Ethanol instead of oil argument

[imported_Curmudgeon]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

You da man, Oz! How dare anyone present opposing facts and figures to dispell your gospel truths. You guys just need to accept this man's opinions as fact and get over it.

 

[Scaaty]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

OZ, you can't see the forest for the trees. We had a gas crisis in 1974. ZIP HAS BEEN DONE BY YOUR GOVERNMENT IN 32 YEARS.........<br />Read up, spout less........

 

[ZmOz]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

Originally posted by SCAATY:<br />ZIP HAS BEEN DONE BY YOUR GOVERNMENT IN 32 YEARS.........

Because of people like you. Anytime some options come available all the lazy americans find something to whine about, and suddenly it's not good enough. Ethanol is our government's attempt to DO SOMETING. Got a better plan? Lets hear it.<br /><br />Ethanol in it's current state does nothing but reduce consumption of foreign oil and reduce emissions. Are you guys against reducing our consumption of foreign oil? Are you guys against reducing auto emissions?

 

[craze1cars]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

Ah...I go to bed and wake up to find yet another post that has been basically hijacked and digressed into a senseless, 2 person name-calling finger-pointing mess with no end in sight. Why can't people simply state their position/opinion/thoughts/facts just ONCE, then maybe follow up with a friendly clarification or something, and then move on? It is far more interesting than child-like bickering, and it might actually attract others who have something useful to say.<br /><br />Until I see some new names feeding this thread, I'm done reading it...and I'm sure others with more tact than I have quietly bowed out long before now. See ya.

 

[kenimpzoom]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

Umm guys, the solution is right in front of you.<br /><br />Require those that produce ethanol only use ethanol or biomass for fuel to produce the ethanol.<br /><br />If in fact Pointer is right, the ethanol factory will soon run out of fuel and shut down.<br /><br />If ZmOz is right, there will be a net increase in ethanol and they can sell the excess.<br /><br />Problem solved.<br /><br />Ken

 

[imported_Curmudgeon]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

Are you guys against reducing our consumption of foreign oil? Are you guys against reducing auto emissions?<br /><br />Yep, I'm for both, but as by-products, not drivers. What would I do? Facilitate the recovery of all available petroleum reserves. I've been to ANWAR (unlike 99.99% of critics), and trust me when I say the caribou ain't gonna give a damn! Sorry Florida, you'll just have to live with oil rigs over the horizon; you, too, NC, VA, and NJ! No refineries in your back yard? That's fine, but there will be one hell of a tax on fuel to your stations. Since we have mo' plenty sources for ethanol, let's put any subsidies into shale and oil sand research and recovery and let ethanol sink or swim on it's own. Mexico wants to play silly with its oil? That's an easy one - abrogate NAFTA, cut off all aid and seal the damn the border. President Dumass down in S America want to get stupid? Blockade that 3rd world stink hole and stop all drug shipments. No nuclear plants in your neck of the woods? Back to that tax thing, again, on your electricity. Oh, and make all the ethanol you want. Just don't delude yourself into thinking the country is gonna let Queen Nancy wreck the economy by trying to make dino oil obsolete in a decade! Yep, there's plenty to be done, but ethanol is only along for the ride, not driving the damned train into oblivion.

 

[ZmOz]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

Originally posted by craze1cars:<br /> Ah...I go to bed and wake up to find yet another post that has been basically hijacked

The original post of this thread was nothing but a bash on ethanol with absolutely no basis in real facts. It was never meant to be a friendly discussion on the benefits and complications of ethanol.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

Oh boy,<br /><br />No downsides?:<br /><br />Ethanol does reduce carbon monoxide emissions, but increases those of Nitrogen oxides, acetaldehyde, and peroxy-acetyl-nitrate. <br /><br />Source: see above link<br /><br />And we have yet to even address the pollution created during the refining process. 1.27 gallons of gas burned to create 1 gallon of ethanol. Assuming you are using corn as your base. <br /><br />Interesting Idea Ken, but even electrical production couldn't meet that standard. Not that I wouldn't mind using your idea as a test case. But that would be winning unfairly.

 

[FLATHEAD]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

[QUOT

 

[Scaaty]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

Originally posted by ZmOz:<br /> The original post of this thread was nothing but a bash on ethanol with absolutely no basis in real facts.

What are you, stupid? IQ of a paper hanger? Read this and show me just what isn't a fact...<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. 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 />I could go on, but tree hugging Liberals from your state make me wanna puke...when your done making your ethanol in your still out back, take the corn cob and shove it where the sun don't shine......<br /> My mother always told me to never have a battle of wits with a unarmed man.

 

[KM2]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

These ethanol discussions get heated. I'm not going to let this one get me going. Is ethanol perfect... NO but we have to start somewhere and it's going to be the place for many reasons, mostly enviroment & politcal.<br /><br />A study was mention about ethanol used more energy than it has etc. Anyway other studies, one I believe by Stanford U. said ethanol was a net energy positive. I not saying this one is better than the other but you can play with numbers and come to different conclusions. <br /><br />Don't forget it takes energy to produce gas too. <br /><br />FYI: In MN we have had mandated 10% ethanol for NINE years, I have never had a fuel related problem. Nor have I noticed any difference in fuel economy when I go out of state and get no ethanol gas. <br /><br />I have 3 E85 pumps within 3 miles of my house, last time I looked the price was 2.20 a gallon. That's 45 cents less than unleaded or E10 in MN.<br /><br />Personally I think bio diesel and diesel from coal are better near term energy solutions than ethanol but most of us drive gas vehicles.

 

[Elmer Fudge]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

When one considers the hundreds of millions of dollars in govt' subsides involved to produce corn, what is the true cost in a gallon of ethanol?

 

[Realgun]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

Personally I have owned a 2003 Ford Ranger. It was a flex fuel vehicle. There was never an issue running E-85 except here in New Mexico the E-85 costs .10 more per gallon than gasoline.<br /><br />In the winter it started. Thats 10 degrees above it doesn't get any colder here and I don't know how cold it was in the mountains but it started there too. It gets hot here and no problems either. I am talking about 100+ heat.<br /><br />Mileage was 19 on gas and 16 on E-85. I did notice a good amount of power with E-85. At least 5 hp or more. I got 11 mpg Towing on gas and 13 Towing on E-85.<br /><br />I drove from New Mexico to Minnesota to get my boat. The only place I could not get E-85 was Nebraska! I did get it in Omaha but, it was to far from the station in Colorado to that station in Nebraska by 5 gallons.<br /><br />I actually liked filling up as any spill disappeared rather than stink and stain the concrete.<br /><br />I paid the same for the truck wether it was gas only or flexifuel.<br /><br />The only differences are Stainless steel fuel tanks and an ethanol sensor to determine the amount of ethanol in the fuel. Otherwise the vehicle was identical to a normal truck. The fuel lines and injectors were slighlty larger and were teflon lined as most feuel lines are nowadays.<br /><br />When an E-85 vehicle is in crusie mode the ratio of fuel to air is 9:1 rather than 14.7:1<br /><br />If the truck was setup for just E-85 it could have had a 12:1 compression ratio and probaly got the same milage as gasoline. But since it had to run on both it was comprimized.<br /><br />Also once the ethanol is coverted from corn the "waste" is used as a highly nutritios cattle feed. There is a net gain in energy with Ethanol.<br /><br />Personally the goverment should make all auto makers use flexfuel technology as there are few reasons to be single fuel. There are no drawbacks using this today. Most Ford people have a flexfuel vehicle and do not even know it.<br /><br />If I could I would use an E-85 motor on my boat. Milage would impove as would power.<br /><br />Ethanol can be used in the diesel cycle also.

 

[Drrockter]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

They tried an "ethanol mandate" here in Wisconsin. It failed fortunately. I don't understand why if it is such a great fuel, why would it have to be mandated. If it was so much better, than people should have the choice up here in my neck of the woods, people don't like it.

 

[lakelivin]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

If you can figure out a way to keep Big Oil from sabotaging the initiative, offer E85 and let the market decide. In Brazil they have E85 pumps next to gas pumps at all gas stations. People buy according to whichever makes the most sense from a price/ mileage perspective at the time.<br /><br />Flexfuel cars don't cost more to build. My understanding is that due to their production and use of E85, Brazil is at a point where they are completely independent of the need for foreign oil. They haven't eliminated the need for oil, but can now produce enough of their own to meet national needs. Anything that decreases (even if it doesn't eliminate) our dependence on foreign oil sure makes sense to me. <br /><br />What would it be worth to this country if we weren't dependent on the Middle East, Eastern European Nations, or Venezuala for oil?

 

[waterinthefuel]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

Lakelivin, it would be incredible for us to reach that point. But ethanol alone isn't the answer. Based on our consumption of oil, to make enough ethanol to make us independent of imports would require us to use something like 80% of our entire land area to grow corn. My father read that and I can't remember where. It wasn't a for or against article, just facts.<br /><br />I don't have enough experience with it to judge. All I know is that we better cut our consumption of fossil fuels or we may never be oil independent.<br /><br />Oh yea, about Brazil, they are a 3rd world country with very little economy and quite frankly a very small demand for gas. Comparing Brazil and the US and expecting an even partial parallel is a bit of a stretch. People aren't jumping into 51 Chevy's with barrels strapped to the sides and paddling 90 miles, or traversing hundreds of miles of desert to get to Brazil. There just simply isn't a whole lot there. It's a great country, Amen, but the US is a whole lot more. Of everything. Including people.<br /><br />P.S. For anyone who thinks that the oil companies set the price of oil, you are sadly mistaken. The price of oil is set on the world market, which is why no matter how loud the democrats scream for investigations into price gouging, they always come up empty.

 

[lakelivin]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

waterinthefuel,<br /><br />I do recognize that ethanol isn't the whole answer, and that the Brazil situation can't be extrapolated to cover the US in the same manner. <br /><br />But I still believe that everything that reduces dependence on foreign oil should be looked into, and if ethanol can reduce our dependancy by a fair degree (what would you consdider realistic, maybe 10-30%?), then lets go for it, especially since the up front cost to consumers (i.e., flexfuel cars) is nil. <br /><br />And the more oil & gas prices go up, the more corn & other biofuels have gotta be worth for farmers to grow & sell. Maybe we will even get to the point where this could help significantly reduce G'vmnt farm subsidies (aren't we still paying farmers to not grow some crops at times?) <br /><br />Plus, gotta believe, like most things, the more we start using biofuels, the more the technology and hence the efficiency will improve. <br /><br />Hopefully this principle will also apply to hybrids, where truely 'free' energy (from braking) is recovered and reused. I recognize that hybrids do cost the consumer more up front right now, but hopefully at some point technology improvements will bring it above (or below, whichever way makes sense) the cost/ benefit line.<br /><br />I guess my overall feeling (which I should have stated) is that we're unlikely to ever achieve independence in an oil fueled economy (technology) like our current one by utilization of our own oil supplies.<br /><br />And that we're better off working hard on the problem NOW (even at some cost) than waiting until we're in a real crises (significant lack of supply, not just some pain from high gas & oil prices).<br /><br />Now that it looks like Iraq might not be the positive presidential legacy I'm sure W had hoped it would be, I think a brillliant move on his part would be to create an ambitious energy independance initiative similar to JFKs moon landing in the 60's. I believe we could do it given the will, leadership, and yes, maybe even a bit of personal sacrifice on the part of the US people. It seems like a 'pay now' or 'pay a lot more later' situation to me...<br /><br />p.s. of course I realize that raw oil prices are not set by the oil companies, but I also recognize that they can significantly impact gas prices.

 

[craze1cars]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

I just thought Mercury Marine's LONG essay on the use of Ethanol in their engines might be appropriate for this thread:<br /> http://www.mercurymarine.com/ethanol2

 

[waterinthefuel]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

Lake, you're certainly right about it being beneficial to farmers to grow corn the higher the cost of gas. Reducing our dependency is only a temporary fix (not even a fix) to a very real problem. Fifty percent isn't enough. Seventy five buys us time. Yes, every little bit helps, but if someone is drowning does it really help the victim if you keep throwing him new life jackets, or getting him out of the water completely?<br /><br />I think hydrogen can be an answer, just like ethanol. Not THE answer, just an alternative.<br /><br />There is enough oil off the coast of California and in ANWR to allow us to drill ourselves into independence. The libs and tree huggers will never let that happen, hence 3 dollar gas.<br /><br />I agree with you totally on biofuels, the more we use them the less the cost of using them.<br /><br />I've spoken to a military official who says that Bush's hands are tied, the Iran thing will come to an end soon. He predicted that we are spread too thin to fight Iran. This will blow over, and the gas prices will come down. Eventually.<br /><br />Hybrids are good, cost notwithstanding, but they still burn fossil fuels. We will eventually run out of those, whether or not we're sucking on the mid east's oil pipe or our own.<br /><br />As far as Iraq is concerned, I dunno. They are having elections and now have a real functioning democracy in an area that democracy is unheard of. They want us gone, we want to leave, lets spit and polish till it shines, then we leave.<br /><br />Oh yea, craze, fantastic read, I recommend everybody read it.

 

[lakelivin]

Re: Ethanol instead of oil argument

Water,<br /><br />I think we agree on alot more than we disagree on. Bottom line seems to be that we need to start doing something significant pretty quickly. <br /><br />Yes, the answer may be multi-focal (we've mentioned biofuels & hydrogen; haven't even talked about nuclear, or whether there is a possibility to improve coal technology to the point it might work from an environmental/ cost / benefit perspective). I've heard that with current oil price increases, Canadian oil sands are getting close to being cost effective to process, and that there is a tremendous amount of that (not completely US energy independant, but better than Middle East or Venezuala)....<br /><br />But we seem to be floundering, with no real central focus or leadership on the issue.<br /><br />I've got a feeling that the first party to put together a realistic, comprehensive platform on US energy independence will give itself a significant boost in the next presidential elections...