The Rodding Roundtable
Motorhead Message Central => Rodder's Roundtable => Topic started by: Carnut on February 08, 2008, 03:40:40 AM
Studies deem biofuels a greenhouse threat (http://www.news.com/Studies-deem-biofuels-a-greenhouse-threat/2100-11395_3-6229683.html?tag=nefd.top)
Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these "green" fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.
Quote from: "Carnut"Studies deem biofuels a greenhouse threat (http://www.news.com/Studies-deem-biofuels-a-greenhouse-threat/2100-11395_3-6229683.html?tag=nefd.top)
Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these "green" fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.
sounds like the hybrid cars ...... take into account the filth left behind building the batterys and the prius type cars are not carbon friendly.
we must buy carbon offsets to make the world like us again.
:roll:
i don't know WHY we're so * worried about it, no other country is.
certainly not china :roll:
If we could put a man on the moon in less than ten years, surely we can develop practical hydrogen fuel in ten years. It's going to take an intelligent president with some courage to lay down a similar challenge.
(http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h255/CQQL33/TheThumb.gif)
.....AND WHERE WILL WE GET AND "INTELLIGENT PRESIDENT" ?????
I still think the best new fuel should/will be hydrogen.....possibly made from, of all things, SALT WATER.....!
Lynn, I can't remember ever disagreeing with you, but we're there now. Name any president who's ever invented anything. It's "regular" citizens who create useful things, and industry (yes, evil profitable businesses) that make them for the widespread market. Government entities and individuals (most often congress, not a president) that comes up with stupid mandates such as turning our food stream into fuel for vehicles instead of people, thus driving up the price for finished food stuffs.
However, I do remember one smart president who said something like; "Government isn't the answer, it's the problem!" :wink:
Quote from: "Uncle Bob"Lynn, I can't remember ever disagreeing with you, but we're there now. Name any president who's ever invented anything. It's "regular" citizens who create useful things, and industry (yes, evil profitable businesses) that make them for the widespread market. Government entities and individuals (most often congress, not a president) that comes up with stupid mandates such as turning our food stream into fuel for vehicles instead of people, thus driving up the price for finished food stuffs.
However, I do remember one smart president who said something like; "Government isn't the answer, it's the problem!" :wink:
I don't think we are disagreeing, necessarily. The answers have to come from the private sector. But it will take a challenge from a president, who voices the objective, in much the same way that Kennedy did in 1960, the goal of "putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade." And it was done. It will take research, government initiatives, and funding from both government and the private sector to make it possible to achieve this new goal in much the same way NASA achieved its goal in 1968. But it will take a leader with a vision to throw down this challenge and see it through.
i have been thinking about fuel economy....
current engines are running at fuel mixtures to feed the cat... too lean and it does not heat enough to work... too rich and it melts....
ethanol is a great idea to reduce fuel imports... except it reduces fuel economy.... so we are burning more fuel per mile with the 10%+ blends...
the makes the refiners more money ... the goverment more money in collected taxes per mile driven... and we get to pay both...
somebody is going to have to come up wiith an electricly heated or microwave heated cat.... something that does not require a constant amount of unburned hydrocarbons to heat... it is probably not possable now that i think about it as you have to create enough electricity to power it... so i guess we are just stuck.,.....until someone has a brainstorm...
When was the last time anyone one here ate field corn? Are you taking in all of the by products of alcohol in your figures? They still feed the the by products to cattle. With the huge surplus of corn with used to have our the goverment paying more than it was worth, just to give it away. Let the rest of the world pay a fair price for our product. Every gallon of alcohol that we make in this country is one gallon of oil we buy from some where else.
Quote from: "Mikej"When was the last time anyone one here ate field corn? Are you taking in all of the by products of alcohol in your figures? They still feed the the by products to cattle. With the huge surplus of corn with used to have our the goverment paying more than it was worth, just to give it away. Let the rest of the world pay a fair price for our product. Every gallon of alcohol that we make in this country is one gallon of oil we buy from some where else.
if ya catch it just right, you can troll for some good corn-fed iowa girls.....
better make that 1.5 gal od alky to 1 gallon of gas AFTER it's been refined.
btw, anybody cutting back on plastics,etc?
ya know, that stuff made from oil.....
i want a cast-iron 'puter moniter;)
Quote from: "wayne petty"i have been thinking about fuel economy....
current engines are running at fuel mixtures to feed the cat... too lean and it does not heat enough to work... too rich and it melts....
ethanol is a great idea to reduce fuel imports... except it reduces fuel economy.... so we are burning more fuel per mile with the 10%+ blends...
the makes the refiners more money ... the goverment more money in collected taxes per mile driven... and we get to pay both...
somebody is going to have to come up wiith an electricly heated or microwave heated cat.... something that does not require a constant amount of unburned hydrocarbons to heat... it is probably not possable now that i think about it as you have to create enough electricity to power it... so i guess we are just stuck.,.....until someone has a brainstorm...
it's STILL gonna take a certain amount of "power" to heat the cat, whether it's electric or fuel...
but that won't be why they do it (and it's being developed), it'll be for emissions...
ever wonder how much weight they could pull out of a car by "dispensing) with the emissions controls?
don't forget wiring;)
Quote from: "rumrumm"I don't think we are disagreeing, necessarily. The answers have to come from the private sector. But it will take a challenge from a president, who voices the objective, in much the same way that Kennedy did in 1960, the goal of "putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade." And it was done. It will take research, government initiatives, and funding from both government and the private sector to make it possible to achieve this new goal in much the same way NASA achieved its goal in 1968. But it will take a leader with a vision to throw down this challenge and see it through.
Thanks for the clarification. I also remember Pres. Kennedy famously saying "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". Sadly, near 50 years later that almost (and sadly) seems quaint. Not everyone believes that the government should do everything (to some degree or other) for us, but the number of people who believe that notion now out number those that don't, a shift from 50 years ago. Why Kennedy's admonition worked was because the aerospace community was already aiming in that direction, he merely, and effectively, gave it a push ahead. In that era, Pres. Eisenhower did the same for the interstate highway system that enabled the growth of economic trade between the states. In both cases the government efforts were in support of enabling technologies that had positive outcomes. Today the tone and intents are different. Now the predominant expectation is that government has the answers and only needs to dictate to the public and business interests not only the broad end objective, but also the mechanisms to get there. Thus we end up cannibalizing our food stream to create fuel for vehicles, and subsidize inefficient enterprises to achieve that dubious objective. You're correct, leadership is necessary, but it also needs to be effective leadership.
As for the argument that some lesser crop such as "field" corn is used for ethanol production misses what really happens in the marketplace. Let's take that at face value. Because ethanol is foisted on the fuel market by government mandate and not market demand, it gains an unequal advantage. So what we end up with is farmers doing what makes sense from their point of view. In the past most would choose to grow the higher value crop, the lower value crop had less production because of less demand. Now, the value structure changes artificially, so farmers stop growing food bound corn and grow "field" corn (again, assuming those are correct terms). By virtue of the supply/demand dynamic, the supply of food corn goes down, the price goes up. The market has proven this as the price has doubled in the past two years. AND we still subsidize farmers, AND the ethanol producers, AND the fabrication of the ethanol plants. The accurate economics of ethanol as a motor fuel don't pencil out at all if all costs involved are accurately accounted for, and of course those in favor, for whatever motivation, of ethanol as fuel will never link the increased cost of food in the equation because it further undermines their propostion. So that's when we start waving the American flag so as to distract as many as possible from what's really going on. That would be the "we won't buy as much foreigh oil " rubrick. Unfortunately that hasn't worked either. The biggest reason is twofold. First the production and transportation of the raw material and finished ethanol consumes almost as much crude oil as it replaces, some say more some say less, but in either argument it is close to even. It sounds logical, it doesn't prove out as such. The second is that the same people who have distorted the fuel and food marketplaces (congress) have also put a lid on domestic crude oil production by refusing to allow production of known reserves off our coasts and in remote regions of Alaska. Constricting supply will drive up prices.
Suddenly,Carbon Dioxide is evil,but nobody suggests we plant more trees,
or stop burning the Rain Forests,or burn less oil.
Global Warming is real,but has very little to do with "Green House Gases".
The average temperatures on other planets are increasing as well.
Most of the corn grown in the US is field corn. Used to feed livestock, ( pigs, cattle, poultry) not people directly. Sweet corn is what we eat. The land that the article was talking about being converted to crop acres is in other countries. Rain forest, which they have been cutting down anyway for years now. You are right that the Gov. is helping the industry get started. Alcohol has been used in Iowa for 30+ years and it works fine.
Quote from: "Uncle Bob"Quote from: "rumrumm"I don't think we are disagreeing, necessarily. The answers have to come from the private sector. But it will take a challenge from a president, who voices the objective, in much the same way that Kennedy did in 1960, the goal of "putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade." And it was done. It will take research, government initiatives, and funding from both government and the private sector to make it possible to achieve this new goal in much the same way NASA achieved its goal in 1968. But it will take a leader with a vision to throw down this challenge and see it through.
Thanks for the clarification. I also remember Pres. Kennedy famously saying "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". Sadly, near 50 years later that almost (and sadly) seems quaint. Not everyone believes that the government should do everything (to some degree or other) for us, but the number of people who believe that notion now out number those that don't, a shift from 50 years ago. Why Kennedy's admonition worked was because the aerospace community was already aiming in that direction, he merely, and effectively, gave it a push ahead. In that era, Pres. Eisenhower did the same for the interstate highway system that enabled the growth of economic trade between the states. In both cases the government efforts were in support of enabling technologies that had positive outcomes. Today the tone and intents are different. Now the predominant expectation is that government has the answers and only needs to dictate to the public and business interests not only the broad end objective, but also the mechanisms to get there. Thus we end up cannibalizing our food stream to create fuel for vehicles, and subsidize inefficient enterprises to achieve that dubious objective. You're correct, leadership is necessary, but it also needs to be effective leadership.
As for the argument that some lesser crop such as "field" corn is used for ethanol production misses what really happens in the marketplace. Let's take that at face value. Because ethanol is foisted on the fuel market by government mandate and not market demand, it gains an unequal advantage. So what we end up with is farmers doing what makes sense from their point of view. In the past most would choose to grow the higher value crop, the lower value crop had less production because of less demand. Now, the value structure changes artificially, so farmers stop growing food bound corn and grow "field" corn (again, assuming those are correct terms). By virtue of the supply/demand dynamic, the supply of food corn goes down, the price goes up. The market has proven this as the price has doubled in the past two years. AND we still subsidize farmers, AND the ethanol producers, AND the fabrication of the ethanol plants. The accurate economics of ethanol as a motor fuel don't pencil out at all if all costs involved are accurately accounted for, and of course those in favor, for whatever motivation, of ethanol as fuel will never link the increased cost of food in the equation because it further undermines their propostion. So that's when we start waving the American flag so as to distract as many as possible from what's really going on. That would be the "we won't buy as much foreigh oil " rubrick. Unfortunately that hasn't worked either. The biggest reason is twofold. First the production and transportation of the raw material and finished ethanol consumes almost as much crude oil as it replaces, some say more some say less, but in either argument it is close to even. It sounds logical, it doesn't prove out as such. The second is that the same people who have distorted the fuel and food marketplaces (congress) have also put a lid on domestic crude oil production by refusing to allow production of known reserves off our coasts and in remote regions of Alaska. Constricting supply will drive up prices.
and don't forget that there's not been a new refinery built in 30 years....
For people food, field corn is used for Corn meal, corn chips, corn oil, corn flakes, and other similar products. The problem isn't field corn VS sweet corn, it's field corn VS Soybeans, and Wheat. Soybeans are used for a lot of products we take for granted.
But ethanol from corn takes more energy to produce, than you get out of it. Several reasons, corn is fertilizer intensive, at least the varieties we grow in the US. For the most part, that comes from oil. For long distances, oil is transported in pipelines, Ethanol is transported in tank trucks and train cars, much less efficent transport. And the distilation of ethanol takes a lot of power to do, which mostly comes from coal and oil. Plus, without the .50 per gallon federal subsidy, it costs more to produce than it sells for. If the price of oil drops much, it won't be economic to make ethanol even with the subsidy.
I don't have the answers, but I think we should be looking elsewhere for ethanol feedstocks. sugar beets and sugar cane make more sense than corn. Converting biomass, waste from vegatable oil, sawmills, even yard waste makes more sense than using food. Plus the byproducts from that can be used for fertilizer. I also think oil from garbage, oil from worn out tires, and other sources should be investigated.
I think it's time to review the possibilties of rubber band power, you know, like the balsa airplanes we all had as kids. You could have rewind stations just like we have gas stations. Pull your car up, the rear end gets lifted, a roller rises up and you crank a handle that winds the rubber band up by turning the wheels backwards. Set the brake, drop the car back down, release the parking brake and off you go. For more performance, add more rubber bands. The winding stations could even offer a rubber band sling shot service to help you merge back into traffic. People, it's not good enough in this day and age to just think outside of the box. We have to start thinking outside the shipping container! Fred
Quote from: "enjenjo"For people food, field corn is used for Corn meal, corn chips, corn oil, corn flakes, and other similar products. The problem isn't field corn VS sweet corn, it's field corn VS Soybeans, and Wheat. Soybeans are used for a lot of products we take for granted.
I don't have the answers, but I think we should be looking elsewhere for ethanol feedstocks. sugar beets and sugar cane make more sense than corn. Converting biomass, waste from vegatable oil, sawmills, even yard waste makes more sense than using food. Plus the byproducts from that can be used for fertilizer. I also think oil from garbage, oil from worn out tires, and other sources should be investigated.
Just a note on tone and intent. I don't bring these things up to be argumentative, but to highlight just how complicated and interrelated these things are to our entire economy. The simple answers we're fed by politicians and media are grossly dishonest. If I were to give them the benefit of the doubt I'd say their intentions are good, but the results of their decisions, statements, and policy decisions are harmful and wrong headed. Certainly that's true for the people that believe them, but on a less generous note politicians and media are driven by power, and they gain power by limiting the freedom we enjoy through knowledge.
Before going to Franks good comments I'll just say to Tom, you're right, 1976 was the last one. In fact, in that same time frame nearly two thirds of the refineries in this country have had to be shut down, the volume made up in improvements to the remaining ones, but that low hanging fruit is about used up. We are now net importers of finished gasoline. This is just the beginning of a whole nuther discussion. If you're interested in the newest attempt at building a refinery go here; http://www.arizonacleanfuels.com/index.htm They've taken down a lot of the old info they used to post, but if memory serves me they started the process in the early '90s, so using their current estimated opening date it's around a 20 year process to get started. Last estimate I read said it would cost about $6 billion to build if the process started today.
As for the argument that ethanol works, that's not really the issue. Is it economically and environmentally better? Does it help the overall economy and well being of the entire nation rather than the small portion of citizens in small portions of the country? The answers remain NO. It only "competes" because we, through our tax dollars and becasuse of artificial mandates, not because of any additional benefit to the overall economy.
Frank, good points all, but you left out one of the biggest uses.......high fructose corn syrup. It is the number one sweetener in a vast majority of our processed foods. Start reading the sides of food packaging and you'll get a feel for just how much is used out there. The argument that "food corn" isn't affected ignores the price having doubled for just the reasons Frank enumerated. There is a short term financial gain to the folks in the regions where corn is grown, but they will end up paying back to the rest of the negative economic outcomes in the future, it just may be in "hidden" costs that that won't be directly apparent.
The thoughts on converting various forms of biomass, and any other alternative you might see on History channel, or read about anywhere else is interesting. Each of the alternatives may have some reasonable outcomes in localized situations. To give an somewhat odd example, let's use the example of the local "mad scientist" type who makes his own diesel fuel out of waste french fry oil. Neat idea. I'm in full support of his program as long as he doesn't dispose of his waste byproduct in a way that harms my community. If he takes himself off the routine fuel grid all the better. Sounds like a neat idea until you start to extrapolate it out to the entire community (and by extension the whole country). His plan works only as long as he has no competition for the feed stock (the used canola oil, or whatever it is). If a couple more folks in town get the same idea suddenly the restaurants will find they've got multiple parties interested and will start having an auction, selling the raw material rather than being glad to have some "nut" haul it away for free. The highest bidder will be the "winner", but if he's sensible only up to the point where he finds that it's more costly to home brew his fuel rather than buy it at a station already made any time he needs it. The other competitors have lost whatever advantage they'd hoped for and returned to the normal fuel grid. I personally would't have any problem with ethanol, or biodiesel, or any othe the other "new fuels" as long as I don't have to pay for it. If the folks in Iowa want to run their cars on ethanol, go for it! Great idea. That'll leave that much more fuel for those of us who aren't geographically advantaged as they are. But that's not how it works today. Now I have to pay the going rate for gasoline AND have to pay for some of their fuel too. I have to earn my money in a competitive market...............I think you should too rather than using the force of government to highjack my paycheck. But hey, that's just me.
Lots of other alternative fuel sources are bandied about. Those BP commercials with the (real or fake?) man on the street "interviews" drive me nuts. It's a full on display of how ignorant (different than stupid) the general populace is about how much petroleum fuel means to our lives. Their blythe responses reveal how clueless they are to the difficulty in developing a fuel source that is as economical, available, practical, and yes, clean as we've used for years. Just a superficial review of some thought points. Someone mentioned hydrogen from sea water on here. Intellectually I think that's a great idea. It the practical application that starts to muddy the concept. First thing would be funding a way to collect the sea watter. Then to desalinate it. Who and how takes care of paying for that. And since most of the coastline communities that would need the fuel are hoity toity clavens of the "environmentally conscious" are they really going to allow them to be built? We got an answer last year when the Malibu swells had a big uprising over a proposed CNG facility nearby (and So. Cal NEEDS a lot of natural gas). But let's say they got sensible, just for the sake of fantasy, and allowed the plant, and since they're so wealthy and care so much for the rest of us, they even ponied up to pay for it, we'd still need to have an economical process to free up the hydrogen, and someplace to dispose of the salt from the desalinization process (forget about dumping it back into the ocean, the greens would go ape over the chemical imbalance that would cause for the little fishies, and other creatures). Then how do you get all that hydrogen to where the consumers would be, and how will the consumers convert their transportation units to run on hydrogen?
That's just the tip of the iceberg, but it gives you an idea of what this, and most other proposed technologies are up against. The current system we have wasn't built by any government program of subsidy. It was done almost entirely with private capitol. In the beginning of the twentieth century steam, electric, and gasoline competed as the preferred power sources for automobiles. Gasoline won out because it was the safest and most economical fuel/propulsion system..............and it still is, especially since we have an existing infrastructure in place to distribute it. And it was chosen and built in the most democratic of methods, by vote of the individual consumers dollar. Any money the government throws around to "try to help start" some new alternative steals money from the free market which, left to it's own efficiencies, would spend that money in a more practical and productive way. History and honest evaluation of outcomes has proven that. Why would it be different today?
Is the price of food higher because we're making alcohol or because the price of oil is 3 times higher than it was 3 years ago?
I think the yeast they use is holding them back. The process gets better all the time. As with any manufacturing process they will squeeze every thing out of the corn or any other materiel in time. Right now corn is what we have and what we know how to raise. Switch grass is an unknown. The best place to grow it is probably where we grow wheat. What to do with the bio mass? Can we feed it? Any other product that can be made from it? Time will tell. Will have to leave that to the people at MIT.
Corn chips come from white corn?
The reason for not running alcohol thru existing pipe lines might be that it would clean up the crude in them and they would start leaking. Seals and gaskets could be changed.
This is one of those cases of why it will work VS why it won't. Or which is better for our country or someone elses.
Wheres the hotrodders. e85 = 105 octane that alone should make it GOOD................... :? Nobody has fought a war over alcohol yet unless they drank it. What happened to EPA's standards that we needed MTBE for or Alcohol? The whole country should now be using alcohol since they can no longer use MTBE. Or did the EPA's standards change for the oil companies? I don't have any answers other than the economy is fairly good in the corn belt. And apparently in parts of Texas where they're using new pumping methods in the old oil wells.
Jumped around a bit :lol:
Bob, you have been paying subsidies for years to keep the price of food down. Now its going to alcohol. Subsidies to OIL Companies for oil on US Gov. land. All you do as a tax payer is pay. More refineries so we can use up the shrinking oil supplies faster?
number 1.. any one that has stock in oil cant be president.. #2 shoot all the rest of the lying F&*KS
Dave :wink: :arrow:
Guys I gotta disagree with a lot of the crud being spouted by the liberal media about ethanol being bad...
First I work in the industry (Univ. of Ill Extension) and have studied many of the projections and outright non truths about ethanol.
First:
There is a net sum gain when ethanol is brewed from corn. If you use figures from the way ethanol was distilled in 1900 then it takes about 5 quarts of ethanol to get 4....That is simply not true today. The exact net gain depends greatly on the process. but in most cases it borders on a 2:1 ratio, very competitive with oil.
Second:
I just read a study about the mileage that is derived from etoh/gas mixtures. contrary to popular belief there is a net gain in mpg in etoh/gas mixtures up to E-30 mixes in non-flex fueled autos. this is mostly due to etoh being an oxidizer that promotes more complete combustion of the mix. Above E-30 the lower energy content of Etoh comes into play and mileage suffers.
Third.
Ethanol production will cause the planet to warm significantly.......What are these guys smoking? Etoh is produced from carbon that is easily accessible on the surface of the planet. And every bit of it has been and will be again released once the source plant dies. FACT! Petroleum is large quantities of hydrocarbons that are sequestered deep within the earth that aren't released until they are pumped up and burned....HOW CAN ANYBODY SUGGEST WITH A STRAIGHT FACE THAT BURNING A SEQUESTERED CARBON SOURCE IS BETTER THAN RUNNING A CIRCUITOUS SOURCE SUCH AS PLANT MATERIAL?????
What happens when corn, sugar, switchgrass, miscanthus, or whatever is harvested? it is replanted and the successive crop removes the Carbon that was released. Simplistic? yes, but it works, Reference everyother life cycle on the earth.
Can ethanol completely replace oil? with current technology NO, but as a part of the answer, Yes.
Oh and how to increase the mileage from Etoh, bump the compression a bunch and its efficiency will increase and make it closer to gas....
Doug
Quote from: "wayne petty"i have been thinking about fuel economy....
current engines are running at fuel mixtures to feed the cat... too lean and it does not heat enough to work... too rich and it melts....
ethanol is a great idea to reduce fuel imports... except it reduces fuel economy.... so we are burning more fuel per mile with the 10%+ blends...
the makes the refiners more money ... the goverment more money in collected taxes per mile driven... and we get to pay both...
somebody is going to have to come up wiith an electricly heated or microwave heated cat.... something that does not require a constant amount of unburned hydrocarbons to heat... it is probably not possable now that i think about it as you have to create enough electricity to power it... so i guess we are just stuck.,.....until someone has a brainstorm...
Quote from: "jusjunk"number 1.. any one that has stock in oil cant be president.. #2 shoot all the rest of the lying F&*KS
Dave :wink: :arrow:
hey, i bought chevron stock, look where IT'S at :roll: lost 10 bucks a share...
and gas went up...
make me prez, i'll take care of the biggest wastes of money AND the so-called "greenhouse" gasses....
Al Queda doesn't even have a clue on how much we wished they would have succeded in washington.....maybe they should have had ol ted "driving school and scuba instructor" kennedy flying the plane..
...and the rest of the kennedys, al gore, and the 2 johns as passengers...
enough politics.....
ok, somebody answer me this, why is it our problem (U.S.)?
if we're SO * bad, how come everybody wants to live here?
BUILD THE * FENCE ALREADY!!!!!!!
remember, those "foreign exchange criminals" are using fuel too.
i don't just mean mexicans either...
anyway we can turn their bodies in to fuel?
soylent green kinda thing?
Quote from: "Entoman"Guys I gotta disagree with a lot of the crud being spouted by the liberal media about ethanol being bad...
First I work in the industry (Univ. of Ill Extension) and have studied many of the projections and outright non truths about ethanol.
First:
There is a net sum gain when ethanol is brewed from corn. If you use figures from the way ethanol was distilled in 1900 then it takes about 5 quarts of ethanol to get 4....That is simply not true today. The exact net gain depends greatly on the process. but in most cases it borders on a 2:1 ratio, very competitive with oil.
it takes 2 quarts to make 1!?!?!
don't sound like progress to me......
Second:
I just read a study about the mileage that is derived from etoh/gas mixtures. contrary to popular belief there is a net gain in mpg in etoh/gas mixtures up to E-30 mixes in non-flex fueled autos. this is mostly due to etoh being an oxidizer that promotes more complete combustion of the mix. Above E-30 the lower energy content of Etoh comes into play and mileage suffers.
tell it to my truck, it's dropped 3 mpg since we've been on this "oxygenated" crap
Third.
Ethanol production will cause the planet to warm significantly.......What are these guys smoking? Etoh is produced from carbon that is easily accessible on the surface of the planet. And every bit of it has been and will be again released once the source plant dies. FACT! Petroleum is large quantities of hydrocarbons that are sequestered deep within the earth that aren't released until they are pumped up and burned....HOW CAN ANYBODY SUGGEST WITH A STRAIGHT FACE THAT BURNING A SEQUESTERED CARBON SOURCE IS BETTER THAN RUNNING A CIRCUITOUS SOURCE SUCH AS PLANT MATERIAL?????
What happens when corn, sugar, switchgrass, miscanthus, or whatever is harvested? it is replanted and the successive crop removes the Carbon that was released. Simplistic? yes, but it works, Reference everyother life cycle on the earth.
ever ask a farmer why he doesn't plant the same crop year after year on the same plot of ground?
what happens with a drought?
disease?
bugs?
hail?
you want me to go on?
i grew up in nebraska, i know where corn comes from...
Can ethanol completely replace oil? with current technology NO, but as a part of the answer, Yes.
Oh and how to increase the mileage from Etoh, bump the compression a bunch and its efficiency will increase and make it closer to gas....
Doug
Quote from: "wayne petty"i have been thinking about fuel economy....
current engines are running at fuel mixtures to feed the cat... too lean and it does not heat enough to work... too rich and it melts....
ethanol is a great idea to reduce fuel imports... except it reduces fuel economy.... so we are burning more fuel per mile with the 10%+ blends...
the makes the refiners more money ... the goverment more money in collected taxes per mile driven... and we get to pay both...
somebody is going to have to come up wiith an electricly heated or microwave heated cat.... something that does not require a constant amount of unburned hydrocarbons to heat... it is probably not possable now that i think about it as you have to create enough electricity to power it... so i guess we are just stuck.,.....until someone has a brainstorm...
Mike, we can certainly agree, that as a tax payer all we do is pay!!! :lol: :(
The rest of what you say is perspective. I don't see paying subsidies as keeping the price down (thay might only work superficially for those that are exempt from federal taxes). In that scenario I pay at the store from my right pocket and through taxes from my left. In the end my cost of food isn't lower, it's just that someone in the government has tried to fool me by hiding the cost paid through taxes. In fact the opposite occurs more often. We pay subsidies that keep the cost of a food product higher than competition would allow, I point to sugar as only one example.
As for subsidies to oil companies I say, if they really are subsidies, cut 'em off, along with all the farmers (especially since they are mostly corporate entities rather than family farmers). Let them make rational, market driven decisions.
Your comment about shrinking oil supplies is based on what many believe is a faulty premise. In this country we forbid developement of known sources, that's not a declining supply other than by government mandate. Just last year, in the Gulf of Mexico where they're still able to do some new exploration, they found an incredibly, and unexpectedly, large, new supply. We already know about a huge reserve in ANWR where we choose not to drill. The Chinese are practically drilling on behalf of the Cubans just a few miles from the Florida coast. The California coast has a lot of known potential, but since a spill off Santa Barbara in '69 they've closed that down too. Some recent technological advances in the understanding of how crude oil is formed is causing geologists to rethink how they identified potential geologic formations for potential. Many think they've vastly underestimated the amount of crude oil available. Without prejudice, there could still be centuries of supply left. But, instead of listening to the experts, we've got politicians and special interest groups hostile to energy production that dominate the discussion.
If the whole world that we have to compete with for jobs and economic survival had to use the same material cost as we do to produce energy all of this would be moot. But at this time, it appears we are following political leaders who want to, for whatever reason, lead us down a path of disadvantage.
Quote from: "Uncle Bob"Quote from: "enjenjo"For people food, field corn is used for Corn meal, corn chips, corn oil, corn flakes, and other similar products. The problem isn't field corn VS sweet corn, it's field corn VS Soybeans, and Wheat. Soybeans are used for a lot of products we take for granted.
I don't have the answers, but I think we should be looking elsewhere for ethanol feedstocks. sugar beets and sugar cane make more sense than corn. Converting biomass, waste from vegatable oil, sawmills, even yard waste makes more sense than using food. Plus the byproducts from that can be used for fertilizer. I also think oil from garbage, oil from worn out tires, and other sources should be investigated.
Just a note on tone and intent. I don't bring these things up to be argumentative, but to highlight just how complicated and interrelated these things are to our entire economy. The simple answers we're fed by politicians and media are grossly dishonest. If I were to give them the benefit of the doubt I'd say their intentions are good, but the results of their decisions, statements, and policy decisions are harmful and wrong headed. Certainly that's true for the people that believe them, but on a less generous note politicians and media are driven by power, and they gain power by limiting the freedom we enjoy through knowledge.
Before going to Franks good comments I'll just say to Tom, you're right, 1976 was the last one. In fact, in that same time frame nearly two thirds of the refineries in this country have had to be shut down, the volume made up in improvements to the remaining ones, but that low hanging fruit is about used up. We are now net importers of finished gasoline. This is just the beginning of a whole nuther discussion. If you're interested in the newest attempt at building a refinery go here; http://www.arizonacleanfuels.com/index.htm They've taken down a lot of the old info they used to post, but if memory serves me they started the process in the early '90s, so using their current estimated opening date it's around a 20 year process to get started. Last estimate I read said it would cost about $6 billion to build if the process started today.
As for the argument that ethanol works, that's not really the issue. Is it economically and environmentally better? Does it help the overall economy and well being of the entire nation rather than the small portion of citizens in small portions of the country? The answers remain NO. It only "competes" because we, through our tax dollars and becasuse of artificial mandates, not because of any additional benefit to the overall economy.
Frank, good points all, but you left out one of the biggest uses.......high fructose corn syrup. It is the number one sweetener in a vast majority of our processed foods. Start reading the sides of food packaging and you'll get a feel for just how much is used out there. The argument that "food corn" isn't affected ignores the price having doubled for just the reasons Frank enumerated. There is a short term financial gain to the folks in the regions where corn is grown, but they will end up paying back to the rest of the negative economic outcomes in the future, it just may be in "hidden" costs that that won't be directly apparent.
The thoughts on converting various forms of biomass, and any other alternative you might see on History channel, or read about anywhere else is interesting. Each of the alternatives may have some reasonable outcomes in localized situations. To give an somewhat odd example, let's use the example of the local "mad scientist" type who makes his own diesel fuel out of waste french fry oil. Neat idea. I'm in full support of his program as long as he doesn't dispose of his waste byproduct in a way that harms my community. If he takes himself off the routine fuel grid all the better. Sounds like a neat idea until you start to extrapolate it out to the entire community (and by extension the whole country). His plan works only as long as he has no competition for the feed stock (the used canola oil, or whatever it is). If a couple more folks in town get the same idea suddenly the restaurants will find they've got multiple parties interested and will start having an auction, selling the raw material rather than being glad to have some "nut" haul it away for free. The highest bidder will be the "winner", but if he's sensible only up to the point where he finds that it's more costly to home brew his fuel rather than buy it at a station already made any time he needs it. The other competitors have lost whatever advantage they'd hoped for and returned to the normal fuel grid. I personally would't have any problem with ethanol, or biodiesel, or any othe the other "new fuels" as long as I don't have to pay for it. If the folks in Iowa want to run their cars on ethanol, go for it! Great idea. That'll leave that much more fuel for those of us who aren't geographically advantaged as they are. But that's not how it works today. Now I have to pay the going rate for gasoline AND have to pay for some of their fuel too. I have to earn my money in a competitive market...............I think you should too rather than using the force of government to highjack my paycheck. But hey, that's just me.
Lots of other alternative fuel sources are bandied about. Those BP commercials with the (real or fake?) man on the street "interviews" drive me nuts. It's a full on display of how ignorant (different than stupid) the general populace is about how much petroleum fuel means to our lives. Their blythe responses reveal how clueless they are to the difficulty in developing a fuel source that is as economical, available, practical, and yes, clean as we've used for years. Just a superficial review of some thought points. Someone mentioned hydrogen from sea water on here. Intellectually I think that's a great idea. It the practical application that starts to muddy the concept. First thing would be funding a way to collect the sea watter. Then to desalinate it. Who and how takes care of paying for that. And since most of the coastline communities that would need the fuel are hoity toity clavens of the "environmentally conscious" are they really going to allow them to be built? We got an answer last year when the Malibu swells had a big uprising over a proposed CNG facility nearby (and So. Cal NEEDS a lot of natural gas). But let's say they got sensible, just for the sake of fantasy, and allowed the plant, and since they're so wealthy and care so much for the rest of us, they even ponied up to pay for it, we'd still need to have an economical process to free up the hydrogen, and someplace to dispose of the salt from the desalinization process (forget about dumping it back into the ocean, the greens would go ape over the chemical imbalance that would cause for the little fishies, and other creatures).
SOME RODDER YOU ARE!!!!!
bonneville.......
Then how do you get all that hydrogen to where the consumers would be, and how will the consumers convert their transportation units to run on hydrogen?
That's just the tip of the iceberg, but it gives you an idea of what this, and most other proposed technologies are up against. The current system we have wasn't built by any government program of subsidy. It was done almost entirely with private capitol. In the beginning of the twentieth century steam, electric, and gasoline competed as the preferred power sources for automobiles. Gasoline won out because it was the safest and most economical fuel/propulsion system..............and it still is, especially since we have an existing infrastructure in place to distribute it. And it was chosen and built in the most democratic of methods, by vote of the individual consumers dollar. Any money the government throws around to "try to help start" some new alternative steals money from the free market which, left to it's own efficiencies, would spend that money in a more practical and productive way. History and honest evaluation of outcomes has proven that. Why would it be different today?
IMO new technology will make this better just as the media turns it into a big deal...as usual. The newest plants fully separate cellulose for Ethanol, oil for Biodiesel or human consumption, glycerine for manufacturing, and what's left is an almost pure protein animal feed that the animals use more efficiently than whole corn. I'd be willing to bet the new research didn't even touch either the environmental impact or cost structure of such a facility.
Uncle Bob, I totally agree with your explanation of the situation.
Any chance you can run for Pres?
"SOME RODDER YOU ARE!!!!!
bonneville....... "
Now!!! That's creative thinking and problem solving!!
Think I can get a government subsidy to buy a fleet of trucks to haul it from Malibu to B'ville? :lol: :shock:
Quote from: "Carnut"Uncle Bob, I totally agree with your explanation of the situation.
Any chance you can run for Pres?
Thank you..............................I think? :oops:
I don't think I could get elected though, got a problem with liking to tell the truth as I see it. But I was born in Solomon, so I might get the Kansas vote. :)
Man, does the carnut know how to stir up a pot?
Quote from: "Uncle Bob"Quote from: "Carnut"Uncle Bob, I totally agree with your explanation of the situation.
Any chance you can run for Pres?
Thank you..............................I think? :oops:
I don't think I could get elected though, got a problem with liking to tell the truth as I see it. But I was born in Solomon, so I might get the Kansas vote. :)
i'd be ok with vice.....
president, i mean...
while i don't agree or disagree with any of you 100%
i will say we have some smart mudders here :!: :!: :!:
later jim
My brother-in-law has done work in Providence, Rhode Island, Baltimore, Maryland, New York and New Jersey.
The construction is in preparation for ethanol storage facilities in those areas.
The ethanol will be coming from Brazil, not our country!
So, we may cut our dependence on foreign oil, but we will become dependent on foreign ethanol.
B.O.H.I.C.A. !!!
Quote from: "Uncle Bob""SOME RODDER YOU ARE!!!!!
bonneville....... "
Now!!! That's creative thinking and problem solving!!
Think I can get a government subsidy to buy a fleet of trucks to haul it from Malibu to B'ville? :lol: :shock:
well, if there's a truck that's deadheading back from there(socal), they could have a load THAT far....
in this whole fuel situation on whom or what fuel we use or the development of new fuels...... follow the money.
8)
I gotta reply again on this.....
Quote from: "tomslik"Quote from: "Entoman"Guys I gotta disagree with a lot of the crud being spouted by the liberal media about ethanol being bad...
First I work in the industry (Univ. of Ill Extension) and have studied many of the projections and outright non truths about ethanol.
First:
There is a net sum gain when ethanol is brewed from corn. If you use figures from the way ethanol was distilled in 1900 then it takes about 5 quarts of ethanol to get 4....That is simply not true today. The exact net gain depends greatly on the process. but in most cases it borders on a 2:1 ratio, very competitive with oil.
it takes 2 quarts to make 1!?!?!
don't sound like progress to me......
That would be 2 parts of Etoh produced for every 1 part used....Your response is typical of somebody who is trying to nitpick because they don't have a good grasp on the topic
Second:
I just read a study about the mileage that is derived from etoh/gas mixtures. contrary to popular belief there is a net gain in mpg in etoh/gas mixtures up to E-30 mixes in non-flex fueled autos. this is mostly due to etoh being an oxidizer that promotes more complete combustion of the mix. Above E-30 the lower energy content of Etoh comes into play and mileage suffers.
tell it to my truck, it's dropped 3 mpg since we've been on this "oxygenated" crap
Your drop in mileage may be very real, but there are always exceptions to any study. Is yours carbureted or FI? The study focused on FI, non-flex fuel vehicles because that is the predominant auto being used today
Third.
Ethanol production will cause the planet to warm significantly.......What are these guys smoking? Etoh is produced from carbon that is easily accessible on the surface of the planet. And every bit of it has been and will be again released once the source plant dies. FACT! Petroleum is large quantities of hydrocarbons that are sequestered deep within the earth that aren't released until they are pumped up and burned....HOW CAN ANYBODY SUGGEST WITH A STRAIGHT FACE THAT BURNING A SEQUESTERED CARBON SOURCE IS BETTER THAN RUNNING A CIRCUITOUS SOURCE SUCH AS PLANT MATERIAL?????
What happens when corn, sugar, switchgrass, miscanthus, or whatever is harvested? it is replanted and the successive crop removes the Carbon that was released. Simplistic? yes, but it works, Reference everyother life cycle on the earth.
ever ask a farmer why he doesn't plant the same crop year after year on the same plot of ground?
what happens with a drought?
disease?
bugs?
hail?
you want me to go on?
i grew up in nebraska, i know where corn comes from...
Did I say the same crop?????? I did not! However all of the things you say are real problems that occur from time to time. Simple crop rotation doesn't always work, the Northern corn rootworm has figgured out that if it lays its eggs in soybean fields, the farmer is likely to plant corn the next year....its favorite food....GMOs are now the predominantly grown crops in the US. 3 out of every 4 acres planted in corn is GMO corn, while 9 out of every 10 acres of soybeans are GMO. A new corn on the horizon is a 8 gene insertion corn that essentially takes most insects and weeds out of the equation. Monsanto is currently testing several events of drought tolerent and water conservative corn....The corn of your past is not the same corn of today.... Oh and Etoh can be made from virtually any biological source. Corn is easy, so that is what is being used now. On the horizon are other sources such as sugar beets, sweet sorghum for the traditional type of sugar fermentation processes, yet as cellulostic Etoh processes are improved, then Etoh can be made from virtually anything that has cellulose. Additionally lignin can also be broken down and converted into Etoh. These sources could improve possible yield of Etoh from an acre of cropland 3-5 fold. One other point. Nebraska grows corn that is rotated with grain sorghum, soybeans and alfalfa. But as a state Nebraska is not the only state to grow crops...last time I checked, crops in some form or another were grown in every state. Each has its own unique principles, needs and potentials....
Finally, what would you have us do? Continue to be dependent on the Middle East and their oil? Or develop home grown solutions? As an aside, because of the Etoh push and other factors, farmers are enjoying one of the most optimistic periods in US history.
Can ethanol completely replace oil? with current technology NO, but as a part of the answer, Yes.
Oh and how to increase the mileage from Etoh, bump the compression a bunch and its efficiency will increase and make it closer to gas....
Doug
Quote from: "wayne petty"i have been thinking about fuel economy....
current engines are running at fuel mixtures to feed the cat... too lean and it does not heat enough to work... too rich and it melts....
ethanol is a great idea to reduce fuel imports... except it reduces fuel economy.... so we are burning more fuel per mile with the 10%+ blends...
the makes the refiners more money ... the goverment more money in collected taxes per mile driven... and we get to pay both...
somebody is going to have to come up wiith an electricly heated or microwave heated cat.... something that does not require a constant amount of unburned hydrocarbons to heat... it is probably not possable now that i think about it as you have to create enough electricity to power it... so i guess we are just stuck.,.....until someone has a brainstorm...
Is it not a fact that it takes more energy to produce one gallon of ethanol than exists in the one gallon of ethanol ????? Is it also true that E=mC2, we cannot destroy energy but only change it from one form to another (?)
As far as Hydrogen as a fuel (you can make it from tap water also)........how are we going to pump it, convert our automobiles, get it to the end user....... When I was a little kid growing up, when I needed air in my bike tires, I had two options, one use the hand pump (if it worked) or take it to the gas station and use their air hose (compressor). Now, how many of us have our own air compressor in their shop ??? Would it be that difficult to have a hydrogen compressor in your shop (somewhere in the future) ? Who would have thought (50 years ago) so many of us would have air compressors in our personal shops. :shock:
Money is the motivator. Also, way back when, a bushel of corn cost 2 dollars and a barrel of oil also cost 2 dollars.........I suggest we notify the world that our accountant has made a mistake over the years and we just discovered it. To correct this mistake the new price for a bushel of corn is the same as a barrel of oil (97 dollars).... I am sure this would level the playing field. You cannot grow much corn in the desert !!! 8)
My truck MPG fell off 2 to 3 miles per gallon using the wonderful fuel blend.....it IS fuel injected.
We need "out of the box" thinking. It is going to take a lot of time for this issue to be resolved. It took us a hundred years to get here it may take that much time to get out of this mess, who knows. These things may not happen in our life time....
Entoman, you have embraced the cult like dialogue of the pro-ethanol faction, even to charging that a liberal media tells lies about it's benefits. I would contend that the media does a fairly poor job of disclosing the realities of the discussion in an organized and concise way and are therefore supporting the "the cult".
Your comment about ethanol yielding two units of energy for one input is at the optomistic end of most estimates, but let's go with it since it's close. However, gasoline is not a 4 to ! ratio as you stated, it's actually 15 to 1 ; ref, http://whyfiles.org/253ethanol/index.php?g=2.txt (see chart and text mid page). But again, maybe that's nitpicking.
Personally I don't care if we run our vehicles on perfume or chow chips (well, maybe a mix of the two would be a better idea for obvious reasons), what I do want is the most economical energy we can get because our modern society depends on it. We're no more "addicted" to oil (or energy per se) than our bodies are addicted to blood. In today's modern society it's essential for life as we know it. And I don't want us to cripple our economy by pricing the energy we use out of the range of our competitor's energy costs. Ethanol doesn't do that on the two fronts we have already mentioned and are nearly always avoided by the pro-ethanol crowd. We can go back and forth about all the little yield points and the emotional flag waving stuff, but the bottom line is, it's poor policy to cannibalize your food stream for motor fuel, and if ethanol were inherently cost effective it wouldn't need subsidizing with tax payer dollars.
Argument given; Producing ethanol for motor fuel is a young industry and needs help getting off the ground. Untrue! It's been around almost as long as gasoline. Henry Ford had ethanol in mind as one of the fuel streams for the Model T (he was also big in promoting soy beans as a source for fuel and plastics). The above linked article has a picture of a station selling ethanol blen in the '30s. Ethanol never "caught on" because it never made economic sense...................until the government mandated it AND threw a bunch of our tax dollars at it. Back to my earlier comment about which pocket we pay from. Increased comparative energy cost without increased productivity puts us at an economic disadvantage.
Argument given; It helps the farmer. The older one gets the more certain types of catch phrases become red flags. When a politician says "it's for the children", bend over you're about to get a lesson in guilt driven piracy. Or when the human caused global warming fanatics say "the debate is over", that means they don't want to discuss their losing cause because they can't really prove their point. So it is with holding up the farmer as someone to be "supported". First of all, farmers usually aren't that dumb. The ones that are should go into something else if they can't figure out a profitable crop to grow. Second, if a crop is made profitable by artificially proping up it's price through subsidies, then helping the farmer is hurting the consumer. That's not win win. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your view), the idea that all the farmers helped are Ma and Pa operations is no longer valid. The single biggest beneficiary of tax payer largesse is the Archer Daniels Midland conglomerate, a politically connected company convicted of price fixing; http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/investing/20001221c.asp?prodtype=grn At this point some might be tempted to start attacking oil companies for the same thing. While I can find lots to be frustrated about with the oil industry this isn't one of their problems. The feds have made more than a dozen attempts to take down the oil industry due to congressional pressure, but no evidence was ever found as was with ADM, the tobacco industry, and countless other enterprises. It wasn't for the lack of trying. But back to the point, as the attached article points out, the tax payer has been taken to the cleaners by "poor farmers" like ADM.
Last one next because I doubt I can sway any "true believers" in ethanol, only help arm my fellow rodders with the other side of the story that doesn't get much exposure.
Argument given; Would you have us continue to be dependent on the middle east for our oil? (or some variation on that theme) About 2/3 the way down this page; http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html is a chart showing 2005 import spreads from which sources, 2007 (link under the map) are somewhat similar. We get a much lower percentage of our imports from the middle east than most people have been mislead to believe. However, to a degree, that doesn't really matter. Let's say we get all wound up and refuse to import any more oil from then thar a-rabs. Great. So we go somewhere else and buy oil that, oh say France and Japan are buying from. What will those guys do? They'll go to where we just left and buy their oil there. Net net? Nothing has fundamentally changed except the routing of tankers. Some when seeing this example will then say, "That's why we need to stop using crude oil!" Yeah, great idea. What have you got to offer that's price competitive per unit of energy? So far none of the answers has penciled out. We've seen here, and elsewhere, statements like "it's about the money". Yeah, it is. (althought I'd bet some of the folks who say that interpret it differently than I do) It's about us as consumers wanting to get the most for the least. And given today's technology that means fuel from crude oil. There are lots of alternatives mentioned; electricity, hydrogen, water, wind, solar, and so on. They all exist, they all provide output, but none of them can compete with oil price wise on a large scale..............by a long shot. If we in the U.S. want to adopt a different source of energy for whatever noble sounding reason, that's great. First we need to figure out what else we're going to give up, which convenience or necessity, what market segment, and which associated jobs because we make a decision to divert capital to a source that's not viable on it's own merits. Second, we need to force the rest of the world that we have to compete with to adopt the same higher cost energy source, or just cut our own throat.
Your choice.
one local fellow I chatted with thinks these products for ethanol production could be grown in the medians and along side the freeways / roads.
that would be interesting getting the farm equipment out in the middle of roadways
Quote from: "Crosley"one local fellow I chatted with thinks these products for ethanol production could be grown in the medians and along side the freeways / roads.
that would be interesting getting the farm equipment out in the middle of roadways
Actually here in Ohio, there are places where they plant soybeans on the highway right of way, the state gets a share of the profits.
Uncle Bob, I realize that I am probably preaching out in the wilderness here, but I will make a couple of rebuttals...
First I haven't embraced the cult like dialoge of anything, but have rather studied the subject and work in the agricultural field.
You stated
" I would contend that the media does a fairly poor job of disclosing the realities of the discussion in an organized and concise way and are therefore supporting the "the cult". "
I agree, the media does a poor job of reporting most everything. When I see them grossly misrepresent a subject I know, I am very suspicious of the subjects that I have less knowledge of. I contend that the media is overall not bright enough to support a cult or any other entity, but simply reports things that make news....rather if it bleeds, it leads....
The website you referenced makes compelling arguments, but much of its data is very old. The study that it referenced about energy output of ethanol was a 1991 study. Things have changed greatly since then.
The entire process of distilling Etoh is very different since then. Its assumptions were probably close then, However just picking on corn, its yield per acre has increased dramatically since 1991 (average increase is just under 4.5 bushels per year).
Petroleum output versus input. That is a very variable rate. If you look at easy to reach oil such as middle east oil that has few impurities and could almost be put directly into your fuel tank (preferred since the ROI is very good) the rate is probably 15:1 or maybe even better. But lets just look at the Sinclair plant in Tulsa. They do not refine sweet crude. I have a friend who works there and has described the process to some degree. They buy a very thick heavily sulphur laden crude for 20-30 percent less than the light sweet crude price that is tossed about (about 92$ a barrel on Friday) Oklahoma Sour is first pumped from the ground mostly from stripper wells (yield <15 barrels per day) that have to be reworked every 2-12 months (Cleaned, because the high parrafin oil gums the plumbing up. At the refinery it is boiled, fractionated, catylized or cracked, reboiled refractionated etc.) While I don't have good input to yield figures for that particular plant, I doubt that they are anywhere near 15:1.
Next if you look at world oil, who controls it? For the most part we don't. Venezuela has much, but Chavez is playing dictator and controls all they have. Mexico produces a lot, but it is a country while stable now, has little history of stability. the middle east has a lot, but not stable nor ever was, North sea, probably one of the most stable areas, but Europe has dibs there. Russia? Emerging as a producer, but once again has dibs. Anwar, lots of oil probably, but still would only suffice for 10-15 years in concert with other sources. Gulf of Mexico, being developed and produces most of our domestic production, (shuts down in hurricanes) California coast, might help, but it too will be depleated in only a few years etc. etc.
The whole problem with the fossil fuel argument is that it is not being replenished. Etoh is not new, never said it was. it faltered in the early 1900's because it was not economical....oil was cheap. oil is still cheap, but its economy is disappearing.
I want cheap fuel as much as the next person, but rational reasoning and examining demand, reserves and a little common sense tells me that unless we make everybody else stop using it, it will not be cheap much longer. Just try to tell China to stop development. They are close to our heals in petroleum consumption and have 4 -5 times our population. India wants what we have too. Essentially the economics are changing and if we are not developing new sources, then what?
Oh one other thing with respect to H2. It would be great, but you have to produce it first. Inputs could be solar, wind, hydroelectric geothermal nuclear or ?? but it does require more energy to produce than you get from it. You can make H2 by hydrolysis, water plasma conversion or through a catalytic conversion of natural gas/petroleum.
Personal observation: My car TBI gets abut 1 mpg better on E-10 than on straight gas. Another thing, most fuel already has some Etoh in it as an anti-smog additive. (less problems that using MTBE).
Quote "the bottom line is, it's poor policy to cannibalize your food stream for motor fuel, and if ethanol were inherently cost effective it wouldn't need subsidizing with tax payer dollars."
You are right that there is a subsidy currently for Etoh. IIRC it is about 54 cents per gallon. But the pressures on grain prices are not being driven by fuel production alone. China is a very big driving force nowdays. They are net importers of massive quantities of grain after having been exporters for the last 20 years. This is driving the price up. Soybeans are high due to crop production problems in Brazil. Wheat is over 10$ due to a world wide shortage. Currently Farmers are snapping up land for prices up to 7K/acre because the profit potential works at that price. I say that they wouldn't be doing that if they weren't making money. These guys are not dummies as the media has suggested. Most of the farmers I work with are very shrewd businessmen who are very in touch with reality.
Argument given; Producing ethanol for motor fuel is a young industry and needs help getting off the ground. Untrue! It's been around almost as long as gasoline. Henry Ford had ethanol in mind as one of the fuel streams for the Model T (he was also big in promoting soy beans as a source for fuel and plastics). The above linked article has a picture of a station selling ethanol blen in the '30s. Ethanol never "caught on" because it never made economic sense...................until the government mandated it AND threw a bunch of our tax dollars at it. Back to my earlier comment about which pocket we pay from. Increased comparative energy cost without increased productivity puts us at an economic disadvantage.
That was then, this is now, the future will be the future....things change......
Argument given; It helps the farmer. The older one gets the more certain types of catch phrases become red flags. When a politician says "it's for the children", bend over you're about to get a lesson in guilt driven piracy. Or when the human caused global warming fanatics say "the debate is over", that means they don't want to discuss their losing cause because they can't really prove their point.
I agree with you about global warming....when somebody says the debate is over, then I glaze over knowing that the debate is never over. I won't go into my diatribe about the falicies of global warming except to say that the enviornment is not stable, is in constant change and that change should not be feared but rather embraced
I won't argue benefits of farm subsidies, due to my limited experience with them...
Last one next because I doubt I can sway any "true believers" in ethanol, only help arm my fellow rodders with the other side of the story that doesn't get much exposure.
Actually I am not an exclusive Etoh advocate, but rather I am a supporter of alternatives. Butanol is another biologically based substance that has merit. H2 in certain forms has merit. Nuclear? I don't know enough to say. Others? I'm open to suggestions. Staying only with petroleum? Describe to me how petroleum is being replenished at even close to the rate it is being removed and I will support it.
Argument given; Would you have us continue to be dependent on the middle east for our oil? (or some variation on that theme) About 2/3 the way down this page; "link deleted "is a chart showing 2005 import spreads from which sources, 2007 (link under the map) are somewhat similar. We get a much lower percentage of our imports from the middle east than most people have been mislead to believe. However, to a degree, that doesn't really matter. Let's say we get all wound up and refuse to import any more oil from then thar a-rabs. Great. So we go somewhere else and buy oil that, oh say France and Japan are buying from. What will those guys do? They'll go to where we just left and buy their oil there. Net net? Nothing has fundamentally changed except the routing of tankers. Some when seeing this example will then say, "That's why we need to stop using crude oil!" Yeah, great idea. What have you got to offer that's price competitive per unit of energy?
Problem with buying oil from the next guy is that oil price is determined globally. Where it comes from doesn't matter, but cut off production one place and the price spikes everyplace. Case in point On Thursday it was announced late that Brent sea production was to decline by 15% in March. the price of crude jumped on Friday from ~86$/barrel to
~92$/barrel for sweet crude in New York, Cushing, and Brent spot.
Additionally, only the zealots have said stop using oil completely. I say that we should diversify our energy sources so that if supplies are curtailed, cut, or whatever, we are not sucker punched by the shock and new price.
There are lots of alternatives mentioned; electricity, hydrogen, water, wind, solar, and so on. They all exist, they all provide output, but none of them can compete with oil price wise on a large scale..............by a long shot.
With oil at 20-30$ per barrel, these don't compete. however Etoh competes well when oil goes above 70$/barrel and corn stays below 5$/bu Remove the subsidy and it requires corn to be below ~$4.50/bu when oil is above 70$/barrel change the inputs and the equlibriums change. Wind, must be economical now, have you seen the number of turbines being erected? A factory that produces wind turbines south of me is backlogged about 2 years currently. I see a unit being shipped up I57 virtually every time I drive the Istate....and these aren't little toys either but require a 32-48 tire trailer to ship. Solar could be more economical, but needs a kick in the pants to bring initial costs down. generally you are talking about 5-7 thousand dollars per kw and it only produces power on sunny days....great in the SWUSA, but here it stays cloudy much of the winter.
Essentially, there is no simple easy answer. But alternatives will be forced on us at some point. when is open to debate, but I for one want to be ready should that occur in my or my kids lifetimes....what you want to do is your choice.....Choose wisely
Oh just to make sure that I have some hotrodding content in this, my current plans are to build a FI E-85 burning dragster this next year. I will gladly put my 12.5:1 speedpros back into the 350....It will be cool to see what kind of performance i can get at the local track I-57 speedway
Actually that's a very good rebuttal, and it advances the understanding. 600 page books could be written about this/these topics so our little inputs here barely scratch the surface. So I'll just throw out a couple more thoughts.
Now that it's clear we agree that petroleum is the most economical for now, it points out how vacuous the decision of our congress is to shut off exploration and production of domestically available crude oil. If I thought they had some strategic vision in mind I might be less critical, however by all outward indications they are pandering to a slice of their constituency rather than to the broad needs of the entire population.
As for how we produce ethanol, the fundamental problem still is we're attacking our food stream. You're correct, world demand for grains is part of the equation for rising prices. All the more reason we shouldn't divert corn production to motor fuel (aside from the neat economics of E85 vs racing gasoline, you could get the same benefit from methanol which doesn't steal from food). Our farms should be able to supply the domestic food market first, then sell anything beyond that to the world market. That would increase the flow of foreign trade with our country rather than out, helping to balance some of the petro dollar flow. Secondarily that would reduce the need for farm subsidies (assuming politicians would pull themselves away from the teat of special interest money), lowering the financial burden on the rest of us. And third it wouldn't divert investment capital from pursuing other non-food fuel source developement as happens now when we spend tax dollars propping up the inefficiencies of ethanol production. We haven't even mentioned how diverting acreage from food to fuel purposes effects our balance of trade and potential national security issues by forcing us to replace the displaced domestic food production with foreign sources.
Part of my passion for this is that we have enormouse known reserves of coal, and shale oil that, as future crude oil prices are forced up by declining reserves (if that's really true, and considering actual versus known) those sources become more viable. As does geothermal. My primary reason for leaning toward a liquid based fuel stream, and hydrocarbon in particular is that from an economics standpoint we already have a refining and distribution infrastructure network in place that would be enormously expensive to replicate/displace unless we made a switch to electricity (thus the nuclear/coal fired/etc. arguments) which also has an effective existing distribution system. Again, each of those alternatives have been given short shrift because of dedicated special interest minorities that have used fear mongering and political bribery to impede the developement of any of these, what I consider more viable, alternatives.
Quote from: "Entoman"I gotta reply again on this.....
Quote from: "tomslik"Quote from: "Entoman"Guys I gotta disagree with a lot of the crud being spouted by the liberal media about ethanol being bad...
First I work in the industry (Univ. of Ill Extension) and have studied many of the projections and outright non truths about ethanol.
First:
There is a net sum gain when ethanol is brewed from corn. If you use figures from the way ethanol was distilled in 1900 then it takes about 5 quarts of ethanol to get 4....That is simply not true today. The exact net gain depends greatly on the process. but in most cases it borders on a 2:1 ratio, very competitive with oil.
it takes 2 quarts to make 1!?!?!
don't sound like progress to me......
That would be 2 parts of Etoh produced for every 1 part used....Your response is typical of somebody who is trying to nitpick because they don't have a good grasp on the topic
i'm getting the feeling that YOU don't have the grasp.
it's that little "nitpicking" that makes a difference..between theory and reality...
Second:
I just read a study about the mileage that is derived from etoh/gas mixtures. contrary to popular belief there is a net gain in mpg in etoh/gas mixtures up to E-30 mixes in non-flex fueled autos. this is mostly due to etoh being an oxidizer that promotes more complete combustion of the mix. Above E-30 the lower energy content of Etoh comes into play and mileage suffers.
tell it to my truck, it's dropped 3 mpg since we've been on this "oxygenated" crap
Your drop in mileage may be very real, but there are always exceptions to any study. Is yours carbureted or FI? The study focused on FI, non-flex fuel vehicles because that is the predominant auto being used today
it's 2000 gm 5.3 and don't EVEN tell me how you "studies" tell you it should get better milage.
OBVIOUSLY you don't deal with altitude drivability issues.
now, if it were a flex-fuel vehicle, you MIGHT have a leg to stand on...
Third.
Ethanol production will cause the planet to warm significantly.......What are these guys smoking? Etoh is produced from carbon that is easily accessible on the surface of the planet. And every bit of it has been and will be again released once the source plant dies. FACT! Petroleum is large quantities of hydrocarbons that are sequestered deep within the earth that aren't released until they are pumped up and burned....HOW CAN ANYBODY SUGGEST WITH A STRAIGHT FACE THAT BURNING A SEQUESTERED CARBON SOURCE IS BETTER THAN RUNNING A CIRCUITOUS SOURCE SUCH AS PLANT MATERIAL?????
What happens when corn, sugar, switchgrass, miscanthus, or whatever is harvested? it is replanted and the successive crop removes the Carbon that was released. Simplistic? yes, but it works, Reference everyother life cycle on the earth.
ever ask a farmer why he doesn't plant the same crop year after year on the same plot of ground?
what happens with a drought?
disease?
bugs?
hail?
you want me to go on?
i grew up in nebraska, i know where corn comes from...
Did I say the same crop?????? I did not! However all of the things you say are real problems that occur from time to time. Simple crop rotation doesn't always work, the Northern corn rootworm has figgured out that if it lays its eggs in soybean fields, the farmer is likely to plant corn the next year....its favorite food....GMOs are now the predominantly grown crops in the US. 3 out of every 4 acres planted in corn is GMO corn, while 9 out of every 10 acres of soybeans are GMO. A new corn on the horizon is a 8 gene insertion corn that essentially takes most insects and weeds out of the equation. Monsanto is currently testing several events of drought tolerent and water conservative corn....The corn of your past is not the same corn of today.... Oh and Etoh can be made from virtually any biological source. Corn is easy, so that is what is being used now. On the horizon are other sources such as sugar beets, sweet sorghum for the traditional type of sugar fermentation processes, yet as cellulostic Etoh processes are improved, then Etoh can be made from virtually anything that has cellulose. Additionally lignin can also be broken down and converted into Etoh. These sources could improve possible yield of Etoh from an acre of cropland 3-5 fold. One other point. Nebraska grows corn that is rotated with grain sorghum, soybeans and alfalfa. But as a state Nebraska is not the only state to grow crops...last time I checked, crops in some form or another were grown in every state. Each has its own unique principles, needs and potentials....
Finally, what would you have us do? Continue to be dependent on the Middle East and their oil? Or develop home grown solutions? As an aside, because of the Etoh push and other factors, farmers are enjoying one of the most optimistic periods in US history.
Can ethanol completely replace oil? with current technology NO, but as a part of the answer, Yes.
Oh and how to increase the mileage from Etoh, bump the compression a bunch and its efficiency will increase and make it closer to gas....
Doug
Quote from: "wayne petty"i have been thinking about fuel economy....
current engines are running at fuel mixtures to feed the cat... too lean and it does not heat enough to work... too rich and it melts....
ethanol is a great idea to reduce fuel imports... except it reduces fuel economy.... so we are burning more fuel per mile with the 10%+ blends...
the makes the refiners more money ... the goverment more money in collected taxes per mile driven... and we get to pay both...
somebody is going to have to come up wiith an electricly heated or microwave heated cat.... something that does not require a constant amount of unburned hydrocarbons to heat... it is probably not possable now that i think about it as you have to create enough electricity to power it... so i guess we are just stuck.,.....until someone has a brainstorm...
The Cats again. In Australia We had to get rid of all Leaded petrol because it was "poisoning us'. Yet all statistics showed decreasing blood lead levels in the overall population despite increasing vehicle population. We were fed a US graph back in 1990 by our then environment minister.[we started using ULP in 86] .The graph showed the US trend since mid 70,s when you guys switched. No one bothered to ask about the long history of decreasing blood lead levels before this. My take is that lead had to go because of cats and nothing else. Best alternative we have is LPG ,great for rodders anyway you get to rip out the emission controls,no need for a cat if you run straight LPG,and use a polution engine in your early ride........Frank.
tomslick wrote
i'm getting the feeling that YOU don't have the grasp.
it's that little "nitpicking" that makes a difference..
Hmmm, I really don't think that I need to respond here
Tom Slick wrote
it's 2000 gm 5.3 and don't EVEN tell me how you "studies" tell you it should get better milage.
OBVIOUSLY you don't deal with altitude drivability issues.
now, if it were a flex-fuel vehicle, you MIGHT have a leg to stand on...
There is a big difference between mean increase and the range of responses. Yours (and I am assuming that you have conducted a standardized trial that makes all inputs as randomized as possible and keeps biases such as a predisposition about how the results should be out of the trial) would be classified as one data point out of many. Once many many points of data are collected, regression analysis would be conducted to determine a trend of whether GPM increases as Etoh content is increased or whether the GPM decreases. If you examine most any scientific study the collection of data rarely produces a nice clean graph that in every instance trends the same direction.
If anything your GPH at altitude should increase if my feble understanding of chemistry and physics is correct. But rather than rely on intuition, I defer to experimentation. Your results may vary, but overall, experimentation found that mileage will increase on non-flex fuel injected vehicles ON THE AVERAGE. To get that average there are vechicles that increased a lot, some would even show decreases. My car increased....but mine is only one data point. As a scientist I would never determine a trend from only one point of data. Statistically I would need many points and would be able to assess how well the regression reflected my data from the accompanying r2 value.
lets see, in an overly simplistic calculation, if you accept that Etoh has about 60% of the heat value of gas, and you are running a 10 percent blend, then the gasahol you are burning should have a heat value of about 96% of straight gasoline. Just to use a car with a straight gas miles per gallon of 30 mpg, using heat value alone and ignoring other factors you should get about 96% of you original mileage. Calculated you would get 28.8 mpg....if you got 10 mpg on straight gas then your drop should only be 0.4 mpg....
In the real world things aren't this simple, but rather your mileage may increase, or decrease....only experimentation will tell
I didn't originally challenge your statement about declines in mileage, I said that yours might not reflect the overall trend as determined in this study. Heck that study might be in error....it has happened before, that is why in science studies are replicated before much stock is put in their reliability
Wayne Pettys statements about the catalytic converters are probably dead on. So I won't comment
However, nobody is forcing you to buy Etoh blends above 10%, There is talk about increasing that to 15%. But nobody is holding a gun to your head to buy E-85, However if gas continues to increase in price and E-85 is competitive in price, then I have no problem buying it (once I switch to a flexfuel auto) I do however want the option. I am sick and tired of having only one choice for fuel. diversification will make these guys recognize that they aren't the only game in town and will be beneficial for all of us.
Oh one other point I forgot to mention in my previous posts.
Using corn for Etoh production, (while not the most efficient method of producing Etoh...Sugar cane is much better, But we cannot grow it in much of the country), corn is not used up, nor is is wasted. DDG and WDG dried distiller grains and wet distiller grains respectively are excellent feeds and organic sources for food and other commodity production. The amount of feed stock that enters the distillary is reduced to about 1/4 its volume by the time it leaves, but its feed value is increased over straight corn. So the impact on the food industry is not as great as one might think.
Another thing, I just don't understand how keeping grain prices low helps farmers? Farmers here in IL go broke when corn is below $2 a bushel. and their input costs keep going up. Corn prices up until the last couple of years had been stagnant. Only by increasing yields many farmers were able to keep afloat.
Geeze, I gotta stop this.
I don't want to attack anybody, I just want to decry some of the misinformation that is being preached to us...
anyhow I'm through....back to your regular programming....
Doug
Carnut, see what happens with a little alcohol. Bob, A food shortage in this country would't hurt. Less corn sweetners would be a good thing. :lol: If we all lost weight, we would use less gas. If we used the alcohol in beer and whiskey to fuel our cars, we would also lose some weight. Better gas mileage. Can I run for president on this platform? :lol: I'm not going to convince anyone that ethonal is great but $5 corn is better than $1.50. No matter how you look at it, it is produced right here in this country which is a good thing. If you don't want to use it, don't. :shock:
This is a good topic.
How about alittle more global warming its been alittle cold here in Iowa.
ya, know, if everyone is really worried about global warming melting all the ice and raising sea levels, I would think someone ought to be working on building * all around Florida.
Quote from: "Carnut"I would think someone ought to be working on building * all around Florida.
Someone should build lesbians in Florida? How can--OH! OH! You mean *! ROTFLMAO!
Sorry, I find humor in everything!
Quote from: "rumrumm"Quote from: "Carnut"I would think someone ought to be working on building * all around Florida.
Someone should build lesbians in Florida? How can--OH! OH! You mean *! ROTFLMAO!
Sorry, I find humor in everything!
Heh,heh, yeah, I realized the error shortly after posting it, but I figured 'what the hey' lets see what responses it will get. :)