You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
Ok. First of all, sounds like a good idea on paper. Ethanol plant produces food for cattle, cattle produce fuel for plant, sell beef for burgers, sell ethanol for fuel, sell leftover manure (turning manure to methane still leaves a big part of the solids behind) for fertilizer. Could be a good business venture.
One question:
"Burning the methane will cut the amount of the greenhouse gas -- which could contribute to global warming -- released into the environment."
Ok, what's the byproduct of burning methane? Any chance that byproduct would be a greenhouse gas??????
I've no problem with the idea in general. Just don't try to blow smoke at me about reducing greenhouse gasses.
Well, they complain about the methane the cows produce, so it at least gets used instead of just released...
__________________
the workhorse:86 F250 4x4 6.9 Diesel 4-spd, 4.10 axles
the other workhorse 92 F350 2wd crew cab,3.55 rear axle, 92 6bt Cummins, NV4500
the project: 78 F150 4x4 shortbed 351 auto Iowa Chapter leader, ASE certified parts specialist
Come on down and join us in the Iowa chapter, or your own local chapter!! Thanks, Roger
Of course, when CH4 is burned, one of the product is CO2, a major greenhouse gas. However. according to wiki ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gases ) methane is the worse of two (higher GWP = Global Warming Potetial) so we're better off by burning methane.
What I don't like about alcohol and E85 is the following:
Quote:
On average, it takes one unit of fossil-fuel-based energy to produce ethanol containing between two and 2.5 units of energy, according to Langley.
A spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association, a national trade association for ethanol, says the ratio is even lower, closer to one unit producing 1.67 units of ethanol energy.
IMHO, this is the Achilles' heel of E85, and need to be improved to be a viable fuel in the long term.
The fossil base is the heating aspect, and maybe if they are including it, is the fuels used on the farms. If they use the methane for heating, then that lowers the petroleum usage. Natural gas is what is used typically, as it is readily available Last I knew, natural gas isn't at much risk of running out, but that still is no excuse, if they can get the heat from natural sources, other than petroleum, it would be better. There are some as well that are taking the stalks and such for burning. Initially, ethanol is using natural gass, but in time, they likely will move away from it.
The one thing about ANY alternative fuel is that it takes time to figure out how to produce it, as well as use it. If we are truly going to move away from petrofuels, the engines will also have to as well, or however the power source. We simply will not be able to just keep using the exact same engine, and expect all the fuels to work in them. It takes time and money to build the infrastructure, and if we all just wait for it to be there, it won't happen.
__________________
the workhorse:86 F250 4x4 6.9 Diesel 4-spd, 4.10 axles
the other workhorse 92 F350 2wd crew cab,3.55 rear axle, 92 6bt Cummins, NV4500
the project: 78 F150 4x4 shortbed 351 auto Iowa Chapter leader, ASE certified parts specialist
Come on down and join us in the Iowa chapter, or your own local chapter!! Thanks, Roger
Methane! That's the whole point. Burn the methane from the bovine poo.
Here's how it works:
Corn in.
Corn gets brewed into ethanol, with distillers grain as a waste product.
Cows eat distillers grain.
Cows output poo.
Poo outputs methane.
Methane is burned to heat the mash to distill the ethanol, closing the loop.
Anhydrous ethanol out, cows out.
So it's basically corn in, ethanol and cows out. So now you have your food and your fuel...
If you keep reading even further, they were also talking about using methane from landfills.
Edit:
Also, for the "grennhouse gas" thing, note that the CO2 released from the methanol ultimately came from the corn. Since the corn plants will intake a similar amount of CO2 next year when the corn plant grows, the net amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere is zero.
Last edited by rusty70f100; 01-28-2007 at 05:31 PM.
I'm not asking about the complete process -- I want to know how can they use a single unit of energy when producing 46 energy units of ethanol. One possibility is that they simply don't count methane, other is that they somehow made the distillation process so much more efficient than elsewhere. Or there might be some other trickery somewhere.
How so? It's not like they have to buy it. All they're doing is figuring the ethanol plant as a whole. Energy out over energy in. And in the end, isn't that what counts?
Last edited by rusty70f100; 01-29-2007 at 11:08 AM.
Energy for distillation should be counted in the same way, whether the methane is a cow byproduct, or comes from a natural gas company.
Now, if they've used something like a heat pump or heat exchanger to scavange some heat from somewhere else in the process, thereby lessening the external energy requirement for distillation, that would be different, and they could rightly claim a higher number.
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.
