[OT - US/Canada] E-85
Alan Browne
For the North American audience
60 Minutes will present a segement on E-85 (Ethanol) fuels,
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.
Cheers,
Alan
--
-- 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.
Rich
increased part's wear.
Of for the days of tetraethyl lead.
Alan Browne
"Repairs and reliability of the E-85 Luminas have been slightly better
than their gasoline counterparts."
http://www.ilcorn.org/Ethanol/85__Ethanol/85__ethanol.html
"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."
http://www.ilcorn.org/Ethanol/85__Ethanol/85__ethanol.html
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
interested.
bluezfolk
Is there any truth to the rumor that the pollution created and energy
used in the manufacture of E85 offsets the savings?
Eric
Rudy Benner
"bluezfolk" <eri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146950039....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> 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?
>
> Eric
>
Is it true that you still beat your wife and kids?
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>For the North American audience
>>60 Minutes will present a segement on E-85 (Ethanol) fuels,
>>
>>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.
> Is there any truth to the rumor that the pollution created and energy
> used in the manufacture of E85 offsets the savings?
Nope.
http://www.ilcorn.org/Ethanol/85__Ethanol/85__ethanol.html
Suggests a net 33% gain (and improving).
Frank ess
> bluezfolk wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>> For the North American audience
>>> 60 Minutes will present a segement on E-85 (Ethanol) fuels,
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>> Is there any truth to the rumor that the pollution created and
>> energy
>> used in the manufacture of E85 offsets the savings?
>
> Nope.
> http://www.ilcorn.org/Ethanol/85__Ethanol/85__ethanol.html
>
> 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.
--
Frank ess
Noctur...@yahoo.com
Isn't all gas trucked to its destination?
And if the trucks use the same fuel...
ASAAR
this concise emission:
>>>> 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. :)
Frank ess
> Frank ess wrote:
>
>>>> Is there any truth to the rumor that the pollution created and
>>>> energy
>>>> used in the manufacture of E85 offsets the savings?
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>> http://www.ilcorn.org/Ethanol/85__Ethanol/85__ethanol.html
>
>
>> 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.
>
> fuel from a transport truck hauling a tanker.
>
> 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.
It may come as a shock to you, Bill, but your attribution snip is
faulty.
Plus which, a road-going tanker is not a _mass_ distribution method in
this context.
Frank ess
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.
--
Frank ess
Rusty Shakleford
news:5S57g.48650$Xh3.4...@weber.videotron.net:
> 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
the area.
Seems like there is always some type of give and take.
Rusty Shakleford
news:1146941202.1...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:
> 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
(gas crunch)issue.
Paul Furman
But can't you make ethanol anywhere (corn?) is grown?
Alan Browne
> 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?
>>
>>
>> Nope.
>> http://www.ilcorn.org/Ethanol/85__Ethanol/85__ethanol.html
>>
>> 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
> future.
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.
Cheers,
Alan
Alan Browne
> 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.
Alan Browne
> 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?
Bill Funk
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.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Bill Funk
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> Is there any truth to the rumor that the pollution created and energy
>> used in the manufacture of E85 offsets the savings?
>
>Nope.
> http://www.ilcorn.org/Ethanol/85__Ethanol/85__ethanol.html
>
>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
cost).
Since ethanol contains less energy per unit, mileage goes down, too.
So, it costs more per gallon, and returns lower MPG. No savings there.
Bill Funk
>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?
ASAAR
>> 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
stone.
Bill Funk
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?
Bill Funk
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> Again, insufficient capacity likely to be available in the forseeable
>> future.
>
>See Illinois, Minnesota, Brazil, etc.
Brazil uses sugar cane, a crop that can't be grown in quantity in the
US.
They tried corn, but it doesn't work nearly as well as sugar cane.
Alan Browne
1) Direct subsidies on US gasoline amount to 12 cents/gallon. So the
gap is 39 cents from the 51 cent / gal of ethanol.
http://www.socialvc.net/_data/N_0001/Resources/live/DGT_GSVC_FINAL_04-30-04.pdf
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,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/oiltrade.html)
** (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.
Cheers,
Alan.
Alan Browne
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
serious amount.
Cheers,
Alan.
Alan Browne
> On Sat, 06 May 2006 20:41:25 -0400, Bill <bill@c.a> 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
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0605070027may07,1,4982731.story?coll=chi-business-hed
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
feedstock.
"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 $15B on your own home production or sending it
forever offshore.
The US trade deficit is deepening by the second.
Cheers,
Alan
William Graham
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:5an7g.18$C77....@wagner.videotron.net...
Beats killing whales.......
William Graham
"Bill Funk" <Big...@there.com> wrote in message
news:od1s52tu6gptfjd5j...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 06 May 2006 20:41:25 -0400, Bill <bill@c.a> 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?
They can. And they will. And so can you, by buying stock in companies that
produce it.
William Graham
"44 US companies currently operate 57 ethanol production plants with a
combined. production capacity of about 2200 MGY" - (A Google find)
William Graham
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:8Fm7g.22592$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Yes. Thousands of people do, especially in the Ozarks, and Great Smoky
mountains.....:^)
Rusty Shakleford
$C77....@wagner.videotron.net:
> 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
bluffs.
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.
Rusty Shakleford
WtcPZnZ2dn...@comcast.com:
> Yes. Thousands of people do, especially in the Ozarks, and Great Smoky
> mountains.....:^)
>
It is medicinal :)
William Graham
"Rusty Shakleford" <da...@gribble.com> wrote in message
news:e3l9fb$8g7$2...@news.netins.net...
Yes, but they can still put it in their gas....Here is a link to Canadian
Ethanol production:
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/media/newsreleases/2004/200402b_e.htm
Alan Browne
> "44 US companies currently operate 57 ethanol production plants with a
> combined. production capacity of about 2200 MGY" - (A Google find)
Thanks William. You'll be happy to know that that production offsets
3.82 days of annual US oil use, or the equivalent of 28 Middle-East days
of oil supply.
Wow! This is great stuff!
Cheers,
Alan.
Alan Browne
That's only 80 - 120 proof. Fuel ethanol is 160 - 180 proof. Deadly.
Alan Browne
>
> Yes, but they can still put it in their gas....Here is a link to Canadian
> Ethanol production:
>
> http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/media/newsreleases/2004/200402b_e.htm
Thanks William. I hadn't found that one. Varennes is less than an
hour's drive from here.
Cheers,
Alan
William Graham
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:L8q7g.3714$C77....@wagner.videotron.net...
I've seen (and tasted) 180 proof whiskey....They call it, "everclear". - Too
tough for my liver, but it makes a pretty good mix......The submarine
sailors used to drink it....They used it for torpedo fuel.
William Graham
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> William Graham wrote:
>
>> "44 US companies currently operate 57 ethanol production plants with a
>> combined. production capacity of about 2200 MGY" - (A Google find)
>
> Thanks William. You'll be happy to know that that production offsets 3.82
> days of annual US oil use, or the equivalent of 28 Middle-East days of oil
> supply.
>
> Wow! This is great stuff!
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.
That's more than 1% of our usage already......To me, this is clear
indication that we could get to more than 50% during the next 10 years
without half trying......
Alan Browne
> It may come as a shock to you, Bill, but your attribution snip is faulty.
>
> Plus which, a road-going tanker is not a _mass_ distribution method in
> this context.
The whole idea of mass distribution is different in the context of
Ethanol. If you use the "oil" model, then it's less efficient. But
it's not oil, so don't use the oil model.
For the midwest it makes sense to have lots of moderate sized ethanol
production plants as there are costs to transport the locally grown
feedstock to the masher/evaporator. So a lot of moderate sized
operations are more efficient than a few large operations. As a
byproduct is livestock feed, then again, best to be close to market.
In any case, I was delighted to see William's other post indicating that
Ethanol production is about 2200 M Gallons per year, equivalent to
nearly 1 month of Middle-East oil imports to the US. This is nearly 4X
higher than I believed it to be.
Cheers,
Alan
William Graham
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
Also, while pumping pure ethanol through a pipeline may be difficult, there
is no reason why pumping the sour mash before final distilling can't be done
via pipeline, and then do the final distilling locally......
Alan Browne
> Also, while pumping pure ethanol through a pipeline may be difficult, there
> is no reason why pumping the sour mash before final distilling can't be done
> via pipeline, and then do the final distilling locally......
The mash is pretty "pulpy" so I don't think that would work well.
This all ignores that pipes do not have to made of steel, plastic piping
of the right type will carry ethanol handilly.
Cheers,
Alan
William Graham
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> William Graham wrote:
>
>
>> Also, while pumping pure ethanol through a pipeline may be difficult,
>> there is no reason why pumping the sour mash before final distilling
>> can't be done via pipeline, and then do the final distilling
>> locally......
>
> The mash is pretty "pulpy" so I don't think that would work well.
>
> This all ignores that pipes do not have to made of steel, plastic piping
> of the right type will carry ethanol handilly.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>
father told me that they can even change substances....Like pump crude oil
for a while, and then switch to water....The water pushes the oil along, and
there is not much mix where the two meet....they use centrifugal pumps that
aren't damaged by sand and other crap in the liquid, too. It is by far and
away the cheapest method of transporting liquids over land. I used to have a
sump pump that could handle rocks the size of golf balls.....:^)
Joseph Kewfi
Rubbish, you have a corporation called Monsanto, they can engineer you a
version of sugar cane or corn or anything that can be grown
plentifully,cheaply, quickly and be resistant to hostile weather and insect
blight doesn't even need to be fit for human consumption if crops are
dedicated for Ethanol fuel output only, the technology already exists, it's
vested interests that prevent the realisation of ground breaking
advancements, if the money and political interest is there literally
anything can be accomplished.
"Bill Funk" <Big...@there.com> wrote in message
news:ua5s521616dajjm9i...@4ax.com...
William Graham
"Joseph Kewfi" <f_sto...@NOSPAMiol.ie> wrote in message
news:e3lgql$meu$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> Brazil uses sugar cane, a crop that can't be grown in quantity in the US.
>
> Rubbish, you have a corporation called Monsanto, they can engineer you a
> version of sugar cane or corn or anything that can be grown
> plentifully,cheaply, quickly and be resistant to hostile weather and
> insect
> blight doesn't even need to be fit for human consumption if crops are
> dedicated for Ethanol fuel output only, the technology already exists,
> it's
> vested interests that prevent the realisation of ground breaking
> advancements, if the money and political interest is there literally
> anything can be accomplished.
You can make ethanol out of almost anything....Probably even the
insects....:^)
Also, pure, drinkable ethanol has to be made rather carefully, so it doesn't
contain any methanol, which is poisonous, but ethanol for fuel doesn't have
that problem.....Cars will eat methanol just as well as the good stuff....
Rusty Shakleford
$C77....@wagner.videotron.net:
Hmm, I don't know, I've seen some that eats right through a tin cup, makes
pretty good paint stripper in a pinch. Great for removing tree stumps. We
used to tell new guys to wait a bit afore they light that cigarette...
purely medicinal :)
To quote Jack Nicholson in Easy Rider,
"Nic nic nic...INDIANS!"
:)
Alan Browne
In an oil pipeline there are often several products in the "train"
separated by "waste" oil. Water is not used because it would tend to
settle under the oil. Oil and fractions are in a narrower band of
density so are less prone to it.
While mash might go through, in the "farmland" paradigm it's not the
best way to go.
Alan Browne
>
> You can make ethanol out of almost anything....Probably even the
> insects....:^)
> Also, pure, drinkable ethanol has to be made rather carefully, so it doesn't
> contain any methanol, which is poisonous, but ethanol for fuel doesn't have
> that problem.....Cars will eat methanol just as well as the good stuff....
When you fraction steam, ethanol and the rest, the "rest" ends up in the
runoff water at the bottom of the still. So the methanol can be
separated from the water and burnt in the mash heater.
Alan Browne
> On 6 May 2006 11:46:42 -0700, "Rich" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It's so clean it scours the inside of the engine, causing drastically
>>increased part's wear.
>>Of for the days of tetraethyl lead.
>
>
> 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.
Which are what?
William Graham
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> William Graham wrote:
>
>>
>> You can make ethanol out of almost anything....Probably even the
>> insects....:^)
>> Also, pure, drinkable ethanol has to be made rather carefully, so it
>> doesn't contain any methanol, which is poisonous, but ethanol for fuel
>> doesn't have that problem.....Cars will eat methanol just as well as the
>> good stuff....
>
> When you fraction steam, ethanol and the rest, the "rest" ends up in the
> runoff water at the bottom of the still. So the methanol can be separated
> from the water and burnt in the mash heater.
>
Tennessee?
Bill Funk
Several...
Higher cost; where E-85 is on the market, it costs more than gas.
Higher cost; it's costlier than gas *WITH* more than 50¢ per gallon
direct tax credit (meaning the makers of E-85 get more than 50¢ off
their federal taxes for each gallon of ethanol they make, which is
directly paid by taxpayers).
Lower energy than gas (meaning: it costs more at the pump, and users
get fewer MPG, for a cost double whammy).
E-85 releases more fumes than gas, making for more pollution.
The continental US can't raise sugar cane (which Brasil, often cited
as an example the US should follow, uses), which is far more efficient
than corn as a source for ethanol.
The ratio of energy in/out for ethanol, under current technology, is
about 1:1.25 *at best*; this means we gain little in actual energy
efficiency.
The current move to get away from oil for motor fuel is mostly fueled
(pardon the pun) by a desire to cut energuy costs; E-85 does the
opposite, something that is definitely not being told to the public.
As well, it's seldom mentioned that E-85 requires an expensive vehicle
conversion (or purchase of a new vehicle), further raising costs.
While it's possible to push E-85 as a way to cut oil imports, it's
*cost* that will hit the average buyer, and E-85 fails in the cost
department.
Paul Furman
> The current move to get away from oil for motor fuel is mostly fueled
> (pardon the pun) by a desire to cut energuy costs; E-85 does the
> opposite, something that is definitely not being told to the public.
> As well, it's seldom mentioned that E-85 requires an expensive vehicle
> conversion (or purchase of a new vehicle), further raising costs.
>
> While it's possible to push E-85 as a way to cut oil imports, it's
> *cost* that will hit the average buyer, and E-85 fails in the cost
> department.
Ah but are you calculating the costs of war?
Bill Funk
wrote:
Nope.
Do you? If so, please show your work. :-)
no_name
>
> For the North American audience
> 60 Minutes will present a segement on E-85 (Ethanol) fuels,
>
> 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.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
I've been wondering if anyone has compared E-85 with using the same corn
to make corn oil and using it in a bio-diesel? I know the original
diesel design was created to burn peanut oil.
no_name
>>>>it must be _trucked_ to its destination
>
>
> Isn't all gas trucked to its destination?
>
> And if the trucks use the same fuel...
>
Most petrochemicals are piped throughout North America to regional
distribution centers. Trucked from there.
Don't know if diesel engines will run E-85.
no_name
> This may come as a shock to you, but most "gas stations" get their fuel
> from a transport truck hauling a tanker.
But that tanker gets its load from a terminal that's filled from a
pipeline.
no_name
Not so much in the Smokeys, too damn many tourists wandering around.
Wilkes & Johnston counties are a better bet in NC.
In TN, try up near the border with KY & VA.
no_name
> William Graham wrote:
>
>
>> Also, while pumping pure ethanol through a pipeline may be difficult,
>> there is no reason why pumping the sour mash before final distilling
>> can't be done via pipeline, and then do the final distilling
>> locally......
>
>
> The mash is pretty "pulpy" so I don't think that would work well.
Google "concrete pump"
no_name
> On Sat, 06 May 2006 20:41:25 -0400, Bill <bill@c.a> 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?
They are.
no_name
> On Sat, 06 May 2006 19:57:22 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>>Is there any truth to the rumor that the pollution created and energy
>>>used in the manufacture of E85 offsets the savings?
>>
>>Nope.
>> http://www.ilcorn.org/Ethanol/85__Ethanol/85__ethanol.html
>>
>>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
> cost).
> Since ethanol contains less energy per unit, mileage goes down, too.
> So, it costs more per gallon, and returns lower MPG. No savings there.
OTOH, at least some of that higher cost could be offset by economies of
scale. As production ramps up, and as initial costs are amortized ...
Jennifer
here is being FORCED into carrying it. It is garbage gas. If your car
isn't made to use this type of fuel, don't use it. It will damage your
fuel injectors. Don't use it in your lawn mower either thinking you'll
save money, you'll damage your mower. It runs the engine too hot.
They're selling us a bill of goods on this "gas". You'll get less
gas mileage from it too.
I'd rather convert my car into running on used fryer oil than put
ethanol in my car anyday.
J
Robert Brace
"no_name" <no_...@no.where.invalid> wrote in message
news:%zO7g.10787$n13....@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
I think you'll find the original patents on the "Diesel" engine design
contain a compression-ignition "engine" designed around coal dust used as a
combustible fuel.
http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.dieselpage.com/tipshis.htm
The oil fueled version was about the third evolution in the design.
Bob
Alan Browne
> 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.
Never enough!
I'll be in KC tomorrow night, arriving too late for the ballgame, however.
Cheers,
Alan
Alan Browne
1) Government has to step in on massive scales to prime the pump for the
greater good. This provides more jobs in your state and stable and
increasing prices for corn for your farmers ... gets them off of
subsidies. For that matter, farmers in your state are likely investing
in those gas pumps and disterlies.
2) The air you and your childre breathe will be cleaner.
3) GM, Ford and Chrysler have delivered over 6 million cars rated for
E85 (FFV or "Flexfuel"). Of course you have to be smart enough to read
at least the owners manual; and smart enough to read the warning at the
pump.
4) While you do get 10-15% less mileage, you also pay less for it.
5) Used fryer oil can be converted into diesel, not gasoline. So you'd
still screw up your engine if you use the wrong fuel.
6) As you're a "newcomer" here, please let me laugh at your your
pathetically weak trolling attempt. Ha ha. That felt good! Thanks.
Cheers!
Alan.
Alan Browne
>
> I've been wondering if anyone has compared E-85 with using the same corn
> to make corn oil and using it in a bio-diesel? I know the original
> diesel design was created to burn peanut oil.
When the ethanol makers ferment the mash they extract (before or after,
I don't know) the corn oil. The left over mash (post fermentation and
ethanol "cook off") is made into cattle/hog feed.
IOW it's not one or the other, but both.
The corn oil could be used for biodiesel, but is probably more valuable
in food processing.
The manure from the cattle and hogs can be processed into methane and or
diesel (in the later case by some hydrogen process) and fertilizer.
Which goes into the corn field. The corn when growing absorbs more CO2
than the engine emits ... ain't it nice.
Cheers,
Alan
Alan Browne
You put the ethanol stills out there in farm country. Transport the
corn to the crusher/fermenter/distellery, thence to the pumps within 50
- 100+ miles.
Just like gasoline.
Alan Browne
For those of you who wathced "60 minutes" I apologize.
It sucked.
1) It was one sided.
2) It was "over the top". If you think I'm optimistic about this, the
sole proponent they had was completely whacky. Could discredit the
whole thing.
60 minutes sucks. I used to like that show. It's really gone downhill.
Only bright light of the whole thing was the Brazil segment. 40% and
growing conversion to ethanol. Price is less than gasoline by a fair
margine (possibly govenerment controlled, not stated).
Cheers,
Alan
Alan Browne wrote:
>
> For the North American audience
> 60 Minutes will present a segement on E-85 (Ethanol) fuels,
>
> 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.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
Alan Browne
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>When you fraction steam, ethanol and the rest, the "rest" ends up in the
>>runoff water at the bottom of the still. So the methanol can be separated
>>from the water and burnt in the mash heater.
>>
>
> You know an awful lot about this Alan.....Are you sure you're not from
> Tennessee?
Quick study.
Alan Browne
> Don't know if diesel engines will run E-85.
Nope. No more than they will gasoline.
Alan Browne
> On Sun, 07 May 2006 16:45:22 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Bill Funk wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 6 May 2006 11:46:42 -0700, "Rich" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's so clean it scours the inside of the engine, causing drastically
>>>>increased part's wear.
>>>>Of for the days of tetraethyl lead.
>>>
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>>Which are what?
>
>
> Several...
> Higher cost; where E-85 is on the market, it costs more than gas.
> Higher cost; it's costlier than gas *WITH* more than 50¢ per gallon
> direct tax credit (meaning the makers of E-85 get more than 50¢ off
> their federal taxes for each gallon of ethanol they make, which is
> directly paid by taxpayers).
Er, various sources show it as cheaper than gas. See my other post
showing that gasoline gets at least 12 cents subsidy, but more like 96
(yes 96) cents subsidy if cost of defending the oil is accounted for.
> Lower energy than gas (meaning: it costs more at the pump, and users
> get fewer MPG, for a cost double whammy).
Despite the lower efficiency, the net (with the lower price) is cheaper
than gas. In Brazil this is clear (at the pump). Not sure what their
subsidy is (if any). They have their own oil supplies offshore as well.
> E-85 releases more fumes than gas, making for more pollution.
Which fumes? The corn grown absorbs more CO2 than ethanol generates.
> The continental US can't raise sugar cane (which Brasil, often cited
> as an example the US should follow, uses), which is far more efficient
> than corn as a source for ethanol.
> The ratio of energy in/out for ethanol, under current technology, is
> about 1:1.25 *at best*; this means we gain little in actual energy
> efficiency.
Unlike gasoline ethanol is renewable. After three cycles you're at par,
on the 4th cycle you're ahead of whatever oil can ever deliver. The
ratio is 1:1.38 (BTW).
>
> The current move to get away from oil for motor fuel is mostly fueled
> (pardon the pun) by a desire to cut energuy costs; E-85 does the
> opposite, something that is definitely not being told to the public.
> As well, it's seldom mentioned that E-85 requires an expensive vehicle
> conversion (or purchase of a new vehicle), further raising costs.
Nope: Ford, GM and Chrysler sell these at the same price as the non FFV
vehicles. (In the beginning there was as much as $2000 difference; now
most of the them are the same price at buy time). This was also
mentioned on 60 minutes last night and on the doe site you can find
which vehicles carry a premium and which do not. Most do not.
Over 6 M vehicles delivered in the US so far from Ford, GM and Chrysler.
>
> While it's possible to push E-85 as a way to cut oil imports, it's
> *cost* that will hit the average buyer, and E-85 fails in the cost
> department.
Wrong. At worst is close to par. And as production increased,
economies of scale will continue to reduce the cost.
Cheers,
Alan
Joe Bleaux
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said...
> Jennifer wrote:
>
> > I live in a state where ethanol is produced. Nearly every gas station
> > here is being FORCED into carrying it. It is garbage gas. If your car
> > isn't made to use this type of fuel, don't use it. It will damage your
> > fuel injectors. Don't use it in your lawn mower either thinking you'll
> > save money, you'll damage your mower. It runs the engine too hot.
> > They're selling us a bill of goods on this "gas". You'll get less
> > gas mileage from it too.
> > I'd rather convert my car into running on used fryer oil than put
> > ethanol in my car anyday.
>
> 1) Government has to step in on massive scales to prime the pump for the
> greater good. This provides more jobs in your state and stable and
> increasing prices for corn for your farmers ... gets them off of
> subsidies. For that matter, farmers in your state are likely investing
> in those gas pumps and disterlies.
>
> 2) The air you and your childre breathe will be cleaner.
>
No it won't. Ethanol will actually cause more air pollution.
> 3) GM, Ford and Chrysler have delivered over 6 million cars rated for
> E85 (FFV or "Flexfuel"). Of course you have to be smart enough to read
> at least the owners manual; and smart enough to read the warning at the
> pump.
>
> 4) While you do get 10-15% less mileage, you also pay less for it.
>
Try 25-30% less mileage (the Energy Dept. estimates 40% less mileage).
Recent reports cite ethanol prices being more expensive than gasoline,
but even if ethanol were selling for a cheaper price than gas it's still
more expensive when you figure in the tremendous drop in fuel
efficiency.
Read this:
http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/apr2006/bw20060427_493909.htm
Joe
William Graham
"no_name" <no_...@no.where.invalid> wrote in message
No, but they will run on old used McDonald's French fry grease.....And that
is also independent of the Middle East Oil Cartel.........
William Graham
"no_name" <no_...@no.where.invalid> wrote in message
Yeah....Places like Bristol. - Snuffy Smith country.....
William Graham
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
Yes, if we can see light at the end of the tunnel this soon in the process,
think what it will be like when every filling station in the land has one
pump that pumps it. There is something very satisfying about the idea that
you can actually grow fuel for your car. That the growing fuel crop will eat
up the CO2 that it will eventually generate when burned in your engine...
William Graham
"no_name" <no_...@no.where.invalid> wrote in message
Now there's an idea! - The two products could be made in the same factory by
the same corporation, and from the same crop! One building will distill the
alcohol, and the other will make the diesel fuel...........
William Graham
"Jennifer" <jay...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:10689-445...@storefull-3218.bay.webtv.net...
for gasoline don't do well on ethanol. I had to trade in a perfectly good
motorcycle once for a new one, because the one I had was made to burn 100+
octane fuel, and they didn't sell it anymore. The newer model was made to
burn the lousy 85 octane crap they were selling.....
The same is true of the cars... When they have nothing available but
alcohol, you won't be able to run your 2006 gas guzzler on it. But if you
buy your next car with a little vision, you will be able to run it on
ethanol, so try to do that.......
John McWilliams
Yeah, and the waste heat will generate electricity, and the pulpy waste
will be pressed into biodegradable garbage cans.
--
John McWilliams
ps Not to pooh-pooh the idea of multiple outputs from such a process;
it'd be stupid to not do so where practical.
William Graham
"Joe Bleaux" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message > Try 25-30% less mileage
> Recent reports cite ethanol prices being more expensive than gasoline,
> but even if ethanol were selling for a cheaper price than gas it's still
> more expensive when you figure in the tremendous drop in fuel
> efficiency.
Of course. There are few liquids that contain as much energy per pound than
gasoline. - That isn't the point. The point is we are running out of
gasoline. It will have really lousy efficiency when we don't have any more
of it. This will happen by 2050. Then what do you suggest we do?
I suggest we find some reasonable alternative. Ethanol is one of those.
The sooner we start to use it, and build vehicles that can run on it, the
better off we are. Brazil has been doing this for over 10 years now. - It
can be done, and we should be doing it.
William Graham
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> no_name wrote:
>
>>
>> I've been wondering if anyone has compared E-85 with using the same corn
>> to make corn oil and using it in a bio-diesel? I know the original
>> diesel design was created to burn peanut oil.
>
> When the ethanol makers ferment the mash they extract (before or after, I
> don't know) the corn oil. The left over mash (post fermentation and
> ethanol "cook off") is made into cattle/hog feed.
>
> IOW it's not one or the other, but both.
>
> The corn oil could be used for biodiesel, but is probably more valuable in
> food processing.
Well, we'll put a McDonalds French fry factory between the corn oil factory
and the diesel truck refueling station......I've, got it all visualized
already....:^)
William Graham
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>
> For those of you who wathced "60 minutes" I apologize.
>
> It sucked.
>
> 1) It was one sided.
>
> 2) It was "over the top". If you think I'm optimistic about this, the
> sole proponent they had was completely whacky. Could discredit the whole
> thing.
>
> 60 minutes sucks. I used to like that show. It's really gone downhill.
>
> Only bright light of the whole thing was the Brazil segment. 40% and
> growing conversion to ethanol. Price is less than gasoline by a fair
> margine (possibly govenerment controlled, not stated).
I watch 60 minutes every week. Some of the shows are good, and some suck,
but it's better than watching some dumb sitcom, and there's always Andy
Rooney to laugh with/at......
William Graham
"John McWilliams" <jp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:epCdnakdEfhqtv3Z...@comcast.com...
teacher was telling the class of the three uses of corn....Eatin', Drinkin',
and Smokin'........
Neil Ellwood
>
> Yeah, and the waste heat will generate electricity, and the pulpy waste
> will be pressed into biodegradable garbage cans.
What are you thinking of? They won't be needed and the waste would be made
into animal feed (with modern factories it would be vegetarian meals).
--
Neil
Delete 'l' to reply
Neil Ellwood
That's no good - I don't like McD or chips.
All Things Mopar
profound linguistic utterance
>> Unlike gasoline ethanol is renewable. After three cycles
>> you're at par, on the 4th cycle you're ahead of whatever
>> oil can ever deliver. The ratio is 1:1.38 (BTW).
>>> The current move to get away from oil for motor fuel is
>>> mostly fueled (pardon the pun) by a desire to cut energuy
>>> costs; E-85 does the opposite, something that is
>>> definitely not being told to the public. As well, it's
>>> seldom mentioned that E-85 requires an expensive vehicle
>>> conversion (or purchase of a new vehicle), further
>>> raising costs.
>>
>> Nope: Ford, GM and Chrysler sell these at the same price
>> as the non FFV vehicles. (In the beginning there was as
>> much as $2000 difference; now most of the them are the
>> same price at buy time). This was also mentioned on 60
>> minutes last night and on the doe site you can find which
>> vehicles carry a premium and which do not. Most do not.
>>
>> Over 6 M vehicles delivered in the US so far from Ford, GM
>> and Chrysler.
>>
>>> While it's possible to push E-85 as a way to cut oil
>>> imports, it's *cost* that will hit the average buyer, and
>>> E-85 fails in the cost department.
>>
>> Wrong. At worst is close to par. And as production
>> increased, economies of scale will continue to reduce the
>> cost.
>>
> Yes, if we can see light at the end of the tunnel this soon
> in the process, think what it will be like when every
> filling station in the land has one pump that pumps it.
> There is something very satisfying about the idea that you
> can actually grow fuel for your car. That the growing fuel
> crop will eat up the CO2 that it will eventually generate
> when burned in your engine...
Yes, I read it all.
What I think is hilarious about corn gas is that it is
negatively efficient, meaning it takes more energy to produce
it than is saved. Adding to the negative efficiency is that
any internal combustion engine running on ethanol will get
less MPG than the equivalent car on gas and will perform less
well. Reason? There are less heat BTUs in a gallon of ethanol
than a gallon of gas. Cars run on heat energy from whatever
fuel they burn. Another silly-ass example of negative
efficiency is an all-electric car - these "burn" "clean"
energy which is "free" from electrical powerplants, right?
Well, besides nuclear and coal, both of which have problems
and are hardly "free", the rest burn either oil or natural gas
- or "natural gas" formed from oil.
Enjoy the ride, it is indeed a first-class scam, as are hybrid
cars which /never/ break even. Don't believe me? Google for
it. At 15,000 miles per year, gas has to exceed $5/gal for a
Toyota Prius to break even in 6 years. And, that does not
include the cost of a battery replacement after 4 years, but
does include the tax breaks. If you now assume gas at the
current $3/gal (about), this same Prius would need to be
driven 35,000 miles/year to break-even in the same 6 years.
Mindless insanity.
To "fix" the "obscene" oil company profits, change the way
CAFE is defined and tested. Then, stop using the doubly
efficient modern cars to move twice as far from work and stop
driving trucks that weight 7,500 pounds.
If one looks at the overall usage of gasoline over the past 30
years, it has actually gone up, except in years where some
external force has messed things up. And, miles driven have
gone up even faster, as have average vehicle weights.
--
ATM, aka Jerry
"My enemy's enemy is my friend, and my enemy's friend is my
enemy" - Middle East Maxim
Bill Funk
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>Despite the lower efficiency, the net (with the lower price) is cheaper
>than gas. In Brazil this is clear (at the pump). Not sure what their
Brazil uses sugar cane; we can't.
Sugar cane is far easier (and less costly) as a base for ethanol.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Bill Funk
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> E-85 releases more fumes than gas, making for more pollution.
>
>Which fumes? The corn grown absorbs more CO2 than ethanol generates.
Hydrocarbon fumes, from the gas.
For somereason (I don't know the chemistry), E-85 releases more gas
fumes than straight gas.
Bill Funk
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>Unlike gasoline ethanol is renewable. After three cycles you're at par,
>on the 4th cycle you're ahead of whatever oil can ever deliver. The
>ratio is 1:1.38 (BTW).
The ratio depends on who you ask.
As far as renewability upping the ration, no. The ratio remains the
same. It's nice to think that doing he same thing over again somehow
increases the ratio, it doesn't work that way, unless it's
*recyclable*. Which it isn't.
All Things Mopar
profound linguistic utterance
> On Mon, 08 May 2006 21:01:56 -0400, Alan Browne
Define "fumes".
The U.S. EPA primarily controls exhaust emissions of HC, CO,
and NoX, and lesser, emissions of substances that form acidic
compounds.
CO and NoX can be controlled by tuning the engine and
catalytic converters, among other techniques. But, HC can only
be reduced by reducing the amount of fossil fuels consumed, as
well as anything else with a carbon base (which is
/everything/ that grows on Earth, so if you could burn liquid
fish, they would also emit HC).
Hence the term "Hydro Carbons" for HC.
So, iffn ya burns more gallons of E-85, which ordinarily you
would as it is less efficient on a gallons/100 miles basis,
you /will/ emit more HC.
Incidently, as is well-known, trees absorb CO2 and emit O2.
Less well-known is that anything green emits far more Nox than
do all the cars in the world. So, if you want to reduce smog,
cut down all the trees and bushes.
All Things Mopar
profound linguistic utterance
> On Mon, 08 May 2006 21:01:56 -0400, Alan Browne
Which it isn't.
That is correct. The only thing "renewable" is the fields of
corn. The burned corn (plus oil) "recycles" back through rain as
all of it not converted to heat energy to run the engine goes
out the exhaust pipe. As to doing the same thing over and over
again, read this:
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and
expecting different results". - Albert Einstein
It applies to computers and cameras, also. <grin>
David Dyer-Bennet
> "Joe Bleaux" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message > Try 25-30% less mileage
> (the Energy Dept. estimates 40% less mileage).
> > Recent reports cite ethanol prices being more expensive than gasoline,
> > but even if ethanol were selling for a cheaper price than gas it's still
> > more expensive when you figure in the tremendous drop in fuel
> > efficiency.
>
> Of course. There are few liquids that contain as much energy per pound than
> gasoline. - That isn't the point. The point is we are running out of
> gasoline. It will have really lousy efficiency when we don't have any more
> of it. This will happen by 2050. Then what do you suggest we do?
We were going to be out of gas by *now* according to what people were
saying when I was in college. Doesn't seem to have happened -- in
fact prices have hardly climbed (adjusted for inflation).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
John McWilliams
a.m.....
You're right; the garbage can was whimsical, even obtuse. Perhaps we'll
be able to make particle board or cloth out of such when we run out of
trees, cotton and synthetics made from oil stocks.
--
John McWilliams
John McWilliams
>
> What I think is hilarious about corn gas is that it is
> negatively efficient, meaning it takes more energy to produce
> it than is saved.
Well,have you some number to demonstrate this?
> ....does include the tax breaks. If you now assume gas at the
> current $3/gal (about), this same Prius would need to be
> driven 35,000 miles/year to break-even in the same 6 years.
>
> Mindless insanity.
On grounds of pure economics, yes. But some folks like to think they're
helping get away from big oil, whether they are or not. Others do it for
the environment, whether there's a net benefit or not, or merely
transferred from one place to another. Others may feel they are somehow
"sticking it to the man", etc, etc. I am not among these fine people;
just showing that not all uneconomic decisions are insane.
--
John McWilliams
Rusty Shakleford
> Now there's an idea! - The two products could be made in the same factory
by
> the same corporation, and from the same crop! One building will distill the
> alcohol, and the other will make the diesel fuel...........
>
>
They could make corn meal too.
Then all you need is a good fishing lake and have some great Friday night
parties.
Someone needs to tell Willie Nelson about this, You could hide some
sensimilla between the corn rows, I know Willie would get on board for that.
William Graham
"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:87mzdrg...@gw.dd-b.net...
> "William Graham" <we...@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> "Joe Bleaux" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message > Try 25-30% less mileage
>> (the Energy Dept. estimates 40% less mileage).
>> > Recent reports cite ethanol prices being more expensive than gasoline,
>> > but even if ethanol were selling for a cheaper price than gas it's
>> > still
>> > more expensive when you figure in the tremendous drop in fuel
>> > efficiency.
>>
>> Of course. There are few liquids that contain as much energy per pound
>> than
>> gasoline. - That isn't the point. The point is we are running out of
>> gasoline. It will have really lousy efficiency when we don't have any
>> more
>> of it. This will happen by 2050. Then what do you suggest we do?
>
> We were going to be out of gas by *now* according to what people were
> saying when I was in college. Doesn't seem to have happened -- in
> fact prices have hardly climbed (adjusted for inflation).
Nevertheless, you must know that it can't last forever. At some point we
will run out of it. As a matter of fact, when the price of using gasoline
for transportation becomes more expensive per mile traveled than some other
fuel, that's the point when we are, "out of it", for all practical
purposes. And somewhere south of $100 a barrel, that will become the case. I
believe that will happen during the next 10 years, so if I were shopping for
a new car today, I would be looking for one that can burn ethanol, or a
diesel that can burn salad oil.
William Graham
"Rusty Shakleford" <da...@gribble.com> wrote in message
news:e3qoqt$ko$1...@news.netins.net...
From what I know of Willie, he's already got stock in the ethanol
factory......
William Graham
"All Things Mopar" <nono...@beez.wax> wrote in message
news:Xns97BE5D13BECE...@216.196.97.131...
manufacturer the widgets that you sell. Now, lets say that when you bought
the factory, there was a warehouse full of widgets that the former owner had
made, but stockpiled without selling. As long as you are selling those from
the warehouse, you will be making a healthy profit, and you won't have a
care in the world. but, sooner or later, your warehouse stock will be
depleted. At that point, you will have to make your widgets, and if you
can't do that competitively, you will go out of business.
This is why gasoline is so, "efficient". It already exists in the
warehouse. There is no way you can compete with that. Making ethanol won't
do it, because you have to MAKE the ethanol. But at least you CAN make
ethanol. When the warehouse full of crude oil dries up, you will have a hell
of a time making gasoline, and, at that point, the ethanol business will
look pretty good.
William Graham
"Bill Funk" <Big...@there.com> wrote in message
news:r7b162p3sq2ljol7o...@4ax.com...
But this is a minor problem....You will just have to vent your gas tank
differently than it is with gasoline....Think of the problem you would have
if you had to carry liquid hydrogen around with you. Now there's a real tank
ventilation problem...:^)
All Things Mopar
profound linguistic utterance
> All Things Mopar wrote:
>>
>> What I think is hilarious about corn gas is that it is
>> negatively efficient, meaning it takes more energy to
>> produce it than is saved.
>
> Well,have you some number to demonstrate this?
"Google" (and the EPA) are your best friends"
>> ....does include the tax breaks. If you now assume gas at
>> the current $3/gal (about), this same Prius would need to
>> be driven 35,000 miles/year to break-even in the same 6
>> years.
>>
>> Mindless insanity.
>
> On grounds of pure economics, yes. But some folks like to
> think they're helping get away from big oil, whether they
> are or not. Others do it for the environment, whether
> there's a net benefit or not, or merely transferred from
> one place to another. Others may feel they are somehow
> "sticking it to the man", etc, etc. I am not among these
> fine people; just showing that not all uneconomic decisions
> are insane.
On /any/ grounds! I suppose you're now going to tell me that
it is important to be green, particularly when green stuff
itself contributes to air pollution?
That is to laugh - more.
All Things Mopar
profound linguistic utterance
> You are missing something.
Nope.
If you have a widget factory,
> you have to manufacturer the widgets that you sell. Now,
> lets say that when you bought the factory, there was a
> warehouse full of widgets that the former owner had made,
> but stockpiled without selling. As long as you are selling
> those from the warehouse, you will be making a healthy
> profit, and you won't have a care in the world. but, sooner
> or later, your warehouse stock will be depleted. At that
> point, you will have to make your widgets, and if you can't
> do that competitively, you will go out of business.
> This is why gasoline is so, "efficient". It already
> exists in the
> warehouse. There is no way you can compete with that.
> Making ethanol won't do it, because you have to MAKE the
> ethanol. But at least you CAN make ethanol. When the
> warehouse full of crude oil dries up, you will have a hell
> of a time making gasoline, and, at that point, the ethanol
> business will look pretty good.
>
I am not advocating the use of ever more oil that is purchased
from lunatic countries, just pointing out that E-85 costs more
in dollars, polution, and greenhouse emissions than it saves,
no matter how many times farmers sow corn. About the only
thing that makes /less/ sense is to pay the same farmer's
/not/ to grow corn in order to prop up the price!
But, the real key to the absurdity of your "defense" in in
your own words, one doesn't find ethanol in the ground, one
"makes" it, and making things costs resouces, albeit not the
same ones. But, if the ethanol factories are burning fossil
fuels, using power from nuclear powerplants, or even dirty
coal-powered plants, aren't they themselves spewing polution?
Yes.
E-85 is a booming business being foisted on a gullible public
by a president who thinks that $150M is a significant impact
on alternative energy, when the real number is closer to $15-
20 /billion/.
William Graham
"All Things Mopar" <nono...@beez.wax> wrote in message
But there is a difference between the energy supplied to a stationary
factory, and that supplied to a moving vehicle. Sure, you are going to have
to supply your ethanol factory with power to make the ethanol. It will
require more power to make it than you will get back out of it when you burn
it in your automobile engine. You may have to use coal, or nuclear power to
get the energy you need to make the ethanol. - I don't know anyone who
denies that. There is no way you can get something for nothing, unless you
have a warehouse full of reserves. With crude oil and gasoline, that's just
what you do have. A warehouse full of the raw materials you need to make
your gasoline. Once those have run out, then you've got a problem. You have
to come up with the next cheapest way of making a transportable fuel that
will drive your moving vehicles. You can build electric vehicles, and run
them on either batteries, or copper buried in the roads. You can build steam
powered vehicles, and run them on burning coal. Or you can grow corn and
make ethanol, which will burn in most of the automobile engines being
produced today, even as we speak. - Of these three possibilities, I think
ethanol is the best hope for the near future. Eventually, I think the
electric car, running on power delivered to it via copper in the roads will
be the better, albeit long term solution.