Oil Slick Stuff

[James48843]

As Ethanol is dependant on petroleum for production, the more petroleum cost, the more expensive ethanol is. This is reflected in the cost of E85 (see the AAA link below).

http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/

Also, another useful link http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/features/art23819.html

1. Fuel Gauge Report: displays something called " Adjusted BTU price". What is that?

I'll tell you. It's a mythical number made up because ethanol has fewer BTU's per gallon than gasoline does. But you know what? Gasoline has fewer BTU's per gallon than diesel fuel does. So why don't they display gasoline price as "Adjusted BTU price?"

The fact is that E85 fuel DOES give you lower MPGs- how much lower depends on the vehicle. Today, all flex-fuel engines are designed around gasoline, and then converted to be flex-fuel. They are not optimized for ethanol. If they were, they would be smaller, with higher compression ( 14-to1 would work just fine) to give the same power on much smaller size, and lower fuel consumption.

My ex-government Dodge Stratus POV gets me 22 MPG on E85, and 24 MPG on gasoline. Sure, that's a 2 MPG drop- about 10%. So I need a 10% price difference to BREAK EVEN at the pump. Anything better than a 10% difference, and I'm ahead.

Now, the price of gasoline at the pump DOES NOT reflect the actual cost to society. Add in the cost of keeping the sea lanes open in the Persian Gulf- and the deployment of U.S. forces being used to guard the Iraqi oil terminal platforms (Yes, we're still providing security there), all the other security we provide, all the Navy ship patrols off Somalia keeping oil tankers from being hijacked, and the cost is huge. One study put it at over $5 a gallon for gasoline here. But nobody tacks that on to the price of gas.

#2- Nature Conservancy- uses faulty data. He says back in 2005 that in order to increase ethanol production, we're going to have to clear-cut forests, etc. In fact, since 2005, ethanol production has TRIPLED in this country to over 10 bullion gallons a year. And the amount of land used to produce that has actually DECREASED, as we've had more productive land. This year, America produced over 13 billion bushels of corn- an all-time high. We did it on LESS land than in the pass- because new corn varieties are increasing bushels per acre every year.

Nature Conservancy talks a good talk, but they don't have the facts. I'll take facts any day.

 

[SkyPilot]

How about this?

Just FYI, I am not pro or con regarding ethanol. I am for reasonable alternatives to foriegn petroleum. We must kick the habit.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/09/07/ethanolnow/

If ethanol used ethanol to make ethanol, this might be a different discussion. I believe Con Agra, ADM and others are using a tax-funded bait and switch on us. As long as ethanol is dependant on petroleum for production, the cost associated with the foreign petroluem will always be part of the equation of ethanol. In other words, ethanol is currently a by product of the combustion of foriegn petroleum. All that is true about foriegn petroleum is true about ethanol. Kinda like the true cost of the Prius in terms of carbon footprint.

 

[James48843]

How about this?
http://www.startribune.com/local/38839542.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUsZ

That study says - when considering health, gasoline and corn ethanol aren't much different- that you need to move towards cellulostic ethanol in the future. Guess what? That's exactly what the renewable fuel standard is doing- moving towards the development of swtichgrass and other cellulostic ethanol for the future.

Although that study- when you read it, doesn't take into account all the other products made when you made corn-based ethanol. You also end up getting DDG (dried distillers grain) which is used in cattle feed, and you get corn oil, which can either be used in food, or can be converted into biodiesel- another alternative fuel. In all cases you get economically valuable products that help the economy.

 

[James48843]

How about this?

Just FYI, I am not pro or con regarding ethanol. I am for reasonable alternatives to foriegn petroleum. We must kick the habit.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/09/07/ethanolnow/

That's an article about the use of water needed to produce ethanol.

Ethanol is getting better every year with that, as technology gets better. Yes, some water is used.

However, the amount of water needed to produce ethanol is about one third the amount of water needed to produce gasoline from oil shale.

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/npr/Oil_Shale_Water_Requirements.pdf

Oil shale is going to continue to be a part of the energy need of this nation- Ethanol is much more efficient than oil shale.

So we'll end up using some of both.

 

[SkyPilot]

That study says - when considering health, gasoline and corn ethanol aren't much different- that you need to move towards cellulostic ethanol in the future. Guess what? That's exactly what the renewable fuel standard is doing- moving towards the development of swtichgrass and other cellulostic ethanol for the future.

Although that study- when you read it, doesn't take into account all the other products made when you made corn-based ethanol. You also end up getting DDG (dried distillers grain) which is used in cattle feed, and you get corn oil, which can either be used in food, or can be converted into biodiesel- another alternative fuel. In all cases you get economically valuable products that help the economy.

I think cellusose may be a major part of the answer apart from corn based ethanol. However, the depletion of water may be the big spoiler in all this.

 

[James48843]

...As long as ethanol is dependant on petroleum for production, the cost associated with the foreign petroluem will always be part of the equation of ethanol. In other words, ethanol is currently a by product of the combustion of foriegn petroleum. All that is true about foriegn petroleum is true about ethanol. Kinda like the true cost of the Prius in terms of carbon footprint.

None of those studies take this into account:

that farmers are beginning to use biodiesel made from soy beans or corn , to supplement their use of petroleum. But it IS happening out there- as farmers discover they can use biodiesel (B10 or B20) interchangably with regular diesel, and the price is reasonably competitive. You can't use B100 in farm equipment yet- because it's not designed for it, and there are cold weather issues- but B10 and B20 works just fine.

Now if only those making the studies can do some original research, and work into their equations the use of B20....

 

[James48843]

IMO, Ethanol is ludacist - GO NUCLEAR - Not the old '50s technology. - Just Look at Norway and Swednen today - they are recycling 98% of the Nuclear waste - have Volvos and cars the run on electric (pennys on what we are paying).
ITS A HUGE THREAT - IN TYING OUR FOOD SUPPLY TO OUR ENERGY NEEDS.
I SCREAM FOUL, AND B.S!!!!,
VR

Where on EARTH did you get that from?

Norway does NOT recycle 98% of Nuclear waste.

I would point you here- to an article where Norway's Nuclear Waste went....

http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/547/5265.html

and this article, about the economics of trying to recycle nuclear waste:
http://www.fpif.org/articles/nuclear_recycling_fails_the_test

Sorry, but although I love nuclear as an option, it can't be done until they solve the nuclear waste problem. IN the meantime, here in the US, we keep stacking up more waste that will have to be put somewhere, someday.

 

[grandma]

...that farmers are beginning to use biodiesel made from soy beans or corn
....

Is the going thought that we exchange grains that not only are flood/freeze susceptible, the extra we apparently have could be shipped to Angola & other places for use as food,
we exchange those food products so as to protect wildlife?
Myself, I prefer the drilling.
It wastes neither the eating, nor the drinking !

 

[nnuut]

None of those studies take this into account:

that farmers are beginning to use biodiesel made from soy beans or corn , to supplement their use of petroleum. But it IS happening out there- as farmers discover they can use biodiesel (B10 or B20) interchangably with regular diesel, and the price is reasonably competitive. You can't use B100 in farm equipment yet- because it's not designed for it, and there are cold weather issues- but B10 and B20 works just fine.

Now if only those making the studies can do some original research, and work into their equations the use of B20....

Ethanol surely is better than nothing!! We have developed a need for it as another option when Oil output gets low and ethanol may discourage higher prices to a point.
Being from SC, I had relatives that were "Moonshiners", one in particular made "moon" all of his life sense he was 14 years. Famous for the quality he had a good sideline business and I know he was still still doing it in 1999, at that time I think he was about 83 years old. His stuff was clear, had no or very little odor and averaged 110 proof. I imagine he would have a fit if he knew how much Corn Liquor/ethanol for fuel the USA is putting out each year? hic!

 

[James48843]

Is the going thought that we exchange grains that not only are flood/freeze susceptible, the extra we apparently have could be shipped to Angola & other places for use as food,
we exchange those food products so as to protect wildlife?
Myself, I prefer the drilling.
It wastes neither the eating, nor the drinking !

You assume we are taking corn that otherwise would have been used for food to send to Angola, and making fuel out of it here. That's simply not the case.

Our corn exports are still going up, at the same time we are producing more ethanol. When we produce ethanol, we also get food byproducts made.

In this country, the majority of arable land isn't even in production- more than half is lying fallow, and we PAY farmers NOT to grow things on it.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/in-defense-of-biofuels

 

[nnuut]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZkRkjxSpro

 

[nnuut]

Just checking if there is a bad side to ethanol use?

April 18, 2007
ETHANOL VEHICLES A HEALTH HAZARD

Ethanol advocates say that it's a clean-burning fuel that is friendly to the environment. But a study by Stanford University atmospheric scientist Mark Z. Jacobson found that if all U.S. vehicles ran on ethanol, the number of respiratory-related deaths and hospitalizations would likely increase.

Jacobson's work, reported in Environmental Science & Technology, involved the simulation of atmospheric conditions throughout the United States in 2020, with a special focus on Los Angeles. According to Jacobson:

• Research found that E85 vehicles reduce atmospheric levels of two carcinogens, benzene and butadiene, but increase two others -- formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.
• As a result, cancer rates for E85 are likely to be similar to those for gasoline; However, E85 significantly increased ozone, a prime ingredient of smog.
• The simulations revealed that E85 would increase ozone-related mortalities by about 4 percent in the United States and 9 percent in Los Angeles.
• In addition, the deleterious health effects of E85 will be the same, whether the ethanol is made from corn, switchgrass or other plant products.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20070318010112data_trunc_sys.shtml
For more on Health Issues:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=16

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=14447

 

[James48843]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZkRkjxSpro

But I just LOVE her accent.

Don't you?

 

[James48843]

Gasoline fires make more smoke and flame, I think.

​

 

[alevin]

In this country, the majority of arable land isn't even in production- more than half is lying fallow, and we PAY farmers NOT to grow things on it.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/in-defense-of-biofuels

Umm, James, I happened to read this earlier today, before I saw your post. Land going out of production and lying fallow is in part due to economics of "over"investment in corn acreage-and the fertilizer demands that go along with.....vs. economics of producing dryland grain crops-like wheat.

Today on the fertile lands of Iowa, Illinois, and Nebraska–our precious midwest farmbelt–the biennial (crop rotation) dance of corn and soy is giving way to economic pressure from ethanol and advancing technology. Unthinkable even five years ago, today “corn on corn” is the norm (as in no crop rotation any more). Things are changing in equally dramatic ways in the drylands of the Dakotas, but the trend runs opposite to that seen in the wetter, richer lands to the east. Skyrocketing ammonia prices and limited moisture are driving lands out of annual wheat production and into a biennial rotation of fallow and wheat production.

Historically, a ton of ammonia equaled the cost of about eighty bushels of wheat, that is, $2.25 for a wheat bushel against $200 for a ton of ammonia. This ratio held for forty years. Two years ago that long standing relationship broke down. Today wheat is $4.50 and ammonia is $1,000 – over two hundred bushels of wheat are required to purchase a ton of ammonia.
The first effect of this has been a reduction in fertilization on wheat planted. Instead of 14% protein acreage, farmers will see crops with protein closer to the 8% range. Instead of the seventy bushels per acre achieved with full fertilization, farmer will see yields sliding off towards the twenty five bushels per acre unfertilized wheat yielded.

Another effect to be seen is the practice of simply idling land for a year. Wheat needs water as well as fertilizer, and the places where it is raised are much drier than corn country. The idled land may be left “chemfallow”, where weeds are killed with Roundup herbicide three times during the season, or it may be left “summer fallow,” Both of these practices allow the soil to rest both in terms of water and nutrients. The Roundup method has the chemical cost and attendant concerns while the cultivation method is much more fuel intensive.
Why would land be left out of production? Cash rent on an acre used to be 120 percent of the price of ammonia but now it’s 50 percent of that $1,000. half of the land is left standing idle in any given growing season, accumulating water along with the improvements associated with leaving the organic matter from the weeds on the field. The financial effect is the same as fertilization only without the attendant expense and risk.

“Farmers can’t afford a thousand dollars a ton, so they’ve cut back on ammonia. Wheat protein percentages will drop from 14% to 8%. People are going to starve.”
Looking at global wheat statistics reveals that the troubles have already begun. Wheat production per capita has been in excess of two hundred pounds for the last thirty years, this even as our global population doubled and

also last 30 years, “end of season” stocks had stabilized around seventy pounds per capita. Three years ago the “end of season” stock level plunged to around forty pounds per capita,

More acres were being turned to corn reducing wheat, soy, and other cereal crop production. Corn crop always gets an ammonia based fertilizer .

Wheat farmers can't afford the cost of ammonia fertilizer whose price has gone up due to demand by corn growers, so wheat farmers are not using as much, wheat production dropped on planted acres, not planting as many acres, protein content of wheat that is grown is dropping by half.

There are always unintended consequences, question is can we do anything to mitigate? If global grain stocks decline too far, have to wait til next growing season to restock, meanwhile what will people eat during the winter/spring months til new harvest?
http://desertification.wordpress.co...eaten-global-food-supply-african-agriculture/

 

[phil]

The National Center for Policy Analysis is a right wing think tank funded by Koch and by Exxon-Mobil. I think they have an agenda here, don't you? Listnening to the oil companies is probably how we got into higher gas prices in the first place. They're smart, they don't want the competition, particularly when they've had an oligopoly for so long.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis

Science a go go now....they sound as if they're a valuable resource.

Just checking if there is a bad side to ethanol use?

April 18, 2007
ETHANOL VEHICLES A HEALTH HAZARD

Ethanol advocates say that it's a clean-burning fuel that is friendly to the environment. But a study by Stanford University atmospheric scientist Mark Z. Jacobson found that if all U.S. vehicles ran on ethanol, the number of respiratory-related deaths and hospitalizations would likely increase.


Jacobson's work, reported in Environmental Science & Technology, involved the simulation of atmospheric conditions throughout the United States in 2020, with a special focus on Los Angeles. According to Jacobson:

• Research found that E85 vehicles reduce atmospheric levels of two carcinogens, benzene and butadiene, but increase two others -- formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.
• As a result, cancer rates for E85 are likely to be similar to those for gasoline; However, E85 significantly increased ozone, a prime ingredient of smog.
• The simulations revealed that E85 would increase ozone-related mortalities by about 4 percent in the United States and 9 percent in Los Angeles.
• In addition, the deleterious health effects of E85 will be the same, whether the ethanol is made from corn, switchgrass or other plant products.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20070318010112data_trunc_sys.shtml
For more on Health Issues:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=16

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=14447

 

[Show-me]

Back on topic! This is the oil thread.

 

[nnuut]

Actually fuel for autos, trucks, trains, heating, manufacturing, electrical energy plants all fit the bill here! Post on if you like, this is why I started this thread, because it's important, but keep the politics out!! Pump on, or is it farm on in the case of ethanol?

 

[James48843]

Umm, James, I happened to read this earlier today, before I saw your post. Land going out of production and lying fallow is in part due to economics of "over"investment in corn acreage-and the fertilizer demands that go along with.....vs. economics of producing dryland grain crops-like wheat.

Wheat farmers can't afford the cost of ammonia fertilizer whose price has gone up due to demand by corn growers, so wheat farmers are not using as much, wheat production dropped on planted acres, not planting as many acres, protein content of wheat that is grown is dropping by half.

http://desertification.wordpress.co...eaten-global-food-supply-african-agriculture/

Um= that is just some guy's blog. From two years ago--in 2007. He was saying that for 2008, production of wheat was going to go down, leading to "starving".

Riiiiight. (sarcasm).

He couldn't have been more wrong.


Here is the actual data from the U.S. Department of Ag- which shows that Wheat production is doing pretty nicely, although final figures are not yet out for 2009- we still have another month's data to add in, but already wheat last year showed it was in the same range as previous years- not "wheat production dropping":

View attachment 8069​

And, meanwhile, Corn production hit an all-time high last year at over 165 bushels an acre, and over 13 billion bushels produced- more than ever in our history-​

View attachment 8070​

Remember- when corn is produced for ethanol, they also end up with more products than just ethanol- they end up with DDG which is used for cattle feed, and corn oil, which is used for both food and biofuel as well. So we end up with MORE food, not less, when you make ethanol.​

USDA production stats: http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/index2.jsp​

 

[phil]

And....can I sell you a ton of ammonia for $1000?
From your post:
Historically, a ton of ammonia equaled the cost of about eighty bushels of wheat, that is, $2.25 for a wheat bushel against $200 for a ton of ammonia. This ratio held for forty years. Two years ago that long standing relationship broke down. Today wheat is $4.50 and ammonia is $1,000 – over two hundred bushels of wheat are required to purchase a ton of ammonia.


Right now, I can buy it for for probably less than $300 (April prices), and I can use the money. People told me that this is a GREAT website for making money! And they're right!

http://www.purchasing.com/article/231263-Ammonia_prices_climb_back_up.php


The most recent Purchasingdata.com survey shows buyers paid on average about $261/net ton for ammonia in March, up 24% from the $210 they paid in February. Indications are that prices in April will rise even further.