Ethanol, the Perfect Home Remedy for A Saudi Oil Fever

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

This thread makes my eyes glaze over.

[PE Scott + 563]

What gets me is it's the same f'in horse getting beaten to death over and over again. It's an undead horse now, we'll have to resort to head shots or it's likely to kill all of us. 

For a second, let's pretend there are 0 compatibility issues between any ICE vehicle of any generation when using ethanol at any blend. Mute point.

I asked earlier in this thread (I think - they're all looking the same) about the efficiency differences. The 14 MMbbl a day of crude products would take 1.5 times as much ethanol to replace, at least, because of efficiency difference. This isn't something that can be argued. It is a fact. Ethanol contains less energy in any given volume than the same volume of gasoline. Period. Furthermore, to build those longer carbon chains needed for plastics and the like, it takes more energy. There are going to be inneficiencys there that have to be accounted for or worked past. How have you accounted for that? Likely, there have been some things that were over simplified for that sake of making the math easy. That's why economist and engineers are around, to help you dreamers out and account for reality. You can't take offense if people ask though. If you want to debate it, be prepared to show links and data. Don't argue that the other side doesn't do the same, they're not here to convince you......its the other way around.

Secondly, how will you grow all these crops without ammonia? How do you plan to fertilize them? As pointed out previously in the thread, growing corn over and over in the same field will deplete the soil of its nutrients and you will be forced to load it up with fertilizers. 

What other food crops will be displaced in the event we grew that much corn for ethanol? How would this affect our ability to trade food with the rest of the world? Would we prioritize corn for ethanol over food crops for trade when we have an abundance of oil sitting directly beneath us in the U.S.? What would this do to our foreign relations?

For Brazil, bravo. Glad they like their ethanol. For the U.S. , I don't think it has the ability to provide the kind of energy independence you're looking for. As others have noted, as a supplement to electric vehicles, maybe. However, there are far more exciting technologies out that will put ethanol to shame. See CarbonEngineering or one of the many other companies scrubbing carbon directly from the air and sequestering it or processing it in to fuels. That has the potential to be carbon NEGATIVE. Something ethanol is far less likely to achieve.

I don't know why I bother posting. You'll probably focus on the same worn out argument.  Otherwise, you'll say people need to reference your book to get on your level. 

While most of these guys are willing to admit that ethanol has its pros, you won't even begin to discuss any of its cons or what you consider a solution/workaround. If you want to have an honest and productive discussion, you have to concede that ethanol has its shortcomings as well. If you don't, then you come off as an arrogant blowhard that's so stubbornly fixed on his position he can't possibly peak past his tightly clenched asshole to see a different perspective. In turn, your credibility is lost.

I feel like driving to OK just so I can get a tank of 100%, uncut gasoline. I'll enjoy the superior efficiency and feel good knowing I help support an industry that supports millions of Americans. 

[PE Scott + 563]

20 hours ago, Marc J. Rauch said:

Yes, it makes some adjustments, but an E85 flex-fuel vehicles is still not optimized to run on ethanol. Therefore, when using E85 it doesn't typically get as good mpg as E10 or E0.

This is utter horse shit. The changes the computer makes are in the timing because the octane ratings are different. The difference in efficiency is because a gallon of ethanol only has around 76k btu where a gallon of gasoline has ~116k btu depending on the season/blend. The more alcohol you blend in, the less energy dense the resultant mixture becomes.

[James Regan + 1,776]

43 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

This is utter horse shit. The changes the computer makes are in the timing because the octane ratings are different. The difference in efficiency is because a gallon of ethanol only has around 76k btu where a gallon of gasoline has ~116k btu depending on the season/blend. The more alcohol you blend in, the less energy dense the resultant mixture becomes.

It’s cheaper because you get less performance out of the same liter of Petrol this is THE FACT it’s less EFFICIENT! 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

38 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

While most of these guys are willing to admit that ethanol has its pros, you won't even begin to discuss any of its cons or what you consider a solution/workaround. If you want to have an honest and productive discussion, you have to concede that ethanol has its shortcomings as well. If you don't, then you come off as an arrogant blowhard that's so stubbornly fixed on his position he can't possibly peak past his tightly clenched asshole to see a different perspective. In turn, your credibility is lost.

Well, that was a b it roughly put!  I as moderator am letting it slide only in the reflection that oil guys can be a bit basic in their descriptives, not because I am some softie.  OK, getting past that, there are "cons" to ethyl alcohol, some of which were described either here earlier or in another thread on this subject, including deterioration of certain metals commonly used in the die-casting industry to fabricate auto parts, and in the deterioration of various synthetics including seal materials.  So, in short, if an auto or truck is going to be built for alcohol use, then it has to be built from the ground up with alcohol-resistant components.  That is not so easy to do, given the supply chains.  I.E. instead of brass, you would likely have to go to bronze.  Does bronze die-cast easily?  I don't think so.  Would you have to go to CNC machining?  Might be.  And that then gets expensive. 

Now the next problem, or "con," is that the source raw material for the distilling process is assumed to be corn.  This is not a good idea once you start thinking of larger quantities.  Corn is sub-optimal for alcohol production due to its structure.  Sugar cane is far better, I think by a factor of six.  The source of sugar cane in North America would be from Cuba.  Is anyone in Washington advocating becoming dependent on the Cuban sugar crop?  I don't think so. Logic fails against politics.   Note:  apparently the Brasilians use sugar cane for their alcohols. 

So, what would be the source material for lll that alcohol?  Could sugar cane be grown in the USA/  Yes, but it would be limited:  Mostly Florida and Louisiana.  That would not even get close to the amount of alcohol needed.  Now, there is some academic discussion on the use of switchgrass as a materials source.  If that ever works out, you would have a fantastic amount of material, as switchgrasses grow all over the place, it would be a bit like harvesting hay. Also, switchgrass grows where crops do not, so it is not as if you would be displacing food crops  (assuming the price for the grasses did not skyrocket and induced farmers to switch crops). 

So, as a practical matter, alcohols would have to be made out of some other feedstock, possibly natural gas.  But the idea of doing that runs up against net energy recoveries, as I suspect you would use up quite a bit f energy in the conversion process.  In that event, making autos to run directly on natural gas makes more sense from an engineering viewpoint, albeit not necessarily from a political viewpoint.  And that is where it all gets murky, as politics and politicians always interject a different value variable into the equation, so that will distort the design parameters and the use.

I am not convinced any of this is any good.  In terms of where it all goes, I would put my bets on electrification.  The electric motor is a simple device with lots of low-end torque, inherent in the design of the motor.  I do not think that "batteries" is anything but a bridge solution.  More likely, high-speed flywheels turning on magnetic bearings and running in a vacuum would store vast amounts of electrical energy.  You would recharge a flywheel using hefty welding cables, that can carry hundreds of amperes of current.  Zoom up a 450-lb flywheel and you have the stored energy to go from Buffalo NY to New York City, a run of 450 miles, for a penny a mile.  With that alternative, who is going to go screwing around with distilling vast amounts of alcohol?  Nobody. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

If wikipedia is to be trusted:

Brazil produces enough Ethanol for 17.5% of their transportation energy needs. Not 100% as claimed by our devote zealot

USA produces 2X greater amount of Ethanol than Brazil

Sugarcane and Tropical weather = 2X energy collected per acre than corn.  USA uses some sugarcane to create Ethanol

States that Brazil has 1.5X amount of Arable land as the USA.

Q: Why isn't Brazil producing more ethanol?

A: I do not have a clue why not. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, PE Scott said:

I don't know why I bother posting. You'll probably focus on the same worn out argument.  Otherwise, you'll say people need to reference your book to get on your level. 

2 hours ago, PE Scott said:

This is utter horse shit.

2 hours ago, PE Scott said:

you come off as an arrogant blowhard that's so stubbornly fixed on his position he can't possibly peak past his tightly clenched asshole to see a different perspective. In turn, your credibility is lost.

Trophies please to Scott.

 

 

Edited September 21, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

2 hours ago, PE Scott said:

That's why economist and engineers are around, to help you dreamers out and account for reality. You can't take offense if people ask though. If you want to debate it, be prepared to show links and data. Don't argue that the other side doesn't do the same, they're not here to convince you......its the other way around.

Boom.

#perfectremedy

[Guest]

7 hours ago, James Regan said:

this is THE FACT it’s less EFFICIENT! 

Well I'm very happy you know the words Gasolina and Etanol  but who won the day yesterday Mr. Wingman?

14 points @Tom Kirkman ?

Pfff.

Edited September 21, 2019 by Guest

[Marc J. Rauch + 53]

37 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

If wikipedia is to be trusted:

Brazil produces enough Ethanol for 17.5% of their transportation energy needs. Not 100% as claimed by our devote zealot

USA produces 2X greater amount of Ethanol than Brazil

Sugarcane and Tropical weather = 2X energy collected per acre than corn.  USA uses some sugarcane to create Ethanol

States that Brazil has 1.5X amount of Arable land as the USA.

Q: Why isn't Brazil producing more ethanol?

A: I do not have a clue why not. 

Who is the "devote zealot" you are referring to?

Where did you find the quotes that you are attributing to that person?

 

 

[RayGun + 4]

42 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

If wikipedia is to be trusted:

Brazil produces enough Ethanol for 17.5% of their transportation energy needs. Not 100% as claimed by our devote zealot

USA produces 2X greater amount of Ethanol than Brazil

Sugarcane and Tropical weather = 2X energy collected per acre than corn.  USA uses some sugarcane to create Ethanol

States that Brazil has 1.5X amount of Arable land as the USA.

Q: Why isn't Brazil producing more ethanol?

A: I do not have a clue why not. 

BraSil yes with an S as I live here and that's how we spell Brasil and Ethanol or Alcool is widely used but its price has tripled over the past 10 years which is now looked upon as the last resort before going to petrol, but not for long as the price of unleaded and alcohol will soon be the same. The most widely used fuel source other than Petrol or Diesel in  GNV (Gas Natural Vehicular) its by far a better option if we are going to decide between carbon fuels ethanol included, its all carbon based, or have I missed something do plants have any carbon in them?

Most new cars here are powered by Petrol aditavado ie high octane petrol as its better for your engine, our lower grade gasoline in Brasil is highly dosed with Ethanol and ends up costing the owner of the car or vehicle higher annual cost to maintain the vehicle. Most UBER driver use GNV-Alcool-Petrol in that order, the cars are sold at 100K kilometres or passed on to unknowing buyers due to the upcoming maintenance costs caused by the use of variable fuel sources, the worse being Alcool.

I dont have a book or a website just 10 years of seeing the use of alcool GNV etc in everyday life. Flex Cars are widely available but often steered away from due to high service costs. Using Brasil as the model, Alcool will never be dominant it will be superseded by GNV, we Grow, Produce, Consume and complain about Alcool and will complain more as the price increases to the wallet and the environment, its not breaking news or worthy of the Pulitzer Prize.

Alcool is no longer cheap in comparison, still bad for your engine and definitely not cool AKA AlCool 😎 for the environment.

[Marc J. Rauch + 53]

2 hours ago, PE Scott said:

This is utter horse shit. The changes the computer makes are in the timing because the octane ratings are different. The difference in efficiency is because a gallon of ethanol only has around 76k btu where a gallon of gasoline has ~116k btu depending on the season/blend. The more alcohol you blend in, the less energy dense the resultant mixture becomes.

The Irrelevance Of BTU Rating - Big Oil's Gimmick To Hoodwink The Public - http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2015/10/19/144405-irrelevance-btu-rating.html

The Irrelevance Of BTU Rating - Revisited - https://www.theautochannel.com/news/2018/07/14/603714-irrelevance-btu-rating-revisited.html

[Marc J. Rauch + 53]

3 hours ago, PE Scott said:

What gets me is it's the same f'in horse getting beaten to death over and over again. It's an undead horse now, we'll have to resort to head shots or it's likely to kill all of us. 

For a second, let's pretend there are 0 compatibility issues between any ICE vehicle of any generation when using ethanol at any blend. Mute point.

I asked earlier in this thread (I think - they're all looking the same) about the efficiency differences. The 14 MMbbl a day of crude products would take 1.5 times as much ethanol to replace, at least, because of efficiency difference. This isn't something that can be argued. It is a fact. Ethanol contains less energy in any given volume than the same volume of gasoline. Period. Furthermore, to build those longer carbon chains needed for plastics and the like, it takes more energy. There are going to be inneficiencys there that have to be accounted for or worked past. How have you accounted for that? Likely, there have been some things that were over simplified for that sake of making the math easy. That's why economist and engineers are around, to help you dreamers out and account for reality. You can't take offense if people ask though. If you want to debate it, be prepared to show links and data. Don't argue that the other side doesn't do the same, they're not here to convince you......its the other way around.

Secondly, how will you grow all these crops without ammonia? How do you plan to fertilize them? As pointed out previously in the thread, growing corn over and over in the same field will deplete the soil of its nutrients and you will be forced to load it up with fertilizers. 

What other food crops will be displaced in the event we grew that much corn for ethanol? How would this affect our ability to trade food with the rest of the world? Would we prioritize corn for ethanol over food crops for trade when we have an abundance of oil sitting directly beneath us in the U.S.? What would this do to our foreign relations?

For Brazil, bravo. Glad they like their ethanol. For the U.S. , I don't think it has the ability to provide the kind of energy independence you're looking for. As others have noted, as a supplement to electric vehicles, maybe. However, there are far more exciting technologies out that will put ethanol to shame. See CarbonEngineering or one of the many other companies scrubbing carbon directly from the air and sequestering it or processing it in to fuels. That has the potential to be carbon NEGATIVE. Something ethanol is far less likely to achieve.

I don't know why I bother posting. You'll probably focus on the same worn out argument.  Otherwise, you'll say people need to reference your book to get on your level. 

While most of these guys are willing to admit that ethanol has its pros, you won't even begin to discuss any of its cons or what you consider a solution/workaround. If you want to have an honest and productive discussion, you have to concede that ethanol has its shortcomings as well. If you don't, then you come off as an arrogant blowhard that's so stubbornly fixed on his position he can't possibly peak past his tightly clenched asshole to see a different perspective. In turn, your credibility is lost.

I feel like driving to OK just so I can get a tank of 100%, uncut gasoline. I'll enjoy the superior efficiency and feel good knowing I help support an industry that supports millions of Americans. 

Ethanol is energy positive, gasoline is energy negative.

All usable energy requires lots of raw energy to produce it.

Energy content in a gallon of gasoline compared to ethanol is irrelevant. Internal combustion engines don't operate on steam.

In the U.S. there are no food crops being displace for corn crops. The same corn used for ethanol get used for animal feed. The animal feed is fed to animal that humans eat. There is also no shortage of corn for human consumption. There is no shortage of human food products made from corn.

The amount of fertilizer and water used for corn crops today is lower than it was last decade, yet the quantity of corn grown is greater than ever before. Fertilizer is not used only for corn, it is used for all crops. There are nearly 10,000 golf courses in the states that have rivers and streams that feed into the rivers flowing into the Gulf of Mexico. All golf courses use fertilizers for their grass. If fertilizer is causing so damage then you should be complaining about a silly game.

What ever environmental problems can be ascribed to ethanol production or use is minor compared to the environmental damage caused by petroleum oil fuels.

Anyone who advocates ethanol is willing to discuss the negatives of ethanol, but any discussion of the negatives immediately causes a comparison to gasoline, which then makes the discussion a positive comparison in favor of ethanol.

There is no superior efficiency in the use of gasoline. Ethanol provides more power because it can permit the use of higher compression engines. Gasoline is inefficient, which is proven by the amount of carbon debris created when burning it.

 

[Guest]

On 9/16/2019 at 10:53 PM, Ward Smith said:

"You" have proven? Well that just about puts it to bed doesn't it? Please explain oh wise one

LOL , you kill me Ward seriously 

Edited September 21, 2019 by Guest

[Marc J. Rauch + 53]

53 minutes ago, RayGun said:

BraSil yes with an S as I live here and that's how we spell Brasil and Ethanol or Alcool is widely used but its price has tripled over the past 10 years which is now looked upon as the last resort before going to petrol, but not for long as the price of unleaded and alcohol will soon be the same. The most widely used fuel source other than Petrol or Diesel in  GNV (Gas Natural Vehicular) its by far a better option if we are going to decide between carbon fuels ethanol included, its all carbon based, or have I missed something do plants have any carbon in them?

Most new cars here are powered by Petrol aditavado ie high octane petrol as its better for your engine, our lower grade gasoline in Brasil is highly dosed with Ethanol and ends up costing the owner of the car or vehicle higher annual cost to maintain the vehicle. Most UBER driver use GNV-Alcool-Petrol in that order, the cars are sold at 100K kilometres or passed on to unknowing buyers due to the upcoming maintenance costs caused by the use of variable fuel sources, the worse being Alcool.

I dont have a book or a website just 10 years of seeing the use of alcool GNV etc in everyday life. Flex Cars are widely available but often steered away from due to high service costs. Using Brasil as the model, Alcool will never be dominant it will be superseded by GNV, we Grow, Produce, Consume and complain about Alcool and will complain more as the price increases to the wallet and the environment, its not breaking news or worthy of the Pulitzer Prize.

Alcool is no longer cheap in comparison, still bad for your engine and definitely not cool AKA AlCool 😎 for the environment.

The higher price of fuels in Brazil today are because of political revenue reasons. Compressed natural gas is a good fuel, and by comparison to gasoline it is cleaner and cheaper. I have years of hands-on experience with using CNG and have written extensively about it. Some of this is included in my book. However, CNG automobiles are virtually non-existent in the U.S. and most other countries. It is non-existent because the oil companies worked very hard to get it killed, even though CNG is one of their products. I don't know of any automaker that is producing meaningful numbers of CNG powered passenger vehicles. If one exists in Brazil, please let me know.

You state there are worse maintenance problems caused by ethanol, like what? Are you suggesting that ethanol in Brazil is more corrosive than ethanol in America? Are you suggesting that ethanol used in Brazil burns dirtier than ethanol in Brazil than in America? If the maintenance problems are greater in Brazil than in America because of ethanol use, can you provide some published citations that support this (it can be English language or Portuguese)?

Not only do I have a book, I have more years than you seeing the use of ethanol fuel and CNG in everyday use.

When you're writing in English how do you refer to the United States? Do you write Estados Unidos or United States? How do you know what is worthy of a Pulitzer Prize? Are you a literary critic or a writer? If so, can you provide any links to what you have written or reviewed?

Edited September 21, 2019 by Marc J. Rauch

[Guest]

On 9/17/2019 at 12:07 AM, Ward Smith said:

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. 

Yep. 

Edited September 21, 2019 by Guest

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,223]

My Harley 2019 Tri-Glide gets on average 3-4 mpg more on 91 octane 100% unleaded than 93 octane with 10% ethanol blended. Exact or as close as exact same driving speeds and conditions. The 100% gasoline runs about 15 cents more per gallon. Since all my pick-ups are Diesel I really can't compare. There are 3 or 4 ethanol plants around the Peoria area. Some that work at these plants make decent wages, and say it would be more profitable to drink it than burn it.

On vacation in colorful Colorado, and not many stations I have been fueling has ethanol......wonder if altitude has anything to do with that??

Edited September 21, 2019 by Old-Ruffneck

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

These ethanol squabbling threads are a pain in the butt.  I generally don't bother to read them because it is the same stuff reguritated and recycled endlessly.

 

Marc, you are free to post your anti - oil thoughts here on this pro - oil forum. 

But it seems to me that you are egging on others who are pro - oil to troll and spam your threads with memes by your obstinate and unfriendly refusals to accept any viewpoints than your own.

I'll reiterate both my earlier advice to readers and similar advice from fellow moderators @Selvedina and @Jan van Eck which is simply to avoid reading threads that you know will annoy you.

For example, I don't watch CNN.  I already know it will be an utter waste of time for me because I already know full well that I will strongly disagree with their viewpoints and it will just get me annoyed that I bothered listening to their endless diatribes which I consider to be totally fake.

Easiest solution for me is to simply not watch CNN.  End of annoyance.

Continuously posting in an unfriendly manner many repetitious anti - oil threads on a pro - oil forum is counterproductive to actually trying to persuade people.

I will repeat yet again a bit of my moderator default advice from the About Me section of my profile:

"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."

 

[Guest]

Spam, trolling and memes? Not me.

@James Regan , cut it out mate, come on. 

19 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

that I bothered listening to their endless diatribes which I consider to be totally fake.

 

Great analogy though. 

Edited September 21, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

troll and spam your threads with memes

LOL - did anyone else find this slightly amusing that Tom said this and at the same time was making a meme?   

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

14 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

LOL - did anyone else find this slightly amusing that Tom said this and at the same time was making a meme?   

Tom has a tendency to do that.  I just barely tolerate it, mostly because I make some allowances for Old Guys.  They paid their dues to the industry over the years, and then some.   That said, I again remind everyone that this is a professional forum, and the Rules apply to everyone, regardless of rank.  That includes the Herr Majors with Iron Cross and Oak Leaves!  [It was in the movie.] 

[Guest]

Luckily Tom knows what movies you're on about coz I sure don't 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

8 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

On vacation in colorful Colorado, and not many stations I have been fueling has ethanol......wonder if altitude has anything to do with that??

More likely, the refinery that supplies that area does not have the capability to add in ethanol and has purchased waiver credits from the Federal Government.  Those waiver credits are expensive and basically bankrupted the  Valero refinery in Philadelphia.  But if you have a good retail market then you can add a little to the retail price to compensate for the waiver costs.  

Fine looking tour bus.  Is that a Prevost?  15-litre engine?

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

55 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Luckily Tom knows what movies you're on about coz I sure don't 

The Eagle has Landed

Michael Caine as Herr Oberst Kurt Steiner:

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,223]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Fine looking tour bus.  Is that a Prevost?  15-litre engine?

2018 Entegra Anthem. 45' with 9Litre Cummins. Brand new 400k.  A Prevost starts at about 850k for the very low end model. Most of the Prevost are well over 1mil upwards to 2mil. They come with the Volvo engine 600hp