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?
 

On 4/28/2013 1:25 AM, wrote:
Ethanol already gets an indefensible tax break at the pump of 51
to 71 cents a gallon,

Our dear congress trying to shovel their mistakes under the rug.