Sunday May 7 (19:00 EDT, CBS).
I halfheartedly apologize for the OT posting, but you know how sensitive
I am on this topic.
E-85 is 85% ethanol. The vehicle must have a fuel mix sensor and
controls. This is a growth trend area in North America which, while it
doesn't reduce consumption, it at least displaces it with a renewable
fuel that burns cleaner than gasoline.
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
"Repairs and reliability of the E-85 Luminas have been slightly better
than their gasoline counterparts."
"Because E-85 ethanol fuel is a cleaner-burning fuel than gasoline, it
is expected that the life of an E-85 vehicle will be somewhat longer
than a comparable gasoline vehicle."
I recognize that the site above may be biased. If you have a factual
site regarding reliability or engine wear regarding E85, I'm very
Is there any truth to the rumor that the pollution created and energy
used in the manufacture of E85 offsets the savings?
Is it true that you still beat your wife and kids?
> Is there any truth to the rumor that the pollution created and energy
> used in the manufacture of E85 offsets the savings?
Suggests a net 33% gain (and improving).
Way I heard it, there isn't sufficient production and infrastructure
to supply sufficient material to make a significant difference. The
liquid's nature is such that it isn't an appropriate subject for
current mass distribution methods: it must be _trucked_ to its
destination. Again, insufficient capacity likely to be available in
the forseeable future.
Too bad. I really like the idea of fuel from renewable biomass. We've
just made the wrong investments for too long. Sad.
Isn't all gas trucked to its destination?
And if the trucks use the same fuel...
>>>> it must be _trucked_ to its destination
> Isn't all gas trucked to its destination?
Trucks are used for the last leg of gasoline's journey, from large
local storage tanks to individual gas stations. When the truck's
tank is empty, it returns to the local storage tank to be refilled.
It does not drive hundreds or thousands of miles to a refinery.
From what I've heard, ethanol must be trucked long distances because
it would ruin transport pipes due to its more corrosive nature.
> And if the trucks use the same fuel...
Then they very likely don't use battery powered electric motors. :)
It may come as a shock to you, Bill, but your attribution snip is
Plus which, a road-going tanker is not a _mass_ distribution method in
Trucked from a pipeline terminal at the distributor after a many-miles
pipeline ride. As I understand it, ethanol presents expensive problems
for pipeline transmission.
The gasoline trucks I've seen use diesel.
> For the North American audience
> 60 Minutes will present a segement on E-85 (Ethanol) fuels,
> Sunday May 7 (19:00 EDT, CBS).
We have a company doing a fesability study on a location here in
my town to manufature ethenol. I hope they do it, but sadly it is
on one of the last large tracts of undeveloped (natural) land in
Seems like there is always some type of give and take.
> Of for the days of tetraethyl lead.
Actually lead was an octane booster that helped cool the valves
and guides, and engines that were not built properly for low
octane fuel had iron valve guides which burned out when gasahol
and unleaded fuels were used (mostly chevrolets).
After replaceing the guides (heads) and adjusting the timing
properly, they were fine.
At any rate, lead was an octane (polution) issue, not an alcohol
But can't you make ethanol anywhere (corn?) is grown?
> Alan Browne wrote:
>>> Is there any truth to the rumor that the pollution created and energy
>>> used in the manufacture of E85 offsets the savings?
>> Suggests a net 33% gain (and improving).
> Way I heard it, there isn't sufficient production and infrastructure to
> supply sufficient material to make a significant difference. The
> liquid's nature is such that it isn't an appropriate subject for current
> mass distribution methods: it must be _trucked_ to its destination.
Just like gasoline?
> Again, insufficient capacity likely to be available in the forseeable
See Illinois, Minnesota, Brazil, etc.
Illinois alone has 106 stations that sell about 685,000,000 gallons
annually. That's one hell of a good start ... and that't that many
gallons of gasoline that weren't needed.
(A 42 Gal barrel of oil yields about 19.5 gallons of gasoline [depending
on many factors], so Illinois alone saves enough gasoline in one year to
equal 1.17 days of oil imports for the whole country (accounting for
ethanol being 2/3 as energy yielding per volume)).
> Too bad. I really like the idea of fuel from renewable biomass. We've
> just made the wrong investments for too long. Sad.
We'll be forced to make new ones. But your point does reflect a further
inefficiency: over nearly a century all of the gasoline infrastructure
has evolved, and we're going to waste all that by wasting its product
too fast. (Of course from the typical "5 year plan" perspective of oil
companies, the ROI is long recovered and they continue to depreciate
their major cap investments over 20 - 40 years, tax gravy).
A rough calculation of proven world reserves puts it at 40 years at
_todays_ rate of consumption. Of course consumption is increasing, so
that 40 years is wildly optimistic.
(World proven reserves= 1181 billion barrels; world rate of consumtion =
81 M bbl / day). But that rate is growing... and proven reserves
include undrilled reserves such as the ANWR.
40 years is an eyeblink. But it's not even that with consumption
increasing in the US (though not needed to), India and China. And India
and China have a _lot_ more people than the US.
If the rate of consumption increases by a mere 5% every year, then that
40 year reserve becomes a 15 year reserve... at best.
On the other hand, reducing consumption overall by a mere 2% could
extend the current supply to 50 years...
The "proven reserves" increase by a pittance every year, but even if it
could magically go up 10 fold, it would only improve the outlook by a
few decades due to increasing demand.
People want a magic wand to find oil. Won't happen. OTOH, oil you
don't use is oil that's available for another day.
> Noctur...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> it must be _trucked_ to its destination
>> Isn't all gas trucked to its destination?
>> And if the trucks use the same fuel...
> Trucked from a pipeline terminal at the distributor after a many-miles
> pipeline ride. As I understand it, ethanol presents expensive problems
> for pipeline transmission.
The paradigm is different in any case. As corn and sugar beets are
grown all over, you also want to avoid trucking the feedstock too far to
the ferment/still operation. So localized production of the ethanol
(close to the feedstocks) is more efficient than one large central refinery.
> We have a company doing a fesability study on a location here in
> my town to manufature ethenol. I hope they do it, but sadly it is
> on one of the last large tracts of undeveloped (natural) land in
> the area.
> Seems like there is always some type of give and take.
I would bet there is another ideal location that hasn't been proposed.
How many acres are they talking about?
Vehicles designed for E-85 use don't have this problem.
Why? Because they are designed for E-85.
You'd be much better off complaining about E-85's real problems.
replace "g" with "a"
>> Is there any truth to the rumor that the pollution created and energy
>> used in the manufacture of E85 offsets the savings?
>Suggests a net 33% gain (and improving).
But the "savings" aren't there, either.
Ethanol as a motor fuel costs more than gasoline. While this might not
be reflected at the pump in the case of E-85, that would only be true
because of (IIRC) over 50¢ direct tax credit per gallon produced
(which means the pump price reflects over 50¢ less than the actual
Since ethanol contains less energy per unit, mileage goes down, too.
So, it costs more per gallon, and returns lower MPG. No savings there.
>I too like the idea of using ethanol, but the government will have to
>step in or the oil companies with their massive resources will continue
>to derail the use of ethanol.
Why can't the oil companies get into the ethanol business?
>> I too like the idea of using ethanol, but the government will have to
>> step in or the oil companies with their massive resources will continue
>> to derail the use of ethanol.
> Why can't the oil companies get into the ethanol business?
Most of the oil company clout exists in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
Unfortunately, those countries don't have massive corn, sugar cane,
or even potato acreage, and what little they have has a low yield.
But never fear. Middle Eastern alchemists are toiling mightily, and
may someday be able to get ethanol from silica and blood from a
But why can't they go into ethanol production in the US?
If, as I'm constantly told, Big Oil has Bush in their pocket, they
must have a lot of clout here, so why not do ethanol here?
>> Again, insufficient capacity likely to be available in the forseeable
>See Illinois, Minnesota, Brazil, etc.
Brazil uses sugar cane, a crop that can't be grown in quantity in the
They tried corn, but it doesn't work nearly as well as sugar cane.
1) Direct subsidies on US gasoline amount to 12 cents/gallon. So the
gap is 39 cents from the 51 cent / gal of ethanol.
This does not count the uncounted civilian toll (Iraqis civilans and
soldiers, US contractors, British and other soldiers and civilians, others).
2) You wanna put that into the "price" equation? That subsidy amounts
to about 86 cents per gallon (same ref).
So, we're at 98 cents subsidy per gallon of gasoline and
51 cents per gallon of ethanol.
Net: 47 cents more for gasoline, you just pay it elsewhere.
[and other estimates put the "defend the oil" subsidy at MUCH higher]
3) Illinois alone sells enough ethanol per year to displace over 1.2
days of total US oil consumption per year. Or a nearly 9 days of
imports from the middle east. (2.5%) (numbers below)
4) Efficiency of E85 by volume is 10 - 15% less (per studies).
Price is 20 to 35% cheaper by volume. (Katrina drove up Ethanol
too, but the gap has since widened).
Prices of Ethanol continue to fall as gas prices (currently) rise. The
gap is larger than the subsidy (meaning the subsidies can now begin to
reduce since they've had their effect of priming the pump).
Ethanol cannot displace all gasoline, but it can take out a large amount
of dependancy on Mid East oil. Conservatively, I compute a 24%
reduction in mideast oil imports is possible in the US as follows:
If current Ethanol consumption in Illinois could be replicated 10X in
other areas of the US, it could replace 88 days of imports from the
middle east per year. That's a nice dent.
Pollutes less too.
Illinois gallons of E85 per year: 685,000,000 Gal (US)
Gallon yield from a barrel of oil: 19.5 Gal (US)**
Equivalent barrels: 35,128,205
Derate for 85% formula 29,858,974
Derate for energy (80%) 23,887,179 barrels equiv.
US oil consumption per day 20,030,000 bbl/day
Equivalent days of US oil cosumption 1.19 oil days
Middle east oil imports 2690000 bbl/day *
Proportion of daily use (us) 0.1343 Mid East proportion
Illinois "offset" days per US year 8.88 days of mideast oil saved by
Illinois alone. Scale that up 10X and ...
* (average of Feb 2005 to Jan 2006 per US DOE,
** (average gals. of gasoline from a barrel of oil)
*** conservative, actual efficiency is 85 - 90% per "in use" studies
The numbers above are all based on DOE sources (oil imports) and
Illinois E85 webpage. The computations are mine.
You use the feedstock that's appropriate to the climate and soil.
Sugar beet grows great in the midwest and corn is not inefficient in
this regard at all. It is a great CO2 sinker at the same time.
Look for ways to make it work, not excuses to excuse it. See my other
reply regarding the near term potential to reduce mideast imports by a
> On Sat, 06 May 2006 20:41:25 -0400, Bill <email@example.com> wrote:
>>I too like the idea of using ethanol, but the government will have to
>>step in or the oil companies with their massive resources will continue
>>to derail the use of ethanol.
> Why can't the oil companies get into the ethanol business?
I've never seen the "Buggy whip oil co." so it's not graven in stone
that the oil cos are the only ones who could do ethanol.
Some are (I've seen Shell and BP "we're good corporate citizen" adverts
that these are areas that they are developing).
But since it's not the oil business "model" and they are at large
inertia bound, paradigm and bootom-line driven, they can't expand
quickly. Too busy making monster profits.
Big money *is* behind ethanol, however, see
includes Archer-Daniels-Midland (huge agri-business), Pacific Ethanol,
Virgin's Branson, Bill Gates, ... etc. Farmers are investing cash
directly into the ethanol business... "Sheik Farmer in the Dell"
creating demand for corn, etc.
Sugar is better than corn, of course (other post) but you use what is
available locally. You don't have to use "only" the most efficient
"Brazil is blessed with an abundance of sugar cane, which is more easily
broken down and distilled into ethanol than corn. A government push to
wean the country from imported oil has replaced 40 percent of demand
with ethanol. That, coupled with its own oil reserves, has largely
unshackled Brazil from external sources and freed up more than $50
billion for domestic spending."
On the other hand, new organisms are being engineered to be more
efficient at breaking down corn and other agricultural products
(including wastes) into mash for the ethanol still.
The US sends (@$60 / bbl) $161M / day to the middle east for oil.
Or, $59B per year. Very little comes back (arms, aircraft).
Per my other post, at least 24% of that could be saved.
Would you rather spend $15B on your own home production or sending it
The US trade deficit is deepening by the second.
Beats killing whales.......
They can. And they will. And so can you, by buying stock in companies that
"44 US companies currently operate 57 ethanol production plants with a
combined. production capacity of about 2200 MGY" - (A Google find)
Yes. Thousands of people do, especially in the Ozarks, and Great Smoky
> I would bet there is another ideal location that hasn't been proposed.
> How many acres are they talking about?
I agree, there are a few other places, but they will have some not in my
back yard issues in some places.
It is a 1000 acre tract, and the topography makes it hard to build except
on particular spots, it is to marshy on the bottom land, and some of it is
There is a place nearby (2 Mi. away) that is one of the last refugees of 2
small fish called the Neosho Madtom darter, and the Ozark cavefish. Both
are on the endangered species list. The habitat is upstream from the
location, but questions about subterranean water and runoff issues will
come up, it is just a matter of time.
I am for it, because, for one, I have hunted on the land, and the obvious
places to build, shouldn't really hurt the surroundings, if they build the
road right. I think the biggest fear is them developing the access, and end
up making an industrial complex.
I believe they are studying the financial viability more than the
environmental issues. I am still for it, we need the fuel. We have plenty
of State and Federally owned Forrest in Missouri.
> Yes. Thousands of people do, especially in the Ozarks, and Great Smoky
It is medicinal :)