A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

[OT - US/Canada] E-85



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old May 7th 06, 04:24 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [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  
Old May 7th 06, 04:42 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [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  
Old May 7th 06, 04:43 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [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  
Old May 7th 06, 04:51 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [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  
Old May 7th 06, 04:55 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [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  
Old May 7th 06, 05:11 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [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  
Old May 7th 06, 05:52 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [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  
Old May 7th 06, 05:56 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [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  
Old May 7th 06, 05:59 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [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)


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.