Pokes Smot"

That might already be possible, just look at all theses links:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Ethanol++hemp&btnG=Google+Search

Hempthanol anyone?:D

So, is hemp the easiest and most productive type of plant to grow for the purpose of fuel distillation? What's the active ingriedient? THC?...sure beats MTBE.

You can use it, but I think there needs to be a breakthrough in the cellulosic ethanol technology - doubt it has the sugar content of sugar cane or corn.

http://www.digitalhemp.com/hemp/html/emp/09/09_024.gif

Cellulosic ethanol is probably the MOST viable source of ethanol - much better than distilling corn, and perhaps better than even sugarcane distillate ( I have not read anything to dispute this, nor to support this) - assuming that the enzyme technology is really at the point that the American Coalition for Ethanol claims it to be. And HEMP would be the most viable crop for the job. Why? Because it grows without lots of maintenance and without pesticide. And because it is a very prolific crop that yeilds much more cellulose fiber than almost every other crop. Most countries already allow hemp farming for fiber and for biofuels. Only America is still wasting billions on the eradication of ditchweed hemp, which does not contain viable amounts of THC. And to think... once upon a time in America people recognized this crops value.

Still, with the claim that cellulosic ethanol is down to about $1.15/gallon, you are still looking at no net savings to the consumer. E85 has only 73% of the energy of gasoline, meaning a loss of 27% fuel economy. This equates to $1.58 for an equivelant amount of energy output, and this is before any taxes or profit. Not considered by many is that as more land is used for fuel crops, and less is used for food crops, the cost of the food sitting on your table will increase. Lose at the pump and lose at the grocery store also. Nice.

I find the claim of "simple modifications" to be dubious. You would have to completely change out your fuel system (alcohol doesn't agree with many types of rubber and seals) and you would have to recalibrate your carbs. If you are EFI, then you get to buy larger injectors and reprogram your computer. Sure it can be done, but not simple or cheap - not by my standards.

What about the so-called Bio-Diesels?

100% HEMP DIESEL FUEL?

That could change the equation, right?

You can read about it:
http://www.hempworld.com/Hemp-CyberFarm_com/htms/hemp-products/bio-diesel/bio-diesel.html

More here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=diesel+hemp&btnG=Google+Search

Why do these crops have to be grown exclusvely in the US? A good portion of our cheap produce doesn't.