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.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (456)9/13/2005 9:30:29 PM
From: Slagle  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 219592
 
Elroy Re: "farm subsidy program" I agree. it surely is. But there is a side benefit in that ethanol is an octane booster and tends to reduce emissions, when added to the mix at about 5% or so, right? Or is there a better way to achieve those benefits without using any ethanol? I know one really bad result from "gasahol" gasoline fuel; left in the gas tank for a very long time the stuff is terribly corrosive as the ethyl alcohol absorbs atmospheric moisture and this makes a corrosive sludge that eats up the gas tank and the rest of the fuel system over time. This is especially a problem for antique car and motorcycle collectors and restorers. You never have this problem with cars that never had "gasahol" type fuel in the tank.

If corn ethanol is not far from "break even" energy wise, how much of an improvement is ethanol that is produced from sugar cane? With the corn and sugar cane being fairly close relatives in the grass family is not the amount of nitrogen salts and other nutrients required to produce a given amount of carbohydrates about the same? If the advantage comes from sugar cane having a higher ethanol yield, how far from "break even" energy wise is sugar cane ethanol? In other words, would it not be just as good to use the natural gas as a fuel rather than employ the sugar cane "middle man"?
Slagle