Talk:Ethanol fuel

How much land is needed?

How much land is needed to cultivate ethanol? I know the article says that Brazil cultivates around 355 million hectares to produce ethanol, but I did the conversion to kilometres and then checked it in Google Earth but it gave me an area larger than the United States, which is impossible, I might've committed an error during the conversion but I don't think so.

So just to be sure, can anyone else also do the conversion to kilometres and then tell us what you got? Thanks. Supaman89 (talk) 03:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

1 hectare = 10,000 m²

355,000,000 hectares = 3,550,000,000,000 m²

3,550,000,000,000 m² * (1 km/1,000 m) * (1 km/1,000 m) = 3,550,000 km²

The area of Brazil is 8,514,877 km². The U.S. is a bit more. I think maybe your calculation is off. Diderot's dreams (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you mate, that's actually what I got the second time I tried, but when I checked the distances in Google Earth is still a lot, which is what led me to think I was doing something wrong, but it might just be a problem with distances in Google Earth, I've got a screenshot so you can see how that area would look like in real life.

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/1449/geethanolareamap.png Supaman89 (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

SORRY BIG MISTAKE IN THE MATHS

3,550,000km² is the TOTAL ARABLE LAND IN BRAZIL, it is equivalent to a square 1884km x 1884km, and it accounts for about 35% of Brazils total Land. In the photo above supaman has made the mistake of choosing a square that is 3550km x 3550km, over 4 times bigger than what was intended. But this is not all dedicated to Biofuel, infact we read in a chart below that in 2006 only 1% of arable land was dedicated to Biofuels and that Brazil covered 18% of its fuel consumption at that time.

So the NEW MATHS are:
1% of arable land in brazil = 18% fuel consumption.
3,6million hectares = 18% fuel consumption
20 million hectares = 100% fuel consumption
20 million hectares = 200,000km²
20 million hectares = 142km x 142km

So it seems that we do not need so much land to grow our fuels, though these figures probably only account for transport and much more land would be required if we were to meet ALL our energy needs from BioFuels. 80.34.137.194 (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Clarification. The article says 355 million Ha is Brazil's total arable land, that is almost half of its territory, but land use for ethanol production is just 3.6 million Ha, that is 1 percent of available arable land. And by the way, a shorter way to make the conversion 100 Ha = 1 Km² = 1 million m².--Mariordo (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The image shows a square 3,550 km on a side. The correct square would be 1,884 km on a side, the square root of 3,550,000 km². The number I gave you is an area, not a length, and it is already in kilometers. And that is total arable land, as Mariodo says. I'm afraid you just can't seem to do anything right on this one :0. Diderot's dreams (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, I didn't notice that the 355 million Ha were the total arable land of Brazil, anyway so finally I did the conversion from 3.6 million Ha to 36,000 km and then did the square root of that which is 189.74 Km, then I checked it in Google Earth and this is what I got: http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/670/epab.png

I think it looks pretty accurate. Supaman89 (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Maybe the picture, cleaned up a little, could be in the article or the subarticle on ethanol in Brazil?

If you'd like to return the favor, I have something you can help me with. I noticed from your userpage that you speak both English and Spanish. I do too, and I translated an article from Spanish a few months ago that still needs a proofreader. The Wikipedia system is broken down, so I couldn't find one at the time. The article is the Economy of Hispania, and I translated it from the Spanish wikipedia, where it is a featured article. It is a beautiful piece, and I am especially wanting someone to doublecheck the translation against the original, just to be sure I didn't introduce any factual error in the translation. Whatever help you can give would be great! Diderot's dreams (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It is pretty well translated, I just added the links to other languages which you probably forgot to put, but besides that it is identical to the original. Supaman89 (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ethanol from coal, natural gas and biogas

The article has nothing about alternatives sources of ethanol. These sites: [Coal 1] and [Coal 2] talks about producing ethanol from coal. Natural gas and biogas both have methane (CH4). Using heat we can produce ethylene from methane: 2 CH4 --> H2C=CH2 + 2 H2. The ethylene can react with water and produce ethanol: H2c=CH2 + H2O ---> H3C-CH2-OH (ethanol). Agre22 (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)agre22

UK text removed as not being relevant - why?

Why was the text about a British user of Ethanol fuel removed as being 'not relevant'?

Is it because you do not want anything which is in any way negative being said about this fuel? I only reported facts as per a newspaper article - nothing more.

as it happens, the bus company has topped using Ethanol on purely financial grounds - I was going to add the text but found that what I had submitted had been removed.

Below is a copy of what was removed.

Spsmiler (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

In late 2007, a bus company which operates local buses in the English town of Reading placed an order with Scania for 14 new ethanol fuelled double decker buses to replace the existing fleet of biodiesel powered vehicles operating premier route 17. At the time the order was placed, this was the largest order for ethanol fuelled buses in the UK. These buses started work on 26 May 2008 . However, in October 2009 it was discovered that instead of the bio-ethanol fuel having been sourced from sugar beet grown in the English county of Norfolk (as everyone had been told it would be), it was actually made from wood pulp imported from Sweden. Reading borough councillors have launched an investigation into how they and the Reading Transport Board – which runs Reading Buses – could have been deceived. -

I agree with the editor who removed the text. The story is just too minor too include. If there were a systematic problem with deception with ethanol fuel, it would be different. This is a local story. Putting it in the article on Reading, or in the articles on Scania or the bus company might be appropriate. Diderot's dreams (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree too, not relevant for this article.-Mariordo (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Financial Times writes about ethanol as a fuel

This site: [Financial Times] has an article published on the Financial Times about ethanol as a fuel.Agre22 (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

Do you think US subsidies are good for ethanol production? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.244.190 (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Impact on commodity prices. (fuel vs food)

The congressional budget office says:

The increase in the amount of corn used to produce etha­nol has exerted upward pressure on corn prices, boosted the demand for cropland, and raised the price of animal feed. Those effects, in turn, have lifted the prices of many farm commodities (for example, soybeans, meat, poultry, and dairy products) and, consequently, the retail price of food. The rise in food prices has affected not only the costs to individual consumers but also spending for the federal government’s food assistance programs.

-http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10057/MainText.4.1.shtml

The Food vs. fuel article says :A World Bank policy research working paper released in July 2008[21] concluded that "...large increases in biofuels production in the United States and Europe are the main reason behind the steep rise in global food prices"

As ethanol production skyrocketed, so did commodity crop prices, as seen here: [1] (However, the worldwide depression has brought those prices back down temporarily.) Surely this should be discussed.

This issue is relegated to a small 'Controversies' section. Doesn't seem appropriate. Terming the issue merely a 'risk' is misleading; we know there's an impact, and Food vs. fuel, while displaying a spectrum of views, makes this clear.

(FYI, I've reviewed the last couple talk page archives.) I'm going to make a couple small edits, accordingly.--Elvey (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)