Re: [Amc-list] The Pickens Plan (not)

[Archimedes <Freedom@xxxxxxxx>]

>ethanol from starch is -very- short term, for all the negative reasons
>you cite, plus it's a very inefficient use of the plant.  the only
>thing it has going for it is 'off-the-shelf' technology.  cellulosic
>ethanol is more efficient and could use many plants on sub-prime
>arable land, but it still isn't a good fuel strategy.


Alcohol made with switchgrass ("cellulosic") isn't efficient at all, either.  The best hope for alcohol is these new algae farms:

        http://e85.whipnet.net/alt.fuel/algae.html

        http://www.globalgreensolutionsinc.com/s/Home.asp

Said it before, but... I think for a plant-based fuel infrastructure, the solution is to grow in the oceans or at least on floating farms.  The main benefits there might simply be the fact that massive production wouldn't take up scarce land, unlike growing corn for ethanol.  There are a bunch of researchers trying to figure out how to profitably harvest plant oil with algae.  I think that's where the fuel revolution will start.  The method is showing a lot of early promise; I hope the kinks get worked out quickly.


>brazil tried to go 100% ethanol.  okay, they're a small economy.
>okay, they stuck with conventional fermentation.  but their plan was
>pretty close to a total failure.


Actually they've made a pretty good go of it, and it continues to this day:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil

The biggest problem with it is the fact that they don't have the wealth to protect massive areas of rainforest; as a result, mostly due to increasing demand for imported alcohol by the United States, the Brazilians are ripping up increasingly massive stretches of life-intense rain forest every year.


>butanol isn't infinitely soluble in water; 7% saturates, so it can be
>pumped around the country via the pipeline system.  butanol can be
>poured straight into the tank of virtually all efi vehicles on the
>road -right-now-, if butanol.com's experience with a '94 buick is any
>guide.  and i think developing large scale 'cellulosic butanol' would
>be little more effort than is now being put to similar ethanol research.
>
>i'm not convinced that butanol is -the- answer, but i am convinced
>it's a -much-better- answer than ethanol.


I agree.

In the meantime, the technology **is** available to reduce usage of gasoline.  It just costs more than the current tech:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Intrepid_ESX

If every greenie would just plunk down $80k on Chrysler's lap and demanded to buy an ESX3, Chrysler and other companies would have immediately responded to the demand and *found* the technology to bring costs down.

Heck, those who had their panties in a twist about oil had the opportunity to do something about it long ago, but they refused: Even when low-tech cars with great fuel mileage have been offered by the domestic producers, greenies refused to buy them.  AMC had its 40 mpg Alliance.  The Chevette diesel in the 80's got an honest to goodness 50 mpg.  The 90's Geo Metro (OK, it was a captive import) got 53 mpg.  Even the mid-nineties Saturn SC models would get above 40 mpg with a 5 speed.  None of these cars sold in great numbers.  But then Toyata brings out the Prius and suddenly the noses go up into the air and mileage becomes fashionable for the well-heeled left.

-- Marc



_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://splatter.wps.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/amc-list