Date:         Wed, 22 Feb 2006 21:03:59 -0500
Reply-To:     Wesley Pegden <wes@CS.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Wesley Pegden <wes@CS.UCHICAGO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Ethanol is the fuel of the future?
Comments: To: Evan Mac Donald <macdonald1987@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
In-Reply-To:  <20060129151205.33419.qmail@web81711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Sorry to revive this old thread, but here's more food for thought.  They
say that a pound of food requires a pound a oil to produce.  Unless that
ratio is much better for ethanol, we're no better off.  From the linked
article, this sounds promising: getting ethanol from switch grass almost
sounds like getting it for free.  But every time I see one of those "go
green" GM commercials with SUV's and cornfields, I'm overcome with
skepticism.  Call my crazy, but I have a feeling that every ineffective
way of reducing oil dependence will be pushed as hard as possible before
we actually move onto to the effective ones.

-Wes

Evan Mac Donald wrote:
>     <snip>
>
>   I seem to recall a thread on this a few months ago- what needs to be done to a WBX to burn ethanol properly? Higher compression...?
> This brought to mind the Zetec conversion, among others- what are the current conversion options that will handle ethanol readily?
>
> <snip>
>
>   In general, an alcohol-fueled engine runs slightly cooler and gets poorer milage than a gasoline-fueled one. This is mostly because of two related factors. Alcohol burns cooler than gasoline, and does not have the same energy density. You need to burn more than a gallon of alcohol to get the same amount of enegy that you get from a gallon of gasoline. But, as was mentioned in the article, the emissions from burning that more-than-a-gallon are far less. And that is before you consider some of the other factors involved in gasoline production. Tranport efforts, production problems, the list is long. There are lots of costs, and not all are monetary.
>   Personally, I liked the part for Brazil about NOT sending all that money out of country, and being able to keep in at home. That looked good for their economy. Any country that sends lots of money away is asking for trouble.
>
>