Why is America stupid???

[Badnews Bob]

E 85 maybe 15% corn oil but you don't get 15% out of it. It takes twice as much ethanol to make the same amount of energy as gas dose, BTUs if you will so it doesn't directly convert  mathematically It's a ratio and I don't know the formula but I bet some one here dose. Also it may help grain farmers but it is already costing livestock farmers and you more money. Bio diesel on the other hand produces more BTUs per unit than E85 dose, and guess what, MOST OF US CAN'T AFFORD IT!

[Dixie Dude]

I still say the way to solve the problem is as follows:

1) Build nuclear power plants to Navy standards, use these to replace coal, fuel oil, and natural gas power plants.  (no carbon emmissions).
2) Use coal to make synthetic gasoline and diesel fuel.  (replaces imported oil).
3) Use wind, geothermal, and solar whenever it is possible in earthquake prone areas. 
4) Don't add federal taxes of any kind to hybrid or diesel cars.  This should help kick start the hybrid vehicles.  (further reduces consumption).

These are our only chances to continue to grow the economy, stop importing oil, and cut greenhouse gases. 

[oldandslow]

Burning as much oil to produce ethanol that returns no more energy than it took to produce it returns zero gain. Why go thru all the steps to make something that produces nothing? Add in all the increased costs to the consumer from government subsidies and increased food prices and it is actually a losing proposition. Simply refining the oil used to produce ethanol into gasoline and diesel to start with would make more economic sense. In either case the oil is gone, not saved.The latest news out is switchgrass is supposed to be able to produce much more ethanol for the same cost as corn. Why not do something with this?

The point I'm trying to make is that we are looking for ways to reduce our dependence on oil. Using as much oil to manufacture its replacement does nothing to reduce that dependence. We are just running in a circle going no where.

[Graybeard]

E 85 maybe 15% corn oil but you don't get 15% out of it. It takes twice as much ethanol to make the same amount of energy as gas dose, BTUs if you will so it doesn't directly convert  mathematically It's a ratio and I don't know the formula but I bet some one here dose. Also it may help grain farmers but it is already costing livestock farmers and you more money. Bio diesel on the other hand produces more BTUs per unit than E85 dose, and guess what, MOST OF US CAN'T AFFORD IT!

Where is the science based evidence to back up this and other claims regarding the use of ethanol as a fuel?

I keep reading comments saying this like it takes more energy to develop it than it provides, that it has less energy value than gas and on and on. But I've yet to see anyone quote a reliable science based evidence to back up such claims. I'm not saying they are incorrect as I quite honestly dunno but so far no one has backed up what amounts to rumor with science.

One thing I do know is that back when I used to watch drag racing the fastest cars burned alcohol not gas or diesel. Now the why of that I guess I don't really know but I have to believe it was because they got more energy ie more horse power burning it or they'd not have done so.

I think a lot of emotion and little real thought is being espoused here. I too don't like the idea of burning food as fuel and think it's kinda dumb regardless of the effect it has on reducing oil consumption. I think there are better ways to reduce our dependence on arab oil but I'm not convinced all the "facts" being tossed out here as to why it shouldn't be done are in fact "facts".

[oldandslow]

Popular Mechanics Magazine had an article addressing the cost to produce ethanol a few months ago and they had figures to show this. Walter Williams also brought this up in his column a few weeks ago with some figures to go with it.

From various sites on the web:
Ethanol- 83,333 BTU per gallon
E85- 94,190 BTU per gallon
Gasoline- 115,000 BTU per gallon
#2 Diesel- 129,500 BTU per gallon
Bio-Diesel-118,296 BTU per gallon

Graybeard, you are correct about alcohol burning dragsters. I don't know the science of it. I do know they burn a tremendous amount of it to get the power they do. I've been around some people dragracing 4 wheelers. They have to run a much larger main jet  than they would for gasoline to flow the amount of fuel it takes.

[ironglow]

  But they can afford such burn rates..they are only driving 1/4 mile per trip...LOL

[30-06man]

  But they can afford such burn rates..they are only driving 1/4 mile per trip...LOL

Its still not cheap. Racing fuel (not the alcohol stuff) cost around $9 a gallon.

[oldandslow]

I'm done with this. I have to go burn some #2 shredding some of that biomass that has grown up around my ears.

[Badnews Bob]

Greybeard, I don't have scientific proof myself, But I do have some real world experience, You are absolutely correct in that the alcohol cars are very fast, the only thing really faster are the nitro cars, which are basically lighting off dynamite in the engine. I myself drag race although nothing like the level you see on TV, I know from personal experience that two cars of equal performance one running race gas the other running ethanol, The gas car will use about half the fuel per run as the alcohol car.

 They also require special gaskets larger fuel lines, bigger pumps etc, etc. They also require more frequent oil changes as the fuel gets by the rings easier than gas. they are powerful and fast but cost more to do so.

 I don't have numbers myself but I no the differencesce is in BTUs per unit of fuel. Oldandslow provided some of those.

 I work in the aviation field and the big power maker there is basically really clean kerosene.

 America is not stupid by no means, Just misled by politicians and businesses.   They want or citizenship and our money. I believe this with heart and it really bothers me that greed will prevail.

[Cabin4]

Whats a gallon of e85 go for?

[Cabin4]

Today,ethanol producers have the capacity to produce nearly 5.5 billion gallons each year. Ethanol is a renewable resource that is primarily made from corn, other grains and waste products.

Will we deplete human and animal food supplies by using corn and other grains for fuel production?

No, production of ethanol from corn uses only the starch of the corn kernel, all of the valuable protein, minerals and nutrients remain. One bushel of corn produces about 2.7 gallons of ethanol AND 11.4 pounds of gluten feed (20% protein) AND 3 pounds of gluten meal (60% protein) AND 1.6 pounds of corn oil.


Hmmmmmm

[Cabin4]

Does it take more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the energy we get out of it?

Response:

No. This has been a common misconception of the ethanol industry, that it takes more energy to make ethanol than is available to the final consumer. Remember, ethanol is produced from plant matter, today dominated by corn, wheat, potatoes, sorgum, etc. Plants grow through the use of energy provided by the sun and are a renewable resources. In the future, ethanol will be produced from waste products or "energy crops." In fact, a partner of the NEVC, BC International (BCI), is currently constructing an ethanol production plant in Louisiana that will use sugar cane waste to produce ethanol. Additionally, BCI is considering the establishment of ethanol production facilities in California that would use the waste hulls from rice growers and wood waste from the forrest industry to produce ethanol. Energy crops such as perennial switch grasses, timothy, and other high-output/low-input crops will be used in the future.

Current research prepared by Argonne National Laboratory (a U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory), indicates a 38% gain in the overall energy input/output equation for the corn-to-ethanol process. That is, if 100 BTUs of energy is used to plant corn, harvest the crop, transport it, etc., 138 BTUs of energy is available in the fuel ethanol. Corn yields and processing technologies have improved significantly over the past 20 years and they continue to do so, making ethanol production less and less energy intensive.

[Graybeard]

Anyone needing bio-mass for fuels is welcome to come cut grass on my place and haul off all the clippings. I figure that each time you visit and cut you should be able to take away a ton or more of bio-mass to use for fuels. Since I'm such a nice guy I won't even charge you for the clippings you take away. I'm now taking volunteers to come harvest my excess bio-mass for fuel use or for that matter any other use you wanna make of it. 

[30-06man]

Anyone needing bio-mass for fuels is welcome to come cut grass on my place and haul off all the clippings. I figure that each time you visit and cut you should be able to take away a ton or more of bio-mass to use for fuels. Since I'm such a nice guy I won't even charge you for the clippings you take away. I'm now taking volunteers to come harvest my excess bio-mass for fuel use or for that matter any other use you wanna make of it. 

Bill you forgot to say you need to bring your own mower and gas.

[deltecs]

I think logically and not emotionally.  Here are some websites that confirm that E85 ethanol fuel is not as effecient as gas.  You save 15% petroleum to get approximately a 75% output.  That is a 10% loss not including the cost of petroleum fuels used to process the ethanol.  Consumer Reports has MPG for E85 fuel vs gasoline already having a 10% ethanol content.   http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2006/ethanol-10-06/tests-of-ethanol-vs.-gasoline/1006_ethanol_test_1.htm
              E85   Gas
City           7       9       78%     22% less effecient than gas
Highway   15      21       71.4%  23.6% less
150 mile    13     18      72.2%   22.8& less
overall       10     14       71.4%  23.6% less efficient

Remember this gas is already at 10% ethanol.  It is obviously apparent to anyone that an addition of  ethanol results in substantial effeciency loss in addition to the costs of production, refinement, shipping, and additive.  These additional costs must be accounted for the mileage per gallon of fuel used.  If you figure it out, the cost of ethanol, so it can added to your gas tank, must be more expensive and use more petroleum fuels in the production than the cost of straight gasoline alone.  

David Pimentel, an agricultural scientist at Cornell University and one of the foremost critics of ethanol, has conducted numerous cost analyses on ethanol production. He's made a name for himself mostly by driving the ethanol industry raving mad. From its very beginnings, when hoe enters soil, ethanol production has not changed much since the nineteenth century. Pimentel found that one acre of U.S. corn field yields about 7,110 pounds of corn, which in turn produces 328 gallons of ethanol. Setting aside the environmental implications (which are substantial), the financial costs already begin to mount. To plant, grow, and harvest the corn takes about 140 gallons of fossil fuel and costs about $347 per acre. According to Pimentel's analysis, even before the corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock alone costs $0.69 per gallon of ethanol.

More damning, however, is that converting corn to ethanol requires about 99,119 BTUs to make one gallon, which has 77,000 BTUs of available energy. So about 29 percent more energy is required to produce a gallon of ethanol than is stored in that gallon in the first place. "That helps explain why fossil fuels (not ethanol) are used to produce ethanol," Pimentel says. "The growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn't afford it, either, if it weren't for government subsidies that artificially lower the price." All told, a gallon of ethanol costs $2.24 to produce, compared to $0.63 for a gallon of gasoline.

So, if we were to switch entirely to ethanol use, we'd run out of petroleum four times as fast.
 

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams031208.php3   This is from an economist.

The PC is about environmental concerns and not energy.  Definitely ethanol does burn with much less hydrocarbon emissions in vehicles.  But as to its real cost effectiveness and the balance of energy used vs consumed, is much less than proponents of ethanol would have you believe.  Ethanol proponents jumped on the energy bandwagon for environmental concerns once gas prices started to climb.  They never have been concerned with any alternative energy sources other than what is better for our world's air, regardless of cost.

The latest Clean Cities Alternative Fuels Price Report, which was issued in March and is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, shows the average retail price per gallon of E85 was approximately 20 cents less than that of gasoline, but ethanol was 66 cents more expensive when measured as a per-gallon gasoline equivalent. This is because, as we explained earlier, E85 gets fewer miles to the gallon than gasoline. So when drivers run their cars on E85 they spend more to get where they're going. 

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/audacious_ethanol_hopes.html

[Dixie Dude]

Therein lies the problem with the environmentalists.  MOST carbon emissions are from burning coal to produce electricity and in industrial production, not from vehicles.  Vehicles are second on the list.  Build nuclear power plants, wind turbines where most efficient, geothermal, etc.  Then use the coal to make synthetic fuel.  Keeps all the money at home, not in some sheiks pocket.  Then, work on getting the vehicles more efficient and use hybrids.  We have an 800 year supply of coal.  Why are we not using our ace in the hole?  It can be made into diesel, gasoline, and natural gas.  Just requires building the conversion factories and refineries to do it.  Also, 1 acre of greenhouse grown algae can produce 100,000 gallons of oil a year.  We could supply the whole country with greenhouses covering approximately 1/10 the size of New Mexico.  Why haven't we explored this option?  5 oil companies produce about 85% of the fuel we use.  It is almost a monopoly, buying up patents, and keeping new technology snuffed out, until the oil runs out. 

[30-06man]

Therein lies the problem with the environmentalists.  MOST carbon emissions are from burning coal to produce electricity and in industrial production, not from vehicles.  Vehicles are second on the list.  Build nuclear power plants, wind turbines where most efficient, geothermal, etc.  Then use the coal to make synthetic fuel.  Keeps all the money at home, not in some sheiks pocket.  Then, work on getting the vehicles more efficient and use hybrids.  We have an 800 year supply of coal.  Why are we not using our ace in the hole?  It can be made into diesel, gasoline, and natural gas.  Just requires building the conversion factories and refineries to do it.  Also, 1 acre of greenhouse grown algae can produce 100,000 gallons of oil a year.  We could supply the whole country with greenhouses covering approximately 1/10 the size of New Mexico.  Why haven't we explored this option?  5 oil companies produce about 85% of the fuel we use.  It is almost a monopoly, buying up patents, and keeping new technology snuffed out, until the oil runs out. 

I for one hasn't bought into the so called fact that oil is going to run out. I have heard that many dry wells have oil in them again. Its just we need to drill for it here and not depend on foreign oil but also still look at alternative fuels and make the vehicles where they get more MPG.

[deltecs]

TheJunk Science: A New 'Green' Body Count Begins
Thursday, April 17, 2008

By Steven Milloy
Biofuels have turned out to be a lose-lose-lose proposition. Once touted by the greens and the biofuel industry as being able to reduce the demand for oil and lower greenhouse gas emissions, biofuels have accomplished neither goal and have no prospect for accomplishing either in the foreseeable future.

The latest research shows that biofuels actually increase greenhouse gas emissions on a total lifecycle basis. Add in that taxpayer-subsidized diversion of food crops and food crop acreage to fuel production has contributed to higher food prices and reduced food supply, and biofuels turn out to be nothing less than a public policy disaster.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351590,00.html

Well, here are some more opposition to E85 and biofuels.  For all the so called facts on this fad, apples are being compared to oranges.  When one compares apples with apples, biofuels and E85 are not what the proponents want you to hear. 

[SHOOTALL]

Seems odd but on several trips through the Midwest we saw really large mountains of corn , they covered acres and had to be 30-40 feet tall or more . When we asked what the corn was for we got told it was going to be burned as it was surplus . Last trip was 2 years ago .
Be it fuel or food if false support was removed the market would correct itself and products would come out on their own merit not some false market ! But then the American people would be taking care of themselves not waiting for govt. to take care of  us .

[billy_56081]

Those large mountains of corn are storage bunkers that are being used because there is not enough bin space to store all the corn at times. Whoever told you it was going to be burned was not correct. With modern farming methods here in the Midwest the amount of corn per acre has increased dramatically. When prices are low the corn is stored , when high it is sold. Now with the advent of ethanol, there is not nearly enough corn production to feed the alcohol plants. THe distillers grains that are to be used for feed are causing problems with beef as it is allready partially digested and the cows mulitple stomachs  will not handle it. The only corn that was being burned was small scale heating systems in houses, and now that corn is sky high that is not even feasable to do for home heat.

[SHOOTALL]

well on our way back they were in fact burning , the smoke could be seen for miles .

[Oldtimer]

My brother-in-law  told me that both the big grain processing plants, ADM and Tate and Lyle, in Decatur, Il, where he worked for Norfolk-Southern Railroad, processed 250,000 bushels of corn per day.  This is just the grain portion of the plant.  The rest of the plant, which can also be converted to ethanol, goes to waste.  The Brazilians use all the sugar cane plant, and what is left after the juice is extracted is burned to produce steam to run the process.  We are seriously missing the boat when we use grain crops instead of biomass. 
There are other sources of energy that have not been touched.  Here in Virginia, there has been a long-standing dispute about ownership rights to the gasses vented from coal mines. It is essentially methane, but the mine owners and the builders of pipelines to carry it cannot agree on how to profit from collecting the gas.  So it goes into the atmosphere, to add to the "pollution" produced by cows (and squirrels, and groundhogs, other herbivores, and me, since I have been known to produce gas myself).

[Dixie Dude]

Natural gas is pure methane, only with 1% odor added for safety. 

[SHOOTALL]

natural gas is a mixture of methane and ethane with other gases present and yes odor is added for safety .

[SHOOTALL]

also in some areas of the country butane and propane are added in extreme cold weather to enhance it .

[Dixie Dude]

I am in engineer with a natural gas utility.  Natural gas is 96% methane 2% ethane, 1% odor, and 1% air.  Essentially it is methane, I just didn't go into details.  We are already getting some natural gas out of old coal seams in northwest Alabama and piping it into Birmingham. 

[Dixie Dude]

The 96% natural gas that we use is essentially 1,000 BTU's per cubic foot.  Some coal gas is only about 500 BTU's, so yes you have to put some higher BTU content gas (propane, etc) mix into it to get it up to 1,000.  All natural gas appliances are designed for 1,000 BTU gas.  Another problem is during extremely cold weather, the pressure drops on the distribution system because of the demand, so in some areas of the country, a mixture of propane-air is injected into the system to keep the pressures up.  Propane has a higher BTU content, so it has to be diluted with air to bring it down to 1,000 BTUs, unless the appliances are designed for propane only.  Some appliances are designed for both, but have to be adjusted for one or the other. 

Natural gas is found naturally in oil wells, in wells by itself, and in coal seams.  Propane is a very light gas formed as a by-product of oil refining.  Essentially propane is a refined gas from oil.  When oil is refined, it makes diesel, light oils, kerosene, gasoline.  Also thick oils like asphalt, and very light like propane and ethane.  Natural gas can also be made from algae, seaweed, cow manure, and synthetically from coal.  It is still not cost effective to make it from these renewable sources yet. 

If they would let us drill in Anwar in Alaska, we have a 67 year supply of natural gas up there for the lower 48 states.  I know the environmentalists say there is only a 2 year supply, but they don't tell you about the natural gas.  When the oil well is drilled, the natural gas is on the top, the oil on the bottom.  They use the natural gas pressure to force the oil up and out first.  When all the oil is out, then they release the gas, which is lighter than air and rises.  So after the oil comes out, the gas will come out for many years.  There is also enough natural gas in hydrates in the Bermuda triangle to last the whole world for 30,000 years.  It is however very deep and harder to get to.  Discovery channel had a special on this.  The gas being occationally released in these hydrates, causes ships to sink, and airplanes to explode.  It is not Atlantas or aliens, but just plain old natural gas. 

[SHOOTALL]

Glad you are an engineer , I have found like i posted before , it depends on where you are as to the final mix. Being a engineer i feel certain you are aware that both temp. and elev. play a role in the delivered mix along with the location .
Did not intend to tic you off just add the facts as i have over 30 years as a lic. gas fitter and had to deal with problems caused by some of these " engineered " mixes .

[Hooker]

Just a little more info on alcohol burning drag cars, we ran prosteet big block Fords for a  quite a few years. We had 3 gallon fuel cells we could make 3 passes if we towed back to the pits. That's 6 gallons to the mile. You can in no way compare dragsters to the family car. Dragsters consume massive amounts of fuel and oxygen to make power. Drag fuel is Methanol it makes some not so pleasant exhaust fumes. I could not imagine what a traffic jam would be like if the cars were all running that stuff.

Pat

[Dixie Dude]

Shootall you are right about temperature and elevation.  We figure the gas flows at 60 Degrees, because here in Alabama, mains are about 3' deep.  At 3' the temperature remains almost constant 60 degrees, about 58 in winter and 62 in summer.  That is why underground or semi-underground homes are so fuel efficient.  Also elevation.  Where I am located it is about 700' above sea level.  I figure the atmospheric pressure at 14.4 lbs/sq. inch.  Of course it is 14.7 at sea level.  I have to figure flow rates at the ground temperature the main is located as well as how far above sea level.  It affects flow rates and what we call supercompressibllty.   Most of my formulas are now computerized.  When I started 33 years ago I used a hand calculator, and when in college I used a slide rule.  What used to take me all day to figure pressure drop across a system, not takes about 5 minutes on the computer.  I have probably forgotten half of the math I used to know because of computers.  From our perspective, environmentalists have made fuel costs rise.  We can drill, install mains, etc, without going through environmental approval.  We had to change directions of a main one time in north Alabama, because of some type of grass we might disturb, since it was only native to Alabama.  Even though we were on the side of an existing road, which had already been built.  Sometimes they worry about some little animal or something at the expense of human needs.  We disturb very little trenching in mains, and all streets, creeks, and streams are crossed by boring under.  We try to disturb as little as possible when installing our facilities.  We need to drill offshore Florida, the Atlantic coast and the west coast, as well as in Alaska.  We also have a 200 year supply of shale oil in rock formations in the western US, but most is on government land.  Yet we keep importing oil from the Arabs.  I believe we need to save our environment, because I like the outdoors, hunting, fishing, camping.  But we need to also use our resources, and it can be done responsibility, if we want to continue to improve our lives.