Wheels just fell off the Biodiesel and Ethanol bandwagons

Status
Not open for further replies.
We got to the top by making use of energy sources that were just lying around. Seems this still applies to solar, wind, and tidal energy. Electric transportation will happen despite us kicking and screaming to resist it...
 
I think if all the municipalities recycle their wasted fry oil, biodiesel is very viable. Right now, they are just dumping it into the landfill or into the water treatment system.

There are a lot of tropical area in Mexico that can grow palms. Or it can be in Florida. Most of the product of palms are oil, and not for anything else like corn or soy. So Palm are also very feasible.

Biodiesel is very good, it has higher cetane than dino diesel. It has a little less BTU but it also have better lubricity that ULSD fuel. So in the long run, it will be better for the engine. It will reduce the amount of Injector Pump problems faced at this time. Unfortunately, it has a higher cloud point so it probably won't be able to be used as B100 in the winter. But it should be ok for the southern half of the US.
 
Originally Posted By: PandaBear

So why the heck are we mad at CA trying to force higher mpg limit on the auto industry? Stop the SUV/Truck/Minivan madness and everyone start working on a 1500lb 7 seater with a coefficient of drag of 0.21



That would be great for those that just run around town and the interstate. There are other people in the U.S. than those that live in the Silicon Valley. Those of us in the heartland that live rural (also Northern CA)would be in a real kink if we couldn't get good 4 wheel drive suv's and pickups. Just about necessary for getting to town when we get a hard snow storm. That is why I like my 4300 lb Jeep Liberty Diesel.... Will go just about anywhere, will pull a 300 gallon fuel wagon in the field (yep, done that), and gets an average 27 mpg and 30+ mpg on long trips. Don't think that your 1500 lb 7 seater would round up cattle as well as my Jeep. I would like to see it get thru some of my fields! No... I won't pull you out if you get stuck. And if someone needs to get medical attention and you live 10 miles from town and there is a blizzard... I would sure be upset it the powers that be only allowed me to have a 1500 lb 7 seater like you want. But with ObamaCare looming on the horizon, it may all be a moot point anyway trying to get that medical attention, so maybe your ride would be ok afterall.

oh... I forgot... CA wouldn't allow my Jeep Liberty Diesel to be sold in their state. Another good reason not to live there. And my commercial semi will never see CA. Just not worth the effort.
 
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
So why the heck are we mad at CA trying to force higher mpg limit on the auto industry?



"Force", that's the operative word. Put in a $0.50/gal fuel tax, let it rise $0.10/year to $2 or even $3/gal and in a few years we'd have all the diesel 70-80 mpg little cars we wanted. And people could still buy 400 hp 7000 lb diesel pickups if enough people still wanted them - supply and demand, the best mechanism ever devised for balancing cost vs peoples' desires.
And all the $$$ would pay for ObamaCare and balance the budget without more income taxes.

Charlie
 
Had Jimmy Carter responded to oil crisis I with that, we would be far better off now.

''And people could still buy 400 hp 7000 lb diesel pickups'' Lets hope so, because there are people that need them to make a living.
 
They'd probably have 200-250 hp, not 400; engines would shrink a bit in response to $6 fuel...They have more gears, though, so you could still tow heavy loads, but slower up hills.

Charlie
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: PandaBear

So why the heck are we mad at CA trying to force higher mpg limit on the auto industry? Stop the SUV/Truck/Minivan madness and everyone start working on a 1500lb 7 seater with a coefficient of drag of 0.21



That would be great for those that just run around town and the interstate. There are other people in the U.S. than those that live in the Silicon Valley. Those of us in the heartland that live rural (also Northern CA)would be in a real kink if we couldn't get good 4 wheel drive suv's and pickups. Just about necessary for getting to town when we get a hard snow storm. That is why I like my 4300 lb Jeep Liberty Diesel.... Will go just about anywhere, will pull a 300 gallon fuel wagon in the field (yep, done that), and gets an average 27 mpg and 30+ mpg on long trips. Don't think that your 1500 lb 7 seater would round up cattle as well as my Jeep. I would like to see it get thru some of my fields! No... I won't pull you out if you get stuck. And if someone needs to get medical attention and you live 10 miles from town and there is a blizzard... I would sure be upset it the powers that be only allowed me to have a 1500 lb 7 seater like you want. But with ObamaCare looming on the horizon, it may all be a moot point anyway trying to get that medical attention, so maybe your ride would be ok afterall.

oh... I forgot... CA wouldn't allow my Jeep Liberty Diesel to be sold in their state. Another good reason not to live there. And my commercial semi will never see CA. Just not worth the effort.

I'm out in the sticks too and play farmer as well, and I like having a 4wd vehicle for getting out of our driveway before I plow it or over the hill to drop off some fence posts. But I'm still interested in having an ultra efficient commuter vehicle available as 99.9% of the time my 2wd 2400lb car would get me to work just as easily as any 4wd.
Having efficient vehicles available doesn't mean that heavy duty vehicles have to dissapear. Europe has lots of small cars and there are 4wd trucks too, but for the most part only people who need a big truck buy one. Due to the $5+/gallon cost of fuel I suspect.
 
And the stations by me are pretty much the same price for E-85 or regular gas. Besides the energy expense you have to factor in higher food prices via feed costs & 'opportunity lost' with that land for other food/feed crops. If ethanol is so great, let it stand on it's own, no Gov't subsidies.
 
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
Diesel probably returns more energy from the original crude than gasoline, since it takes less refining to make the stuff.


Not to mention that Diesel engines are more thermally efficient than their gasoline counterparts. So at the end use there is an additional efficiency.
 
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
See, no matter how you cut it, whether you use alt fuel or crude, the end is near and only using less fuel is the option.

So why the heck are we mad at CA trying to force higher mpg limit on the auto industry? Stop the SUV/Truck/Minivan madness and everyone start working on a 1500lb 7 seater with a coefficient of drag of 0.21



I would agree... if I lived in a city. When it rains or snows on my roads, we are darn thankful we have a 4500lb Jeep Liberty Diesel to get to and from town. By the way, it regularly gets over 30 mpg on trips and averages 24-25 mpg in our daily stuff. Better than a lot of cars.

The end is near only if we never tap the vast reserves of petroleum we have right here at home. We are our own worst enemy when it comes to energy security.
 
Originally Posted By: keith
[sarcasm] Who knew? [/sarcasm]

Study says ethanol not worth the energy

"...it takes 29% more fossil energy to turn corn into ethanol than the amount of fuel the process produces"

"It takes 27% more energy to turn soybeans into biodiesel fuel and more than double the energy produced is needed to do the same to sunflower plants..."

The study didn't even address the foolishness of using prime agricultural land to feed cars rather than humans.

What about 10% less mileage or your car uses 10% more fuel sitting in traffic. Is it really "cleaner" or is it just to make certain folks rich??
 
But there are many studies that show for every 1 BTU of energy to produce ethanol, from corn planting, fertilizer, harvest, transportation, ethanol production, etc... there is a net 1.34 BTU energy output from ethanol, for a 34% gain in BTU output over input.

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/265.pdf

True, a gasoline engine on various blends of ethanol will get lower mpg. But that doesn't mean it has a lower cost per mile. My pickup on E85 has a 1-2 cent lower cost per mile on the lower mpg than with even the better mpg I get from regular gas. Ethanol is market traded on the commodity exchanges. The producers have no say in the market price. And ethanol is substantially less cost than gas, so at even the reduced mpg, the cost per mile is less also. At the worse, a break even.

And on engines that are primarily design around E85 compared to flex fuel motors that are just gas motors that can run E85, the results are striking. Ricardo has a 3.2L V6 EBDI E85 motor that puts out the same power and fuel economy of a 6.6L diesel, but it uses E85. Cummins has a 2.8L E85 motor that outperforms a 5.7L Hemi in both power and fuel economy.

And I am not averse to using farmland to fuel vehicles. That is way better than using sacrificed lives of military men and women to fuel them, as we did with the gulf wars. The last Iraqi adventure cost us $14 Billion a month. Ethanol subsidies, before they were eliminated at the end of 2011, capped out at no more than $13 billion a year. And not one military member lost their life or was seriously wounded protecting a corn field. Those that run around claiming they support the troops should be all over ethanol use. And that is where the rubber meets the road... as a Viet vet, I always measure a person's statement of supporting the troops in how that actually plays out in what they do on a daily basis and how they vote. Talk is cheap.
 
Trucker, Your last paragraph is profound. We should not be sending troops to the middle east anymore, we should develop our own oil. We just surrendered the middle east to Putin anyway.
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Ricardo has a 3.2L V6 EBDI E85 motor that puts out the same power and fuel economy of a 6.6L diesel, but it uses E85.


The Ricardo claim is actually the same "thermal efficiency" as the diesel.

Efficiency being the ratio of energy out to energy in...

40% less BTUs in the tank than a tank of diesel, then 40% less mileage for the same thermal efficiency.
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
But there are many studies that show for every 1 BTU of energy to produce ethanol, from corn planting, fertilizer, harvest, transportation, ethanol production, etc... there is a net 1.34 BTU energy output from ethanol, for a 34% gain in BTU output over input.

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/265.pdf

True, a gasoline engine on various blends of ethanol will get lower mpg. But that doesn't mean it has a lower cost per mile. My pickup on E85 has a 1-2 cent lower cost per mile on the lower mpg than with even the better mpg I get from regular gas. Ethanol is market traded on the commodity exchanges. The producers have no say in the market price. And ethanol is substantially less cost than gas, so at even the reduced mpg, the cost per mile is less also. At the worse, a break even.

And on engines that are primarily design around E85 compared to flex fuel motors that are just gas motors that can run E85, the results are striking. Ricardo has a 3.2L V6 EBDI E85 motor that puts out the same power and fuel economy of a 6.6L diesel, but it uses E85. Cummins has a 2.8L E85 motor that outperforms a 5.7L Hemi in both power and fuel economy.

And I am not averse to using farmland to fuel vehicles. That is way better than using sacrificed lives of military men and women to fuel them, as we did with the gulf wars. The last Iraqi adventure cost us $14 Billion a month. Ethanol subsidies, before they were eliminated at the end of 2011, capped out at no more than $13 billion a year. And not one military member lost their life or was seriously wounded protecting a corn field. Those that run around claiming they support the troops should be all over ethanol use. And that is where the rubber meets the road... as a Viet vet, I always measure a person's statement of supporting the troops in how that actually plays out in what they do on a daily basis and how they vote. Talk is cheap.
Facts aren't. "In 2011 the USDA began to allow blender pump subsidies to replace the ethanol subsidies which expired in 2011." The administration 2015 budget has MORE of these subsidies included. A neat little sidestep around Congress. Nice try.
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Those that run around claiming they support the troops should be all over ethanol use. And that is where the rubber meets the road... as a Viet vet, I always measure a person's statement of supporting the troops in how that actually plays out in what they do on a daily basis and how they vote. Talk is cheap.


Yep, a lot of hypocrites out there.
 
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Facts aren't. "In 2011 the USDA began to allow blender pump subsidies to replace the ethanol subsidies which expired in 2011." The administration 2015 budget has MORE of these subsidies included. A neat little sidestep around Congress. Nice try.


Fact.... ethanol producers, corn growers, etc do not sell fuel at the retail level, just like refineries don't sell retail gas or diesel at retail right out of the refinery. Subsidies for blender pumps are for retail fuel vendors. That may be retail corporate subsidies, but not ethanol subsidies. Come on, get real. You are really straining at a gnat by trying to equate the two. Nice try.

It doesn't change a thing on the amount of ethanol made or available. it just allows the consumer to select the blend they like..... E0, E10, E15, E20, E30, or E85. We have a few of these pumps around my area. Kind neat really. It allows consumer choice, which it is a diversion from normal government action. And if more people select the higher blends, that means the folks who are pulling their hair out over ethanol will have better chance of getting the ethanol free fuel they want. Sounds like a good deal to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top