ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Riding > The perfect line and other riding myths
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06-15-2013, 01:59 PM   #46
fred flintstone
Studly Adventurer
 
fred flintstone's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: Above 7600 ft.
Oddometer: 515
BTW I do not want to get into a pissing contest with an ethanol producer about either climate change or ethanol. Suffice to say corn derived ethanol is no better than gasoline as far as carbon footprint as far as I know.

Cellulosic ethanol is a different animal but that may be far off technically. A lot of proponents of ethanol as fuel conveniently confuse statistics about the two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol
fred flintstone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2013, 02:03 PM   #47
Edgecrusher
Adventurer
 
Edgecrusher's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2013
Location: Paris - France
Oddometer: 31
Here in France you can now hardly find nothing else than E-10 :/
I use it since many for all my bikes (1200GS 2005 + SVS650 2003), no issue with that.
But this fuel is less efficient for sure. I usually ride 10% less mileage than with normal fuel.
To "help" people to use this "green" fuel, the price is 10% less than the normal fuel... No comment...
Edgecrusher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2013, 05:16 PM   #48
stevie88
That's gotta hurt
 
stevie88's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: The place dad always warned me about
Oddometer: 17,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by fred flintstone View Post
That's a bullshit article from 2009 that starts with a preconceived point of view and searched for "facts" to back that up.
__________________
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 06-15-2013, 05:32 PM   #49
cjack
Studly Adventurer
 
cjack's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Location: Illinois
Oddometer: 854
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie88 View Post
That's a bullshit article from 2009 that starts with a preconceived point of view and searched for "facts" to back that up.
Feel free to back that up.
__________________
My other bike is a BMW
Jack
RA & MOA #224
cjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2013, 09:59 PM   #50
stevie88
That's gotta hurt
 
stevie88's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: The place dad always warned me about
Oddometer: 17,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjack View Post
Feel free to back that up.
An acre of average corn will yield 160 bushels or 9000 lbs of grain. Converted to ethanol that becomes approximately 480 gallons of fuel, 3200 lbs of high protein feed and various other products such as vegetable oil. The farmer probably used around 5 gallons of fuel per acre to do field work, plant and harvest the crop. The old rule of thumb was 1 lb of nitrogen will produce 1 bushel of corn, today that number is more likely .75 lbs of N per bushel produced. A surprising number of farmers get significant portions of their fertilizer from various manure sources as well as through the very common corn/soybean rotation. In addition the corn crop does produce oxygen and sequester carbon, especially in notill situations.

Keep in mind too that farmers are not in a monopoly position. The assumption that all this corn production would go away if the ethanol demand dies is erroneous. Farmers respond to lower prices by increasing production, trying to maintain their income. Remember we're talking about several million farmers, they can't and don't react to market forces like Exon Mobil would.

Converting corn to fuel was viewed as a win/win. Remember the situation was one of burdensome grain supplies resulting in prices generally well below production costs, requiring significant subsidy price support payments to farmers. Blow up ethanol and you'll see the Ag economy spiral into a depression that will drag the broader economy down with it unless you're willing to crank up the price supports again.
__________________
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 06-16-2013, 04:47 AM   #51
fred flintstone
Studly Adventurer
 
fred flintstone's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: Above 7600 ft.
Oddometer: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie88 View Post
An acre of average corn will yield 160 bushels or 9000 lbs of grain. Converted to ethanol that becomes approximately 480 gallons of fuel, 3200 lbs of high protein feed and various other products such as vegetable oil. The farmer probably used around 5 gallons of fuel per acre to do field work, plant and harvest the crop. The old rule of thumb was 1 lb of nitrogen will produce 1 bushel of corn, today that number is more likely .75 lbs of N per bushel produced. A surprising number of farmers get significant portions of their fertilizer from various manure sources as well as through the very common corn/soybean rotation. In addition the corn crop does produce oxygen and sequester carbon, especially in notill situations.

Keep in mind too that farmers are not in a monopoly position. The assumption that all this corn production would go away if the ethanol demand dies is erroneous. Farmers respond to lower prices by increasing production, trying to maintain their income. Remember we're talking about several million farmers, they can't and don't react to market forces like Exon Mobil would.

Converting corn to fuel was viewed as a win/win. Remember the situation was one of burdensome grain supplies resulting in prices generally well below production costs, requiring significant subsidy price support payments to farmers. Blow up ethanol and you'll see the Ag economy spiral into a depression that will drag the broader economy down with it unless you're willing to crank up the price supports again.
Please provide some legit scientific evidence (like peer reviewed papers/references) that e10 from corn ethanol use results in net CO2 footprint reduction. By that I mean across production and end use. I'd be very surprised if you could, because last time I looked closely at this is was pretty much universally understood that it can't. Cellulosic as I said is a different story, holy grail but has problems still. Somewhat cold fusion-ish, great if it worked but it doesn't yet. But that has not stopped the bait and switch from corn ethanol producers.

By all means if you can provide actual science to support your conclusions do so and I will consider it.

Back to mixtures on lawnmower & small gas (4 cycle) engines. IIRC as a kid in the 60's I could adjust the mixture on my lawnmower. However now the EPA has banned that feature and you can only purchase tamper-proof carbs and rebuild kits with fixed jetting. This is their way of meddling with us while we mow the lawn. If you try to buy a rebuild kit is says "not intended for use in gas with greater than 10% ethanol". Because it will make the motor run too lean.

Now NSA & the EPA-Climate Stasis Hive Mind has probably identified me as a terrorist and targeted a cruise missile strike on....
fred flintstone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 05:43 AM   #52
cjack
Studly Adventurer
 
cjack's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Location: Illinois
Oddometer: 854
Both replies interesting. I was looking for the latest data on government support for ethanol, tax subs, price support, etc and found this article.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/ric...o-dump-ethanol
__________________
My other bike is a BMW
Jack
RA & MOA #224
cjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 06:16 AM   #53
stevie88
That's gotta hurt
 
stevie88's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: The place dad always warned me about
Oddometer: 17,805
Study says ethanol cuts gasoline prices by $1.09 a gallon
By Joe Taschler of the Journal Sentinel May 15, 2012

INSHARE
EMAIL PRINT (42) COMMENTS
Adding ethanol to the nation's collective gasoline supply has helped lower pump prices for American consumers, researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Iowa State University say.

The information is an update to earlier research showing the impact of ethanol on pump prices, said Xiaodong Du, assistant professor in the Agricultural and Applied Economics Department at UW-Madison.

Du participated in the research with Dermot Hayes, economics professor at the Center for Agriculture and Rural Development at Iowa State University.

The research was financially backed by the Renewable Fuels Association, an ethanol industry trade group.

The research basically concludes that ethanol takes the place of a certain amount of gasoline in the marketplace and that helps drive down pump prices, Du and a spokesman for Wisconsin's biofuel industry said.

"If you take a gallon of ethanol and a gallon of gasoline, a gallon of ethanol is significantly cheaper," said Josh Morby, executive director of the Wisconsin Bio Industry Alliance. "So, if you blend ethanol with gasoline, that helps lower the price."

The research found that nationally in 2011, blending ethanol into gasoline saved consumers an average of $1.09 a gallon. The purported savings were even greater in Wisconsin, Morby said, approaching $1.69 a gallon.

"According to study data, regular grade gasoline prices average $3.52 per gallon in 2011, but would have been close to $4.60 per gallon without the inclusion of more than 13 billion gallons of lower-priced, domestically produced ethanol," according to a statement from the Bio Industry Alliance.

Not everyone is ready to accept the latest numbers.

"That dog don't hunt," James L. Williams, an energy economist and Wausau native who owns Arkansas-based WTRG Economics, said of the per-gallon savings figures. "Recent prices of ethanol and gasoline are the same on an energy content basis, providing no savings to the consumer."

A gallon of regular unleaded is selling for an average of $3.727 a gallon, according to the AAA Daily Fuel Gauge report. A gallon of E-85 ethanol fuel is selling, on average, for $3.274 a gallon.

When the energy content of the two fuels as measured in Btu's is factored in, though, the E-85 fuel is selling for $4.308, according to AAA.

"On an energy content basis, the two are about the same price," Williams said.

The energy difference varies depending on the fuel blend, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. A gallon of pure ethanol (E100) contains 34% less energy than a gallon of gasoline, according to the Energy Department.

The UW-Madison/Iowa State research also said that some of its findings are related to fluctuations in the global petroleum market.

"With higher crude oil price and expanding ethanol production, the marginal impact of ethanol growth on gasoline prices becomes increasingly pronounced," according to the research.

Whether or not anyone can agree on the numbers, ethanol has become a significant part of the economy in Wisconsin and the Midwest.

Nationwide in 2011, about 13 billion gallons of ethanol were added to the gasoline consumed in the United States, according to the Department of Energy.

Wisconsin ranks seventh among ethanol-producing states. The fuel additive is an important source of income for grain farmers, some of whom also own shares in ethanol plants.

Wisconsin produced nearly 518 million bushels of corn - the primary ingredient in ethanol - in 2011. There are nine large-scale ethanol plants in the state.
__________________
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 06-16-2013, 06:47 AM   #54
fred flintstone
Studly Adventurer
 
fred flintstone's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: Above 7600 ft.
Oddometer: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie88 View Post
Study says ethanol cuts gasoline prices by $1.09 a gallon
That study was done before corn futures went parabolic last year or two. Any economic studies you do now will be highly dependent on this completely fake commodities futures market we have due to fed intervention and the ocean of liquidity they have pumped into the system.

You know much of the Arab spring revolts we read about a year or two ago were largely due to food prices skyrocketing due to speculators running up grain and other commodities, right? Some poor guy in Egypt pays 80% of his income on basic food and a few wall st douchebags have unlimited free money to run up grain prices. Pay attention, it can happen here too.

Nothing in that article about either carbon footprint reduction or the fact that burning food in your gas tank raises the price of food. By a lot.

Look I don't want to turn this into yet another endless internet argument.

Ethanol

1. Not intrinsically bad for engines @ 10%, most if not all effects are mixture related.

2. Less energy per unit volume so requires more of it for same kaboom (ergo worse mileage). So any study based on price per gallon is automatically flawed.

3. No impact on net CO2 (from corn) modest impact form cellulosic (@ 10% use levels).

4. Helps further subsidize already wildly over-subsidized farmers

5. Drives up the price of food.

Oh and also the whole corn ethanol thing makes a lot less economic sense now WRT recent nat gas and Bakken shale discoveries in this country. Ethanol was originally pitched solely as a way to reduce dependence on foreign oil post-911, and to help farmers, that argument mostly fell apart pretty quickly. But then got hijacked by climate stasis types and mainly people benefiting from substantially higher grain prices.

If we had a natural resources profile like Brazil I'd be all for ethanol. We don't. Having said all that it is still a good fuel, just the economics of it are questionable until cellulosic is a reality. IMHO of course.
fred flintstone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 08:26 AM   #55
stevie88
That's gotta hurt
 
stevie88's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: The place dad always warned me about
Oddometer: 17,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by fred flintstone View Post
That study was done before corn futures went parabolic last year or two. Any economic studies you do now will be highly dependent on this completely fake commodities futures market we have due to fed intervention and the ocean of liquidity they have pumped into the system.

You know much of the Arab spring revolts we read about a year or two ago were largely due to food prices skyrocketing due to speculators running up grain and other commodities, right? Some poor guy in Egypt pays 80% of his income on basic food and a few wall st douchebags have unlimited free money to run up grain prices. Pay attention, it can happen here too.

Nothing in that article about either carbon footprint reduction or the fact that burning food in your gas tank raises the price of food. By a lot.

Look I don't want to turn this into yet another endless internet argument.

Ethanol

1. Not intrinsically bad for engines @ 10%, most if not all effects are mixture related.

2. Less energy per unit volume so requires more of it for same kaboom (ergo worse mileage). So any study based on price per gallon is automatically flawed.

3. No impact on net CO2 (from corn) modest impact form cellulosic (@ 10% use levels).

4. Helps further subsidize already wildly over-subsidized farmers

5. Drives up the price of food.

Oh and also the whole corn ethanol thing makes a lot less economic sense now WRT recent nat gas and Bakken shale discoveries in this country. Ethanol was originally pitched solely as a way to reduce dependence on foreign oil post-911, and to help farmers, that argument mostly fell apart pretty quickly. But then got hijacked by climate stasis types and mainly people benefiting from substantially higher grain prices.

If we had a natural resources profile like Brazil I'd be all for ethanol. We don't. Having said all that it is still a good fuel, just the economics of it are questionable until cellulosic is a reality. IMHO of course.

1. No argument from me.

2. True, though the difference is slight. Idiots who claim a 10% reduction in mileage are only demonstrating their math deficiency.

3. Your assumptions are incorrect.

4. False. Direct payments to farmers end this year. There is no ethanol subsidy, that ended 18 months ago. Current prices for all major crops are well above levels that trigger any subsidy payments. On a per acre basis, the level of subsidy payment American farmers have ever received is dwarfed by their European counterparts. Ultimately, if you want a reliable food supply you've got to pay what it costs one way or another.

5. False. The basic commodity costs of food are a very small portion of the grocery bill. When there are only a few cents worth of wheat in a loaf of bread, if farmers gave wheat away it wouldn't significantly lower the cost of bread. One of the major reasons for commodity inflation is the huge demand in Asia and to a lesser extent south America.
__________________
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 06-16-2013, 03:42 PM   #56
fred flintstone
Studly Adventurer
 
fred flintstone's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: Above 7600 ft.
Oddometer: 515
*sigh*
fred flintstone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 03:43 PM   #57
stevie88
That's gotta hurt
 
stevie88's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: The place dad always warned me about
Oddometer: 17,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by fred flintstone View Post
*sigh*
__________________
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 06-16-2013, 04:55 PM   #58
justinallen03
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Location: greenville, sc
Oddometer: 213
You guys think ethanol is so bad...

What about corn syrup????
justinallen03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 07:28 PM   #59
fred flintstone
Studly Adventurer
 
fred flintstone's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: Above 7600 ft.
Oddometer: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie88 View Post
Dude, you were asked several times for provide proof of your claims that corn ethanol was net carbon negative. You not only did not do that, you provided instead an out of date and highly irrelevant newspaper article on an econ study showing cost of a gallon gas with and without ethanol was cheaper to the consumer, based on pre parabolic rises in costs of grain. What does that have to do with anything? How's that math work out right now? With all costs and subsidies factored in.

Higher cost of grain does impact the consumer quite a bit, more through price of beef and poultry than a loaf of bread. Do you not shop for groceries?

Your pattern of evasive misdirection may play well to undergraduate liberal arts majors, but not here.

Last time, please support your claims of net carbon reduction of corn ethanol e10. That is what I want to see you prove, though I suspect you can't ergo the evasion. All the other econ stuff is misdirection, mainly because you get more subsidies and higher prices, I don't expect you to be honest about that part. Like trying to get a cigarette company to admit smoking is bad for you.
fred flintstone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 07:46 PM   #60
stevie88
That's gotta hurt
 
stevie88's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: The place dad always warned me about
Oddometer: 17,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by fred flintstone View Post
Dude, you were asked several times for provide proof of your claims that corn ethanol was net carbon negative. You not only did not do that, you provided instead an out of date and highly irrelevant newspaper article on an econ study showing cost of a gallon gas with and without ethanol was cheaper to the consumer, based on pre parabolic rises in costs of grain. What does that have to do with anything? How's that math work out right now? With all costs and subsidies factored in.

Higher cost of grain does impact the consumer quite a bit, more through price of beef and poultry than a loaf of bread. Do you not shop for groceries?

Your pattern of evasive misdirection may play well to undergraduate liberal arts majors, but not here.

Last time, please support your claims of net carbon reduction of corn ethanol e10. That is what I want to see you prove, though I suspect you can't ergo the evasion. All the other econ stuff is misdirection, mainly because you get more subsidies and higher prices, I don't expect you to be honest about that part. Like trying to get a cigarette company to admit smoking is bad for you.
How's about you provide a scientific, peer review study to support your claim. Not something funded by petroleum btw.
__________________
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
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 05:20 AM.


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