|
Ethanol?
In article ,
says... On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:17:54 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 11:35:58 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... Didn't Al Gore finally admit that turning our food source into fuel was a bad idea? Republican: Igor no like new technology. Igor scared. What new technology is there in fermenting grain? It has been going on for thousands of years. I rest my case.... The problem is that it is a very inefficient process, particularly when you start with starch like corn. Using cellulose is even worse. Sugar cane works better since you are starting with sugar but growing sugar in an ecological nightmare virtually everywhere they do it. The US can't even grow enough cane to supply ther national "table sugar" demand and environmentalists are trying to shut down that industry in Florida. Florida grows most of the sugar in the US ... in the drained areas of the Everglades ... nuff said? Brazil is having the same environmental holocaust around their sugar to fuel business ... but nobody cares, not even the global warming people. Gee, who was it here that said that it takes more energy to make ethanol than it produces? Wayne was first to say it in this thread and he is right if you are talking about corn ethanol, the only kind we make here for fuel. The real issue with corn may actually be water. We are pumping the Oglalla aquifer down and when that water is gone, it will not come back any time soon. (thousands of years if we stopped pumping today) We have a marginal fuel that uses more energy to produce than it supplies to the end user, competing with food. That is a bad mix. http://tinyurl.com/bqubef4 http://www.permaculture.com/node/490 http://tinyurl.com/cu7bq9g http://tinyurl.com/66mq73r ?It often seems that every article, every interview, every public discussion about our most used and visible biofuel, ethanol, starts, and sometimes ends, with the question, 'Doesn?t it take more energy to make ethanol than is contained in the ethanol?' In 1980, the short and empirical answer to this question was yes. In 1990, because of improved efficiencies by both farmer and ethanol manufacturer, the answer was, probably not. In 2005 the answer is clearly no? Several ethanol facilities are today beginning to use wood waste or, in the near future, corn stover, to replace natural gas to meet their thermal energy needs. The net energy ratio in that situation should be well over 2 to 1!? In 1980 that was true, but not now. But of course, BAR doesn't realize that strides have been made in the production of biofuel. |
Ethanol?
On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:17:54 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote: Gee, who was it here that said that it takes more energy to make ethanol than it produces? === I did, and it is true if you add in all of the agricultural energy such as fertilizer production, etc. |
Ethanol?
|
Ethanol?
|
Ethanol?
In article ,
says... On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:35:59 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... http://tinyurl.com/bqubef4 OK people with ties to agriculture like it, environmentalists question their bookkeeping. I don't trust the government on this at all, they are slaves to politicians. http://www.permaculture.com/node/490 I cited the article in Scientific American a few weeks ago that put corn ethanol very near the bottom of the EROEI http://tinyurl.com/cu7bq9g Ethanol.org??? Would you believe a study from Exxon? Yes, if if was scientifically done. Please prove the facts given by ethanol.org as false. http://tinyurl.com/66mq73r This guy is simply lying Please prove him wrong. Cite? *********** Myth No. 5: Cars get lower gas mileage with ethanol. OK, this one?s true. If you completely burn a gallon of gasoline and a gallon of E85, you?ll get 25 percent less energy from the E85. Flex-fuel cars that run on gasoline and ethanol see 25 percent less mileage with ethanol. However, a gallon of ethanol costs approximately 17 percent less than that of a gallon of gasoline. In some, but not all, regions, the fuel-economy deficit is recovered by cheaper fuel costs. As the market grows and matures, production optimization would further drive down ethanol costs. ****************** I bought E85 in North Dakota and it was about he same price as E10 WITH A HEFTY TAX PAYER SUBSIDY! They keep glossing over the most serious concern ... water. The last guy lied about how much water midwestern farmers use. Next time you fly, look at all the round green fields. Those are center point irrigators pumping a small town's worth of drinking water in a day. If you see a bright green field near by, that is just a different kind of irrigation. They all use it or it would be as brown as the fields in between. We are going to run out of water far sooner than we will run out of oil. That is unless we are willing to pay a whole lot more for it, putting that "cheap corn" totally out of reach. At the rate we are pumping the Ogalla aquifer USGS says we might be sucking air in most of the midwest in 25 years. You can replace oil but there is no good replacement for cheap water except expensive water reclaimed from the sea or piped in from very far away. Those far away people may then see seasonal water shortages. |
Ethanol?
|
Ethanol?
|
Ethanol?
On 4/27/13 4:45 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:17:54 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: Gee, who was it here that said that it takes more energy to make ethanol than it produces? === I did, and it is true if you add in all of the agricultural energy such as fertilizer production, etc. It was true, not anymore. --------------------------------------------- Well, halleluiah and praise be to the corn gods. Cheap perpetual energy. Oh, and by the way, the science community better get busy re-writing the laws of physics. I posit that "perpetual" energy really isn't relevant. If you were an early settler to this continent, and spent a day cutting down a tree and sawing it into firewood, you had a source of energy for your cooking and heating fires that would last a long, long time, and would certainly provide more energy in terms of BTUs and other measurements than you expended. |
Ethanol?
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 4/27/13 4:45 PM, Eisboch wrote: "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:17:54 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: Gee, who was it here that said that it takes more energy to make ethanol than it produces? === I did, and it is true if you add in all of the agricultural energy such as fertilizer production, etc. It was true, not anymore. --------------------------------------------- Well, halleluiah and praise be to the corn gods. Cheap perpetual energy. Oh, and by the way, the science community better get busy re-writing the laws of physics. I posit that "perpetual" energy really isn't relevant. If you were an early settler to this continent, and spent a day cutting down a tree and sawing it into firewood, you had a source of energy for your cooking and heating fires that would last a long, long time, and would certainly provide more energy in terms of BTUs and other measurements than you expended. --------------------------------- The energy expended by the settler is not all the energy involved. It's only that used in the harvesting of the tree. iBoater previously claimed that it takes less than a gallon of fossil fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol. He's now claiming that all the energy consumed in the growing, harvesting and production of the corn (or sugar) for a gallon of ethanol is less than the energy the gallon of ethanol will produce as a fuel. I say nonsense. |
Ethanol?
On 4/27/13 5:08 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 4/27/13 4:45 PM, Eisboch wrote: "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:17:54 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: Gee, who was it here that said that it takes more energy to make ethanol than it produces? === I did, and it is true if you add in all of the agricultural energy such as fertilizer production, etc. It was true, not anymore. --------------------------------------------- Well, halleluiah and praise be to the corn gods. Cheap perpetual energy. Oh, and by the way, the science community better get busy re-writing the laws of physics. I posit that "perpetual" energy really isn't relevant. If you were an early settler to this continent, and spent a day cutting down a tree and sawing it into firewood, you had a source of energy for your cooking and heating fires that would last a long, long time, and would certainly provide more energy in terms of BTUs and other measurements than you expended. --------------------------------- The energy expended by the settler is not all the energy involved. It's only that used in the harvesting of the tree. iBoater previously claimed that it takes less than a gallon of fossil fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol. He's now claiming that all the energy consumed in the growing, harvesting and production of the corn (or sugar) for a gallon of ethanol is less than the energy the gallon of ethanol will produce as a fuel. I say nonsense. Oh, I won't argue that. It is nonsense. |
Ethanol?
On 4/27/2013 4:45 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:17:54 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: Gee, who was it here that said that it takes more energy to make ethanol than it produces? === I did, and it is true if you add in all of the agricultural energy such as fertilizer production, etc. It was true, not anymore. --------------------------------------------- Well, halleluiah and praise be to the corn gods. Cheap perpetual energy. Oh, and by the way, the science community better get busy re-writing the laws of physics. Science community? Hell, it'll take an act of Congress to pull off something that big. |
Ethanol?
On 4/27/2013 5:08 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 4/27/13 4:45 PM, Eisboch wrote: "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:17:54 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: Gee, who was it here that said that it takes more energy to make ethanol than it produces? === I did, and it is true if you add in all of the agricultural energy such as fertilizer production, etc. It was true, not anymore. --------------------------------------------- Well, halleluiah and praise be to the corn gods. Cheap perpetual energy. Oh, and by the way, the science community better get busy re-writing the laws of physics. I posit that "perpetual" energy really isn't relevant. If you were an early settler to this continent, and spent a day cutting down a tree and sawing it into firewood, you had a source of energy for your cooking and heating fires that would last a long, long time, and would certainly provide more energy in terms of BTUs and other measurements than you expended. --------------------------------- The energy expended by the settler is not all the energy involved. It's only that used in the harvesting of the tree. iBoater previously claimed that it takes less than a gallon of fossil fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol. He's now claiming that all the energy consumed in the growing, harvesting and production of the corn (or sugar) for a gallon of ethanol is less than the energy the gallon of ethanol will produce as a fuel. I say nonsense. Now you're catching on to Iloogys idiocy. |
Ethanol?
On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 16:45:40 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
=== I did, and it is true if you add in all of the agricultural energy such as fertilizer production, etc. It was true, not anymore. --------------------------------------------- Well, halleluiah and praise be to the corn gods. Cheap perpetual energy. Oh, and by the way, the science community better get busy re-writing the laws of physics. === It's not truly a perpetual motion system because the corn crop benefits from a lot of free solar energy. The question is whether or not the crop consumes more fossil fuel in its production than it yields as a motor fuel. Apparently recent gains in crop yield and ethanol production efficiency have tipped the balance so that ethanol is now yielding slightly more energy than it uses. It's still a lousy fuel however, and thanks to the farm lobby it will be very difficult to get rid of it. You can still buy non-ethanol fuel at some marinas and at all general aviation airports. The av-gas has lead in it however so it will ruin the catalytic converter in a vehicle. |
Ethanol?
On Apr 27, 7:11*pm, Wayne B wrote:
You can still buy non-ethanol fuel at some marinas and at all general aviation airports. *The av-gas has lead in it however so it will ruin the catalytic converter in a vehicle. My late 70's stihl 051 AV loves it! http://www.motorsaegen-portal.de/stihl/051links.JPG |
Ethanol?
In article , says...
In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... Maybe if the right wouldn't be SO afraid of new technology, we could move forward and make engines that would be just fine on ethanol. ------------------------------------------------------- That's not the problem. The problem is that ethanol was forced upon the industry and public even when testing indicated that many existing fuel delivery systems would be adversely affected by it. The last boat I bought had one year old, USCG approved fuel lines that were perfectly fine but the survey revealed that they should be replaced with a newer, ethanol resistant type. Not an easy or inexpensive task on a twin engine boat with fuel tanks located in an almost inaccessible location. At least one major boat manufacturer had to recall all their boats when it was found that ethanol laced fuel was dissolving the resin used to make fiberglass fuel tanks that were an integral part of the boat's molded design. The resin was carried into the engine's fuel delivery system, totally screwing up the fuel injectors. More newer car engines require high octane premium fuel in order to get full performance without having the engine sensors retard timing, thanks to ethanol. It was a bad idea then and now the government wants to make it even worse. Didn't Al Gore finally admit that turning our food source into fuel was a bad idea? Republican: Igor no like new technology. Igor scared. What new technology is there in fermenting grain? It has been going on for thousands of years. I rest my case.... What technological improvements have there been in distilling spirits over the past several millennium. Oh, none I suppose, if you are a moron. They still do it with a wood fire out in the woods, kind of like your blind foolish assumption that the internal combustion engine hasn't changed since it's invention. The internal combustion engine hasn't changed since its invention. |
Ethanol?
In article , says...
In article , says... On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:17:54 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: Gee, who was it here that said that it takes more energy to make ethanol than it produces? === I did, and it is true if you add in all of the agricultural energy such as fertilizer production, etc. It was true, not anymore. Cite? |
Ethanol?
In article , says...
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 4/27/13 4:45 PM, Eisboch wrote: "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:17:54 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: Gee, who was it here that said that it takes more energy to make ethanol than it produces? === I did, and it is true if you add in all of the agricultural energy such as fertilizer production, etc. It was true, not anymore. --------------------------------------------- Well, halleluiah and praise be to the corn gods. Cheap perpetual energy. Oh, and by the way, the science community better get busy re-writing the laws of physics. I posit that "perpetual" energy really isn't relevant. If you were an early settler to this continent, and spent a day cutting down a tree and sawing it into firewood, you had a source of energy for your cooking and heating fires that would last a long, long time, and would certainly provide more energy in terms of BTUs and other measurements than you expended. --------------------------------- The energy expended by the settler is not all the energy involved. It's only that used in the harvesting of the tree. iBoater previously claimed that it takes less than a gallon of fossil fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol. He's now claiming that all the energy consumed in the growing, harvesting and production of the corn (or sugar) for a gallon of ethanol is less than the energy the gallon of ethanol will produce as a fuel. I say nonsense. iStupid doesn't have a leg to stand on. http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/B...ages/Cost.aspx Because a gallon of ethanol contains less energy than a gallon of gasoline, the production cost of ethanol must be multiplied by a factor of 1.5 to make an energy-cost comparison with gasoline. This means that if ethanol costs $1.10 per gallon to produce, then the effective cost per gallon to equal the energy contained in a gallon of gasoline is $1.65. In contrast, the current wholesale price of gasoline is about 90 cents per gallon. |
Ethanol?
"Wayne B" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 16:45:40 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: === I did, and it is true if you add in all of the agricultural energy such as fertilizer production, etc. It was true, not anymore. --------------------------------------------- Well, halleluiah and praise be to the corn gods. Cheap perpetual energy. Oh, and by the way, the science community better get busy re-writing the laws of physics. === It's not truly a perpetual motion system because the corn crop benefits from a lot of free solar energy. The question is whether or not the crop consumes more fossil fuel in its production than it yields as a motor fuel. Apparently recent gains in crop yield and ethanol production efficiency have tipped the balance so that ethanol is now yielding slightly more energy than it uses. It's still a lousy fuel however, and thanks to the farm lobby it will be very difficult to get rid of it. You can still buy non-ethanol fuel at some marinas and at all general aviation airports. The av-gas has lead in it however so it will ruin the catalytic converter in a vehicle. ---------------------------------------------- I agree with the "free" solar energy contribution but I still subscribe to ethanol being a net negative in terms of the real costs of growing, harvesting, producing and transporting it to mixing stations. It cannot be pipelined as in the case of gasoline and has to be transported by tank truck or rail. I've tried to confirm yea or nay but it seems that the articles I've found are about equally divided on the subject, depending on who wrote it. It seems the leaded AVGAS debate is still on going but it appears that it too will eventually be replaced with a no-lead alternative. When I was into classic cars I got a fill-up for the 67 GTO I had at the airport where I took flying lessons. I knew the guy that ran the fueling station and he let me drive out to the pump and get a quick tank full. To be honest, I never really noticed any difference in performance, even though the AVGAS was 100 octane (100LL). Probably would have if I had adjusted the timing, but I never bothered. |
Ethanol?
|
Ethanol?
In article ,
says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:17:54 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: Gee, who was it here that said that it takes more energy to make ethanol than it produces? === I did, and it is true if you add in all of the agricultural energy such as fertilizer production, etc. It was true, not anymore. --------------------------------------------- Well, halleluiah and praise be to the corn gods. Cheap perpetual energy. Oh, and by the way, the science community better get busy re-writing the laws of physics. Why? |
Ethanol?
|
Ethanol?
In article ,
says... "Wayne B" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 16:45:40 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: === I did, and it is true if you add in all of the agricultural energy such as fertilizer production, etc. It was true, not anymore. --------------------------------------------- Well, halleluiah and praise be to the corn gods. Cheap perpetual energy. Oh, and by the way, the science community better get busy re-writing the laws of physics. === It's not truly a perpetual motion system because the corn crop benefits from a lot of free solar energy. The question is whether or not the crop consumes more fossil fuel in its production than it yields as a motor fuel. Apparently recent gains in crop yield and ethanol production efficiency have tipped the balance so that ethanol is now yielding slightly more energy than it uses. It's still a lousy fuel however, and thanks to the farm lobby it will be very difficult to get rid of it. You can still buy non-ethanol fuel at some marinas and at all general aviation airports. The av-gas has lead in it however so it will ruin the catalytic converter in a vehicle. ---------------------------------------------- I agree with the "free" solar energy contribution but I still subscribe to ethanol being a net negative in terms of the real costs of growing, harvesting, producing and transporting it to mixing stations. It cannot be pipelined as in the case of gasoline and has to be transported by tank truck or rail. I've tried to confirm yea or nay but it seems that the articles I've found are about equally divided on the subject, depending on who wrote it. It seems the leaded AVGAS debate is still on going but it appears that it too will eventually be replaced with a no-lead alternative. When I was into classic cars I got a fill-up for the 67 GTO I had at the airport where I took flying lessons. I knew the guy that ran the fueling station and he let me drive out to the pump and get a quick tank full. To be honest, I never really noticed any difference in performance, even though the AVGAS was 100 octane (100LL). Probably would have if I had adjusted the timing, but I never bothered. It faces challenges just like any new technology, but it can be piped and there are several proposals to build and use pipelines for ethanol. http://tinyurl.com/cbbxz6l |
Ethanol?
In article ,
says... On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:14:55 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: It faces challenges just like any new technology, but it can be piped and there are several proposals to build and use pipelines for ethanol. http://tinyurl.com/cbbxz6l There is nothing new about ethanol. Distilling alcohol predates petroleum by a thousand years Oh, crap, you are going to take BARS stance that NOTHING in the process has changed since the dinosaurs?? REALLY????? |
Ethanol?
In article ,
says... On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:00:04 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:14:55 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: It faces challenges just like any new technology, but it can be piped and there are several proposals to build and use pipelines for ethanol. http://tinyurl.com/cbbxz6l There is nothing new about ethanol. Distilling alcohol predates petroleum by a thousand years Oh, crap, you are going to take BARS stance that NOTHING in the process has changed since the dinosaurs?? REALLY????? The principle advances in the whole process are agricultural. We use more chemicals, more water, bigger machines and genetically altered corn. Nope. |
Ethanol?
In article ,
says... On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:49:14 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:00:04 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:14:55 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: It faces challenges just like any new technology, but it can be piped and there are several proposals to build and use pipelines for ethanol. http://tinyurl.com/cbbxz6l There is nothing new about ethanol. Distilling alcohol predates petroleum by a thousand years Oh, crap, you are going to take BARS stance that NOTHING in the process has changed since the dinosaurs?? REALLY????? The principle advances in the whole process are agricultural. We use more chemicals, more water, bigger machines and genetically altered corn. Nope. cite No problem! http://tinyurl.com/ctx4n29 http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/40742.pdf http://tinyurl.com/d39dskp http://tinyurl.com/cqa4o6t |
Ethanol?
In article , says...
In article , says... On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:49:14 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:00:04 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:14:55 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: It faces challenges just like any new technology, but it can be piped and there are several proposals to build and use pipelines for ethanol. http://tinyurl.com/cbbxz6l There is nothing new about ethanol. Distilling alcohol predates petroleum by a thousand years Oh, crap, you are going to take BARS stance that NOTHING in the process has changed since the dinosaurs?? REALLY????? The principle advances in the whole process are agricultural. We use more chemicals, more water, bigger machines and genetically altered corn. Nope. cite No problem! http://tinyurl.com/ctx4n29 http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/40742.pdf http://tinyurl.com/d39dskp http://tinyurl.com/cqa4o6t None of these articles describe anything about an improved distillation process. |
Ethanol?
In article ,
says... In article , says... In article , says... On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:49:14 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:00:04 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:14:55 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: It faces challenges just like any new technology, but it can be piped and there are several proposals to build and use pipelines for ethanol. http://tinyurl.com/cbbxz6l There is nothing new about ethanol. Distilling alcohol predates petroleum by a thousand years Oh, crap, you are going to take BARS stance that NOTHING in the process has changed since the dinosaurs?? REALLY????? The principle advances in the whole process are agricultural. We use more chemicals, more water, bigger machines and genetically altered corn. Nope. cite No problem! http://tinyurl.com/ctx4n29 http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/40742.pdf http://tinyurl.com/d39dskp http://tinyurl.com/cqa4o6t None of these articles describe anything about an improved distillation process. Really?? Come on now, are you just playing dumb or did you really not understand? |
Ethanol?
In article ,
says... On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 14:12:45 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:49:14 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:00:04 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:14:55 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: It faces challenges just like any new technology, but it can be piped and there are several proposals to build and use pipelines for ethanol. http://tinyurl.com/cbbxz6l There is nothing new about ethanol. Distilling alcohol predates petroleum by a thousand years Oh, crap, you are going to take BARS stance that NOTHING in the process has changed since the dinosaurs?? REALLY????? The principle advances in the whole process are agricultural. We use more chemicals, more water, bigger machines and genetically altered corn. Nope. cite No problem! http://tinyurl.com/ctx4n29 http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/40742.pdf http://tinyurl.com/d39dskp http://tinyurl.com/cqa4o6t How do any of these address a better still? Who said it did? YOU said that the advances "are agricultural", I said no, and you asked for cite, you have it. |
Ethanol?
On 4/29/2013 12:57 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 14:12:45 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:49:14 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:00:04 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:14:55 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: It faces challenges just like any new technology, but it can be piped and there are several proposals to build and use pipelines for ethanol. http://tinyurl.com/cbbxz6l There is nothing new about ethanol. Distilling alcohol predates petroleum by a thousand years Oh, crap, you are going to take BARS stance that NOTHING in the process has changed since the dinosaurs?? REALLY????? The principle advances in the whole process are agricultural. We use more chemicals, more water, bigger machines and genetically altered corn. Nope. cite No problem! http://tinyurl.com/ctx4n29 http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/40742.pdf http://tinyurl.com/d39dskp http://tinyurl.com/cqa4o6t How do any of these address a better still? .... and the even bigger question to kevin is "why is it ok to build pipeline for ethanol that isn't even ready to ship, but not ok to build for oil which we have plenty of?" |
Ethanol?
In article ,
says... On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:16:32 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... The principle advances in the whole process are agricultural. We use more chemicals, more water, bigger machines and genetically altered corn. Nope. cite No problem! http://tinyurl.com/ctx4n29 This one is about feeding the sludge in the bottom of the still to farm animals http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/40742.pdf This one talks about how hard it is to get ethanol from biomass and points out nobody is doing it in the US commercially. http://tinyurl.com/d39dskp This one only has one short reference to the distillation process where they put some benzine (a carcinogen) in the mix to help extract the last 5-6% of water but the bulk of it comes out on a process similar to reverse osmosis. http://tinyurl.com/cqa4o6t This is another biomass article, saying it is "here" but "here" is not the US unless you include these science fair projects by grad students.. How do any of these address a better still? Who said it did? YOU said that the advances "are agricultural", I said no, and you asked for cite, you have it. I got supreme examples of turd polishing by industry hacks and NONE of them address distillation improvements., Again, who said anything about "distillation improvements"????? YOU said that the ONLY improvements were in agricultural methods, and you were wrong. |
Ethanol?
In article ,
says... On 4/29/2013 12:57 AM, wrote: On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 14:12:45 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:49:14 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:00:04 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:14:55 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: It faces challenges just like any new technology, but it can be piped and there are several proposals to build and use pipelines for ethanol. http://tinyurl.com/cbbxz6l There is nothing new about ethanol. Distilling alcohol predates petroleum by a thousand years Oh, crap, you are going to take BARS stance that NOTHING in the process has changed since the dinosaurs?? REALLY????? The principle advances in the whole process are agricultural. We use more chemicals, more water, bigger machines and genetically altered corn. Nope. cite No problem! http://tinyurl.com/ctx4n29 http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/40742.pdf http://tinyurl.com/d39dskp http://tinyurl.com/cqa4o6t How do any of these address a better still? ... and the even bigger question to kevin is "why is it ok to build pipeline for ethanol that isn't even ready to ship, but not ok to build for oil which we have plenty of?" I don't know about KevinHarryPlume, but if you are addressing ME, show me where I ever said it was "not ok to build for oil"? |
Ethanol?
On 4/29/13 5:28 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:45:43 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:16:32 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... The principle advances in the whole process are agricultural. We use more chemicals, more water, bigger machines and genetically altered corn. Nope. cite No problem! http://tinyurl.com/ctx4n29 This one is about feeding the sludge in the bottom of the still to farm animals http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/40742.pdf This one talks about how hard it is to get ethanol from biomass and points out nobody is doing it in the US commercially. http://tinyurl.com/d39dskp This one only has one short reference to the distillation process where they put some benzine (a carcinogen) in the mix to help extract the last 5-6% of water but the bulk of it comes out on a process similar to reverse osmosis. http://tinyurl.com/cqa4o6t This is another biomass article, saying it is "here" but "here" is not the US unless you include these science fair projects by grad students.. How do any of these address a better still? Who said it did? YOU said that the advances "are agricultural", I said no, and you asked for cite, you have it. I got supreme examples of turd polishing by industry hacks and NONE of them address distillation improvements., Again, who said anything about "distillation improvements"????? YOU said that the ONLY improvements were in agricultural methods, and you were wrong. Those articles talking about feeding the sludge to animals sounds agricultural to me. Two of the 3 were talking about the dream of cellulose conversion, which they have not actually been able to do and the last is just a puff piece from a lobbying organization and it is still talking about better crop yields (agricultural) and biomass. If this is such a great process, why does the government have to subsidize every gallon by 60-70 cents? Why does the government subsidize "Big Oil"? |
Ethanol?
In article ,
says... On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:45:43 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:16:32 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... The principle advances in the whole process are agricultural. We use more chemicals, more water, bigger machines and genetically altered corn. Nope. cite No problem! http://tinyurl.com/ctx4n29 This one is about feeding the sludge in the bottom of the still to farm animals http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/40742.pdf This one talks about how hard it is to get ethanol from biomass and points out nobody is doing it in the US commercially. http://tinyurl.com/d39dskp This one only has one short reference to the distillation process where they put some benzine (a carcinogen) in the mix to help extract the last 5-6% of water but the bulk of it comes out on a process similar to reverse osmosis. http://tinyurl.com/cqa4o6t This is another biomass article, saying it is "here" but "here" is not the US unless you include these science fair projects by grad students.. How do any of these address a better still? Who said it did? YOU said that the advances "are agricultural", I said no, and you asked for cite, you have it. I got supreme examples of turd polishing by industry hacks and NONE of them address distillation improvements., Again, who said anything about "distillation improvements"????? YOU said that the ONLY improvements were in agricultural methods, and you were wrong. Those articles talking about feeding the sludge to animals sounds agricultural to me. Two of the 3 were talking about the dream of cellulose conversion, which they have not actually been able to do and the last is just a puff piece from a lobbying organization and it is still talking about better crop yields (agricultural) and biomass. If this is such a great process, why does the government have to subsidize every gallon by 60-70 cents? Haven't been able to do????? Really?? Come on now, you used to be reasonable. Oh, and probably the same reason why the government has to subsidize the crops that YOU and everyone eats. |
Ethanol?
In article ,
says... On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:44:28 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/29/13 5:28 PM, wrote: If this is such a great process, why does the government have to subsidize every gallon by 60-70 cents? Why does the government subsidize "Big Oil"? Mostly to get them to exploit "old" wells here and reduce our imports of foreign oil. As a per gallon rate it is still minuscule compared to ethanol. US oil production is about 2.3 billion barrels a year and a reasonable guess on subsidies is $5B so it is about a nickel a gallon for the crude, spread over whatever products they produce, from gasoline to plastics and road tar. You can't even include the military cost in North American oil production subsidies. Hooboy.... |
Ethanol?
On Thursday, April 25, 2013 5:25:05 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
My heretofore trusty Honda lawnmower wouldn't start earlier this week. It's 10 years old and I only use it for trim work. Over the winter, I run it dry with Sta-bil blue (marine). Unfortunately, I forgot to drain the carb bowl. Everything else seemed ok on the Honda motor, so I pulled the carb to see what was going on. What was going on was heavy duty "white" corrosion of some sort. Never seen anything like it before. Valleys etched into the walls of the carb. So, I took the carb up to a local lawn equipment dealer and the parts guy said, "That's ethanol 'corrosion' on aluminum...your carb is ruined." He ordered a new carb and gasket for me, it came in today, I installed it and the motor started right up. In the past, I've posted I didn't have any "ethanol problems." Well, I had a $50 (cost of carb) problem this week. Next fall, I'll remember to drain the damned carb bowl. Grrrr. You mean that lawnmower was not seized or repossesed in your multiple bankruptcies? |
Ethanol?
On 4/29/2013 10:44 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:36:21 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... Those articles talking about feeding the sludge to animals sounds agricultural to me. Two of the 3 were talking about the dream of cellulose conversion, which they have not actually been able to do and the last is just a puff piece from a lobbying organization and it is still talking about better crop yields (agricultural) and biomass. If this is such a great process, why does the government have to subsidize every gallon by 60-70 cents? Haven't been able to do????? Really?? Come on now, you used to be reasonable. They do not have ONE biomass ethanol plant in the US operating successfully on a commercial scale. Oh, and probably the same reason why the government has to subsidize the crops that YOU and everyone eats. The reason they do that is simply more corporate welfare. I would applaud stopping that tomorrow. What happend to the notion that O'Bama wants to dip into the pockets of the rich? Seems like he's giving them money at the expense of us poor folks. |
Ethanol?
In article ,
says... On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:57:50 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:44:28 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/29/13 5:28 PM, wrote: If this is such a great process, why does the government have to subsidize every gallon by 60-70 cents? Why does the government subsidize "Big Oil"? Mostly to get them to exploit "old" wells here and reduce our imports of foreign oil. As a per gallon rate it is still minuscule compared to ethanol. US oil production is about 2.3 billion barrels a year and a reasonable guess on subsidies is $5B so it is about a nickel a gallon for the crude, spread over whatever products they produce, from gasoline to plastics and road tar. You can't even include the military cost in North American oil production subsidies. Hooboy.... Your worst case guess of the subsidy was $15B or so. That gets it up to 15 cents a gallon. If you want to spread that $15b over all of our imports plus domestic production it gets closer to a penny a gallon. I guess the hooboy is just what you say when you are wrong. The hooboy is your ASSumption, without justification of course, that the government subsidizes oil companies to exploit old wells. Of course, it doesn't matter, the government is subsidizing big oil, you seem okay with that, but ethanol? Of course not, it's that damned NEW stuff. |
Ethanol?
|
Ethanol?
In article ,
says... On Wed, 1 May 2013 08:57:42 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:57:50 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:44:28 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 4/29/13 5:28 PM, wrote: If this is such a great process, why does the government have to subsidize every gallon by 60-70 cents? Why does the government subsidize "Big Oil"? Mostly to get them to exploit "old" wells here and reduce our imports of foreign oil. As a per gallon rate it is still minuscule compared to ethanol. US oil production is about 2.3 billion barrels a year and a reasonable guess on subsidies is $5B so it is about a nickel a gallon for the crude, spread over whatever products they produce, from gasoline to plastics and road tar. You can't even include the military cost in North American oil production subsidies. Hooboy.... Your worst case guess of the subsidy was $15B or so. That gets it up to 15 cents a gallon. If you want to spread that $15b over all of our imports plus domestic production it gets closer to a penny a gallon. I guess the hooboy is just what you say when you are wrong. The hooboy is your ASSumption, without justification of course, that the government subsidizes oil companies to exploit old wells. Of course, it doesn't matter, the government is subsidizing big oil, you seem okay with that, but ethanol? Of course not, it's that damned NEW stuff. Perhaps you should look at the tax credits the oil companies exploit before you pop off like that. They are mostly for increasing or sustaining domestic production and they have been since the Carter administration. I don't like any subsidies but I also understand the difference between the pennies a galloon the oil companies get and the 60-70 cents ethanol gets. Please cite those numbers. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com