Increased Ethanol %

[patrick_g]

Here in Oklahoma some fuel has ethanol in it but more and more stations proudly display signs and have stickers on the pumps declaring NO ETHANOL ADDED 100% gasoline.

Ethanol is a boondoggle disguised as a save the planet effort.

There is little net energy savings with respect to fossil fuel and it does little or nothing to reduce dependence on foreign oil imports.

You can choose to not accept the reports available on the topic because they don't agree with you but the preponderance of the available evidence is overwhelmingly in line with the idea that ethanol is essentially a hoax brought to you by politicians buying votes while pretending to do something for the environment.

Even Consumers Reports featured an "Exposé" of ethanol.

I know people who are waiting for color TV to be perfected before they put the B&W set aside. This is approximately the same mentality of those who think ethanol is a good deal.

Pat

 

[Egon]

I know people who are waiting for color TV to be perfected before they put the B&W set aside.

Hmm, I was thinking of getting a colour TV but then they's come out with those skinny ones. Maybe I'll wait a while on the skinny type till I know they been perfected!

 

[FlaDon]

Hmm, I was thinking of getting a colour TV but then they's come out with those skinny ones. Maybe I'll wait a while on the skinny type till I know they been perfected!

I've heard they are coming out with digital ones. Hope they don't go above the number 20 as most people can't count higher than that as they run out of fingers and toes.

 

[PA hayseed]

I'll throw some politics around.

They had a giant ponzi scheme on ethanol plants. They were sticking those things all over, most of the ones I have looked at have never ran. The people building them were making a mint. The real shame in the whole energy scam is that biodiesel that was made from animal renderings was cost effective to produce. Then those who have the power, and those who are deep into oil, made sure that it never took off. They have practically decimated the entire industry. Funny, seeing as how the initial fear was Food for Fuel, then fuel prices plummeted, then a recession, and now a recovery with relatively stable oil market. Meanwhile large ag producers, many owned by people in NYC, get incentives and tax credits for green fuels and building plants.

I know, I am a conspiracy theorist. Funny how companies like ADM Exxon etc, sit on Board's all over the globe, and dictate what gets a tariff and what doesn't.

Ethanol is not cost effective. take a look at how much it costs to produce a gallon without the incentives.

My .02 and feel free to call me a crackpot. I lost a bunch of money due to these people destroying an industry. Not millions, but alot to me.

 

[patrick_g]

I'll throw some politics around.

Ethanol is not cost effective.

My .02 and feel free to call me a crackpot.

hayseed, there you go again letting your reality intrude on the preconceived notions and erroneous mythology of GREEN ETHANOL.

Ethanol from corn is cloaked in lots of noise and motion but provides little or no benefit to the taxpaying fuel consumer.

Worse yet, it diverts attention from processes with real promise of reduction of foreign oil imports through a domestic sustainable green energy supply.

Pat

 

[Wineslob]

Worse yet, it diverts attention from processes with real promise of reduction of foreign oil imports through a domestic sustainable green energy supply.

Like, "drill here, drill now!"? Or "How about we build some NEW refineries?"


Oh, wait, the envirowackos took care of that.

 

[Duffster]

Here in Oklahoma some fuel has ethanol in it but more and more stations proudly display signs and have stickers on the pumps declaring NO ETHANOL ADDED 100% gasoline.

Ethanol is a boondoggle disguised as a save the planet effort.

There is little net energy savings with respect to fossil fuel and it does little or nothing to reduce dependence on foreign oil imports.

You can choose to not accept the reports available on the topic because they don't agree with you but the preponderance of the available evidence is overwhelmingly in line with the idea that ethanol is essentially a hoax brought to you by politicians buying votes while pretending to do something for the environment.

Even Consumers Reports featured an "Exposé" of ethanol.

I know people who are waiting for color TV to be perfected before they put the B&W set aside. This is approximately the same mentality of those who think ethanol is a good deal.

Pat

Most studies that calculate the amount of energy required to make ethanol don't count the feed that is left over, and the fact that it is higher protein than the corn the process started with.

I have yet to see a credible study done.

But I guess if "Consumer Reports" said it bad then I will have to take their word for it.

 

[patrick_g]

Most studies that calculate the amount of energy required to make ethanol don't count the feed that is left over, and the fact that it is higher protein than the corn the process started with.

Most unbiased studies do count the petrochemicals (including fertilizer, farm, and over the road diesel) used in the total process and find little or no savings in $ or oil.

Lets understand our numbers and not be thought innumerate.

There certainly is NOT more protein and or fat in the byproduct of corn to ethanol. After part of the corn (carbs) is removed in the processing and distilling the PERCENTAGE of the fat and protein is higher. However much fat and protein were in a ton of the distiller's feedstock (raw materials) is still there. The percentage went up on protein by removing carbs not increasing the pounds of protein per ton of corn.

Together with a friend we buy about 24-28 tons (18 wheeler load) of the byproducts of corn to ethanol (corn gluten mixed with soy hulls) every year and are about to do it again) I'd be happy as punch to not have it available and see less foreign oil imported.

Pat

 

[Duffster]

Most unbiased studies do count the petrochemicals (including fertilizer, farm, and over the road diesel) used in the total process and find little or no savings in $ or oil.

But if you don't count the feed that is left then it is not "unbiased".

That is the problem with any study. They are typically biased.

 

[patrick_g]

But if you don't count the feed that is left then it is not "unbiased".

That is the problem with any study. They are typically biased.

I see, all the reports that disagree with your preferred view are biased and wrong.

OK, post a link to an unbiased report that was made by a credible source, not biased by affiliation. I'd love to see all the others proven wrong. I have read extensively on the topic, seen pros and cons of various ilk but never a credible study showing a significant gain, even accounting for the value of the animal feed. Maybe there is one that somehow has remained elusive and not well known. Just post a link and all us naysayers will be set straight. I promise not to put down the study or its source out of hand with no credible counter evidence and will not tack on any ROLL EYES ROLL EYES ROLL EYES.

Pat