Ray Roton

I am a firm believer in the benefits of Biodiesel, and in the future of electric vehicles, however, I have yet to be sold on ethanol. I won't get into the long list of benefits of biodiesel, but here is a link to a very good web site on the subject.
http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/f...0Biodiesel.Pdf

The primary purpose of this post is to express my thoughts about ethanol sense the Government and the environmentalist are trying to force it on us.

Ethanol provides about 34 percent less energy output than gasoline. Thus the miles traveled per gallon on ethanol are greatly reduced. The fact is, ethanol produces NEGATIVE gains in energy efficiency, because it takes more energy to refine it from corn than it saves in using it as a fuel. And we can’t import ethanol from anywhere outside the U.S., like Brazil for example, where it is made much more easily and efficiently using sugar cane because of the astronomical federal ethanol subsidy.
Ethanol increases the price per gallon by 20 to 80 cents and, at the same time, requires more stops to refuel.

Ethanol is so corrosive it must be transported by truck or rail because it will damage pipelines. The January 29 issue of Business Week reports, “Auto fuel that contains more than 10% ethanol is too corrosive to use in existing gas station pumps.” Burning straight ethanol would require fuel lines and gaskets, which are impervious to alcohol. Imagine what straight ethanol does to the engine of your automobile?

Ethanol, when transportation, refining, and farming costs are factored into its production for fuel, provides negligible energy gains.

Ethanol receives a fifty-one-cent-per-gallon tax credit and mandates for its use have driven the price of corn to 10-year-highs. This increases the cost to feedlot owners who feed corn to cattle and pigs, forcing the cost of these food stocks to rise.

Ethanol production has doubled from 2001 to 2005 and could double again by the 2008-harvest season, providing fifteen billion gallons or approximately six percent of U.S. auto fuel needs. Let me repeat that, six percent! And all the time this is occurring, the price of everything else that involves corn production goes up with no appreciable increase in energy value.

Finally, since U.S. corn accounts for one-fourth of all grain exports, a rise in the price “could create food shortages in low-income areas around the world.”

There is, based solely on these facts, no good reason to build a single new plant for the production of ethanol, nor for any further Congressional mandates to force every driver to fill their tank with a mixture of ethanol and gasoline.

It is an energy debacle of enormous proportions and it exists because global warming doomsayers in Congress have imposed the worst possible “answer” on everyone and are likely to compound that mistake knowing that most Americans haven’t a clue about the true facts.

John Faughn

For the sake of argument , & info , if cost is the main thing your talking about , to have a complete story , we need to include the cost of dino fuel , a military to get control of other people's land -cost , send over brides to keep control after that -cost , send over explorers to look for -cost , then send over drillers -cost , then ship back -cost - don't forget that when the oil is in transit that it trades hands at least 4 times before it gets here -each time those traders are making more money - cost , then once its here , refine it -cost , then all the subsities -cost , tax breaks -cost , and then theres the endless corrupted deals that go with all that ,then theres the polution [ can of worms ]-cost , now in all reality its probobly the most exspensive fuel we could come up with .
If we had a real [ and we do not by any means ] free economy , were every thing had to stand on its own [ economicly ] , we are so far from having the real costs & benifits info , that you can not make good decessions without .
Then let the crops that work best in there respective areas , switch grass , alge , and not use the hardest on the ground crop [ corn / soybeans ] ,
it seems when are so called leaders finely come around to the alternitives , they go about it in the worst possible way [ keeping there pays in the mix - cost ], making it not viable .
This is such a huge issue that its hard to get started , they've gone so far down the wrong road that we have a long ride to get to back to where a lot of wrong decissions were made , to make corrections .

Begle1

The deal with ethanol is that a lot of it can be produced from crop byproducts and green wastes that have historically been 46'd out of the industrial food chain. It hasn't been utilized because it has been too expensive; but petroleum isn't getting any cheaper, so it might become worth it.

I don't understand the logic in having the government pay it's citizens to loose money on energy; the logic is that we will have to second guess the free market in order to not get trapped into an energy depression when oil runs out. And honestly the free market is pretty short-sighted, so I wouldn't adamantly oppose letting the government subsidize some ethanol production. (It's bound to be more worthwhile then the last 50 years of nuclear subsidies. )

That said, bioDiesel subsidies are more useful, since it requires no engine modifications to burn and is less of an efficiency drop. But, I think that a lot of the ethanol comes from plants the just couldn't make bioDiesel. I think I slept through a presentation on how conversions might be possible, though...

Anyways, I'm sure anything I just said was horribly misinformed and Infidel will correct me on every point like he usually does...

John Faughn

My point is that if we go to war for oil [ all the way back to whale oil { the 1st portable liquid fuel }] that there isn't a more expensive fuel than dino , or any fuel we go to war for .
So if we can keep most of the corruption out of making & selling ,we should able to have it for up to 50-80% less and spend those moneys here with are own economy .
As for subsidies , it should be an exise tax on anything coming across are boarders , to help support what ever ,

infidel

Ray, you're assuming ethanol will always be made from corn. Much research has proven that crops that take much less input and can grow on poor farmland can make more ethanol.
The corn craze will be short lived.
You also ignore the fact that the leftover pulp from ethanol extraction is an excellent livestock feed that's worth more than the ethanol. Since the vast majority of US corn is grown for livestock feed anyway there is little threat of an impending food shortage.

kawi600

If this country didnt have its head up its butt over diesels, we'd be investing more into biodiesel research. So many different things can be made to burn in these motors it makes them a lot more oil-shock proof, IMO. When the **** hits the fan in the middle east somewhere and oil shoots up to some ungodly amount per barrel, folks with reactors and conversion kits are going to be in better shape than folks that own gassers, which is most drivers. I dont understand the ***-backwards thinking of the govt sometimes. . We discourage diesels with goofy laws even the euros dont get. And dont get me started on mASSachusetts and kalifornya. I worry at some point they may not even grandfather these older trucks into new emissions regs.
The only downside on homebrew bio when oil is pricey is the need for methanol which is a natural gas refining byproduct so that would go up too.. but if we did subsidize ethanol, one could always move to an acid / ethanol setup instead of base and methanol.

Ray Roton

http://www.opinionjournal.com/weeken.../?id=110009587

79warlock

Hemp oil can be used as a machine grade lubricant, biodiesel and ethanol fuels. I find it funny that Bush went to the DuPont facillity in regards to ethanol when it was DuPont who was allegedly behind the anti-Marijuana campaign in the 30's.
Hemp, in my book, is the best solution to alternative fuels. It is much cheaper than corn to grow and can be grown much closer together resulting in higher yield per acre.

Ray Roton

Hemp might also produce a marketable by-product.

79warlock

Imagine the taxes the gov't could rake in on that byproduct, they could lower taxes on the fuel.

infidel

That one line at the end of the article says it all. How long did it take to perfect petro gasoline? My bet is many years.
Being a farmer myself I'm biased, it's about time we make some money.

Ray Roton

True.
Also, I have no doubt that an internal combustion engine could be designed to run on ethanol More efficiently than the current ones do. However, I still think biodiesel is a better way to go.

John Faughn

I think that they should have left the eng.s we have behind a long time ago , they have stopped improving [ % wize ] a long time ago , just making more complicated .
We should have gone to a new tech. some yrs. ago , maybe keep these just for fun .