[OT - US/Canada] E-85

On Sun, 07 May 2006 15:11:33 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:

My comment was mostly said tongue-in-cheek, but oil companies may
have problems if they try to go into ethanol production in a big
way. They'd first need the production of corn/cane sugar/etc. to
increase substantially or the increased demand would cause prices of
those foodstuffs to skyrocket.

That's not the way large commodities markets work. First, oil companies
getting into ethanol production wouldn't want to own much farmland.

I agree. The first draft of the reply said as much, but it was
growing like topsy so I chucked it and started over. The oil
companies would prefer buying from other agribusinesses or farmers,
but the same problem would exist - accumulating more land to grow
the crops needed to produce the ethanol.


Second, the markets are so big that prices aren't going to jump just
because a few biggies say they are building plants.

I wasn't considering market psychology, but the increased price of
corn and sugar if the oil companies started buying it without
waiting for the growers to increase production. The same thing
happens with oil. Even Shrub recently acknowledged this,
attributing increased oil and gas prices partly due to increased
demand from China and India.


Do they wait for agribusiness to do
it slowly, possibly taking decades to be able to supply what the oil
companies would need, or do the oil companies speed the process by
buying lots of land and becoming farmers? They may also not want
to risk making the necessary capital commitments until a few years
have passed, because won't be able to oil the palms of many of their
traditional political allies if they are either out of office, or
worse, behind bars. They wouldn't be averse to brib..., uh,
contributing to Democratic campaigns, but probably wouldn't get as
much bang for the buck. Thus, it's unlikely we'll see major
movement towards ethanol production until a couple of years have
passed and the oil companies can better assess the new situation.

I don't think so. Ethanol production is going to increase whether or not
big oil participates in the growing/production end. And I will be they
won't be interested in real estate in Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, etc.

Yes, ethanol production will increase. But the amount of the
increase will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to
whether the petroleum side of the business can continue receiving
tax breaks, whether gov't incentives are given for building ethanol
distilleries, whether improved gasoline mileage is made mandatory
(or "encouraged"), etc.

"William Graham" wrote

But can't you make ethanol anywhere (corn?) is grown?

Yes. Thousands of people do, especially in the Ozarks, and Great Smoky
mountains.....:^)

Here in Australia, a few stations sell an ethanol mix made from sugar cane,
of which we have a lot...

Paul

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
William Graham wrote:


You can make ethanol out of almost anything....Probably even the
insects....:^)
Also, pure, drinkable ethanol has to be made rather carefully, so it
doesn't contain any methanol, which is poisonous, but ethanol for fuel
doesn't have that problem.....Cars will eat methanol just as well as the
good stuff....

When you fraction steam, ethanol and the rest, the "rest" ends up in the
runoff water at the bottom of the still. So the methanol can be separated
from the water and burnt in the mash heater.

You know an awful lot about this Alan.....Are you sure you're not from
Tennessee?

On Sun, 07 May 2006 16:45:22 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:

On 6 May 2006 11:46:42 -0700, "Rich" wrote:


It's so clean it scours the inside of the engine, causing drastically
increased part's wear.
Of for the days of tetraethyl lead.


Vehicles designed for E-85 use don't have this problem.
Why? Because they are designed for E-85.

You'd be much better off complaining about E-85's real problems.

Which are what?

Several...
Higher cost; where E-85 is on the market, it costs more than gas.
Higher cost; it's costlier than gas *WITH* more than 50¢ per gallon
direct tax credit (meaning the makers of E-85 get more than 50¢ off
their federal taxes for each gallon of ethanol they make, which is
directly paid by taxpayers).
Lower energy than gas (meaning: it costs more at the pump, and users
get fewer MPG, for a cost double whammy).
E-85 releases more fumes than gas, making for more pollution.
The continental US can't raise sugar cane (which Brasil, often cited
as an example the US should follow, uses), which is far more efficient
than corn as a source for ethanol.
The ratio of energy in/out for ethanol, under current technology, is
about 1:1.25 *at best*; this means we gain little in actual energy
efficiency.

The current move to get away from oil for motor fuel is mostly fueled
(pardon the pun) by a desire to cut energuy costs; E-85 does the
opposite, something that is definitely not being told to the public.
As well, it's seldom mentioned that E-85 requires an expensive vehicle
conversion (or purchase of a new vehicle), further raising costs.

While it's possible to push E-85 as a way to cut oil imports, it's
*cost* that will hit the average buyer, and E-85 fails in the cost
department.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Bill Funk wrote:

The current move to get away from oil for motor fuel is mostly fueled
(pardon the pun) by a desire to cut energuy costs; E-85 does the
opposite, something that is definitely not being told to the public.
As well, it's seldom mentioned that E-85 requires an expensive vehicle
conversion (or purchase of a new vehicle), further raising costs.

While it's possible to push E-85 as a way to cut oil imports, it's
*cost* that will hit the average buyer, and E-85 fails in the cost
department.

Ah but are you calculating the costs of war?

On Mon, 08 May 2006 16:37:52 GMT, Paul Furman
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:

The current move to get away from oil for motor fuel is mostly fueled
(pardon the pun) by a desire to cut energuy costs; E-85 does the
opposite, something that is definitely not being told to the public.
As well, it's seldom mentioned that E-85 requires an expensive vehicle
conversion (or purchase of a new vehicle), further raising costs.

While it's possible to push E-85 as a way to cut oil imports, it's
*cost* that will hit the average buyer, and E-85 fails in the cost
department.

Ah but are you calculating the costs of war?

Nope.
Do you? If so, please show your work. :-)
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Alan Browne wrote:


For the North American audience
60 Minutes will present a segement on E-85 (Ethanol) fuels,

Sunday May 7 (19:00 EDT, CBS).

I halfheartedly apologize for the OT posting, but you know how sensitive
I am on this topic.

E-85 is 85% ethanol. The vehicle must have a fuel mix sensor and
controls. This is a growth trend area in North America which, while it
doesn't reduce consumption, it at least displaces it with a renewable
fuel that burns cleaner than gasoline.

Cheers,
Alan

I've been wondering if anyone has compared E-85 with using the same corn
to make corn oil and using it in a bio-diesel? I know the original
diesel design was created to burn peanut oil.

wrote:

it must be _trucked_ to its destination


Isn't all gas trucked to its destination?

And if the trucks use the same fuel...


Most petrochemicals are piped throughout North America to regional
distribution centers. Trucked from there.

Don't know if diesel engines will run E-85.

"William Graham" wrote in news:sf-dne0Lgt-
:


Yes. Thousands of people do, especially in the Ozarks, and Great Smoky
mountains.....:^)

Not so much in the Smokeys, too damn many tourists wandering around.
Wilkes & Johnston counties are a better bet in NC.

In TN, try up near the border with KY & VA.

Bill wrote:


This may come as a shock to you, but most "gas stations" get their fuel
from a transport truck hauling a tanker.

But that tanker gets its load from a terminal that's filled from a
pipeline.