http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003612429_ethanol11.html

 

LOL Thats a funny article. I like the part about the Mexicans running out of tortilias. Apparently all corn is the same to city people. Sounds like an oil company wrote that article.
Oh just to clarify for the city folks, sweet corn is what you eat and white corn is used for tortilias. Thats not the same corn used for ethanol. Your burito arent going anywhere. But hmmm maybe some buritos are turned into gas, or maybe thats just the beans in the burito.lol

 

If I could figure out how to run my truck on that kind of gas the oil companies would be out of business.

Definitely reads like oil company propaganda. A "threat" to the food supply is a very scary thing to most people, especially "city folk". By scaring them on an emotional level it makes them forget to use their intellectual level and actually think about what the real problem is and diverting attention from it. In this case it's the fact that the oil companies are posting record profits year after year. Brazil has shown what a government intent on reducing it's oil dependency can do and I'd think that would upset the guys running the oil companies since governments are the only real threat to their profits, consumers aren't cutting back at all.

We won't make most of our ethanol from corn in the long run anyway, there are other feedstocks that give better yields and other alchohols that are better (butanol) but no one has spent the money to figure out how to produce and use them "efficiently". The oil companies won't be able to use this "angle" much longer I don't think. The higher they drive prices the more people get interested in another way to "feed" their driving habit. conservation does not appear to be a viable option either.

 

QFT!!!!

Thank you!

Something else to think about:

How much subsidies have been given to the major oil companies?

How many dollars, and lives, has it cost over the years to keep the military in the middle east?

When you consider those two questions, research into ethanol becomes a much more attractive solution. To me anyway.

 

First of all, the Seattle Times is a left leaning, liberal newspaper, not exactly one that would normally be associated with oil companies, but who knows. The writer may have oversimplified a few things, but there are some hard data there to buttress his points.

As for subsidizing oil companies, please show me some solid proof that they're being subsidized in a way corn growers are. Subsidizing E85 doesn't count, and I don't think oil companies benefited much, if anything, from the Iraqi oil yet (unlike Haliburton and other reconstruction and security companies), and whether they'll benefit from Iraqi oil in the foreseeable future is remains to be seen. But in any case, bringing too much Iraq into this thread might lead to a quick lock, so I'd try to use other, more technical avenues to argue first.

I understand that people in corn growing regions see E85 differently, that's perfetly normal; however, there are many things that need to be taken into account when evaluating the impact and energy balance of a given fuel.

 

What about talk of lower mpg with ethanol, and higher incedence of injector problems? Do you believe that?

 

are ethanol is made from wheat and other cereal crops in sask we don't even us corn

if anything it will give more demand for these crops and boost their values at the elevator

 

Nope. I have yet to see any injector problems due to ethanol. If anything, it cleans 'em out.

As a closing comment on military presence, the military was in the middle east long before either Iraq war, and has been very expensive. I will say that politics are very tied to this issue, and that my hands are tied due to forum rules. I could make quite the argument here...

On oil subsidies, here's an initial article:

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles...g-big-oil.html

Now grated that's kind of old, but give me a bit of time and I guarantee I can come up with more. I will say that the oil subsidies tend to be a bit more hidden than the ethanol subsidies, which are more direct, and therefore more visible.

 

Ethanol attracts water=not good for motor.

 

Not necessarily. Your fuel lines will never freeze!

 

Aurg, that article is nothing but oil industry BS. All of their 'facts' are either wrong, or just plain lies. To look at petroleum subsidies, look at the last energy bill the u s of A passed- it had some 14.5 billion ( yes, billion with a B ) in giveaways, tax breaks and subsidies to the petro industry. And that when the industry is more profitable than ever before. I really can't imagine they need the help. The only reason for the high price right now is greed. The big oil companies can get the stuff out of the ground for about 10 cents per barrell. Yeah, you read that right, 10 cents per barrell. So why is the per barrell price in the 60 $ range ? Because they buy the oil from a drilling company......and whom do you suppose that drilling company is a subsidiary of.......themselves, of course. Some creative bookkeeping and those guys laugh all the way to the bank. Now that some real alternatives are becoming available, expect to see and hear all sorts of wild claims. The API has a monopoly on the transportation fuel market, and they won't give up without a fight. DinosaurFan, on work's old 'puter

 

The main arguments in the article are the following:
a) reduced corporate income taxes for the oil industry
b) lower than average sales taxes on gasoline
c) government funding of programs that primarily benefit the oil industry and motorists
d) "hidden" environmental costs caused by motor vehicles, namely air, water, and noise pollution

I can't say much about a) because I don't know much about it, but it's not unusual for big corps or anyone with good accountants/connections to have reduced income taxes. I'd need to know the specifics, which is not included in the article, but for the argument's sake, let assume this is the case.

b) Lower than average sale taxes are more than offset by a multitude of local taxes and fees, so as far as I concern, this doesn't apply. (at least in the states I familiar with)

c) is a bit tricky, because there's the phrase "and motoriosts" -- while one may consider pipelines to be an oil industry subsidy, without them there would be more traffic hauling gasoline and the price could be somewhat higher too. I honestly believe that many of these programs benefit everyone, including consumers, the govt, and the oil companies.

d) as for environmental costs -- corn growing isn't without its own issues, so you need to show that they are significantly less harmful than the environmental cost of producing gasoline.

 

Sorry, I consider this blanket statement a plain BS. What is untrue about this, for instance: "Last year ethanol production used 12 percent of the U.S. corn harvest, but it replaced only 2.8 percent of the nation's gasoline consumption." (I could pick many other statements)

Proof please.

Nope. Because some people (countries) are willing to pay that much.

 

Once upon a time oil probably cost 10 cents per barrel but all the easily accessible oil has been used up. There is still lots of oil out there but it isnt gettin easier to get out of the ground.

As for ethanol attracting water, it is true that alchohol attracts moisture. If your storage tanks and fuels systems are sealed I dont see how this can be an issue. I dont have any problems with water accumulating in my beer and theres alchohol in there.

Sure milage isnt as good using E85 in a standard engine but if it is built for E85 milage will improve plus E85 is about 50 cents per gallon cheaper in my area so its all a wash.

Even if we use all the corn produced in the US to be turned in to ethanol it will not be enough to replace oil. If we can reduce our dependency of foreign oil by as little as 25% I think that would be a very good thing.

Overall using ethanol is much more economical since it supports our own people and keeps jobs in this country. In my opinion it makes more sense to invest in ethanol than trying to figure out how to make cars run on hydrogen or dilithium crystals or whatnot. And dont forget since we are all Ford guys, the first Model T was designed to run on ethanol.

 

I think that the truth about ethanol is that we don't know the truth about ethanoll. We've had a 100 + years of petroleum based vehicles -- and quite a few less for ethanol in any mass quantities.

Is it hard on engines? -- yes, it requires various special parts -- just like unleaded did. That's why they pay engineers.

Will it be cost effective? -- nobody really knows yet. The technology is still developing, and there are a number of projects trying to use non food sources. Even if corn is the answer -- I doubt that we have all available farmland under cultivation.

My point is, I'm glad that we're exploring various alternative ( there's a coal effort going on as well). I also expect that it will cost something to develop them. The alternative seems to be to rely on increasingly unstable sources .
( I don't know if it's the oil companies, the Arabs, or a fact of life, but we could use a little energy competition.

I'm just hoping that something works.

BTW the Model T was an FFV! Gasoline supplies were a lot less reliable in those days.

ford2go