GMontag's Journal: Greenies: Why ethanol instead of methanol?

If this has been written or posed elsewhere, please let me know? It just dawned on me the other day.

Why is ethanol supposed to be so great when racers have been using methanol for a long time? Plenty of methanol data and experience out there, but ethanol had to be dragged into a market with a bunch of government "help".

I can see the obvious, all of that nostalgia for farmers and farmers grow corn, but methanol comes from wood and there are plenty of tree farmers out there in states with a lot more votes than Iowa.

Even the 'environmentalists' like this ethanol business, at the same time hating western agriculture practices. Could it be the trees? Could it be that the 'environmentalists' are so happy hugging trees that they will sacrifice any other plant for fuel just to save a tree?

It can't be the carbon sequestration nonsense, since it takes more energy to make ethanol than it does gasoline or diesel. It takes more energy to make the ethanol than you get from burning it too.

Wondering about methanol. I am guessing that it is probably easier to distill than ethanol and it must have more energy.

I am guessing it is the trees. Trees are pretty, corn is not pretty, so kill the corn to save the trees.

Update: My troll tolerance has dropped today. Bye.

Well, where to start

[ericrost]

First off, its a myth that ethanol takes more energy to produce than you get from it. It's somewhere around the area of a 25% carbon emissions reduction taking into account all sources and efficiencies. Not super, but not losing on the carbon balance either. Second, corn is fast growing. You are emitting the carbon that (aside from inefficiencies and energy to distill) has been taken out of the atmosphere that growing season. Trees, however, not so fast growing. Third, methanol produces a lot more carcino

Re:

[Servo]

Heaven forbid he ask a reasonable question. Uninformed people typically are encouraged to ask.

Re:

[ericrost]

A reasonable question sure, but a condescending tone, no. Sorry when you start saying "trees are pretty and corn isn't" you've lost the defense of "a reasonable question".

Re:

[ericrost]

Yes, but the question was ethanol vs methanol, not ethanol vs gasoline, or methanol vs gasoline. Methanol is a lot worse than even gasoline if you want to go down that road as far as being corrosive and handling goes. Ethanol is mildly corrosive (compared to gasoline) because it is acidic. You also have to seal tanks because its anhydrous (meaning it has no water in it, so it will suck water up). I'm really not sure why you go to leather and fur as environmental issues, but whatever floats your boat. You s

Re:

[robi2106]

I am confused by your statement about PH.... From this source: [frostburg.edu]
"pH is often used to compare solution acidities. For example, a solution of pH 1 is said to be 10 times as acidic as a solution of pH 2, because the hydrogen ion concentration at pH 1 is ten times the hydrogen ion concentration at pH 2. This is correct as long as the solutions being compared both use the same solvent. You can't use pH to compare the acidities in different solvents because the neutral pH is different for each solvent. For example

Re:

[ACalternative]

Funny how your comments are modded 0 and mine aren't... hmm.. typical responses from you all the way. Ask a trollish question. Get responses both showing you the information you asked for rudely and pointing out that you were rude. Respond snidely again and mention things that have nothing to do with what you asked. Ban the person who pointed out what you were saying was wrong from posting. Now that's intellectual honesty.

Re:

[robi2106]

yeah i posted but forgot about that.... oh well.

Wikipedia knows all

[Degrees]

Although it isn't in the Ethanol and Methanol entries like I would have thought. Methanol and ethanol [wikipedia.org] in the biofuels article.

Looks like the energy per gallon is better for ethanol, plus it is less corrosive than methanol.

Energy per gallon is a factor for me because: 1) it takes energy to haul weight around; I'd like that weight to get me more miles down the road than the alternative. 2) more energy per gallon means better miles per gallon, which lets me stop less often at a gas station (given that my gas

acetone

[capoccia]

acetone works better than either:
http://pesn.com/2005/03/17/6900069_Acetone/ [pesn.com]

While I can't answer the ethanol vs. methanol...

[KshGoddess]

Ben was saying that the energy expenditure for raising the corn, processing, etc. was 3 barrels of ethanol to every 4 produced. It takes 3 barrels of ethanol expended to make 4. Although he said something about experiments getting ethanol from the stalks instead of the actual corn, which would leave (at least) the edible bits of corn.

Personally, I wish there was a bigger push for biodiesel (especially in my state and the cities I drive in). I'm selfish, though. :D