Ethanol, the Perfect Home Remedy for A Saudi Oil Fever

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

13 minutes ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

Pages 597 to 599 of my book show that it is possible, and just with corn. When you factor in other crops that have annual higher ethanol yields per acre it's almost like waving a magic wand, but of course there's an enormous amount of work that has to go into the production, plus people like you who are spreading lies about ethanol have to stop and get out of the way.

If you think you found some information that show me to me wrong, present it. Don't insinuate it. What you and the others are doing is trying to pretend that you know something about this issue, but you don't. Sorry that's not the right way to say it...You know a lot about the issue, however what you know is wrong.

I look forward to your next attempt.

So, no, you never did the basic math. 

In fact, you never even tried.  You made a pile of baseless assertions

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

33 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

you will decide to put your brain where your mouth is

This comment has inappropriate tone.    Don't make me moderate you!

I expect you to edit your posting.  The Moderator.

[Marc J. Rauch + 53]

5 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

So, no, you never did the basic math. 

In fact, you never even tried.  You made a pile of baseless assertions

This is how I understand mathematics to work, if you know something different please share it with me...actually with the world. You take a number and add it, or subtract it, or multiply it, or divide it with another number, and then you arrive at another number. So, with this in mind, if you take the numbers set forth by Robert Bryce's people, and then look at the numbers from my people, you arrive at the final numbers.

Now, as I already said, if you have a different way to add/subtract/multiply/divide let me know. If you come up with a different final tally, let me know and then I'll use my way to add/subtract/multiply/divide to check your numbers.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

4 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Making a valuable product out of manure is very much to my taste!  [And don't you guys even think about doing some meme on that comment!] 

Some memes can simply be ... recycled

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

12 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Some memes can simply be ... recycled

 

I had this feeling you couldn't resist that one...........

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Just now, Jan van Eck said:

I had this feeling you couldn't resist that one...........

I'm a sucker for dares not to do something : )

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

7 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

I'm a sucker for dares not to do something : )

Incorrigible!   

"What are we to do with you, Hauptman Steiner?  You are a war hero, Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, yet you help a traitor to the Reich escape!"  [It was in the movie]

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

@Marc J. Rauch, I've given you a week to respond to a GOVERNMENT report. I see that you haven't. 

You called me a liar, and backed up YOUR assertion with… nothing. Well less than nothing, an appeal to authority that references, yourself. 

Meanwhile I'll just paste here since you were afraid to click on the link that backed EVERY ONE OF MY POINTS. 

Quote

Materials Recommendations
As with all motor fuels, it is important to maintain proper fuel handling and housekeeping practices to minimize contamination. Certain materials commonly used with gasoline may be incompatible with mid- and high-level alcohol blends.7,8 Some materials may degrade over time, potentially leading to equipment problems. They may also contaminate the fuel, which may adversely affect vehicle fuel system operation or cause component malfunction and lead to degraded driveability and performance.
Ethanol blends may impact metallic and elastomer materials in fueling systems. To address these issues, manufacturers have upgraded materials and developed products that are compatible with blends up to E25
or with blends up to E85. Many elastomer materials (primarily used as hoses and seals) have been changed in fueling equipment to accommodate a range of fuels
(including ethanol blends and ultra-low sulfur diesel) and in anticipation of additional alternative fuels entering
the market. Only ethanol-compatible materials should be used in storage and dispensing systems.
E85 acts like a cleaning agent and will initially mobilize sludge in storage tanks. E85 can also cause corrosion of some soft metals and reduce the tensile strength of some nonmetallic materials. Zinc, brass, lead, and aluminum have shown sensitivity to degradation with E85. Terne- plated steel (lead-tin alloy coating), which has been com- monly used for vehicle fuel tanks, and lead-based solder are also incompatible with E85. Use of these metals should be avoided. Unplated steel, stainless steel, black iron, and bronze have shown acceptable resistance to E85 corrosion. Blends below E25 do not cause corrosion of metals (unless accompanied by a separate aqueous phase).
Nonmetallic materials that degrade when in contact with fuel ethanol include natural rubber, polyurethane, cork gasket material, leather, polyvinyl chloride, nylon 6/6, methyl-methacrylate plastics, and certain thermoplastic and thermoset polymers. Blends below E25 may impact elastomers, and contact with E85 causes some elastomers to swell. Nonmetallic materials successfully used for trans- ferring and storing ethanol include thermoset-reinforced fiberglass, thermoplastic piping, and thermoset-reinforced fiberglass tanks (as listed for this application by UL).

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

1 hour ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

This is how I understand mathematics to work, if you know something different please share it with me...actually with the world. You take a number and add it, or subtract it, or multiply it, or divide it with another number, and then you arrive at another number. So, with this in mind, if you take the numbers set forth by Robert Bryce's people, and then look at the numbers from my people, you arrive at the final numbers.

Now, as I already said, if you have a different way to add/subtract/multiply/divide let me know. If you come up with a different final tally, let me know and then I'll use my way to add/subtract/multiply/divide to check your numbers.

Kind of hard to show something when the person you are discussion with makes a claim and never shows their numbers in their "book"... Then blithely says that Montana/N. Dakota, Kansas Texas, etc are going to magically change from dry wheat farming or no farming to Corn requiring water...  Or those in better regions will stop growing Soy beans(+ others), Rice, Sugar beets, Sugar cane, Tobacco, Peanuts, Cotton, Barley, Oats, Rapeseed are all going to stop growing these crops and start growing corn for Ethanol. 

Kind of hard to  show something when the person you are debating does not know that all that marginal farmland which is NOT being used as its soil was being destroyed quickly is going to magically grow corn without destroying the soil. 

Kind of hard to show something when the person you are debating does not know that mono cropping leads to massive soil destruction and even our current usage is destroying AG land.  As an example average soil depletion in Illinois/Iowa/Nebraska(main corn growing region) in 150 years of intensive usage resulted in ~25%-->30% soil destruction which means CURRENT usage must be closed in or grown every other year or 3 out of 4 years etc. 

Kind of hard to show something when the person you are debating makes the claim that corn bushels/acre are going to double/triple🙄 in the future and uses that as their "reasoning" for 100% ethanol economy. 

Kind of hard to show something when the person you are debating takes 100% of a corn crop and says it is indicative of using 100% of it for ethanol instead of what it is used for: Food for humans/cows/pigs/chicken/dogs/fish. 

If you were going to discuss the topic you would start by stating that since majority of people live in cities(80%) then this means the majority will be able to switch their daily driver to electric which will eliminate the need for most gasoline. 

If you were going to discuss the topic you would start by stating efficiency of conversion for ethanol to Diesel/kerosene instead of pretending it is the same as gasoline with 100% conversion factor.  Same goes for mpg of 100% Ethanol vrs gasoline.  Same goes for plastics etc.  You have to build longer hydro carbon chains.  This is not free. 

For the production of ethanol are there superior crops to corn?  if this were true, then every single farmer growing corn is a bloody fool according to you.  Uh.... Is it possible they are all stupid?  Sure, but not likely.  Buy a farm man, My relatives/neighbors aren't selling anytime soon.  Many are though as they do not have children who want to farm.  Though I have noticed after they try their hand in the city usually they come running back in their 30's/40's with wife/husband/kids in tow.  So... Go for it.  Buy a farm.  Plant magic plant and produce ethanol without destroying the soil. 

PS: if you are all for a gigantic tunneling project from the Mississippi/Columbia rivers to irrigate most of the USA plains & hinterlands... Uh ok, I am with you, but this will cost Trillions. 

[Guest]

I'm shocked he replied with insults and little else.

Shocked I tell you.

Oh wait, I stand corrected, there was yet another book plug.

Anyway. Truthbomb ...

Edited September 21, 2019 by Guest

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

6 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

I'm shocked he replied with insults and little else.

Shocked I tell you.

Oh wait, I stand corrected, there was yet another book plug.

Anyway. Truthbomb ...

That is some serious methane emissions man.  Serious! 

[Marc J. Rauch + 53]

6 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

@Marc J. Rauch, I've given you a week to respond to a GOVERNMENT report. I see that you haven't. 

You called me a liar, and backed up YOUR assertion with… nothing. Well less than nothing, an appeal to authority that references, yourself. 

Meanwhile I'll just paste here since you were afraid to click on the link that backed EVERY ONE OF MY POINTS. 

 

You write that you gave me a week... You must have done that in your mind, because all you did was post a link to a government brochure that I'm already aware of. This brochure does nothing to support any of the lies you posted. This brochure doesn't compare ethanol to gasoline, it is simply dealing with ethanol. It makes statements such as:

"As with all motor fuels, it is important to maintain proper fuel handling and housekeeping practices to minimize contamination. Certain materials commonly used with gasoline may be incompatible with mid- and high-level alcohol blends.7,8 Some materials may degrade over time, potentially leading to equipment problems. They may also contaminate the fuel, which may adversely affect vehicle fuel system operation or cause component malfunction and lead to degraded driveability and performance."

So what? Are you suggesting that this says that ethanol and only ethanol "may be incompatible" with "certain materials"? Do you think this means that gasoline and aromatics are not incompatible with "certain materials"?

Is there any place in my book or any where that I stated that ethanol is not corrosive? I've always written just the opposite. What I have always written is that all liquids are corrosive. And then I always write that ethanol is compatible with more types of rubbers, plastics, and metals than gasoline and aromatics. And to back this up, in my book and on my website I provide links to multiple databases and charts from chemical companies that displays this. Where in the DOE booklet is there information that is contrary to this?

Under the sub-heading "Materials Recommendations" the booklet states:

"Certain materials commonly used with gasoline may be incompatible with mid- and high-level alcohol blends.7,8 Some materials may degrade over time, potentially leading to equipment problems. They may also contaminate the fuel, which may adversely affect vehicle fuel system operation or cause component malfunction and lead to degraded driveability and performance."

I agree with this statement. But where in the booklet does it say that these same materials does not suffer from similar or greater degradation over time from gasoline and aromatics? This paragraph gives two resources for the information. Did you research those citations and see what materials they're referring to? Did they compare the results against gasoline or aromatics? Did they say that ethanol should not be used?

In fact, in the very next paragraph, the booklet states:

"To address these issues, manufacturers have upgraded materials and developed products that are compatible with blends up to E25 or with blends up to E85." 

What this says is that the parts (therefore the engines) are compatible with E25. So why is there any fuss about using E10 or E15 or E20 or E25?

The next paragraph has the sentence:

"Blends below E25 do not cause corrosion of metals..."

So then what's all the commotion about E15 or E20?

The next paragraph states:

"Nonmetallic materials that degrade when in contact with fuel ethanol include natural rubber, polyurethane, cork gasket material, leather, polyvinyl chloride, nylon 6/6, methyl-methacrylate plastics, and certain thermoplastic and thermoset polymers. Blends below E25 may impact elastomers, and contact with E85 causes some elastomers to swell. Nonmetallic materials successfully used for trans-ferring and storing ethanol include thermoset-reinforced fiberglass, thermoplastic piping, and thermoset-reinforced fiberglass tanks (as listed for this application by UL)."

Is there anything that states that gasoline and aromatics don't cause similar or worse degradation? No, it doesn't because gasoline and aromatics are more corrosive. And how do I know this? Because of the multiple chemical comparison databases and charts I mentioned earlier - which are listed in my book and on my website.

You didn't actually read any of the DOE booklet did you, Ward Smith?

[Guest]

6 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Kind of hard to show something ... 

Is there any way on here you can award like 10 trophies for this pure gold?

Fantastic schooling.

Edited September 21, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

6 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Food for humans/cows/pigs/chicken/dogs/fish. 

Food overrated. Duh. We'll eat the fuel, obviously. 

Edited September 21, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

You called me a liar, and backed up YOUR assertion with… nothing. Well less than nothing, an appeal to authority that references, yourself. 

 

I'm shocked Ward. I need a lie down. 

[Marc J. Rauch + 53]

6 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Kind of hard to show something when the person you are discussion with makes a claim and never shows their numbers in their "book"... Then blithely says that Montana/N. Dakota, Kansas Texas, etc are going to magically change from dry wheat farming or no farming to Corn requiring water...  Or those in better regions will stop growing Soy beans(+ others), Rice, Sugar beets, Sugar cane, Tobacco, Peanuts, Cotton, Barley, Oats, Rapeseed are all going to stop growing these crops and start growing corn for Ethanol. 

Kind of hard to  show something when the person you are debating does not know that all that marginal farmland which is NOT being used as its soil was being destroyed quickly is going to magically grow corn without destroying the soil. 

Kind of hard to show something when the person you are debating does not know that mono cropping leads to massive soil destruction and even our current usage is destroying AG land.  As an example average soil depletion in Illinois/Iowa/Nebraska(main corn growing region) in 150 years of intensive usage resulted in ~25%-->30% soil destruction which means CURRENT usage must be closed in or grown every other year or 3 out of 4 years etc. 

Kind of hard to show something when the person you are debating makes the claim that corn bushels/acre are going to double/triple🙄 in the future and uses that as their "reasoning" for 100% ethanol economy. 

Kind of hard to show something when the person you are debating takes 100% of a corn crop and says it is indicative of using 100% of it for ethanol instead of what it is used for: Food for humans/cows/pigs/chicken/dogs/fish. 

If you were going to discuss the topic you would start by stating that since majority of people live in cities(80%) then this means the majority will be able to switch their daily driver to electric which will eliminate the need for most gasoline. 

If you were going to discuss the topic you would start by stating efficiency of conversion for ethanol to Diesel/kerosene instead of pretending it is the same as gasoline with 100% conversion factor.  Same goes for mpg of 100% Ethanol vrs gasoline.  Same goes for plastics etc.  You have to build longer hydro carbon chains.  This is not free. 

For the production of ethanol are there superior crops to corn?  if this were true, then every single farmer growing corn is a bloody fool according to you.  Uh.... Is it possible they are all stupid?  Sure, but not likely.  Buy a farm man, My relatives/neighbors aren't selling anytime soon.  Many are though as they do not have children who want to farm.  Though I have noticed after they try their hand in the city usually they come running back in their 30's/40's with wife/husband/kids in tow.  So... Go for it.  Buy a farm.  Plant magic plant and produce ethanol without destroying the soil. 

PS: if you are all for a gigantic tunneling project from the Mississippi/Columbia rivers to irrigate most of the USA plains & hinterlands... Uh ok, I am with you, but this will cost Trillions. 

You write, "Kind of hard to show something when the person you are discussion with makes a claim and never shows their numbers in their "book"...  If you're talking about my book, the numbers are right there, on pages 597 to 598. Then, if you follow the link to to David Blume's website, he provides numbers.

You keep using this rhetorical phrase "Kind of hard to show something..." and then combine it with other words like: "when the person you are debating takes 100% of a corn crop and says it is indicative of using 100% of it for ethanol instead of what it is used for: Food for humans/cows/pigs/chicken/dogs/fish."

Where did I or anyone advocating ethanol make a statement that leads you to make your statement?

You write "Kind of hard to show something when the person you are debating makes the claim that corn bushels/acre are going to double/triple in the future and uses that as their "reasoning" for 100% ethanol economy."

Where did I or anyone advocating ethanol make a statement that leads you to make your statement?

It all seems like you're debating with yourself and inventing issues to debate.

I'm happy to argue with you all day and night over statements that I've made but you have to restrict yourself to things I've actually written or said.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Waving a wand and saying one is magically going to produce 14Mbb oil equivalent a day from ethanol does not reality make. 

LOL this is worded so well. Love it.

# oldschool

[Guest]

7 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

then every single farmer growing corn is a bloody fool according to you.

Well everyone is, why should farmers be excluded?

[Guest]

7 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Plant magic plant and produce ethanol without destroying the soil. 

DING 

More trophies please.

Doesn't sound like much of a 'remedy' to me. Certainly not a 'perfect remedy'. 

#truthbomb

Edited September 21, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Meanwhile I'll just paste here since you were afraid to click on the link that backed EVERY ONE OF MY POINTS. 

It's a different opinion though. Why bother?

[Guest]

The cracks seem to be appearing in the ethanol camp?

Just sayin'

As always, you are free to disagree.

Cheers. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

24 minutes ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

 If you're talking about my book, the numbers are right there, on pages 597 to 598. Then, if you follow the link to to David Blume's website, he provides numbers.

No you don't and neither does Blume. 

Blume's words are not gospel instead use your own mind. 

EDIT: Until you SHOW simple math, and understand BASIC farming regions and SHOW It etc, I will never reply to you again on this subject.     PS: If you think BLume is such a wonderkid, quote his "numbers"... Good luck

Edited September 21, 2019 by footeab@yahoo.com

[Marc J. Rauch + 53]

14 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

No you don't and neither does Blume. 

Blume's words are not gospel instead use your own mind. 

EDIT: Until you SHOW simple math, and understand BASIC farming regions and SHOW It etc, I will never reply to you again on this subject.     PS: If you think BLume is such a wonderkid, quote his "numbers"... Good luck

Don't you know what numbers look like? Are you not able to discern letters from numbers?

And if you think either me or Blume is incorrect, why don't you prove it? Why don't you use your own mind?

Edited September 21, 2019 by Marc J. Rauch

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

And if you think either me or Blume is incorrect

Either Blume or I are incorrect

Just little reminder of the 2nd grade comment.

2 people = plural = are

Good luck with the book and the proofreading. 

You are free to disagree. 

 

(just happened to see this due to the quoting)

 

Edited September 21, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

11 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Might want to write a "book" on how to do that before writing a "book" on ethanol. 

Wait.

What?

He has a book about it?

He should have said something.