Ethanol, the Perfect Home Remedy for A Saudi Oil Fever

[Marc J. Rauch + 53]

43 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Deflect deflect deflect. Sounds like a politician or a snake oil salesman. Take your pick. 

Oil companies go broke, but they're not handed MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES AND MANDATES! Going broke with all that free cash and largesse takes real (non) talent. 

"You" have proven? Well that just about puts it to bed doesn't it? Please explain oh wise one, why auto companies market flex fuel vehicles? Why they warn AGAINST running high ethanol content fuel? Hint, it doesn't have one thing to do with spark plugs, but EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE ENGINE INCLUDING COMPUTERS, TIMING AND COMPONENTS. But yeah, I'm sure a self appointed "expert" like you understands what a deteriorated fuel hose can do to a hot engine. 

I'm not flying an airplane running ethanol. I like to know when my bingo fuel hits, not have to constantly adjust for the 60% losses. Publicity stunts don't count. I fly from someplace TO someplace, not take off and land in front of cameras pretending I've accomplished something. 

I don't hate ethanol, in fact I plan to drink some tonight. I'm just against BS peddlers. 

 

I'm what I am, Ward, I don't disguise my identity as an owner of The Auto Channel. I provide access to the resources that support my position. I provide information about my personal experience on the subject matter. I provide an enormous book for free that deatils everything I say about ethanol.

The snake oil salesmen are those who "sell" fake information. For example, you tried to make some idiotic point about ethanol companies going broke, as if it means something. So I supplied you with 3 (out of many) links to show how oil companies are not subject to the same financial conclusion, and if you looked at the links, you'd have seen that one story alone talked about more than 300 oil companies going broke that year.

Then, because you want to continue to prove your ignorance, you write, "Oil companies go broke, but they're not handed MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES AND MANDATES! Going broke with all that free cash and largesse takes real (non) talent."

You clearly don't know the history of the oil industry and how gasoline and diesel fuel became the primary engine fuels. It's all because of government subsidies, mandates, restrictions on competitive fuels, and largesse such as the U.S. military acting as the oil industry's private security force for free. You know how many American servicemen and women have died protecting the ethanol industry? NONE! You know how many died protecting the oil industry? MILLIONS.

An "expert" like me has proven that all ICE of all vehicles of all model years can use ethanol...well, me, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the Argonne National Laboratory, Ricardo Laboratories, Standard Oil, Cities Service Oil, the British Government, the German Government, the French Government, and all the car companies who sell the same vehicles in Brazil that they sell in North America, Europe, and Asia (basically, this is all the car companies).

You responded to my airplane reply with more stupid non-information. You made the statement that airplanes can't use ethanol. I gave you the name of a company that specifically makes airplanes that run on ethanol. I also then gave you the URL of a video of a plane that uses ethanol. At that same air show I also videotaped jets using jet fuel, and planes using aviation gasoline, so does that mean that the F-15s use jet fuel just as a stunt?

If you hate BS peddlers, you should hate yourself.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

5 minutes ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

I'm what I am, Ward, I don't disguise my identity as an owner of The Auto Channel. I provide access to the resources that support my position. I provide information about my personal experience on the subject matter. I provide an enormous book for free that deatils everything I say about ethanol.

The snake oil salesmen are those who "sell" fake information. For example, you tried to make some idiotic point about ethanol companies going broke, as if it means something. So I supplied you with 3 (out of many) links to show how oil companies are not subject to the same financial conclusion, and if you looked at the links, you'd have seen that one story alone talked about more than 300 oil companies going broke that year.

Then, because you want to continue to prove your ignorance, you write, "Oil companies go broke, but they're not handed MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES AND MANDATES! Going broke with all that free cash and largesse takes real (non) talent."

You clearly don't know the history of the oil industry and how gasoline and diesel fuel became the primary engine fuels. It's all because of government subsidies, mandates, restrictions on competitive fuels, and largesse such as the U.S. military acting as the oil industry's private security force for free. You know how many American servicemen and women have died protecting the ethanol industry? NONE! You know how many died protecting the oil industry? MILLIONS.

An "expert" like me has proven that all ICE of all vehicles of all model years can use ethanol...well, me, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the Argonne National Laboratory, Ricardo Laboratories, Standard Oil, Cities Service Oil, the British Government, the German Government, the French Government, and all the car companies who sell the same vehicles in Brazil that they sell in North America, Europe, and Asia (basically, this is all the car companies).

You responded to my airplane reply with more stupid non-information. You made the statement that airplanes can't use ethanol. I gave you the name of a company that specifically makes airplanes that run on ethanol. I also then gave you the URL of a video of a plane that uses ethanol. At that same air show I also videotaped jets using jet fuel, and planes using aviation gasoline, so does that mean that the F-15s use jet fuel just as a stunt?

If you hate BS peddlers, you should hate yourself.

You've proven yourself to be a tool. I'm not going to dispute that. You've been rude and you've continued to deflect as if saying, "someone else did something too so nyah nyah!" constitutes an intelligent argument. 

Here's a source that backs me up, called the US government. Read it and weep

https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/ethanol_handbook.pdf

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

27 minutes ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

Ward Smith posted lie after lie,

He did no such thing.   

To post a "lie," the poster has to have personal aforeknowledge that the post is flagrantly untruthful, that he knows it to be untruthful, and dos so anyway in order to advance an agenda of deceit.  Now, you can say whatever you want to say, but that descriptive does not apply to Mr. Smith.  He is a serious industry professional and he states what he believes to be the case.  Do not stoop to disagreeing with someone by calling him a "liar."  

Marc, you are an intelligent man, you know better.  You belittle yourself by going there.  You would be better off to respond with:  "I think you are misinformed as to how ethanol fits into the road transport fuel picture."   Calling someone a Liar is vulgar.  Nuff said.

[James Regan + 1,776]

@Zhong Lu Remember the discussion about stereotyping online, I have been respectfully converted, thank you for your insights and info apparently you can bracket certain types of people.

Respect 

[Guest]

Haha Zhong has so many comments coming his way

[James Regan + 1,776]

[ronwagn + 6,290]

15 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

And in other ethanol news...

https://www.bellperformance.com/blog/the-major-differences-between-ethanol-and-gasoline

https://www.bellperformance.com/blog/the-major-differences-between-ethanol-and-gasoline

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2019/08/11/this-is-what-is-wrong-with-the-ethanol-industry/#1cd9e28117b8

Add this article. Makes sense to me. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2019/08/15/how-to-fix-the-ethanol-industry/#3fd8e7907756 Basically just let the corn growing states promote their ethanol within their own states. I would add neighboring states. 

Brazil has proven that high ethanol blends and straight ethanol are good fuels. The oil industry is very biased in its own favor. 

Edited September 17, 2019 by ronwagn

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

2 hours ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

Buy the way, I was asked by the administrators of this site to post stories. I didn't happen along.

This is true.  Marc was invited early on to post here by the site admin.

I was also approached early on by the site admin to be a volunteer moderator, due to my 3 years as a mod on Oilpro.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

My suggestion is if you don't like Marc's threads about ethanol, don't read them.

Problem (mostly) solved.

I really don't want to lock this thread due to a food fight.

Too many intelligent people needlessly antagonizing each other.  Chill out a bit please.  That includes everyone, you too, Marc.  Dissent is allowed here.

A reminder from the "About Me" section of my profile on this forum:

*** Important !   I do *not* expect others to agree with my opinions.  I tend to have rather unusual opinions about international Oil & Gas.  I *do* hope that readers will fearlessly voice their own views about international oil & gas.

As a former moderator on the Oilpro forum, (and now a moderator here on the Oil Price Community forum) I *encourage* dissent, and *encourage* Freedom of Speech, and *encourage* others to freely voice their views and convictions about oil & gas. 

A diversity of global views is what makes the world a special place.  Conformity is just a slow, painful death of not speaking your mind.  So SPEAK UP.  Please don't be a jerk about about it, though.  If you want others to consider your views, please be willing to consider the views of others.

Let's work together to make the Oil Price Community forum the Number 1 Oil & Gas forum on the internet.

Cheers, Mate.

[Guest]

Agreed.

Anyway, back to potential war..?  Rather more important.

#shooty

[ronwagn + 6,290]

14 hours ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

I co-own the Internet's oldest and largest automotive information website. I produce and publish content related to the automotive and transportation industries. Included in this is lifestyle information that is relative to these industries. We don't get paid to publish content about General Motors or Ford or BMW or any specific fuel or car wax. You say what I write is drivel and you made other similar comments, yet you are unable to post anything that contradicts what I've written. The drivel comes from your keyboard, not mine.

https://www.theautochannel.com/news/2018/01/05/485480-marc-rauch-auto-channel-s-co-founder-to-speak-national.html

[Marc J. Rauch + 53]

4 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

My suggestion is if you don't like Marc's threads about ethanol, don't read them.

Problem (mostly) solved.

I really don't want to lock this thread due to a food fight.

Too many intelligent people needlessly antagonizing each other.  Chill out a bit please.  That includes everyone, you too, Marc.  Dissent is allowed here.

A reminder from the "About Me" section of my profile on this forum:

*** Important !   I do *not* expect others to agree with my opinions.  I tend to have rather unusual opinions about international Oil & Gas.  I *do* hope that readers will fearlessly voice their own views about international oil & gas.

As a former moderator on the Oilpro forum, (and now a moderator here on the Oil Price Community forum) I *encourage* dissent, and *encourage* Freedom of Speech, and *encourage* others to freely voice their views and convictions about oil & gas. 

A diversity of global views is what makes the world a special place.  Conformity is just a slow, painful death of not speaking your mind.  So SPEAK UP.  Please don't be a jerk about about it, though.  If you want others to consider your views, please be willing to consider the views of others.

Let's work together to make the Oil Price Community forum the Number 1 Oil & Gas forum on the internet.

Cheers, Mate.

I love the dissent, I relish it. I'm from Brooklyn!

 

[Annette Hunter + 3]

Ethanol is a farm subsidy. It's no practical solution to energy independence. The real and permanent solution is electric vehicles.

You can pull out every redherring 'what about-ism' in the world. But in the end the numbers work far better than ethanol.

We are 100% self reliant for electrical power. We can choose to be 100% self reliant for battery minerals.
 

[Guest]

Bonus points for ''what about-ism''  - I'm using that    

[SERWIN + 749]

I have been running ethanol(10%) in my lawn mower for over ten years now and it doesn't seem to have affected it yet, it was made in the late 90's before ethanol was available.....fires right up and cuts the grass every week!

[Marc J. Rauch + 53]

21 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

He did no such thing.   

To post a "lie," the poster has to have personal aforeknowledge that the post is flagrantly untruthful, that he knows it to be untruthful, and dos so anyway in order to advance an agenda of deceit.  Now, you can say whatever you want to say, but that descriptive does not apply to Mr. Smith.  He is a serious industry professional and he states what he believes to be the case.  Do not stoop to disagreeing with someone by calling him a "liar."  

Marc, you are an intelligent man, you know better.  You belittle yourself by going there.  You would be better off to respond with:  "I think you are misinformed as to how ethanol fits into the road transport fuel picture."   Calling someone a Liar is vulgar.  Nuff said.

To be a "liar," one has to know the truth and then decide to convey information that is contrary to the truth. But a "lie" doesn't magically become the "truth" or become a "non-lie" simply because someone doesn't know the truth. A lie is a lie, just as a tree falling in a deserted forest still makes a sound. And so the teller of the lie is guilty by association. A simple "sorry, I didn't know that" when presented with the correct information suffices to smooth things over when it is an inadvertent lie (the word "sorry" isn't even necessary). 

More to the point, the lies weren't posted as if they were in search of the truth, they were posted as if they were the truth, as if the person had some knowledge of the subject matter, and he compounded the problem by using additional non-truths. I think that if you search back to my earlier replies about this, that I comment on this point. I'm delighted to explain "how ethanol fits into the road transport fuel picture," in fact, as I've mentioned a few times already, I published a 641-page book that does just this, and I provide free access to the book!

How's that for an intelligent guy?

P.S. I have no problem being vulgar, I'm from Brooklyn.

[Marc J. Rauch + 53]

2 hours ago, Annette Hunter said:

Ethanol is a farm subsidy. It's no practical solution to energy independence. The real and permanent solution is electric vehicles.

You can pull out every redherring 'what about-ism' in the world. But in the end the numbers work far better than ethanol.

We are 100% self reliant for electrical power. We can choose to be 100% self reliant for battery minerals.
 

The future is electric vehicles. The key word is "future." The future is not 2020, or 2030, or 2040, or 2050. It's probably closer to 75 or 100 years from today. I'll be dead by then. Many, if not most of the people posting on Oilprice.com will also be gone. So the reality for us is that there is no future for a world in which electric passenger vehicles are the dominant transportation vehicles.

In the meantime, there is serious pollution caused by petroleum oil fuels; there are illnesses caused by petroleum oil fuel emissions; there are wars fought over control and access to crude oil. By the way, you'll notice that I didn't even say anything about catastrophic man-made warming/cooling, which I don't believe is happening. So, until 75 or 100 years from today, why not use a fuel that is safer, cleaner, healthier, cheaper, and does not cause wars because it can be produced by anyone any where in the world from various raw materials?

One more thing, at this time, we are not "100% self reliant for battery materials." We rely on materials from enemy countries, and/or slave labor in Africa.

[Annette Hunter + 3]

2 hours ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

The future is electric vehicles. The key word is "future." The future is not 2020, or 2030, or 2040, or 2050. It's probably closer to 75 or 100 years from today. I'll be dead by then. Many, if not most of the people posting on Oilprice.com will also be gone. So the reality for us is that there is no future for a world in which electric passenger vehicles are the dominant transportation vehicles.

In the meantime, there is serious pollution caused by petroleum oil fuels; there are illnesses caused by petroleum oil fuel emissions; there are wars fought over control and access to crude oil. By the way, you'll notice that I didn't even say anything about catastrophic man-made warming/cooling, which I don't believe is happening. So, until 75 or 100 years from today, why not use a fuel that is safer, cleaner, healthier, cheaper, and does not cause wars because it can be produced by anyone any where in the world from various raw materials?

One more thing, at this time, we are not "100% self reliant for battery materials." We rely on materials from enemy countries, and/or slave labor in Africa.

You can walk into a show room and drive away with an electric car. In 2021 with one of several electric pickup trucks. Total cost of ownership is already lower. Pure production cost is likely lower by mid decade.

We can choose to be fully self reliant for battery and motor minerals. We have not yet chosen to do so.
 https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/New-Wyoming-Lithium-Deposit-could-Meet-all-U.S.-Demand.html
 https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/cobalt-deposits-in-the-united-states
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Pass_rare_earth_mine
 All other minerals are common every day metals.

"Cobalt is only available from mines using child slaves in Africa". Congo is just one source of Cobalt, only a small portion is conflict Cobalt. Apply this logic to all products? Some steel somewhere is made unethically? Some ethanol somewhere is made unethically?

Edited September 17, 2019 by Annette Hunter

[Marc J. Rauch + 53]

1 hour ago, Annette Hunter said:

You can walk into a show room and drive away with an electric car. In 2021 with one of several electric pickup trucks. Total cost of ownership is already lower. Pure production cost is likely lower by mid decade.

We can choose to be fully self reliant for battery and motor minerals. We have not yet chosen to do so.
 https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/New-Wyoming-Lithium-Deposit-could-Meet-all-U.S.-Demand.html
 https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/cobalt-deposits-in-the-united-states
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Pass_rare_earth_mine
 All other minerals are common every day metals.

"Cobalt is only available from mines using child slaves in Africa". Congo is just one source of Cobalt, only a small portion is conflict Cobalt. Apply this logic to all products? Some steel somewhere is made unethically? Some ethanol somewhere is made unethically?

I didn't say or suggest that EV cars are not available right now. I co-own the Internet's oldest and largest automotive information resource, so I know this very well. Electric vehicles have always been available. But this isn't the point, the point is getting to the time in which electric vehicles are meaningful, when they are the dominant road vehicle or the only road vehicles.

Yes, the Congo is just one source of cobalt, another is Zambia. Things are much, much better there. And then there's Morocco, Russia, and China, all countries known for their excellent working environments. 🙂

Edited September 18, 2019 by Marc J. Rauch

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 9/15/2019 at 7:06 PM, Marc J. Rauch said:

 

 

Yesterday's drone air attacks on Saudi Arabia's oil facilities are threatening to disrupt the status quo of the world's oil markets and push the price of oil back to $100 per barrel, or perhaps higher. Oil prices on Friday were around $54 per barrel, therefore a rise to $100 is basically a doubling of the price. Shortly after the attacks, Robert Rapier wrote a story for Forbes.com titled "Attacks In Saudi Arabia Are A Recipe For $100 Oil." I think Robert could be correct on the prediction.

This is disconcerting news for more than just the obvious end result of driving up the price of gasoline to consumers. A report I read says that the attacks will force of cut of the Saudi production to 50% of it's normal supply. The same report says that Saudi Arabia supplies 5% of the world's oil. If this is true, it means that just 2.5% of the worlds supply is effected (half of 5% is 2.5%, right). Yet, this small 2.5% could lead to a 100% increase in price.

This sure seems overdone. Why would such a small impact have such a huge rippling impact?

The answer is because the oil industry is a highly manipulated monopoly; manipulated by OPEC and by commodity speculators. If the price goes up tonight (Sunday night, for Monday's bidding) as expected, it will all be because of speculators and OPEC, not because of reality. Robert Rapier used the term "fear premium" in his editorial to describe the situation. I think this is a good term to use.

An attack on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, or Iraq, or Venezuela, or the Russian oil fields should mean nothing to the rest of the world. It should warrant a passing remark on local news broadcasts, like a 10 car pile-up accident on the other side of the globe, but nothing more. And certainly, the incident shouldn't be the cause for any heightened U.S. military action...but you know this won't be the case.

Once again, the world is at the mercy of the oil industry.

And once again, ethanol is the perfect home remedy to the fever caused by this "fear premium."

Ethanol can be produced practically anywhere, from a variety of resources. Fortunately for America, we have a pretty great ethanol industry that's ready to supply the remedy to the fever. Fortunately for the rest of the world, they can have easy safe access to American ethanol if they're not already producing their own ethanol now.

We know that E27 is safe and economical for all internal combustion engine vehicles; Brazil has proven this. We know that E30 can be just as safe and even more economical than E27. Tests conducted over the years have proven this.

One result of the 1973 Oil Crisis was the federal legislation that ordered highways driving speeds restricted to 55 mph. That was a dumb move because what it really restricted was commerce. A great piece of federal legislation right now would be to require all gasoline to contain 30% ethanol. Canada should do the same, all of Europe should do the same, Australia and New Zealand should do the same, the rest of Asia should do the same.

Two things would happen if we moved to E30: America and much of the rest of the world would get out from under the fear caused by foreign oil domination, and the air we breathe would get much cleaner.

Wait, one other thing would happen: the national economies of those countries producing their own domestic ethanol would improve.

It's funny how a little alcohol has been a great remedy for thousands of years.

Do the math for the amount of corn it would take to make reasonable contributions to energy. It doesn't work at all. I've wondered if we could make use of the corn in its totality with some sort of advanced water-gas shift process, but I've yet to find somebody who can discuss this with me. The end objective would be methyl alcohol, but I haven't delved in far enough to find the changes in enthalpy, which would determine the thermodynamic practicality of the process. 

Furthermore... I need reasonably priced corn to feed my steers. Too much ethanol means my profit margins get tight. 

Edited September 18, 2019 by KeyboardWarrior

[Marc J. Rauch + 53]

42 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Do the math for the amount of corn it would take to make reasonable contributions to energy. It doesn't work at all. I've wondered if we could make use of the corn in its totality with some sort of advanced water-gas shift process, but I've yet to find somebody who can discuss this with me. The end objective would be methyl alcohol, but I haven't delved in far enough to find the changes in enthalpy, which would determine the thermodynamic practicality of the process. 

Furthermore... I need reasonably priced corn to feed my steers. Too much ethanol means my profit margins get tight. 

I've done the math, and David Blume has done the math, and lots of others have done the math. This is laid out in my 641-page book that you can read online for free. Find the book at https://www.theautochannel.com/news/2018/10/12/632678-ethanol-papers-massive-book-provides-whole-story-ethanol-fuel-free.html then go to pages 597- 599. Go to the paragraph that begins with "Land Ho...Ha, Ha, Ha."

Keep in mind that this only refers to corn being used for ethanol. So, when you consider other crops that can be used, from sorghum to sugar cane to sugar beets to Jerusalem artichokes to buffalo gourds to seaweed, We could easily produce enough ethanol to replace all petroleum oil fuels, plus all other items made from oil, such as plastics and rubbers.

You can feed your steers wet or dry distillers grains, all without it impacting on the volume of ethanol production.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 hour ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

I've done the math, and David Blume has done the math, and lots of others have done the math. This is laid out in my 641-page book that you can read online for free. Find the book at https://www.theautochannel.com/news/2018/10/12/632678-ethanol-papers-massive-book-provides-whole-story-ethanol-fuel-free.html then go to pages 597- 599. Go to the paragraph that begins with "Land Ho...Ha, Ha, Ha."

Keep in mind that this only refers to corn being used for ethanol. So, when you consider other crops that can be used, from sorghum to sugar cane to sugar beets to Jerusalem artichokes to buffalo gourds to seaweed, We could easily produce enough ethanol to replace all petroleum oil fuels, plus all other items made from oil, such as plastics and rubbers.

You can feed your steers wet or dry distillers grains, all without it impacting on the volume of ethanol production.

I'll look into this further. I do wonder, however, if our soils won't be able to handle a surge in crop production for the sake of energy UNLESS farmers start taking a serious initiative to restore organic matter and soil health. I should put a little disclaimer on my comment about feed. I'm not really that concerned about the price of corn because like you pointed out, there's plenty of rationing options. In addition to this, we're registered organic and are feeding grass almost exclusively. Barley, rye, alfalfa and the rest. 

Edited September 18, 2019 by KeyboardWarrior

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 hour ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

I've done the math, and David Blume has done the math, and lots of others have done the math. This is laid out in my 641-page book that you can read online for free. Find the book at https://www.theautochannel.com/news/2018/10/12/632678-ethanol-papers-massive-book-provides-whole-story-ethanol-fuel-free.html then go to pages 597- 599. Go to the paragraph that begins with "Land Ho...Ha, Ha, Ha."

Keep in mind that this only refers to corn being used for ethanol. So, when you consider other crops that can be used, from sorghum to sugar cane to sugar beets to Jerusalem artichokes to buffalo gourds to seaweed, We could easily produce enough ethanol to replace all petroleum oil fuels, plus all other items made from oil, such as plastics and rubbers.

You can feed your steers wet or dry distillers grains, all without it impacting on the volume of ethanol production.

Ok.. after looking around I've found the following:

 If the entirety of United States corn was used to produce ethanol, it would only displace 25% of gasoline consumption (a figure quite similar to the one I calculated in my free time a while back). If we throw in all other crops capable of producing fuel, I'm not sure if we'd even reach 100%. Furthermore, this is obviously a ridiculous scenario since we need the majority of our crops for food related use. Are you suggesting that we significantly increase arable land and corn yields nationwide? Perhaps a massive desalination project and the deserts to the west would suffice lol. 

 

 

[Guest]

 

Even the Amish like Trump.

Just sayin'

Edited September 18, 2019 by Guest

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

2 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

 

Even the Amish like Trump.

Just sayin'

2020 election looks pretty bleak for the left wing