 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / August 2005Just look what ethanol could do (if bush would allow it)
Bush-cheney are oil boys and they'll fight this forever. http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050826/cm_usatoday/ethanolarealoptiontohighga sprices;_ylt=AkPAjxRfKuK5HKkL1ZrJNMus0NUE Ethanol a real option to high gas prices Fri Aug 26, 6:27 AM ET The solution to today's skyrocketing price of gasoline lies in a fuel that can be made from the amber waves of grain growing in America's heartland. This fuel, called ethanol, is usually made from corn, but it can be made from sugar cane from Louisiana, canola from North Dakota or sorghum from Kansas. Though it hasn't gained popularity, this fuel can free us from the tyranny of high prices, dependence on foreign oil and toxic pollutants. President Bush recently signed the energy bill into law, which will almost double ethanol production from 2006 to 2012. Nevertheless, this action alone will not change things. It's up to consumers to buy ethanol and seek its increased availability. The two most common types of ethanol fuel are E10 and E85. E10 is 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline, which can be used in cars like regular gasoline but is 5 cents cheaper per gallon. E85 is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline and is 40-50 cents cheaper per gallon. Flexible-fuel vehicles can run on gasoline, 10% ethanol, 85% ethanol or whatever fuel is available. More than 25 flexible-fuel models have been produced by automobile manufacturers since 1990. Why then isn't ethanol use taking off? For one, availability. I recently took a trip to Detroit in a rented flex-fuel car. I did have difficulty finding E85 the farther I traveled from the Midwest, but it didn't slow me down because I simply used regular gasoline. Another reason ethanol hasn't caught on is the difficulty of marketing it. Producers must rely on filling stations that distribute gasoline to sell their competing product. But as ethanol use becomes more popular, more filling stations will provide it. Already, more than 100 ethanol plants have cropped up across America's heartland. Eleven are in my home state of South Dakota, including one owned by VeraSun Energy, one of the nation's top ethanol producers. This ethanol plant has breathed new life into Aurora, S.D., a town of 500 people, by creating about 100 jobs since it opened last year. There is a federal subsidy of 51 cents per gallon to provide incentive for ethanol producers. The old way of life of raising corn for feed and seed is no longer the main way to utilize corn. Ethanol is non-toxic, water soluble and biodegradable. Use of ethanol can reduce toxic emissions such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and benzene. Traditional gasoline is just too expensive on our pocketbooks and our environment. Instead, we can boost our economy and lessen our dependence on foreign oil by switching to this promising fuel. Can we make 840 million gallons a day of it? > Bush-cheney are oil boys and they'll fight this forever. > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > and our environment. Instead, we can boost our economy and lessen our > dependence on foreign oil by switching to this promising fuel. > "Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote > Can we make 840 million gallons a day of it? Assuming a reasonable 400 gallons per acre per year, it would take over 1.1 million square miles of land. The total land area of the U.S. is about 3.5 million square miles, including Alaska. Sounds perfectly practical to me.  SignatureCiao, Paul D. DeRocco Paul mailto:pderocco@ix.netcom.com >> "Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote >> Can we make 840 million gallons a day of it? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is about 3.5 million square miles, including Alaska. Sounds perfectly > practical to me. Except that you need land suited for growing crops. Much of the US is not suited for that. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>> "Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote >>> Can we make 840 million gallons a day of it? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Except that you need land suited for growing crops. >Much of the US is not suited for that. Not to mention the somewhat inconvenient problem that much of the land which is suited for growing crops is being used for growing food, and thus not available for growing fuel. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>>> "Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote >>>> Can we make 840 million gallons a day of it? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > which is suited for growing crops is being used for growing food, and > thus not available for growing fuel. I considered that use of wastes from food crop production,(stalks,other biomass) can be used for ethanol production. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >> "Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote >> Can we make 840 million gallons a day of it? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 3.5 million square miles, including Alaska. Sounds perfectly practical to > me. Any idea of how many million sq miles of land in the US that can actually grow some thing that will produce ethanol. I suspect there would be people dying of starvation if we went to ethanol for fuel > Any idea of how many million sq miles of land in the US that can actually > grow some thing that will produce ethanol. > > I suspect there would be people dying of starvation if we went to ethanol > for fuel I knew then besides corn, there some others sources of production of ethanol like sugar cane in Brazil, sugar beets, farm waste, biomass, etc.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_fuel#Fuel_alcohols http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel then Iogen who produce some cellulostic ethanol http://www.iogen.ca Stéphane Dumas > >> "Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote > >> Can we make 840 million gallons a day of it? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I suspect there would be people dying of starvation if we went to ethanol > for fuel Whoever said you need to *change* from using gasoline to ethanol only ? Graham > > "Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote > > Can we make 840 million gallons a day of it? > > Assuming a reasonable 400 gallons per acre per year, it would take over 1.1 > million square miles of land. The total land area of the U.S. is about 3.5 > million square miles, including Alaska. Sounds perfectly practical to me. We can beat the hell out of that with sea farming. > We can beat the hell out of that with sea farming. Break out the sea tractor and have a blast on the back sea-forty with it. Make sure to put your sea-corn in the sea-silo, then milk the sea-cows. SignatureThe last song I started on my PC was: Fast Car-Tracy Chapman-Tracy Chapman This is track 14 of 55 in the current playlist. > Can we make 840 million gallons a day of it? Yep. > > Bush-cheney are oil boys and they'll fight this forever. http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050826/cm_usatoday/ethanolarealoptiontohighga sprices;_ylt=AkPAjxRfKuK5HKkL1ZrJNMus0NUE > > Ethanol a real option to high gas prices Fri Aug 26, 6:27 AM ET > > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > and our environment. Instead, we can boost our economy and lessen our > > dependence on foreign oil by switching to this promising fuel. > > Can we make 840 million gallons a day of it? > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > > and our environment. Instead, we can boost our economy and lessen our > > > dependence on foreign oil by switching to this promising fuel. Ethanol is a political product resulting from farm states political clout in the Senate: ". . . The capper, though, is the claim that it takes more energy to make a gallon of ethanol than you get by burning it. One of the most vocal proponents of this view is Cornell University ecology professor David Pimentel. In an analysis published in 2001 in the peer-reviewed Encyclopedia of Physical Sciences and Technology, Pimentel argued that when you add up all the energy costs--the fuel for farm tractors, the natural gas used to distill corn sugars into alcohol, and so on--making a gallon of ethanol takes 70 percent more energy than the finished product contains. And because that production energy comes mostly from fossil fuels, gasohol isn't just wasting money but hastening the depletion of nonrenewable resources.. . ." http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031128.html On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:30:29 -0700, Neocon Oil Cheerleaders , said the following in rec.autos.driving... > Ethanol is a political product resulting from farm states > political clout in the Senate: As opposed to oil which is a product of the political clout of saudi arabia and opec in the whitehouse for the last 25 years (atleast). SignaturePaul Do America a favor: shoot a politician today. They love Spam: boilingpitsofsewage@yahoo.com > On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:30:29 -0700, Neocon Oil Cheerleaders , said the > following in rec.autos.driving... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > As opposed to oil which is a product of the political clout of saudi > arabia and opec in the whitehouse for the last 25 years (atleast). In any event, it doesn't help our dependence on foreign oil to produce ethanol since it requires more oil to produce it than it creates. Ethanol is a rip-off, don't get sucked in. We should just give money to farmers, it would be a lot cheaper. >> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:30:29 -0700, Neocon Oil Cheerleaders , said the >> following in rec.autos.driving... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > get sucked in. We should just give money to farmers, it > would be a lot cheaper. There are break even processes for ethanol production and the energy doesn't have to come from oil. > >> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:30:29 -0700, Neocon Oil Cheerleaders , said the > >> following in rec.autos.driving... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > There are break even processes for ethanol production and the energy > doesn't have to come from oil. Maybe so, I'm still skeptical, I can really see this kind of thing being hyped in exchange for a few Senate votes. > Maybe so, I'm still skeptical, I can really see this > kind of thing being hyped in exchange for a few Senate > votes. Well, that's how the US political process works and why everything gets f'd up. E85 and even striaght ethanol is a good fuel because of it's anti-knock properties. Another benefit is that a vehicle designed for ethanol can have a higher compression ratio and become more fuel effeicent on an energy in/out basis. For a performance car this means more power. If we use an energy source that isn't suitable for autos to make ethanol, ethanol is good choice. If an oil product is used to make it, we might as well make gasoline from the oil given current technology. > > Maybe so, I'm still skeptical, I can really see this > > kind of thing being hyped in exchange for a few Senate [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > have a higher compression ratio and become more fuel effeicent on an > energy in/out basis. For a performance car this means more power. Saab's FFV ( flexible fuel vehicle ) uses the higher octane rating of ethanol to achieve *higher performance* on ethanol fuel ( E85 ) than regular gas. Without any significant change in mpg I gather too. > If we use an energy source that isn't suitable for autos to make ethanol, > ethanol is good choice. If an oil product is used to make it, we might as > well make gasoline from the oil given current technology. Even that's not true. Ethanol production shows a net energy gain, so even using oil in its manufacture still makes sense. Graham > Even that's not true. Ethanol production shows a net energy gain, so even using oil in its > manufacture still makes sense. > > Graham How do you know ethanol production shows a net energy gain? >> Even that's not true. Ethanol production shows a net energy gain, so even using oil in its >> manufacture still makes sense. >> >> Graham >> >How do you know ethanol production shows a net energy gain? It doesn't really. What it does is converts the available energy in the plant material into a usable liquid fuel for less energy than the cost of conversion. > > Even that's not true. Ethanol production shows a net energy gain, so even using oil in its > > manufacture still makes sense. > > > > Graham > > How do you know ethanol production shows a net energy gain? Freely available information. Go look for yourself. It's clearly no good me posting stuff to a disbeliever. Graham > > > Even that's not true. Ethanol production shows a net energy gain, so even using oil in its > > > manufacture still makes sense. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Graham Well I wasn't able to find out on the Internet how Pooh Bear knows that Ethanol production shows a net energy gain, but I did find a link that looks at both sides. It's sort of funny to see the The American Coalition for Ethanol asserting that the Berkeley study is biased. I wonder which way The American Coalition for Ethanol would be biased? I really don't know who to believe but ethanol backers have major vested corporate and political interests that I don't trust. http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/Ethanol/ > Saab's FFV ( flexible fuel vehicle ) uses the higher octane rating of ethanol to achieve *higher > performance* on ethanol fuel ( E85 ) than regular gas. Without any significant change in mpg I > gather too. This common for flex fuel vehicles. Timing advance, etc. But hard changes like (mechanically fixed) compression ratio are not done with flex fuel vehicles. >> If we use an energy source that isn't suitable for autos to make ethanol, >> ethanol is good choice. If an oil product is used to make it, we might as >> well make gasoline from the oil given current technology. > > Even that's not true. Ethanol production shows a net energy gain, so even using oil in its > manufacture still makes sense. Cite? > > Saab's FFV ( flexible fuel vehicle ) uses the higher octane rating of ethanol to achieve *higher > > performance* on ethanol fuel ( E85 ) than regular gas. Without any significant change in mpg I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > like (mechanically fixed) compression ratio are not done with flex fuel > vehicles. Because the Saab FFV's a turbo ( like most Saabs ) it can indeed play a trick that makes it look like a higher comp ratio with ethanol while retaining gasoline compatability. It therefore offers 150 bhp on gasoline and 185 bhp on ethanol while preserving mpg since the ethanol is burnt more efficiently. > >> If we use an energy source that isn't suitable for autos to make ethanol, > >> ethanol is good choice. If an oil product is used to make it, we might as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Cite? Numerous online sources. I found a shedload by googling 'ethanol energy'. One of the sources is a US Gov't funded research project. http://egov.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/Biomass/docs/FORUM/EthanolEnergyBalance.pdf " In the early eighties, some studies concluded that the energy inputs for producing corn ethanol were greater than or about equal to the energy contained in the ethanol product. In the last twenty years, significant advances in farming techniques and improvements in ethanol production have occurred, and recent studies have concluded that the energy balances are now positive. " There's many more studies too. The energy effciency is affected by operating methods. The most recent most efficient plants can offer a positive 2.5:1 energy gain. Graham On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 08:20:11 -0700, Neocon Oil Cheerleaders , said the following in rec.autos.driving... > > On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:30:29 -0700, Neocon Oil Cheerleaders , said the > > following in rec.autos.driving... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > oil to produce ethanol since it requires more oil to > produce it than it creates. Why does it have to be oil? The heat required for distilation can come from any of a number of sources, not just oil. > Ethanol is a rip-off, don't > get sucked in. We should just give money to farmers, it > would be a lot cheaper. We all know (or should know) that the oil is going to run out someday. The time to start working on alternatives was 5 years ago. SignaturePaul Self-appointed unofficial overseer of kooks and trolls in rec.autos.driving. They love Spam: boilingpitsofsewage@yahoo.com > ". . . The capper, though, is the claim that it takes more energy to make a gallon > of ethanol than you get by burning it. A totally discredited and outdated claim. Graham > > ". . . The capper, though, is the claim that it takes more energy to make a gallon > > of ethanol than you get by burning it. > > A totally discredited and outdated claim. > > Graham Why are you holding back? Give us the URL's! > > > ". . . The capper, though, is the claim that it takes more energy to make a gallon > > > of ethanol than you get by burning it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why are you holding back? Give us the URL's! Google is your friend. Look here for starters. http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html http://www.ethanol.org/PressRelease71905bhtm.htm " The bottom line is that it takes 35,000 BTUs of energy to turn a bushel of corn into a gallon of ethanol, and that gallon of ethanol contains at least 77,000 BTUs " In any event - you seem to be saying that ethanol uses more oil to produce it than it can deliver. If this was so there's no way it would have made sense in Brazil where it's been used to keep oil imports low. Graham > > > > ". . . The capper, though, is the claim that it takes more energy to make a gallon > > > > of ethanol than you get by burning it. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Graham Doesn't Brazil uses sugar cane instead of corn? > > > > > ". . . The capper, though, is the claim that it takes more energy to make a gallon > > > > > of ethanol than you get by burning it. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Doesn't Brazil uses sugar cane instead of corn? They do. There are many ways of making ethanol. Sweden's using wood waste for example. Root veg is another good method. Graham > > > > > > ". . . The capper, though, is the claim that it takes more energy to make a gallon > > > > > > of ethanol than you get by burning it. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Graham But that doesn't mean we can necessarily get the same results with corn. > > > > > > > ". . . The capper, though, is the claim that it takes more energy to make a gallon > > > > > > > of ethanol than you get by burning it. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > But that doesn't mean we can necessarily > get the same results with corn. I'm not sure what you mean by this. But ethanol is much easier to produce from high sugar content feedstaks than from scellulose. Any moonshiner can do it. Larry > > In article <43120FED.2B481B0A@hotmail.com>, > rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says... [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > Any moonshiner can do it. Heh. I have this image now of moonshiners selling their surplus to the oil companies like those with wind generators can... RT >> > > ". . . The capper, though, is the claim that it takes more energy to make a gallon >> > > of ethanol than you get by burning it. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >" The bottom line is that it takes 35,000 BTUs of energy to turn a bushel of corn into a >gallon of ethanol, and that gallon of ethanol contains at least 77,000 BTUs " You don't start with a bushel of corn. You start with about 300 square feet of land and some seed. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > " The bottom line is that it takes 35,000 BTUs of energy to turn a bushel of corn into a > gallon of ethanol, and that gallon of ethanol contains at least 77,000 BTUs " What did it take to plant, grow, and harvest the corn? >> ". . . The capper, though, is the claim that it takes more energy to make a gallon >> of ethanol than you get by burning it. > >A totally discredited and outdated claim. Just recently bolstered, actually. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > > > Can we make 840 million gallons a day of it? > > > > Yep. > > > > > > > Bush-cheney are oil boys and they'll fight this forever. http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050826/cm_usatoday/ethanolarealoptiontohighga sprices;_ylt=AkPAjxRfKuK5HKkL1ZrJNMus0NUE > > > > Ethanol a real option to high gas prices Fri Aug 26, 6:27 AM ET > > > > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > ". . . The capper, though, is the claim that it takes more energy to make a gallon > of ethanol than you get by burning it. This is the case with plenty of portable energy sources. One of the most vocal proponents of this > view is Cornell University ecology professor David Pimentel. In an analysis published > in 2001 in the peer-reviewed Encyclopedia of Physical Sciences and Technology, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that production energy comes mostly from fossil fuels, gasohol isn't just wasting money > but hastening the depletion of nonrenewable resources.. . ." All a very temporary condition. > http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031128.html > > > Can we make 840 million gallons a day of it? > > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031128.html Isn't getting Ethanol from Sugar Cane more efficient? IIRC only Ethannol from Corn was in the bill >Can we make 840 million gallons a day of it? But of course! It's a librul plan, and has no weak points. >Ethanol a real option to high gas prices Fri Aug 26, 6:27 AM ET > >The solution to today's skyrocketing price of gasoline lies in a fuel >that can be made from the amber waves of grain growing in America's >heartland. Ahh, an ADM press release. >The two most common types of ethanol fuel are E10 and E85. E10 is 10% >ethanol and 90% gasoline, which can be used in cars like regular >gasoline but is 5 cents cheaper per gallon. E85 is 85% ethanol and 15% >gasoline and is 40-50 cents cheaper per gallon. Ethanol has historically been much more expensive per gallon than gasoline. It appears to be a bit cheaper now -- but unfortunately, since ethanol has a much lower energy content than gasoline, it still costs more per mile. The figures above include subsidies on ethanol and taxes on gasoline. Ethanol from agriculture as a fuel is ridiculous. It's only real purpose is to transfer money from taxpayers to ADM. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. == The figures above include subsidies on ethanol == and taxes on gasoline Attach a small block of C4 to the Hummer II and you will help improve energy efficiency. > >Ethanol a real option to high gas prices Fri Aug 26, 6:27 AM ET > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Ethanol from agriculture as a fuel is ridiculous. Only land agriculture. > Bush-cheney are oil boys and they'll fight this forever. All that has to happen is government officals that get their money from ADM instead. Oh wait... that already happened when clinton was in office before the republicans got a majority.... Ethanol has some problems which need to be sorted out. The first one is that we cannot use oil based energy to create it. If we use oil based energy to grow the crops and process them to make ethanol, the oilmen mentioned by the troll will be happier than they are right now. The energy to create ethanol has to come from another 'grown' source or from wind, nuke, solar, etc. I've heard that sugarcane created ethanol is better because there is a waste gas from sugarcane processing that can be used to power the process. But still, oil is probably used to plant it and harvest it. Ethanol is a great battery for another energy source that isn't practical in vehicles. Ethanol is a liquid fuel compatible with our infastructure. Instead of having a low range electric charged by a windmill, have an ICE powered by ethanol that was produced using electricity from a windmill. > Ethanol is a great battery for another energy source that isn't > practical in vehicles. Ethanol is a liquid fuel compatible with our > infastructure. Instead of having a low range electric charged by a > windmill, have an ICE powered by ethanol that was produced using > electricity from a windmill. How does one make ethanol from electricity? Isn't ethanol a fermentation product? Besides,the enviros don't like windmills anymore;they kill birds. (they are currently trying to get a California windfarm shut down because of birdkills) SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > How does one make ethanol from electricity? > Isn't ethanol a fermentation product? Heat. Ever see an electric stove? > Besides,the enviros don't like windmills anymore;they kill birds. > (they are currently trying to get a California windfarm shut down because > of birdkills) Environmentalists are generally socialists and other control freaks using the environment as a tool to get their agenda enacted. That's why they hate wind now, because it shows promise. They want to control the energy people can use. Successful wind power doesn't mesh well with that. > In article <Xns96C09ACC21A9Cjyanikkuanet@129.250.170.83>, Jim Yanik > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Heat. Ever see an electric stove? That is not "making ethanol FROM electricity",it's just using it as a heat source.You could use ANY heat source.Even solar. The ethanol is still made from fermentation of sugars in biomass. And also,that electicity still has to come from somewhere,like nuclear power,windpower,solar,or combustion of hydrocarbons.(oil,coal,gas) > >> Besides,the enviros don't like windmills anymore;they kill birds. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the energy people can use. Successful wind power doesn't mesh well > with that. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > Bush-cheney are oil boys and they'll fight this forever. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that can be made from the amber waves of grain growing in America's > heartland. And exactly what LAW did Bush enact that prevents anybody from making ethanol and trying to sell it? NONE. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.