Ethanol - why not just ride a horse?
 

Converting corn into Ethanol, and then burning that ethanol to power cars presents a lot of energy losses.

If we're going to be essentially running our cars on corn why not get rid of the car part and feed that same corn to a horse. Would a horse actually be a more efficient method of converting corn into transportation ability?

From college I remember animals getting about a 15% conversion efficiency of food into motive power, depending upon metabolic rate and environment. Basal metabolic rate also burns up energy, unlike a car which can be turned off, and I'm not sure what a horse's basal metabolic rate is.

But growing food, turning that food into gasoline, and then burning that gasoline in a car seems roundabout compared to nature's solution.

An amusing idea at least, something to make the corn ethanol supporters stop and think a bit perhaps.

Actually having is horse is a great idea. After a nuclear attack, they aren't subject to the same damage from EMPs that modern ignition cars have.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Speaking of horses, I came across an interesting factoid about the year the number of automobiles (in the US) overtook the number of horses (kept for riding/work). It was much later than I would have thought. Of course I can't find the reference now, but if I'm not mistaken, it was into the early 1940's.

Yeah but you can't feed oil to horses. Well, you can, but the horse won't be doing too hot afterwards :D

Idea wasn't met to be insulting, just (I thought) an amusing observation.

That sounds about right. Everyone owning cars would have been really expensive, also cars wouldn't even run on a lot of the roads out there in 1940.

At the start WW2 the Polish army's mobile assets were mostly horse based. Axis powers also employed horses, especially at the beginning of the war.

http://groups.msn.com/2NDUSCAV/ww2germancav.msnw

The Blitzkrieg actually relied to a large degree on horse transport and in some cases cavalry advances! But the actual breakthroughs did rely largely on armored divisions followed by infantry. People who claim that Blitzkrieg is a myth and that the German army was really mostly horse based don't understand Blitzkrieg. The idea of Blitzkrieg is not that your whole army speeds along, rather that you make a fast breakthrough, confuse enemy defenses, consolidate your gains with infantry then rinse and repeat.

You don't see much WW2 footage of horses though because horses were boring and mundane, not the kind of thing you want in a propaganda movie.

None taken :). If Ethanol conversion (as well as Canadian tar sands) were driven by nuclear then it would make more CO2 sense, so the source of the energy used in conversion also makes difference.

If we had horses, then the internet would have to morph into the pony express as it could no longer rely on trucks (but luckily, it's a series of tubes).

A) Horses are Expensive (not just feed, purchase it's everything else)
B) Horses are Dangerous I had my arm broken by a horse.
C) I hate horses

Sorry Guys, I just hate them,

Carry on.

Horses keep eating when they are not being used. tractors and cars are much more efficient. (quote from my 98 year young neighbor) and then there is the methane and the flies.

I did have a big pony which tried to kill me several times. Fun used to equal danger. But now fun is squeezing the most energy out of fuel.

Depends upon the cost of grass. Plus, horses don't require the same energy resources or infrastructure to produce.

Oo! Way to sneak in the lifecycle cost-of-production angle.