The ethanol scam

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 18:28:14 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)"
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:04:46 -0600, RomeoMike
wrote:



Jay Honeck wrote:


"Overall (farming, distillation), it takes 129,600 BTU to produce a
gallon of EtOH (ethanol), but the energy value of a gallon of EtOH is
only 76,000 BTU. In SI units [conversions in footnote 3]: it takes
45.7 MJ to produce a kilogram of EtOH, but the energy value of that
kilogram of EtOH is 26.8 MJ."

Does anyone know how much energy it takes to pump crude out of the
ground, ship it to a refinery, and the refine it to make a gallon of
gas? I don't, just asking for a comparison.

It's surprisingly inefficient, but using the same stuff for power
makes it relatively inexpensive.
I looked it up a while back and as I recall it was "cost of producing
alcohol compared to processing crude oil into gas" The biggest problem
I found is there is so much conflicting information out there that it
takes time (a lot of it) to filter out what is and is not both correct
and up-to-date. Even where studies are undertaken you really need to
know the criteria under which the studies were conducted.

*Probably* one of the least expensive fuels is hydrogen produced by
gasification of coal, but that process is not clean and produces a
tremendous amount of CO2 as a byproduct. OTOH the byproducts and be
recovered and sold while the CO2 can be sequestered.

Interesting data point:

"ChevronTexaco has installed a solar photovoltaic facility called
Soalrmine to help power oil-field operations near Bakersfield, Calif.
The grid-tie project comprises 4800 flexible, current-producing solar
panels, each about 1.3 feet wide by 18 feet long, mounted on metal
frames.

"At 500 kW, Solarrmine is one of the largest photovoltaic
installations in the U.S. and the largest array of flexible,
amorphous-silicon solar technology in the world. Solarmine covers six
acres, enabling it to take advantage of Uni-Solar's
amorphous-manufacturing economies of scale. (ChevronTexaco owns 20% of
Uni-Solar's parent company, ECD.) "

That's from an article I wrote in 2004. I don't know the current
status.

Don

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:11:54 -0700, Don Tuite
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 18:28:14 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)"
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:04:46 -0600, RomeoMike
wrote:



Jay Honeck wrote:


"Overall (farming, distillation), it takes 129,600 BTU to produce a
gallon of EtOH (ethanol), but the energy value of a gallon of EtOH is
only 76,000 BTU. In SI units [conversions in footnote 3]: it takes
45.7 MJ to produce a kilogram of EtOH, but the energy value of that
kilogram of EtOH is 26.8 MJ."

Does anyone know how much energy it takes to pump crude out of the
ground, ship it to a refinery, and the refine it to make a gallon of
gas? I don't, just asking for a comparison.

It's surprisingly inefficient, but using the same stuff for power
makes it relatively inexpensive.
I looked it up a while back and as I recall it was "cost of producing
alcohol compared to processing crude oil into gas" The biggest problem
I found is there is so much conflicting information out there that it
takes time (a lot of it) to filter out what is and is not both correct
and up-to-date. Even where studies are undertaken you really need to
know the criteria under which the studies were conducted.

*Probably* one of the least expensive fuels is hydrogen produced by
gasification of coal, but that process is not clean and produces a
tremendous amount of CO2 as a byproduct. OTOH the byproducts and be
recovered and sold while the CO2 can be sequestered.

Interesting data point:

"ChevronTexaco has installed a solar photovoltaic facility called
Soalrmine to help power oil-field operations near Bakersfield, Calif.
The grid-tie project comprises 4800 flexible, current-producing solar
panels, each about 1.3 feet wide by 18 feet long, mounted on metal
frames.

"At 500 kW, Solarrmine is one of the largest photovoltaic
installations in the U.S. and the largest array of flexible,
amorphous-silicon solar technology in the world. Solarmine covers six

Amorphous-Silicon in what configuration? Deposition on a substrate or
polycrystalline?

Hemlock Semiconductor Corporation (HSC), affectionately known around
here as Hemi Semi...just finished up a major expansion program (they
were the world's largest producer of polycrystalline Silicon well
before that expansion) announced a one Billion Dollar expansion that
should again double the plant's capacity.

The problem for us using solar (active and passive) up here, contrary
to many claims made by the state and tourist bureau, is lack of sun
coupled low cost electricity. With electricity costing about 8 cents
per KWH or 10 cents with all surcharges, being 43.37N, in a cloudy
area, and no subsidy we aren't even on the pay-back charts. California
OTOH with peak charges of just shy of 40 cents per KWH and a subsidy
of near 50% last I heard, has a reasonable payback time. Up here an
installation would run about twice the cost of one in California and
we receive no subsidy. That makes the $30,000 to $50,000 for an
installation just a tad steep.

acres, enabling it to take advantage of Uni-Solar's
amorphous-manufacturing economies of scale. (ChevronTexaco owns 20% of
Uni-Solar's parent company, ECD.) "

That's from an article I wrote in 2004. I don't know the current
status.

Don

Current prices of $3.20 per bu. are relatively high but not at historic
highs, in fact corn has lost about $1 per bushel in the last 2 weeks. In
1996 when the average yearly price for the US hit $3.55, we sold corn as
high as $4.90 and some neighbors got over $5.00. Inflationary periods are
evident from the charts... 1983 and 1984 avg prices were at or above $3.00
and I'm not sure, but I think the 1974 average price of $2.92 was when the
US made a trade deal with China. It's interesting to compare the %
increases of milk to corn over the last 40 years.
http://www.farmdoc.uiuc.edu/manage/u...ry/USPrice.asp

Jim

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:14:06 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2007-07-19 08:31:40 -0700, Jay Honeck said:

As gas -- and corn -- prices creep ever higher, everyone in my great
State of Iowa is all ablush with talk of riches pouring in, thanks to
ethanol production. They can barely contain their glee at this
remarkable turn of economic fortune. (Remember, just a few years ago
farmers here had one foot in the grave, and the other on a banana
peel...)

There have already been riots in Mexico because of the corn shortage.
But you will have about as much luck fighting "Big Corn" as you did
"Big Oil."

What a revelation:-)) The game's the same, only the faces change.

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:14:08 -0500, "Maxwell" wrote:

"Whata Fool" wrote in message
.. .
Regardless, ethanol production is needed, and the more the
better.

What do you consider to be the "pros" of ethanol?

For the US, it reduces oil imports, billions of gallons per
year.

It will provide the means to do away with farm subsidies,
if only congress has the brains to make it happen.

It is much cleaner burning, and with the engine tuned for it,
it has more power, check Indy 500 for details.

It is carbon neutral, as is all animal and human emissions of
CO2.

The Indy use alcohol because of gasoline fire, but check that
out too.

When oil becomes too expensive and in short supply, ethanol
is one of the biofuels that is easy to make.


There is nothing bad about ethanol, although because it has
an oxygen atom in the molecule, it needs less air, so a bigger tank may
be needed for the same miles per tank.
(Miles Per Gallon is not a criteria for different fuels,
Miles Per Dollar is the important factor).

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 07:11:50 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote:

The theory of anthropogenic climate change has reached a stage where it is
generally accepted among the world scientific community as valid.

You were careful not to say "global warming", weren't you
ding dong?

Research
continues over many points still in contention, such as feedback influences.

As if all the cooling processes of water vapor could be
categorized by one or more parameters of "feedback".

That does not mean that there is any considerable doubt in the scientific
community that ACC is real.

Maybe about the same as doubt in cold fusion?

Those wishing to "shoot the messenger" often
resort to cherry picking facts from the various mini-controversies within the
overall research to cast doubt on the theory itself.

There is an obvious, very large, factor due to clouds that
has never been mentioned, who will be the first to think of what it is?

C J Campbell wrote:

There have already been riots in Mexico because of the corn shortage.
But you will have about as much luck fighting "Big Corn" as you did "Big
Oil."


It may be worth noting that corn growers are getting NO federal crop
subsidies, since the price is currently high. Not as high as it's been
in adjusted dollars in the past, but high enough that the capitalist
system responded in admirable fashion, inspiring growers to announce
plans to plant a record number of acres in corn.

Guess Mexican farmers would be free to do that too, wouldn't they?

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:32:47 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)"
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:12:30 -0900, Whata Fool wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:14:08 -0500, "Maxwell" wrote:
"Whata Fool" wrote in message
...
Regardless, ethanol production is needed, and the more the
better.

What do you consider to be the "pros" of ethanol?

For the US, it reduces oil imports, billions of gallons per
year.

First, when compared to gas none of my statements are negative against
alcohol.

There is nothing wrong with ethanol, it is a great
opportunity for farmers and small business.

It might, not does and even pushing the implementation to the limits
predictions are it will only be able to take care of the increased
demand for fuels over time.

It will provide the means to do away with farm subsidies,
if only congress has the brains to make it happen.

It might

It is much cleaner burning, and with the engine tuned for it,
it has more power, check Indy 500 for details.

Cleaner burning, yes. More power, not a chance. Alcohol only contains
60 of the energy of gas. In Indy they get more power by burning more.

Not true, they may not get the miles per gallon, but during
the race I heard something about _smaller_ tanks.
Ethanol has more like 80 percent the energy of gasoline, but
cars on the road are detuned to use low octane unleaded.

A lot more and under more pressure. They are also running very
expensive engines at very high RPM and expected to last for one race.

I don't think superchargers are allowed, and all cars use
the same engine. Again, it is not the miles per gallon, or how
much energy per gallon, the important thing is more miles per dollar.

It is carbon neutral, as is all animal and human emissions of
CO2.

It could be if the growing chain also used it rather than fossil
fuels.

The only reason to use fossil fuels is the availability,
most farm machinery is diesel.

The Indy use alcohol because of gasoline fire, but check that
out too.

When oil becomes too expensive and in short supply, ethanol
is one of the biofuels that is easy to make.

And expensive although the price is currently hidden in subsidies
rather than showing up at the pump.

Ethanol made from sugar or other crops should be cheaper
than gasoline, and it must be, that is why there is an import tax.

There is nothing bad about ethanol, although because it has
an oxygen atom in the molecule, it needs less air, so a bigger tank may
be needed for the same miles per tank.
(Miles Per Gallon is not a criteria for different fuels,
Miles Per Dollar is the important factor).

Time we get done alcohol will be at least as expensive as the highest
price we've seen for gas so far.

It will get cheaper relatively as time passes, ethanol can
be made out of almost any hydrocarbon (organic).

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:37:41 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote:

Indeed not. I have spent a good deal of time examining such objections, and
have not found any that are destructive to the case made in IPCC 4AR.

The fact that the CO2 PPMV does not coincide with the known
production added is a clue that the case is not closed.

The fact that CO2 exists in such a small proportion to the
real greenhouse gas water vapor is a big clue.

The fact that the mass of all the CO2 in the atmosphere is
not enough to capture the amount of thermal energy involved is a bigger
clue.

The fact that evaporation cools many times more than any
possible IR radiation from the atmosphere.

The fact that clouds block incoming radiation causes any
energy budget accounting to be inadequate for the task.

And the fact that some near all time record lows for the
month of July are occurring suggests there is a move toward a cooling
trend.

In article ,
Stella Starr wrote:

It may be worth noting that corn growers are getting NO federal crop
subsidies, since the price is currently high. Not as high as it's been
in adjusted dollars in the past, but high enough that the capitalist
system responded in admirable fashion, inspiring growers to announce
plans to plant a record number of acres in corn.

Yes, but just for information, what would have been the "admirable
capitalist response" of all parties involved -- here in the U.S., I
mean -- if the price had instead gone way down?

[This is a question . . ]

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

Just in case you didn't know, Graham is a known net-kook.

I didn't, but it was becoming obvious.

--
Dan

"Almost all the matter that came out of the Big Bang was two specific sorts;
hydrogen and stupidity."

-Robert Carnegie in talk.origins