Another Look at Ethanol

Status
Not open for further replies.
lol.gif


chuck1955, you obviously haven't taken into consideration that a gallon of ethanol in a fuel tank can deliver more energy than there is in the fuel in the tank...that's ethanol science from turtle to explain why more expensive is actually less expensive.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette

If you had any engineering or technical background at all, you would understand. That goes for clevy too. I don't know how to take this stuff down to 3rd grade level.

You don't understand that for a gallon of gasoline some percentage is converted to work, and the rest is waste in the form of incomplete combustion, waste heat, friction, etc? You can't as easily lean gas out to 20/1 or more to get a more efficient burn and resulting more complete conversion of gasoline to energy. A fuel like ethanol might be able to burn much leaner thus converting more of the product to energy. I envision a lean burn mode kicking in when the cruise control is on or something similar.

example

1 gal gas = x btu
1 gal ethanol = .7x btu

if gas conversion is 60% we have .6 btu work
if ethanol conversion is 90$ we have .9*.7 btu = .63 btu

do you understand where I'm headed with this?


See, simple math coupled with made up science, and pigs can fly at a lower cost.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: chuck1955
What's the reason for the mandate? Replace oil usage right. EROI on corn ethanol is said to be about 1.07. It takes roughly .93 units of fossil fuel energy to get one unit corn ethanol energy.


If that were true why is ethanol less than the cost of gasoline/diesel?

Many people are math challenged and that really frustrates me. There's really no excuse in this day and age.


yes, indeed they are...
 
Quote:
It has no government subsidies being paid to the industry, for a few years now.

How about the market distortions that decades of subsidies and import tariffs have caused?

Everything is OK now that the industry was developed on the backs of the general public?

Are mandates that the public buy the product in conjunction with another product they really want not a subsidy?

Could the 25-40% of land that goes into corn ethanol production not be used for something else? How does that distort the food market?
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest

Could the 25-40% of land that goes into corn ethanol production not be used for something else?


Who is going to decide what they grow. Or if they can use their land to grow.

You?

When government supports your philosophy you like government.
When government doesn't support your philosophy you hate government.

And the world goes round and round.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest


Could the 25-40% of land that goes into corn ethanol production not be used for something else?
We could likely use the land to grow food that's actually good for us instead of pushing the same stuff they use to fatten cows and pigs on us to lose weight.
 
Farmers will grow what makes them the most money. The market for corn is there whether it is used for fuel or feed. That is until the GMO corn became the craze. Maybe they would quit planting at the edges of streams and river bottoms though.

China has reduced US corn imports 85% due to GMO corn though.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Tempest

Could the 25-40% of land that goes into corn ethanol production not be used for something else?


Who is going to decide what they grow. Or if they can use their land to grow.

You?

When government supports your philosophy you like government.
When government doesn't support your philosophy you hate government.

And the world goes round and round.

Can you please show me where I stated the government should be deciding?
 
That's why the EPA wants 15% to maintain the mandated use. There are a lot of farmers who have bought new equipment and land because of their boon in corn. It will all unravel, especially if it's another dry year.

The GMO corn is great for the dry years though. Around me even with sparse summer rains the corn is producing what use to be bumper crop levels.
 
Some countries may have reduced imports of U.S corn due to higher GMO volume, but that has not reduced the overall U.S. exports. They are still at very high levels. There is still considerable demand for U.S. corn and soybeans. The whole GMO scare was yet another ruse put out by the black helicopter crowd. There is no link to food problems created by GMO crop production. GMO is just a variation on hybrids.

I am not convinced of any ethanol bursting bubble thing. Even though the RFS mandates may reduce at a federal level, state and local governments have their own thing going on. And truth be told, that is what motivates the use of oxygenates like ethanol more than anything. And even if overall ethanol use goes down, considering that we import a heavy amount of ethanol since there is a government imposed limit on how much ethanol production from corn is allowed, the U.S. production should not be detrimentally affected. Only the market price may drop causing ethanol production to slow somewhat. Market prices are where its at in any production scenario.

And there will always be a consumer demand when the market price is competitive with gasoline. There are a few engines in the hopper that, using E85, can put diesels at a decided disadvantage. One, the 3.2L EBDI V6 engine designed by Ricardo and being tested by GM, puts out as much HP and Torque on E85 as the 6.6L Duramax diesel and gets a little better mpg at the same time, decreases production weights by over 400 Lb and do not need all the diesel emissions junk that they are stacking on diesel vehicles now. If engines like this get into the market, ethanol will become a more in demand fuel.

That is how it should have worked out from the beginning. Produce engines around the fuel so that it would stand on its own. With government mandates as they have been, it skewed the system and things never seemed to move forward in engines to take advantage of the unique characteristics of the fuel.
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
GMO is just a variation on hybrids.


No hybridisation has ever been able to cross a grass with a jellyfish, funnelweb spider, peanut, or the clostridium botulinum bacteria...to claim that its "just a variation on hybrids" demonstrates that you like the taste of their koolaid, rather than understanding hybridisation versus G.M..
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
GMO is just a variation on hybrids.


No hybridisation has ever been able to cross a grass with a jellyfish, funnelweb spider, peanut, or the clostridium botulinum bacteria...to claim that its "just a variation on hybrids" demonstrates that you like the taste of their koolaid, rather than understanding hybridisation versus G.M..


They're not creating Frankenstein. It's just corn.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Tempest

Could the 25-40% of land that goes into corn ethanol production not be used for something else?


Who is going to decide what they grow. Or if they can use their land to grow.

You?

When government supports your philosophy you like government.
When government doesn't support your philosophy you hate government.

And the world goes round and round.

Can you please show me where I stated the government should be deciding?



Nope. He won't.

Expect less, you'll get it!
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
OK then...explain how the normal cross breeding of grass produces BT Toxin...if it's "just corn"


You're also an expert in genetics?

Originally Posted By: Steve
Expect less you'll get it!


You definitely won't get anymore of my time. There's not much that you can come up that will interest thinking people. You'll do better to find an Obama haters site.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Shannow
OK then...explain how the normal cross breeding of grass produces BT Toxin...if it's "just corn"


You're also an expert in genetics?


Don't be a fool...when the manufacturer tells you that they've spliced the gene in to produce BT toxin, they have immediately told you that it's not just hybridising, it's "genetic engineering"...mixing genes from species that never could hybridise in nature.

same as when they show glow in the dark jelly fish gene splice mice and plants.

If no corn in nature produces the BT toxin, then it's not "just corn", unless you happen to like the koolaid made with that particular HFCS...
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Steve
Expect less you'll get it!


You definitely won't get anymore of my time. There's not much that you can come up that will interest thinking people. You'll do better to find an Obama haters site.


I certainly do not need any more of your time here, that's for sure. You may as well go to a full on left wing circus the way you regurgitate their garbage. No one here "hates" anyone, we just don't all drink the ethanol laced kool aid.

Imagining that you are the smartest person in the room is not working for you. Sorry, it is a bit sad to watch.

We go for FACTS here, man. Not baloney. And you must work for Boars Head!
 
Last edited:
Last two days have been crazy around here. Splicing animals and plants together is just like we've always done it and running a hose and pumping gas from underground tanks without paying for it isn't stealing. And people were complaining about folks recommending 5W-30 when the manual said 5W-20.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
Last two days have been crazy around here. Splicing animals and plants together is just like we've always done it and running a hose and pumping gas from underground tanks without paying for it isn't stealing. And people were complaining about folks recommending 5W-30 when the manual said 5W-20.



Hahaha, there is always entertainment at BITOG. Splitting hairs is what we do...
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
GMO is just a variation on hybrids.


No hybridisation has ever been able to cross a grass with a jellyfish, funnelweb spider, peanut, or the clostridium botulinum bacteria...to claim that its "just a variation on hybrids" demonstrates that you like the taste of their koolaid, rather than understanding hybridisation versus G.M..


Ok, some of the primary reasons for GMO research is for the very reasons we developed hybrids. One of the first major reasons, was to make sure corn was resistant to being affected by herbicides like Round Up. That could not be done thru normal hybrid research. Others are to make corn more drought resistant, more resistant to various pests, produce corn that produces more sugars, oils, etc. This is what hybrid development was all about, but hybrid development is like most things, you bump up against a wall. GMO research allows for getting around that wall. It is all that simple. It is not creating corn that now will kill every one. What would be the point of that? Try to improve crop yields just to kill off the consumer?

It was stated correctly, it is not like GMO research is all about creating some form of frankenstein. GMO research is not about crossing corn with soybeans, oats, wheat, pine trees, or, jellyfish. It is about increasing the stamina of the corn and increasing the yields. In other words, making it so that more people can benefit from what corn can be produced. You know.... feeding the world. Being able to produce more corn, on the same limited ground, with less water, with less pesticides, with less tillage, to feed an increasing human and animal population.

And there is no, I repeat, NO, example of human or animal negative effects in consuming GMO crops. Just the scare tactics of myopic fools.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top