Alternative Fuel

#51
#51
Tenn_Vol_Authority said:
The subsidies amd "offsets" artificially decrease the price of ethanol... so in essence the taxpayers (i.e. you and me) are paying for ethanol whether we like it or not.

So lets see, it needs subsidies in order to be competitive in the market place and it uses more energy to produce than gasoline.

How is this economically wise or energy efficient?
Click to expand...

MG1968 said:
it's a boondoggle because it takes more energy to create E85 than it does to create regular unleaded gasoline.
Click to expand...

You need to cite your sources, what I've read says it is close to 1 but not 1:

Ethanol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/265.pdf

Also, the energy returned on energy invested EROEI for ethanol made from corn in the U.S. is close to 1 [16], which means that it takes nearly as much energy (through natural gas based fertilizers, farm equipment, transformation from corn or other materials, and transportation) to create ethanol as the ethanol itself produces when put to work. Lynn Ellen Doxon flatly rejects these claims because the EROEI models fail to include the energy reducing byproducts of ethanol production. For instance, EROEI assumes the distilation process would require fossil fuel. The heat needed for distilation can easily be produced by burning the corn stalks. Similarly, Doxon points out the EROEI report does not account for the beneficial waste products produced from corn based ethanol. Cogeneration units produce electricity from corn stalks and use waste heat in the distilation process, waste mash is used as a high protein animal feed, and ash and animal waste from the entire agricultural process eliminates the need for petroleum based fertilizers. [Alcohol Fuel Handbook].
Click to expand...
 
#52
#52
oklavol said:
You need to cite your sources, what I've read says it is close to 1 but not 1:

Ethanol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/265.pdf
Click to expand...

You can get in trouble citing wikipedia around here :eek:k:

I would offer the following and cite myself :)

In the U.S., cultivation of corn and its conversion to ethanol are highly energy-intensive, requiring a significant amount of oil, diesel, and natural gas for growing, fertilizing, harvesting, fermenting, and distilling the corn products. It is important to consider these energy inputs when considering the net amount of oil displaced by the use of ethanol in gasoline. It takes about two-thirds of a gallon of oil to make a gallon of ethanol from corn, assuming that by-product grains from the conversion process can be recycled to off-set some of the energy cost that is almost entirely derived from transportation usable fuels. While ethanol has less energy content than gasoline, it can act as an octane booster, becoming more energy efficient. Although optimistic, it is not unreasonable to consider ethanol and gasoline to be equivalent to each other on a volume basis. Therefore, assuming that one gallon of oil produces one gallon of gasoline, it is apparent that the use of ethanol offers a net displacement of oil. The same two-thirds of a gallon of oil that could produce one gallon of gasoline-equivalent ethanol would only produce two-thirds of a gallon of actual gasoline. Thus, the use of one gallon of ethanol in gasohol displaces about one-third of a gallon of oil.

Because a barrel of oil contains about 40 gallons, it would require 120 gallons of ethanol to displace an entire barrel of oil. Therefore, with a tax credit of 10 cents per gallon of 90-10 gasohol, or 1 dollar per gallon of ethanol used in gasohol, the taxpayers would pay approximately $120 per barrel of oil displaced by the use of ethanol in gasohol. Surely this isn’t the cheapest way for the U.S. to eliminate oil.

Edit: Actually, the basis for this came from an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal published last year. It made some weird assumptions/conclusions...so this is a "cleaned up" version of that, really.
 
#53
#53
TennTradition said:
You can get in trouble citing wikipedia around here :eek:k:

I would offer the following and cite myself :)

In the U.S., cultivation of corn and its conversion to ethanol are highly energy-intensive, requiring a significant amount of oil, diesel, and natural gas for growing, fertilizing, harvesting, fermenting, and distilling the corn products. It is important to consider these energy inputs when considering the net amount of oil displaced by the use of ethanol in gasoline. It takes about two-thirds of a gallon of oil to make a gallon of ethanol from corn, assuming that by-product grains from the conversion process can be recycled to off-set some of the energy cost that is almost entirely derived from transportation usable fuels. While ethanol has less energy content than gasoline, it can act as an octane booster, becoming more energy efficient. Although optimistic, it is not unreasonable to consider ethanol and gasoline to be equivalent to each other on a volume basis. Therefore, assuming that one gallon of oil produces one gallon of gasoline, it is apparent that the use of ethanol offers a net displacement of oil. The same two-thirds of a gallon of oil that could produce one gallon of gasoline-equivalent ethanol would only produce two-thirds of a gallon of actual gasoline. Thus, the use of one gallon of ethanol in gasohol displaces about one-third of a gallon of oil.

Because a barrel of oil contains about 40 gallons, it would require 120 gallons of ethanol to displace an entire barrel of oil. Therefore, with a tax credit of 10 cents per gallon of 90-10 gasohol, or 1 dollar per gallon of ethanol used in gasohol, the taxpayers would pay approximately $120 per barrel of oil displaced by the use of ethanol in gasohol. Surely this isn’t the cheapest way for the U.S. to eliminate oil.

Edit: Actually, the basis for this came from an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal published last year. It made some weird assumptions/conclusions...so this is a "cleaned up" version of that, really.
Click to expand...

I like the concept of using algae to create biodiesel and ethanol in non-agricultural areas in the Southwest like Arizona. I'm aware its not possible to grow enough corn in the U.S. to satisfy the country's needs.

I think advances in the near future with lithium ion battery technology will make that the best alternative.
 
#54
#54
battery power will never be a viable alternative for a country that takes long distance trips in it's cars.

another knock against battery power is that as the charge drains, performance is lost. a gasoline engined car with 1/8th of a tank of fuel can accelerate just as fast as it can with a full tank. the same cannot be said for battery powered cars and until there is a way for a battery pack to provide full performance throughout it's charge cycle, fully electric cars are a pipe dream.
 
#55
#55
MG1968 said:
battery power will never be a viable alternative for a country that takes long distance trips in it's cars.

another knock against battery power is that as the charge drains, performance is lost. a gasoline engined car with 1/8th of a tank of fuel can accelerate just as fast as it can with a full tank. the same cannot be said for battery powered cars and until there is a way for a battery pack to provide full performance throughout it's charge cycle, fully electric cars are a pipe dream.
Click to expand...

energy storage with lithium batteries will double in the next 5 years and the amount of time to recharge the battery will be cut in half.

the only real knock on them, is that lithium batteries life begins the date it is manufactured, whether you use them or not. Thats the real knock. So after so many years they will need to be replaced.

But if someone offered you a car at the same price as you pay now, that will travel as far or farther then you can now, that you can recharge at home for a couple of dollars of electricity, and that has no oil changes and much less maintenance. dont you think most people will view that as economical alternative?

Here's some info on lithium ion batteries:

Lithium-ion battery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
#56
#56
oklavol said:
But if someone offered you a car at the same price as you pay now, that will travel as far or farther then you can now, that you can recharge at home for a couple of dollars of electricity, and that has no oil changes and much less maintenance. dont you think most people will view that as economical alternative?
Click to expand...

sure I would, IF it ever becomes a reality. Keep in mind that I often travel with my family, so this Utopian vehicle will need space for at least 4 to ride in comfort and their luggage.

for electric vehicles to have any kind of mass appeal, they are going to have to be functional for more than just single city dwellers who only drive back and forth to work. I'm not saying that won't happen, but until the battery technology improves, it won't happen. Hybrid cars are the way of the future, I think, although their cost of ownership and operation aren't any lower than their conventional cousins.
 
#57
#57
oklavol said:
the only real knock on them, is that lithium batteries life begins the date it is manufactured, whether you use them or not. Thats the real knock. So after so many years they will need to be replaced.

But if someone offered you a car at the same price as you pay now, that will travel as far or farther then you can now, that you can recharge at home for a couple of dollars of electricity, and that has no oil changes and much less maintenance. dont you think most people will view that as economical alternative?
Click to expand...

Those are a lot of ifs that need to happen.

The maintenance and replacement of the batteries needed for electric automobiles will be reason enough not to buy an e-car. Anyone that buys a Prius right now is being pennywise and pound foolish. You save a few dollars on fuel costs, yet lose much more on resale and maintenance and the original premium cost you paid for the car when you can just as easily buy a 4 cylinder vehicle for $10-12,000 less and get 30-35 miles to the gallon... maybe more depending on the brand you buy. Honda I believe makes a 4 cylinder car (Civic) that can get up to 40 miles/gallon (I think).
 
#60
#60
cotton said:
From the higher price they receive for their product because of the increased demand created from ethanol. Please pay attention.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that the government does subsidize this as well, no? It was my impression that the government offered about 10 cents on the dollar subsidy for the creation of ethanol to be placed in gasoline (up to 90/10 or 85/15 I think). So there could be more than one subsidy, no? The farmer sells the corn a little cheaper to the ethanol producer (so they can sell it at a bit higher price to others because of the decreased supply) and the enthanol gets some $ for the government for putting their ethanol in gasoline...or selling it to the refinery to do that. No?
 
#61
#61
TennTradition said:
The government funds technology development at universites all the time. These papers are published and industry can often use it to develop their own technology. Unless specific elements are patented, of course. Technology infusion into the private sector by the government exists..and works.
Click to expand...


I've worked and currently work in this area - I believe investments in basic research via DOE, DOD, NIH, NSF etc. are in the best interest of the public. In the 80's, the Bayh-Doyle Act was passed to move more of this research into the marketplace. This system of technology development is probably the best model possible. It still has flaws but it is a sustaining system of technological development and advancement.

I would not support govt investment in finished products (eg. production plants, etc.).
 
#62
#62
volinbham said:
I've worked and currently work in this area - I believe investments in basic research via DOE, DOD, NIH, NSF etc. are in the best interest of the public. In the 80's, the Bayh-Doyle Act was passed to move more of this research into the marketplace. This system of technology development is probably the best model possible. It still has flaws but it is a sustaining system of technological development and advancement.

I would not support govt investment in finished products (eg. production plants, etc.).
Click to expand...

Government investment in finished products sounds a bit off, I agree. Although, I think that there was an IGCC (or some sort of plant like that) plant built in Montanta that the government built ... and I think that it was later spun off to the municipaility...but I might be talking out of my arse there. I'm sure there are other examples.
 
#63
#63
I'm sure examples exist and I don't have a problem with them if they are the true exceptions to the rule.


My view of the govt.s role is to continue funding basic research and leave the commercialization of such research to the private sector.
 
#64
#64
volinbham said:
I'm sure examples exist and I don't have a problem with them if they are the true exceptions to the rule.


My view of the govt.s role is to continue funding basic research and leave the commercialization of such research to the private sector.
Click to expand...

:good!:
 
#65
#65
TennTradition said:
I'm pretty sure that the government does subsidize this as well, no? It was my impression that the government offered about 10 cents on the dollar subsidy for the creation of ethanol to be placed in gasoline (up to 90/10 or 85/15 I think). So there could be more than one subsidy, no? The farmer sells the corn a little cheaper to the ethanol producer (so they can sell it at a bit higher price to others because of the decreased supply) and the enthanol gets some $ for the government for putting their ethanol in gasoline...or selling it to the refinery to do that. No?
Click to expand...

Too many "nos" for me to answer. I know that the ethanol plant was built with co-op money, although I believe property tax breaks were given as encouragement to locate it within the city limits (a common practice to attract industry.) I know that the price peg is funded by the co-op, if funding is needed. I know that in the local case, the farmers do not sell corn to the plant at cheaper than market prices.

I cannot speak to other government incentives that might be offered to the plant, other than to say that I suspect the production of ethanol is more highly regulated than most private industry.
 
#66
#66
cotton said:
Too many "nos" for me to answer. I know that the ethanol plant was built with co-op money, although I believe property tax breaks were given as encouragement to locate it within the city limits (a common practice to attract industry.) I know that the price peg is funded by the co-op, if funding is needed. I know that in the local case, the farmers do not sell corn to the plant at cheaper than market prices.

I cannot speak to other government incentives that might be offered to the plant, other than to say that I suspect the production of ethanol is more highly regulated than most private industry.
Click to expand...

I thought you were fond of "no"s, no? :crazy:
 
#67
#67
I guess I can understand supply and demand and everything else. What I don't understand is why some in this thread are defending high gas prices like we're talking poorly about a one of their family members.

Do you enjoy the high gas prices simply because there's nothing you can do about it? If so, that's kind of like enjoying your daily raping because you had to go to prison. Do you enjoy it because you like the idea of a few rich guys getting richer? Perhaps you like the feeling of a sore butt every time that you fill up with gas, I don't know, but it doesn't make sense to me.

Whatever happened to rebellion? Are you all just too bored and defeated to challenge the stultifying rules and the abuse of power of everyday life?

:popcorn:
 
#68
#68
equating high gas prices to prison rape is a bit of a stretch, wouldn't you say?

and if it's rebellion you want, who are we to rebel against?

and lastly, I'd like to thank Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Together they have solved the crisis of high gas prices, just like they promised they would. Their leadership is bringing the US to a new era of energy independence.
 
#70
#70
OWB said:
I guess I can understand supply and demand and everything else. What I don't understand is why some in this thread are defending high gas prices like we're talking poorly about a one of their family members.

Do you enjoy the high gas prices simply because there's nothing you can do about it? If so, that's kind of like enjoying your daily raping because you had to go to prison. Do you enjoy it because you like the idea of a few rich guys getting richer? Perhaps you like the feeling of a sore butt every time that you fill up with gas, I don't know, but it doesn't make sense to me.

Whatever happened to rebellion? Are you all just too bored and defeated to challenge the stultifying rules and the abuse of power of everyday life?

:popcorn:
Click to expand...
"We have met the enemy and he is us" fits very well here. Why is the cost of gas so high and why does it fluctuate so much?

Are the oil companies price gouging? No. Their bottom line as a percent of revenue is the same or less than many of the companies where you work. All levels of government; federal, state, and local have imposed demands on the makeup of petro fuels that change by location and season of the year. This cost money and you get to pay for that at the pump plus another 10 - 15 % profit for the producing company. Add to that the artificial drop in supply when the blends are changed and you pay too much for fuel at the pump.

Why have we allowed big brother to save us from ourselves? The issue of clean air is real and needs to be addressed. I'm not sure that continued change in the blends is the way to do that since one of the blends mandated turned out to be more dangerous than what it replaced. And of course we have the red herring of human induced global warming that is supposed to justify any cost to stop something that isn't really there.
 
#71
#71
you can always ride your bicycle if you feel you are being victimized. rape implies a use of force, and no one is holding a gun to your head or a knife to your throat while you're putting gas in your vehicle.

If the left in this country would allow the US to explore and exploit it's own oil resources, the pain at the pump might not be as great. If the environmental lobby weren't so successful in preventing nuclear power plants and fuel refineries being built, prices would be lower.

and it's not just left-wing interests that are keeping gas prices high. Politicians in general are intoxicated by the massive tax revenue that flows into Washington from the purchase of fuel.
 
#72
#72
MG1968 said:
you can always ride your bicycle if you feel you are being victimized. rape implies a use of force, and no one is holding a gun to your head or a knife to your throat while you're putting gas in your vehicle.
Click to expand...

To add to that point, no one is holding a gun to your head to buy a Tahoe or Expedition when a 4 cylinder Civic or Corrola is all you need.
 
#73
#73
cotton said:
I use ethanol because it is pegged locally at $.50 less per gallon than unleaded. I get about 15-20% worse gas mileage with it than with unleaded depending on the type of driving I do. It makes economic sense to burn corn if the difference in price is greater than the loss of efficiency, which, of course, depends on the current price of gasoline.
Click to expand...
I am not exactly sure where you are located. However, national average is $2.79. The TN average is $2.65. If you are saving $.50 per gallon, yet yielding to a loss of efficiency of 15-20%, then you are actually worse off. You are losing $.53 per gallon due to lack of efficiency, yet only getting a discount of $.50 by purchasing e85. It really is not as economical as advertised.
 
#74
#74
MG1968 said:
and no one is holding a gun to your head or a knife to your throat while you're putting gas in your vehicle.
Click to expand...

:shakehead:

While that sounds nice and all, it's just simply unrealistic. Most people have to drive places in order to maintain their lives. If my mountain bike could get me to Boston to visit my sister as fast as a car could, I'd most definitely do it. We're all hooked on cars now, so the best solution would be to find efficient and cheap alternatives.
 
#75
#75
I'll just add that I'm not extremely thrilled about gas prices but at the same time, I don't go around complaining about it all day every day. I'm just amazed at the amount of people that defend it because of their party interests. Amazingly, I've never seen any of you at the pumps because I rarely see anyone smiling or laughing while filling up. I'll keep an eye out though.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement

Back
Top