PDA

View Full Version : Ethanol isn't the answer.



pooltchr
06-24-2008, 06:21 PM
It actually takes as much energy to produce the stuff as we get when we burn it. Much more so than it takes to produce gasoline. The benefit ratio for ethanol is 1.6 to 1...for gasoline it's 10 to 1.
The BTU's produced by burning a gallon of ethanol (Gayle, BTU is the way we measure energy) is about 60% of what gasoline produces. This means it takes about 1.6 gallons of ethanol to move your car the same distance as 1 gallon of gasoline.

Could someone please explain to me why our tax dollars are subsidizing an energy program that doesn't work any better than this?

Steve

sack316
06-24-2008, 10:12 PM
indeed Steve. But to be precise, it is the corn ethanol that WE are using that is actually counterproductive (both in terms of cost now as well as actual energy efficiency). Now sugarcane ethanol that is used in Brazil, is actually doing well and much more efficient than corn ethanol, for example. In the interest if fairness, I will say that we are exploring other means of producing ethanol as well... but we sure did jump the gun on the corn thing. First we offset whatever we may have been able to cut fuel costs with by the cost of food rising... now with the floods and crop shortages that 10% ethanol sticker on our gas pumps will likely cost us as much as we'd be spending anyway.

At any rate, I agree with you that ethanol isn't the answer. It likely is a very good PART of an answer in conjunction with many other forms of energy... but surely we've learned our lesson on putting all our eggs in one basket by now.

Sack

Gayle in MD
06-25-2008, 06:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At any rate, I agree with you that ethanol isn't the answer. It likely is a very good PART of an answer in conjunction with many other forms of energy... but surely we've learned our lesson on putting all our eggs in one basket by now.

Sack
</div></div>

Exactly. And invading a country for MORE oil, was also putting all our eggs in one basket, with a big hole in the bottom.

We will never solve any of our energy problems by trying to "DIG" our way out with more money thrown at Big Oil, or giving them more critical locations to drill in, regardless of the potential harm to the envoronment. McCain's suggestions for drilling off shore, and in Alaska, are a joke, especially Alaska, when the costs of delivering the oil would be prohibitive.

Number one is higher cafe' standards. The technology already exists, but wait, Bush reduced them, right?

Americans are fully able to solve this thing, but the first step is identifying those law makers who are in bed with big oil, and ending the roadblocks they have been setting up for decades. Bush, and the most recent former Republican majority, the worst of the worst.

A country so hooked on supporting the corporate bottom line, above everything else, even when it is against America's best long term interests, isn't what we need, that's for sure.

Gayle in Md.

sack316
06-25-2008, 03:45 PM
Hooray Gayle... for the most part we agree! Whoo!

I do agree that we can't dig our way out of this mess... but I also think that not doing any digging won't help matters either. I do think we should explore and get as much of our own oil as we can. It's not a solution, of course, but it can help so long as we're doing all we can along other avenues as well. Nothing we do is gonna make things better tomorrow, next week, or even probably the next few years. But that's no reason to put things off (i.e. ten years ago when we didn't do anything because it would take ten years to see any reasonable results... well now is the time we'd be starting to see a return, yes?). In other words, I say we should do ALL we can right now.

We gotta cut out the red tape and let the doers get to doing. It may be a long road, but we won't be able to reach the end of the road until we can start taking the first steps.

Sack

PoolFool
06-25-2008, 05:44 PM
Few posters on this board even know what "Big Oil" is. The United States does NOT have any big oil companies. The largest American oil company, Exxon Mobil, is only the 14th largest in the world, and is dwarfed by the really big oil companies--all owned by foreign governments or government-sponsored monopolies--that dominate the world's oil supply. China and Russia are drilling off our coasts now. Ethanol is a joke and we need to start drilling now. Develope shale oil extraction now and keep our food and money in America. Electric cars would be great but they are not here yet.

PoolFool

Deeman3
06-26-2008, 07:23 AM
You know, the onle thing that bothers me here is the fact the oil conmpanies are now advertising themselves as energy companies with sights on the development of future sources.

If we are now comfortable with the way they are handling the oil supply situation, why would we ever let them have more of a monopoly in another segment of energy?

Chopstick
06-26-2008, 08:45 AM
My little brother is building an electric truck. Electric cars are fine with existing technology. What is it, like 17% of the land in the Sahara desert covered with solar cells would meet the electrical needs of the entire planet. Well, is anybody using that land right now?

The same deal with Nevada. 90% of the land in Nevada is government owned. A small percentage of that land covered with solar cells would easily meet the power needs of the whole country even with electric cars. We don't even need to invent anything. It's already here. They have an entire city in Spain running off a solar plant.

Why is everybody running around burning corn and digging holes in the ground?

Gayle in MD
06-27-2008, 09:20 AM
Yes, we should have started taking the first steps when Carter tried to get us to do so. Special Interests were out there making fun at him back then. Imagine, had we spent the last thirty years following his advice. But, we had Reagan, sending the wrong message when he removed the solar panels from the White House. Why do you think he did that? What special interests was he protecting?

We could have been free of foreign oil dependency a decade ago, if not for the right wing rhetoric and buss words like "Tree Huggers" and just as some are ignorant enough to discount Corn, completely, as part of the solution, in spite of the fact that there is a whole range of possible applications for corn being studied right now, which have merit, people tend to tune in to the idiot pundits, in stead of staying abreast of the science, and all the opportunities we have at our disposal.

The Oceans of the world don't need to be stressed any more than they already are now. There is no need to drill off our coast, when there are safer areasm already available for drilling, even cheaper to get at the oil, than going off shore, which are not being used at all. Shouldn't we respect our environment, and all the revenues that we receive from coastal development already bringing in jobs and revenues,before we chance oil spill in the already stressed oceans?

Carter tried to warn us, and get us moving in the right direction on this entire energy issue, and I can only imagine what great strides our scientists, automakers, and alternative energy entrapenuers could have acheived in thirty years. Sorry, but Republicans have been in the lead throughout, in thwarting those very changes that could have made all the difference in our economy, and our safety here at home.

When one begins to study all the ways in which we could improve our ecology, and our energy situation, simultaneously, and recalls the Republican rhetoric that thwarted every effort, and still, to this day, accompanies our national discussions, it is clear where they have stood on the issue, and censorship of Scientific studies which we as taxpayers, pay for, should give a clue to even the most partisan right wingnuts.

Politicizing such a critical issue, has cost us a great deal, in more ways than just how we can fill up our tanks.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
06-27-2008, 09:37 AM
I wouldn't worry too much. They aren't doing much of anything. They have been dragging their feet on this issue for decades.

Once we can get the government behind the actual data, and provide some tax exemptions for companies that are acheiving progress in alternatives, instead of censoring scientific studies, and subsidizing the corporations that are not doing much of anything to move us forward, we can make some progress.

Just as our circumstances in the health industry could be greatly improved, when we are finally able to take advantage of stem cell research, and hence, we will be able to prevent a great deal of illnesses, and particularly illnesses like cancer, and expensive diabetic treatments.

One could say that once we have a science friendly administration, and a healthy Democratic majority, that even though there will still be some corrupt representatives, atleast the basic ideology will not be anti science, and that wilol be a great advantage, unless of course, the Republican get back into the White HOuse, and fill the Supreme Court up with more religious right wing, anti science, anti human rights, fanatics. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Gayle in MD
06-27-2008, 06:17 PM
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2008/06/price-of-gas-oil-companies.html

I hope you read this, and also, click on the NY Times editorial.


Exxon is the third greatest supplier in the world, and spends less than half a percent of its gross revenues on research and development of "clean energy"...

You may also be interested in the documentary, "Who Killed The Electric Car?"

Gayle in Md.

LWW
06-28-2008, 04:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">especially Alaska, when the costs of delivering the oil would be prohibitive.

Gayle in Md. </div></div>
Really, hondo just posted a link on AZB stating that Alaskan oil can be brought out of the ground for $3.00 barrel vs $5.00 barrel in Saudi Arabia?

LWW

LWW
06-28-2008, 04:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But, we had Reagan, sending the wrong message when he removed the solar panels from the White House. Why do you think he did that? What special interests was he protecting?

Gayle in Md. </div></div>
Because they didn't work?

LWW

hondo
06-28-2008, 09:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">especially Alaska, when the costs of delivering the oil would be prohibitive.

Gayle in Md. </div></div>
Really, hondo just posted a link on AZB stating that Alaskan oil can be brought out of the ground for $3.00 barrel vs $5.00 barrel in Saudi Arabia?

LWW </div></div>


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147

Here it is.

mike60
06-28-2008, 01:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But, we had Reagan, sending the wrong message when he removed the solar panels from the White House. Why do you think he did that? What special interests was he protecting?

Gayle in Md. </div></div>
Because they didn't work?

LWW </div></div>

This is too much to let pass. LWW must work for liars Inc. My next door neighbor has solar panels on half the roof. They generate enough power to run the house,
a four bedroom with three people living there and to charge their all electric car that runs 120 miles on a charge and PG&E gives them $90. a month for their surplus power. The wife drives 45 miles each way to teach school for free.

Reagan was a simpleton anti union scumbag twit. It's official he's offal.
As far as ethanol is concerned, it's crap. The subsidized agribusiness lobby is
twisting our tits on this one. Billionaire businesses stealing with the agency charged with regulation in on it for big money when they get thrown out after we get rid of the Cheney Gang.

mike60 old enough to remember

Vapros
06-28-2008, 09:49 PM
I have hired one of them big tank trucks and we are going north to load up with that cheap oil. I have put in a call to Exxon, asking them to refine it for me, but so far they have not responded. No doubt they will call me back Monday morning.

The truck probably gets about six mpg on diesel fuel @ 4.85/gallon. How much will this round-trip cost me? Somebody he'p me with this calculation.

LWW
06-29-2008, 07:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But, we had Reagan, sending the wrong message when he removed the solar panels from the White House. Why do you think he did that? What special interests was he protecting?

Gayle in Md. </div></div>
Because they didn't work?

LWW </div></div>

This is too much to let pass. LWW must work for liars Inc. My next door neighbor has solar panels on half the roof. They generate enough power to run the house,
a four bedroom with three people living there and to charge their all electric car that runs 120 miles on a charge and PG&E gives them $90. a month for their surplus power. The wife drives 45 miles each way to teach school for free.

Reagan was a simpleton anti union scumbag twit. It's official he's offal.
As far as ethanol is concerned, it's crap. The subsidized agribusiness lobby is
twisting our tits on this one. Billionaire businesses stealing with the agency charged with regulation in on it for big money when they get thrown out after we get rid of the Cheney Gang.

mike60 old enough to remember </div></div>
And they had these installed in the 1970's ... right. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/sleep.gif

They are, even today, not cost effective without heave gubmint subsidization.

Besides, sourced from the EEEVILLL right wing New York Times, we now have solar development blocked out of concern for the DESERT TORTOISE AND MOJAVE GROUND SQUIRREL (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/us/27solar.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1214746267-H5FnW07TBLWy8u0Y87UkWA) which merely proves yet again that the issue isn't the environment, it's the stifling of capitalism. Solar was the treehugger's dream ... until EEEVILLL capitalists started making a buck from it.

LWW

mike60
06-29-2008, 01:27 PM
LWW yet again finding his own way of defining things to suit his special needs. Please
click on the DESERT TORTOISE AND MOJAVE GROUND SQUIRREL hyperlink in his post above and actually read it. There is no mention of " the stifling of capitalism." by anyone, there is mention of the Government needing to study the long term effects of building solar energy plants. The companies involved are both large and small and both are bound by the same moratorium. There is no worse fool than the obstructionist. LWW would have us believe that the concerns of the Government are the work of tree huggers and his bullshit never really informs us that he has no real
point of view other than his blinded by the view up his own ass. Stupid and without
merit.

hondo
06-29-2008, 03:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Vapros</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have hired one of them big tank trucks and we are going north to load up with that cheap oil. I have put in a call to Exxon, asking them to refine it for me, but so far they have not responded. No doubt they will call me back Monday morning.

The truck probably gets about six mpg on diesel fuel @ 4.85/gallon. How much will this round-trip cost me? Somebody he'p me with this calculation. </div></div>


I just posted the video without comment.
That wasn't me on the video BTW.

DeadCrab
06-30-2008, 07:44 AM
Complex problems do not have simple answers.

Ethanol is what we have today that can be used to cut gasoline in a 10% mixture, usable in virtually all vehicles, with virtually no impact on mileage, and does not have any environmental concerns (resulting from combustion, anyway).

E-85 goes for $2.57 a gallon in my state, and others as well.

Ethanol is the only thing you will ever put in your tank that is 100% American.

No, it is not "The Solution", but for now it is part of the solution. It is money spent at home. My tax dollars certainly go to more objectionable uses.

LWW
06-30-2008, 08:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LWW yet again finding his own way of defining things to suit his special needs. Please
click on the DESERT TORTOISE AND MOJAVE GROUND SQUIRREL hyperlink in his post above and actually read it. There is no mention of " the stifling of capitalism." by anyone, there is mention of the Government needing to study the long term effects of building solar energy plants. The companies involved are both large and small and both are bound by the same moratorium. There is no worse fool than the obstructionist. LWW would have us believe that the concerns of the Government are the work of tree huggers and his bullshit never really informs us that he has no real
point of view other than his blinded by the view up his own ass. Stupid and without
merit. </div></div>
You really are that dumb aren't you!

If a "moratorium" on the manufacture of solar plants isn't stifling capitalism then what is it?

The anti capitalists are all for non oil power ... that is until the EEEVILLL capitalists begin to make it work.

Same problem with nuclear.

Same problem with wind.

Put your hair shirt back on and go worship the Moon Gods in your cave you Luddite.

LWW

sack316
06-30-2008, 04:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DeadCrab</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


Ethanol is the only thing you will ever put in your tank that is 100% American.

</div></div>

amending this to add "for now" to that statement. It's entirely possible we will have to import corn at some point the way things are looking. And also very realistic to think that if we are going to pursue ethanol as a viable alternative we will eventually import sugarcane ethanol from Brazil.

Sack

mike60
07-03-2008, 12:08 AM
You really are that dumb aren't you!
If a "moratorium" on the manufacture of solar plants isn't stifling capitalism then what is it? The anti capitalists are all for non oil power ... that is until the EEEVILLL capitalists begin to make it work. Same problem with nuclear. Same problem with wind. Put your hair shirt back on and go worship the Moon Gods in your cave you Luddite.

LWW

LWW twit and short sighted as you are try to understand that the moratorium is only about using public lands for development. Private property is being used for
wind farms and solar arrays. You are just nuts. I have been a capitalist forever,
i don't care what some addle pated twit thinks of it. I judge you by your words
and it is clear you don't know very much about business and less about me.
Having an opinion is your right but you get it wrong. You wank on about anti-capitalists being luddites. Moron. I'm an atheist. No moon gods, no cave,
no concern for your misinformed screed. But i admit some amusement at your
attempt at communication. There must be some wicked echo up your colon confusing you.

mike60 educated&amused