Berkeley Ethanol Study Stirs Controversy
Mike Ackerman
for the uninitiated:
http://www.evworld.com/databases/shownews.cfm?pageid=news080603-01 .
Some excerpts: "The ethanol industry sharply rebuked a study by
University of California, Berkeley freshmen concluding it takes more
energy to produce ethanol than the amount of petroleum saved when the
additive is combined with gasoline."
"Patzek said he received two angry phone calls from Washington, D.C., on
Friday, the day after the study was released. The callers demanded to
know the source of his funding."
"The student report concludes it takes the equivalent of 4.93 gallons of
gasoline to produce an energy output of 1.74 gallons. That's a net loss
of 65 percent, the students said."
Mike Ackerman
Kyler Laird
>The information in this story is no surprise, but it's an amusing read
>for the uninitiated:
But is the report true? I am often told that it no longer takes
more petroleum to create the equivalent amount of ethanol (in
today's economic environment). I'd like to see the report
checked by someone other than the Renewable Fuels Association.
Note that even with my assumption that it now takes more
petroleum to create ethanol than the equivalent it yields, I
still like ethanol because it *can* be created without much
(or any?) petroleum. I just want to know the truth about the
current situation.
Thank you.
--kyler
Don Lancaster
Ethanol is simply an outrageous twelve billion dollar vote buying scam.
It is in no way renewable or sustainable under US farm conditions.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Don Lancaster
> I
> still like ethanol because it *can* be created without much
> (or any?) petroleum.
>
>
> --kyler
Brazil nearly bankrupted themselves over this absurd notion.
robert luis rabello
Mike Ackerman wrote:
> "Patzek said he received two angry phone calls from Washington, D.C., on
> Friday, the day after the study was released. The callers demanded to
> know the source of his funding."
>
> "The student report concludes it takes the equivalent of 4.93 gallons of
> gasoline to produce an energy output of 1.74 gallons. That's a net loss
> of 65 percent, the students said."
>
Quoting Pimental, no doubt!
robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.1stbooks.com/bookview/9782
Tim Worstall
I thought it was interesting....trade association meets science
almost.
However, could someone clear something up for me ?
Are the Berkely students saying it takes more gasoline to produce the
ethanol that replaqces gasoline, or are they saying that it takes more
energy to produce the ethanol than it replaces ?
It seems to vary between the two views over the piece.
If it's the first, then of course the use of ethanol is absurd (
although even then it might have use in place of lead or MTBE as an
anti knocking addition ).
If it's the second, then I'm not so sure. We don't comaplain when a
field of wheat uses more energy to grow than we can produce from
eating it......using more of one form of energy to get a smaller
amount in a more useful form isn't on the face of it absurd.
Tim Worstall
Eric Swanson
From the news article, I think they were looking strictly at energy.
That energy was probably derived from several sources, including the
natural gas to make fertilizers, oil in the form of diesel fuel and
gasoline for the farmers and coal to make electricity used at different
places in the entire process chain. Most of the primary energy sources
would appear to be fossil fuel, although some electricity might be generated
by hydro or nuclear plants.
On the other side of the coin, the report suggests that the study looked at
ethanol produced from corn. There are other plant sources available and
other intermediate processes which might produce the ethanol, however,
these are not what is contemplated with the current mandate to produce
ethanol. Don Lancaster's previous post is close to the mark on this.
I think the conclusion is that the use of corn based ethanol is NOT a way
to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. Thus, using ethanol wouldn't
reduce the CO2 released into the atmosphere, either. This would be true
even if the numbers calculated by the students were off by a factor of 2....
David Pimentel's analysis has been around for many years.
See: http://www.unisci.com/stories/20013/0813012.htm
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,46045,00.html
And: http://www.hubbertpeak.com/pimentel/
Note that the hubbetpeak site has several articles on the coming peak of
world oil production.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_sw...@skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Don Lancaster
The primary on-the-books energy inputs to most US farm crops are water
and diesel fuel.
Water often requires pumping which also takes diesel fuel.
Avocados, for instance, are manufactured directly from diesel fuel.
Mike Ackerman
Don Lancaster wrote:
> Mike Ackerman wrote:
> >
> > The information in this story is no surprise, but it's an amusing read
> > for the uninitiated:
> > http://www.evworld.com/databases/shownews.cfm?pageid=news080603-01
> Ethanol is simply an outrageous twelve billion dollar vote buying scam.
> It is in no way renewable or sustainable under US farm conditions.
>
Of course, the other big use of ethanol is as a fuel additive to reduce
pollution. But the Sierra Club now opposes Ethanol and MTBE additives:
http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/factsheets/mtbe.asp
"2. The Clean Air Act should be modified to remove the
current oxygenate requirement in RFG and oxy fuels.
"Discussion: In older vehicles, the addition of an oxygenate
promoted more complete combustion and lower air
emissions. Over the last twenty years substantial
improvement in combustion technology and emissions
controls have been introduced incremental phases. Since
the 1994 model year all vehicles are required to have
optimized combustion to an extent that oxygenates have
negligible effects."
Mike Ackerman
Robert Cohen
re: ethanol
if "they" can invent or develop or un-suppress a machine or motor or engine
for a vehicle that competitively-efficiently exploits ethanol (or any other
non-petroleum derivative), then would "they" really do so?
what i am implying in my rhetorical question is that our
financial-economic-political culture is dependent upon petroleum (the "petrol
dollar") paradigm
hydrogen is 10-20 years away
it is perceived, guessed, felt, and suspected that MASSIVE alternatives to
peteroleum have been stymied since Henry Ford's gasolene engine was lauded by
Thomas Edison who had up to then reportedly been pushing an electric engine
one suspects that alternatives have been repressed-suppressed, bought-out,
shut-down, not funded, have little political influence
one suspects that an elaborate "lie" has been
perpetuated since (perhaps) the "steamer car" was "obsoleted," "outlawed,"
"suppressed," and that we exist in a lewis carroll absurdity by becoming so
dependent on oil that we cannot get out without trashing our economic selves
Robert Cohen
i meant that paranoiac booger to go to an email of an individual , but what the
hell
Iconoclast
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:3EE4D64F...@tinaja.com...
>
> The primary on-the-books energy inputs to most US farm crops are water
> and diesel fuel.
> Water often requires pumping which also takes diesel fuel.
>
> Avocados, for instance, are manufactured directly from diesel fuel.
>
>
> --
> Many thanks,
>
> Don Lancaster
> Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
> voice: (928)428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462
>
> Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Avacados have a couple of other important ingredients, beans and tortillas.
Of course the tortillas like ethanol are made from diesel.
Iconoclast
Mike Ackerman
Robert Cohen wrote:
You don't need to look for technological solutions because this is not a
technological problem; it is a political problem. Induce employers to provide
affordable housing within walking distance Tax fuel as if it were a prescious
resource.
Mike Ackerman
Kyler Laird
>Kyler Laird wrote:
>> I
>> still like ethanol because it *can* be created without much
>> (or any?) petroleum.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> --kyler
>Brazil nearly bankrupted themselves over this absurd notion.
Are you saying ethanol can't be produced without petroleum or
are you just dragging my quote along on some tangent you've
created?
--kyler
fkasner
Don Lancaster wrote:
> Kyler Laird wrote:
>
>>I
>>still like ethanol because it *can* be created without much
>>(or any?) petroleum.
>>
>>Thank you.
>>
>>--kyler
>
>
> Brazil nearly bankrupted themselves over this absurd notion.
>
Quite right, Don. They had gotten to the point where 85% of their ICE
fleet (public and private) was running on ethanol. And the economic
disaster was abundantly clear. It is just too expensive to use partially
preburned hydrocarbons as fuel.
FK
fkasner
I know that you must be true because the tooth fairy vouches for you.
FK
Don Lancaster
Interestingly enough, a significant cause of the demise of the steam
cars was hoof and mouth disease.
Just at the time that gas engine auto manufacturers were discovering
economics of scale of an inferior product, all of the public
horsetroughs were drained.
Steam has advantages of all power strokes, zero speed torque,
reversibility, and minimal transmission and accessory needs.
Corrosion, safety, rapid starts, and vapor recycling have yet to be
properly addressed.
Don Lancaster
It is exceptionally unlikely that ethanol can be produced without
petroleum except under bizarre subsistance conditions. Even then the
only candidate crop appears to be bagasse.
Virtually all of these programs to date are monumental failures.
Turns out the natives would rather drink the rum.
See various papers in Biomass and Bioenergy.
Don Libby
>
> Mike Ackerman <macker...@mailpuppy.com> writes:
>
> >The information in this story is no surprise, but it's an amusing read
> >for the uninitiated:
>
> But is the report true? I am often told that it no longer takes
> more petroleum to create the equivalent amount of ethanol (in
> today's economic environment). I'd like to see the report
> checked by someone other than the Renewable Fuels Association.
1) How is sunshine accounted for?
2) What enzymes are used in the conversion?
3) David Pimentel is an entomologist (bug doctor), not an
engineer: does his opinion count? (Why?)
-dl
Josh Halpern
robert luis rabello wrote:
>Mike Ackerman wrote:
>
>
>
>>"Patzek said he received two angry phone calls from Washington, D.C., on
>>Friday, the day after the study was released. The callers demanded to
>>know the source of his funding."
>>
>>"The student report concludes it takes the equivalent of 4.93 gallons of
>>gasoline to produce an energy output of 1.74 gallons. That's a net loss
>>of 65 percent, the students said."
>>
>>
> Quoting Pimental, no doubt!
>
Let's see Pimentel passed in 89......I doubt he has been giving out a
lot of quotes.
josh halpern
Ian St. John
This is something of a false argument. The primary economic driver for E10
fuel is not the emissions reduction but the ability of Ethanol as an octane
booster, replacing a relatively expensive cracking and synthesis of
polycyclical aromatics that are otherwise used to get the required octane
upgrade. This takes refinery capacity that cuts down on both profits and
maximum production and it should be noted that the refinery capacity is
critical and can lead to massive increases in prices with even minor
shortfalls as every long weekend shows.
Besides, the polycylical aromatics used to upgrade base stock in the absense
of ethanol are relatively toxic and contribute to adverse health effects.
Mike Ackerman
> "Mike Ackerman" wrote
>
> > Of course, the other big use of ethanol is as a fuel additive to reduce
> > pollution. But the Sierra Club now opposes Ethanol and MTBE additives:
> > http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/factsheets/mtbe.asp
> >
> > "2. The Clean Air Act should be modified to remove the
> > current oxygenate requirement in RFG and oxy fuels.
> >
> > "Discussion: In older vehicles, the addition of an oxygenate
> > promoted more complete combustion and lower air
> > emissions. Over the last twenty years substantial
> > improvement in combustion technology and emissions
> > controls have been introduced incremental phases. Since
> > the 1994 model year all vehicles are required to have
> > optimized combustion to an extent that oxygenates have
> > negligible effects."
>
> This is something of a false argument. The primary economic driver for E10
> fuel is not the emissions reduction but the ability of Ethanol as an octane
> booster, replacing a relatively expensive cracking and synthesis of
> polycyclical aromatics that are otherwise used to get the required octane
> upgrade. This takes refinery capacity that cuts down on both profits and
> maximum production and it should be noted that the refinery capacity is
> critical and can lead to massive increases in prices with even minor
> shortfalls as every long weekend shows.
>
> Besides, the polycylical aromatics used to upgrade base stock in the absense
> of ethanol are relatively toxic and contribute to adverse health effects.
If Ethanol is a cheap way for refiners to boost octane, then I'm all for it.
But the US Clean Air Act's requirement that gasoline contain two percent oxygen
has nothing to do with octane.
Mike Ackerman
Ian St. John
I find the following reports more professional and on balance more credible.
http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/pdfs/energy_balance_report_final_R1.PDF
http://www.carbohydrateeconomy.org/library/admin/uploadedfiles/How_Much_Ener
gy_Does_it_Take_to_Make_a_Gallon_.html
Ian St. John
> "Ian St. John" wrote:
>
> > "Mike Ackerman" wrote
> > Besides, the polycylical aromatics used to upgrade base stock in the
absense
> > of ethanol are relatively toxic and contribute to adverse health
effects.
>
> If Ethanol is a cheap way for refiners to boost octane, then I'm all for
it.
As I said, I think that this is one advantage and the freeing up of scarce
refinery capacity for profitable output is the other.
> But the US Clean Air Act's requirement that gasoline contain two percent
oxygen
> has nothing to do with octane.
Think of it as "collateral advantage".
Steve Spence
at 100% and not use oil for transport. That student should get an F for not
being able to read data points.
--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:JWgFa.4940$Gm4.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Mike Ackerman
screwed up. You need read no further than the abstract to find out that
they've made basic math errors. Here's the page with the abstract, and a
link to the full PDF report:
http://128.32.143.199/papers/patzek/EthanolFromCorn.htm
Have fun finding errors. But please be kind. Remember, these are college
freshmen.
Mike Ackerman
Steve Spence
liquid fuels are not his area of expertise. No wonder education is going
down hill. It doesn't matter if you are accurate, just that you tried your
best. Here is your "A" .........
--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Mike Ackerman" <macker...@mailpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:3EE5ADEC...@mailpuppy.com...
robert luis rabello
Josh Halpern wrote:
> > Quoting Pimental, no doubt!
> >
> Let's see Pimentel passed in 89......I doubt he has been giving out a
> lot of quotes.
>
> josh halpern
Just because somebody has died doesn't mean that his work cannot be
quoted. "I think, therefore I am" was written a LONG time ago, but I can
still quote it, right?
Pimentel relied on old technology and poor accounting in coming up with
his "ethanol consumes more energy than is created in its production" thesis.
Every few months we rehash the same old arguments about ethanol, and Brasil is
touted as a wonderful example of its failure. What I find particularly
laughable about this, is that the people who claim Brasillian ethanol "ruined"
the economy down there have never spent time in the country and know very
little about the political realities in Latin America.
Big Ethanol is no better than Big Oil.
Kyler Laird
>> >> I
>> >> still like ethanol because it *can* be created without much
>> >> (or any?) petroleum.
>> >Brazil nearly bankrupted themselves over this absurd notion.
>>
>> Are you saying ethanol can't be produced without petroleum or
>> are you just dragging my quote along on some tangent you've
>> created?
>It is exceptionally unlikely that ethanol can be produced without
>petroleum except under bizarre subsistance conditions.
O.k., so you agree that it certainly can be created without using
any petroleum, correct?
If you want to take off on some tangent about "absurd notions" of
economic viability, please don't pretend that you're responding to
something I wrote.
--kyler
Fred B. McGalliard
> Avocados, for instance, are manufactured directly from diesel fuel.
Funny, mine don't taste of it. Are you sure you are getting "good" Avocados?
Fred B. McGalliard
...
> Steam has advantages of all power strokes, zero speed torque,
> reversibility, and minimal transmission and accessory needs.
>
> Corrosion, safety, rapid starts, and vapor recycling have yet to be
> properly addressed.
This is a strong understatement. They have all been addressed. High cost
materials do not corrode. Flame tube boilers do not have enough stored
energy to be a safety danger, and do address rapid start. Vapor recycling
requires a large radiator. When all this is combined, you get a hell of a
machine, but it is expensive, large, heavy, and relatively inefficient,
compared to it's rival.
Fred B. McGalliard
"Steve Spence" <ssp...@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:3ee5a831_3@newsfeed...
> 2% today, 10% in 6 years, 50% in 20, who knows, maybe in 50 years we can
be
> at 100% and not use oil for transport. That student should get an F for
not
> being able to read data points.
One data point I vaguely recall is that something over 10% ethanol results
in an increased tendency of the fuel to absorb water and separate. I am not
sure much increase in the mix is practical.
Don Lancaster
> >petroleum except under bizarre subsistance conditions.
>
> O.k., so you agree that it certainly can be created without using
> any petroleum, correct?
>
> --kyler
No.
Steve Spence
gasoline) water is not much of an issue. We have run 160 proof alcohol with
no problems. FFV vehicles are designed for E85, and have dealt with the
water issues.
--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Fred B. McGalliard" <frederick.b...@boeing.com> wrote in message
news:HG9ss...@news.boeing.com...
Mike Ackerman
Note that the US Clean Air Act requires 2% oxygen, not ethanol. And regarding
ethanol's ability to boost octane, recall that when it was leaded, "regular"
gasoline was 89 octane. Now "regular unleaded" is 87 octane, so car engines
are built with lower compression ratios and --lower efficiency--.
Mike Ackerman
Eric Swanson
After looking thru only half of it, I can see several errors.
Like, they claim that burning the corn derived ethanol increases atmospheric
CO2, while, infact the carbon in the ethanol was gathered from the air by
teh plants, thus burning it adds no extra CO2 However, they may still be correct
about the net energy analysis, which indicates more fossil fuel used to produce
the corn than is available in the resulting ethanol fuel.
Including the solar energy inputs is correct from an energetics point of view,
but will confuse people who think the sun is a free good.....
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_sw...@skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Spence
The whole thing is garbage. Good catch on the CO2 issue. Any time you burn a
organic that is replenishable as you use it, you are carbon neutral. This is
the sermon we have been preaching about vegetable oil as a replacement for
diesel fuel for years.
--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote in message
news:bc5cm3$cr5t$1...@news3.infoave.net...
Robert Cohen
please indulge & allow a horsefly/gadfly amateur to hypothesize and speculate
regarding efficiency:
efficiency as such is not the goal in over-coming the @#$%^&*()_+ tragic
dependence upon oil
as i previously paranoically, unprivately claimed:
the catch 22 is that the world's--including our--economy goes to hell if the
demand for oil & gasolene dries-up; and, for instance, trillions in petro
dollars in bonds, securities, and banks are liquidated & withdrawn causing
discombobulation & panic
Besides the jihads, Russia & Mexico & Venezuela & Norway & maybe Britain
amongst others are dependent upon petrol revenues
but, meanwhile, between vous & moi, if a heavier, steam-powered vehicle
requires more manufacturing materials, metals, whatever--though is neither
sleek nor cute & nor aero-dynamic
but the ugly, clumsy contraption's engine itself burns relatively clean (and is
substantially less polluting than the usual gasolene & diesel engine polluting
emissions),
plus provides a fairly safe, comfortable ride, though maybe doesn't go over
50-60 miles per hour,
then as an angry, irrational dictator, i would declare that 7/24/365 assembly
lines churn the f'ing things out by the gazillions and encourage the consumers
to consume 'em with marketing propaganda, sermons, and incentives
the internal combustion engine would eventually become obsoleted
but--and this has been my point of view, for perhaps 30 years--we as a
rational, pragmatic political-economic culture are inter-dependent with the
petroleum way of life or model
an analogy would be the nuclear power & coal industries
if solar were REALLY massively implemented, then utility stocks and bonds would
become worth much less
and, therefore, via withdrawal cold turkey, our society collapses into chaos,
depression, and no telling what
IT'S ABOUT CATCH 22 & ALICE IN WONDERLAND,
DAMED IF WE CONTINUE OIL INTER-DEPENDENCE, & DAMNED IF WE DON'T
Eric Swanson
>
>They are incorrect about a good many things, including the energy balance.
>The whole thing is garbage. Good catch on the CO2 issue. Any time you burn a
>organic that is replenishable as you use it, you are carbon neutral. This is
>the sermon we have been preaching about vegetable oil as a replacement for
>diesel fuel for years.
>--
>Steve Spence
The same would be true for home grown corn cultivated by mule and run thru a
a wood fired still. Make some 190 proof stuff, change the jets in your carb
ane away you go. Or, just pour it into your Ford dual fuel Taurus.
Your biodiesel is NOT completely free of fossil fuels.
When you add fossil fuel for cultivation, fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides,
etc, in a large scale industrial operation, things look different. In large scale,
there will still be the need for inputs from fossil sources, at least for a while,
until the entire system is revised to use ONLY biodiesel.
Now, go back and calculate the land area required to cultivate the crops for the
change to occur....
Ian St. John
> Steve Spence wrote:
<snip>
>
> Note that the US Clean Air Act requires 2% oxygen, not ethanol. And
regarding
> ethanol's ability to boost octane, recall that when it was leaded,
"regular"
> gasoline was 89 octane. Now "regular unleaded" is 87 octane, so car
engines
> are built with lower compression ratios and --lower efficiency--.
So? They get 87 octane from 84 octane stock ( ethanol gives you about 3
octane points ). Upgrade the base gasoline stock to 86 octane and you could
just as easily get an E10 89 octane. But I think you are wrong about
'regular' being 87 octane. I think that was the step just above regular.
Steve Spence
frying with it. Commercial biodiesel usually comes from a combination of
used and virgin oil, and can come from plants that do not need fertilizers
and pesticides. the waste oil is sufficient to run the tractors making new
oil until the whole system is weaned off diesel. We have calculated the land
requirements, and we can make a significant dent in diesel usage (20% or
more) using existing farm land. Keep in mind that growing an oil crop does
not mean that oil is the only byproduct. food and fuel are co-products of
the same crop for many oil producing plants. corn can produce biodiesel,
ethanol, and animal feed from the same bushel.
--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote in message
news:bc5oe5$d15k$1...@news3.infoave.net...
Ian St. John
> my biodiesel comes from waste vegetable oil after the restaurants are done
> frying with it. Commercial biodiesel usually comes from a combination of
> used and virgin oil, and can come from plants that do not need fertilizers
> and pesticides. the waste oil is sufficient to run the tractors making new
> oil until the whole system is weaned off diesel. We have calculated the
land
> requirements, and we can make a significant dent in diesel usage (20% or
> more) using existing farm land. Keep in mind that growing an oil crop does
> not mean that oil is the only byproduct. food and fuel are co-products of
> the same crop for many oil producing plants. corn can produce biodiesel,
> ethanol, and animal feed from the same bushel.
Oil can be the majority. Oil palms, and jojoba come to mind. Jojoba can use
land that is unproductive for other purposes. The relative yields can be
examined at http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html Corn oil, of
course, is low as it has low oil content so it is not assessed on it's use
for ethanol production. The coproduction should be considered but the huge
variation in yield is the major point. Oil palms, for example, have five
times the output of oil seeds such as rape.
Eric Swanson
>
>my biodiesel comes from waste vegetable oil after the restaurants are done
>frying with it. Commercial biodiesel usually comes from a combination of
>used and virgin oil, and can come from plants that do not need fertilizers
>and pesticides. the waste oil is sufficient to run the tractors making new
>oil until the whole system is weaned off diesel. We have calculated the land
>requirements, and we can make a significant dent in diesel usage (20% or
>more) using existing farm land. Keep in mind that growing an oil crop does
>not mean that oil is the only byproduct. food and fuel are co-products of
>the same crop for many oil producing plants. corn can produce biodiesel,
>ethanol, and animal feed from the same bushel.
Diesel isn't gasoline. I think you should consider the impact of replacing
ALL the transportation fuels. You only mention replacing a small fraction
(20%) of diesel fuel with bio-diesel. And, what fraction of crop land acreage
would even this small fraction require.
I looked at an earlier post about the processing of waste fry oil and I note
that there was a considerable input of lye and methanol. Also, there is a waste
stream (glycerin, about 15% of initial quantity) after separation. Have you
included those in your calculations?
Roland Paterson-Jones
> Note that the US Clean Air Act requires 2% oxygen, not ethanol. And
regarding
> ethanol's ability to boost octane, recall that when it was leaded,
"regular"
> gasoline was 89 octane. Now "regular unleaded" is 87 octane, so car
engines
> are built with lower compression ratios and --lower efficiency--.
Does the US Clean Air Act really dictate the fuel?
Surely the crucial factor is the emissions?
Roland
--
Roland and Lisa Paterson-Jones
Forest Lodge, Stirrup Lane, Hout Bay
http://www.rolandpj.com/forest-lodge
mobile: +27 72 386 8045
e-mail: forest...@rolandpj.com
Roland Paterson-Jones
Roland
--
Roland and Lisa Paterson-Jones
Forest Lodge, Stirrup Lane, Hout Bay
http://www.rolandpj.com/forest-lodge
mobile: +27 72 386 8045
e-mail: forest...@rolandpj.com
"Fred B. McGalliard" <frederick.b...@boeing.com> wrote in message
news:HG9sK...@news.boeing.com...
Mike Ackerman
Roland Paterson-Jones wrote:
>
> "Mike Ackerman" <macker...@mailpuppy.com> wrote in message
> news:3EE622ED...@mailpuppy.com...
>
> > Note that the US Clean Air Act requires 2% oxygen, not ethanol. And
> regarding
> > ethanol's ability to boost octane, recall that when it was leaded,
> "regular"
> > gasoline was 89 octane. Now "regular unleaded" is 87 octane, so car
> engines
> > are built with lower compression ratios and --lower efficiency--.
>
> Does the US Clean Air Act really dictate the fuel?
>
> Surely the crucial factor is the emissions?
>
Oh, you can verify the 2% oxygen figure easily. They've fiddled with it
a bit over the years.
Mike Ackerman
Mike Ackerman
I think you're right about the octane of "regular" gas, leaded or
unleaded. What I should have said was that oxygenated fuel contains
less energy than non-oxygenated fuel.
Mike Ackerman
Ian St. John
>
>
> "Ian St. John" wrote:
> >
> > "Mike Ackerman" <macker...@mailpuppy.com> wrote in message
> > news:3EE622ED...@mailpuppy.com...
> >
> > So? They get 87 octane from 84 octane stock ( ethanol gives you about 3
> > octane points ). Upgrade the base gasoline stock to 86 octane and you
could
> > just as easily get an E10 89 octane. But I think you are wrong about
> > 'regular' being 87 octane. I think that was the step just above regular.
>
> I think you're right about the octane of "regular" gas, leaded or
> unleaded. What I should have said was that oxygenated fuel contains
> less energy than non-oxygenated fuel.
True, to a degree. The ethanol has about 2/3rds of the energy content of
gasoline, however if you consider the 'whole package' in terms of a straight
84 octane fuel vs an E10 87 octane fuel you find that the reduction in
energy content is only about 10% of .333 or 3.3% and this is partly or fully
recovered by improving the compression ratio for the combustion. In older
engines, not optimized for the E10 you get a total loss of 2%. In more
modern engines designed for E10 87 octane, you get about equal mileage.
The ethanol is cheaper to make than the polycylohexanes that are otherwise
needed to boost the octane ratio for a standard 87 octane, and the E10 is
good for clean fuel systems. I think it makes economic sense on several
levels. This does not mean that I support a purely ethanol based fuel
system. Biofuels will develop, especially biodiesel which can often use land
that has no other commercial value ( jojoba ) with high recovery rates.
Ethanol will eventually be more developed and based on agricultural waste,
not corn.
Larry Caldwell
> Diesel isn't gasoline. I think you should consider the impact of replacing
> ALL the transportation fuels. You only mention replacing a small fraction
> (20%) of diesel fuel with bio-diesel. And, what fraction of crop land acreage
> would even this small fraction require.
If you plan to replace all transportation fuels, you need a new energy
source. Biofuels are a flexible way of making use of solar energy, but
they will never meet 100% of the energy demands of an industrial society.
> I looked at an earlier post about the processing of waste fry oil and I note
> that there was a considerable input of lye and methanol. Also, there is a waste
> stream (glycerin, about 15% of initial quantity) after separation. Have you
> included those in your calculations?
There is some lye used. The alcohol can be ethanol or methanol. In
industrial quantities, the glycerine is not waste, it is a byproduct, in
the same way that corn fermented to ethanol is not waste, it is animal
feed.
Steve Spence
biodiesel. It is not necessary if you burn the veggie oil straight in your
diesel. chemistry vs. mechanics.
the glycerin waste stream can be used for soap production, or
biodigested/composted.
ethanol can replace a portion of our gasoline usage, veggie oil can replace
a portion of our diesel and home heating oil usage.
see http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm
--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Larry Caldwell" <lar...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1951d658b...@newstest2.earthlink.net...
Steve Spence
are only required for biodiesel, a fuel for non modified diesels. vegetable
oil, with no inputs, can be used in modified diesels (you have to heat the
vegetable oil). the waste stream as you call it can be turned into soap and
degreasing products. we use it for parts cleaning and hand degreaser.
Using waste and new vegetable oil, I believe we may eventually be able to
eliminate fossil diesel and home heating oil. Using ethanol and biomethane,
I believe we may eventually be able to eliminate gasoline.
solar, hydro and wind (and nuke, sigh) can be the significant sources of
electric for transportation and industry. EV's make sense for in-community
transportation, diesel or ethanol hybrids for longer voyages.
It's hard to tell, my crystal ball is cloudy today. must be smog ........
--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote in message
news:bc7pl6$e1m7$1...@news3.infoave.net...
Proton Soup
<ssp...@green-trust.org> wrote:
>lye and methanol is only necessary if you convert the vegetable oil to
>biodiesel. It is not necessary if you burn the veggie oil straight in your
>diesel. chemistry vs. mechanics.
>
>the glycerin waste stream can be used for soap production, or
>biodigested/composted.
>
>ethanol can replace a portion of our gasoline usage, veggie oil can replace
>a portion of our diesel and home heating oil usage.
>
>see http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm
Do you realize how nasty a city would become after years of folks
zipping around in their fry-oil powered VW busses? You won't get a
perfect burn, and all that unburnt oil will coat buildings, signs,
everything, in a sticky slime. Yuck. That's just nasty.
It's OK to run on your farm, but whatever you do, don't come into
town.
Steve Spence
particulates and unburned particles are greatly reduced over dino diesel
(over 80%). No carcinogens, no black smoke, no greenhouse gases, etc.
here is an easy test. take two diesel auto's. run one on veggie oil, the
other on diesel. put your hand over the exhaust pipe for two minutes, and
tell me which one you'd rather have running in your city.
vw buses never had diesel engines. a few of the vanagons did, however.
please do some research and try again.
--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Proton Soup" <pro...@soup.org> wrote in message
news:v5bhevo5efg8q3vdf...@4ax.com...
Proton Soup
<ssp...@green-trust.org> wrote:
>too bad you don't know anything about burning vegetable oil in a diesel. The
>particulates and unburned particles are greatly reduced over dino diesel
>(over 80%). No carcinogens, no black smoke, no greenhouse gases, etc.
>
>here is an easy test. take two diesel auto's. run one on veggie oil, the
>other on diesel. put your hand over the exhaust pipe for two minutes, and
>tell me which one you'd rather have running in your city.
>
>vw buses never had diesel engines. a few of the vanagons did, however.
>
>please do some research and try again.
But what is the nature of the unburnt vegetable oil emissions?
Don't you get vaporized oil in the exhaust?
Steve Spence
than the vegetable oil. may depend on your injector timing, YMMV.
--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Proton Soup" <pro...@soup.org> wrote in message
news:0sdhevkfvaf94kvp4...@4ax.com...
Steve Spence
--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:3EE4D64F...@tinaja.com...
> Tim Worstall wrote:
> >
> > Mike Ackerman <macker...@mailpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:<3EE4537E...@mailpuppy.com>...
> > > The information in this story is no surprise, but it's an amusing read
> > > for the uninitiated:
> > > http://www.evworld.com/databases/shownews.cfm?pageid=news080603-01 .
> > > Some excerpts: "The ethanol industry sharply rebuked a study by
> > > University of California, Berkeley freshmen concluding it takes more
> > > energy to produce ethanol than the amount of petroleum saved when the
> > > additive is combined with gasoline."
> > >
> > > "Patzek said he received two angry phone calls from Washington, D.C.,
on
> > > Friday, the day after the study was released. The callers demanded to
> > > know the source of his funding."
> > >
> > > "The student report concludes it takes the equivalent of 4.93 gallons
of
> > > gasoline to produce an energy output of 1.74 gallons. That's a net
loss
> > > of 65 percent, the students said."
> > >
> > > Mike Ackerman
> >
> > I thought it was interesting....trade association meets science
> > almost.
> >
> > However, could someone clear something up for me ?
> > Are the Berkely students saying it takes more gasoline to produce the
> > ethanol that replaqces gasoline, or are they saying that it takes more
> > energy to produce the ethanol than it replaces ?
> > It seems to vary between the two views over the piece.
> > If it's the first, then of course the use of ethanol is absurd (
> > although even then it might have use in place of lead or MTBE as an
> > anti knocking addition ).
> > If it's the second, then I'm not so sure. We don't comaplain when a
> > field of wheat uses more energy to grow than we can produce from
> > eating it......using more of one form of energy to get a smaller
> > amount in a more useful form isn't on the face of it absurd.
> >
> > Tim Worstall
>
> The primary on-the-books energy inputs to most US farm crops are water
> and diesel fuel.
> Water often requires pumping which also takes diesel fuel.
>
> Avocados, for instance, are manufactured directly from diesel fuel.
Tony Wesley
"Steve Spence" <ssp...@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:3ee928f1_4@newsfeed...
> "Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
> news:3EE4D64F...@tinaja.com...
> >
> > The primary on-the-books energy inputs to most US farm crops are water
> > and diesel fuel.
> > Water often requires pumping which also takes diesel fuel.
> >
> > Avocados, for instance, are manufactured directly from diesel fuel.
> You never farmed in the North East. Irrigation? LOL
Has *anyone* farmed avocados in the North East? Ever?
Say not the Struggle nought Availeth
Eric Swanson
>
>I covered the inputs (lye and methanol) in another post. lye and methanol
>are only required for biodiesel, a fuel for non modified diesels. vegetable
>oil, with no inputs, can be used in modified diesels (you have to heat the
>vegetable oil). the waste stream as you call it can be turned into soap and
>degreasing products. we use it for parts cleaning and hand degreaser.
>
>Using waste and new vegetable oil, I believe we may eventually be able to
>eliminate fossil diesel and home heating oil. Using ethanol and biomethane,
>I believe we may eventually be able to eliminate gasoline.
>
>solar, hydro and wind (and nuke, sigh) can be the significant sources of
>electric for transportation and industry. EV's make sense for in-community
>transportation, diesel or ethanol hybrids for longer voyages.
>
>It's hard to tell, my crystal ball is cloudy today. must be smog ........
Cough, choke, clear throat from constant post nasal drip, etc.....
I think you are correct that a mix of primary energy sources would be required
in order to replace the current usage of fossil fuels.
However, "Belief" doesn't cut it in a science forum.
I would still like to see your calculation of the land area required to
produce vegetable oil(s) at some percentage replacement of fuel oil
derived from crude.
You could start with a calculation of the number of gallons of oil produced
per acre of crop, on average, then subtract the fuel required to cultivate
and harvest the crop. Then subtract the fuel equivalent of the energy required
to process the plants into oil by crushing or whatever. The resulting number
would be interesting, even though I suppose you might get a credit for the food
value of the other parts of the crop.
Don Lancaster
>
>
> You could start with a calculation of the number of gallons of oil produced
> per acre of crop, on average, then subtract the fuel required to cultivate
> and harvest the crop. Then subtract the fuel equivalent of the energy required
> to process the plants into oil by crushing or whatever. The resulting number
> would be interesting, even though I suppose you might get a credit for the food
> value of the other parts of the crop.
>
> --
> Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_sw...@skybest.com :-)
> --------------------------------------------------------------
These numbers routinely appear in Elsevier's Biomass and Bioenergy.
Not much seems to be coming of them.
Eric Swanson
>
>Eric Swanson wrote:
>>
>>
>> You could start with a calculation of the number of gallons of oil produced
>> per acre of crop, on average, then subtract the fuel required to cultivate
>> and harvest the crop. Then subtract the fuel equivalent of the energy required
>> to process the plants into oil by crushing or whatever. The resulting number
>> would be interesting, even though I suppose you might get a credit for the food
>> value of the other parts of the crop.
>
>Not much seems to be coming of them.
Uh, for those of us in the real world, could you translate that into data?
Like most people, I don't/can't routinely read your reference.
It's not even available in the 3 closest state university librarys.
Don Lancaster
>
> Uh, for those of us in the real world, could you translate that into data?
> Like most people, I don't/can't routinely read your reference.
> It's not even available in the 3 closest state university librarys.
>
> --
> Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_sw...@skybest.com :-)
> --------------------------------------------------------------
Iffen yew cain't hunt with the big dawgs, stay on the porch.
Fred B. McGalliard
"Roland Paterson-Jones" <rol...@rolandpj.com> wrote in message
news:bc8f0i$prg$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> Also, water vapour is a tri-atomic gas. Entropy works against you.
I assume you are speaking of the energy consumed in vaporizing water?
Efficient steam plants heat it to around 1000 (F or C I can't recall) and at
a pressure around 1000 PSI, I think. Under these conditions it behaves more
like a perfect gas I would think. A closed cycle could be made using a
number of other gasses, or one could move to a Sterling cycle?
Fred B. McGalliard
and recycling it, is an important energy expense. Diesel is gasoline, for
all practical purposes. It would take us less than 20 years to move all our
transportation systems to diesel with almost no unique cost impact. Our jets
already run on a light diesel. The glycerin is not waste. It would be burned
for fuel as well just not in a transportation engine..
"Larry Caldwell" <lar...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1951d658b...@newstest2.earthlink.net...
Steve Spence
irrigate. Some bozo is trying soybeans here in upstate ny for biodiesel, but
corn is a proven crop.
--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Tony Wesley" <tonyn...@tonywesley.com> wrote in message
news:X4idnVV4Adx...@wideopenwest.com...
Steve Spence
>>and diesel fuel.
>>Water often requires pumping which also takes diesel fuel.
did not specify avocado's. the avocados was a example.
--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Say not the Struggle nought Availeth" <nos...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3EE95818...@nospam.net...
Eric Swanson
>
>Eric Swanson wrote:
>>
>> Uh, for those of us in the real world, could you translate that into data?
>> Like most people, I don't/can't routinely read your reference.
>> It's not even available in the 3 closest state university librarys.
>
Eric Swanson
>
>In fueling a whole country, the energy consumed in manufacturing the lye,
>and recycling it, is an important energy expense. Diesel is gasoline, for
>all practical purposes. It would take us less than 20 years to move all our
>transportation systems to diesel with almost no unique cost impact. Our jets
>already run on a light diesel. The glycerin is not waste. It would be burned
>for fuel as well just not in a transportation engine..
True, from an engineering standpoint, the switch from gasoline to diesel would
seem highly desirable, if only from the large increase in efficiency.
That's assuming that the emissions would be reduced to some acceptable level,
especially the NOx and the particulate output. I understand that diesel cars
are a large fraction of European auto sales, but they have different emission
standards than the U.S. Also, the high fuel taxes in Europe encourage the
switch to diesel. Don't forget that Clinton couldn't even get a $0.034 per
gallon increase in the gasoline tax.
Might the glycerin might make a good fuel for steam powered electric generation??
If it could be burned in combined cycle turbine/steam systems, the conversion
efficiency would be quite high.
Eric Swanson
>>
>> Uh, for those of us in the real world, could you translate that into data?
>> Like most people, I don't/can't routinely read your reference.
>> It's not even available in the 3 closest state university librarys.
>
>Iffen yew cain't hunt with the big dawgs, stay on the porch.
I was attempting to get a reply from Steve Spence about his claims regarding
biodiesel production. So far, all he has offered is handwaving.
Since I have an Engineering education, I could probably dig up the
data, if I cared to put in the time (and spend the money to travel).
What I get from you is nothing of consequence. The usenet is about
communicating information, especially in the science groups. It's
about sharing what you know with those who don't. It's not about
some arrogant airhead who thinks he has all the answers posting
bullshit, although that happens often. Just look at your reply above.
As they tell the other youngsters, if you don't have anything to say,
keep your mouth shut.
Don W.
think!"
Naaaahh, I like yours better.
Don W.
H. E. Taylor
<swanson@nospam_on.net> Eric Swanson wrote:
> In article <3EE9E0F9...@tinaja.com>, d...@tinaja.com says...
>>Eric Swanson wrote:
>>>
>>> Uh, for those of us in the real world, could you translate that into data?
>>> Like most people, I don't/can't routinely read your reference.
>>> It's not even available in the 3 closest state university librarys.
>>
>>
>>Iffen yew cain't hunt with the big dawgs, stay on the porch.
>
> I was attempting to get a reply from Steve Spence about his claims regarding
> biodiesel production. So far, all he has offered is handwaving.
> Since I have an Engineering education, I could probably dig up the
> data, if I cared to put in the time (and spend the money to travel).
>
> What I get from you is nothing of consequence. The usenet is about
> communicating information, especially in the science groups. It's
> about sharing what you know with those who don't. It's not about
> some arrogant airhead who thinks he has all the answers posting
> bullshit, although that happens often. Just look at your reply above.
>
> As they tell the other youngsters, if you don't have anything to say,
> keep your mouth shut.
>
<heh>
Welcome to the Lancaster fan club. At least he didn't offer
to sell you the information for consultant's fees which is
his usual PV gambit.
<namaste>
-het
--
"If all men were brothers, would you let one marry your sister?"
-Theodore Sturgeon (short story title)
Energy Alternatives: http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/energy.html
H.E. Taylor http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/
Teel Adams
of the protein rich cattle feed additive left over from the process; is
consider in the equaltions. Only looking at the ethanol energy content
produces one result, but it is hardly the whole mass and energy balance.
Josh Halpern
Eric Swanson wrote:
>In article <HGFDI...@news.boeing.com>, frederick.b...@boeing.com says...
>
>
>>In fueling a whole country, the energy consumed in manufacturing the lye,
>>and recycling it, is an important energy expense. Diesel is gasoline, for
>>all practical purposes. It would take us less than 20 years to move all our
>>transportation systems to diesel with almost no unique cost impact. Our jets
>>already run on a light diesel. The glycerin is not waste. It would be burned
>>for fuel as well just not in a transportation engine..
>>
>>
>
>True, from an engineering standpoint, the switch from gasoline to diesel would
>seem highly desirable, if only from the large increase in efficiency.
>That's assuming that the emissions would be reduced to some acceptable level,
>especially the NOx and the particulate output. I understand that diesel cars
>are a large fraction of European auto sales, but they have different emission
>standards than the U.S. Also, the high fuel taxes in Europe encourage the
>switch to diesel. Don't forget that Clinton couldn't even get a $0.034 per
>gallon increase in the gasoline tax.
>
Can you get only diesel and no gasoline out of the refining process?
josh halpern
Steve Spence
given these groups realworld field results for years, something you could
verify easily by doing yourself. Some thing you won't find by "digging" up
the facts. You don't even recognize them when they are offered. I've been
making biodiesel from new and used sources for over 5 years. I've been
burning used vegetable oil straight (not biodiesel) for over 3 years.
why don't you follow your own advice?
> As they tell the other youngsters, if you don't have anything to say,
> keep your mouth shut.
--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote in message
news:bccve1$jjk$4...@news3.infoave.net...
Don Lancaster
The exact opposite is likely to happen, unless some way can quickly be
found to dramatically reduce the sulphur in US diesel fuel.
Don Lancaster
>
> communicating information, especially in the science groups. It's
> about sharing what you know with those who don't. It's not about
> some arrogant airhead who thinks he has all the answers posting
> bullshit, although that happens often. Just look at your reply above.
>
>
> --
> Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_sw...@skybest.com :-)
> --------------------------------------------------------------
I'd be most happy to reply in depth at my standard consulting rates.
But it is utterly pointless doing do to invidivuals who could not find a
pig in a dishpan.
Don Lancaster
The individual asked a question and was given accurate and concise info
as to where to go to get that info.
They then complained that this would require some effort on their part.
Steve Spence
--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:3EEB1FFC...@tinaja.com...
Eric Swanson
>
>Eric Swanson wrote:
>>
>> In article <3EE9E0F9...@tinaja.com>, d...@tinaja.com says...
>>
>> >
>> >Iffen yew cain't hunt with the big dawgs, stay on the porch.
>>
>> What I get from you is nothing of consequence. The usenet is about
>> communicating information, especially in the science groups. It's
>> about sharing what you know with those who don't. It's not about
>> some arrogant airhead who thinks he has all the answers posting
>> bullshit, although that happens often. Just look at your reply above.
>
>I'd be most happy to reply in depth at my standard consulting rates.
>But it is utterly pointless doing do to invidivuals who could not find a
>pig in a dishpan.
>
>--
>Many thanks,
>
>Don Lancaster
And I'd be happy to reply at my standard consulting rates too.
However, since nobody has paid me at that rate for 10 years, I don't expect
anyone to jump at the chance. BTW, democracy works only when there is a
relatively free flow of information. You are a bottleneck in the process.
Having never confronted a pig in a dustpan, I suspect that you are correct in
your assessment, indeed, I would not likely find a pig in such a circumstance.
Eric Swanson
>
>
>
>Eric Swanson wrote:
>
>>In article <HGFDI...@news.boeing.com>, frederick.b...@boeing.com says...
>>
>>
>>>In fueling a whole country, the energy consumed in manufacturing the lye,
>>>and recycling it, is an important energy expense. Diesel is gasoline, for
>>>all practical purposes. It would take us less than 20 years to move all our
>>>transportation systems to diesel with almost no unique cost impact. Our jets
>>>already run on a light diesel. The glycerin is not waste. It would be burned
>>>for fuel as well just not in a transportation engine..
>>>
>>>
>>
>>True, from an engineering standpoint, the switch from gasoline to diesel would
>>seem highly desirable, if only from the large increase in efficiency.
>>That's assuming that the emissions would be reduced to some acceptable level,
>>especially the NOx and the particulate output. I understand that diesel cars
>>are a large fraction of European auto sales, but they have different emission
>>standards than the U.S. Also, the high fuel taxes in Europe encourage the
>>switch to diesel. Don't forget that Clinton couldn't even get a $0.034 per
>>gallon increase in the gasoline tax.
>>
>Can you get only diesel and no gasoline out of the refining process?
I certainly couldn't...:-)
One will note that the Europeans are said to be using much more diesel fuel, thus
they have an excess of gasoline, which they have been shipping to the U.S..
That way, the existing refinery systems can be used without modification.
Maybe I should have been more clear. My reference should have been to increasing
taxes on all transportation fuels, not just gasoline. One reason folks in the
U.S. are such gasoline hogs is that the price at the pump today is less (where I live)
than it was back in 1972, after correction for inflation. I sold a hot Camaro Z-28
in 1971 because it got only 10 mpg. At $0.35/gallon for the 104 octane fuel it
required, I found that my gasoline expence was my second largest monthly bill,
after my house payment.
Steve Spence
--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:3EEB1FFC...@tinaja.com...
Steve Spence
vegetable oil, biodiesel, ethanol, Hydrogen (depends on method used to
produce), and biomethane should not have this tax.
--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote in message
news:bcf9ha$1qcu$2...@news3.infoave.net...
Eric Swanson
>
>Fossil fuels should be assessed a carbon tax. Renewable fuels such as
>vegetable oil, biodiesel, ethanol, Hydrogen (depends on method used to
>produce), and biomethane should not have this tax.
>
>--
>Steve Spence
If the "renewable" fuel is ethanol and the net result of making ethanol
is an increase in the use of petroleum and other fossil fuels, then, I
suggest, the tax should still be added to both gasoline and ethanol as
transportation fuels.
I think the same comment would also apply to biodiesel, with the tax prorated
according to the quantity of fossil fuel consummed to make it. This way, the
cost at the pump for biodiesel would reflect the fossil energy consummed to make it.
BTW, I hope you understood the original reference for this thread, even with
it's errors.
Thomas Palm
>
> In article <3eeb3615$1_3@newsfeed>, ssp...@green-trust.org says...
> >
> >Fossil fuels should be assessed a carbon tax. Renewable fuels such as
> >vegetable oil, biodiesel, ethanol, Hydrogen (depends on method used to
> >produce), and biomethane should not have this tax.
> >
> >--
> >Steve Spence
>
> If the "renewable" fuel is ethanol and the net result of making ethanol
> is an increase in the use of petroleum and other fossil fuels, then, I
> suggest, the tax should still be added to both gasoline and ethanol as
> transportation fuels.
You just add the tax to the petroleum. If producing ethanol requires
such large amounts of oil its price will be increased by the correct
amount autmoatically. The beauty of environmental taxes is that if you
tax the primary sources such as oil and coal you don't have to calculate
how much CO2 is emitted in the production of everything else, it will
be included in the price anyway. Thus legislators don't have to concern
themselves with if ethanol from wheat and ethanol from sugar canes will
require the same amount of fossil fuels to produce, or if some new
technology makes the manufacture a lot more efficient.
Tony Wesley
> In article <3eeb3615$1_3@newsfeed>, ssp...@green-trust.org says...
> >
> >Fossil fuels should be assessed a carbon tax. Renewable fuels such as
> >vegetable oil, biodiesel, ethanol, Hydrogen (depends on method used to
> >produce), and biomethane should not have this tax.
> >
> >--
> >Steve Spence
>
> If the "renewable" fuel is ethanol and the net result of making ethanol
> is an increase in the use of petroleum and other fossil fuels, then, I
> suggest, the tax should still be added to both gasoline and ethanol as
> transportation fuels.
It would seem to me that the ethanol maker already paid the tax on the
petroleum used in its manufacture.
Eric Swanson
Yes, adding a $1.00 per gallon tax (or?) to oil would certainly have an effect.
But, my point was that the U.S. Congress under Clinton wouldn't even consider
a small increase in gasoline tax, let alone a big tax on oil, including
imported oil. Trying to increase the expense for fossil fuels to the consumer
at the beginning of the pipeline would have all sorts of problems, especially
as about 60% of our use of crude oil and it's products are now imported.
A big tax at the start would also hit the petrochemical industry, etc.
Unless an equivalent tax were also added conmpensate for the carbon consumption
used to produce various imports, we would find that U.S. products would be rapidly
priced out of the world market. A similar carbon tax would need to be applied
to both coal and natural gas, else the economy would just shift to these energy
sources. Then there would be the inflation impact as the tax pushed prices up
through out the economy. It would certainly be a big mess.
My personal choice would be a rationing plan which would be applied to all
sources of fossil fuel with a white market for trading ration coupons.
But, I'm neither an economist nor a politician.
Eric Swanson
>as to where to go to get that info.
>
>They then complained that this would require some effort on their part.
Hey guy, I didn't ask you.
And, having been around the science world a while, I think your reply
offered anything but "accurate and concise info". To my way of thinking,
a reference to a specific report in the journal would have been such
a reply. Whether or not I choose to read a reference is my problem.
Even though your web site has a few good points about energy,
(while I would take issue with some others) I think Harvey is correct....
Thomas Palm
>
> In article <3EEB510C...@chello.se>, thoma...@chello.se says...
> >> If the "renewable" fuel is ethanol and the net result of making ethanol
> >> is an increase in the use of petroleum and other fossil fuels, then, I
> >> suggest, the tax should still be added to both gasoline and ethanol as
> >> transportation fuels.
> >
> >You just add the tax to the petroleum. If producing ethanol requires
> >such large amounts of oil its price will be increased by the correct
> >amount autmoatically. The beauty of environmental taxes is that if you
> >tax the primary sources such as oil and coal you don't have to calculate
> >how much CO2 is emitted in the production of everything else, it will
> >be included in the price anyway. Thus legislators don't have to concern
> >themselves with if ethanol from wheat and ethanol from sugar canes will
> >require the same amount of fossil fuels to produce, or if some new
> >technology makes the manufacture a lot more efficient.
>
> Yes, adding a $1.00 per gallon tax (or?) to oil would certainly have an effect.
> But, my point was that the U.S. Congress under Clinton wouldn't even consider
> a small increase in gasoline tax, let alone a big tax on oil, including
> imported oil. Trying to increase the expense for fossil fuels to the consumer
> at the beginning of the pipeline would have all sorts of problems, especially
> as about 60% of our use of crude oil and it's products are now imported.
> A big tax at the start would also hit the petrochemical industry, etc.
> Unless an equivalent tax were also added conmpensate for the carbon consumption
> used to produce various imports, we would find that U.S. products would be rapidly
> priced out of the world market.
To work perfectly this kind of tax ought to be the same globally, but
even if it isn't there already are so many differences in wages, taxes,
regulations etc that one more is unlikely to tip the scales that much.
Some industries would gain, others would lose. Sweden already has a CO2
tax, although admittedly with some loopholes to help export industries
to surve, but the more countries start on this road, the easier it will
be to remove these loopholes. USA may even be big enough to do it by
itself, (The larger the country, the smaller part of trade if with other
countries) and if it did EU would almost be forced to follow suit given
its more active position on the climate issue.
> A similar carbon tax would need to be applied
> to both coal and natural gas, else the economy would just shift to these energy
> sources.
Yes, it should be a CO2-tax really.
> Then there would be the inflation impact as the tax pushed prices up
> through out the economy. It would certainly be a big mess.
As long as you reduce other taxes by the same amount there will not
be any inflation.
> My personal choice would be a rationing plan which would be applied to all
> sources of fossil fuel with a white market for trading ration coupons.
> But, I'm neither an economist nor a politician.
Rationing is more complex to administrate which makes it more expensive.
There is also the problem on how to decide how to split the coupons.
For consumer products like gas you might give everyone an equal share
(great for redistributing income to the poor), but for the industry?
Do they get their own coupons, and in that case how do you decide how
much they will be allowed to emit, or do you somehow try to calculate
the CO2 emissions in a final "price" in coupons?
Some economists prefer tradable permits, but I see them as inferior
to a tax. You still have the problem of how to distribute those
permits.
Don Lancaster
>
> Yes, adding a $1.00 per gallon tax (or?) to oil would certainly have an effect.
> --
> Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_sw...@skybest.com :-)
> --------------------------------------------------------------
Most noticable, of course, at the next election.
Mike Ackerman
> Eric Swanson wrote:
> >
>
> > Yes, adding a $1.00 per gallon tax (or?) to oil would certainly have an effect.
>
> Most noticable, of course, at the next election.
>
Raise the gas tax, and compensate by giving everyone a bigger personal exemption.
Everybody's happy!
Mike Ackerman
Eric Swanson
It's a tough problem all around. I just received a report from the Pew
center about just this problem. It's available as HTML or a PDF download from:
http://www.pewclimate.org/projects/USgas.cfm
Eric Swanson
>
>Eric Swanson wrote:
>>
>
>> Yes, adding a $1.00 per gallon tax (or?) to oil would certainly have an effect.
>
>Most noticable, of course, at the next election.
Maybe not. If the Congress waits a few more years, we may pass the Hubbert Peak.
Then people may be crying out for some instant solution, like gas rationing.
If the choice were a tax placed only on gasoline of $2.00 per gallon or $1.00 gallon
per gallon on all oil and oil products, which would the people vote for?
All that assuming there were no other choice, like invading Iraq.
Woops, we already did that. I guess Iran is going to be the next target....
Don Lancaster
>
> Maybe not. If the Congress waits a few more years, we may pass the Hubbert Peak.
> Then people may be crying out for some instant solution, like gas rationing.
> If the choice were a tax placed only on gasoline of $2.00 per gallon or $1.00 gallon
> per gallon on all oil and oil products, which would the people vote for?
> --
> Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_sw...@skybest.com :-)
> --------------------------------------------------------------
The other candidate, of course.
Eric Swanson
>
>Eric Swanson wrote:
>>
>> Maybe not. If the Congress waits a few more years, we may pass the Hubbert Peak.
>> Then people may be crying out for some instant solution, like gas rationing.
>> If the choice were a tax placed only on gasoline of $2.00 per gallon or $1.00 gallon
>> per gallon on all oil and oil products, which would the people vote for?
>
>The other candidate, of course.
Sorry, Ronnie Ray Gun isn't available to run again. And if Gee Dubyah and Alan
Greenspan can't kick start the economy, he'll be history too.
Of course, everybody wants something for nothing and nobody wants to suffer.
So we have politicians who give us tax cuts, even though the Federal deficit is
headed into orbit. It's the biggest Leftist pump priming operation since Roosevelt.
We've have had politicians for more than 25 years that haven't been willing to
face the fact that the U.S. oil production peaked in 1972. Even Gee Dubyah, who
probably knows, won't tell. Instead, we get promises that science will save us
with the new modern advanced hydrogen fuel cell (we hope). Just in case it doesn't
we've got Iraq to drain.
Steve Spence
more gasoline than they replace is patently false, and therefore they should
not be assessed a carbon tax.
--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote in message
news:bcfhkq$1vu3$1...@news3.infoave.net...
Steve Spence
--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Thomas Palm" <thoma...@chello.se> wrote in message
news:3EEB510C...@chello.se...
Steve Spence
it comes from fossil fuels.
--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote in message
news:bcgmro$2jq3$1...@news3.infoave.net...
Steve Spence
--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Tony Wesley" <tonyn...@tonywesley.com> wrote in message
news:WhCdncGdf88...@wideopenwest.com...
Michael
"Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote in message
news:bcftmh$26bo$1...@news3.infoave.net...
Steve Spence
more gasoline than they replace is patently false, and therefore they should
--
Steve Spence
www.green-trust.org
"Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote in message
news:bcfhkq$1vu3$1...@news3.infoave.net...