Ethanol instead of oil argument

[Scaaty]

Seems we will all lose in this Ethanol BS. ALL it does is find a way to DECREASE our foreign oil import. Period. Does NOTHING for us in the long run with older motors that will fail.<br />It won't start a car in cold weather, even E85 is 15% gas so the damn thing will start. Sure, it has a high octane, which means you COULD be producing more power, IF you jacked up the CR. But then ALL Flex Fuel engines NEED to be able to run on gas too, so the compression ratio stays low. AND you will burn MORE Ethanol because it does NOT have the same energy content as gas.<br /> Ethanol has a energy content of 80,000 BTU's per gallon, gas has 124,800. So its takes about a gallon and a half of ethanol to get as far as a gallon of gas. <br /> Corrosion...MAJOR problem for older (and NOT so old) motors. Highly corrosive, even at 10%, and if it aint Stainless or certain plastics, it will eat it up in time. Great way for the gov to rid the roads and waterways of older, but perfect running vehicles, make you either repair or upgrade and keep this senseless (but good money made by a few) war and government mandated ECONOMY going. Have at it...<br />PS. Why does the Post Office STILL insist on wasting millions of dollars on gas for Saturday delivery of junk mail?

 

[ZmOz]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

Next are you going to rant about little old ladies and puppy dogs?<br /><br /><br />Ethanol is a GREAT fuel and the fact that it is catching on as fast as it is is a great thing for this country. No, E-85 doesn't work well in old cars that weren't designed for it...that's because they weren't designed for it. For anybody buying a new car flex fuel is a great thing to get. It runs just as well on E85 as regular gas - most people also report an increase in power when running ethanol. You're right, E85 does give you worse mileage, but it's also often cheaper than regular. For those who decide to pay more to use E85 I say good for them! There is no bad side to ethanol. If you don't want to use it you don't have to. Personally I'm thrilled about it, and happy that I heard on the news last night they will be building 3 new ethanol plants in my area. My next vehicle will definately be a flex fuel...<br /><br />Think about it. If just 10% of the 200,000,000 cars in the US ran on E85 that would mean a significant drop in our oil consumption and would lower gas prices for everyone.

 

[DJ]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

As an alternative/supplement-GREAT. As a MANDATE, a bad idea. Especially in colder climates.<br /><br />Unfortuneately, we'll probably get the latter.

 

[imported_Curmudgeon]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

Ethanol is a GREAT fuel and the fact that it is catching on as fast as it is is a great thing for this country.<br /><br />If ethanol is so great, why is it just now "catching on"? It sucks as a motor fuel, and is just now catching on because it is just now mandated for a much larger portion of the country. Let's talk in 5 years about it's virtues when there are vehicles around that have a track record. By then there will be owners who have paid thru the nose for the vehicle, and will be able to determine is they paid thru the nose to operate/maintain it as well.

 

[ZmOz]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

Originally posted by Old Curmudgeon:<br />If ethanol is so great, why is it just now "catching on"?

Because oil is now $70+ per barrel making the production of ethanol profitable. We have not really had the technology to have an ethanol powerered vehicle that's reliable everywhere all the time. Without complicated computer controls, yes, ethanol sucks. With all those complicated controls that come on new cars anyway, it's a GREAT fuel.<br /><br />

Originally posted by Old Curmudgeon:<br />and is just now catching on because it is just now mandated for a much larger portion of the country.

E85 is not mandated anywhere. It is catching on because of advertising by the big 3 and a consumer demand for such vehicles. As oil prices rise ethanol stays the same.<br /><br />

Originally posted by Old Curmudgeon:<br />By then there will be owners who have paid thru the nose for the vehicle, and will be able to determine is they paid thru the nose to operate/maintain it as well.

Flex fuel is often standard equipment. There is no "paying through the nose". There is also no paying through the nose to maintain and operate a flex fuel vehicle. When gas is cheaper, use gas. When E85 is cheaper use that. Win win. Maintainence is the same for gas and E85.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

Nothing wrong with expecting that equipment we own will not be destroyed by government mandates. Of course we could always make government pay to update our perfectly functional but incompatible engines but these might be boats run by rich republicans. Not going to happen. Nothing yet wonderful about ethanol. Lets take a look at this "renewable" fuel source. It takes an incredible amount of fossil fuels to create this so called renewable resource. Without government subsidies it wouldn't be financially viable. It causes vehicles to burn more fuel. Lets look at a state where it is mandated, Minnesota vs. a state looking at it, Wisconsin.<br /><br />__________________________________________________________________________<br /><br />"Using data on fuel used and miles driven from the U.S. Department of Transportation Web site, I compared fuel economy in Minnesota and Wisconsin.<br /><br />That data says that in 2003 Minnesotans used 2.73 billion gallons of ethanol-blended fuels while driving 55.296 billion miles - a statewide average fuel economy of 20.25 mpg.<br /><br />In that same year, Wisconsin drivers used 2.57 billion gallons of fuel while driving 59.615 billion miles. Our average fuel economy was 23.20 mpg.<br /><br />Our two states are much alike - similar topography, weather, roads, and demographics. Yet Minnesota drivers used millions of gallons more fuel while driving billions of fewer miles. Why such a difference in fuel economy?"<br /><br />Capital Times (edited) April 26, 2006<br /><br />This utopia that is ethanol is not exactly a win-win. In fact it sounds more like a break even or even a lose-lose proposition. It numbers just don't bear out the advantages I keep hearing about. I truely wish they did. Cheaper, cleaner, domestic fuels, I am all for. This sounds like more downside than advertised.

 

[DJ]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

The trouble is with these ideas is that the pendulum swings too far each way. Ethanol has a place as a supplement.<br /><br />We cannot afford to put all of our eggs in the ethanol basket, for obvoius reasons.<br /><br />1. It does not do well in all climates.<br /><br />2. A bad crop year could cause serious shortages.<br /><br />3. It takes fuel to grow the resources, fuel and fertilizer.<br /><br />4. It would be a burden on many Americans. This CANNOT be an overnight decision.<br /><br />If we can use it, whenever and wherever available, as a viable supplement, that would be a good thing.

 

[ZmOz]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

Originally posted by POINTER94:<br /> Nothing wrong with expecting that equipment we own will not be destroyed by government mandates.

The only thing the government mandates is 10% in some places during certain times. 10% ethanol does not destroy your equipment. E85 might, but that's because they're not designed for E85...and it's not mandated anywhere anyway.

 

[craze1cars]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

It's ALL driven by supply and demand. As E85 pumps become more abundant, and more people buy E85 capable vehicles, demand for gasoline will begin to drop. Then supply of crude will go up, causing a drop in crude price. Then gasoline will again be cheaper to buy than Ethanol....and everyone will go back to buying gasoline instead because it will be so much cheaper. Unless, of course, the government continues to subsidize it, which I'm sure they will for quite some time.<br /><br />It is still (and will be until the oil wells run dry) significantly cheaper to pump crude and refine into fuel, than it is to harvest crops and refine them into fuel. My opinion is that the foreign oil cartels still have us by the gonads either way. They can sit quietly by and watch us all put this huge investment in Ethanol production, with the full knowledge that we could NEVER create enough production capacity to feed our fuel hungry country....then at the right moment flood the market with a big supply of crude, which effectively undercuts Ethanol with a super-low price on oil, and cause a huge swing in their favor.<br /><br />Without mandating the use of E-85 from a government level (basically impossible due to lack of adequate production capacity for our needs), it will never work as a long term solution.<br /><br />So my opinion is that E-85 is a knee-jerk reaction that is the equivalent of using a hand trowel to move a mountain. It looks good on the surface because the distribution infrastructure is already there, we have a lot of farms, we can make it domestically, etc. But we simply can't make enough of it to feed our country's needs, and even if we could, it is still too expensive to produce and compete in the world economy as a fuel. Eventually others will see that....therefore I predict that E-85 is going to be a short-term blip in automotive history, then it will go away.<br /><br />BIG PICTURE is that we need to get past the archaic 1900's technology of the internal combustion engine as a propulsion device. Once that hurdle is surpassed, it'll all be moot anyway....<br /><br />I really think production capacity is the big thorn in the side of Ethanol. One last question: <br /><br />Does anyone here REALLY think the USA can grow enough crops at home to fuel all of our vehicles? I don't THINK so....so what will we have to do? IMPORT a bunch of corn, sugar, wheat, whatever other crops we need to make our fuel. Then we'll be dependant on other countries for all our CROPS. Which will cause huge supply/demand price swings and a big trade imbalance. And in 2014 we'll all be checking the newspapers and internet daily and crying about the skyrocketing bushel prices of crops....<br /><br />Does any of this not sound remotely similar to our current oil problem?

 

[ZmOz]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

Originally posted by craze1cars:<br /> Does anyone here REALLY think the USA can grow enough crops at home to fuel all of our vehicles? I don't THINK so....so what will we have to do? IMPORT a bunch of corn, sugar, wheat, whatever other crops we need to make our fuel.

That's why ethanol is so great. Everybody knows it will never replace oil. It's a wonderful substitue to thin out the oil we've got, especially when supplies are tight. If we had to import corn from, say, Mexico, I'd say that's a hell of alot better than importing oil from an unstable middle eastern country.<br /><br />And, aside from all the political and economic BS, burning ethanol is MUCH better for the environment.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

How do you figure. When you figure in the amount of oil or fossil fuels you have to burn to create an gallon of ethanol its about a push. How is that environmentally more friendly?<br /><br /><br />July 5, 2005 <br />Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel from corn and other crops is not worth the energy<br />By Susan S. Lang<br /><br /><br />Chris Hallman/University Photography <br />Ecologist David Pimentel, shown here pumping gas, says that his analysis shows that producing ethanol uses more energy than the resulting fuel generates. Copyright © Cornell University <br />ITHACA, N.Y. -- Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates, according to a new Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study. <br /><br />"There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. "These strategies are not sustainable." <br /><br />Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass and wood biomass as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants. Their report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76). <br /><br />In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that: <br /><br />corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; <br />switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and <br />wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced. <br />In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that: <br /><br />soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and <br />sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.<br /><br />In assessing inputs, the researchers considered such factors as the energy used in producing the crop (including production of pesticides and fertilizer, running farm machinery and irrigating, grinding and transporting the crop) and in fermenting/distilling the ethanol from the water mix. Although additional costs are incurred, such as federal and state subsidies that are passed on to consumers and the costs associated with environmental pollution or degradation, these figures were not included in the analysis. <br /><br />"The United State desperately needs a liquid fuel replacement for oil in the near future," says Pimentel, "but producing ethanol or biodiesel from plant biomass is going down the wrong road, because you use more energy to produce these fuels than you get out from the combustion of these products." <br /><br />Although Pimentel advocates the use of burning biomass to produce thermal energy (to heat homes, for example), he deplores the use of biomass for liquid fuel. "The government spends more than $3 billion a year to subsidize ethanol production when it does not provide a net energy balance or gain, is not a renewable energy source or an economical fuel. Further, its production and use contribute to air, water and soil pollution and global warming," Pimentel says. He points out that the vast majority of the subsidies do not go to farmers but to large ethanol-producing corporations. <br /><br />"Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, economy or the environment," says Pimentel. "Ethanol production requires large fossil energy input, and therefore, it is contributing to oil and natural gas imports and U.S. deficits." He says the country should instead focus its efforts on producing electrical energy from photovoltaic cells, wind power and burning biomass and producing fuel from hydrogen conversion<br /><br />Cornell University News Service - July 5, 2005<br /><br /><br />This guy is not some shill for the oil companies, he might even be called a liberal environmentalist.

 

[ZmOz]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

Originally posted by POINTER94:<br />When you figure in the amount of oil or fossil fuels you have to burn to create an gallon of ethanol its about a push.

That is not true. Yes it takes some oil to make a gallon of ethanol but not nearly a full gallon of oil. Plus the fossil fuels that are burned during the production of ethanol are done so much more efficiently than the same gallon being burnt by a soccer mom driving alone in a suburban...

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

You are forgetting the additional costs of running the tractors, fertizer, transportation costs, etc. This is just my belief backed up by the above listed research. Right or wrong, the findings are there for all to see.<br /><br /><br />In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that: <br /><br />corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; <br />switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and <br />wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced. <br />In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that: <br /><br />soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and <br />sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.<br /><br />Toss is the poor performance, its ability to dissolve plastic marine gas tanks, void many warranties on greater than 10% concentrations, and Minnesota looking at going to mandated e80 fuel for all vehicles and I just don't see anything Great about it. Sorry sort of looks like snake oil to me at this time.

 

[ZmOz]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

Originally posted by POINTER94:<br /> You are forgetting the additional costs of running the tractors, fertizer, transportation costs, etc.

No, I'm not forgetting those at all. It does not take a full gallon of crude oil to make a full gallon of ethanol. This is the bottom line. When your report says "fossil fuel", they are referring mostly to natural gas, not oil. If ethanol is simply a storage medium to power our suburbans with natural gas instead of crude oil then that's great too.<br /><br />There are no down sides to ethanol! No matter what you don't like about it, you don't have to use it! You can pretend it doesn't exist. All the people using ethanol behind your back are helping us out of the s****y energy situation we're in. It won't solve all our problems, but it doesn't hurt, and it certainly isn't creating any problems.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

Well ok, you convinced me. <br /><br />But you are wrong, I have to use it, it is in every pump I have seen for the past year or more.

 

[ZmOz]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

Originally posted by POINTER94:<br /> But you are wrong, I have to use it, it is in every pump I have seen for the past year or more.

10%. What a baby. 10% isn't enough to cause any harm...it reduces emissions...it reduces oil consumption...it helps everyone. Government mandates will never go above 10% because anymore than that would ruin older cars, and they can't expect everybody to convert their fuel systems. 10% is a great compromise.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

I am so glad you did your homework. I even spelled it out in the above post. I can expect you to be supporting all owners of older cars in Minn? And since I boat the Mississippi in an older boat, I will establish an escrow account for you to fund. <br /><br />And I am a baby because you are wrong? Neat. <br /><br />Nothing I like more than flawed science. POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!! <br /><br /> http://www.newrules.org/de/archives/000060.html

 

[ZmOz]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

Originally posted by POINTER94:<br />http://www.newrules.org/de/archives/000060.html

Did you even read that yourself? It says it might happen in 2013 if and only if they get federal approval. More importantly neither of us live in Minnesota...<br /><br />Complaining about something that hasn't happened yet and isn't really all that bad in the first place...yeah, that makes you a baby. Whine whine whine. We are having an energy crisis. Some things are going to happen that you're not going to like. You can either be happy about the reduction in emissions and foreign oil consumption, or be a cranky old man. Your choice.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

Most importantly some of us, including myself, boat in Minnesota. <br /><br />Want to place a bet on whether this will happen or not? They have had mandated ethanol in their fuels for the past nine years, prior to government mandates What is to stop them from doing this? Nothing stopped them from mandating 10%. But I forget, nobody mandates the fuel. Sorry.<br /><br />You can continue to be a self indulgant little child or look to the research as to the facts in the matter. Some people just can't see beyond their own agenda. And then when they are proven to be emotionally driven ideologues they start calling names. Time to grow up and behave like an adult......<br /><br />My mind is open to any facts, you have provided none, but lots of emotional opinions.<br /><br />Since you seem sincerely interested in the environment, here is some science. Go to page 62 for the conclusions.<br /><br /> http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/patzek/CRPS416-Patzek-Web.pdf

 

[ZmOz]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

Originally posted by POINTER94:<br />Want to place a bet on whether this will happen or not?

Sure. 100 bucks says it won't. Come find me in 2013. <br /><br />

Originally posted by POINTER94:<br />They have had mandated ethanol in their fuels for the past nine years, prior to government mandates.

Again, 10%. 10% ethanol is mandated here too...I like it. They don't even sell E85 in OR, but I'll sure be happy to have the choice when they do.