billvon 2,396 #51 May 8, 2007 >Nice - burn more net fuel from the world while pretending it nets less. You can make more ethanol. You can't make more oil. > But with the added bonus of artificillay redistributing money to special >interest groups. Which was the end goal all along. Take your pick of special interest groups - oil companies and Middle Eastern kings, or US farmers. When it comes down to redistributing our money to a Saudi sheik or a Kansas farmer, I prefer the farmer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #52 May 8, 2007 I thought that ethanol was not a valid alternative in the long term - that it took more energy to make than it produces? -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #53 May 8, 2007 > I thought that ethanol was not a valid alternative in the long term - >that it took more energy to make than it produces? Right now ethanol gives you an "energy gain" of between 40 and 60% - which means you put in 1 BTU of energy (in fertilizer, water pumping, harvesting, fermenting) and get 1.4 to 1.6 BTU's out. Put another way, it would take 4.5 barrels of oil to get a Honda Civic across the country, or .5 barrels of oil and 53 bushels of corn (with their attendant energy overhead) to get an FFV across the country. Even at this rate it's an interim fuel. The 'grail' of the ethanol fuel cycle is cellulosic ethanol, which is ethanol made from wood chips. Its energy ratio is approximately the same, but wood chips (and paper, and corncobs, and grass etc) are currently considered waste products. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #54 May 9, 2007 QuoteDon't speak to matters you're not fully informed of, even if CARB is a wacky bunch. quiet you ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #55 May 9, 2007 >>>>>you put in 1 BTU of energy (in fertilizer, water pumping, harvesting, fermenting) and get 1.4 to 1.6 BTU's out. ahh yes, extra manufacturing steps always result in efficiency gains >>>>> (with their attendant energy overhead) Let's just ignore this term (as well as construction, maintenance and lost opportunity costs of dedicated processing facilities), no one wants to know about it. The important thing, is specific groups get money pointed their way. And a bunch of people (that do mean well) get to pat themselves on the back and "feel" good. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #56 May 9, 2007 Quote>>>>>you put in 1 BTU of energy (in fertilizer, water pumping, harvesting, fermenting) and get 1.4 to 1.6 BTU's out. ahh yes, extra manufacturing steps always result in efficiency gains . I think you failed to account for the solar energy input. (And the bullshit factor)... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #57 May 9, 2007 >ahh yes, extra manufacturing steps always result in efficiency gains Yep. Just like the extra step of turbocharging an engine results in efficiency gains. >Let's just ignore this term (as well as construction, maintenance and >lost opportunity costs of dedicated processing facilities), no one wants to >know about it. If you DO want to take it into account - like I said before, you still end up with 40 to 60% more energy than when you started. To put it another way, the farm/distillery could easily power itself with no inputs (other than water, air and sun) and still produce fuel. Let's see a petroleum distillery do that! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #58 May 9, 2007 Quote >To put it another way, the farm/distillery could easily power itself with no inputs (other than water, air and sun) and still produce fuel. Let's see a petroleum distillery do that! It would work. It would just take a VERY long term set of planning to keep it going. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #59 May 9, 2007 I had an interesting idea on the way in to work today when I saw a Prius blow by me doing over 80mph. I don't want to get into government mandating issues but what if every car had a large MPG meter displayed. I'd be willing to bet that when people started actually seeing how their driving habits influence the efficiency that people would change their habits in relatively short order. That action alone would save quite a bit of petrol. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #60 May 9, 2007 > I had an interesting idea on the way in to work today when I saw a >Prius blow by me doing over 80mph. I don't want to get into government >mandating issues but what if every car had a large MPG meter displayed. It might do something - but some people (most?) just don't care. Their time is more valuable than the gas they use. I think the time it would make the most difference is during the test drive, before they buy it. "This thing is getting 13mpg! What do you have that gets a little bit better mileage?" The new (more accurate) mileage standards will also help with that. The Prius has a large MPG meter BTW. It even has a histogram of mileage so you can see how you did over the last 30 minutes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #61 May 9, 2007 QuoteI had an interesting idea on the way in to work today when I saw a Prius blow by me doing over 80mph. I don't want to get into government mandating issues but what if every car had a large MPG meter displayed. I'd be willing to bet that when people started actually seeing how their driving habits influence the efficiency that people would change their habits in relatively short order. That action alone would save quite a bit of petrol. I think it would have a positive result. Those meters are very common, if not mandated in other countries. My friend's BMW from Canada has an analog gauge for it. It might help in purchases, but where it may really kick in is showing people how wasteful drag racing from red light to red light is. It's bizarre to me that people will floor it, coast till the last second, then slam on the brakes to avoid smushing the person in front. I can show up 10 seconds later at the same red light with non of the dramatics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GreatGazoo 0 #62 May 10, 2007 Cool chart Bilvon! You can see a relationship. Crude oil and Gasoline are sold in different markets, and you will often have a lag at the the pump. In the U.S., price at the pump is supply and demand in the purist form. Gouging won't work. Most filling stations are mom and pop owned and will sell at the lowest price possible to get the customers. They only get a few pennies profit per gallon. When someone drives off without paying, they are screwed. It's one of the worst businesses to own. Right up there with restaurants and drop zones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #63 May 10, 2007 QuoteCool chart Bilvon! You can see a relationship It is irrelevant, it's 2 years out of date and useless for anything but a VERY loose correlation. If 1981 is anything to go by we may have been getting utterly reamed by refinery markup for 20 years but this period may show the amortization of expenses as prices go up and margins can be increased (not as a percentage). something that didn't kick in nearly as effectively in the 2004-2005 period. The refinery markup is through the roof right now and that is not shown on the charts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #64 May 10, 2007 >it's 2 years out of date . . . We've been using gasoline (and companies have been making money off it) a bit longer than that! And compared to the price jump in the late 70's/early 80's, today's increases are minor. This isn't new, and 60 years is a goodly amount of time to smooth out amortization costs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #65 May 10, 2007 Quote Quote Quote In CA the refineries were ordered to convert to using MTBE (or more expensive ethanol), then a few years later were ordered to stop using MTBE and only use ethanol. The state tried to get the Feds to let the refineries use neither, but Ethanol Fed Bush sent back a hearty fuck you, so at least until a Democrats take over, here we are. sure, California's wacky refinery requirements are the fault of the Feds....... Ultimately, yes. It's a fed mandate that ethanol or MTBE be used, even if its possible to refine a gasoline mix that is just as clean without it. Don't speak to matters you're not fully informed of, even if CARB is a wacky bunch. There was an ethanol mandate, but CA took it to the extreme, they were blending it in year round...other states were using it only in their winter blends. Other states were also choosing to avoid MTBE, choosing Ethanol instead.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #66 May 10, 2007 Quote There was an ethanol mandate, but CA took it to the extreme, they were blending it in year round...other states were using it only in their winter blends. Other states aren't in violation of the Clean Air Act. This wasn't some capricious choice made by Sacramento, to make life hard for everyone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #67 May 10, 2007 Quote>it's 2 years out of date . . . We've been using gasoline (and companies have been making money off it) a bit longer than that! And compared to the price jump in the late 70's/early 80's, today's increases are minor. This isn't new, and 60 years is a goodly amount of time to smooth out amortization costs. Minor? Fill in the missing two years and I see only a slight difference in the 70s spike and the current one. 1974 -> 1981 1998 -> 2007, or for shorter period with slightly smaller delta, 2003-2007. It probably should be viewed merely in percentage change, either. Paying an extra $2/gallon costs people an everage $1000 out of pocket. Paying an extra $1 = only $500. When the UC system kept raising tuitions 20% at a time, the later ones hurt much more than the early ones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
