Ethanol requirement

Rune said:
Excuse me? Do you understand that it takes more than a gallon of diesel oil to make a gallon of ethanol and that adding ethanol to gasoline lowers gas mileage thereby wasting even more oil? You don't seem to understand the equation at all.

By the way, everyone is in favor of hydrogen but the infrastructure and even the physics of fueling automobiles with hydrogen simply have not been worked out yet (except in the case where hydrogen is fractured from hydro-carbons (oil) a ridiculous dog and pony show).

Further (sorry) there is simply no doubt that electric vehicles will be the transitionatory method. It is just a matter of time.
Click to expand...
Im sorry Rune but you' wrong. Read my initial response to LR.
 
Rune said:
Surely you jest. You do realize that adding 10% bio- oil to fossil oil qualifies as bio-diesel? That was either an incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest comment.
Click to expand...

you're referring to ethanol perhaps?....biodiesel is generally sold as B2, B5, B20 or B100 referring to the percentage of non fossil diesel in the mix......
 
at 10% mix, we only have lost energy( at the 70% production rate) of 7% from our mixture. It does reduce the sting a bit
 
Rune said:
No, it is indeed still true. Admit that you receive farm subsidies you liar.
Click to expand...

???....well, first I will not admit an obviously false statement is true, second I receive no farm subsides, nor do my inlaws or my tenant other than federal crop insurance which is a program in which they pay an insurance premium that provides them with the cost of putting in next year's crop in the event of a crop failure due to drought, flood or hail......third, admit that you own stock in an oil company.........
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Im sorry Rune but you' wrong. Read my initial response to LR.
Click to expand...

Sorry Mott, I have to walk out the door this moment, but indeed you are incorrect, as is Pimp. None of the points you made address the FACT that we need to import more oil when we add ethanol to gas, and that we burn more gas when we add ethanol to it, a double whammy. To say nothing of it's effect on the world food supply and how starvation rates have skyrocketed worldwide since the introduction of ethanol to gas.

I will address the multiple misconceptions when I return this evening.
Meanwhile I suggest some earnest research on your part of the other pieces of this situation. For example there are other ways to achieve 99.9 % combustion that do not involve increasing starvation.
 
sedan said:
If cattle eat the field corn and we eat the cattle, it's still part of the equation.

The bottom line is that corn used for ethanol is corn NOT used to feed livestock, and the increased demand drives up the price.

Meanwhile, making ethanol made from corn is a grossly inefficient process that consumes nearly as much energy as it produces.

It benefits farmers who grow corn, and almost no one else.
Click to expand...

I agree that we should stop making ethanol from corn. However, biofuels could become part of our energy equation; perhaps something like sweetgrass.
 
leaningright said:
Well Mott, as usual we'll just have to disagree for the most part. The problem with it is the loss of power, lower mileage and degradation of fuel lines. Put ethanol in fuel...sell it...just let them sell real gasoline as well...and don't tax it to the point of being ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Isn't there also a problem with alcohol absorbing water?
 
leaningright said:
To those saying that the corn used for ethanol is not used or is different from corn grown for human consumption, that misses the point entirely. They could grow something else that is for human consumption on the land they're growing this corn on.

Now to what Rune says up here...and is exactly right on. I have two boats, one has a 1994 115 HP motor on it and the other has a 1987 150 HP engine on it. I am concerned for these and for my mowers and tractor, not to mention my bike. Ethanol laced fuel does go bad quickly and cannot be stored well. It gets fewer miles to the gallon and less horse power no matter what you use it in. Feed the hungry and make real gasoline.
Click to expand...
http://www.amazon.com/Star-brite-En...9530&sr=8-1&keywords=starbrite+fuel+treatment
This stuff for your boats.
http://www.lucasoil.com/articlelist1-30/0/LucasSafeguardEthanolFuelConditioner
I've been using Lucas products for years, so I trust this stuff. But every bike manufacturer makes some kind of fuel treatment. I use the Harley stuff.

I think they are going to increase the amount of ethanol in fuels until it destroys every internal combustion engine out there, then they'll say "oh no! Your engine blew up! Guess you have to buy one of these NEW engines now. Sorrrrreeeee!"
 
Rune said:
Yes and millions of older engines required extensive re-building and continue to do so as older machines across the country are resurected from long term storage.
That is entirely different though, since eliminating lead from gasoline was beneficial whereas adding ethanol to gasoline is not.

This entire misconception is based on Brazil's success with ethanol manufacturing, where the entire plant is used for production. Corns simply doesn't produce sugar throughout the entire plant as sugarcane does. This is a political boondoggle and a gift to the rust belt farmers and oil companies paid for by consumers.

It is counter-productive on every level.
Click to expand...
You're just factually wrong Rune. The same thing was said when they removed tetraethyl lead. Well guess what? They engineered engine knocking problems away so that adding tetraethyl lead was no longer required. Was this a problem for older cars? Sure.....but was that worth the price of getting lead pollutants out of the environment? Absolutely it was.

The same applies to un-oxygenated gasoline. How can you possibly rationalize it's use? Do you realize that without oxygenation gasoline combustion is only about 75% complete. Did you know that gasoline is from 5 to 10% benzene by composition? Are you aware that benzene is not only highly toxic but is a proven carcinogen at parts per million levels of exposure?

The health and safety and environmental advantages of oxygenated gasoline is certainly justification enough for adding ethanol to gasoline, regardless of the arguments for ethanol as an alternative fuel. Ethanol is also a far safer oxygenator than MTBE too.
 
tinfoil said:
at 10% mix, we only have lost energy( at the 70% production rate) of 7% from our mixture. It does reduce the sting a bit
Click to expand...
That can be compensated for by adjusting fuel injection to add more oxygen to the combustion ratio. Even so, considering the other advantages, it's a compromise well worth making.
 
Rune said:
Sorry Mott, I have to walk out the door this moment, but indeed you are incorrect, as is Pimp. None of the points you made address the FACT that we need to import more oil when we add ethanol to gas, and that we burn more gas when we add ethanol to it, a double whammy. To say nothing of it's effect on the world food supply and how starvation rates have skyrocketed worldwide since the introduction of ethanol to gas.

I will address the multiple misconceptions when I return this evening.
Meanwhile I suggest some earnest research on your part of the other pieces of this situation. For example there are other ways to achieve 99.9 % combustion that do not involve increasing starvation.
Click to expand...
Well while I question that using surplus corn in the USA to produce ethanol is advancing starvation across the planet might by hypberbole.

As for alternatives to ethanol as an oxygenator, I'm open minded. The point of this thread though is not about alternative fuels. It's about government having the authority to require that oxygenators be added to gasoline so as to meet Clean Air Act standards. You're glued in on using corn and grain crops to produce ethanol and missing the forest because of the trees. For example, cellulosic waste materials of all sorts can be used to distill ethanol, not just corn or other cereal grain crops, and that shoots your argument full of holes.
 
sedan said:
If cattle eat the field corn and we eat the cattle, it's still part of the equation.

The bottom line is that corn used for ethanol is corn NOT used to feed livestock, and the increased demand drives up the price.

Meanwhile, making ethanol made from corn is a grossly inefficient process that consumes nearly as much energy as it produces.

It benefits farmers who grow corn, and almost no one else.
Click to expand...
That's a non-issue. Other cellulosic materials than grain crops can and are used to produce ethanol. Most Midwest ethanol plants subsist primarily on green corn, considered a waste product, and surplus corn for producing ethanol. When availability to green corn or surplus corn is limited these facilities readily switch to other cellulosic materials to produce ethanol. The fact is that your not calculating into your energy equation that most of that corn is, essentially waste in the first place. That energy will have been expended regardless of whether the corn is used for distilling ethanol or not. When increased demand or decreased production decrease the availability of corn as a raw material then other cellulosic material are readily used as a substitute.
 
leaningright said:
To those saying that the corn used for ethanol is not used or is different from corn grown for human consumption, that misses the point entirely. They could grow something else that is for human consumption on the land they're growing this corn on.

Now to what Rune says up here...and is exactly right on. I have two boats, one has a 1994 115 HP motor on it and the other has a 1987 150 HP engine on it. I am concerned for these and for my mowers and tractor, not to mention my bike. Ethanol laced fuel does go bad quickly and cannot be stored well. It gets fewer miles to the gallon and less horse power no matter what you use it in. Feed the hungry and make real gasoline.
Click to expand...
...and then kill them with toxic pollutants, right?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I grew up in Iowa, I still go there twice a year to visit my mother (95 now).....as you cross Illinois and Iowa on I80 you are hardly ever out of site of either an ethanol or biodiesel refinery....both my sister's husband and my wife's brother are farmers in Iowa....they keep me well informed of what is going on......
Click to expand...
My parents live on the eastern end of the corn belt in rural west Ohio. There's a significant number of ethanol plants in the county. They all can operate on corn and other cellulosic materials. Which one is used depends on cost, availability and ease of processing. Corn is preferred, even though the cost to purchase it is relatively high compared to other cellulosic materials, it requires less beneficiation prior to processing. That is, it's easier to use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top