Fuel follies
- Thread starter patrick_g
- Start date
- Views: 5900
Marcussen said:
Don't know what part of Oklahoma is YOUR PART but that wasn't the case between Shawnee and Ada yesterday (at least when I filled up.) I guess I really shouldn't care which is higher just that the price isn't toooooo much.
I don't worry about gasoline so much since I don't put that many miles on my VW street legal dune buggy or my Dakota, the Prius is pretty easy on gas (40-50 MPG), and the miscellaneous small engines don't use much. My concern is for diesel for two diesel trucks. The kubota, when worked hard, only uses 10 gal in a day.
Pat
EddieWalker
Epic Contributor
I don't know anything about this argument to contribute anything, but it does interest me and I am curious. I didn't realize it cost so much to produce corn, but I have noticed the price I pay for a 50 pound sack of deer corn has jumped in the last few months.
Brazil is getting all sorts of press for there oil independence. What are they doing, and is it for real? or just political BS?
Until the Middle East is under control, prices are just going to keep increasing. Leaving them alone to control the worlds energy isn't/hasn't worked, so something has to change.
Eddie
Brazil is getting all sorts of press for there oil independence. What are they doing, and is it for real? or just political BS?
Until the Middle East is under control, prices are just going to keep increasing. Leaving them alone to control the worlds energy isn't/hasn't worked, so something has to change.
Eddie
patrick_g said:
I put $55 gas in my car this morning; Price $2.95. If the fuel was 60 cents cheaper, here's over 1/2 of the weeks groeries @ $20 a week. I think I spend more. Corn based fuel is viable fuel or else so many wouldn't be investing. True, some folks are not so smart. There's too many investing for them all to be wrong.
Current production of corn is said by some to be impossible to meet our needs. Corn or other products can and will be developed to yield more more juice to make e85. There is 1000s of acres just near my home that lay fallow. In fact my home sits on 140 acres. It hasn't been farmed for 20 years. If that corn jumps up to $8.00 I might plant it. Or maybe it will be switch grass as the president mentioned a while back. If we get in gear and make it profitable to plant, we will plant it. North America has a lot of unused land. Production, I would bet, could be doubled.
Coffeeman
Cheers...Coffeeman
joerocker said:
I wonder how many remember Dick Tracy? Folks thought the writers were dreaming ; two way wrist radio? Now we all carry them and some have computers stuffed into the phone along with a camera.
I've said it before and I'll say it again; Don't count out the American people. Our neighbors to the north are pretty smart too.
Cheers
Asymtave
Member
Back in the 70's Brazil got really mad during the oil crises (embargos) and put a nation wide action plan in place. Brazil claims to be 100% free of foreign oil at this time which may or may not be true.
All Brazilian ethanol comes from sugar cane. They are cutting the rain forest at an alarming rate to plant it. This is not about the environment, it's about independance. If it was about the environment they wouldn't be cutting down the rain forest which sucks up all kinds of CO2 that everyone is worried about.
Brazil has the perfect climate for growing sugar cane - hot and wet. I don't have numbers handy, but you get many more gallons of ethanol per Brazilian sugar cane acre than you do from an acre of Iowa corn. Different climates different crops.
There are stiff import tarrifs on imported Brazilian ethanol and sugar. These are said to be to protect the American farmer but are in reality further subsidies for the ethanol and sugar industries - often one and the same (think Archer Daniels Midland.) If these tariffs were removed, Brazilian ethanol would flood the US market to be used in the 10% mandate for gasoline, and the US ethanol industry would falter and the price of corn would fall.
As DieselPower alluded to it's all supply and demand the cost of diesel vs. gas. Diesel, kerosene, heating oil, jet fuel, etc are close to the same thing known as Distillates. So into the mix you have the weather (heating oil), the economy in general (how much "stuff" are trains and trucks delivering here and there), airline travel, etc.
The 15 PPM requirement caused diesel to be more expensive to make, plus probably locked out some overseas refiners (Europe) who can't meet the specification (maybe - I'm not sure.) For sure a refinery in Saudi Arabia can't meet the requirement.
And on a side note - I've seen where it can take 8-10 pounds of grain to net one pound of beef. I have no idea if this is true. Maybe some one more knowledgeable can chime in. My point is that going (way) forward, people are going to eat less meat. Hard to believe. But when it comes to a fight between food and fuel on a worldwide basis it's going to get ugly.
When people have a hard time paying for groceries they are going to have to cut somewhere - and meat is one place to start. The average Chinese family eats meat about once a week. My dad was laid off for a year and a half in the late 70's. I ate PB&J every day for lunch, macaroni and cheese every night for dinner, except for Sundays when we had chicken. And we survived.
Not to sound too negative, it's just one possible future. Best to be (mentally) prepared for it.
All Brazilian ethanol comes from sugar cane. They are cutting the rain forest at an alarming rate to plant it. This is not about the environment, it's about independance. If it was about the environment they wouldn't be cutting down the rain forest which sucks up all kinds of CO2 that everyone is worried about.
Brazil has the perfect climate for growing sugar cane - hot and wet. I don't have numbers handy, but you get many more gallons of ethanol per Brazilian sugar cane acre than you do from an acre of Iowa corn. Different climates different crops.
There are stiff import tarrifs on imported Brazilian ethanol and sugar. These are said to be to protect the American farmer but are in reality further subsidies for the ethanol and sugar industries - often one and the same (think Archer Daniels Midland.) If these tariffs were removed, Brazilian ethanol would flood the US market to be used in the 10% mandate for gasoline, and the US ethanol industry would falter and the price of corn would fall.
As DieselPower alluded to it's all supply and demand the cost of diesel vs. gas. Diesel, kerosene, heating oil, jet fuel, etc are close to the same thing known as Distillates. So into the mix you have the weather (heating oil), the economy in general (how much "stuff" are trains and trucks delivering here and there), airline travel, etc.
The 15 PPM requirement caused diesel to be more expensive to make, plus probably locked out some overseas refiners (Europe) who can't meet the specification (maybe - I'm not sure.) For sure a refinery in Saudi Arabia can't meet the requirement.
And on a side note - I've seen where it can take 8-10 pounds of grain to net one pound of beef. I have no idea if this is true. Maybe some one more knowledgeable can chime in. My point is that going (way) forward, people are going to eat less meat. Hard to believe. But when it comes to a fight between food and fuel on a worldwide basis it's going to get ugly.
When people have a hard time paying for groceries they are going to have to cut somewhere - and meat is one place to start. The average Chinese family eats meat about once a week. My dad was laid off for a year and a half in the late 70's. I ate PB&J every day for lunch, macaroni and cheese every night for dinner, except for Sundays when we had chicken. And we survived.
Not to sound too negative, it's just one possible future. Best to be (mentally) prepared for it.
coffeeman said:
I think you missed the point. I never claimed folks were not making money growing corn to produce ethanol for motor fuel. I made no claim that ethanol producers were loosing money.
So what is the problem then??? The problem is that there is as much energy consumed in producing the corn and the ethanol as the ethanol provides and the reason the process is profitable from end to end is because of Government subsidies. If the Government didn't take our tax $ and pour it on the corn to ehanol for motor fuel process the process would NOT BE PROFITABLE and folks would not invest in it. It would NOT HAPPEN if the Gov wasn't artificially pumping it up. The Gov takes our tax $ and redistributes it to the gasohol industry. This is not an issue of how smart the investors are. When the Gov is giving away free money, lots of folks are willing to take some.
Unfortunately the gasohol industry is not generating more fuel than it uses in its production. It is not all than complicated. If the Gov did not subsidize any part of the process it would fall flat on its face and die a natural death and no one would be investing in it. If corn to motor fuel had promise of surpassing the break even point then the Gov subsidy would be a smart and prudent thing to do as a long term investment in the energy independence of our nation.
Other sources for feedstock for ethanol production (switch grass etc) offer the promise of a positive energy budget, i.e. you can get out more than you put in. Would you want to invest your $ if it was a sure thing that you would never come out ahead? That is the reality of the situation now if the Gov wasn't taking our tax $ and propping up the corn to motor fuel process. Investors in the process are just signing up to take tax $ from other folks. This smacks of a ponzi scheme more than a viable large scale reduction in foreign oil dependence. Lots of folks are worried about oil dependence so the Gov waves its magic wand and SHAZAM we are doing something about it. Unfortunately there is a difference between motion and progress and corn to motor fuel is lots of noise and motion but no progress.
Motor fuel from ethanol from cellulose has great promise. It isn't ready for prime time yet. If the $ being taken from taxpayers to prop up corn-ethanol were spent on cellulose-ethanol we would be making a wise long term investment. Motor fuel from cellulose will yield a positive net return on energy input. You can get significantly more energy out than you put in. This is not the case with corn.
Corn requires lots of diesel fuel to run the tractor to prepare the field for planting, doing the planting, cultivating, oil based fertilizers, oil based weed control, harvest, etc. The total oil budget to produce corn for feedstock to produce ethanol equals or exceeds the energy content of the ethanol. If you remove the politics from the process it is not self sustaining and would never have become such a large business.
If there were significant and sufficient public interest in recycling glass soda bottles and the Gov subsidized the refunds at high enough of a rate you could manufacture new bottles to turn in for the "deposit." You'd see investors pouring $ into plants for making glass bottles to "cash in" on the Gov money. Actually, you see, they would just be cashing in on tax money taken from the rest of us and the environment would not necessarily be helped.
Same story with corn-ethanol. Investors are profiting from corn-ethanol but not from selling the surplus energy created by the corn-ethanol process because there isn't any. Their "profits" are essentially "stolen" from the rest of us tax payers who are too ignorant to see through this idiotic charade and put an end to it. We'd rather work up a sweat bailing the Titanic with a thimble and be congratulating ourselves for having done something positive. Corn-ethanol is delusional.
There are lots of energy production methods loosely termed alternative energy. These encompass many methodologies. Few are viable alternatives to more traditional energy sources unless there is something skewing the playing field. In the case of corn-ethanol it is tax $ redirected to buy the votes of those profiting while playing a charade that fools many into thinking we are actually trying to do something about energy independence.
Pat
coffeeman said:
Agreed!!!! The sham is not that ethanol is a bad idea, it isn't. Ethanol for a sustainable motor fuel is a great idea. To make the idea a reality requires that you produce it in such a way as to get more energy out than you put in (and hopefully don't destroy he environment more than you are saving it (Brazil.)
Nuclear fusion as a power source is a great idea. Right now, fusion reactions in the lab consume more energy than they produce and practical fusion power sources are not just around the corner. Should we spend big bucks on this technology? Yes we should. The process has the potential to yield significantly more energy than you input with little or no waste storage problems, a terrific potential boon for mankind, far exceeding ethanol, solar power, wind power, etc. Investing in fusion is a long term GOOD IDEA.
There are lots of good long term investments for future energy independence. Gas from grass could be ready in the realistically foreseeable future and do a lot for us while we wait for fusion. Unfortunately gas from corn has little future because the process uses as much energy as it produces. Scaling it up or making lots of small to midsize operations will not help when the process is basically energy neutral or negative. Recall the joke about losing just a little bit on each gallon but we make it up in volume. It is a joke, not reality. Every gallon of corn based motor fuel takes a little taxpayer money and gives it to the corn-ethanol folks. Worse yet it does not reduce foreign oil demand because the corn production is so petro-intensive.
The viability of corn based motor fuel has nothing to do with the intelligence of the occupants of the continent. If everyone on the North American continent woke up tomorrow with an IQ of 400 it would not make corn-motor fuel a realistically viable contributor to energy independence. Lots of high sulfur off-road diesel gets burned to produce a gallon of clean burning ethanol. Hard to argue that corn based ethanol is environmentally sound.
I'm definitely not counting out the ingenuity of anyone. I count on the ingenuity of researchers to produce processes capable of a positive net energy output. Clean processes like fusion reactors. Hopefully while we are waiting for practical fusion reactors that will make hydrogen a viable motor fuel we will use good judgment in choosing our stop gap processes and not back ones with no potential to ever show a positive on the overall ledger sheet.
"When I first started driving, who would have thought gas would someday cost 29 cents a gallon. Guess we'd be better off leaving the car in the garage."
Pat
Last edited:
patrick_g said:
Geeze! I am really depressed now. I guess the situation is hopeless.
Question; Can cows eat what's left over after corn is turned into ethenol? If so, why would the price of meat go up when animals can use the byproduct of making the ethenol?
I wonder; corn ethenol is a losing business without tax savings? Do you think it would be good to remove the 5, 10 or 20% tax savings the farmer gets and put him out of business. I'm sure all the taxpayers will pack the savings into their bank accounts. Of course the poor people and many retired people don't pay taxes now, so they don't save.
So we remove that incrimental little production of corn ethenol compared to gas from oil and disturb that delicate balance of supply and demand of oil to gas demand. Does the gas go up? Probably not, as when the oil producing companies see it really hurts the world, they will increase production of oil. They really are just nice folks who want to make a fair profit.(Just thought I'd throw that in.)
Is it better to remove tax help to corn producers, save tax, put farmers out of work and pump the tax savings into the gas tank? A few lost farm jobs here in US may help some company drill another well. I just wonder how many American employees will drill those wells?
Seems like congress should be notified of how good this cellulose stuff is. You have written a lot about it here. You seem convinced it is a good idea and maybe tax help would be better used in cellulose production of ethenol. I wonder, have you visited your US senator to give him some info on this? How about a letter; have you written one? We got to get the word out. If we get enough people contacting our leaders about cellulose congress will be supporting you cellulose idea. Seems like the dirty rotten scoundrels in congress have found out they can get votes if they do what the people want. What rats they are.
Cheers
Marcussen
Gold Member
The debate on ethanol is based on gaining independance from foreign oil and helping the enviroment. Corn based ethanol can do neither one. The thread started out about fuel cost, alternative fuels are all going to cost more than we are currently paying for gas or diesel. The Brazilians are paying $4.50 a gallon or more for gasoline (with 20% ethanol) and $3.00 a gallon for pure Ethanol. The ethanol in a vehicle lowers MPG by 30% so there is a trade off.
But Brazilian fill up with ethanol because it's cheaper, so to produce more sugar cane they cut more forest.
In the end people will fill theire vehicles with the cheapest fuel.
But Brazilian fill up with ethanol because it's cheaper, so to produce more sugar cane they cut more forest.
In the end people will fill theire vehicles with the cheapest fuel.
