Post by: drewtam on May 31, 2008, 08:06:19 PM
Not all biofuels are created equal. Some consume more agricultural resources than others. Supposed soy bean based bio-diesel is more efficient with land and food than ethanol. But for the purposes of this theory, I will lump them together.
The USA has an astounding amount of natural resources: agriculture, iron, wood, and numerous other commodities. America is the breadbasket of the world. But we just don't have enough oil. OPEC is really able to squeeze us for the oil. But Biofuels has given us a weapon to fight back with. It basically allows us to remove vast quantities of food from the world market and supplement our oil needs from South America and others.
So think deeply about this economic war; would you rather go without gas for a month (walking to work and everywhere), or go without food for a month (i.e. starving to death). Rising corn and soy prices have put a shot across OPEC's bow. As our oil prices rise, their food prices rise. Oil may fuel the world, but food makes a world to fuel. The upper hand is in the Organization of the Food Exporting Counties.
Post by: RaspberrySurprise on May 31, 2008, 08:35:48 PM
Post by: Standing Wolf on June 01, 2008, 12:35:52 AM
Quote
But we just don't have enough oil.
We have plenty of oil; unfortunately, we have far too many leftist extremists who want us to import oil from terrorist nations rather than drill our own.
Post by: lupinus on June 01, 2008, 04:05:35 AM
Getting more to the point though biofuel isn't a bad idea in itself, it's just not practical on all counts. Biodiesel is practical as pretty much any diesel can run on the stuff with no or light modification. However, gasoline engines can't run on strait biofuel. It takes a lot of modification to get the vast majority of gasoline engines to run on strait or even high percentages of alcohol. More flex fuel vehicles is a good strategy for newer cars (GM has a nice lineup for most of their models) but there are considerations. One, most cars on the road aren't brand new and a lot of people don't buy brand new. I've bought four cars, only one has even been from the 90's let alone brand new. Also alcohol doesn't get as good gas mileage as it burns cooler so you need more of it to go a given distance.
But if we could get more fuel to 15% (about the max on your average gasoline engine), get more biodiesel out there for the diesel engines, and more E85 for the cars that can run it, and we would be on a start. Also get away from this corn based crap. Most corn doesn't have a whole lot of alcohol to produce unlike, say, sugar beets, sugar cane, sweet grasses, etc. Higher sugar content means higher alcohol yield, corn just don't got it.
Post by: HankB on June 01, 2008, 05:10:07 AM
This legislation was enacted largely through the efforts of state legislators who just happened to be recipients of some hefty campaign contributions from Archer-Daniels Midland, a large agribusiness and major producer of fuel ethanol.
Pure coincidence, of course.
Post by: wmenorr67 on June 01, 2008, 05:16:58 AM
Quote
"fortified" (I say "diluted") with ethanol.
So that is what I do when I drink large amounts of alcohol.
Post by: Nitrogen on June 01, 2008, 07:14:57 AM
We have plenty of oil. Conservative estimates put as at or ABOVE mid east oil deposits which largely have powered the world for a fairly long time, tapping into our deposits gets us by while other fuels come online and get practical. Most just don't want an oil field in their backyard. I think it would make a groovy stand for hunting, but thats just me I guess.
Got some numbers on this? Not to doubt you, but I had always "heard" (meaning it seemed to be common knowledge but I don't have numbers to back it up either) that our untapped oil reserves wouldn't amount to much. I'd like to know more either way.
Post by: RocketMan on June 01, 2008, 07:45:29 AM
We have plenty of oil; unfortunately, we have far too many leftist extremists who want us to import oil from terrorist nations rather than drill our own.
We have plenty of oil. Conservative estimates put as at or ABOVE mid east oil deposits which largely have powered the world for a fairly long time, tapping into our deposits gets us by while other fuels come online and get practical.
I'm with Nitrogen on this. Our having plenty of oil is often stated, but stats and sources are never presented. While this would not surprise me given the size of American territory, actual numbers and sources would be a good thing.
Post by: lupinus on June 01, 2008, 08:14:35 AM
That's one, I don't have a ton of links available for sharing. But do a Google on that reserve if you want more info.
The US has a lot of oil between tar sands, oil shale, etc. On top of that you have the gulf of Mexico.
We are not dependent on the Mideast because we lack oil, but because we don't want to drill on our own land.
Post by: Gewehr98 on June 01, 2008, 01:25:52 PM
As I've stated before, people won't really consider alternative energy sources until squeezed out of their comfort zones. Then they'll still scream bloody murder, stating that their tax dollars shouldn't subsidize the research and development of said alternative energy sources, but they won't offer their own money to get us away from a petroleum economy that's been amortized nicely since John D. Rockefeller. Of course, research and development costs nothing, don't you know...
Post by: yesitsloaded on June 01, 2008, 02:19:28 PM
Post by: Firethorn on June 02, 2008, 08:50:38 AM
I think something like nuclear power for 20%, corn ethanol for 10%, solar for 10%, wind for 10%, geothermal for 5%, hydroelectric for 15%, natural gas for 10%, and oil based fuels for the rest makes more sense than the eggs in one basket strategy.
The way things are going, oil based fuels will be priced out of economy fairly soon. Another point - we need to differentiate between mobile power(IE cars) and static power(houses). The needs are different.
20% nuclear(IE electric) - not bad. Electric cars are reaching the point that a NYC taxi driver should be able to use one for the day without problem. The 300 mile range thing. Right now I'd be engaging in emergency measures to build new nuclear plants. My goal, even if we make the DOE 'buy' their building, is one gigawatt a year. Start with each design in the approved list that's approved but hasn't been built in the USA yet, to get the bugs worked out. After those have been built, build any new prototypes that offer a significant chance of improved economy/efficiency/safety that reach the 'approved' level. If no new candidates, build another of one of the ones that are demonstrating better performance. Since the DOE isn't in the business of running power plants, auction them off after a 5 year shakedown or so. Oh - and I'd build them with the mind of turning off the dirtiest coal plants.
15% hydroelectric - not the way we're going. We're already maxed here.
10% corn ethanol - No way. Cellulostic ethanol is a much better choice. Don't forget biodiesel, possibly from algae farms out in the desert.
10% solar - As far as I'm concerned, we should be installing solar water heaters south of the Mason-Dixon left and right. Cheap and efficient, with a realistic payback period. Especially when compared to photovoltiacs.
10% wind - Not a bad goal, especially for many of the smaller towns out there. A single turbine should more than power our little town. Build the system right and we could still have power even if the service line from the coal plant gets knocked down .
Increasing recycling would be great, as would serious recovery of valuable metals and such from landfills. Still, I figure it'll be a few years yet. Pilot projects are in place. Thermal Depolymerization is one process I've read about.
Post by: richyoung on June 02, 2008, 12:56:11 PM
[This post is both tongue and cheek and serious]
Not all biofuels are created equal. Some consume more agricultural resources than others. Supposed soy bean based bio-diesel is more efficient with land and food than ethanol. But for the purposes of this theory, I will lump them together.
The USA has an astounding amount of natural resources: agriculture, iron, wood, and numerous other commodities. America is the breadbasket of the world. But we just don't have enough oil. OPEC is really able to squeeze us for the oil. But Biofuels has given us a weapon to fight back with. It basically allows us to remove vast quantities of food from the world market and supplement our oil needs from South America and others.
So think deeply about this economic war; would you rather go without gas for a month (walking to work and everywhere), or go without food for a month (i.e. starving to death). Rising corn and soy prices have put a shot across OPEC's bow. As our oil prices rise, their food prices rise. Oil may fuel the world, but food makes a world to fuel. The upper hand is in the Organization of the Food Exporting Counties.
Not all biofuels are created equal. Some consume more agricultural resources than others. Supposed soy bean based bio-diesel is more efficient with land and food than ethanol. But for the purposes of this theory, I will lump them together.
The USA has an astounding amount of natural resources: agriculture, iron, wood, and numerous other commodities. America is the breadbasket of the world. But we just don't have enough oil. OPEC is really able to squeeze us for the oil. But Biofuels has given us a weapon to fight back with. It basically allows us to remove vast quantities of food from the world market and supplement our oil needs from South America and others.
So think deeply about this economic war; would you rather go without gas for a month (walking to work and everywhere), or go without food for a month (i.e. starving to death). Rising corn and soy prices have put a shot across OPEC's bow. As our oil prices rise, their food prices rise. Oil may fuel the world, but food makes a world to fuel. The upper hand is in the Organization of the Food Exporting Counties.
The energy invested/energy return on biofuels suck. As to the part in red, we don't even KNOW how much oil we have: only two tiny parts of Alaska have been explored - google "Gull Island" sometime. It's enirely possible that there is more oil in Alaska than Saudi Arabia, and that's not including off-shore areas we refuse to drill, like the Santa Barbara channel and off Florida. Add in oil shales, oil sands, liquifoed coal and natural gas, and there is NO, repeeat NO reason why, with a generous helping of nuke power, we couldn;t be energy self-sufficient in ten years.
Post by: richyoung on June 02, 2008, 01:05:18 PM
Field Pay Zone Area of Field
(Average depth of oil pool)
Prudhoe 600 Ft. of pay zone 100 square miles
Kuparuk 300 Ft. of pay zone Twice the size of Prudhoe
Gull Island 1,200 Ft. of pay zone At least four times the size of Prudhoe . . . (Estimates are that it is the richest oil field on the face of the earth.)
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on June 02, 2008, 04:58:58 PM
Then they'll still scream bloody murder, stating that their tax dollars shouldn't subsidize the research and development of said alternative energy sources, but they won't offer their own money to get us away from a petroleum economy that's been amortized nicely since John D. Rockefeller. Of course, research and development costs nothing, don't you know...
Hell yeah we'll scream bloody murder whenever our tax dollars are being wasted on research and subsidies. Neither are proper or legitimate functions of government.Of course we won't offer our own money to get us away from a petroleum economy. I have better things to do with my money. If YOU want to develop new fuels or radically reinvent the economy, YOU should spend YOUR money to do it. Keep your grubby fingers out of my wallet.
Now, if ethanol or other biofuels held real promise, you would find plenty of people willing to put their own money up to develop the technology, just like Rockefeller and his ilk did back in the day. The fact that FedGov had to intervene in order to make ethanol viable ought to tell you something.
No matter how much research I do, I can't shake the impression that ethanol is nothing more than a welfare scheme packaged up for proud midwesterners.
Post by: Gewehr98 on June 02, 2008, 05:55:32 PM
As for your tax dollars, thank you for my military pension. I hope that doesn't torque you too much that a ethanol farmer getting some of your taxes. Unwed syphilitic teenage mothers are getting some too, as are a bazillion other subsidized programs. I know, I know, Ron Paul for Emperor!
Jeebus, did Wooderson get reincarnated or what?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on June 02, 2008, 06:28:11 PM
I live in farm country Indiana, and I see the ethanol propaganda everywhere. It's going to save the country from those eeevil Saudis and make us all rich in the process. How can you argue against that? Go America!
But the reality has revealed itself to be a bit less exciting.
First off, we don't get much of our oil from the middle east. The vast majority of our fuel comes from North America.
Second, we couldn't produce enough corn ethanol to become energy independent even if we diverted all of our corn production into the stuff. We could starve ourselves to death and still not affect the bottom line in places like Saudi Arabia.
Third, ethanol only works economically when the government pays for a goodly chunk of it. Sure, there are plenty of other government subsidies out there. But a subsidy is a subsidy, and none of 'em are good for the country at large. Basic economics.
I'm sorry if I was snippy in my last post. It's been a long day. All of this ethanol fanboy crap really gets under my skin. I'd like to think that we folks in flyover country had better sense than that. But I guess in the end we're just like the rest. As long as we get ours, who cares what it costs?
Post by: Brad Johnson on June 03, 2008, 09:38:04 AM
Quote
First off, we don't get much of our oil from the middle east. The vast majority of our fuel comes from North America.
Guess again, skippy. My Google-fu says imports account for about 60% of the crude oil used in the US.
Brad
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on June 03, 2008, 10:06:36 AM
Quote
First off, we don't get much of our oil from the middle east. The vast majority of our fuel comes from North America.
Guess again, skippy. My Google-fu says imports account for about 60% of the crude oil used in the US.
Brad
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbblpd_m.htm
We get 1.4B barrels per day from Saudi Arabia. 2.1B barrels per day from the Persian Gulf overall. 2.4B barrels from Canada. 1.4B from Mexico.
Domestic production is 5.0B (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbblpd_m.htm)
Do the math. 7.8 billion of barrels per day from North America (9.2 billion if you include Venezuela - not quite NA but darned close). 2.1B billion barrels per day from the Middle East.
Post by: WayneConrad on June 03, 2008, 10:09:53 AM
I've seen this map flung about a lot, lately. Claims the US holds a mere 2% of the remaining oil reserves:
Anyone know where this map came from?
Post by: HankB on June 03, 2008, 10:29:09 AM
The USA has as much as 2,500 billion barrels of oil in oil shale . . . but that's off limits, again -allegedly - for environmental reasons. (The stuff is chemically different from most crude, and needs different processing than what you'd get from an ordinary refinery.)
Any petrochemical engineers here to set us straight?
Post by: MillCreek on June 03, 2008, 10:43:09 AM
Quote
The upper hand is in the Organization of the Food Exporting Counties.
Very presciently, Frederik Pohl wrote about this very issue in his novel Jem, published in 1979. The world had divided into three political power blocs: exporters of petroleum, food and people. They were referred to as the Greasies, the Foods and the Peeps.
It was one of his better works. I should dig it out and re-read it, along with Man Plus and his Heechee novels.
Post by: Brad Johnson on June 03, 2008, 10:43:47 AM
Guess again yourself, skippy. My statement is correct. We don't get much of our oil from the Middle East. Far, far more of our oil comes from North America.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbblpd_m.htm
We get 1.4B barrels per day from Saudi Arabia. 2.1B barrels per day from the Persian Gulf overall. 2.4B barrels from Canada. 1.4B from Mexico.
Domestic production is 5.0B (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbblpd_m.htm)
Do the math. 7.8 billion of barrels per day from North America (9.2 billion if you include Venezuela - not quite NA but darned close). 2.1B billion barrels per day from the Middle East.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbblpd_m.htm
We get 1.4B barrels per day from Saudi Arabia. 2.1B barrels per day from the Persian Gulf overall. 2.4B barrels from Canada. 1.4B from Mexico.
Domestic production is 5.0B (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbblpd_m.htm)
Do the math. 7.8 billion of barrels per day from North America (9.2 billion if you include Venezuela - not quite NA but darned close). 2.1B billion barrels per day from the Middle East.
You're right. I am incorrect. It isn't 60% as I was surmising. It's actually higher. Per the page you linked imports accounted for 66.97% of crude oil sourced by US refineries in March 2008.
Imports, Crude Oil by Sourch, March 2008 (Monthly by Thousand Barrels)
OPEC Nations
169,679
Non OPEC Nations
128,781
Total Crude Imports
298,160
Domestic Refinery Input, Crude Oil, March 2008 (Monthly by Thousand Barrels)
445,189
And the math says....
298,160 of the 445,189 barrels of crude processed in US refineries in March 2008 came from imports.
(298,160 / 445,189) x 100 = 66.97%
Do the math. 7.8 billion of barrels per day from North America (9.2 billion if you include Venezuela - not quite NA but darned close). 2.1B billion barrels per day from the Middle East.
"North America" does not equal "United States". Those countries may be in North America but they are not "domestic". All non-US sourced production is, by definition, an import. Even from countries on the same continent. My calculations reflect this.
And Venezuela (again according to the page you linked) is an OPEC affiliated country. Why on earth even consider them for inclusion on the domestic source list, even if in passion mention?
*edited to correct for sourcing*
Brad
Post by: Balog on June 03, 2008, 11:00:28 AM
Quote from: HTG
Guess again yourself, skippy. My statement is correct. We don't get much of our oil from the Middle East. Far, far more of our oil comes from North America.
He never said it was domestic. He said it didn't come from the ME. He's right, and if you read what he actually said you'd know that.
Post by: Brad Johnson on June 03, 2008, 11:08:15 AM
Just because the crude comes from North America means exactly zip. It's still an import. It's still oil we are buying from somewhere else. It's still money going out of this country for a resource we have more of, but can't or won't access because of bureaucratic, political, or environment restrictions.
Beating up on Middle East oil while conveniently leaving out all the other places we pay for crude is, at best, lying to yourself. An import is an import is an import, no matter what continent it's from.
Brad
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on June 03, 2008, 11:13:56 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on June 03, 2008, 11:24:08 AM
Ethanol won't change that, because it isn't true.
Switching to ethanol (even if we could produce enough of it - we can't) doesn't benefit the US geopolitically. Basically we'd reduce our demand for Canadian and Mexican oil, which has never been a risk or danger to the US.
Post by: Balog on June 03, 2008, 11:30:16 AM
Post by: Brad Johnson on June 03, 2008, 11:57:36 AM
There is a world of difference between being reliant on radical Islamist terrorist states, and being reliant on Canada and Mexico.
Not really. Reliant is reliant. Just because the source is a country with differences in religious beliefs doesn't make it any less critical. It only makes it a bit more uncomfortable.
Brad
Post by: MechAg94 on June 03, 2008, 12:05:10 PM
Post by: Gewehr98 on June 03, 2008, 03:33:39 PM
Quote
My gripe is that the pro-ethanol lobby plays upon peoples' fears of the Middle East. They presume (falsely) that most of our oil comes from the IslamoFascistTerrorist nations, and that we're helping to blow up little babies every time we fill up our tanks. Ethanol will change that, they say.
Ethanol won't change that, because it isn't true.
Switching to ethanol (even if we could produce enough of it - we can't) doesn't benefit the US geopolitically. Basically we'd reduce our demand for Canadian and Mexican oil, which has never been a risk or danger to the US.
Ethanol won't change that, because it isn't true.
Switching to ethanol (even if we could produce enough of it - we can't) doesn't benefit the US geopolitically. Basically we'd reduce our demand for Canadian and Mexican oil, which has never been a risk or danger to the US.
And your gripe is baseless.
For the record (again):
1. Ethanol isn't intended to replace petroleum. It never was, and never will be. It's fear-mongering, ands gets trotted out again and again, usually in the form of, "There ain't enough corn/switchgrass/algae in the U.S. to fill all our vehicles." Well, no $hit, Sherlock, and I defy anybody to point out where such an untrue claim was ever made by the ETOH folks. They haven't. It's promulgated by the same folks (oil industry?) who say it takes more gasoline energy to make a gallon of E-85 than it delivers, and that their grocery prices are through the roof because ethanol is being produced in the cornbelt. The former is absolutely silly if you know anything about the ETOH process, and the latter totally ignores the fact that groceries are delivered in diesel trucks that pay $4.75/gallon or more for their petroleum based fuel, and aren't supposed to pass on the extra costs to the consumer. Go figure.
2. People are pissy that ETOH production is being subsidized with tax money. Again, no $hit, Sherlock, farms have been subsidized since I was knee-high to a grasshopper - those that didn't get foreclosed on, that is. Working as a kid on a dairy farm some 30 years ago, I knew the milk and cheese were getting help. If our tax dollars subsidize NASA research or help out my favorite unwed teenage syphilitic mother charity, that's ok. Researching upstart alternative energy sources? Must be the work of the devil. Again, who is gonna invest private cash into alternative fuels? Big Oil?
3. Corn ETOH isn't a means to an end. It's a start, and it was an easy start thanks to our alcoholic forefathers and their propensity to make booze from grains. Hell, it bought us NASCAR, for chrissakes. It also means as we get better at the process, we can use the experience to do the switchover to cellulosic ethanol. That's on the horizon as we speak, and most distilleries in my neck of the woods were built to make use of that technology as it becomes available. I know because I am being interviewed for a lab manager position at another new ETOH plant in Wisconsin, and they have great hopes for the newer technique.
4. I note with interest that GM announced today they're shutting down 4 assembly plants, including the Tahoe/Suburban facility just south of me, with a couple thousand employees at Janesville alone. The announcement came with a statement from GM management that they will make this a permanent shutdown, no changeover to econoboxes in those buildings, because they are of the opinion that petroleum prices will not recede below $3.00/gallon - ever. For Detroit to fess up that the days of cheap gas are over means they don't hold a lot of promise for whatever smoke is getting blown up posteriors regarding a price drop. It's 30+ years after the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo, but maybe the Detroit juggernaut is finally responding to rudder inputs.
Yes, I am a member of the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition. Yes, my family sells corn grown on previously fallow PIK acreage. No, our black angus beef herd is not starving, and no, our farms are not in danger of foreclosure - for a short while, that is. Corn will drop as cellulosic ETOH takes over, and as people scream for somebody's head on a chopping block because it takes $160 or more to fill up their Suburbans, they might just have to modify their lifestyles accordingly. But they'll bitch, and they have no right to do so if they're not working on a solution to the problem, instead of contributing to it.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on June 03, 2008, 04:04:46 PM
1. One of the biggest selling points of ethanol is that it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I can't tell you how many times I've heard that whopper of a lie. We don't have a problem with foreign oil, being that most of our oil comes from our friends in our own safe corner of the world. And even if we did, ethanol isn't going to improve matters.
2. With grains selling at all time highs, and worldwide food shortages becoming a serious problem, farm subsidies are wretched idea. The fact that there are other stupid subsidies doesn't justify the stupidity of ethanol subsidies.
And you notion that alternative fuels won't be developed without Big Brother doing it for us is silly. Entrepreneurs will develop any technology that shows promise (and even some that don't), and they'll do it on their own. The reason they aren't developing corn ethanol on their own is because ethanol doesn't show any promise, economically speaking, without massive government handouts.
3. Ethanol is just a start?? Seems like a pretty good excuse for the fact that ethanol doesn't amount to anything. If the real goal is cellulosic ethanol, then let's quit wasting everyone's money on corn ethanol. We can learn our lessons on how to produce cellulosic ethanol by producing cellulosic ethanol. If cellulosic ethanol isn't ready yet, then let's save our money and wait until it is.
4. Yeah, gas prices are high. And yeah, GM is shutting down some plants. Neither situation will be improved by ethanol.
Oy. The sane thing to do regarding ethanol is to drop it. We have plenty of conventional fuel, right here in our own backyard, enough to last for generations. As soon as someone discovers a better alternative the market will switch over on its own.
Really, let's quit pretending that corn ethanol is good for anyone except the corn farmers.
Post by: Bogie on June 03, 2008, 06:41:14 PM
And if we're bright, we'll develop a lot of nuclear energy, wind energy, and solar...
Post by: Gewehr98 on June 03, 2008, 10:25:13 PM
In the meantime, keep slurping down the imported crude, and for Gawd's sake, don't DARE try to come up with something that gets us off of that teat, if even in the nascent stages. All hail ethanol? Yeah, sure. All hail thinking outside the box. I've run nothing but E-85 in my truck for 2 years straight now, and will do so just to spite those who would play grasshopper while the ants work away. Bogie's right, nuclear, wind, solar, biofuel, or we do the same thing we did in 1973, again. Some talk the talk, others walk the walk.
And I'm pretty much tired of HTG's confrontational tone vs. a rational discussion, so this one's done run its course.