Whats up with Ethanol?

[firemedicntx]

Elwood, Thanks for the branch. Ill use it to start another fire.

 

 

Im sure there are many things we agree on. Just not ethanol. Im really not against farmers and understand alot of their complaints. I agree we should be doing the exporting of food and not importing anything we already produce. In a perfect world we would pay the farmer what he asked for an ear of corn, or go buy it from a cheaper farmer. I dont think 10% ethanol is that harnful either, but it lets them get their foot in the door, and I dont like that. I think Biodiesel is a very viable option, and a lot better than ethanol. Dont take anything personal in my post. I generalize alot, and have a very dry sense of humor.

 

Yes you are the smartest person posting on this board from where your are sitting. No one else is sitting there but you.

 

We both drive chevys. Infact, we both have burbs and silverados, whats that all about.

 

Later

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"If the government would quit importing foreign grain and quit letting OUR grain sit in stockpiles while exporting far less than we import, the price of our grain would go up drastically"

 

 

BlueTahoe, I read this statement and agree with it. I didnt address every sentence Elwood posted specifically 'cause Im really tired of talking about the farm conundrum. I can hear just fine, however, I could have missed something cause I wasnt reading allowed. lol

 

You said:

 

Ok the one main benefit to ethanol is it can be mixed with gasoline and used in a normal gasoline engine.

 

So can water.

 

 

mmmikkke wrote in the first post and again on this page:

 

 

Dodge Stratus four-door, 2.7 liter v-6 and automatic transmission: E85, 15 mpg city, 20 mpg highway; Gasoline, 21 mpg city, 28 mpg highway.

 

Chevrolet Silverado 1500 2 Wd; auto transmission 5.3 liter v-8: E85, 11 mpg city, 14 mpg highway; Gasoline, 15 mpg city, 19 highway.

 

Ford Explorer 2 WD 4.0 liter v-6 and automatic transmission: E85, 12 mpg city, 16 mpg highway. Gasoline: 16 mpg city, 21 mpg highway.

 

Thats based on 10% ethanol in newer vehicles. 10% ethanol in your gasoline gets you at least 5mpg less on the highway. E85 is even worse in an engine built for gasoline.

 

 

 

If you get the proper mix with ethanol the gasoline engine will run fine just uses more fuel than gasoline.

 

If you get the gasoline engine to run good on ethanol enriched gasoline it ends up using more gas as well. In turn not helping our dependence on foriegn oil. This is why I always state in my post "gasoline internal combustion engine" not just engine. There is a solution as I said earlier, dedicated ethanol engines E100's so to speak. It just makes more sense to me, the same as diesel vs gasoline engines. Different fuel, different engine.

This isnt just an air fuel ratio problem. Its because ethanol is an oxygenator, it adds oxygen to the fuel. ETBE is made from ethanol and is replacing MTBE which is a good thing.

The other reason Im against the 10% ethanol push isnt because I think 10% will send your gasoline engine straight to the grave, but because if they get 10% now they will want 25% next year then 50% mandated and so on.

 

 

BlueTahoe, If you are for ethanol thats fine. I just dont think we should have to use it. It should be a choice.

[Elwood 2000]

I think we should just agree to disagree. Sounds good to me. That last thread was locked for a reason and in all honestly, it should probly be deleted. This forum is better than that.

 

 

 

I don't like government making decisions for us as I feel the people are quite capable of taking care of ourselves (or at least we should be) and I don't like them mandating anything, but from a growers standpoint, given the mess the agriculture industry is, I will support it.

 

In the end, I will use the products that I grow whenever possible. I even use "Beanie Clean Handsoap" and with the exception of severe grease, it works very well. Just as good as softsoap! There is probly only 2 beans in the whole tub, that that is two more beans!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regarding diesel, I read a while back that many of the European car makers who sell in America are going to be pushing more towards diesel cars. Companies like BMW, Mercedes, VW, Volvo, etc. are going to make a serious drive to make diesel cars as popular here as in Europe. Jeep is going to put a small diesel in the Liberty and VW has many diesel cars on the road. With the diesel truck explosion, it is available almost everywhere now. While it is still petro, and the price is comparable to gasoline today, you do yield better milage and performance is now similar in cars. A person I know has a diesel VW bug with a 5 speed. She gets 50 mpg combination city/highway!

[USA1Fan]

I personally am against mandated 10% ethanol gasoline.

 

The cost savings being passed to me at the pump per gallon of fuel are roughly offset by the increased need to refuel over a given driving distance. So I'm not benefiting there.

 

I find the argument that it would be a step in the direction of reducing dependency on foreign oil fallacious. The simple fact is that 90% of what goes into a full tank of fuel is still petroleum based. Consider that I go 95% or less of the distance I'd go with straight gasoline on that tank (5% fuel efficiency drop). Then consider the amount of petroleum based products needed to produce the 10% of that tank that is ethanol based. How much have we really saved?

 

I have no argument against the idea of 100% ethanol and vehicles specifically tailored to use it. That idea really could reduce dependency on petroleum products.

 

Basically though I feel that going with a mixed fuel in today's cars does nothing to improve our financial situation or our dependence on foreign oils. All that it does is further inconvenience us as consumers and vehicle operators by causing us to visit the gas stations more often. Worse, if (and likely when) the subsidies are removed, expect the costs of the fuel to rise. At that point we really ARE paying more for less than we already have now.

[BlueTahoe]

OK guys this was stopped for a reason! I just wanted to say on a closing note that it sounds like we all agree on one thing. THIS SHOULD BE A CHOICE. The Government can support ethanol if they want but they should NOT mandate it.

 

I'm ok with deleting the old thread. I went back and reread it. Elwood is right. This sight is better than that! And that isn't directed to anyone. We were all a little over the top in there.

 

It's been fun debating with you guys we all have very strong opinions and that what is so great about it is we have an opportunity to express them. Nothing personal guys! At least we live in a place that allows us to express our opinions

 

 

It's been fun

[silverado man]

I will reopen this thread by request from a member. Please keep it to a clean discussion or this will be closed again.

[mmmikkke]

Actually, deleting the old thread leaves the discussion where it started, with everybody in the dark.

 

I don't think the nation can move forward with everybody in the dark. Although, ironically, that's exactly where we might end up if the current oil supply crisis worsens.

 

We have at least three time horizons to deal with.

 

The first is the time in the future were our chemically enhanced farming practices cease to be able to compensate for our farming-on-steroids depletion of trace minerals in the soil. Some estimate that that could happen in the United States in as few as 30 years. (Click here.)

 

The second is the time in the future there's a huge gap between the worldwide demand for oil, and the available supply. At that time, oil prices will spiral to bring supply and demand into balance. That's happening today. And it will worsen as we reach "peak oil" in 2010.

 

The third is the time in the future when we've tipped the earth's climate into a spiral of increasing temperatures, due to:

 

- dust in the atmosphere, from all human activiity

- man made soot in the atmosphere, mostly from diesel engines

- carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, from all internal combustion engines (gasoline, ethanol, diesel, etc.)

- eradication of the rain forests, where much of the carbon dioxide had previously been sequestered by trees, building plant material out of the carbon and liberating the oxides (oxygen) back into the atmosphere.

 

I believe the third time horizon is in the present. And if I'm right--if the 2005 hurricane season is the worst in history; if in 2005 destruction of the arctic permafrost accelerates further; if scorching, record breaking heat waves expand the African Sahara in 2005; if the slowing of the Gulf Stream accelerates in 2005--we have an immediate worldwide climate crisis that demands both an honest dialog [here, and elsewhere] on the reasons why, and a means of bringing the developed world's best scientific minds together without vested interests to deal with a situation unprecedented in the history of mankind.

 

I believe that using crops for fuel--ethanol--only makes things worse: More diesel soot, more dust, more depletion of trace minerals, and in Brazil, more destruction of the rain forest. And since estimates of the "energy balance", the ratio of the amount of fuel consumed in ethanol farming, ranges from an optimistic 0.7, to a more realistic 2.7, we could potentially be using 2.7 gallons of oil to produce 1 gallon of ethanol. We need to know the real number, a number that takes all of the above time horizons into account.

 

I request that the old thread be preserved, with perhaps individual posts--those which caused the closing of the thread--to be excised or edited.

[General Lee 01]

I personally think everybody has had their fair share of say on this matter. I do not see the reason behind keeping this disscussion going. However I will be a good sport and let this thread go on.... For now.

 

 

But let me get a couple things straight.

 

If the word "Clueless" or other such insults start to get tossed about, this thread will be closed without hesitation.

 

If such case should happen, I would strongly advise against creating a 3rd thread on this matter.

 

With that said, Carry on. Thanks guys for understanding.

[mmmikkke]

Message received loud and clear, General Lee, Sir!

 

At ease, men.

[Elwood 2000]

It is ironic tha we have been talking about this the past few days as I watched a show on the History Channel last night about the very things that Mike just posted. Most of what they said was in line with what he posted, but they also said this. There are other technologies available to drastically control the amount of petrolum used. These technologies could be used for "non-moblie" type fuels or fuels for objects that don't move, such as cars and trucks. According to the show, scientists say that there is enough wind from Nebraska south thru Texas on most given days to power the entire country for that specific day. The technology exists to "contain" excess energy on above average wind speed days and store it for below basic need days. The problem? The initial costs are very high and at this current point in time, not cost effective to build this large scale system. The government neither has the money, nor with the contributions to politicians from big oil want to push this harder. Until oil supplies start getting extrememly short pushing the price of fuel much higher will it become cost effective to build all these wind farms. The question is, will it be too late??

 

One guy on the show said the pessimists are saying the oil will be gone by 2030 and optimists are saying by 2050. They are only argueing over 20 years worth, not 100 years vs. 200 years and with their given time frames, most of us could see the end of oil. Whether these figures are correct or not remains to be seen, but until some government mandates, along with cash to build these wind farms or solar farms (solar is another viable route given todays technology) it will not be cost effective to do so and nothing will change.

 

They estimated that if the world could be powered by air or sun and not oil, if vehicles just became 50% more efficient, (done via hybrids and hydrogen use), the oil supply could potentialy last for another century. The problem is getting it done and the money it takes to do it. In society, people are not going to make a change unless it is profitable. According to the show, Europe is now just under 25% powered by wind and are trying to be powered 50% by 2010.

 

 

 

I guess I have talked about the show enough, if you have the History Channel, look for it. They re-run shows quite often. I forgot what it was called, sorry.

 

 

In short, there are many other viable options out there, but they are not being pushed, especially in this country because it is not economically viable to do so. Until gasoline reaches several more dollars per gallon than it is today, I fear nothing will change.

 

 

To touch on ethanol (which I said I was stay at arms length with this thread) a local fuel supplier told me today that he was going to carry E-85 starting next month and make it available. I plan on trying it myself in my Suburban to see about any milage or performance differences. I don't have a dyno, but it is totally stock and I will give an honest "seat of the pants" comparison.