ETHANOL is stupid.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by kaisen
It is still a lesser evil than petroleum and all of the political messes (and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$) it has cost the US in the last 30 years.

Energy 'losses' in production are a function of our *currnet* dependency on foreign oil. See my above post. The efficiencies will change. Net energy is one measurement, but when the energy used is also renewable there are LONG TERM gains beyond short-term economics.

Your assertion above has not been proven in any study, including several of the ethanol fuel produced and burned in Brazil. Ethanol produced there has not been shown to have improved the environment, the ethanol infrastructure is huge in Brazil and has not been shown to have a remarkable cost savings over time. And so on.

Ethanol is a political expedient in America, and should be abandoned forthwith.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Craig911
Yeah, too close in concept to pure electric cars.......energy required to make the electricity made little sense. And both are inefficient - one in mileage, the other in capacity.

And we know how popular electricity-only cars are.

Not to mention the high cost of the batteries, the energy expended in manufacturing the batteries, and the huge and as yet unpublisized or unknown cost of battery disposal/reclamation.

[Craig 930 RS]

Diesel. The future.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by legion
There is a common misconception that because Brazil is "energy independent" it uses exclusively ethanol in its cars. This is not true. Relatively few cars in Brazil run on "gasohol". Brazil is energy independent because it has a huge, state-run oil company and exports more oil than it uses.

By the same standard, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and Venezuela are all "energy independent".

All true, and there's more.

There Is No Ethanol Revolution in Brazil

Ethanol Eco-Disaster

And to head off the peak oil argument.
Peak Oil?

[jluetjen]

Originally posted by fastpat
[B]No, while you're correct that the US government has expended huge sums in various adventures in the mideast for almost 80 years, almost none of the oil used in America comes from that area. The actual level is approximately 7-8%, which has been the case for decades. The US government has wanted hegemony in the area for the purposes of empire building and for enhancing the merchantilist corporations that are entertwined with the US government overseas. In short, if the US government stopped it's mideast empire building, it would have little or no affect in America at all.

Fastpat, you must have been sleeping through economics in college.
1) Oil is a commodity. As such (in general) it doesn't matter where we specifically buy our oil, because oil is oil (excluding differences in sulfer content, but I digress). Oil is produced and consumed, that brings me to the other key point here...
2) Commodities are governed by supply and demand. So demand from the US creates demand in the mid-east, even if the US doesn't specifically buy it's oil from the mid-east. If the US were to suddenly stop consuming oil, the price of oil would drop in the mid-east (at least in the short term) because Canada would start to sell it's oil to the customers of the mid-east, thus driving down the price world-wide due to the excess of supply.

If the US were to start turning corn in to Ethenol, the reverse would occur. The value of corn would increase because of the extra demand. I'm not convinced that this is a bad thing since this would then allow the US farmers to make more money from their crops rather then being paid to plow crops under by the government. And as I said earlier, if corn syrup were not the cheapest sweetener on the market, that would be a good thing too in my book. And since most of the mid-east isn't suitable for growing corn, the amount of cash flowing into the region would dry up, thus draining the coffers of lots of the terrorests.

[red-beard]

So Kaisen, are you paying $1.50 for E85 and $2.00 for Unleaded?

[dd74]

Originally posted by jluetjen
Fastpat, you must have been sleeping through economics in college.
1) Oil is a commodity. As such (in general) it doesn't matter where we specifically buy our oil, because oil is oil (excluding differences in sulfer content, but I digress). Oil is produced and consumed, that brings me to the other key point here...
2) Commodities are governed by supply and demand. So demand from the US creates demand in the mid-east, even if the US doesn't specifically buy it's oil from the mid-east. If the US were to suddenly stop consuming oil, the price of oil would drop in the mid-east (at least in the short term) because Canada would start to sell it's oil to the customers of the mid-east, thus driving down the price world-wide due to the excess of supply.

If the US were to start turning corn in to Ethenol, the reverse would occur. The value of corn would increase because of the extra demand. I'm not convinced that this is a bad thing since this would then allow the US farmers to make more money from their crops rather then being paid to plow crops under by the government. And as I said earlier, if corn syrup were not the cheapest sweetener on the market, that would be a good thing too in my book. And since most of the mid-east isn't suitable for growing corn, the amount of cash flowing into the region would dry up, thus draining the coffers of lots of the terrorests.

John - you've left out one vital point to your analysis: China.

China, who expects to have employed by its people over 10 million cars in the next decade. Even if we do pull our needs from the Middle East, China will be there to supplant our absence, unless they too have a desire for ethanol. But that won't likely come from a country that is far more concerned with becoming industrialized than environmentally friendly.

If ethanol is used on a larger scale, I think there could be some damage on three fronts: one is the price of fuel. The second is the toll this new fuel might have on machinery. A third is the price of food, as corn is one of the main staples of the American diet.

So possibly our hands will be tied at the pump, at the mechanic, and at the dinner table.

Will the rise in corn production benefit farmers? I'm not certain it will benefit farmers as many farms are owned by corporate conglomeracies. I don't see how the traditional farm owner can gain a windfall if his property has already been purchased by a large company.

[jluetjen]

Originally posted by dd74
John - you've left out one vital point to your analysis: China.

China, who expects to have employed by its people over 10 million cars in the next decade. Even if we do pull our needs from the Middle East, China will be there to supplant our absence, unless they too have a desire for ethanol. But that won't likely come from a country that is far more concerned with becoming industrialized than environmentally friendly.

True. But that's going to happen no matter what the US does. It will just be worse if the two countries have to butt up against each other for limited oil resources. The same applies to India. So the sooner that we ween ourselves off of a lot of oil, the better. Then we can let the Chinese and Indian economies suffer from being too addicted to middle-eastern oil. China's ecology is already suffering from the country using so much high-sulfer brown coal. I'll be able to describe it better from first hand experience after I visit China next month.

If ethanol is used on a larger scale, I think there could be some damage on three fronts: one is the price of fuel.

I don't follow this point. The price will depend on supply and demand. But let's move on...

The second is the toll this new fuel might have on machinery.

Not a problem if the machinery is designed to accept ethanol. It hasn't been a problem in Brazil to date that I can tell. It's just a relatively straight forward technical problem.

A third is the price of food, as corn is one of the main staples of the American diet.

Do you know how much corn is plowed under, or purchased by the government and either destroyed or given away as food support? A quick glance at the USDA Web Site (do a search of the .pdf for "corn") reveals that our government is paying corn farmers (family farmers or corporate farmers -- they're the same to me as far as this discussion is concerned) direct payments of $0.28/bushel (11.8%) on top of the current market price of $2.37. That is money that we pay in taxes directly to farmers. This is just one of the many supports that the government provides to corn farmers -- you can read the minutia of the rest of the document at your leasure to learn about the low interest rate loans and other goodies. Having the price of corn go up as a result of extra demand, and getting fuel at the same time sounds like a good deal to me! Let's see, the government budget goes down by eliminating the corn subsidies, our taxes go down and our farmers get richer (and buy more electronics which is my industry, not to mention the increase in tax payments that they'll contribute) while the despots in obscure parts of the world don't get my oil money. Sounds good to me!

So possibly our hands will be tied at the pump, at the mechanic, and at the dinner table.

Will the rise in corn production benefit farmers? I'm not certain it will benefit farmers as many farms are owned by corporate conglomeracies. I don't see how the traditional farm owner can gain a windfall if his property has already been purchased by a large company.

... which is owned by it's shareholders. So I guess that makes me a farmer if my investments include index funds that include corporate farming companies. I'll have to go check my prospectices.

[NICKG]

since the ethanol has begun being put in our gas in NJ, my DD gets almost 8 mpg less than it was getting. I have a 96 golf and it got high 30's to even low 40's sometimes highway...now it is hard to get 30...my new average is like 29.4 mpg

[kaisen]

Originally posted by red-beard
So Kaisen, are you paying $1.50 for E85 and $2.00 for Unleaded?

No but when gas was $2.59 E85 was $2.09.
They do not have E85 where I normally buy gas.
Now that gas is $2.20 I doubt E85 is $1.70, but I will check.

[dd74]

Originally posted by jluetjen
[B]True. But that's going to happen no matter what the US does. It will just be worse if the two countries have to butt up against each other for limited oil resources. The same applies to India. So the sooner that we ween ourselves off of a lot of oil, the better. Then we can let the Chinese and Indian economies suffer from being too addicted to middle-eastern oil. China's ecology is already suffering from the country using so much high-sulfer brown coal. I'll be able to describe it better from first hand experience after I visit China next month.

[B]
I don't follow this point. The price will depend on supply and demand. But let's move on...

[B]
Not a problem if the machinery is designed to accept ethanol. It hasn't been a problem in Brazil to date that I can tell. It's just a relatively straight forward technical problem.

[B]

Do you know how much corn is plowed under, or purchased by the government and either destroyed or given away as food support? A quick glance at the USDA Web Site (do a search of the .pdf for "corn") reveals that our government is paying corn farmers (family farmers or corporate farmers -- they're the same to me as far as this discussion is concerned) direct payments of $0.28/bushel (11.8%) on top of the current market price of $2.37. That is money that we pay in taxes directly to farmers. This is just one of the many supports that the government provides to corn farmers -- you can read the minutia of the rest of the document at your leasure to learn about the low interest rate loans and other goodies. Having the price of corn go up as a result of extra demand, and getting fuel at the same time sounds like a good deal to me! Let's see, the government budget goes down by eliminating the corn subsidies, our taxes go down and our farmers get richer (and buy more electronics which is my industry, not to mention the increase in tax payments that they'll contribute) while the despots in obscure parts of the world don't get my oil money. Sounds good to me!


... which is owned by it's shareholders. So I guess that makes me a farmer if my investments include index funds that include corporate farming companies. I'll have to go check my prospectices.

It's been said China is carefully watching what unfolds for us in the Mideast, and are poised to take over exporting if we cut and run. That we're there, somewhat, to protect our entitlement to that oil from the Chinese. I don't know; sounds strange but still possible.

Yes, the price will depend on supply and demand, which in the U.S. isn't going to plateau or reduce anytime soon.

Sure, new machinery will/could be designed for ethanol. But what about older vehicles, and those with older vehicles who can't afford or refuse to modify their vehicles for ethanol?

I've heard about the farmers' subsidies. But again, leave it to corporate America to spin it so that the corn, despite being in ample supply (like oil) is suddenly very expensive to refine, while other companies (like food companies), blame ethanol producers for corn shortages, thus jacking up the cost of food. That's the cynnic in me speaking. But at day's end, I do agree: I'd feel much better paying American despots rather than Arab despots.

Mixed portfolios are strange things - we love some of the companies our investments are in, and shudder at the thought of others we have invested in.

[Sweeny Todd]

Originally posted by kaisen
Ethanol (ethyl alcohol, grain alcohol EtOH) is a clear, colorless liquid made from starch crops, such as corn. E85 is a fuel mixture of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline.

E85 is a renewable fuel that reduces air pollution and America's dependence on foreign oil.

Ethanol has no sulfur, which further supports its status as a clean-fuel option.

In the United States each year, more than 1.5 billion gallons of ethanol are added to gasoline to increase octane and improve emissions quality.

Ethanol production is extremely energy-efficient, with a positive energy balance of 125 percent, compared to 85 percent for gasoline. It's the most efficient method of producing liquid transportation fuels.

Ethanol is low in ozone reactivity, making it an effective tool in reducing ozone pollution.

Ethanol dilutes other potentially harmful components in gasoline such as benzene, toluene and xylene.

Still stupid?

Yes. It's really stupid. First, 1.5 billion gallons only represents two-tenths on one percent of the fossil fuels used in the US.

Second, ethanol production is terribly inefficient. I don't know where you read that it isn't but it obviously came from the gumment. If they didn't offer incentives industry wouldn't make it.

Next, mankind has practically no effect whatsoever on the carbon dioxide balance in the atmosphere, at least from the supply side. Before you call me a whack job, you might remember that Mount Pinatubo spewed more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every 10 minutes than mankind has in its entire existence. Pinatubo erupted for weeks. Do the math on that one.

Now, personally, I believe that we are beginnning to have an effect on the co2 sinks in the form of deforestation, but I'm not sure. So what credential do I have that lets me make these observations? None, really. Although I was a researcher at NASA's Atmospheric Remote Sensing Lab for a couple of years in grad school.

Your last statement, I don't really know about it.

Also, I think you'll find if you do the math (I haven't) that, in the required quantities, corn is a scarce resource.

My take on ethanol is that it falls into the same category as gay marriage, abortion rights and stem cell research. It's candy that politicians use to distract you from the real issues such as war, US foreign policy, the constant erosion of our rights and the fact that we no longer elect people to office based upon their stance on real issues. It isn't debated or stated, and that's the real problem.

That's my two bits and remember, now that no child gets left behind, they're all qualified to work at McDonalds.

H

[M.D. Holloway]

Originally posted by jluetjen
...1) Oil is a commodity....
2) Commodities are governed by supply and demand. ....

It is traded like a commodity but as for supply relations? Nope - ain't buying it. I have spent to many years in too many refineries not to mention all the busines we are doing on rigs now.

This isn't soybeans or corn those prices flex according to weather and yields. The production and refining is tightly controlled.
It is a game dude, a big, fat emotional game that controls world economy. Pretty cool huh?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Sweeny Todd
Yes. It's really stupid. First, 1.5 billion gallons only represents two-tenths on one percent of the fossil fuels used in the US.

Second, ethanol production is terribly inefficient. I don't know where you read that it isn't but it obviously came from the gumment. If they didn't offer incentives industry wouldn't make it.

Next, mankind has practically no effect whatsoever on the carbon dioxide balance in the atmosphere, at least from the supply side. Before you call me a whack job, you might remember that Mount Pinatubo spewed more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every 10 minutes than mankind has in its entire existence. Pinatubo erupted for weeks. Do the math on that one.

Now, personally, I believe that we are beginnning to have an effect on the co2 sinks in the form of deforestation, but I'm not sure. So what credential do I have that lets me make these observations? None, really. Although I was a researcher at NASA's Atmospheric Remote Sensing Lab for a couple of years in grad school.

Your last statement, I don't really know about it.

Also, I think you'll find if you do the math (I haven't) that, in the required quantities, corn is a scarce resource.

My take on ethanol is that it falls into the same category as gay marriage, abortion rights and stem cell research. It's candy that politicians use to distract you from the real issues such as war, US foreign policy, the constant erosion of our rights and the fact that we no longer elect people to office based upon their stance on real issues. It isn't debated or stated, and that's the real problem.

That's my two bits and remember, now that no child gets left behind, they're all qualified to work at McDonalds.

H

I couldn't have said it better, only longer.

[David]

Good points Hal.

Just curious, are you a demon barber? What part of Houston do you live in?

[red-beard]

Originally posted by kaisen
No but when gas was $2.59 E85 was $2.09.
They do not have E85 where I normally buy gas.
Now that gas is $2.20 I doubt E85 is $1.70, but I will check.

Ethanol contains about 60% of the energy per gallon that gasoline contains.

So at the prices you quoted, Ethanol is 80% the price of Gasoline. It is overpriced by 33% for the energy contained, compared to gasoline.

[red-beard]

Oh and 6 months ago I posted about plowing every possible acre in the US with corn and turning it into ethanol, and what effect it would have on energy consumption in the US:

see here: http://66.236.61.177/showthread.php?s=&threadid=267653&highlight=ethanol

[kaisen]

Originally posted by red-beard
Ethanol contains about 60% of the energy per gallon that gasoline contains.

So at the prices you quoted, Ethanol is 80% the price of Gasoline. It is overpriced by 33% for the energy contained, compared to gasoline.

Then diesel is a real 'deal' isn't it?

[Craig 930 RS]

Problem is:

Regular unleaded here in Seattle: $2.69
Diesel.........................................$3. 59

WTF?

[red-beard]

That is another suppy/demand problem caused by Federal regulation. The low sulfur diesel requirement was phased in too quick for refiners to respond.