| Author | Message | ||
     Bob_thompson |
I strongly believe all this is going to change radically in about three months when we get back to doing what makes good sense rather then what seems to be politically correct. At least I hope so! The green agenda just has to wait until its financially beneficial. | ||
| Sifo |
Unfortunately, this is one area where I don't think it matter much who's in office. This is a fairly bipartisan issue, though for different reasons. Politicians on the left get to make the huge environmentalist industry happy, while politicians on the right get to make agribusiness (whether huge corporations or family farm) happy. This is all on the backs of the common man a few cents at a time, in hidden taxes so that they don't tend to notice. This is just what you get when you put government in a position of power. Just wait until the government gets involved in something complicated, like healthcare. | ||
| Syonyk |
The problem with ethanol isn't running it in engines designed for it - it's running it in mixed fuel engines. If you're building an engine to run E85 (and ONLY E85), you can get very good efficiency out of it, because you run it with a 14:1 compression ratio & get very good efficiency with no detonation. Unfortunately, that engine will detonate & destroy itsself in short order on 100% gasoline. The flip side is true, with loss of efficiency. Running E85 in an engine capable of running on 100% gasoline will cause a reduction in efficiency and fuel economy. Until we start doing funky variable compression engines, 100% gasoline engines will be less efficient on ethanol. We could perhaps do something with fully variable valve timing to effectively give a variable compression engine, but that's still up there in complexity. The E15 stuff coming down the pipeline worries me (oh wait not coming down the pipeline because it can't! coming in a dedicated truck...) for a variety of reasons, mostly related to motorcycles & aviation. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
Go GREEN? I really am beginning to hate that term. I believe they picked the wrong color. GREEN is ok... but there is 100x more BLUE in the world than GREEN. (Ocean/Sky) GO BLUE!! Because going green will never work... (it is the color of money=evil) GO BLUE!! | ||
| Sifo |
Green is the color of watermelons. Green on the outside, red on the inside. They picked a very fitting color. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
that is a deeper thought than mine... what would the red signify? Or is it the inside/outside? | ||
| Sifo |
Red is a symbol of communism. You should read up on the origins of the green movement as a political movement. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
 sometimes the obvious just goes over my head and below my feet. | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
Sure! We can do that! As long as the gub'mint buys me more property and pays to install two more USTs, all the plumbing associated with them, the electronic tank level gauges, the leak detection, the dispensers, the islands and canopy, the upgrades to the computer system, etc. Get my drift? Even for my small gas station the would be a half million dollar plus upgrade. And there's no way I would ever recover those costs. You don't have equipment capable of dispensing non-ethanol gasoline? Hasn't non-ethanol gasoline been delivered from the equipment for the majority of the past few decades? It's the ethanol blends that are causing the problems- not the non-ethanol fuel. Are you suggesting that the infrastructure now cannot handle non-ethanol fuel? If so, that is criminally ludicrous. Non-ethanol fuel works in all gasoline engines, ethanol blends do not. If stations have to be rebuilt to dispense non-ethanol fuel then we're way worse off than I'd ever imagined... As for stations offering non-ethanol fuel, I live in the largest city (land wise) in the nation, and there are only four stations offering non-ethanol fuel. They did not add new pumps, they use existing ones. From what I've been told, stations buy ethanol blends because it costs less than non-ethanol. As we all know, however, that is due to subsides- ethanol blends would cost more without them. So, if ethanol blends cause issues, and even the EPA have not approved it for use in all vehicles, then the only rational choice is to have a non-ethanol choice at all gas stations. Every one of them used to have it, why can't they have one pump of it now? | ||
| Xdigitalx |
I don't understand why they can't just remove the ethanol additives from our gas for a few years. Bring it back (or some other additive) in 2016 if we need to. Laws can be changed and changed back can't they? | ||
| Cityxslicker |
the greeners will not be satisfied until we are in a pedal / electric hybrid for our transportation modes - because it has worked so well for China..... /sarcasm | ||
| Sifo |
I don't understand why they can't just remove the ethanol additives from our gas for a few years. Bring it back (or some other additive) in 2016 if we need to. Laws can be changed and changed back can't they? Because of the instability that would be created by the sudden shift in demand in the corn industry. Once you start to meddle with markets, it becomes difficult to stop meddling without creating all sorts of havoc. Havoc leads to unhappy voters. Politicians don't like to be responsible for unhappy voters. | ||
| Husky |
Congress Ends Ethanol Subsidy... http://www.npr.org/2012/01/03/144605485/congress-e nds-era-of-ethanol-subsidies Now that $0.40/gallon will be charged at the pump? husky | ||
| No_rice |
>>The Omnivore's Dilemma<< im assuming you read that dave? i have not, but my fiance is most of the way through it at the moment, and has filled me in on some along her way. | ||
| Danger_dave |
No mate - sorry. I prefer blissful ignorance and bad puns. | ||
| Aesquire |
The green agenda just has to wait until its financially beneficial. Sorry, that's not why they do things. The agenda is not to make the world a better place to raise children and puppies. That's a good agenda, one we could all support. But that's not the real goal. The real goal is control. Of you. What you eat, what you wear, if you are allowed to have children, all are the agenda. Simply power. Total power. That's because the "greens" are an artifact. Look up the history of the Green Party in Europe ( Germany especially ) and here. You will find it's a branch of the "liberation theology" movement. We found out a lot of stuff after the Soviet Union fell, and KGB types that didn't get rich split for England, France and the U.S. with suitcases full of files. See also Bulgarian Committee for State Security, Liberation Theology, and CPUSA. | ||
| Doubled |
Red You are correct that my equipment is fully capable of handling non-ethanol blends. The problem comes with the layout of the station. I currently have two dispensers with a single hose for gas and a single hose for diesel on each side (four total "pumps"). I also have three USTs. One 6000 gal for regular, one 4000 gal for premium and one 4000 gal for diesel. That is where the problem lies. My dispensers (pumps) aren't capable of supplying more than the regular three grades of gas (85, 87, 91 or whatever they are where you live) and I've got nowhere else to store additional grades. By the time the gas gets to me it already has the ethanol blended in. That's something I cannot control. And to be able to supply both types of gas I would either have to switch one of my tanks to non-ethanol and only offer it in one grade or double up on tanks and dispensers. I don't have the room or the capital for that. PS Wasn't trying to be a dick, it's just a bit of a tender spot for me. Sick of uncle sam trying to tell me how to run my business. | ||
| Ohbueller |
Selfishly, I want it to be practical. I grew up in Indiana corn country and there are now 3 plants within about 1/2 hour of my home town. I am a chemist and was offered a position at one of them a few years ago, actually one of the leading producers in volume and also one of the leaders in cellulosic ethanol research. It was probably the only opportunity I will ever have to return there to work but I just couldn't bring myself to leave my current field to go make fuel from food, it did not seem to be practical without the government subsidies. One thing I have not seen mentioned, there is a solid co-product from the process that can be used as a livestock feed (dried distillers grains), and in some cases the CO2 is recovered as a product also, so while the energy to produce vs. energy obtained may be in question, the ethanol is not the only product. | ||
| Darth_villar |
So we take food away from people, increase food costs, produce a net loss of energy, but get some livestock feed in the process? Sounds like a bum deal to me no matter how you slice it. | ||
| Pkforbes87 |
Doubled, here in Missouri it is illegal for stations to sell any non-premium fuel (less than 91 octane) without at least 10% ethanol. Most stations have given up the apparent complexity of stocking 87e10, 89e10, and ethanol-free 91. Other than every Hyvee grocery store, I only know of one station in a 50 mile radius that offers that combination - and I can't remember the last time I filled up anywhere but that station. In the bikes, the expensive fuel pays for itself due to significantly increased economy. In the car I usually break even, but I rest easy knowing that my engine will last longer. If real gas is rare in your area, it might pay to offer it in one grade and see how much demand is out there. | ||
| Sifo |
Straight gas isn't available anywhere near me that I've ever found. When I've found it on the road in the past, I've been surprised by the jump in gas mileage. It's quite noteworthy IMO. So we take food away from people, increase food costs, produce a net loss of energy, but get some livestock feed in the process? Sounds like a bum deal to me no matter how you slice it. It does seem that if we used it as food there would be less need to grow as much corn (it takes fuel to grow corn BTW) in the first place. There has to be more food value available in the base product than the byproduct of the ethanol industry. It's pretty close to insanity. | ||
| No_rice |
No mate - sorry. I prefer blissful ignorance and bad puns. i think im with you on that. she informed me that she didnt think i should read it, because i would probably quit eating... ANYTHING... I rest easy knowing that my engine will last longer see, ive never understood this. i have been raised my whole live in central iowa. ever since i bought my first tank of gas there has been some ethanol in it. every vehicle i have ever owned has run it. most of my stuff runs 89 with the 10% ethanol in it. even the bikes when its cooler out and i im not as worried about detonation from the extreme heat. in all my vehicles and all my miles i can only attribute 2 problems to the fuel. my plymouth and my blazer both shelled out a fuel pmup. literally within hours of each other, and that was after filling them both at the same station the same day. water in the fuel fried the pumps. other then that, me, and most of the people i know have had many vehicles run 100's of thousands of miles with no big repairs(and no more then filter changes to the fuel system if that was ever even changed) at all. and most of these spent there whole lives burning ethanol. im not saying ethanol is the answer, because im not sure i think it is. but i am saying i dont believe for one minute the current mixture is killing everything i own. if it was they all would have died an early death. now if the increase the percentage more in every gas combination, maybe it will be a different story. especially for the older stuff, but my flex fuel 04 tahoe ran just fine on e85, and even though i lost a couple miles to the gallon, the fact that it was only a couple miles and that the e85 was over a dollar cheaper then the 4+ dollar a gallon gas at the time, i still thik it worked out in my favor and it still ran and drove fine the whole time i owned it. | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
i have been raised my whole live in central iowa. What's the average humidity level there? Here's Jacksonville's: Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May. Jun. 87% 86% 87% 87% 86% 88% Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. 89% 91% 92% 91% 90% 88% Florida and ethanol don't mix... | ||
| Hootowl |
That's not true, I've had plenty of ethanol in Florida. Mostly in the form of rum. It was perfectly fine. | ||
| Sifo |
i still thik it worked out in my favor and it still ran and drove fine the whole time i owned it. Not if you are a tax payer. It's just that the costs have been shifted around to hide the fact that ethanol is a lousy deal economically too. I agree that most modern cars/bike won't have much problem with a 10% mix. Older cars with fuel systems that weren't designed for it may have some minor problems. Storing anything long term with ethanol is just BAD though. Many small engines DO run into problems though. Chain saws, yard tools etc. Most have kits to update them for ethanol fuel, or you just replace them. Newer stuff should be fine. ALL of this adds cost to the consumer to burn ethanol though. Again it's a cost hidden from the consumer, but it's still just as real. The big question is, what benefits do we get for all the additional costs? I just haven't seen a good answer to that. Seems to me it's just going to cost us more for an inferior product that has numerous secondary problems to boot. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol So what about this info here? | ||
| Sifo |
So what about this info here? A quick scan of that mentioned that start up costs are much higher for cellulose ethanol plants. It also mentioned the production costs being about double that of corn ethanol. The big upside they mentioned is a reduction of greenhouse gasses. Given the farce that global warming is, I don't see that as much of an issue at all. It would still compete for farm land to grow it, so it's almost as bad as using food for fuel. Some could be grown on less suitable land for farming though. Not from the link... I think the amount of raw materials must be much higher from cellulose than from corn. Sugar can is even better, but requires huge amounts of water. That's why Brazil for instance can convert sugar cane to fuel, but it doesn't make sense for farm land in most of the US. So while it may sound appealing, given the low yield of fuel per ton of raw materials, I think you will need even more farm land devoted to growing the materials. That means less farm land devoted to actually feeding people. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
I read through it and one of the big upsides mentioned is being able to not grow a cellulose source but rather use biomass that's already in the current waste stream as the primary source of cellulose. Another thing that was mentioned was that it was actually more efficient than corn .76J input yields 1J of ethanol. Personally I like the idea or ethanol when using cellulose as the source doubly so when we are taking biomass out of the existing waste stream. Food being turned into fuel is insane. The mechanical end of it for small engines pretty much blows. For modern cars an awful lot of them already have variable valve timing which can be effectively used to alter the CR of the engine combined with existing adaptive fuel mapping I don't really see the issue. Now older vehicles like my 96 jeep I'm getting 20mpg on 87e10 with properly inflated tires a proper tune up and synthetic oil. As for ethanol damaging fuel systems @ 10% even my 85 s-10 was designed to use it without damage and I haven't seen any rubber fuel components that aren't ethanol compatible since I was much younger(I'm only 31 though). As far as the political motivations go I don't see this as anymore of a threat than any of the other methods current in use or tried in the past, bottom line we're screwed. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Corn as fuel? Dumbest ideas since. Ever. | ||
| Sifo |
One of the problems of discussing ethanol from cellulose is that there are many sources of cellulose. Each has specifics as to costs, energy conversion efficiency, yield per ton, impact on food production, etc. It's virtually impossible to discuss without limiting the discussion to a specific source, and have the correct metrics available. The wikipedia link is all over the map on what it provides and it's just not possible to get into any detail of any specific source. This is fairly typical of what I've seen when cellulose is discussed though. The specifics just aren't easily obtainable. |
