Was "Veyron poll" - Then "VAG/GM discussion" - Now "Veyron discussion again"

[Poverty]

Not to mention that it also takes more engery to make the corn fuel than we get out of it.

 

[Famine]

Corn is renewable.

Out of interest, do you know how much corn is required for an "average" car?

11 acres a year.

Do you know how many cars there are in the US alone? In the UK there's 24 MILLION, so we'd need 264 million acres of corn every year - assuming standard farming practice of one growing, one harvesting, one fallow, that's actually 792 million acres, just to grow corn for bioethanol for the present numbers of cars.

Now, this is a bit of a problem. Because the UK only has 60 million acres of land - we'd need more than twelve UKs worth of land to provide bioethanol for just the UK.

But of course even that isn't the problem with bioethanol...

The real problem with ethanol from corn is that it requires fuel to make the corn. David Pimentel a professor from Cornell has done the analysis . An acre of U.S. corn can be processed into about 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre, according to Pimentel. That is $1.05 per gallon of ethanol before the corn even moves off the farm.

The energy economics get worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented. As many as three distillation steps and other treatments are needed to separate the ethanol from the water. All these need energy.

Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol which has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. "Put another way," Pimentel says, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTU."

Overall ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of petrol. "That helps explain why fossil fuels -- not ethanol -- are used to produce ethanol" Pimentel says. "The growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. Drivers couldn't afford it, either, if it weren't for government subsidies to artificially lower the price."

 

[Joey D]

Small steps, we can't just do it all at once. E85 is not the answer like I said, but rather a step in the right direction.

And corn is a vary easy source for the US to get at least, we pay people not to grow corn here, so if we could have people grow the corn they are paid not to then it would be fine.

And if it wasn't something that was good, so many companies wouldn't be pushing it now would they?

 

[Poverty]

In countries like sweden and brazil were theyre arent that many cars its a viable alternative. Corn isnt the only plant you use to make the fuel you can also use sugar cane, of which brazil has plenty and sweded most liekly imports. For the whole world however to use it its not viable, hence why the big manufacturers arent investing in it to make a quick buck for a couple years.

 

[Famine]

And corn is a vary easy source for the US to get at least, we pay people not to grow corn here, so if we could have people grow the corn they are paid not to then it would be fine.

Fine?

For reference, there are an estimated 600 million cars on the planet. Want to work those numbers with me?
600 million cars
Average car requires 11 acres corn per year (three field rotation = 33 acres per car per year).
19.8 billion acres of corn required per year for all the cars now (increasing at 40 million cars a year, or (1.3 billion acres).
Earth's land surface area = 36.8 billion acres


We need half the planet's land to be covered with corn. Including Antarctica.

 

[the Interceptor]

Let's get started then I'd say!

 

[Dave A]

Small steps, we can't just do it all at once. E85 is not the answer like I said, but rather a step in the right direction.

And corn is a vary easy source for the US to get at least, we pay people not to grow corn here, so if we could have people grow the corn they are paid not to then it would be fine.

And if it wasn't something that was good, so many companies wouldn't be pushing it now would they?

The whole of the USA would be one huge corn field just for the car's ni the USA you couldn't drive them because there'd be no roads, it'd all be corn. It's an alternative, it's not a step in any direction but sideway's. It's not a viable option, nothing coming from E85 is, if car's were rare, it would be a viable alternative, but if car's were rare we wouldn't be thinking about replacing petrol yet either.

 

[Joey D]

Except not every car will burn corn, like I said it's not a replacement, it's a band-aid. I'm pretty sure you guys don't read anything I say. I never once said E85 would be in every car. It's merely a step in the right direction.

 

[Poverty]

Then whats the point of it? If not everycar will use make use of it then it will obviously be running on something superior once it stops using petrol and therefore make E85 redundant

 

[Dave A]

In what way is it a step in the right direction though, it's not a viable alternative so what good is it in the broad perspective. If not every car run's on it, petrol run's out or becomes unobtainable, we have to run all car's on E85. Corn then run's out, a hell of a lot in our live's now changes as a result and were further back than square one. It's a sideway's step, it's not doing anything special or great.

 

[Joey D]

Well it will lead to a better developement of an engine that runs on something else. At least companies are starting to think in the way of making something that runs on something else. E85 won't do a lot of good in the future, because like you guys said it requires a lot of corn, but now its a decent fix until something better can come out.

And Bugatti building a big car isn't helping with trying to find another way to make cars run on something else. At least a few companies are making strides to change over.

 

[Dave A]

But E85 won't lead to that, to run on a viable alternative you need a completely different type of motor. Anything our petrol or diesel engien can be modified to run on is just another source that will get wasted in no time.

A viable alternative is alnog the lines of water, electricity and solar energy, like I said there's a hell of a lot of work to do to get any of thoes close to a level where they'd offer what we get in a car now in terms of cost, praciticality and performance, but it can be done. If fuel is your concern, there the type's of alternatives you should be more interested in. The fuel cell is a much better option than E85.

And Cheverolet didn't built the Corvette to help save the plannet and find a new fuel source.

 

[Poverty]

bugatti building a big car is helping in the fact that they can now do certain things more effieciently.

I myself belive the future is hydrogen fuel cells and after that nuclear powered cars but by then we will be dead.

 

[YSSMAN]

Okay, E85 might not be a big deal elsewhere in the world, but it is here in the US. Any measure by which we can decrease our dependancy on foreign oil, or simply lowering the price of gasoline will help. Although I personally think seeing high gas prices will finially do away with the SUV craze, there are still plenty of people who are going to be buying them because of the combination of E85 and DOD technology on the new GM products.

Here in the US, if we can combine the possibility of E85 and biodiesel with the introduction of smaller and more fuel efficent cars and other diesel products, we will be far better off than where we are today. Fuel Cell technology, although promising, is still too far off for anything to happen. Were lookng for short-term answers here, and fuel-cell tech is still too far off.

 

[GT4_Rule]

As I said, tell it to these people:

who represent a third of the world. Tell them why a gold Buddha is a better use of gold than a gold tap is.

Didnt I say this in my previous post:

Well, basically what I mean is the blade is diamond or is partially diamond to create precision cuts and maintain its sharpness, in case of high-speed cutting tools.

The Budda serves as a worshipping thingy for millions of Buddhists, as opposed to gold taps which only serves as a tap for few people who stays in that kind of a hotel.

But really, this debate of "How materials should be used" isnt really going to make sense because it all depends on one's values and views If someone dont consider gold taps to be useful then of course he/she'll stay that way.

Out of curiousity, let me ask. Are you reading over all of my posts, carefully?