Corn and Ethanol.

[Minnow]

You should know me by now. I didn't cite any story or statistic.

A person can argue, and I would not question, that oil is subsidized by our defense presence in the middle east, etc. But I could also argue that all taxes are, at their root, subsidies.

None of the alternative energies that are subsidized today (bio, solar, wind) come close to oil as an energy storage medium -- and that's a really important part of the energy production game. I've yet to see one study show me how the difference between corn and oil in this regard is even close.

I still think the majority of our alt energy plans should be focused on nuclear. Your mileage may vary.

 

[nnuut]

11 Mar 2010: Opinion

The Case Against Biofuels:
Probing Ethanol’s Hidden Costs

Despite strong evidence that growing food crops to produce ethanol is harmful to the environment and the world’s poor, the Obama administration is backing subsidies and programs that will ensure that half of the U.S.’s corn crop will soon go to biofuel production. It’s time to recognize that biofuels are anything but green.

by c. ford runge

In light of the strong evidence that growing corn, soybeans, and other food crops to produce ethanol takes a heavy toll on the environment and is hurting the world’s poor through higher food prices, consider this astonishing fact: This year, more than a third of the U.S.’s record corn harvest of 335 million metric tons will be used to produce corn ethanol. What’s more, within five years fully 50 percent of the U.S. corn crop is expected to wind up as biofuels.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_case_against_biofuels_probing_ethanols_hidden_costs_/2251/

 

[nnuut]

Ethanol: How Many Senators Does It Take to Screw a Taxpayer?

Posted on January 16, 2011 by geobear7| 7 Comments
By The Burning Platform

The grand lame duck Congress tax compromise extended a 45-cent incentive to ethanol refiners for each gallon of the fuel blended with gasoline and renewed a 54-cent tariff on Brazilian imports. The extension of these subsidies, besides costing American taxpayers $6 billion per year, has the added benefit of driving up food costs across the globe, causing food riots in Tunisia, and resulting in the starving of poor peasants throughout the world. This taxpayer boondoggle is a real feather in the cap of that fiscally conservative curmudgeon Senator Charley Grassley. He was joined in this noble effort by another fiscal conservative, presidential hopeful John Thune. It seems these guys hate wasteful spending, except when it benefits their states. The bipartisanship in this effort was truly touching, as Democrats Kent Conrad and Tom Harkin also brought home the pork for their states.

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/20...ny-senators-does-it-take-to-screw-a-taxpayer/

 

[Silverbird]

Stop the Subsidies in non-competitive industries! Other countries subsidize industries they think they should be competitive in. We subsidize our old, Big Corporate (including big Agra) and non-competitive industries, encourageing them to get bigger and bigger and not changing their ways. What's with that??

 

[James48843]

There is plenty of land to produce food AND biofuel. A new study says we could easily produce over half the liquid fuel neededhe entire world, and still produce the same or more food crops we do today.

One of the great arguments against biofuels is the wisdom, if not the morality, of using land to produce fuel instead of food. But research out of Illinois suggests it doesn’t have to be an either-or proposition.


Researchers at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign have found that biofuel crops cultivated on land unsuitable for food crops could produce as much as half the world’s current fuel consumption without adverse impact on food crops or pastureland.

More: http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/01/study-weve-got-plenty-of-land-for-biofuels/

The only issue now is the economics vs. oil. With oil prices going up, ethanol looks better and better all the time.

 

[Minnow]

1 gallon of gas = 114,000 BTU (roughly)
1.5 gallons of ethanol = 76,100 BTU (roughly)

let me know when the laws of thermodynamics have been changed and I might consider listening to ethanol proponents about their product.

I'm not saying alternative energy sources shouldn't be explored, I'm saying there are better ones to spend money on than this.

 

[James48843]

1 gallon of gas = 114,000 BTU (roughly)
1.5 gallons of ethanol = 76,100 BTU (roughly)

let me know when the laws of thermodynamics have been changed and I might consider listening to ethanol proponents about their product.

Your data is incorrect.

Ethanol is around76,000 BTU for 1 gallon, not 1.5 gallons.

So what? What is your point?
1 gallon Ethanol = 76,000 BTU.
1gallon of E85 = 82,000 BTU
1 gallon of gasoline = 114,00 BTU.
1 gallon of diesel fuel = 135,000 BTU.
1 gallon of heavy #6 bunker fuel oil = 153,000 BTU's.



So are you saying that gasoline is unworkable, and we all should be using diesel fuel engines, or engines that run exclusively on #6 heavy bunker fuel oil instead? That's the result if you claim that ONLY BTU content should be considered.

What difference does it make what the BTU content is? Try comparing by using other measures than straight BTU content.

Besides, Gasoline, diesel fuel, and bunker oil, all burn incredibly more dirty than ethanol does. You prefer to pollute with bunker oil rather than use cean burning ethanol? There are kinds of reasons why one would choose alternate fuels.

The Buick Turbo Regal gets 5% less MPG on E85 than on gasoline. Yet the price of ethanol is 15% or more cheaper than gasoline. In that case, it makes economic sense to use E85 instead of gasoline.

Ethanol is, today, cheaper than gasoline.

Take a look at futures prices to see what is going to happen a year from now.

December 2011: Ethanol futures price: $2.17
December 2011: RBOB gsoline futures price: $2.40

So ethanol is 23 cents cheaper to begin with. Add in the 45 cent blenders credit and E85 would be priced about 50 cents cheaper per gallon than gasoline will be.

Gas will be $3.00

E85 will be $2.50

At those prices, it makes economic sense to buy E85. And the money then STAYS IN THE USA, instead of leaving the country.

What is so hard about that?

 

[Valkyrie]

What is your point?
1 gallon of gasoline = 114,00 BTU.
1 gallon of diesel fuel = 135,000 BTU.


The Buick Turbo Regal gets 5% less MPG on E85 than on gasoline. Yet the price of ethanol is 15% or more cheaper than gasoline. In that case, it makes economic sense to use E85 instead of gasoline.

Ethanol is, today, cheaper than gasoline.

its cheaper because it is subsidized with OUR TAX DOLLARS to make a few very very rich. worst gas mpg means u have to fill up more, which makes u poorer.
no pipelines for ethanol, can't transport it long distances in a pipeline, which means more tank trucks, for ethanol refinneries being built, although we were told that one reason for the higher price of oil was no new oil refineries are allowed to be built due to EPA regs, yet they are building ethanol refineries. WAKE UP to what it going on!!
ethanol increases air pollution and ozone levels, I have posted the scientific studies before and one by the EPA.
WAKE UP!! to the scam put upon YOU and the AMERCIAN PEOPLE so a few can get rich.
The EPA makes all vehicles run rich wasting 5-10 mpg on the hwy just so the catalytic convertor will work. Do u see what is going on?
all vehicles today are actually air filters. the air going into the engine is dirtier than what is coming out of the exhaust. this has been the EPA design of engines since the 1990s, again making everybody poorer by having to buy a more expensive vehicle while a few get very, very rich.
WAKE UP!

u really need to read this
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/greening.shtml

I'm done with this thread

 

[James48843]

its cheaper because it is subsidized with OUR TAX DOLLARS to make a few very very rich.

No. It's cheaper because of free market conditions.
You are smply WRONG.

Check the CME futures contracts.

Here is price of ethanol- NOT including any subsidies:

View attachment 10490

Here is the price of gasoline:
View attachment 10491

Let's go back to school- if one commoditiy is $2.32, and the other one is $2.42, the one labled $2.32 COSTS LESS.



Add in the .45 cent blender's credit, and it is a LOT less.


It burns cleaner.

It cost is competitive.

It keeps the money IN THE U.S INSTEAD OF SENDING IT OVERSEAS.

It doesn't cost American soldier's lives to keep the lanes open.


Now, you say there are no pipelines. Correct. But nothing stops someone from BUILDING PIPELINES IF THEY WANTED TO. In fact, there are a number of pipeline projects being considered now.


Ethanol is a better deal for society than gasoline is.

Gasoline will neverbe cheaper than it is today. It's price is NEVER going to go back to 50 cents gallon. And if you think that today's prices of $3 a gallon will last forever, you are sadly mistaken.

Lean the truth, and the truth will set you free.

 

[James48843]

its cheaper because it is subsidized with OUR TAX DOLLARS to make a few very very rich. worst gas mpg means u have to fill up more, which makes u poorer.
no pipelines for ethanol, can't transport it long distances in a pipeline, which means more tank trucks, for ethanol refinneries being built, although we were told that one reason for the higher price of oil was no new oil refineries are allowed to be built due to EPA regs, yet they are building ethanol refineries. WAKE UP to what it going on!!
ethanol increases air pollution and ozone levels, I have posted the scientific studies before and one by the EPA.
WAKE UP!! to the scam put upon YOU and the AMERCIAN PEOPLE so a few can get rich.
The EPA makes all vehicles run rich wasting 5-10 mpg on the hwy just so the catalytic convertor will work. Do u see what is going on?
all vehicles today are actually air filters. the air going into the engine is dirtier than what is coming out of the exhaust. this has been the EPA design of engines since the 1990s, again making everybody poorer by having to buy a more expensive vehicle while a few get very, very rich.
WAKE UP!

u really need to read this
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/greening.shtml

I'm done with this thread

Yeh, and the floridation that the communists are tampering with is affecting our precious bodily fluids too, aren't they?

 

[Valkyrie]

The Great Ethanol Scam


http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/may2009/bw20090514_058678.htm

 

[WorkFE]

Gasoline will never be cheaper than it is today.

E85 in reality would swell oil supply and lesson demand. Yes there is a monopoly on oil but the competition between oil producers would be fierce.

 

[Valkyrie]

more expense for the consumer, manufacturer and hidden extra energy/pollution usage to remove the water

E10’s ability to absorb water has yet another drawback; it can absorb water directly from the atmosphere through the vent while simply sitting in the tank. In just 100 days at 70% humidity, E10 can absorb enough water to phase-separate. The shelf life of E10 is only 60-90 days if left without treatment.

Ethanol is not typically transported by pipeline for three reasons. Current production levels will not support a dedicated pipeline. The costs of building and maintaining a pipeline from Midwestern United States to either coast are prohibitive. Any water which penetrates the pipeline will be absorbed by the ethanol, diluting the mixture.

For the ethanol to be usable as a fuel, water must be removed. Most of the water is removed by distillation, but the purity is limited to 95-96% due to the formation of a low-boiling water-ethanol azeotrope. The 96% m/m (93% v/v) ethanol, 4% m/m (7% v/v) water mixture may be used as a fuel, and it's called hydrated ethyl alcohol fuel (álcool etílico hidratado combustível, or AEHC in Portuguese). In 2006/2007, an estimated 17 billion liters (4,5 billion gallons) of hydrated ethyl alcohol fuel will be produced, to be used in ethanol powered vehicles.

For blending with gasoline, purity of 99.5 to 99.9% is required, depending on temperature, to avoid separation. Currently, the most widely used purification method is a physical absorption process using molecular sieves. Another method, azeotropic distillation, is achieved by adding the hydrocarbon benzene which also denatures the ethanol (so no extra methanol/petrol/etc. is needed to render it undrinkable for duty purposes). However, benzene is a powerful carcinogen and so will probably be illegal for this purpose soon.

 

[James48843]

The Great Ethanol Scam


http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/may2009/bw20090514_058678.htm

A lot of Ed Wallace's complaints are about ethanol being used in non-flexfuel cars. He's right on this- the import manufacturers (from Toyota to Mini) don't engineer their cars today for an ethanol environment, even though we've been adding ethanol to gas in the USA since the early 1980's. All the domestic manufacturers know this, and build their cars for this. If a Lexus fails in the fuel rail because of 10% ethanol-that's not a problem with fuel, that's an engineering failure by Lexus.

If all car makers made their cars flex-fuel, you wouldn't have ANY of those issues. And it only costs about $100 a car to make it flexfuel, so there is really no excuse. We OUGHT to mandate 100% flex-fuel capbility in new car production, and we'd all be better off.

 

[Valkyrie]

http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/12/ethanol-ozone-and-the-epa/

The EPA is ignoring the growing evidence that ethanol increases ozone pollution. Every increase in ethanol use as fuel will increases the amount of ozone pollution in the United States. This is one of the times where regardless of a persons views on global warming, the pollution effects of ethanol are real and need to be taken into account.

 

[Valkyrie]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=reduce-air-pollution-do-not-rely-on-ethanol

Because burning ethanol can potentially add more smog-forming pollution to the atmosphere, however, it can also exacerbate the ill effects of such air pollution. According to Jacobson, burning ethanol adds 22 percent more hydrocarbons to the atmosphere than does burning gasoline and this would lead to a nearly two parts per billion increase in tropospheric ozone. This surface ozone, which has been linked to inflamed lungs, impaired immune systems and heart disease by prior research, would in turn lead to a 4 percent increase in the number of ground level ozone-related deaths, or roughly 200 extra deaths a year.

 

[James48843]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=reduce-air-pollution-do-not-rely-on-ethanol

Because burning ethanol can potentially add more smog-forming pollution to the atmosphere, however, it can also exacerbate the ill effects of such air pollution. According to Jacobson, burning ethanol adds 22 percent more hydrocarbons to the atmosphere than does burning gasoline and this would lead to a nearly two parts per billion increase in tropospheric ozone. This surface ozone, which has been linked to inflamed lungs, impaired immune systems and heart disease by prior research, would in turn lead to a 4 percent increase in the number of ground level ozone-related deaths, or roughly 200 extra deaths a year.

Jacobson's study is flawed, in that it counted the pollution in the frst two to three minutes, while the engine is cold. GM and Delphi have developed a heated fuel injector that warms the E85 upon the key turning. That completely eliminates the extra pollution on startup and fixes it. The heated injectors will be standard on flex-fuel cars in the 2012 model year.

See: http://delphi.com/manufacturers/auto/powertrain/gas/injsys/multec-ht-fuel-inj/

 

[Valkyrie]

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-08-30/business/fi-1539_1_nitrogen-oxide

The same basic engine--without the lean-burn feature--will be offered in the 1992 Civic this fall in California. It will be about 8% less fuel efficient than the version sold in the other 49 states, Honda said.

http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/h55.pdf

go to page 9. if the air/fuel ratio is leaned out to 17.5:1 to 19:1 at hwy speeds which is very easy to do with the engine computer, at least 10 mpg would be saved and hc co and nox would still be low.
why does the EPA insist on 14.7:1 and cause millions of gallons of fuel to be wasted everyday? The Latimes link is a prime example.

 

[James48843]

...
For the ethanol to be usable as a fuel, water must be removed.....

Besides the fact that you are cutting and pasting from Wilkipedia, you really ought to check your facts.


HYDROUS ethanol (ethanol with some water content still in it) is THE FUEL used in Brazil's E100 cars. HYDROUS ethanol makes up alomst half of Brasil's fuel production.

View attachment 10492

Note: Brazil REQUIRES ALL new cars to be either E100 or flex-fuel.

 

[James48843]

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-08-30/business/fi-1539_1_nitrogen-oxide

The same basic engine--without the lean-burn feature--will be offered in the 1992 Civic this fall in California. It will be about 8% less fuel efficient than the version sold in the other 49 states, Honda said.

http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/h55.pdf

go to page 9. if the air/fuel ratio is leaned out to 17.5:1 to 19:1 at hwy speeds which is very easy to do with the engine computer, at least 10 mpg would be saved and hc co and nox would still be low.
why does the EPA insist on 14.7:1 and cause millions of gallons of fuel to be wasted everyday? The Latimes link is a prime example.

Good question. Why does EPA use 14.7: 1 and not use 18:1, when it COULD rewrite the reg for that.

Why don't you call the EPA and ask?

The engineer responsible is Link Wehrly. His phone number is (734) 214-4286, and his desk is about two miles from where I am sitting at this moment. Call him up and ask him.

By the way- he's a federal employee too, and probably has a nice TSP account. Perhaps we should get him to join us here.