Liquid fuels are just a storage medium. They're much cheaper, space efficient, and easier to use than gaseous or solid fuels. But the results are always net energy negative due to conversion losses. CNG and Coal are less desirable than either Petroleum or Ethanol due to the fact that they need to be converted to a liquid state to be space efficient for transportation. In cars and light trucks, space is at a premium and liquid fuels are far more compact. Don't forget to add in the cost of new infrastructure.
Ethanol can be grown and distilled from mostly domestic energy sources such as Coal and Natural Gas instead of largely imported Petroleum. Per unit of energy it reduces Petroleum Consumption by ~75%. Some lobbyists have wanted to use Methanol too. Since Methanol is mostly made from Natural Gas and even cheaper than Ethanol. But they never had near the support compared to Ethanol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by E.Roy
Ethanol, so I have heard, requires .6 gal of diesel to make 1 gallon. YET, THEY HAVE APPROX THE SAME ENERGY CONTENT. It seems to me such a pointless endeavor.
|
GREET is the currently standard on energy inputs
Argonne GREET Sample Results
As you can see there is a huge input of Renewable energy into Ethanol but a much smaller amount of Fossil Fuel and a fraction of the Petroleum. The only reason Ethanol is cost effective is that it can be made using Natural Gas, Diesel, and Coal. Which are heavily subsidized BTW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by E.Roy
So why hasn't improvements to traffic patterns been sought for REAL reduction in oil dependency.
|
It's really hard to change anything in the US. Things take longer than most people expect due to our Conservative form of Government. This isn't a full fledged Democracy or a Dictatorship. I have heard a few new developments but money for basic maintenance has been tight this last decade.