DrunkMonkey 0 #1 June 21, 2004 Anyone smart on Ethanol? Why are we still the Saudis' bitch because of their oil, when we could be burning domestically producable/renewable ethanol??? Aren't the two products interchangable in most applications (engines, heating, etc...)??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #2 June 21, 2004 try this thread from about a week ago. We went through a lot of the fuel alternatives and their merrits. I think the basic conclusion (if any) was there are a couple of viable alternatives that give the same power and ease of use... just no one's doing it yet... (hope that summary doesn't kick off another argument) Edited to add the damn link http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1094536#1094536 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #3 June 21, 2004 Ethanol is nice but not really feasible. It takes more energy to produce and distribute than you get out of it. Biodiesel is a much better alternative. There are also agricultural based lubricants and greases that can be used. You are right, though. We do have other options. Billvon is really really smart on this subject. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Opie 0 #4 June 21, 2004 QuoteEthanol is nice but not really feasible. It takes more energy to produce and distribute than you get out of it.................... Actually that is wrong but seems to be a popular statement made by a few people that never seem to back it up with anything other then 1970s studies. Current studies show a net energy gain of 34%. see here http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2002/08/0322.htm for one current example. Ethanol is already included in 30% of gas nationwide reducing our need to import that much foreign oil. It is a renewable fuel that is here today, works in cars and trucks on the road today, it also increases the demand and therefore price of corn which helps eliminate the govt. sending your tax dollars out to farmers, and helps clean up pollution to boot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #5 June 21, 2004 I hadn't heard that. Thanks. Vinny Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bch7773 0 #6 June 21, 2004 Quote Ethanol is already included in 30% of gas nationwide reducing our need to import that much foreign oil. It is a renewable fuel that is here today, works in cars and trucks on the road today, it also increases the demand and therefore price of corn which helps eliminate the govt. sending your tax dollars out to farmers, and helps clean up pollution to boot. not to mention its other health and psycholocial benefits when ingested orally. MB 3528, RB 1182 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #7 June 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteEthanol is nice but not really feasible. It takes more energy to produce and distribute than you get out of it.................... Actually that is wrong but seems to be a popular statement made by a few people that never seem to back it up with anything other then 1970s studies. Current studies show a net energy gain of 34%. see here http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2002/08/0322.htm for one current example. Ethanol is already included in 30% of gas nationwide reducing our need to import that much foreign oil. It is a renewable fuel that is here today, works in cars and trucks on the road today, it also increases the demand and therefore price of corn which helps eliminate the govt. sending your tax dollars out to farmers, and helps clean up pollution to boot. Someone go get BilVon and let him know about this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #8 June 21, 2004 I recall Bill posting that exact info. What he had said is that fossil fuels are still much more efficient and why they are still preferred. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #9 June 21, 2004 Bill hasn't been around as much as usual as of late. Dunno why. I miss bantering with him in here on political stuff. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #10 June 21, 2004 Quote Ethanol is already included in 30% of gas nationwide reducing our need to import that much foreign oil. It is a renewable fuel that is here today, works in cars and trucks on the road today, it also increases the demand and therefore price of corn which helps eliminate the govt. sending your tax dollars out to farmers, and helps clean up pollution to boot. It's a shame that they couldn't grow less corn to start with, so we wouldn't be forced to find uses for it. Is it also the reason we're drowning in food made from high fructose corn syrup? CA is mandated by the Clean Air Act to use ethanol even when it is probably not needed. So it burns 10% cleaner...unfortunately it seems to decrease gas mileage by a similar amount. The state asked for a waiver on the oxygenate requirement - declined by the Bush Administration for political reasons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #11 June 21, 2004 The Damn POTUS is bought-n-paid for by oilmen--for chrissake, he's an oilman himself. The oil companies are a bunch of greedy motherfuckers who will do everything to suppress an alternate energy source until they get the patents/some means of profiting from it. Until then, they will advocate using petrol, no matter the cost, be it blood or political... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #12 June 21, 2004 Come on now...that's being overly harsh. Oil men aren't greedy. They have genuine concern for the elderly... Quote in one transcript a trader asks about "all the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers of California.'' To which the Enron trader responds, "Yeah, Grandma Millie, man. But she's the one who couldn't figure out how to (expletive) vote on the butterfly ballot.'' And they certainly don't try to manipulate the market. Quotean Enron trader identified as David discusses shutting down a steamer from a generating unit to increase prices. "I was wondering, um, the demand out there is er ... there's not much, ah, demand for power at all and we're running kind of fat. Um, if you took down the steamer, how long would it take to get it back up? "Oh, it's not something you want to just be turning on and off every hour. Let's put it that way,'' another trader says. "If we shut it down, could you bring it back up in three - three or four hours, something like that?'' David asks. "Oh, yeah,'' the other trader says. "Well, why don't you just go ahead and shut her down, then, if that's OK,'' David says. And they show genuine concern for the safety of people and the environment. QuoteWhen a forest fire shut down a major transmission line into California, cutting power supplies and raising prices, Enron energy traders celebrated, CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports. "Burn, baby, burn. That's a beautiful thing," a trader sang about the massive fire. All kidding aside, it's not like the gov't is in bed with these people at Enron. QuoteFederal Election Commission records show that Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay donated more than $350,000 directly to Bush campaigns since 1997. Lay also gave another $100,000 to Republican candidates and fundraising committees. In addition, Enron Corporation, including employees, also donated $1.5 million in soft money to Bush and Republican committees. More recently, Lay and his wife donated $10,000 to the "Florida Recount Fund," and another $100,000 to the "Presidential Inaugural Fund." As one of his fundraising "Pioneers," Lay helped raise more than $100,000 for Bush's campaign for president. And GWB would never use improper influence to help out an oil company. QuoteIn 1988, then Texas governor George Bush Jr., reportedly telephoned Rodolfo Terragno, Argentina's Public Works Minister, to ask him to award Enron a contract to build a pipeline from Chile to Argentina. "He assumed that the fact he was the son of the president would exert influence. I felt pressured. It was not proper for him to make that kind of call," Terragno told The Nation. But, hey. He didn't lie under oath about it, so I guess it's ok. You can do anything, as long as you don't lie about it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #13 June 21, 2004 QuoteThe Damn POTUS is bought-n-paid for by oilmen--for chrissake, he's an oilman himself. What about the Presidents before the current President? QuoteThe oil companies are a bunch of greedy motherfuckers who will do everything to suppress an alternate energy source until they get the patents/some means of profiting from it. They don't need patents to profit from it, they need the infrastructure to manufacture and deliver it. Oil companies currently own the infrastructure to import oil and refine it to gasoline, diesel, kerosene, and other byproducts. (Although environmental legislation has discouraged them from building more refineries - so while demand has gone up the oil companies have been forced to begin importing gasoline. That is very expensive). Anyhow - back on track - if the oil companies were to invest in building the infrastructure to manufacture and deliver Ethonal you can you bet your ass that it would be expensive. Are you willing to pay even more for ethonal than you do for gasoline? QuoteUntil then, they will advocate using petrol, no matter the cost, be it blood or political... Yeah, that's it. It's all about blood and politics. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #14 June 21, 2004 Ummm, delivering ethanol is no different than delivering gasoline. There's a nationwide pipeline in place that currently delivers different grades of gasoline in the same pipeline by separating batches iwth a rubber "pig". There's no reason ethanol couldn't be transmitted through these same pipelines. QuoteAre you willing to pay even more for ethonal than you do for gasoline? I am. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Opie 0 #15 June 21, 2004 Quote QuoteThe Damn POTUS is bought-n-paid for by oilmen--for chrissake, he's an oilman himself. What about the Presidents before the current President? QuoteThe oil companies are a bunch of greedy motherfuckers who will do everything to suppress an alternate energy source until they get the patents/some means of profiting from it. They don't need patents to profit from it, they need the infrastructure to manufacture and deliver it. Oil companies currently own the infrastructure to import oil and refine it to gasoline, diesel, kerosene, and other byproducts. (Although environmental legislation has discouraged them from building more refineries - so while demand has gone up the oil companies have been forced to begin importing gasoline. That is very expensive). Anyhow - back on track - if the oil companies were to invest in building the infrastructure to manufacture and deliver Ethonal you can you bet your ass that it would be expensive. Are you willing to pay even more for ethonal than you do for gasoline? QuoteUntil then, they will advocate using petrol, no matter the cost, be it blood or political... Yeah, that's it. It's all about blood and politics. - Jim Just why do you predict that ethanol will be so expensive? Production of ethanol has doubled in the last five years and its not because it costs more than gasoline. Here in the midwest a 10% blend of ethanol is cheaper than straight gasoline at the pump. So are you willing to pay more for gasoline without ethanol in it? Because if you are in the midwest the price is higher for the straight gasoline than it is for a 10% ethanol blend. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #16 June 21, 2004 Some other facts about its viability. Approximately 40% of the cars in Brazil operate on 100% ethanol. The remaining cars run on a blend of 22% ethanol (78% gasoline). The US domestic ethanol industry produces more than 1.5 billion gallons of ethanol from corn, milo, waste starches and other products at more than 50 production facilities across the U.S. While today most ethanol in the U.S. is produced from corn, ethanol can be made from any starch material, including biomass, agricultural waste, municipal solid waste, grasses and trees. http://www.ethanolrfa.org/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Opie 0 #17 June 21, 2004 U.S. production should be up to 3.5 billion gl in 2004. New records for production are being set every month this year so far as new production plants come online. The 1.5 billion gallon mark is right for 1999 I believe. Another good source of info is at http://www.ethanol.org/production.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #18 June 21, 2004 See, the thing that worries me about ethanol, if it ever really gets popular, than the anti-marijuana-prohibition agenda loses the argument that farmers could make more money growing hemp. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #19 June 21, 2004 In Florida, the sugar cane industry leaves a large amount of processed biomass that is refered to as "bagasse". High sugar content and plenty of the stuff around. Do a search on "Florida, bagasse, ethanol". Lots of info there. Brazil has large ethanol production and usage that competes with oil at the level of $20 a barrel. I have heard that burning ethanol leaves a haze around cities in Brazil with high usage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #20 June 21, 2004 I found a few more facts about ethanol: A Student's guide to alternative fuel vehicles Methanol contains about half the energy of gasoline per gallon. Lower energy per gallon means fewer miles per gallon of fuel, not less power. ... Flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) are specially designed vehicles that can operate on alcohol, gasoline or any combination of the two. FFVs have become quite popular with California fleets. Although some vehicles run on pure alcohol, FFVs operate on alcohol blends for two main reasons. Adding a small amount of gasoline improves the engine starting in cold weather and improves flame visibility in daylight. Pure alcohols burn with a nearly invisible flame in daylight. By adding gasoline, the flame is easier to see and therefore safer. ... FFVs are specially designed to tolerate the corrosive nature of alcohols. ... The amount of energy in alcohol fuels is different than gasoline. A gallon of gasoline in California contains approximately 111,500 Btu (which stands for British thermal units). By comparison, M85 contains approximately 65,000 Btu/gallon and E85 contains approximately 81,000 Btu/gallon. The lower energy content of these fuels will result in fewer miles per gallon or a shorter driving range. From How stuff works Let's assume that you drive a Toyota Camry, the best-selling car in America in 2000. We know that the Toyota Camry with automatic transmission gets 30 miles per gallon of gas on the highway. Gasoline is more efficient than ethanol. One gallon of gasoline is equal to 1.5 gallons of ethanol. This means that same Camry would only get about 20 miles to the gallon if it were running on ethanol. We also need to know how far you are traveling: Let's say from Los Angeles to New York, which is 2,774 miles (4,464.2 km), according to MapQuest.com. Through research performed at Cornell University, we know that 1 acre of land can yield about 7,110 pounds (3,225 kg) of corn, which can be processed into 328 gallons (1240.61 liters) of ethanol. That is about 26.1 pounds (11.84 kg) of corn per gallon. First, we need to figure out how much fuel we will need: 2,774 miles / 20 miles per gallon = 138.7 gallons (METRIC: 4,464.2 km / 8.5 km per liter = 525.2 liters) We know that it takes 26.1 pounds of corn to make 1 gallon of ethanol, so we can now calculate how many pounds of corn we need to fuel the Camry on its trip: 138.7 gallons * 26.1 pounds = 3,620.07 total pounds of corn (METRIC: 525.2 liters * 3.13 kg = 1,642 kg) You will need to plant a little more than a half an acre of corn to produce enough ethanol to fuel your trip. If you think you would save any money by using ethanol, guess again. Ethanol is expensive to process. According to the research from Cornell, you need about 140 gallons (530 liters) of fossil fuel to plant, grow and harvest an acre of corn. So, even before the corn is converted to ethanol, you're spending about $1.05 per gallon. "The energy economics get worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented," reads the Cornell report. The corn has to be processed with various enzymes; yeast is added to the mixture to ferment it and make alcohol; the alcohol is then distilled to fuel-grade ethanol that is 85- to 95-percent pure. To produce ethanol that can be used as fuel, it also has to be denatured with a small amount of gasoline. The final cost of the fuel-grade ethanol is about $1.74 per gallon. (Of course, a lot of variables go into that number.) The average price for a gallon of gas in the United States is about $1.40 as of August 9, 2001, according to GasPriceWatch.com. Ethanol for fuel fundamentaly uneconomic An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 1,000 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre, according to Pimentel's analysis. Thus, even before corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock costs $1.05 per gallon of ethanol. The energy economics get worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented. As many as three distillation steps are needed to separate the 8 percent ethanol from the 92 percent water. Additional treatment and energy are required to produce the 99.8 percent pure ethanol for mixing with gasoline. Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. "Put another way," Pimentel says, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTU." Ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline. "That helps explain why fossil fuels -- not ethanol -- are used to produce ethanol," Pimentel says. "The growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn't afford it, either, if it weren't for government subsidies to artificially lower the price." Most economic analyses of corn-to-ethanol production overlook the costs of environmental damages, which Pimentel says should add another 23 cents per gallon. "Corn production in the U.S. erodes soil about 12 times faster than the soil can be reformed, and irrigating corn mines groundwater 25 percent faster than the natural recharge rate of ground water. The environmental system in which corn is being produced is being rapidly degraded. Corn should not be considered a renewable resource for ethanol energy production, especially when human food is being converted into ethanol." The approximately $1 billion a year in current federal and state subsidies (mainly to large corporations) for ethanol production are not the only costs to consumers, the Cornell scientist observes. Subsidized corn results in higher prices for meat, milk and eggs, because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the United States. Increasing ethanol production would further inflate corn prices, Pimentel says, noting: "In addition to paying tax dollars for ethanol subsidies, consumers would be paying significantly higher food prices in the marketplace." Nickels and dimes aside, some drivers still would rather see their cars fueled by farms in the Midwest than by oil wells in the Middle East, Pimentel acknowledges, so he calculated the amount of corn needed to power an automobile: The average U.S. automobile, traveling 10,000 miles a year on pure ethanol (not a gasoline-ethanol mix) would need about 852 gallons of the corn-based fuel. This would take 11 acres to grow, based on net ethanol production. This is the same amount of cropland required to feed seven Americans. If all the automobiles in the United States were fueled with 100 percent ethanol, a total of about 97 percent of U.S. land area would be needed to grow the corn feedstock. Corn would cover nearly the total land area of the United States. - By Roger Segelken I could go on, but won't. Be skeptical when the pro-ethanol literature comes from agricultural or other pro-ethanol organizations. QuoteProduction of ethanol has doubled in the last five years and its not because it costs more than gasoline. My guess is that local regulations are calling for it as an additive and that has nothing to do with price. QuoteHere in the midwest a 10% blend of ethanol is cheaper than straight gasoline at the pump. When is the last time you saw 'straight' gasoline? I can't remember the last time that I did. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #21 June 21, 2004 QuoteBe skeptical when the pro-ethanol literature comes from agricultural or other pro-ethanol organizations. Yes, those damn farmers and environmentalists. Much better to believe the oil company literature. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #22 June 21, 2004 QuoteYes, those damn farmers and environmentalists. Much better to believe the oil company literature. Point taken. I don't think though that I went to any oil companies to get the information I posted. Who knows though what organization sponsored the university studies and helped How Stuff Works to get their information. Damnit, where's Bill when you really need him? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #23 June 21, 2004 The Cornell study was disputed for having used out of date information. The numbers in how stuff works was based off of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #24 June 21, 2004 Source? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #25 June 21, 2004 http://www.ncga.com/news/notd/2001/october/103101.htm It's from the corn growers. But it points out that they were correcting Cornell that the efficiency is 1.37 which is what the latest independent study has determined. Not sure what number Cornell was using. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
