Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    8:33 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: All Things Ethanol > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: what are the reasons why ethanol should not be added to gas Back to Topics
tomtom08

All-Star Author
Providence

Posts:570
Points:66,915
Joined:Dec 2008
Message Posted: Mar 14, 2013 5:03:48 PM

what are the reasons why ethanol should not be added to gas
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,042
Points:18,920
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2013 11:20:44 AM

"What a farmer or renter does with his land is very carefully managed in modern farming! No farmer in his right mind will "damage his land" to plant corn for whatever the reason, whether it is for "corn bread" to eat, or for ethanol production. :

The above statement is the norm. When someone owns a really valuable asset, like cropland, they take care of it and manage it well.

I am the custodian of land that has been in the family since 1864. A 20 acre portion has been virgin prairie, cropland, pasture, CRP, and CRP/brush. I have started to tile and terrace this portion to increase the amount of tillable acreage and grow hay. After the project is done it will be more "environmentally friendly" than it is now.

In place of deep gullies where torrents of water carry dirt and nitrogen downstream, there will be millions of tons of dirt and deep rooted grasses holding back tens of millions of gallons of water. It's not an either or situation.

98% of what you read in the lay press about agriculture and ethanol production is completely inaccurate. Generally, the opposite of what is true.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,111
Points:2,631,765
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Nov 15, 2013 9:12:20 AM

Who said anything about the land?

The environment is what takes a beating...
Profile Pic
LWB_Sr
Champion Author Tennessee

Posts:16,420
Points:1,512,590
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Nov 14, 2013 9:41:30 AM

Shockjock1961, your recent remark: "The damage created is far more then the ethanol producers and corn farmers will admit..."

What a farmer or renter does with his land is very carefully managed in modern farming! No farmer in his right mind will "damage his land" to plant corn for whatever the reason, whether it is for "corn bread" to eat, or for ethanol production.

The only people who "destroy" anything regarding private property that Farmers own are the Government "power hungry" bureaucrats, who don't have a clue what farming is all about.
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,420
Points:57,610
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Nov 13, 2013 2:14:59 PM

"The story implied that 5 million acres of pristine, wooded rainforest full of precious artifacts are being 'destroyed'."

Now you know how frustrating it is for the proponents of drilling on the Coastal Plain of ANWR.
Profile Pic
darwinfinch
Veteran Author Gasbuddy

Posts:457
Points:6,860
Joined:May 2013
Message Posted: Nov 13, 2013 10:35:30 AM

The story implied that 5 million acres of pristine, wooded rainforest full of precious artifacts are being "destroyed". In reality, as SG points out, this is just old farmland that has been planted with tallgrass or slough grass for a contracted period, usually around $45/acre. Often, CRP acres are even roamed by cattle in the fall, eaten to the ground or baled.

The conversion of CRP land to cropland happens all the time, in BOTH directions. The amount of harvested cropland from 1910 has fluctated wildly, sometimes growing or shrinking by 38million acres in a single year.

These acres can (and will be) converted by to CRP land as the economy and environment dictates. It's not hard, you just plant grass instead of crops one year and BOOM suddenly it's not cropland anymore.

I consider myself an environmentalist, but an educated one. The people who are getting worked up over this story are the kind who live in big cities and don't understand how farming works. They don't know what CRP is and what it looks like. Thanks to AP and ABC, they now think ethanol plowed Yellowstone National Park into corn, irreversibly.

Did you know the amount of natural, wilderness, and park land in the U.S. has gone up 19.3% since 1982? And un-grazed forest has gone up 9.4%. Total cropland? Down 13%. Check the facts, they're available from a number of public sources.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,111
Points:2,631,765
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Nov 13, 2013 10:18:17 AM

it also means land set aside for years in the federal Conservation Reserve Program sometimes gets plowed in favor of corn. That disturbs Dan Svedarsky, director of the Center for Sustainability at the University of Minnesota-Crookston, who has followed land use trends there for over 44 years. He said he has seen a "massive transfer" of erodible land in the region from conservation into corn and soybeans in just the past two years. "People have become wealthy due to the boom in crop prices," he said. "That's a good thing. That's what drives our economy. But it has not come without a price." That price includes not just water quality, as runoff carries topsoil and chemicals from fields that return to production, but water quantity as well. The additional drainage coming off those fields means more water flowing into the already flood-prone Red River Valley watershed, Svedarsky said. Nitrogen and phosphorous eventually flow north into Canada's Lake Winnipeg, where they contribute to thick algae blooms that can be toxic.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,111
Points:2,631,765
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Nov 13, 2013 9:55:05 AM

"I think this pretty much sums it up"

I agree. The damage created is far more then the ethanol producers and corn farmers will admit...
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,042
Points:18,920
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Nov 12, 2013 4:43:26 PM

"What about all the water being polluted by fertilizer and pesticides, HAHA real funny.
Did you read the article or just the headline? "

Yes, I read the article. Did you read what I wrote? Just because they make a claim, doesn't make it a fact. the facts are farmers have to provide chemical assays of every 15 acres of land, every two years. There are restrictions on what chemicals and fertilizers can be applied, how and when. The fact is ag land is getting cleaner, not dirtier.

Furthermore, does it make sense for a farmer to apply expensive chemicals in excess, just to be washed downstream? The answer is of course not.

Ag practices have become cleaner over the years and are continuing to do so.

Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,232
Points:326,310
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Nov 12, 2013 4:20:38 PM

What about all the water being polluted by fertilizer and pesticides, HAHA real funny.
Did you read the article or just the headline?
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,042
Points:18,920
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Nov 12, 2013 4:14:54 PM

Oilpan, your AP article would be humorous, if not for the fact that people actually believe such propaganda.

Let me point out a couple things about the article. The AP talks of "conservation land" as if it were a national treasure. What that "conservation land" is is productive farmland that individuals have leased to the government to grow nothing on, except grass and weeds.

Yes, some farmers are exiting out of some contracts, because the government paid so little relative to market price of commodities. But, more importantly, the USDA is out of money. They can no longer extend new contracts or issue new ones. Farmers exiting from these contracts was going to happen, regardless of ethanol production.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,232
Points:326,310
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Nov 12, 2013 3:44:18 PM

Why shouldn't we be using corn ethanol?

I think this pretty much sums it up.

Secret dirty cost of obamas green energy
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,420
Points:57,610
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Nov 12, 2013 2:33:21 PM

What is the world coming to when you can't even trust the AP and ABC News to shill for ethanol anymore?
Profile Pic
DJRIO
Champion Author Miami

Posts:10,402
Points:1,876,235
Joined:Jan 2008
Message Posted: Nov 12, 2013 12:48:06 PM

ABC NEWS ( Ethanol Investigation By AP)
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,420
Points:57,610
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Nov 12, 2013 11:15:09 AM

"If you really want to get religious, Jesus was pro-ethanol."

...but not for fuel.
Profile Pic
SilverStreaker
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:13,775
Points:2,647,440
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Nov 10, 2013 10:38:09 PM

If you really want to get religious, Jesus was pro-ethanol.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,042
Points:18,920
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Nov 10, 2013 10:23:37 PM

"What brings you to that conclusion? Is it a new pronouncement from the Pope?"

I could understand allah commanding only oil for US cars.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,136
Points:3,821,930
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Nov 10, 2013 8:46:47 PM

"Corn-based ethanol is morally wrong."

What brings you to that conclusion? Is it a new pronouncement from the Pope? The 11th Commandment? Some other equally ridiculous reason for equating ethanol with adultery and murder?
Profile Pic
CactusBobs
Champion Author Arizona

Posts:4,091
Points:779,895
Joined:Jun 2010
Message Posted: Nov 10, 2013 1:27:04 PM

Soylentgrain : "Corn-based ethanol is morally wrong."

Based on what reason? "

I guess you missed that passage in the ultra new testament (brought to you by exxon)

"thou shal not grow fuel for your car "

what this testament forgets is that the Diesel was first run on peanut oil

Profile Pic
LWB_Sr
Champion Author Tennessee

Posts:16,420
Points:1,512,590
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Nov 10, 2013 1:00:58 PM

krzysiek_ck, your question/request: "Please explain your conclusion process."

Why? If you disagree with it, that's no big deal now, is it?

In my humble opinion this kind of rhetorical discourse adds nothing helpful to this discussion, since, to my knowledge, we are not discussing it before a jury?
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,042
Points:18,920
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Nov 10, 2013 11:58:48 AM

"Corn-based ethanol is morally wrong."

Based on what reason?
Profile Pic
ggg452
Champion Author Manitoba

Posts:3,741
Points:782,685
Joined:May 2012
Message Posted: Nov 10, 2013 11:39:05 AM

Corn-based ethanol is morally wrong.
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,834
Points:1,177,335
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Nov 10, 2013 10:10:00 AM

tropicalmn wrote: "You can find people using reg.unleaded,premix in a can & E10. There all experiencing the same problem with Husqvarna/Poulan. Some have used the same fuel mix in other 2 cycle apps. without issues."

and then

LWB_Sr wrote: "In conclusion, the real problem emerges, finally: Ethanol added to gasoline is more corrosive than Ethanol free gasoline."

LWB_Sr right after you have learned that the manufacturer, Husqvarna/Poulan, has the issue with fuel lines that is not related to Ethanol, you managed to come up with your conclusion. Please explain your conclusion process.

[Edited by: krzysiek_ck at 11/10/2013 10:15:10 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:956
Points:24,140
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Nov 9, 2013 2:05:02 PM

I am trying hard not to contiibute as much as I have in the past which I am sure Shockjock1961 appreciates. But nonetheless I have to say that I have usually been silent on the small engine side of this argument.

My contention has always been that burning high percentages of ethanol in vehicles is actually good for them. 10% was an arbitrary restriction to appease the powerful.

Vehicles do have sealed fuel systems and motion keeps the fuel tank in constant mix. It is a bad idea to store any vehicle with any fuel in it for more than that. Ethanol is no worse than gas for a vehicle, and that is an absolute fact.

Yes it will attract water is exposed to air, but that is not relevant when in a vehicle's fuel system. As far as corrosion it has been proven again and again the ethanol is less so, and more compatible with elastomers than petroleum.

Burning ethanol as high as you can, in a vehicle, without tripping a CEL is good. This is why so many of us have successfully done it for millions of miles without any problems. If you happen to trip a CEL, back off a little. Your car will be alright, the ethanol, no matter how much, is fine if you drive even just a few times a months. I'll bet 99% of people that own a car drive much more often than that.


[Edited by: Hannie59 at 11/9/2013 2:07:21 PM EST]
Profile Pic
CactusBobs
Champion Author Arizona

Posts:4,091
Points:779,895
Joined:Jun 2010
Message Posted: Nov 9, 2013 11:57:58 AM

LWB sr : Ethanol is not "corrosive" in any way , that is not the right word

Ethanol does nothing to metal and nothing to most "rubber" fuel lines

if you put a open 5 gal bucket in a field and fill it with E10 , in a short time the Ethanol with absorb water from the air , if you then pour it in to your car you will have problems .
but ........
this is not how any fuel system is , it is not open , it's a controlled "sealed" system where little outside air is allowed to enter , the air that does enter comes from the engine area

to be clear , I do not like Ethanol ! i have my reasons but engine damage is not one of them ! , i have never seen any damage to metal other than pictures on the internet and in those photos i think there must be something else going on not just the ethanol
Profile Pic
CactusBobs
Champion Author Arizona

Posts:4,091
Points:779,895
Joined:Jun 2010
Message Posted: Nov 9, 2013 11:22:14 AM

I had the same problem with a Craftsman chainsaw , bought this saw in 1992 , used it every year , never an issue , always drained the fuel after use . in 2010 the first fuel lines fell apart

so i replaced them with a line set from home depot

A year later i forgot to drain the tank and gasoline was left in for 6 months , when i went to restart it the fuel lines where rotten at this point my "beef" is with the fuel line makers , did they not know these lines would be sold in an area where E10 was the "mandated" fuel ?
why would they even make a fuel line that would not handle the E10 ?
Profile Pic
LWB_Sr
Champion Author Tennessee

Posts:16,420
Points:1,512,590
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Nov 9, 2013 9:26:01 AM

tropicalmn, thanks for your input on my leaf blower, I find it interesting and informative!

In conclusion, the real problem emerges, finally: Ethanol added to gasoline is more corrosive than Ethanol free gasoline.

Manufacturers of 2-cycle engines especially need to "get their act together" and use only those materials in their fuel system design, (especially internal fuel lines), that can withstand Ethanol corrosion without breaking down. The fact that some engines do not have this problem indicates that their design is superior to Husqvarna /Poulan.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,136
Points:3,821,930
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Nov 9, 2013 12:32:15 AM

I find it ridiculous, not to mention totally amazing, the ridiculous things that show up in these forums.
EVERY regular pump in Manitoba has been E10 for almost 6 years. Our small engine repair shops are not clogged with problem machines. Snow blowers, chain saws, mowers, leaf blowers, roto-tillers, etc, all run fine on E10, for home owners, lawn and garden businesses, driveway clearing, tree maintenance, etc.
Maybe we have people smart enough to drain fuel tanks that are going to sit for a while, instead of trying to run old fuel?
Whatever it is, if, after this fuel has been around for over 30 years, you have purchased a piece of equipment that can't handle it, there is a serious problem with the quality of parts and construction, and there is no reason to tolerate that. If it is a maintenance problem, or fuel sitting, which is a no-no whether it is E10 or E0, that is something the owner has full control over.
Bottom line, if we don't have a lot of problems in a province in which E0 regular is not available, it is strange other people still haven't figured it out after over 30 years.
Mind you, there are still people saying E10 destroys car engines, and we are still waiting for that to happen.
Profile Pic
tropicalmn
Veteran Author Minnesota

Posts:269
Points:250,880
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Nov 9, 2013 12:02:39 AM

Husqvarna /Poulan makes the Craftsman leaf blower. All you have do is look at all the reviews by others on Husqvarna/Poulan having problems with fuel line. You can fine people using reg.unleaded,premix in a can & E10. There all experiencing the same problem with Husqvarna/Poulan. Some have used the same fuel mix in other 2 cycle apps. without issues.
Profile Pic
LWB_Sr
Champion Author Tennessee

Posts:16,420
Points:1,512,590
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Nov 8, 2013 3:49:15 PM

>>>>>LWB_Sr, sounds like a bad design if it can't run on modern fuels.<<<<<

I do believe it can and will run on modern fuels, but less damage will result to the internal fuel lines with non-ethanol fuels, and especially so with fuel higher than E-10.
Profile Pic
SilverStreaker
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:13,775
Points:2,647,440
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Nov 8, 2013 3:34:17 PM

LWB_Sr, sounds like a bad design if it can't run on modern fuels.
Profile Pic
blk911
Champion Author Colorado Springs

Posts:2,942
Points:785,550
Joined:Nov 2004
Message Posted: Nov 8, 2013 1:42:54 PM

Poor Mileage
Profile Pic
LWB_Sr
Champion Author Tennessee

Posts:16,420
Points:1,512,590
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Nov 8, 2013 1:13:36 PM

SilverStreaker, My leafblower is a Craftsman Model # 358.797180, which is described in the Instruction Manual as a 25cc/1.5 cu.in. 2-Cycle 200 MPH/400 CFM "Blower/Vac".

Since I have, myself, removed all the fuel line pieces/residue out of the fuel tank and replaced all fuel lines, in tank filter, gaskets, etc with new, genuine Craftsman parts, It has started and run flawlessly.

I must add, only 100% gasoline, without Ethanol, is what I am now using for fuel. Time only will tell if the problem will ever come back; I plan to empty the fuel tank after the season also, as an additional precaution, rather than using a fuel stabilizer.

The Manual does state that storage of mixed fuel in the tank longer than 30 days is a "No-NO", so that is probably how this problem came about with the damaged fuel lines. Whether it is the "Ethanol in the fuel, or the "mix" (that should not have been left in the tank in the first place), needs to be further investigated, in my opinion.
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,420
Points:57,610
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Nov 8, 2013 12:49:34 PM

"Ethanol removes gum and varnish left by gasoline."

...and what happen to that gum and varnish when the gasoline, and eventually the ethanol, evaporate out of the carburetor? It's left behind to plug up the jets, etc. in the carburetor. So, what was once dispersed in the gas tank is now concentrated and solidified in the carb.
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,420
Points:57,610
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Nov 8, 2013 12:39:12 PM

The real story: Energy Balance For Ethanol Better Than For Gasoline?

"A barrel of crude oil contains 5.8 million BTUs (2) of material that will ultimately be turned into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, etc. It is well-documented that the average energy return on energy invested (EROEI) for crude oil production is around 10/1 (3). Therefore, we will use up about 580,000 BTUs from our barrel getting it out of the ground. The other major input occurs during the refining process, and it also takes roughly 10% of the contained BTUs in the barrel of oil. The total energy input into the process is 1.16 million BTUs, and the energy output was 5.8 million BTUs. The EROEI is then 5.8 million/1.16 million, or 5/1."

"For ethanol, the USDA study reference above showed that for an energy input of 77,228 BTUs, an energy output (when co-products were included) of 98,333 BTUs were generated. The EROEI is then 98,333/77,228, or 1.27/1. The efficiency of producing gasoline is then 4 times higher than for ethanol,"

"So, where did the claim that ethanol is more energy efficient originate? I believe it originates with researchers from Argonne National Laboratory, who developed a model (GREET) that is used to determine the energy inputs to turn crude oil into products (4). Since it will take some amount of energy to refine a barrel of crude oil, by definition the efficiency is less than 100% in the way they measured it. For example, if I have 1 BTU of energy, but it took .2 BTUs to turn it into a useable form, then the efficiency is 80%. This is the kind of calculation people use to show that the gasoline efficiency is less than 100%. However, ethanol is not measured in the same way. Look again at the example from the USDA paper, and lets do the equivalent calculation for ethanol. In that case, we got 98,333 BTUs out of the process, but we had to input 77,228 to get it out. In this case, comparing apples to apples, the efficiency of producing ethanol is just 21%. Again, gasoline is about 4 times higher."



[Edited by: HotRod10 at 11/8/2013 12:40:40 PM EST]
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,420
Points:57,610
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Nov 8, 2013 12:23:20 PM

"here is the US Dept. of Energy's Ethanol Myths and Facts site that gives the energy input vs output of ethanol and gasoline."

Yeah, I especially like the part where it says "Most studies that claim a negative energy balance for ethanol fail to take into account the energy contained in the co-products.", and then they do the exact same thing to come up with the negative energy balance for gasoline. A true negative energy balance for petroleum would result in an economic loss to produce it, not to mention since the primary energy source used to produce and transport petroleum, is petroleum, more production would result in less oil until there was none. I think the USDOE is using some fuzzy math, at least for the energy balance of gasoline. If they manipulated the numbers for that, can we trust their numbers for ethanol's energy balance?
Profile Pic
SilverStreaker
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:13,775
Points:2,647,440
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Nov 8, 2013 10:43:30 AM

LWB_Sr, I was taught as a kid to drain the gas tank before storage, way before ethanol came on the scene. I don't always do it and have never had a problem with leaving E10 fuel in my lawnmower over the winter. It started up and ran just fine in the spring. I have never used a stabilizer, maybe that's what is dissolving your fuel lines.

BTW, what make, model, and year leaf blower? I can't believe that any engine made in the last 30 years would not be compatable with modern fuels.
Profile Pic
LWB_Sr
Champion Author Tennessee

Posts:16,420
Points:1,512,590
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Nov 8, 2013 9:47:03 AM

rumbleseat, part of your post: ".....Ethanol removes gum and varnish left by gasoline."

A double positive on that statement! Fact of the matter is, in my own personal experience with my leaf blower, Ethanol also dissolves internal fuel lines in the gas tank, which requires almost total disassembly, to repair.

Not a problem with a "TOTAL" draining of the tank beforee storage; But a hugh problem for the average consumer, who just treats the fuel with a stabilizer, something which worked just fine before Ethanol came on the scene!
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,136
Points:3,821,930
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Nov 8, 2013 3:47:04 AM

I guess he sees you coming.
For some reason, we have none of those problems, and our regular has been E10 in every pump in the province for almost 6 years.
Ethanol removes gum and varnish left by gasoline.
Profile Pic
arnerator
Champion Author Seattle

Posts:10,296
Points:2,058,970
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Nov 8, 2013 2:23:59 AM

Ethanol keeps my power tool repairman busy cleaning out gummed up carburetors.
Profile Pic
SilverStreaker
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:13,775
Points:2,647,440
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Nov 7, 2013 10:34:22 PM

snoopy49, here is the US Dept. of Energy's Ethanol Myths and Facts site that gives the energy input vs output of ethanol and gasoline.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,136
Points:3,821,930
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Nov 7, 2013 9:00:37 PM

"The short version is that ethanol requires more energy to create than it results in, i.e., to get 100 BTU of energy from ethanol it would take something like 125 BTUs of energy (electrical, petroleum, etc.) to make it."

That has been disproved many times, and several times in these forums over the last several years as well. Links have been provided to countless government and university studies.
Short version is, ethanol has a positive energy gain, depending on the material processed, of 30% and up to about 75%.
Also, it takes more fossil fuel to make a gallon of gasoline than a gallon ethanol.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,042
Points:18,920
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Nov 7, 2013 8:28:43 PM

"His conclusion was that it was a net loss of energy so ethanol blends would not increase our supply of energy though it could change our sources. Anyone have any facts that support or refute his conclusion"

He's got it backwards. Ethanol production is as high as 175%. One btu goes in and you get back 1.75 btu as fuel. Argonne National Labs, authors Shapiro, Wang, and others have written extensively on this topic.

Gasoline has a yield of only 85% or so. That's logical, as part of the heat in the crude is consumed to make the gasoline.

One additional point, as grain is processed into ethanol, two major products come out in equal weight: ethanol and high protein animal feed. 18 pounds of each per bushel of corn.

[Edited by: SoylentGrain at 11/7/2013 8:30:03 PM EST]
Profile Pic
snoopy49
Rookie Author Maryland

Posts:22
Points:182,870
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Nov 7, 2013 8:11:21 PM

I tried reading a significant number of these comments but never found a point I was looking for. My brother-in-law is a retired engineer who is very methodical about researching things. A while back he had looked into using ethanol/gasoline mixes. One of his comments sounded reasonable but I don't recall his full analysis. The short version is that ethanol requires more energy to create than it results in, i.e., to get 100 BTU of energy from ethanol it would take something like 125 BTUs of energy (electrical, petroleum, etc.) to make it. I don't recall the actual numbers he came up with. His conclusion was that it was a net loss of energy so ethanol blends would not increase our supply of energy though it could change our sources. Anyone have any facts that support or refute his conclusion? BTW I also noted that there was a lot of name-calling in this thread. If you wish to indulge in that, save your typing fingers and refrain.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,136
Points:3,821,930
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Nov 7, 2013 7:27:53 PM

Often I have been called an ethanol shill.
(Funny thing, I have also been called a Big Oil shill.)
Name-calling does nobody any good, but I reserve the right to reply to any call that I am an ethanol shill that the call comes from a Big Oil shill.
Profile Pic
LWB_Sr
Champion Author Tennessee

Posts:16,420
Points:1,512,590
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Nov 7, 2013 4:59:35 PM

RichWLIN, - Part of your last post: "..... Just my opinion, but again I think that there have been some good points from both sides of the debate. Wouldn't it be beneficial to stay on task?....."

You got that right, Rich! Nothing will drive participation in a discussion away faster than "opinionated vitriol".

It kind of reminds me of people who can't carry on a conversation without profanity and rude language. A wise old friend once shared his definition of such a person:

It is the "feeble attempt of an immature mind to express itself forcibly"

I agree!
Profile Pic
RichWLIN
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:6,893
Points:1,089,130
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Oct 14, 2013 10:08:32 AM

C'mon guys. Let's not stoop to inferences of personal behavior, suggestive accusations or name calling of any kind.

Calling another member here a "big oil shill" isn't very sensible either. Further, nothing that CactusBobs has written in this thread would indicate that he is a shill by any definition of the word.

Participants in this discussion are opinionated and disagree. The vitriol that ensues when differing points of view are expressed can be avoided if we just stick to the facts. Make a claim and either support it by citing sources, or admit that it's an opinion and nothing more.

If the discussion can be kept factual, it may also be heated but remain friendly.

Just my opinion, but again I think that there have been some good points from both sides of the debate. Wouldn't it be beneficial to stay on task?

RG
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,834
Points:1,177,335
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Oct 14, 2013 9:44:25 AM

borsht wrote: "Let's see you back up your claims when you post, that when someone posts something you don't agree with, You call them shills for the oil company."

Please show me where exactly I have disagreed with CactusBobs first. He asked a question I have reply. In return I asked a question and he failed to provide the answer. Instead, like rest of you Big Oil shills, he tried to change a subject including name calling.
Profile Pic
borsht
Champion Author Oakland

Posts:2,862
Points:636,210
Joined:Aug 2012
Message Posted: Oct 14, 2013 9:31:09 AM


Hello krzysiek_ck
You stated -"You made a claim and I'm asking you to back it up. If using internet is so easy, it will not take a long time for you to list them. So far you have failed. So, are you normal?"
What is ‘normal’? Is it only views that are coincident with your views?

You also stated “Nice job CactusBobs. Obviously you are nothing more that Big Oil shill spreading Big Oil propaganda. You fail again.”
Let's see you back up your claims when you post, that when someone posts something you don't agree with, You call them shills for the oil company.
I might ask, who shill are you!
It seems you use a lot of , if it walks like a duck it must be a duck, philosophy.
Profile Pic
RichWLIN
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:6,893
Points:1,089,130
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Oct 14, 2013 6:40:20 AM

"It's highly likely an outside source would influence the administration"

True, but certainly not the EPA.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,042
Points:18,920
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 13, 2013 9:42:04 PM

"The "EPA may cut ethanol mandate" article was submitted here for its irony. The EPA is considering something that the current political administration is fundamentally against? Now there is some real propaganda."

Why would you find the article ironic? There is not much to go on from the blog. But, let's assume the assertion is correct. It's entirely possible interests, outside of the oil and Ag industry might have influence. Like companies with large union support. Perhaps a government owned carmaker.

Who knows if the blog is accurate or where the information came from. But, it's far from ironic. It's highly likely an outside source would influence the administration.
Post a reply Back to Topics