10% Ethanol in Gas

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Don Stauffer in Minnesota > wrote:
>
>>To me the big thing about ethanol is that it takes a lot of energy to
>>make it, and some mfgs use petroleum to make it, in which case it
>>doesn't save petroleum imports by that much. It has only a negligible
>>improvement in greenhouse emissions.
>
>
> Yes, thinking about ethanol as a petroleum replacement is silly. It just
> doesn't work out, costing more to make than you get out of it.

I saw another interesting article about the impact of the ethanol fuel
lunacy going on. So much more cropland is being converted to corn to
support the craze that the amount of nitrogen-rich fertilzer entering
the Mississippi River has jumped significantly in the last couple of
years (corn "leaks" more fertilizer into runoff water than other crops
do). Cutting to the chase, the result is that the Gulf of Mexico "dead
zone" of severe oxygen depletion (which drives away fish and kills
shellfish that cant escape ) off the coast of Louisiana and Texas is
expected to grow significantly over the next couple of years.

Thank you ever so much, "environmentalists." But I have no doubt that
they'll find a way to put the blame on something other than the corn
surge due to ethanol....

C. E. White wrote:

> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>Yes, thinking about ethanol as a petroleum replacement is silly. It
>>just
>>doesn't work out, costing more to make than you get out of it.
>
>
> Not true. See Brazil.

Not applicable. The US is at a different latitude than Brazil. Besides,
even Brazil's ethanol craze has a huge negative impact in that
rainforest is being clear-cut to make room for more sugar cane fields.
Not a good trade, IMO.

"Steve" > wrote in message
...
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Don Stauffer in Minnesota > wrote:
>>
>>>To me the big thing about ethanol is that it takes a lot of energy
>>>to
>>>make it, and some mfgs use petroleum to make it, in which case it
>>>doesn't save petroleum imports by that much. It has only a
>>>negligible
>>>improvement in greenhouse emissions.
>>
>>
>> Yes, thinking about ethanol as a petroleum replacement is silly.
>> It just
>> doesn't work out, costing more to make than you get out of it.
>
> I saw another interesting article about the impact of the ethanol
> fuel lunacy going on. So much more cropland is being converted to
> corn to support the craze that the amount of nitrogen-rich fertilzer
> entering the Mississippi River has jumped significantly in the last
> couple of years (corn "leaks" more fertilizer into runoff water than
> other crops do). Cutting to the chase, the result is that the Gulf
> of Mexico "dead zone" of severe oxygen depletion (which drives away
> fish and kills shellfish that cant escape ) off the coast of
> Louisiana and Texas is expected to grow significantly over the next
> couple of years.
>
> Thank you ever so much, "environmentalists." But I have no doubt
> that they'll find a way to put the blame on something other than the
> corn surge due to ethanol....

You mean like municipal waste treatment plants?

Now as for crop land being converted to corn...converted from what?
There is very little crop land in the Mississippi river system that
isn't already devoted to either corn, cotton, or wheat. All of these
crops get similar amounts of nitrogen fertilizer. The only crop that
is routinely grown in these areas that doesn't get a lot of nitrogen
fertilizer is soybeans, and soybean prices are even better than corn
prices. In my area, people are switching to soybeans and away from
corn because of the high cost of nitrogen fertilizer. I personally
plan to plant less corn next year and more soybeans. Soybeans require
less labor, less fertilizer, and less water. Given the current price
differential, soybeans are far more profitable (at least for many
farmers).

I am not sure that ethanol is the answer, but I also think that the
anti-ethanol lobby is lying through their collective teeth. I know who
is funding the pro-ethanol lobby. Who is funding the anti-ethanol
lobby? I'd say follow the money......Who stands to loose the most if
ethanol displaces a significant amount of foreign oil?

Ed

"Steve" > wrote in message
...
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Don Stauffer in Minnesota > wrote:
>>
>>>To me the big thing about ethanol is that it takes a lot of energy
>>>to
>>>make it, and some mfgs use petroleum to make it, in which case it
>>>doesn't save petroleum imports by that much. It has only a
>>>negligible
>>>improvement in greenhouse emissions.
>>
>>
>> Yes, thinking about ethanol as a petroleum replacement is silly.
>> It just
>> doesn't work out, costing more to make than you get out of it.
>
> I saw another interesting article about the impact of the ethanol
> fuel lunacy going on. So much more cropland is being converted to
> corn to support the craze that the amount of nitrogen-rich fertilzer
> entering the Mississippi River has jumped significantly in the last
> couple of years (corn "leaks" more fertilizer into runoff water than
> other crops do). Cutting to the chase, the result is that the Gulf
> of Mexico "dead zone" of severe oxygen depletion (which drives away
> fish and kills shellfish that cant escape ) off the coast of
> Louisiana and Texas is expected to grow significantly over the next
> couple of years.
>
> Thank you ever so much, "environmentalists." But I have no doubt
> that they'll find a way to put the blame on something other than the
> corn surge due to ethanol....

One more thing you should factor in is that unadjusted corn prices are
still below the peak years of 1974 and 1975. If you adjust corn prices
for inflation, they are still historically very low, despite the
ethanol craze. More land was devoted to corn in 1974 than was devoted
to corn in 2007, more nitrogen was applied to corn in 1974 than in
2007, and yet you are blaming the increase in nitrogen run-off on
corn. Hmmmmm

Ed

C. E. White wrote:

> "Steve" > wrote in message

>>Thank you ever so much, "environmentalists." But I have no doubt
>>that they'll find a way to put the blame on something other than the
>>corn surge due to ethanol....
>
>
> You mean like municipal waste treatment plants?

Who knows, but they'll find something that they aren't responsible for
and then lobby to shut it down.

>
> Now as for crop land being converted to corn...converted from what?
> There is very little crop land in the Mississippi river system that
> isn't already devoted to either corn, cotton, or wheat. All of these
> crops get similar amounts of nitrogen fertilizer.

They GET similar amounts, but the claim is that much more runs off from
corn than the others and winds up in the river.


>
> I am not sure that ethanol is the answer, but I also think that the
> anti-ethanol lobby is lying through their collective teeth. I know who
> is funding the pro-ethanol lobby. Who is funding the anti-ethanol
> lobby? I'd say follow the money......Who stands to loose the most if
> ethanol displaces a significant amount of foreign oil?

I don't know that there IS an anti-ethanol lobby, per se. I certainly
can't make it add up to being a winner just by balancing energy
in/energy out and considering the amount of cropland displaced for more
corn. Too bad we CAN'T really use sugar cane, but the climate is what it
is. Hey, maybe if we can get a little more global warming going, we will
be able to grow sugar in Iowa! :-p

Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> phaeton > wrote:
> >I hear a lot of people up in arms about the addition of Ethanol to
> >gasoline. Many places do it just in the wintertime, others do it year
> >round. One of the gas stations in my little town even has a bunch of
> >"100% REAL GAS - NO ETHANOL" signs up all over the place. With all
> >the whining and crying about "people putting water in the gas[sic]",
> >I've honestly never noticed a difference in operation or efficiency.
>
> 10% ethanol is good. Yes, it slightly reduces the total energy of
> combustion a little, but it prevents knocking and it's much less
> hazardous than the other popular anti-knock additives like MTBE and lead.

Yes and that is pretty much the only reason that the politicians are
behind ethanol. The other additives are cheaper but having additives that
poison children or give people headaches don't make politicians popular.

-jim


>
> >My guess is that Ethanol earned a bad reputation (1970s, maybe?) when
> >cars used to be carbureted and timing advanced with mechanical weights
> >and such. However, modern cars with EFI and its associated arsenal of
> >sensors simply adapt to whatever difference it makes, but many people
> >are still stuck with the 'ethanol sucks' mentality. True?
>
> Also, realize that ethanol dissolves a lot of rubber formulations. Run
> pure ethanol in your car and you'll find hoses and seals going bad right
> and left. A lot of people had that experience trying pure ethanol back
> in the seventies, too. Of course, back then it wasn't quite so bad since
> there weren't anywhere near as many hoses and seals to replace....
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Steve > wrote in
:

> C. E. White wrote:
>
>> "Steve" > wrote in message
>
>>>Thank you ever so much, "environmentalists." But I have no doubt
>>>that they'll find a way to put the blame on something other than the
>>>corn surge due to ethanol....
>>
>>
>> You mean like municipal waste treatment plants?
>
> Who knows, but they'll find something that they aren't responsible for
> and then lobby to shut it down.
>
>>
>> Now as for crop land being converted to corn...converted from what?
>> There is very little crop land in the Mississippi river system that
>> isn't already devoted to either corn, cotton, or wheat. All of these
>> crops get similar amounts of nitrogen fertilizer.
>
> They GET similar amounts, but the claim is that much more runs off from
> corn than the others and winds up in the river.

That is not proven to be true at all. Nitrogen runoff from corn has
dramaticly dropped per acre in the last 10 years as nitrogen use per acre
has dropped as better research and cost of nitrogen has changed. what
really chafts my britches is town and city people fertilizing there
worthless lawns with 10 times the amount of fert. I use per acre. My crop
has value, your lawn is worthless other than the O2 it produces. Also
more pesticides are dumped on lawns at a incorect rate that most all the
farms. KB

>
>
>>
>> I am not sure that ethanol is the answer, but I also think that the
>> anti-ethanol lobby is lying through their collective teeth. I know who
>> is funding the pro-ethanol lobby. Who is funding the anti-ethanol
>> lobby? I'd say follow the money......Who stands to loose the most if
>> ethanol displaces a significant amount of foreign oil?
>
> I don't know that there IS an anti-ethanol lobby, per se. I certainly
> can't make it add up to being a winner just by balancing energy
> in/energy out and considering the amount of cropland displaced for more
> corn. Too bad we CAN'T really use sugar cane, but the climate is what
it
> is. Hey, maybe if we can get a little more global warming going, we
will
> be able to grow sugar in Iowa! :-p


Oh yea sign me up. I could stand some heat about now. KB


>
>



--
Thunder Snake #9
"Protect" your rights or "lose" them.

Paul wrote:
> My car gets 10% less mileage on 10% ethanol.

Funny you should say. "They" say that won't happen, and yet the same thing
happens in my case with two cars. Haven't had real gasoline in the third
car yet. so can't say if it's unanimous.

--
Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali,
Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause
as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.

C. E. White wrote:
> "Mitch" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Heard an interview with a farmer who also is a partner in an ethanol
>> plant. He said it took 1 gal of fuel to produce 1.3 gal. Now keep in
>> mind that gasoline also has related refining costs. He also said he
>> was looking into switching to switch grass. The bio-fuels industry
>> is in its infancy and its bound to get more efficient as time goes
>> by.
>
> You get 1.3 gal of ethanol AND you have almost as much animal feed as
> if you fed the corn directly.

And you've taken food out of the mouths of humans.

Funny how the beef industry cites the rising cost of animal feed, caused
by ethanol production, as a reason for the rising cost of beef.

--
Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali,
Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause
as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.

Mike Romain > wrote:
>
>Some of us still drive vehicles with Carburetors and in my case 'lose'
>50 to 100 miles per tank range with the crap mixed into gasoline.

The problem with this is that the mixture isn't optimal anymore, if the
thing has been tuned to run properly with conventional gas. Drilling your
carb jets out may be in order to get a slightly richer mixture.

Of course, then you can't go back...
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."