My whole point was that fertilizer isn't chemical in that it doesn't create toxic waste zones. Even chemical based fertilizers provide basic nutrients which if they are used in moderation, will not create dead zones but more plant food. I was teasing you about being a greenpeace member only because of you education level regarding fertilizer. Nutrients increase eutriphocation for an increase in plant and animal life. In the ocean the deadzone acts as a heavily concentrated food source. To my knowledge alot of sea water has low nutrient levels and is very clear, this requires alot of fish live their lives in bare, open water. The ideal nutrient levels that still allow for plenty of dissolved oxygen is alot higher than many people would think. Plus it's not exactly pretty to look at it but it means more fish per acre.

Yes, monsterbaby you may be correct in your literal interpretation. But to me it's done in good humor defending a farmer from angry commuters. Back in my old town, where I still drive through everyday, it's not uncommon to see farm equipment driving on the county roads just outside of city limits. I respect the farmer enough to not give him a hard time about it. But I must also add it is rare and therefore within good reason for the farmers to use the paved roads and usually just during planting or harvest time. It's used by farmers but their courteous and use paved road as little as possible here. My point is not that they have the right to hog both lanes but there's no need to give em a hard time if they're trying to go as fast as they can without taking to much of the road. We get the occasional tractor and harvester on highway 62 and most people are more than willing to give them some road so long as they give plenty of room to pass by in the fastlane. One time I was stuck behind a harvester and he was fishtailing on the shoulder because half of his tires were off of the road. Most farmers here haul there grain via large semi's which is better but still takes alot of road and creates more traffic.

My thought on farm subsidies is that it became a requirement in government economic policy after the depression because of the dustbowl in the midwest. It was just last week in my history US post 1865 that the proffessor was talking about the 110th meridan and how there wasn't sufficient rainfall to support farming following the mass exodus west after the civil war. Well, that's where we get a large chunk of our corn is what I was thinking. But in retrospect the base reason is how badly a depression in our farm industry affects the entire country. Taking precautions and measures that always keep farming in the black even during recessions is very important to this country. Stability is key.

We're not as dependent on agriculture these days as we used to be. But if all farm subsidies were removed there would be a short time period and then a major depression which would be directly decided by how much effect subsidies actually had. Decreasing farm subsidies is an alternative so there is less market shock, finding more uses for farm crops that decrease farmer's reliance on subsides would help, but totally removing subsides in such a heavily subsidized industry would cause a major crash and a long recover period. Government policy is pretty simplistic once you write it all out on paper. What they're basically doing is pumping more money into the farming industry. You guys have that all worked out in your heads? I say this not to belittle you but I just want to make sure we're reading from the same page here.

Ethanol is a product that can increase farm crops value. How much is probably still up for debate but whether it is a net increase or a net decrease is the real issue.

 

Study: Ethanol May Add Emissions
http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...711184,00.html

 

I just read about that in a similar article in the Wall Street Journal. This is indeed a point I didn't even consider. Not impressed, this is just another mockjob without support. Abstract here: The WSJ displays a chart claiming it will take 93 years to get a benefit in reduced carbon emission by switching grasslands to corn based ethanol production, 40 years for converting abandoned farm land, and 1 year to benefit from converting abandoned farm land to switchgrass based cellulosic ethanol. Basically this just comfirms what everyone already should know, grain based ethanol is just a means to get to the cellulosic end of biofuels. Corn based ethanol is quoted as emitting 20% less CO2 while cellulosic corn emits 70% fewer CO2, and I think it was getting at switchgrass based cellulosic ethanol as 95% fewer carbon emissions. +-2% error rate.

Hey I can do that too:
Oil companies are desperate for anti-biofuel studies:

We can quote any bit of nonsense we want on the internet but we're going to use more facts instead of media based fiction before we'll get anywhere.

I have read some second hand reports of decent FE using ethanol mixtures but nothing proven through scientific testing. All of the tests are muddled because you/they can't just run a gallon of gasoline then ethanol then gasoline again. Most people that I've read, ran a full tank of fuel(either gasoline or ethanol) and then posted their mpg. Usually it varied quite a bit from person to person. But city driving and highway driving can vary by 10%-30% in the same vehicle. That pretty much covers up any difference in fuel.

I think we could go for biofuels like ethanol if we increased our fuel efficiency via better driving styles, plugin hybrid electric vehicles, and simply buying/building more efficient vehicles for everyone(similar to the 30k mile motor law in Japan). It would be worth it in reduced carbon but the cost vs benefit is still pretty high until cellulosic ethanol matures. Especially since hybrids are still pretty high cost for their benefit and with battery technology being the way it is.

All these anti-biofuel studies succeed in doing is to reinforce that fact that people out there are still heavily opposed to this kind of change. Gasoline is not the cheapest, cleanest, or most efficient fuel out there. Infact it's terrible, but its easier and cheaper right now to stick with what we are already using. At least thats what this article exposes. No new info here. Although it is being plastered all over the place. It only bothersome to me because I cannot offer anything substantial either way, it's all talk for me.

 

oil companies love ethanol, they just don't want you to use it in 85% strength. The reason the petro industry is not fighting ethanol is because they make huge, beyond obscenity, dollars from it. The petro industry will battle with all their might against 85% eth, but they all are more than happy to sell E 10 & E20. They would really rather you didn't have E85, however, because they are terrrifed that the general public might realize there really ARE alternatives to their product.
Lets talk about ethanol's supposed infrastructure problem for a moment- why do you suppose that ethanol doesn't go through a pipeline like petro products do ? In my state, Michigan, it is because, and only because, the pipelines are owned by a consortium of petro companies and they don't want to let it go through. Our Gov't could and should force them to let it go through. Those pipelines are not private property as some would have you believe, they are corporately owned. And corporations, according to the US Supreme Court, are deemed to be incorporated for the public good- see Hale V Hinkle, it is a famous case.
Let's talk about efficiency for a moment. There are some on this board who can count BTUs but don't understand Flame speed or thermal efficiency. Yes, gasoline is more energy dense, that alone doesn't make it a better fuel choice. White Oak ( Quercus Alba ) also has a greater density than ethanol, it is even better than gasoline, but I don't think it will work in our trucks fuel systems. At .43, ethanol, vs .34, gasoline, the alcohols faster burn rate means less of the heat you have is pumped out the tailpipe as waste. Faster is better in this case. Most gasoline engines have between 20-25% thermal efficiency. Alcohol engines can get over 40%. Lets see now.......25% of 120K btu gasoline gives 30K of useable work. And our gallon of ethanol, at 80K, burnt at 40% gives us what ~32K btus of work ? Sure looks like ethanol wins to me. So, is it do-able in an everyday auto or pickup truck ? Yes, it is, and has already been done. Repeatedly. By children in engineering colleges. Some of our ethanol doubters might like to look up the results of the 'Ethanol vehicle challenge' Some of the corn areas used to hold, in the late 90's a competition to see what could be achieved if a standard gasoline engine were modified to take advantage of ethanols abilities. The teams that won these tests made more power, accellerated faster, AND got better miles per gallon of fuel than the trucks did when originally built for gasoline.
Now, just a bit about nuclear power. If done carefully and thoughtfully, it would be great. The biggest problem with them is that they have all that waste heat left over........what to do, what to do ? How about putting a distillery next to the nuke plant ? One of the complainst against ethanol is the heat input required in the current distillation process. One of the big resistances against nukes is all that leftover heat. Seems like a wonderful matchup to me.
Could we do it ? Sure we could. Think about the US of A during the 2nd world war. We went from zero to 600 million gallons of ethanol in just 6 months. Because we needed it, because we had to, because we wanted to win. What if that drive and intensity were focused on the latest ethanol from garbage and bacteria processes ? The one and only reason that sort of work is not proceeding full speed ahead at this time is oil industry hegemony. that's the end of tonight's rant. see you guys tomorrow. DinosaurFan, on work's old 'puter

 

I did post a link a while ago to the corn growers association web page, where they say that they'll be able to produce about 10% of the US fuel in something like 15 - 25 years.

But 10% is not a viable alternative. A supplement, at best.

And I'm willing to bet the real number is much less than that, maybe 5%, or less.

 

2 cents

5% is enough to affect the price of oil and to get OPECs attention. OPEC does control the price of oil. We don't need to replace oil for many years.

The sudden political interest (subsidies etc.) in ethanol is a no brainer - the GOP (Sen. Grassly) saw an easy way to increase the Ag Bussiness while pleasing the Greenies. The Dems can't vote against alternative fuels. Easy win.

Subsidies, tariffs, welfare, tax, they all suck at the GDP. They all have reasons for creation beyond redistribution of weath. The problem is after one is created, you can't get rid of it.

My opinion, corn ethanol isn't the perfect fuel, likely never will be financially viable, but it surely is a step in the right direction. Ethanol production is new to big business in the US and surely will become much more efficient in a short amount of time. Subsidies kick started it, but now we, as tax payers are stuck with another burden we will never rid ourselves.

 

Ethanol production is not new to big business in the US. Back in the 1980s several corn based ethanol plants where built in the midwest. Once the federal subsidies dried up, most of them closed down. They where among the first to reopen when the federal dollars came flooding back in. There are not a lot of efficiencies to be gained in what is actually a very mature method of production.

 

Alladin, I wouldn't call ethanol production 'mature' . But it certainly isn't new, either. Ethanol was widely produced and sold, with turpentine added, as an illuminant. In the 1830s. The first internal combustion engines ran on ethanol. There was no gasoline stations on every corner at the time. Gasoline became the dominant fuel only because of efforts by men like Rockafeller and his desire to control the market. It does not now, nor has it ever been, because gasoline is better. Take one of Prf Kovarik's history classes at Radford. You might be surprised at what you learn. Yes ethanol has been produced a long time. Cellulsic ethanol was actually begun in Russia in the mid 1940s, they needed the fuel for the war. So that isn't new either. Lets compare, just for a moment, the steel industry with ethanol. In the last one hundred years the steel industry has been able to reduce the amount of water they need to manufacture steel by a factor of 100. 'mature' industries can still improve dramatically. Some of ethanol's nay-sayers need to stop worrying about corn and look instead at sweet potatoes, sugar beets, and weizermann yeast. DinosaurFan, on work's old 'puter

 

All I am saying Dino is that if there where not government subsidy money involved, the current ethanol boom would not have happened. The economics are just not there right now. Things may change. Processes can be improved, pricing can change, but today, ethanol without government money is a nonstarter.

 

Aladin, I completely agree with that last statement. But, by the time it is economically viable without gov. funds, we will already be in a predicament. Discovering the tech for the future, even if it isn't financially practical now is the key to heading off an energy nightmare.

Also, you bring up exactly what I couldn't get my thoughts around. It is a very mature method of production. So is the tech not out there for an entirely new method of distillation? Should we not look?

As for my big business statement, a few plants then are not comparable to the capitalistic steamroller that has been set in motion now. It has been predicted that they are overbuilding plants and supply will overcome demand within a few years. Hmmm. The market always will correct itself.

Also I refered to all ethanol, not just corn based (I was also thinking any fuel alternatives, methanol, whatever.)

Honestly, I'm a casual study on the case of ethanol. But I firmly believe in the ingenuity of man. Electricity, the airplane, nuclear energy, etc, etc, - bigger nuts have been cracked with less tech.

 

The one story that is proved is the Smokey Yunick vehicles. Fiero & Rabbit IIRR....80 mpg and 1.1 hp per cubic inch......and no smog equipment & 90% reduction in radiator and it met all smog output through 2005!

 

Well, a page at: http://www.smokeyyunick.com/PressReleases/Smithsonian.pdf says 50+ mpg, a little shy from 80. BTW, one of the late 80's or early 90 Civic CRX had an EPA rating of 50+ mpg, and that was a production car.

Whether Smokey Yunick engine really works as claimed, I didn't find any independent and trustworthy test result.

 

Sam, we have already overbuilt. A number of plants that where slated to begin construction have been put on indefinite hold. When the current plants nearing completion come on line this summer, there will be a huge glut of excess ethanol on the market, and prices will fall.

If this country really wants to solve their dependence on foreign oil, the answer is coal. I used to work for the Department of Energy, and back in the 80's and 90's, our break even price for making liquid motor fuels out of coal was $50.00 per barrel oil. With oil less than $20.00 per barrel, I didn’t' think the process would come to commercial fruition in my working life time. I guess I was wrong about that. We have enough coal in the US</ST1 to replace all of our motor fuels for the next 300 years. If he can't figure out fusion by then, we are in trouble.<O

 

many years ago, Smokey took the Rabbit (IIRR) to an EPA test center for initial evaluation on both smog & mpg- it was televised and the the initial 5 minute session calc'd out at 80+ mpg- but we all know about those epa ratings and the remainder of the test was not shown or released. The two cars were brought not too long ago to Hot Rod or Horsepower TV's dyno...

The concept is sooo simple....

Gasoline has an auto-ignition temperature of 450 F (this is where complete combustion begins and self ignition occurs). In today's modern vehicles, we are lucky if the 25% of the fuel burns complete...incomplete combustion produces by-products (ie polution). Smokey took an impellor (similar to a turbo) and placed it iinbetween the manifold & carb., heating the fuel to about 400 degrees and by swirling the air/fuel at high speed together, vaporized (almost) the fuel. As the mix entered the combustion chamber, 90%+ of the fuel burned= almost no polution and lots of HP.

This is in essence what many professional racers do to produce high power, either change the fuel to lower the auto-ignition temperature to gain more complete combustion or heat the fuel to increase vaporization.

Smokey originally partnered with Trans America insurance to fund the project, then sold the patent/company to TA/GM with the written stipulation that the technology would be brought to market within 10 years (highly achievable).

While many of the younger gen will say "If it was even viable" or lead to similar statements, many similar type vehicles were made, and when "discovered", targeted for termination

Some examples & facts (verifiyable)

GM & Firestone co-conspired to eliminate the "Red-Car" mass-transportation system in Los Angeles to support their newly purchased bus manufacturing division

93-94% of our oil is imported (see BP state of the company report 2006)

The 1st hydrogen fueled vehicle was created in Culver City California in the late 1970's- Primary company investor was publicized as a "fraud", destroying the company. Several years of investigation by the LA DA & State Attorney general's office, nailed the book keeper on record-keeping violations but not a single criminal complaint was filed against the personnel who designed, built and marketed the vehicle (the original engineers).

Solar power- even the moon rover from the 1960's used it. Solar panels in the aerospace industry are so cheap they are considered "disposible".

Take a look at the basic business practices of GM.....

In the 1980's they purchased Hughes Aircraft Company (a good portion of it)
Fact...
Within the first year they nearly created a security related disaster- The union contract was up for renegotiations they told the HAC negotiation team to step aside...within weeks, the largest union strike to ever occur in the US DOD industry was about to occur.....At a time when Reagon was marketing the "star-wars" SDI project....3 days prior to the strike, pressure from Washington DC caused the GM team to be replaced by the HAC negotiation team- the strike was averted.

GM Replaced all HAC executives who did not agree with their business methodologies within 2-3 years.....a 6 billion dollar per year corporation was now sent into the sewer...

Executives from the missile group were convicted of attempted bribes on gov officials, falsifying missile test data (sent missiles that failed testing off to customers)- result, prohibited on bidding any contracts for the next 5 years. The division was sold to General Dynamics (about 10,000 employees, most of which were laid off)

GM executives have now admitted they have not funded any retirements funds in the past decade. Former HAC employees even lost their own retirement money- but Roger Smith and all the other senor GM exec's got their retirements & bonuses!

Let's talk about GM's semi-conductor mfg facility in Los Angeles. fact...
Using LA City re-development $, GM obtained a mfg building for 10 cents on the dollar for the purpose of putting the under priviledged to work (a nobel cause)

GM was exempted from all permits and 90% of the required infrastructure upgrades- paid by local, state & fed taxes.

600 employees at the El Segundo semi-conductor mfg were laid off.

600 new employees were hired at the new facility

Hired at 80% of the lowest wage since they were in training for the next year (allowed by labor code)

80% of those wages were reimbursed by the state & feds to GM for the 1st 18 month employment

End result.......2 years later GM closed up the facility, sent the mfg to mexico laid off all the employees and told LA City...here's your building back!

Oh, the GM Mexico operation- made the news back then too....paying workers a couple of extra bucks for each bucket of hazardous waste they take away from the plant and dispose of on their own!

Corporate America....some are very ethical, some are not...

Today this is called business resilience planning & enterprise management!

I surrender my rant now!

 

I'm not that knowledgeable on ethanol. Neither of my vehicles are designed to run on it, so I have no true experience.

I do believe thereis a government subsidy on Ethanol and its production. Does anyone know what the cost of ethanol production would be without the government subsidy? I wonder if it is still cheaper?

Just curious