Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power Government Politics

N.Y. Governor Pushing for Alternate Fuels 226

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the burning-discussion dept.
Aviran Mordo writes to tell us that the Governor of New York is pushing hard for the widespread availability of both ethanol and biodiesel on the New York State Thruway and 100 more locations around the state. From the article: "Costs and further details of the plan, which Pataki first sketched out in his State of the State address on Wednesday, will not be disclosed until he makes his budget proposal later this month. If the plan is approved by the Legislature, it will give New Yorkers one of the nation's most diverse ranges of fuel choices. Only Minnesota offers an ethanol-rich blend known as E85 at more than 100 stations. Likewise, biodiesel is offered at only a few hundred of the nation's roughly 180,000 stations."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

N.Y. Governor Pushing for Alternate Fuels More

N.Y. Governor Pushing for Alternate Fuels

Comments Filter:

  • How about more truth in politics? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Saturday January 07, 2006 @05:36PM (#14418431) Homepage Journal
    The article speaks the true reasons:

    Pataki has been criticized for promoting ethanol because it is made from corn grown in states that include Iowa, which he has been visiting recently to gauge support for a possible presidential run.

    and:

    Environmentalists have largely denounced making ethanol-capable vehicles, calling that a boondoggle intended for the agriculture lobby and Detroit. When automakers build cars and trucks that can use ethanol, called flex-fuel vehicles, they earn credits that make it easier to meet fuel-economy regulations, in turn giving them leeway to build more gas-guzzlers.

    Also, biodiesel will be a huge source of revenue for the political cronies (same people supported by both parties). Gas station ownership is heavily regulated and licensed. Biodiesel won't be just given tax breaks but direct taxpayer-funded subsidies! From TFA:

    On Friday, a gallon of E85 was selling for $1.73--in part because of subsidies--at a station in Akron, Iowa, compared with $2.19 for a gallon of unleaded regular.

    From a political standpoint, biodiesel subsidies also pay for numerous megacorp farming cronies.

    If New York wants cheaper fuel, do two things:

    1. Annul all gas taxes
    2. Get rid of boutique fuel mixes making refineries wealthy

    • Re:How about more truth in politics? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Add to that:

      3. Deregulate the auto industry so we can legally decide to buy Smart cars or whatever else we want, and small manufacturers can get in and make something new.

      As long as we have bureaucrats and people that think consumers are too dumb to decide for themselves and regulate everything, we will be waaay behind what the market could provide for us.

      • As long as we have bureaucrats and people that think consumers are too dumb to decide for themselves and regulate everything, we will be waaay behind what the market could provide for us.

        Exactly. I firmly believe that our fuel and automobile choices should be determined by the market instead of by Congress. Look at the gas prices here, for example. We don't know what the true cost of oil is because of oil subsidies and other factors. With all of those factors removed, then we will finally see the true

        • It's equally likey the true price is lower, due the fact that governments love to throw additional taxes on gas at the pump. One estimate I say recently said the various taxes made up as much as 30% the total price. What one hand giveth...

        • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday January 07, 2006 @11:28PM (#14419736)
          Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Absolutely. (Score:2, Interesting)

        by modecx ( 130548 )
        Totally agreed. We'd be able to get more cars that are popular in Europe, especially cars from manufactures that can't keep up with the US's inane changes in safety and environmental requirements.

        Look at the Lotus Elise. Okay, so it's not an especially economical car, but with its 1.8L engine, and weight just under a ton, it does get pretty good gas mileage--around 25MPG, which is incredible for a sports car. The only problem is that Lotus wasn't able to fully make the feds happy with the Elise, and so i
    • Good catch on the subsidies part, I was going to point that out as well.

      This PDF [ethanol.org] talks about the cost and efficiencies of EXX fuels. They are basically the same as regular gas.

      Most of the gas in the US is refined here (about 90% I believe). So its just the crude oil that we are missing. We also still produce roughly 1/2 of our own crude oil.

      Oil is just a nasty commodity. It has become so entrenched in our economy that we wage wars over it to protect our economy from inflation.

      If the government really wa
      • Many government employees have every other friday off, and work 9 hours every day (7-5 for example, with the exception of the "on" friday, which is 8 hours or 730-430) to make up for it. In a way, the government's already half way there.

      • Oil is just a nasty commodity. It has become so entrenched in our economy that we wage wars over it to protect our economy from inflation.

        Well, as I see it, aren't the costs of those wars effectively subsidies on petrofuels? Shouldn't we consider that just as much as the subsidies on biofuels when comparing the economics of both? How much of the cost of the US military over the last 50-75 years would have not been necessary if not for the need to secure cheap oil, and how much would it have increased th

    • There's arguments that bio-gas costs more either economically or energetically than the contained fuel. Even if that were true it's not a good argument against it. Hydrogen fuels obviously "cost more" energetically too. They are chemical energy transport devices. But more to the point the source of that fuel might not neccessarily be oil but could be nuclear, wind (especially wind at night), solar, tidal, or waste by product heats. It could even come from the biosource itself. And that makes our fuel
      • I'm not sure if oil prices will go up forever. I'm also not sure if I believe in the scarcity idea either.

        I do know that higher costs for alternative fuels often means less friendly to the environment. Not always, though.

        • Assuming that there is not some existing process going on underground, right now, that makes crude oil as fast as it is used, then the supply of underground crude oil must be limited.

          That means that according to the simple "law of supply & demand" the price of what is left will go up until demand for it drops. Or do you not believe in simple economics?

          Oil may or may not be scarece at the moment. That is a matter for debate but if it isn't now, and we keep using it, it will be one day...

      • I've read both sides (all 4 sides?) of the debate. I've read about peak oil theories (which I completely don't believe) and I've read published results regarding oil well replenishment that has occured far faster than any theory would have estimated. I don't believe oil only comes from deceased carbon-life, it could be a bacterial byproduct or even in massive quantities farther beneath the earth than we realize. A good friend of mine is a published geologist/geophysicist and even he admits that we don't
        • Bacteria IS "carbon-life". And they might be producing carbohydrates and fats in vast quantities from geothermal energy.... but I doubt it.

          Oil prices are much higher than the average American realizes. That industry is (undeservingly IMO) being subsidized quite extensively.

          Hubert's Peak appears to be real, although I completely disagree with the hysterical way it is often presented. A decline in petroleum availability is bound to be at least somewhat gradual, with substitues coming online along the way. Wha
        • protect the dollar from devaluation

          That's a nice theory, but it doesn't work out. The Bush administration has sought out [google.com] a weak dollar since taking office. While a strong dollar directly helps US quality of life, a weak dollar encourages foreign investment in the US, and thus theoretically helps the US economy and improvement in quality of life. There are pros and cons to a strong dollar policy, such as we had under Clinton.
          • Considering that Greenspan was in "office" during Clinton's years, and the Fed had taken an easy credit/easy money policy during Clinton's days, the problem started in Clinton's time. When we left the gold standard completely with Nixon (1971ish?), the dollar was still relatively stable in devaluation over about 20 years. 1991 (in my opinion) was the beginning of the end of the dollar's strength -- prices rose but wealth and household comfort did not. In the past 14 years we've seen true prices rise agai

        • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday January 07, 2006 @11:42PM (#14419779)
          Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • ...
      From a political standpoint, biodiesel subsidies also pay for numerous megacorp farming cronies.

      Wow, who do you work for, Shell, Total, or Exxon? This Argumentum Ad Hominem is by far the worst spin I have ever seen on the most promising alternatives to dino-fuels. What is the half trillion dollars we are "investing" in Iraq if not oil industry subsidies?

      Not to mention that bio-fuels are cumulatively far less CO2 producing because the plants that comprise it grew by photosynthesis which removes carbon
      • What is the half trillion dollars we are "investing" in Iraq if not oil industry subsidies?

        It isn't for oil subsidies. Both "wars" against Iraq were fought primarily to keep the US dollar as the only trading mechanism for oil. If Saddam was to switch to gold or the Euro, the dollar could devalue. I'm against fiat currency and the Federal Reserve, so I'd love to see this happen (and it could in a few months, as I mentioned in my gold blog in the past day or so).

        Lastly, bio-fuels have other positive aspect
      • Iraq isn't a subsidy to the "oil industry" in general. It's a subsidy to the oil services industry. There's an important distinction. Refiners like stability, and the cuts in Iraqi production and irregularity of pipeline/refinery/port operation is very damaging to them. Producers are only somewhat benefitted by it as Iraq's oil fields are currently not for sale; the slight augmenting of the global shortage, however, somewhat increases the value of their extant fields. But those who do new refinery/fiel
    • I'm not sure if ethanol is a good idea or not, but ...

      I like the idea of having alternate fuels around as a hedge agains oil volatility. The US *should be* developing any domestic alternatives it can, as well as improving conservation, to gain energy independence.
    • More ways to get cheaper fuels:

      - Stop opposing drilling for oil on US soil and in US waters.

      If you oppose drilling for oil in ANWR you ought to be forced to vacation there every year. It's a beautiful wilderness paradise, isn't it? Caribou are more important than people, aren't they? Go visit then.

      - More nuclear power

      I think NY has a power plant that's completely built, but they won't operate. Not 100% sure on that. Cheap electricity would allow people in the northeast to switch from heating oil to ele
      • More nuclear power

        What gave you the idea that nuclear power was cheap? It's heavily subsidized just to stay afloat.

        liquid natural gas

        Fears of LNG tankers are not on environmental grounds typically, but on terrorism and accident grounds instead. An LNG tanker has enough fuel on board to make a fuel-air explosion more powerful than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. Even a non-optimal explosion can be nasty; an explosion at a terminal in Algeria killed 27 people in '04.

        LNG is actually far more environmental
    • Everything that you say may be totally true, and it would only make me want to support biodiesel and ethanol more.

      Sure, biodiesel and ethanol would benefit the states that produce them: Iowa, Minnesota, and the other bread basket states; but what does the current petro-fuel system funnel money into? What doesn't get sucked into foreign economies mostly goes to the big petroleum companies.

      I would rather that Pataki's cronies in Iowa benefited from what I paid at the pump, than the Supreme Leader of Iran's cr

  • Great Step, but... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by purduephotog ( 218304 ) <`moc.tibroni' `ta' `hcsrih'> on Saturday January 07, 2006 @05:39PM (#14418450) Homepage Journal
    ... NY doesn't make corn like Indiana.

    One of the distinct advantages to using ethanol as a fuel is having a local distillation/production facility. While we still have to truck in gas since NY isn't exactly rich in oil wells we still lack the excess starch production that can be used as feedstock to columns.

    Given our rather poor winter heat (ie, freezing-ass cold) even MORE energy is going to be required for production.

    Now, that said, I realize this only address the distribution points within the state. Having a couple of fuel stops, every other one say, that produce E85 would be great and I'd run it. But there's just no easy way to 'make' it yet because we're so energy poor- the key to cheap fuel is recycling as much waste heat as possible (solar capture to preheat stock, exchangers around the condenser, etc)

    But hey, it's a step forward, right?
    • But hey, it's a step forward, right?

      Not if the net cost means biodiesel costs much more.

      More costs = more workers ~= less environmentally friendly

      I have yet to see if biodiesel will ever be better for the environment considering all aspects of production.
      • I am probably going to get modded-down for this, but it NEEDS to be said:

        More costs = more workers ~= less environmentally friendly

        I have yet to see if biodiesel will ever be better for the environment considering all aspects of production.

        Could you try adding more to the discussion than spouting crackpot assertions all over it?

        You are about the furthest thing from an environmental or economic expert I can imagine, a fact that makes the above seem even more ridiculous.

        Readers can go to NREL or biodiesel.o

    • Having a couple of fuel stops, every other one say, that produce E85 would be great and I'd run it.

      First, the summary of this article is incorrect about E85. Minnesota is not the only state that offers E85. North and South Dakota, as well as Iowa, offer the alternative fuel.

      Second, while I cannot link to any articles to back up my statements, it is only because the Fargo Forum charges for archived news articles. But much of what I write is passed on from an article written in the newspaper about the fuel

  • Is a... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Nolkyan ( 845268 ) on Saturday January 07, 2006 @05:40PM (#14418453)
    I'm unfamiliar as a whole with the topic, but is a special type of vehicle required to use ethanol-rich fuel or biodiesel?

    • Re:Is a... (Score:2, Informative)

      by RevDobbs ( 313888 ) *
      Biodiesel is blended so that it will run in current production, un-modified diesel engines.

    • Re:Is a... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Darlantan ( 130471 ) on Saturday January 07, 2006 @05:48PM (#14418483)
      Not really. If you've got a modern vehicle of the right type (gas for ethanol, diesel for bio-D) that was made since, say, 1980 or so, you should be good.

      Ethanol rich blends CAN be iffy in carbeurated systems due to the possibility that it might degrade some components, and they're not quite as easily tuned on the fly as modern computer-and-sensor fuel injection types. Pretty much all major auto manufacturers produce cars ready for operation on straight ethanol these days, IIRC.

      Bio-D has some problems with older vehicles, as well. The biggest is that the fuel is more likely to corrode some old hoses and such. Natural rubber + bio is a bad thing.

      On a side note, you can actually run your own still for pretty cheap, if you have the space, and produce ethanol legally to operate your vehicle. Google around. Diesels can also be run on veggie oil with a few relatively minor modifications. Plenty of resources out there explaining this, too.

    • Re:Is a... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Fei_Id ( 937827 ) on Saturday January 07, 2006 @06:03PM (#14418549)
      For ethanol? yes. Alcohols have a much different Stoichiometric air/fuel ratio than your typical gasoline. Gasoline has a perfect burn at 14.7:1 air/fuel ratio.

      Alcohol, depending on the variety, usually burns somewhere between 10 and 12:1. What does this mean? Well it requires MORE fuel to create a clean combustion. Though, from what I've read more fuel may be used, but it is a cleaner burn; resulting in less emissions output. Most modern engines could most likely use Ethanol IF they had their fuel systems redone without using certain types of hoses that rot away; and by replacing the fuel pump; since most fuel pumps are set to work with gasoline and alcohol is a good bit thinner.

      Alcohol also allows for better tune; engines will develop more horsepower per liter in displacement because of the higher octane effects of various alcohols. This is why there are methanol drag cars out there.

      Biodiesel can successfully be used in almost any diesel engine. Some old hoses could possibly have rotted away and need replacing; but that is standard maintenance anyways. I've seen old diesel boats running it; to someone's 1982 Datsun 2.2L diesel (I think its a 2.2) that gets like 60mpg.

      A great thing about biodiesel is it has a VERY clean burn. It doesnt stink like diesel motors do. For the most part, everyone says it smells like popcorn... seriously! Biodiesel can also be refined by backyard chemists. There's a guy here in Alabama, believe it or not, that sells it. He does what many backyard refineries do; he gets waste oils and gunk from local restaurants, refines it into biodiesel; uses it for himself to power his home and sells it off. He is also able to refine the waste products of biodiesel and sell them as well. Its quite interesting; and from what I can see, its an environmentalists wet dream :)
    • Supposedly most current diesel engines will run bio diesel with no changes necessary. There was a point that bio-diesel was causing problems as it is a bit of a solvent and was ruining seals throughout the fuel system. It also lacked sulfur which acted as a lubricant in diesel fuel promoting less engine wear as the fuel is a lubricant as well. Those problems were worked out. Certain Ethanol fuels like e85 do not need any modification but as the mixture uses more ethanol you are going to need modifications.
    • In Australia we have %10 Ethanol fuel that will run in every car. And Brazil has cars that are designed to run on ethanol alone. The only problem I see here is that for some reason you want to get your ethanol from corn crops. What is wrong with getting it from sugar cane?

    • Re:Is a... (Score:2, Informative)

      by CelestialScum ( 23249 )
      Actually you just need minor modifications to modern car. In Sweeden, the E85 mix is readily availiable, and both SAAB and Volvo is selling cars that run on both E85 and regular unleaded. The reason for these minor modification is simply the higher strain on some parts due to the octane level of E85, which is 101 i believe (as opposed to 92, 95 and 98 which are the usual ones).
      Benefits of this is of course cleaner car emissions, but also a more potent mix, creating cars that actually put out more horsepower

  • Summary Incorrect jusft FYI (Score:3, Informative)

    by extra the woos ( 601736 ) on Saturday January 07, 2006 @05:43PM (#14418466)
    E85 is offered in places here in Nebraska as well.

  • Burn less fuel.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Gandalf_the_Beardy ( 894476 ) on Saturday January 07, 2006 @05:56PM (#14418508)
    Here in the UK diesel and petrol are pushing about $6.60 a gallon (US). We cope by having more fuel efficient cars - 55mpg from my diesel at motorway speeds is the norm. Use less fuel - best way of saving money!
    • I see you are a citizen of a nation which has not taken leave of its senses.

      Even as the entire world embraces extremely efficient diesel passenger car technology, it is impossible to buy a new diesel automobile in Pataki's state (and my own state of Massachusetts and a growing number of others as well). Luckily I bought my Golf TDI before these insane regulations came into effect, and am enjoying mpg in the 40s and an extremely pleasant driving experience. My other car is a Corrado VR6, but I find the Gol

    • My gasoline car gets between 30 and 40 mpg. I probably drive average or less than many people, roughly 300 miles/week and spend less than $100/month on gas. Roughly $20 a week. At $6.60 per gallon in the US anybody with a truck or SUV will be spending about $500/month on gas driving what I do and getting about 20 mpg. Yes, folks that is $6,000 a year on gas.

      • I can't wait :). What we need is sane mass transit and to stop giving huge subsidies to developers who build a long way from urban areas. I probably am driven 30 miles a week or less. I live in a place where almost everything is a walk away and the rest is an easy bus ride.
    • Diesel cars are not very common in the US. The diesel fuel we have is also far far "dirtier" than in Europe because of the high sulfur content. They are talking about phasing in low-sulfur diesel, but it's going to take quite awhile. In the meantime, I have a Prius now. I usually get ~55mpg or so during the summer, and ~45mpg during the winter. Colder temperatures make the engine run more during the winter, especially if the heater is in use. Still though, I can't complain about gas mileage. I think
    • So to save money I need to buy a new car and move to a new house closer to work? That's a fantastic idea.. I should break even on fuel savings sometime in 2068.

  • One person I spoke to told me that ethanol is incompatible with gasket materials on the interior of many engines in use at the moment. I can't find mention of this in TFA, though.

    • Just grabbed a random link from Google

      A Testing Based Assessment to Determine Impacts of a 20% Ethanol Gasoline Fuel Blend on the Australian Passenger Vehicle Fleet - 2000hrs Material Compatibility Testing
      http://www.deh.gov.au/atmosphere/fuelquality/publi cations/2000hours-vehicle-fleet/materials-2.html [deh.gov.au]

      The Conclusions [deh.gov.au] gives you a list of all the parts affected by a 20% ethanol/80% gasoline blend

      • Re:Is it safe for engines? (Score:4, Informative)

        by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Saturday January 07, 2006 @06:21PM (#14418627) Journal
        Oh, this June 2005 NY Times article http://www.newenergycapital.com/nec_pdf/NYTJune_05 .htm [newenergycapital.com] says:
        Cars, minivans and sport utility vehicles can burn a mixture of up to 10 percent ethanol without special equipment; for percentages higher than that, special materials are needed to prevent the ethanol from damaging gaskets and seals.


        Ethanol is 'cheap' because of State and Federal subsidies.

        If the ethanol business booms, so do State/Federal outlays necessary to support the industry. It's something to think about.
        • Subsidies are necessary to support the industry if and only if they keep insisting on using inefficient corn to make the fuel! On the other hand, if they switched to a fuel source that didn't suck (like hemp) they wouldn't need the subsidies!
    • To use ethanol, the engine require some adaptation. The use of ethanol is very common here in Brasil since mid 80's when 100% of new cars sold are ethanol. Today, a lot of new cars are using a "flex" fuel technology which is a eletronic device who controls the combustion.
    • Even worse - alcohol makes aluminium parts rust (Carbureter/Fuel Injection), causing huuuuuge repair bills. In South Africa, all 'petrol' contains a large percentage (about 60%) of alcohol and car engines are varnished to protect them against the fuel. So yes, it is a problem, but all the problems and solutions are already well known, due to research done in South Africa and Brazil. However, don't use alcolhol in a standard American engine, as it is not varnished. Detroit will have to make some changes

      • Detroit will have to make some changes before the use of alternate fuels become wide spread.

        Ironically, it's "detroit iron" that makes up the majority of flexible fuel vehicles available in the U.S. [e85fuel.com] If you look at that list, you'll notice that it's mostly made up of big sedans and trucks of the type that are only sold in the American market, and that the few "foreign" vehicles represented are almost all actually made by US companies! The "Isuzu" pickup is a clone of the Chevy S-10, the "Mazda" pickup i

        • Cool, wasn't aware of that list. The important thing to note is that if your vehicle is not listed then you should not use E85 fuel, unless you plan to sell the vehicle to another unsuspecting driver very soon!
          • Yeah, it's really unfortunate -- everything on the list is either an undesirable model (e.g. Crown Vic), a huge gas hog (all the trucks), or way too expensive (Mercedes). If only the models people cared about, like Hondas, Toyotas, and smaller domestic cars, supported E85 we could be much better off.

  • Clueless goofball (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fnj ( 64210 ) on Saturday January 07, 2006 @06:07PM (#14418568)
    Pataki is a twit. He says he wants biodiesel to be made available, yet he has let the moronic authorities in his state make it IMPOSSIBLE TO PURCHASE A NEW DIESEL AUTOMOBILE THERE (as is the case in a growing number of other states as well). Talk about transparent lip service. What a doofus.

    The entire rest of the world outside of North America is embracing diesel passenger car technology, as it dramatically improves fuel economy, lowering greenhouse gas production in the process - even before you consider biodiesel, which is an essentially neutral carbon cycle participant which produces no net CO2.

  • E85 is a scam (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wiredlogic ( 135348 ) on Saturday January 07, 2006 @06:09PM (#14418577)
    E85 is a scam. It gives less mileage than an equivalent volume of plain gasoline. Most stations don't acount for the reduced energy output in their pricing. Many even charge more for E85 than regular gas. If you do see E85 cheaper than regular, you can guarantee that that state is subsidizing the producers to attain that price.

    This is really just a way to put money into the pockets of the corn lobby, particularly ADM corp. They cringe at all of the surplus corn and other grain we just give away though USAID and would love if they could divert this into a new revenue stream.
    • I'd still rather divert the billions to companies in the US than in the Middle East. Face it, for a long time consumers are going to be buying fuel from somebody.
    • Funny thing, though is that the EU has made waves at WTO, etc., about US giving away grainstocks as part of humanitarian aid packages. Funny thing about the EU, though, is that its member countries do not produce most of the grain they use - it's all outsourced (South America, Africa). So part of that logic is, "hey, we have to pay for the stuff we give away, so the US shouldn't be able to just give away stuff it doesn't directly have to pay for", or some construed logic like that.

      Money into the pockets of

  • Only half the story (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Alcimedes ( 398213 ) on Saturday January 07, 2006 @06:12PM (#14418586)
    While ethonal does reduce CO2 emissions by burning fuel more completely, (reducing air pollution) it also significantly lowers over fuel economy (upwards of 10% to 20% on most vehicles).

    No one in the ethonal lobby ever wants to talk about the nitrogen/oxygen (NO2?) by-products that are increased, which are much worse greenhouse gasses than CO2 ever has or will be. (stays in the atmosphere much longer, and holds in magnitudes more heat than CO2. Coupled with the fact that it's very hard to extract from the atmosphere, unlike CO2)

    Then there's the increased pesticide use, the fact that it takes more fuel to produce ethonal than you get back, and it's a giant pipe dream.

    When you start mixing politics and science you get shitty science.

    • Re:Only half the story (Score:5, Informative)

      by pHatidic ( 163975 ) on Saturday January 07, 2006 @08:07PM (#14419034)
      Then there's the increased pesticide use, the fact that it takes more fuel to produce ethonal than you get back, and it's a giant pipe dream.

      This is only true for ethanol made from corn in the US. If you go down to Brazil and make it from sugarcane you get more energy out than you put in. Also, you can burn the non-usable part of the cane to generate the energy to run the irrigation system and the refinery, which you can't do with corn.

  • Follow Brazil's lead. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07, 2006 @06:12PM (#14418587)
    The "Big Three" US automakers already have the technology for E85. Ethanol is the primary automobile fuel in Brazil [renewables2004.de], and all the automakers mass produce cars for the Brazillian market which run very well on ethanol. There is not any need for expensive pie-in-the-sky research projects: the technology is here, and it works well.

  • Engines (Score:5, Interesting)

    by msbsod ( 574856 ) on Saturday January 07, 2006 @06:25PM (#14418642)
    Alternative fuels might be good for many reasons. But why not also change the engine at the same time? Turbine engines are used in trucks since a long time http://turbinetruckengines.com/index2.html [turbinetruckengines.com] and even Chrysler invested into turbine engines for cars http://www.allpar.com/mopar/turbine-photos.html [allpar.com] . Turbine engines have many advantages. Combined with an electric motor-generator concept, like in the Toyota Prius (w/ old piston engine, sigh), things become really interesting. Adding fuel alternative is easy with turbine engines.

    • no they aren't.. (Score:3, Informative)

      by YesIAmAScript ( 886271 )
      You link to some prototypes and say they've been used in trucks a long time?

      Turbines are simply not used in trucks. They aren't used in large numbers, aren't use in small numbers. They aren't used.

      The big 3 all looked at turbines in the 70s, and the problems they have (variable torque instead of variable speed) led to serious issues that transmissions would have to solve.

      They were not solved (yet) and turbines are not used in trucks.

      Turbines aren't even used in locomotives right now (or perhaps just very ve

      • Re:no they aren't.. (Score:3, Informative)

        by Forbman ( 794277 )
        Union Pacific built up a few turbine-powered locomotives (see other post) in the 50's/60's. Powerful, yes. But they couldn't figure out how to run them at idle w/o sucking down essentially the same amount of fuel as when they were under load. So, they gave up on the concept. About that time, more powerful diesel-electric locomotives became available also (that were about the same HP and pulling ability as the turbine locos).

        Did you see recent PopMech or PopSci? GE is working on a hybrid locomotive. Think: S
      • Ford built a turbine truck prototype [geocities.com] for the 1964 World's Fair, but it was never produced in quantity. A prototype turbine powered offroad truck train intended for military arctic operations was built in the 1950s. A small fleet of experimental turbine-powered trucks ran in the late 1970s, powered by Garret turbines. But these were all experiments.

        The M1 Abrams tank is turbine-powered, of course, and may be the only turbine-powered ground vehicle ever mass produced.

        The trouble with turbine-powered gr

    • Turbine engines completely suck (fuel) when they're running at idle. When they're running under load (and a more or less constant load), they are way more efficient than reciprocating engines (diesel, otto). Union Pacific had built some gas turbine-powered locomotives in the late 50's. Powerful, yes. Efficient when actually moving a load, yes. But they needed to pull along with them a nice fuel tank car. Today's SD70's just are too good.

      Same thing for the turbine-engined cars. And this work was done when ga

  • Takes more energy than it yields (Score:5, Informative)

    by Colonel Panic ( 15235 ) on Saturday January 07, 2006 @06:59PM (#14418771)
    Biodiesel only works (from an energy yield standpoint) if it is recycled from used vegetable oils. Ethanol from corn is a net energy loser: takes more energy to create than you get back (not to mention that it also depletes soils that could have been used to grow food).
    • Ethanol from corn is a net energy loser

      An unmitigated lie, which has been addressed time and time again. Why do people keep posting this crap? You might as well post a comment saying that geostationary satellites won't work, because the earth is flat.

      Admitedly, biodiesel looks to be a much cheaper and more effecient option than ethanol, but both are unquestionably energy producers.

  • Ethanol shmeshanol (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pavo ( 70713 ) on Saturday January 07, 2006 @07:09PM (#14418812) Homepage
    This site [zfacts.com] seems to debunk much of the hype over ethanol. It also has some choice things to say about the "hydrogen economy". I don't know how credible their analysis is, comment if you think it's crapola or not.
    • The site suggests the cost per gallon is about $8. Petrol will cost that in five or ten years anyway and isn't a renewable resource. That's why ethanol makes sense.
    • The key points are essentially correct: the net energy return from making ethanol from corn (or just about any other conventional crop) are marginal, and there's not enough agricultural land to make a significant dent in our energy needs using ethanol from corn.

      There are claims that ethanol from cellulose (switchgrass is the example that gets most attention, but wood, bamboo and the like are also good cellulose sources) is more likely to work. Here's an article [harvestcleanenergy.org] on the topic, if you're interested. But cor

  • Dump the Middle East for the Midwest (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tinrobot ( 314936 ) on Saturday January 07, 2006 @07:13PM (#14418824)
    Seriously... a huge number of this nation's problems have arisen from it's need for Middle East oil. Biodiesel cuts the Middle East out of the equation and gives that business to US farmers and agriculture.

    Biodiesel also is much better for the environment because it recycles carbon already in the atmosphere rather than releasing new carbon buried inside the earth.

  • priority: cheap gas? independence? environment? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by lowieken ( 522530 ) on Saturday January 07, 2006 @07:42PM (#14418936) Homepage
    If New York wants cheaper fuel, do two things:

    1. Annul all gas taxes
    2. Get rid of boutique fuel mixes making refineries wealthy

    A low gas price is just one possible political goal. Another one is energy price stability.

    Even if one focuses solely on the economical benefits of such a policy, it could make sense to:

    * cut energy consumption where the net economic effect is positive
    * raise energy taxes where the net economic effect is positive
    * invest in very long term local energy production (think 100+ years or renewable: wind, solar, nuclear)
    * invest in small scale local energy production (think straight vegetable oil instead of biodiesel)
    * invest in the reliability of partners on which your rely as external energy sources

Slashdot Top Deals

A triangle which has an angle of 135 degrees is called an obscene triangle.

Close