WARNING FROM THE AAA

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: Triton_330
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Corn that is used for ethanol production does go to livestock feed and other uses! I haul feed products from ethanol plants frequently. The poultry production sector loves the products from ethanol production. High protein (lysine) feed supplements made from Dried Distillers Grain (DDG) that is the result of ethanol production. Corn oil and a host of other products come out of ethanol plants daily. Only an idiot who doesn't take the time to actually look at what ethanol production is all about believes that a bushel of corn that goes to ethanol production is forever lost to any other use. There are dozens of by products that are used from ethanol production.

I fueled with E15 most of the winter (Murphy's in Newton, IA in the dead heart of ethanol country). Nozzle right between the E85 nozzle and regular nozzle. Nary an issue. Got equivalent mpg as I ever did with E10 varieties. I do know for a fact, that at the pump, it has a separate yellow color coded nozzle with plenty of warnings that it should not be used in vehicles prior to 2012. Only for newer vehicles and flex fuel vehicles. Any dufus that fills a vehicle not made for this stuff deserves whatever happens.

Been using ethanol laced fuel since the late 70's / early 80's and have never had, or even heard of, any fuel related problems in my vehicles or any of my neighbor's vehicles that can be attributed to ethanol. Only on the internet and talking heads on TV. Even my Yamaha portable generator has had a study diet of E10 as has my previous John Deere mower and my present one. But the hysteria lives on.

And the amazing thing is, though I live in ethanol central, surrounded by 46 ethanol plants in Iowa alone, if I wanted I could get ethanol free 87 and 91 anywhere around me any time I want. If the corn lobby was so against anyone having ethanol free gas, you would think it would be right here in the heart of corn country.

THIS.

Folks, whether or not ethanol harms our engines; whether or not any of these "one side or the other" arguments is true or false...

If you put this fuel in a car that isn't meant to run on it... You are the dufus! Not the gov't, not the EPA, not Uncle Sam - YOU are.

"Think with your dipstick, Jimmy!"

Nobody is holding you at gunpoint to fuel your vehicle with this stuff! You have the option to use the other available fuels, of which, you can select the proper fuel for your car!

Gosh, it's senseless to blame anyone but yourself if you put E15 or even E85 in your car that isn't flex fuel. You put it in; blame yourself.

~ Triton
In my state one can't find anything else, Federal parrots that they are. My owner's manual says NOTHING over E10, and the EPA dead hand bureaucrats were about to mandate E15 with NO apparent regard for those of us who keep our cars for a long time. I don't want to hear any bullslip about "it won't hurt" ... I'd like the choice of my poison.

 

[SHOZ]

The EPA is backing off the E15 standard. They have not even set the 2014 standard yet.

But there are lawsuits on both sides of the fence. They are finally realizing though that it is not a profitable venture and not much need for it.

Unfortunately the Congress will have to change the law.

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
And if the gas was cut off tomorrow, exactly WHAT security does the ethanol provide ?

Bunk argument when you can't live without the other 95%.

What have I got against ethanol ?

Problem with your type turtle, is that people who disagree with you are automatically labelled haters, ignorant, racist, all the other stuff.

I'm not against ethanol as either product or fuel.

Stupid arguments like "corn is a grass, so brewer's mash is feeding cattle grass" (not you, but it's here) are patently stupid, but refuting them gets a label.

Current studies on acetobacteria in underground tanks get hosed down, while 70s studies on carbed engines still get a run.

I've used ethanol when the energy break was there (used to be a flat 4c/l off a 90-95c/l product, now it's 3c off $1.50, so the consumer is getting hosed...which is why the ethanol industry in Oz wants a mandate.

I'm against political lobbying to get my money into some-one else' pocket. Big grain group in Oz wined and dined my state premier to get a 10% mandate even 'though their own papers said they couldn't meet the mandate and supply and demand (LOL) would make their product more expensive. He got his mandate through, and some whistleblowers brought up the influence, which he denied, until the records were brought out of the lunch meetings that he "forgot" about (forgetting a $3,000 bottle of wine had him marching)

I'm against the corruption that the lobbyists bring to the process.

I'm against the argument that it's "non food" corn, when the same patch could be growing "food corn", other "food", or simply grass raising cattle to a much better health effect for the people eating the meat, and less room for greenies to be using the land and water consumption argument against meat because the industry is grain fed (or mash fed)...and if it wasn't for the corn and ethanol lobbies and mandates it would be.

Look at biodiesel...the US standard is geared around soy oil, the Australian standard is geared around canola...not for any scientific reason, because is it was an absolute specification, you wouldn't need a particular core ingredient to make it....again, you have a soy lobby, we have canola, as GM soy hasn't taken off here.

I'd favour mixer pumps, with the two prices next to each other, the energy content on the label, and dial up your blend...that's not a hater.

I'd favour biofuels that provide a serious nett positive energy balance, and powered the farm/transport vehicles making it


I'll take the farmer crooks any day over the big oil crooks. They send out people to sweep up tar on the beach then pronounce one of the biggest spills in history cleaned up. I've said before. I'll trade you a farm lobbyist for 2 oil lobbyist and there'll still be a dumpload of oil lobbyist around.

Now you're an expert on feeding cows?

Because I don't agree with you im a moonbat?

The amount of energy to get oil out of the ground is getting higher every year. The net energy yield between the two fuels is comparible.

We've been thru all this before though. At this point I'm just exposing your poor logic for all to see. Any youre trying to do vice versa. The momentum, the public, the experts, the government and the future are on my side.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: turtlevette


The engine isn't adversely affected with the extra 5%. That 5% displaces millions of barrels of crude.

Would you have a problem with ethanol if it was made from non food sources? I want to get at the root of your objections.
Millions of barrels of ethanol takes millions of barrels of crude to produce and distribute.



Sssshhh, stop disputing his talking points. You've seen the cute lil distorted memes...

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
We've been thru all this before though. At this point I'm just exposing your poor logic for all to see. Any youre trying to do vice versa. The momentum, the public, the experts, the government and the future are on my side.


That right there is enough to tell me all I need to know. And the experts? Lmao. I've had enough of those "experts" in other areas of public policy and scientific debate, thank you.

And FYI, the U.S. public is NOT on your side. Take away the mandates, level the playing field with E0, and let's see what the demand is. I dare you.

 

[John_Conrad]

that would be very interesting to see what the driving public would demand, me personally i would use as much E0 as I could...

but what about the future? if and when we run out of petroleum? unless if recent theorists are correct that the petroleum is being replenished underneath our earth,,,we are soon to run out.

If the supply of crude is finite my guess is we are at the half life or so, give or take.

My point is we are going to need something else to fuel our vehicles and I believe we have time to develop an alternate fuel supply(at the cost of higher crude and fuel prices in the mean time)-consequently there is no need to force feed the ethanol to us, let alone use our worlds food supply to create it and further disrupt the world's ability to feed it self.

a vote on the matter would have been nice, but i doubt our populus would get out and vote, let alone research and understand the issue entirely thus leaving it once again in the hands of lobbyist's and politicians.

no offense meant to anyone, this is just one man's point of view.

 

[SHOZ]

Hydrogen is the fuel of the future. Sure isn't ethanol.

 

[Shannow]

Hydrogen is a storage medium.

Our hydrogen mines dried up a long, long, time ago.

 

[SHOZ]

Hydrogen generation is not dependent on mines. It is the origin of all fuel.

 

[Shannow]

OK, crack me a can of hydrogen then...where do I buy them ?

 

[SHOZ]

Fuel cells. And I did say future.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Hydrogen is the fuel of the future. Sure isn't ethanol.


Probably not, much like EtOH the thermodynamics just isn't there. Unless a mandate for completely carbon-free combustion is implemented there's little reason to use hydrogen.

There's virtually no terrestrial free hydrogen so any production process is going to involve a large amount of outside energy. Huge installations of solar panels cost a -lot- of money, and why not just use the electricity directly? It's not like we have a shortage of gaseous fuel, North America is awash in natural gas. Unless natural gas usage is outlawed or severely restricted there's no reason to try and use hydrogen instead.

Hydrogen has huge drawbacks at every step of production, storage and distribution, and it's not just because we haven't designed or implemented a distribution infrastructure like we have for petroleum sources. It's related to the mechanical properties of the element and that's going to be difficult to overcome no matter what.

Unless you construct a pipeline to the sun (or outlaw carbon emissions) then I just don't see how it happens.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Fuel cells. And I did say future.


We don't need inefficient fuel cells, if you have the hydrogen already why not burn it? You get more energy that way.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
OK, crack me a can of hydrogen then...where do I buy them ?


Oh, I can get you a can, as much as you want. Let me get you a price, hang on a minute....

And that price is related to the fact that hydrogen tends to make stable compounds here on earth. If you want to break those compounds apart and extract the free hydrogen that takes some doing.

 

[SHOZ]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Fuel cells. And I did say future.


We don't need inefficient fuel cells, if you have the hydrogen already why not burn it? You get more energy that way.


So you have facts on the efficiency of future fuel cells????

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Fuel cells. And I did say future.

We don't need inefficient fuel cells, if you have the hydrogen already why not burn it? You get more energy that way.

So you have facts on the efficiency of future fuel cells????


No, do you? It really doesn't matter though unless you have a ready supply of hydrogen. That's the core problem, if you provide me with that we can then argue on the best ways to burn it.

 

[SHOZ]

Originally Posted By: kschachn

No, do you? It really doesn't matter though unless you have a ready supply of hydrogen. That's the core problem, if you provide me with that we can then argue on the best ways to burn it.


maybe water????

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Originally Posted By: kschachn

No, do you? It really doesn't matter though unless you have a ready supply of hydrogen. That's the core problem, if you provide me with that we can then argue on the best ways to burn it.

maybe water????


Water is arguably the worst source of hydrogen as oxides are be some of the most stable compounds on earth. And you're going to turn right around a make an oxide out of it again, so where is the thermodynamic benefit? You're always going to be net negative in energy no matter what you do. Making it from natural gas is a better argument but then there's that pesky question of why not use the methane directly? At least you can liquify methane at a reasonable temperature and pressure, and it isn't nearly so difficult to contain.

 

[kschachn]

All of this doesn't mean that hydrogen is a bad fuel. A lot of heat is produced during combustion (very favorable thermodynamics, just ask the designers of the SSME). Especially if you recover the heat from the combustion steam you end up with a lot of useable heat to do work. The problem is getting the hydrogen in the first place.

 

[Kestas]

Originally Posted By: John_Conrad
... but what about the future? if and when we run out of petroleum? unless if recent theorists are correct that the petroleum is being replenished underneath our earth, we are soon to run out.

If the supply of crude is finite my guess is we are at the half life or so, give or take...

What is wrong with using up petroleum? We've been told to conserve for pretty much our whole lives, that it's ingrained in us all.

We should use up all the petroleum we have. It would finally remove the geopolitical angst we have, save us the pain of conserving fuel, and level the playing field for the whole world as far as energy is concerned.