tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7800828841873738105.post128507091907007071..comments2023-07-02T06:58:33.737-05:00Comments on WebberEnergyBlog: Corn for Fuel?Michael E. Webber, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/12416546342365493633noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7800828841873738105.post-90544510427295260522009-04-20T17:13:00.000-05:002009-04-20T17:13:00.000-05:00Thermodynamically, you'll never have any fuel that...Thermodynamically, you'll never have any fuel that is converted to kinetic or mechanical energy at 100% efficiency. When studies or people talk about the energy balance of fuels, they usually refer to the amount of energy that goes into producing and refining the feedstock into a convenient fuel. That fuel then has an energy content that is recovered by combustion, for example. When you look at the whole system, you definitely come out less than 100%, but when looking at straight input-output of the fuel, you hope to put in less than you get out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7800828841873738105.post-45385331444123249452009-04-17T14:11:00.000-05:002009-04-17T14:11:00.000-05:00Like the post, but I have a quick question/comment...Like the post, but I have a quick question/comment about some of the conclusions: Are there any fuels that are not a net energy loss (by loss, I assume you mean that energy not converted to KE is “lost”)? It’s been close to a decade since I took thermodynamics but wouldn’t a fuel that is not a net energy loss have to have all of the energy transfers have an efficiency of 100%? I have yet to hear of a process where 100% of a fuels stored energy is converted into kinetic energy much less one that creates more energy.<br /><br />If this is the case, than all fuels have a net energy loss (i.e. not all of the energy available is converted to kinetic energy of vehicle). Most of the “wasted” energy is converted to heat and noise, I presume. Am I looking at this wrong? <br /><br />What is the efficiency of fuel cells? I have heard that it takes quite a lot of energy to create the hydrogen.contangohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03281610372906976026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7800828841873738105.post-90770614941092926562009-04-13T14:41:00.000-05:002009-04-13T14:41:00.000-05:00I definitely agree with you that it seems ludicrou...I definitely agree with you that it seems ludicrous the federal government still touts the whole "corn for fuel" idea. Granted, it has subsided quite a bit from a few years ago...but I believe the federal government could stand to peel back on this issue even more so. <BR/><BR/>There's such a disconnect between the scientific community and the politic body that resides in Washington that this all almost seems to come down to one factor: which energy sector can most effectively lobby and market to the politicians in Washington. <BR/><BR/>I'm all for the federal government taking massive initiatives in the energy sector through funding of R&D. Be that as it may, I'm not a huge fan of the general concept of the federal government picking particular avenues, if you will, and trying to push those moreso than others. <BR/><BR/>Here's a couple of interesting articles that are very skeptical about the whole "corn for fuel" push:<BR/><BR/>http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4237539.html?series=19<BR/><BR/>http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15635751/the_ethanol_scam_one_of_americas_biggest_political_boondogglescombustiblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07827611667703961904noreply@blogger.com