ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Bikes > Road warriors
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-21-2013, 11:54 AM   #46
stevie88
That's gotta hurt
 
stevie88's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: The place dad always warned me about
Oddometer: 17,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by withiam View Post
Gleaned this from a Cornell based article. Personally the stuff causes more problems than benefits.

Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 Btu are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 Btu. "Put another way," Pimentel said, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 Btu."
That's an old, bogus study using incorrect assumptions designed to reach a forgone conclusion funded by the oil industry.
__________________
In Russia we have saying, "if it isn't broke, don't fix it". We also say, "if it is broke, don't fix it".
stevie88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2013, 11:57 AM   #47
Randy
Beastly Adventurer
 
Randy's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Location: Newnan, GA USA
Oddometer: 2,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by withiam View Post
Gleaned this from a Cornell based article. Personally the stuff causes more problems than benefits.

Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 Btu are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 Btu. "Put another way," Pimentel said, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 Btu."
I would assume that that is including the additional resources used to transport it to the delivery facilities where it is blended with the gasoline... Either way though, it is a losing proposition in terms of a viable source of energy. All those tractors and trucks use a lot of diesel growing the corn, transporting the harvest, and then the end product. And that isn't even counting the energy from other sources that is needed to turn the corn into alcohol.

You can't look at Brazil either because their ethanol is based on sugar cane, which has a much higher ethanol per acre yield. We have agriculture heavily centered on corn production though, and sugar cane doesn't grow well in the climate of most of NA.
__________________
"some might call it a 'midlife crisis', I prefer to call it a renaissance of thought and action"... "Life is too short to do anything other than that about which you are absolutely passionate."..."Adventure is a frame of mind, set upon by action, not defined by equipment."..."It all boils down to your ability to say "SCREW IT" and really mean it"....Randy
Randy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2013, 12:01 PM   #48
Randy
Beastly Adventurer
 
Randy's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Location: Newnan, GA USA
Oddometer: 2,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie88 View Post
That's an old, bogus study using incorrect assumptions designed to reach a forgone conclusion funded by the oil industry.
So, what are the correct numbers?
__________________
"some might call it a 'midlife crisis', I prefer to call it a renaissance of thought and action"... "Life is too short to do anything other than that about which you are absolutely passionate."..."Adventure is a frame of mind, set upon by action, not defined by equipment."..."It all boils down to your ability to say "SCREW IT" and really mean it"....Randy
Randy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2013, 12:30 PM   #49
stevie88
That's gotta hurt
 
stevie88's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: The place dad always warned me about
Oddometer: 17,603
I can believe I'm doing this again.

The average acre of corn will yield 160 bu of corn. That is almost 9000 lbs of corn per acre. That 160 bu of corn will make over 400 gallons of ethanol and 3000 lbs of high protein animal feed, remember we are just removing the starch from the grain. The nitrogen fertilizer required to produce that corn may come from manure, a legume such as soybeans or it may be petroleum based, it will require, on average about 8ths of a lb of nitrogen to produce a bushel of corn.

The herbicides rates applied are calculated in ounces and pints per acre. The total used will seldom exceed 2 quarts per acre, insecticides rates are much lower than that.

The fuel used to plant, grow, harvest and transport the crop? Unless its irrigated, less than 10 gallons of fuel per acre.

Ethanol plants are making money at current spot ethanol prices of $2.20 with corn prices around $7.50 per bushel and there are no subsidies involved. The blenders tax credit of $.52 per gallon expired 15 months ago. Keep in mind, that tax credit went to the blender, i.e. an oil company to sweeten the pot to entice them to use more ethanol.

Do you really think that the petroleum industry would fight ethanol if was a net energy negative? Why would they be against something that would actually consume more of their product than it displaces? The EPA mandate is what keeps ethanol alive. It displaces 10% of the market for gasoline and that cuts into Exon/Mobils profits.

You guys are crazy if you buy what the multinational oil companies are telling you. Hell, they were funding bogus global warming studies too. Jesus fellas, think a little for yourselves.
__________________
In Russia we have saying, "if it isn't broke, don't fix it". We also say, "if it is broke, don't fix it".
stevie88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2013, 01:10 PM   #50
Cakeeater
Studly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: Where it snows a lot
Oddometer: 839
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie88 View Post
I The EPA mandate is what keeps ethanol alive.
Absolutely true. For farmers, ethanol in fuel is a great thing. For milk producers, it sucks (since it drives up feed prices).

For everyone else, it's a net negative...because of the issues inherent in alcohol that aren't present in gasoline. Mixing two different compounds is silly. Make more sense to sell 100 percent gas and 100 percent ethanol and let the consumer choose. If ethanol really were cheaper, then we'd soon have "Big Ethanol" to harp against.

Ethanol is here because Iowa and the midwest are key states in the presidential race, Iowa especially. Every presidential candidate has to get through Iowa, and all of them have to say "I love ethanol!" Get rid of the Iowa caucuses and in ten years there'd be no EPA mandate for ethanol.

Cakeeater
Cakeeater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2013, 01:38 PM   #51
stevie88
That's gotta hurt
 
stevie88's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: The place dad always warned me about
Oddometer: 17,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cakeeater View Post
Absolutely true. For farmers, ethanol in fuel is a great thing. For milk producers, it sucks (since it drives up feed prices).

For everyone else, it's a net negative...because of the issues inherent in alcohol that aren't present in gasoline. Mixing two different compounds is silly. Make more sense to sell 100 percent gas and 100 percent ethanol and let the consumer choose. If ethanol really were cheaper, then we'd soon have "Big Ethanol" to harp against.

Ethanol is here because Iowa and the midwest are key states in the presidential race, Iowa especially. Every presidential candidate has to get through Iowa, and all of them have to say "I love ethanol!" Get rid of the Iowa caucuses and in ten years there'd be no EPA mandate for ethanol.

Cakeeater
It also pushes down the cost of gasoline by increasing the fuel supply by 10%. Just because you think it silly to blend different compounds for fuel doesn't make it so.
__________________
In Russia we have saying, "if it isn't broke, don't fix it". We also say, "if it is broke, don't fix it".
stevie88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2013, 02:06 PM   #52
Randy
Beastly Adventurer
 
Randy's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Location: Newnan, GA USA
Oddometer: 2,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie88 View Post
It also pushes down the cost of gasoline by increasing the fuel supply by 10%. Just because you think it silly to blend different compounds for fuel doesn't make it so.
you want to really reduce the cost of fuel? Then get the politicians to reduce the restrictions of constructing new refineries... They are all pretty much at max capacity now and demand continues to increase, in spite of this 10% reduction you mention.
__________________
"some might call it a 'midlife crisis', I prefer to call it a renaissance of thought and action"... "Life is too short to do anything other than that about which you are absolutely passionate."..."Adventure is a frame of mind, set upon by action, not defined by equipment."..."It all boils down to your ability to say "SCREW IT" and really mean it"....Randy
Randy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2013, 02:11 PM   #53
Anorak
Woolf Barnato
 
Anorak's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: OAK
Oddometer: 32,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cakeeater View Post
Absolutely true. For farmers, ethanol in fuel is a great thing. For milk producers, it sucks (since it drives up feed prices).

For everyone else, it's a net negative...because of the issues inherent in alcohol that aren't present in gasoline. Mixing two different compounds is silly. Make more sense to sell 100 percent gas and 100 percent ethanol and let the consumer choose. If ethanol really were cheaper, then we'd soon have "Big Ethanol" to harp against.

Ethanol is here because Iowa and the midwest are key states in the presidential race, Iowa especially. Every presidential candidate has to get through Iowa, and all of them have to say "I love ethanol!" Get rid of the Iowa caucuses and in ten years there'd be no EPA mandate for ethanol.

Cakeeater
Gasoline is a mixture of chemicals. Pure gas is an oxymoron. There are a bunch of different formulas.
__________________
'Gonna get me a six pack...push people off the highway!'

"they live off the carrion of our mutual distrust and bribe us with symbols that equate hatred with manhood."

"I mean at the end of the day, I was addicted to Starting Fluid for Christ's sake!"

"Yeah, that guy sure is terrible at touching moms"
Anorak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2013, 03:09 PM   #54
stevie88
That's gotta hurt
 
stevie88's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: The place dad always warned me about
Oddometer: 17,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy View Post
you want to really reduce the cost of fuel? Then get the politicians to reduce the restrictions of constructing new refineries... They are all pretty much at max capacity now and demand continues to increase, in spite of this 10% reduction you mention.
Ethanol plants are refinery capacity too. Right now they have enough excess capacity to meet an E-15 blend without building or enlarging plants.

Don't you think that if oil companies wanted to build more refinery capacity, they would? They didn't do it when they had 2 oil men in the White House did they? Why would they want to in the first place? It would only reduce their margins by creating excess supply while the price of oil is set on an international market. They'd be stupid to build another refinery where they have a captive market and a monopoly market position through mergers.
__________________
In Russia we have saying, "if it isn't broke, don't fix it". We also say, "if it is broke, don't fix it".
stevie88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2013, 03:22 PM   #55
drvslow
n00b
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Oddometer: 7
Had this issue with a Ducati Monster- bought spare tank and had Caswell coated. You can do it yourself- but there are shops that specialize in it.
drvslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2013, 03:22 PM   #56
Randy
Beastly Adventurer
 
Randy's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Location: Newnan, GA USA
Oddometer: 2,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie88 View Post
Ethanol plants are refinery capacity too. Right now they have enough excess capacity to meet an E-15 blend without building or enlarging plants.

Don't you think that if oil companies wanted to build more refinery capacity, they would? They didn't do it when they had 2 oil men in the White House did they? Why would they want to in the first place? It would only reduce their margins by creating excess supply while the price of oil is set on an international market. They'd be stupid to build another refinery where they have a captive market and a monopoly market position through mergers.
No, actually they do want to and have been stonewalled by opposition and restrictions for years... There is oil and then there are refined products... two different things even though they are related. Consumers buy the refined products. When was the last time you bought crude? "Big oil" makes their money from selling the products. They can't sell more if they can't make more... Demand is on the rise, production is pretty much topped out now here in the US. Did you know that we are already buying refined petroleum from refineries overseas? Why is that? One more "Katrina" and you will likely see the result of an overstretched petroleum production infrastructure...

It seems that everyone hates "big'oil" until everything stops and no one can understand that without it nothing in our economy can function. Pipe dreams and political bullshit aside, oil is here to stay for a very long time...
__________________
"some might call it a 'midlife crisis', I prefer to call it a renaissance of thought and action"... "Life is too short to do anything other than that about which you are absolutely passionate."..."Adventure is a frame of mind, set upon by action, not defined by equipment."..."It all boils down to your ability to say "SCREW IT" and really mean it"....Randy
Randy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2013, 03:43 PM   #57
stevie88
That's gotta hurt
 
stevie88's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: The place dad always warned me about
Oddometer: 17,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy View Post
No, actually they do want to and have been stonewalled by opposition and restrictions for years... There is oil and then there are refined products... two different things even though they are related. Consumers buy the refined products. When was the last time you bought crude? "Big oil" makes their money from selling the products. They can't sell more if they can't make more... Demand is on the rise, production is pretty much topped out now here in the US. Did you know that we are already buying refined petroleum from refineries overseas? Why is that? One more "Katrina" and you will likely see the result of an overstretched petroleum production infrastructure...

It seems that everyone hates "big'oil" until everything stops and no one can understand that without it nothing in our economy can function. Pipe dreams and political bullshit aside, oil is here to stay for a very long time...
No, if they wanted it to happen, it would. Hell, wars happen because they want them to so building another refinery is child's play. Oh btw, a Canadian oil company has purchased rights to build a big refinery near Elk Point, South Dakota right on the Missouri river.

Why would they' want to make more refined products when that will result in lower prices for those products? Their costs per unit of product wouldn't decrease, but their profits would.
__________________
In Russia we have saying, "if it isn't broke, don't fix it". We also say, "if it is broke, don't fix it".

stevie88 screwed with this post 03-21-2013 at 03:56 PM
stevie88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2013, 03:56 PM   #58
Randy
Beastly Adventurer
 
Randy's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Location: Newnan, GA USA
Oddometer: 2,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie88 View Post
No, if they wanted it to happen, it would. Hell, wars happen because they want them to so building another refinery is child's play. Oh btw, a Canadian oil company has purchased rights to build a big refinery near Elk Point, South Dakota right on the Missouri river.
Well, that's the best news I've heard all day!

But, I've worked in the energy industry for over thirty years. I make it my business to understand the ins and outs of the petroleum world. I'm not at liberty to discuss much of the information that I have intimate knowledge of, but I do know just a little of what I speak. If you get your information from the various politically motivated sources then you really have very little real info on which to base your opinions. It is a very complex business and one in which misinformation fed to the public is very commonplace. Everyone stands to make a buck, and as such everyone has an agenda. believe little of what you hear from the press, and even less from what you hear coming out of a politicians mouth.

I generally avoid discussion on this subject because it could be construed that I discussed things I shouldn't. I haven't said much now but if I continue I could, so I suppose I should just bow out of this discussion and let you believe whatever it is that makes you sleep better at night.

It's all good anyway. The world will continue to rock on. The rich will continue to get richer. And the public will continue to hate whoever it is that they see as the "evil enemy". That is part of the game after all, and both sides play it very well...


__________________
"some might call it a 'midlife crisis', I prefer to call it a renaissance of thought and action"... "Life is too short to do anything other than that about which you are absolutely passionate."..."Adventure is a frame of mind, set upon by action, not defined by equipment."..."It all boils down to your ability to say "SCREW IT" and really mean it"....Randy
Randy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2013, 04:47 PM   #59
10/10ths
Road Trip Fool
 
10/10ths's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Location: Bayou country
Oddometer: 877
Building a new Oil Refinery?

N.I.M.B.Y.

Just try to get one built.

__________________
1997 Ducati Monster 750

2004 Honda RC51

2011 Suzuki GSX1250FA replaced my '04 Wee 2-14
10/10ths is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2013, 06:57 PM   #60
Cakeeater
Studly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: Where it snows a lot
Oddometer: 839
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie88 View Post
No, if they wanted it to happen, it would. Hell, wars happen because they want them to so building another refinery is child's play.

Why would they' want to make more refined products when that will result in lower prices for those products? Their costs per unit of product wouldn't decrease, but their profits would.
That's worth a chuckle. I mean, why would BMW want to build more motorcycles? They'd just have to charge less...right?

Many different companies try to make a buck in the petroleum field. There is no unified "they". The paranoia over "big oil" is pretty funny. Might as well start worrying about "big motorcycle" too....and "big mexican fast food".

I only suggest this: Let ethanol stand on it's own without being propped up by politically driven mandate from the EPA. If people like it, they'll buy it. If they don't, they wont. No law against "Big Ethanol" opening their own stations, is there? E-85 has turned into a bust. That's why politicians are pushing for e-15.

The bottom line is that ethanol as always been, and will continue to be, driven by politics.

Cakeeater
Cakeeater is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

.
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 06:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014