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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
[OT - US/Canada] E-85
Alan Browne wrote in
: For the North American audience 60 Minutes will present a segement on E-85 (Ethanol) fuels, Sunday May 7 (19:00 EDT, CBS). We have a company doing a fesability study on a location here in my town to manufature ethenol. I hope they do it, but sadly it is on one of the last large tracts of undeveloped (natural) land in the area. Seems like there is always some type of give and take. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
"Rich" wrote in
oups.com: Of for the days of tetraethyl lead. Actually lead was an octane booster that helped cool the valves and guides, and engines that were not built properly for low octane fuel had iron valve guides which burned out when gasahol and unleaded fuels were used (mostly chevrolets). After replaceing the guides (heads) and adjusting the timing properly, they were fine. At any rate, lead was an octane (polution) issue, not an alcohol (gas crunch)issue. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
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? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
[OT - US/Canada] E-85
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 -- -- 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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
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 paradigm is different in any case. As corn and sugar beets are grown all over, you also want to avoid trucking the feedstock too far to the ferment/still operation. So localized production of the ethanol (close to the feedstocks) is more efficient than one large central refinery. -- -- 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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
[OT - US/Canada] E-85
Rusty Shakleford wrote:
We have a company doing a fesability study on a location here in my town to manufature ethenol. I hope they do it, but sadly it is on one of the last large tracts of undeveloped (natural) land in the area. Seems like there is always some type of give and take. I would bet there is another ideal location that hasn't been proposed. How many acres are they talking about? -- -- 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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
E-85
On 6 May 2006 11:46:42 -0700, "Rich" wrote:
It's so clean it scours the inside of the engine, causing drastically increased part's wear. Of for the days of tetraethyl lead. Vehicles designed for E-85 use don't have this problem. Why? Because they are designed for E-85. You'd be much better off complaining about E-85's real problems. -- Bill Funk replace "g" with "a" |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
[OT - US/Canada] E-85
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. -- Bill Funk replace "g" with "a" |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
[OT - US/Canada] E-85
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? -- Bill Funk replace "g" with "a" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[OT - US/Canada] E-85 - Strategic conservation | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 232 | June 25th 06 05:56 AM |
[OT - US/Canada] E-85 | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 648 | June 13th 06 02:31 AM |