The grasses idea was even looked into by the airforce a while ago but not for ethanol… to use “gum weed oil” as a replacement for some fuels. Cody’s lab does a good video on this. It was just easier to keep using jet fuel.
Of course it’s easier. Green has never been easy and why should it be. Replicating nature has always been difficult… haha. That’s said I think we could also manufacturer fuels using Fischer trope process of gas to liquid and make extra pure no sulfur fuels from gasoline to aviation applications 
1 Like
Put that in the lounge you goof
I realized where I was after posting sorry
1 Like
Which source are you referencing?
Not sure if this is a joke or, not, but that’s not how mass farming works. We don’t produce most of our meat from wild pigs, cows, or chickens. We don’t produce most of our vegetables or fruits from foraging either. The reason for this is because of how inefficient and unsustainable this would be. If that grass was chosen to be used for ethanol production, there would massive farms created for it, to keep the fuel sustainable (ie. growing year over year). Simply pulling the grass from the deserts now would mean that the grass will grow in fewer and fewer amounts year over years (similar to overfishing, overhunting, and clearcutting; nature just doesn’t recover that quick).
Regarding the L1 Garage post, there’s a lot of bias in that post and you mainly talking about the energy consumption numbers for electric, but for whatever reason, you don’t seem to talk about the energy consumption numbers for gasoline/ethanol based vehicles. For example, you talk about the mining of lithium, cobalt, and manganese, but don’t talk about how we obtain our fossil fuels and their destruction to the environment. You also talk about how most of our energy is produced to-this-day, but don’t talk about the percentage in the past, nor how it’s transitioning into the future.
Nonetheless, when I get about an hour or two to find some sources (that aren’t from obviously biased sources like “corvetteonline,” “biofuels-news,” and “ethanolproducer.” Like really? You’re gonna use obviously biased sources as sources? At least use what they sourced (if they even sourced anything themselves, which from a quick glance, doesn’t appear that they did)), I’ll create a reply to the L1 Garage post.
Heimerdinger is a tough one to argue with.
What are you referring to?
Ol heimy here.
Hes a special kind of guy.
1 Like
Oh woops, didn’t realize that you were talking about the person. Sorry
1 Like
Sorry, thats my nickname for him.
I’ll pull the resources for the research when I get home the post is a work in progress.
It was a joke. I know this isn’t how farming works. The point of the grasses was to demonstrate that they already grow well there jn the wild and as such making mad farms for them not only would be easier than corn but also easier than genetically modifying algae like others are investigating into.
If you want the numbers on gasoline and Diesel they are readily available aren’t they not? Lithium is a rare substance at this point. We can only make so many batteries and it’s rather difficult to recycle. I’m not quite sure on lithium but i don’t think lithium is the way forward in energy store. I wasn’t biased in the post in garage. I used references to a source that you can find done by 3 German researchers. Now if we say figured out the fluoride ion battery which is research id be onboard with electric. From my background which is not petrochemical engineering nor mechanical. I am an electrical engineer and I can tell you there’s a ton of inefficiencies with electric motors. I compared the electric car process with the current and not past energy cost to aquire gasoline and how it currently hurts our environment due to the past not being a fair comparison. We didn’t have electric cars in mass production in the 90s etc. I’ll get to more of this jn the garage. I actually enjoy the discussion about electric and how we can make it better from source to road but current tech is grossly over hyped. I will not contest that its cleaner however Im not onboard with the “zero lifecycle emissions” proponents yet
There are issues getting solid studies on ethanol. The problem with getting those studies is every single negative study ever published has been by a fossil fuel company somewhere… Every good study is typically independent though they could be very scientific they are often discredited because they aren’t part of some institute. Kind of a reason I detested academia post grad… it’s a bunch of people over famed sitting in high chairs smacking people around with their degree as if it makes them qualified to say what’s good and bad who would rather attain money and fame. There are many exceptions to the rule but I hate the strangle hold oil has on economy and if this is just one way to haste the end of it we should examine it.
Look heres a study on ethanol being positive for the engines for example where I said it would damage them despite @Adubs contesting. https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/811199/ See though the problem is… Its behind a damn pay wall. So my problem is grabbing free sources. Its hard to list sources behind a paywall because its impossible to verify 
… Though since you asked revisit my sources drop down. Ive added everything from my growing 1 tab which may or may not have included a lot of other miscellaneous things. (oops)
Here are my sources on electric
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jsd/article/view/64183
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x
https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html#wheel
I added more ethanol sources under the reputable studies section.
We aren’t really arguing. We are discussing. Do you call ever discussion an argument? 
1 Like
discuss I just realized that german study link has stopped working again FML.
I really try not to take the internet to seriously. Its a rather unhealthy mentality to do so and will result in fate being not so kind
There you go, thats the way you do it.
Now its a discussion.
Believe it or not I have a ton of sources behind me but unfortunately a lot are part of professional societies or I have access to government engineering studies that the public cant always easily access… its tough when every person you want to discuss it with runs up against a pay wall. I strongly dislike paywalls
2 Likes
Its not even necessarily your sources. Its the way you write things up. You come of as passive aggressive when you use ‘LOL’ and . The way you argue things that have nothing to do with peoples original statements. It gets frustrating, even if you arent meaning to be like that.
I never knew thats how it felt. Ill take this into account when discussing things in the future
Agreed. Although it isn’t too rare (32nd most abundant element), cheaper batteries made with more abundant materials (aluminum, iron, silicon, or some other molecule) would definitely be better, especially if they can yield higher capacities, at lighter weights, with a decreased impact on the environment for production.
Agreed.
Ah ok, makes sense. Agreed.
Regarding the academia, while I agree that large companies can pay to have study results swayed, it’s much better for people to still focus on peer review, blinded (if possible) studies, then focusing on
anecdotes.
Scihub and Outline are the answers to Paywalls. However, not sure if they’d be against the rules to link to on this forum; they aren’t on Reddit, so I’d imagine they’d be fine here.
I appreciate this. Hopefully sometime this week, I can actually read everything you’ve sourced in full, and then be able to repute some things that I disagreed with earlier (unless my views and opinion changes).
I dont seek to change your opinion as much as I seek hope that we can fix the issues. The only way to fix an issue is to accept its a problem and begin to work on it. If we largely ignore it because its hard or dont acknowledge the issue it never gets fixed until it presents a danger… Like the dams in California (bad joke)
Scihub is fine but if something requires paying for directly linking around it is prohibited but you CAN mention where to find it
1 Like