[official] the ethanol thread
- Thread starter Falhawk
- Start date
Tribal Imperialist
Veteran X
Who is trying to seperate gasoline from oil?Falhawk said:
Why did you come into this thread just to spout nonsense?
And in response to KellyMonaco, If we significantly reduce the amount of oil being used for gasoline, we significantly increase the amount of oil available for other uses while significantly decreasing its price.
Petroleum Products Yielded from One Barrel of Crude Oil in California:
Tribal Imperialist said:Who is trying to seperate gasoline from oil?
Why did you come into this thread just to spout nonsense?
And in response to KellyMonaco, If we significantly reduce the amount of oil being used for gasoline, we significantly increase the amount of oil available for other uses while significantly decreasing its price.
Petroleum Products Yielded from One Barrel of Crude Oil in California:
no, you're still missing the point.
I'm all for reducing the amount of oil used for gasoline.
The point is that isn't easy to do because by doing so we will INCREASE all of the other uses of oil.
why does that correlate?Falhawk said:
As said, I think once we hit the breaking point, where people are just tired of this, things will change. I also think you'd be surprised how many vehecles can use e85. My 99/98 ( can't remember which) ford ranger can use it, there's just no where to buy it.
Fling
Tribal Imperialist
Veteran X
Please tell me why this is. I already said corn ethanol was not feasible. That doesn't mean all kinds aren't.
Like I said, sugarcane ethanol yields 8 times the energy that it costs to make it. That's counting the oil used to power the farming machinery and processing plants and so on.
We can't plant sugarcane here, but that doesn't mean that enough of it can't be grown elsewhere.
Like I said, sugarcane ethanol yields 8 times the energy that it costs to make it. That's counting the oil used to power the farming machinery and processing plants and so on.
We can't plant sugarcane here, but that doesn't mean that enough of it can't be grown elsewhere.
Tribal Imperialist said:
Where are you seeing that sugarcane ethanol has an EROI of 8?
http://www.eroei.com/eval/net_energy_list.html
That says 0.8 - 1.7
And by utilizing something we can't grow you're just moving our dependencies...
Tribal Imperialist
Veteran X
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/w...00&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
Dependencies aren't the problem. People like to place blame there because they are xenophobic. Supply and demand is 99% of the problem.
Dependencies aren't the problem. People like to place blame there because they are xenophobic. Supply and demand is 99% of the problem.
Tribal Imperialist
Veteran X
In any case, as long as the EROI is above 1, then you can use the fuel you are creating to power farm equipment and still end out on top (not using any oil).
As long as energy return is above 1, you're OK? You must be joking...
With consumables like oil and coal in the 10, 20, 50, and 100 EROI range, it'd be absolutely impossible to switch to something like sugarcane at 1.7. The resources required to maintain our current energy requirements at that rate of return would consume all our efforts... We'd be doing nothing else but trying to maintain the balance.
With consumables like oil and coal in the 10, 20, 50, and 100 EROI range, it'd be absolutely impossible to switch to something like sugarcane at 1.7. The resources required to maintain our current energy requirements at that rate of return would consume all our efforts... We'd be doing nothing else but trying to maintain the balance.
Tribal Imperialist
Veteran X
Sugarcane is at 8.3 according to Brazil. Look, be pragmatic for a minute here, rather than posting a flurry of numbers. They (Brazil) have been using it for 30 years and they have seen first hand the benefits of it. Just look for yourself.
Hi. Stupid fuckheads?
One day, fossil fuels will run out. I don't know when.. maybe next decade, maybe three centuries from now. But it will happen, and when it does, it won't make one fucking bit of difference how inefficient ethanol is or how much it would cost to move everyone to biodiesel or whatever. The gas will be gone.
GONE.
And if we don't have something to replace it, we are looking at another fucking Dark Age where technology dies for good, and we'll be the laughingstock of the Amish and the Africans.
Keep that in mind as you argue over how gas can't feasibly be replaced.
One day, fossil fuels will run out. I don't know when.. maybe next decade, maybe three centuries from now. But it will happen, and when it does, it won't make one fucking bit of difference how inefficient ethanol is or how much it would cost to move everyone to biodiesel or whatever. The gas will be gone.
GONE.
And if we don't have something to replace it, we are looking at another fucking Dark Age where technology dies for good, and we'll be the laughingstock of the Amish and the Africans.
Keep that in mind as you argue over how gas can't feasibly be replaced.
The solution to our problems:
Step 1: Kill anyone opposed to nuclear power plants
Step 2: Build lots of nuclear power plants
Step 3: ReEducade anyone who whines about diesels being "too loud," "too smelly," or "too slow." Kill anyone who says they're "Inefficient."
Step 4: Stop farm subsidies
Step 5: Make shitloads of biodiesel
Step 6: Rock out in a diesel vehicle and stop worrying about "saving energy" at home
Step 1: Kill anyone opposed to nuclear power plants
Step 2: Build lots of nuclear power plants
Step 3: ReEducade anyone who whines about diesels being "too loud," "too smelly," or "too slow." Kill anyone who says they're "Inefficient."
Step 4: Stop farm subsidies
Step 5: Make shitloads of biodiesel
Step 6: Rock out in a diesel vehicle and stop worrying about "saving energy" at home
Reno said:
I personally think that anything we do will just be a stopgap until we either build fucking gigantic solar collectors in space, or discover something crazy like zero-point energy.
At that point it won't even matter what we're using for fuel. We might not even HAVE fuel, it might all be batteries and broadcast microwave power like some Tesla wet dream.
-]DoW[-RedDeath
Veteran XV
well, and the whole thing about gas engines being cheaper to produce. as well as diesel not being really feasable in say, a lawnmower.Reno said:
diesel engines are simpler and last a LOT longer, plus they are much more efficient than gas engines-]DoW[-RedDeath said:
I'd say a diesel would be better than gas for a lawnmower. If you get caught up in really thick stuff, it's easy to kill a gas engine. The diesel would just torque right through it.
How about hemp? There have already been vehicles made to run on hemp based fuel. I believe a kentucky representative did his stumping in a hemp powered car a few years back
-]DoW[-RedDeath
Veteran XV
yes, diesel is simpler and more efficient, but the materials to produce the engine is what make it more costly. since you're running closer to 20:1 compression the engine's got to be build a lot more sturdily than a typical gasser. forged everything is pretty much a must, plus the extra material for beefing up the block.Reno said:
in something like a lawnmower or other small equipment, weight is the real killer. a 5hp diesel comparable to what most mowers have right now probably weighs in close to 100lbs, if not more. a 5 hp briggs and stratton maybe weighs 25lbs.
you are right though, diesel is a more efficient fuel and totally embarasses gasoline as a fuel for hauling. i'm just old fashioned and partial to gas engines, but i wouldn't hesitate to buy a diesel if the fucking companies would listen and make a small pickup with one again.
oh yeah, and has anybody mentioned sugar beets? i'm fairly certain you can get more yield from them than you can from an acre of corn.