If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
[OT - US/Canada] E-85
On Sun, 07 May 2006 07:35:53 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:
I too like the idea of using ethanol, but the government will have to step in or the oil companies with their massive resources will continue to derail the use of ethanol. Why can't the oil companies get into the ethanol business? Most of the oil company clout exists in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Unfortunately, those countries don't have massive corn, sugar cane, or even potato acreage, and what little they have has a low yield. But never fear. Middle Eastern alchemists are toiling mightily, and may someday be able to get ethanol from silica and blood from a stone. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
[OT - US/Canada] E-85
On Sun, 07 May 2006 11:24:24 -0400, ASAAR wrote:
On Sun, 07 May 2006 07:35:53 -0700, Bill Funk wrote: I too like the idea of using ethanol, but the government will have to step in or the oil companies with their massive resources will continue to derail the use of ethanol. Why can't the oil companies get into the ethanol business? Most of the oil company clout exists in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Unfortunately, those countries don't have massive corn, sugar cane, or even potato acreage, and what little they have has a low yield. But never fear. Middle Eastern alchemists are toiling mightily, and may someday be able to get ethanol from silica and blood from a stone. But why can't they go into ethanol production in the US? If, as I'm constantly told, Big Oil has Bush in their pocket, they must have a lot of clout here, so why not do ethanol here? -- Bill Funk replace "g" with "a" |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
[OT - US/Canada] E-85
On Sun, 07 May 2006 10:07:02 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote: Again, insufficient capacity likely to be available in the forseeable future. See Illinois, Minnesota, Brazil, etc. Brazil uses sugar cane, a crop that can't be grown in quantity in the US. They tried corn, but it doesn't work nearly as well as sugar cane. -- Bill Funk replace "g" with "a" |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
[OT - US/Canada] E-85
Bill Funk wrote:
On Sat, 06 May 2006 19:57:22 -0400, Alan Browne wrote: Is there any truth to the rumor that the pollution created and energy used in the manufacture of E85 offsets the savings? Nope. http://www.ilcorn.org/Ethanol/85__Et...__ethanol.html Suggests a net 33% gain (and improving). But the "savings" aren't there, either. Ethanol as a motor fuel costs more than gasoline. While this might not be reflected at the pump in the case of E-85, that would only be true because of (IIRC) over 50¢ direct tax credit per gallon produced (which means the pump price reflects over 50¢ less than the actual cost). Since ethanol contains less energy per unit, mileage goes down, too. So, it costs more per gallon, and returns lower MPG. No savings there. 1) Direct subsidies on US gasoline amount to 12 cents/gallon. So the gap is 39 cents from the 51 cent / gal of ethanol. http://www.socialvc.net/_data/N_0001...L_04-30-04.pdf This does not count the uncounted civilian toll (Iraqis civilans and soldiers, US contractors, British and other soldiers and civilians, others). 2) You wanna put that into the "price" equation? That subsidy amounts to about 86 cents per gallon (same ref). So, we're at 98 cents subsidy per gallon of gasoline and 51 cents per gallon of ethanol. Net: 47 cents more for gasoline, you just pay it elsewhere. [and other estimates put the "defend the oil" subsidy at MUCH higher] 3) Illinois alone sells enough ethanol per year to displace over 1.2 days of total US oil consumption per year. Or a nearly 9 days of imports from the middle east. (2.5%) (numbers below) 4) Efficiency of E85 by volume is 10 - 15% less (per studies). Price is 20 to 35% cheaper by volume. (Katrina drove up Ethanol too, but the gap has since widened). Prices of Ethanol continue to fall as gas prices (currently) rise. The gap is larger than the subsidy (meaning the subsidies can now begin to reduce since they've had their effect of priming the pump). Ethanol cannot displace all gasoline, but it can take out a large amount of dependancy on Mid East oil. Conservatively, I compute a 24% reduction in mideast oil imports is possible in the US as follows: If current Ethanol consumption in Illinois could be replicated 10X in other areas of the US, it could replace 88 days of imports from the middle east per year. That's a nice dent. Pollutes less too. Illinois gallons of E85 per year: 685,000,000 Gal (US) Gallon yield from a barrel of oil: 19.5 Gal (US)** Equivalent barrels: 35,128,205 Derate for 85% formula 29,858,974 Derate for energy (80%) 23,887,179 barrels equiv. US oil consumption per day 20,030,000 bbl/day Equivalent days of US oil cosumption 1.19 oil days Middle east oil imports 2690000 bbl/day * Proportion of daily use (us) 0.1343 Mid East proportion Illinois "offset" days per US year 8.88 days of mideast oil saved by Illinois alone. Scale that up 10X and ... * (average of Feb 2005 to Jan 2006 per US DOE, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/oiltrade.html) ** (average gals. of gasoline from a barrel of oil) *** conservative, actual efficiency is 85 - 90% per "in use" studies The numbers above are all based on DOE sources (oil imports) and Illinois E85 webpage. The computations are mine. Cheers, Alan. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
[OT - US/Canada] E-85
Bill Funk wrote:
On Sun, 07 May 2006 10:07:02 -0400, Alan Browne wrote: Again, insufficient capacity likely to be available in the forseeable future. See Illinois, Minnesota, Brazil, etc. Brazil uses sugar cane, a crop that can't be grown in quantity in the US. They tried corn, but it doesn't work nearly as well as sugar cane. You use the feedstock that's appropriate to the climate and soil. Sugar beet grows great in the midwest and corn is not inefficient in this regard at all. It is a great CO2 sinker at the same time. Look for ways to make it work, not excuses to excuse it. See my other reply regarding the near term potential to reduce mideast imports by a serious amount. Cheers, Alan. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
[OT - US/Canada] E-85
Bill Funk wrote:
On Sat, 06 May 2006 20:41:25 -0400, Bill wrote: I too like the idea of using ethanol, but the government will have to step in or the oil companies with their massive resources will continue to derail the use of ethanol. Why can't the oil companies get into the ethanol business? I've never seen the "Buggy whip oil co." so it's not graven in stone that the oil cos are the only ones who could do ethanol. Some are (I've seen Shell and BP "we're good corporate citizen" adverts that these are areas that they are developing). But since it's not the oil business "model" and they are at large inertia bound, paradigm and bootom-line driven, they can't expand quickly. Too busy making monster profits. Big money *is* behind ethanol, however, see http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...i-business-hed includes Archer-Daniels-Midland (huge agri-business), Pacific Ethanol, Virgin's Branson, Bill Gates, ... etc. Farmers are investing cash directly into the ethanol business... "Sheik Farmer in the Dell" creating demand for corn, etc. Sugar is better than corn, of course (other post) but you use what is available locally. You don't have to use "only" the most efficient feedstock. "Brazil is blessed with an abundance of sugar cane, which is more easily broken down and distilled into ethanol than corn. A government push to wean the country from imported oil has replaced 40 percent of demand with ethanol. That, coupled with its own oil reserves, has largely unshackled Brazil from external sources and freed up more than $50 billion for domestic spending." On the other hand, new organisms are being engineered to be more efficient at breaking down corn and other agricultural products (including wastes) into mash for the ethanol still. The US sends (@$60 / bbl) $161M / day to the middle east for oil. Or, $59B per year. Very little comes back (arms, aircraft). Per my other post, at least 24% of that could be saved. Would you rather spend $15B on your own home production or sending it forever offshore. The US trade deficit is deepening by the second. Cheers, Alan -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
[OT - US/Canada] E-85
"Alan Browne" wrote in message ... Frank ess wrote: Alan Browne wrote: Is there any truth to the rumor that the pollution created and energy used in the manufacture of E85 offsets the savings? Nope. http://www.ilcorn.org/Ethanol/85__Et...__ethanol.html Suggests a net 33% gain (and improving). Way I heard it, there isn't sufficient production and infrastructure to supply sufficient material to make a significant difference. The liquid's nature is such that it isn't an appropriate subject for current mass distribution methods: it must be _trucked_ to its destination. Just like gasoline? Again, insufficient capacity likely to be available in the forseeable future. See Illinois, Minnesota, Brazil, etc. Illinois alone has 106 stations that sell about 685,000,000 gallons annually. That's one hell of a good start ... and that't that many gallons of gasoline that weren't needed. (A 42 Gal barrel of oil yields about 19.5 gallons of gasoline [depending on many factors], so Illinois alone saves enough gasoline in one year to equal 1.17 days of oil imports for the whole country (accounting for ethanol being 2/3 as energy yielding per volume)). Too bad. I really like the idea of fuel from renewable biomass. We've just made the wrong investments for too long. Sad. We'll be forced to make new ones. But your point does reflect a further inefficiency: over nearly a century all of the gasoline infrastructure has evolved, and we're going to waste all that by wasting its product too fast. (Of course from the typical "5 year plan" perspective of oil companies, the ROI is long recovered and they continue to depreciate their major cap investments over 20 - 40 years, tax gravy). A rough calculation of proven world reserves puts it at 40 years at _todays_ rate of consumption. Of course consumption is increasing, so that 40 years is wildly optimistic. (World proven reserves= 1181 billion barrels; world rate of consumtion = 81 M bbl / day). But that rate is growing... and proven reserves include undrilled reserves such as the ANWR. 40 years is an eyeblink. But it's not even that with consumption increasing in the US (though not needed to), India and China. And India and China have a _lot_ more people than the US. If the rate of consumption increases by a mere 5% every year, then that 40 year reserve becomes a 15 year reserve... at best. On the other hand, reducing consumption overall by a mere 2% could extend the current supply to 50 years... The "proven reserves" increase by a pittance every year, but even if it could magically go up 10 fold, it would only improve the outlook by a few decades due to increasing demand. People want a magic wand to find oil. Won't happen. OTOH, oil you don't use is oil that's available for another day. Cheers, Alan Beats killing whales....... |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
[OT - US/Canada] E-85
"Bill Funk" wrote in message news On Sat, 06 May 2006 20:41:25 -0400, Bill wrote: I too like the idea of using ethanol, but the government will have to step in or the oil companies with their massive resources will continue to derail the use of ethanol. Why can't the oil companies get into the ethanol business? They can. And they will. And so can you, by buying stock in companies that produce it. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
[OT - US/Canada] E-85
"Bill Funk" wrote in message ... On Sun, 07 May 2006 11:24:24 -0400, ASAAR wrote: On Sun, 07 May 2006 07:35:53 -0700, Bill Funk wrote: I too like the idea of using ethanol, but the government will have to step in or the oil companies with their massive resources will continue to derail the use of ethanol. Why can't the oil companies get into the ethanol business? Most of the oil company clout exists in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Unfortunately, those countries don't have massive corn, sugar cane, or even potato acreage, and what little they have has a low yield. But never fear. Middle Eastern alchemists are toiling mightily, and may someday be able to get ethanol from silica and blood from a stone. But why can't they go into ethanol production in the US? If, as I'm constantly told, Big Oil has Bush in their pocket, they must have a lot of clout here, so why not do ethanol here? "44 US companies currently operate 57 ethanol production plants with a combined. production capacity of about 2200 MGY" - (A Google find) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
"Paul Furman" wrote in message . com... Frank ess wrote: wrote: it must be _trucked_ to its destination Isn't all gas trucked to its destination? And if the trucks use the same fuel... Trucked from a pipeline terminal at the distributor after a many-miles pipeline ride. As I understand it, ethanol presents expensive problems for pipeline transmission. The gasoline trucks I've seen use diesel. But can't you make ethanol anywhere (corn?) is grown? Yes. Thousands of people do, especially in the Ozarks, and Great Smoky mountains.....:^) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|