SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Ish who wrote (35664)3/19/2004 9:00:06 PM
From: pheilman_  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793868
 
<No, you are thinking about the chemical MTBE which also causes cancer. >

No, adding oxegenates reduces carbon monoxide production (during catalytic converter warm-up) at the cost of increased hydrocarbon emmissions and lower fuel mileage for the blended fuel.

< Wrong again, all those things have been taken into account and there's still a 38% gain in energy. >

Depends on whose numbers you trust. I simply believe that triple distillation, to separate the ethanol from the mash, is energy intensive. I can find reports that show creating ethanol is a net loss for energy. methanol.org ...

"According to the Department of Energy, it takes 85,000-91,000 British Thermal Units (BTUs) of energy to produce one gallon of ethanol. But ethanol has an energy content of only 76,000 BTUs -- a net loss of 9,000-15,000 BTUs. There is also increasing evidence that ethanol hurts rather than helps the environment. Gasoline blends using ethanol (such as Gasohol) produce greater evaporative emissions than standard gasoline while increasing hydrocarbon emissions by as much as 50% and nitrogen oxide emissions by 15%. The National Academy of Sciences has concluded, "...ethanol as a blending agent in gasoline... would not achieve significant air-quality benefits and, in fact, would likely be detrimental." What the ethanol program does produce is higher consumer prices for corn"
nationalcenter.org