LOST JEEPS
http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/

Popular Mechanics Jan. '08
http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27655		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  blake1827 [ Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Popular Mechanics Jan. '08
I read a semi-interesting article "The Case for Diesel" which unfortunately I couldn't find the article on their website. Intriguingly they made no mention of bio-diesel or bio-diesel blends cleaning up the emissions, but the article focused on a 2.0 '09 VW Jetta prototype that averaged 50 mpg and highlighted the "coming diesel invasion" which was all higher end cars like: Audi A4, BMW 3 Series & Cadillac CTS (the WJ CRD wasn't mentioned), and the new emissions controls.

This is what really caught my attention:
"Further down the line, diesel could lose some of its allure if the price jumps. Diesel and gasoline prices have been neck and neck in recent years, normally staying within about 20 cents of each other. However, "Diesel use has been growing for several years, and there's no guarantee it couldn't become more expensive than gasoline," says Jeff Hazle, technical director of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association. Federal renewable-fuel policy is one factor is one factor that seems destined to push diesel prices higher. If so, it will be an unintended consequence of legislation that aims to raise production of ethanol from 4.7 billion gallons in 2007 to 7.5 billion in 2012. That's because the machinery required to grow and harvest the corn that's made into ethanol runs on ... you guessed it, diesel. "I wouldn't go so far as to predict shortages," Hazle says. "But I can't say it's going to be a cheap fuel."

So if that doesn't waive a red flag for the use of bio-diesel I dunno what does, but again the author Ben Hewitt never even mentions it.

"According to the EPA, if 33 percent of U.S. drivers switched to diesel vehicles the country would reduce its oil consumption by about 1.5 million barrels a day, cutting oil imports by more than 10 percent.-Popular Mechanics Jan. 2008 pg. 75
Author:  Cowcatcher [ Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
Interesting. The one thing that is incorrect in the calculation (of course we will hear from another member on this) is the calculation that ethanol production will cause a greater impact on diesel since diesel powered equipment will be used to produce the ethanol. Crops are being produced on that land now that also requires diesel powered equipment to product so that is a strawman arguement to increase diesel prices.
Author:  bugnout [ Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:52 pm ]
Post subject: 
I humbly disagree, more land is in corn production today because of the demand for ethanol. Its a boon for the farmers that view corn production for ethanol as a new market, raising the price of corn for other uses.

I'd be ok with it the corn weren't still subsidized. Then we'd see if ethanol from corn is really a viable solution.
Author:  retmil46 [ Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:10 pm ]
Post subject: 
Well, considering the comments came from a Refiners Assoc. spokesman, and the recent history of fuel prices and oil futures speculation, another possible take is this - any reasonable excuse to jack the price up even higher.

Well, on second thought, I take that back - it doesn't even have to be reasonable, just an excuse.
Author:  DarbyWalters [ Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
Funny, In Europe where diesel is the norm...Diesel Prices are LOWER thna Petrol. If you take a barrel of OIL and decide that DIESEL will be the main objective...the price of diesel will be lower than Petrol.

I bet the legislature ignores the fact that we could reduce imports of OIL by at least 10% if more diesel cars were on the road. The Ethanol Issue is a political windfall for some candidates.

Let's make sure this thread does not degrade to a mud fest. Keep it Clean.
Author:  Cowcatcher [ Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
Bugnout - The point was that the land may be producing more corn but before that it produced hay, soybeans or something else that required equipment to farm that burned diesel. Also on the subsidies, unless the corn growers have something special going the subsidies are price supports to guaranty a minimum floor price and when crops go above that floor then no subsidies are paind. I don't follow corn prices but if they are like wheat and evevy other grain the current price is way above the floor price and no subsidies are being paid.
Author:  Reflex [ Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:52 pm ]
Post subject: 
Cowcatcher - Of course I have to respond. The issue is that land that previously was left fallow or not claimed for farming is increasingly being used for corn production. Corn is one of the most intensive crops that can be grown, using both more fertilizers and more labor(ie: more diesel equipment). As you claim more land for corn, other necessary products have to be grown on other, less ideal land, increasing fuel consumption. And all this to ultimatly produce less energy via ethanol than the diesel spent represents!

What a joke.
Author:  Threeweight [ Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
Want to respond to a couple points...

"So if that doesn't waive a red flag for the use of bio-diesel I dunno what does, but again the author Ben Hewitt never even mentions it."

Important to remember, bio-diesel and ethanol have very little to do with each other. Much of the current bio-diesel production uses waste oils, which is in unequivicably good thing. In any event, the general scientific consensus is that the energy cycle for virgin bio-diesel is favorable, meaning you produce more energy in burning 1 gallon of bio-diesel than you did in producing it. Ethanol, however, is the opposite. The general consensus is that corn-based ethanol takes more energy to produce than you get when burning it, which is why it needs to be subsidized to be competative. Since most American's want to pursue bio-fuels for environmental and energy independence reasons, corn-based ethanol is a pretty dumb idea.

On Reflex's point, America has a very good program to encourage farmers to fallow land for fish and wildlife benefit, and to discourage over-production of crops. It also helps farmers by giving them a garounteed amount of income off the land they enroll in it. It is called the National Conservation Reserve Program. The more we encourage and subsidize bio-fuels use, particularly corn-based fuels (much of the NRCS land is in the Midwest), the more we discourage farmers from participating in this program. I don't care if land currently in alfalfa or wheat is turned into corn or soybeans to produce fuel. I do care if land that is currently being managed for wildlife is converted into corn or soybeans for "environmental benefit".

My 2.5 cents.
Author:  bugnout [ Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
Cowcatcher, I agree with your points. But farmers are converting to corn production for ethanol because of a false market for ethanol created by Washington.

I believe, but I may be wrong, that factoring all costs for seed, fertalizer, tractor fuel, transportation and processing, E85 at the corner gas station is more expensive to produce than it costs for me to buy it and put in my 1999 flex fuel Ranger. That means someone is absorbing the costs and I don't believe its the farmers, petroleum industry or the retail gas stations. Someone is picking the tax payers pockets again...

The way the price of gas has been rising, it may not be long before it is profitable, somewhere north of 5.00 a gallon, but not today. If we find something more suitable than corn for ethanol, I'm all for it.
Author:  Cowcatcher [ Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:10 pm ]
Post subject: 
Reflex wrote:
Cowcatcher - Of course I have to respond. The issue is that land that previously was left fallow or not claimed for farming is increasingly being used for corn production. Corn is one of the most intensive crops that can be grown, using both more fertilizers and more labor(ie: more diesel equipment). As you claim more land for corn, other necessary products have to be grown on other, less ideal land, increasing fuel consumption. And all this to ultimatly produce less energy via ethanol than the diesel spent represents!

What a joke.


Little viable farm acerage is left fallow and littel has been in the US since before the Reagan administration with the exception of CRP and the CRP that is coming out is coming out largely because th contracts are up for that program. Unless one is dealing with perennial crops like grass or alfalfa there is little fuel savings from one cultivated crop to the next. Engineers should stick with engineering. :roll:

By the way I do not support ethanol as a viable solution to energy since it takes it's own expensive infrastructure.
Author:  bugnout [ Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sounds like we are all in agreement, its just the details where we differ :D
Author:  Reflex [ Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
Cowcatcher wrote:
Little viable farm acerage is left fallow and littel has been in the US since before the Reagan administration with the exception of CRP and the CRP that is coming out is coming out largely because th contracts are up for that program. Unless one is dealing with perennial crops like grass or alfalfa there is little fuel savings from one cultivated crop to the next.

There are multiple articles up on the net about all the land being converted for corn production in the US, palm oil in asia and sugar cane in south america. The massive run up in food prices alone demonstrates immediate consequences of current policies. I should not have to re-demonstrate this every time a thread on this topic comes up.

Quote:
Engineers should stick with engineering. :roll:

And farmers should stick to farming. :roll:

Quote:
By the way I do not support ethanol as a viable solution to energy since it takes it's own expensive infrastructure.

I'm glad your finally coming around on this. Perhaps the legislation you support and push for in the party and in the state will reflect this newfound reality.
Author:  boilermaker2 [ Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:15 pm ]
Post subject:  The problem with concensus
The problem with concensus is that there is not a consensus. An ag economist in California and another in New York (Cornell) keep, repeatedly, churning out the (same, old) information that it takes more energy to create ethanol than to use the fossil fuels it took to create. This IS a straw man in two main respects:
1.) If you tax the "free" energy from the sun
2.) You assume (@$$ U ME) that the ethanol plants are still using the same 70's technology and economy of scale (which is when this "RATIO" was first written.

Sadly, if you say something long enough and it ends up in the right hands, it becomes the norm. Michigan State, Purdue, EPA and others have found it to be AT LEAST at parity and most found it to be slightly better. They have found the assumptions made to be utterly false.

Moonshine is not the best thing, no doubt, but it is a start. We didn't stop our quest for space when we lost a few good men and (now) women. If you were to take this arguement (cost of recovery the energy to use it) to the nth degree, you would be burning coal in your CRD (Coal Running Dream :shock: ) or driving with nuclear. :idea:

Recycling fryer grease, dumpster diving if you will, is a great thing but cannot be extrapolated to our AMERICAN level of use. I am surprised that Bio-cooks on the board have not lamented large recycling firms "buying" the fryer grease because they CAN afford to recycle and resell it.

The whole corn argument escapes the reality of economics. There IS a ceiling: food. People will always pay more for food than they will fuel. This means that the food refiners will always win (outbid) the ethanol producers. Who knows, maybe we will be more healthy and think twice before buying that Coke (corn sucrose) because it is a luxury item that is slowly killing us.

I guess I should take my own advice and relax :twisted: , this will sort its way out. I find it great that the farmers are finally being paid above the welfare floor that the goverment put in place via subsidized LDP's. I find it even more gratifying that there are actually a few people that are beginning to compare the cost of this little ethanol experiment to having to fight two wars. I am NOT from the "we shoudl have never gone over there camp" but I am someone who thinks that it would not hurt if they choked on their oil a little bit. I would rather pay for a brand-new combine for a millionaire farmer than fund a billionaire sheik who pays for martyred sons and orphaned children. While we b***h about ethanol subsidies, we have never been given a good number on just how much it costs us to keep our sons and daughters in areas around the world that don't like us to protect this precious resource. I bet we would like that cost even less (please refer back to my combine comment).

Wow, all over the board on this one. For the cellulosic crowd, did you notice that the House and Senate lowered the grain-based ethanol subsidy in the current energy legislation but more than doubled it for cellulosic-derived ethanol? 8) Too bad it will likely get vetoed but I will save that for another day.

Food AND Fuel for thought,
Boiler
Author:  DarbyWalters [ Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
When all is said and done...it doesn't matter what new fuel sources come and go...unless we learn to use LESS FUEL in TOTAL...we are spinning our wheels. Whether the fuel is used for production, transportation or consumption, unless we learn how to use less of it...well you know the rest. For most Americans the only way to change consumption is to hurt the wallet. I wish it were different...
Author:  Threeweight [ Tue Dec 18, 2007 9:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
DarbyWalters wrote:
unless we learn to use LESS FUEL in TOTAL...we are spinning our wheels.


x2. The increase in CAFE standards that Congress included in the energy bill will be 20 times as effective in reducing foreign oil consumption and CO2 emissions than will any amount of money invested in bio-fuels. The sad thing is, in some ways we are now trying to save the US auto industry from itself. With the ever increasing demand in Asia, high fuel prices are going to be a reality from here on out.
Author:  retmil46 [ Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:09 am ]
Post subject: 
Threeweight wrote:
DarbyWalters wrote:
unless we learn to use LESS FUEL in TOTAL...we are spinning our wheels.


x2. The increase in CAFE standards that Congress included in the energy bill will be 20 times as effective in reducing foreign oil consumption and CO2 emissions than will any amount of money invested in bio-fuels. The sad thing is, in some ways we are now trying to save the US auto industry from itself. With the ever increasing demand in Asia, high fuel prices are going to be a reality from here on out.


Indeed. And another reason why corn-based ethanol makes so little sense. Even for vehicles advertised as flex fuel, the MPG ratings for ethanol use that I've seen are markedly worse than regular gas., while in a diesel biodiesel vs dino is practically a wash.

And regardless of the study or it's source, everything I've seen up to this point indicates that the energy return from biodiesel is far more favorable than that for ethanol.

And then you have growing corn solely for ethanol production, versus a crop such as soybeans where the oil for biodiesel is a byproduct of the normal processing to turn it into foodstuffs - a dual-use crop.

And that's not to mention the other methods already developed for turning coal, natural gas, and even celluosic material into synthetic diesel.

IMHO, Washington picked the method that would put the most money in the right pockets, not the method that would have been most effective in creating additional energy sources.
Author:  boilermaker2 [ Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:14 am ]
Post subject:  retmil you are correct, kind of
ethanol will never, ever, exceed biodiesel energy's output. This is almost by definition because diesel is more dense and has more energy per gallon. In addition, a lot of diesel engines, over time, have taken even greater advantage of this by adding turbos which further oxygenate the fuel for more a more complete and powerful combustion.

However, that is where the efficiency stops. Corn produces 2.8 gallonsof ethanol/bushel x 155 bu/acre= 434 gallons/acre
Beans produce 1.4 gallons of soydiesel/bushel x 45 bushels per acre = 63 gallons/acre

These are efficiencies when looking at it on a commercial scale. If we are using recycled fry oil, this is ABOSOLUTELY wonderful but the efficiency stops there.

Biodiesel is more environmentally friendly but the rate of production is not there. But that is only if it is created the way we due via soybean or recycling. Clearing of forests for palm oil production using the methods they are using is not going to get any going-green awards.

With the new Energy Bill the President should sign today (unless the verbage has been thrown out, I am trying to find out now) the cellulosic ethanol tax credit will be slightly more than the biodiesel tax credit on a per gallon basis. Both over over twice as large ethanol tax credit that everyone complains about so much. EtOH via grain will be ~$.46/gallon , biodiesel $1.00/gallon and cellulosic EtOH ~$1.08/gallon. I am not entirely sure how this has shaken out due to PAYGO (House) rules to pay for the cellulosic subsidy and the alleged tax increases via decreased subsidies for oil exploration (Whitehouse).

Both technologies, though around for decades, are still in my opinion in their infancy. I look forward to us developing those resources rather than pounding sand or displacing caribou. :lol:

Great discussion guys, I agree with many of you more than you think but I also don't think that we are getting a complete picture by reading Newsweek and this discussion bears that fruit. The story is too long, too convoluted and not nearly as sexy as food vs fuel. And yes, ethanol byproducts can be eaten. In other words, there is more than ethanol in a single kernel of corn which is derived from the starch. There is even biodiesel in the germ which actually decreases the efficiency of EtOH production in older technologies.

Boiler
Author:  Cowcatcher [ Wed Dec 19, 2007 2:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
While the comparison of soy today may be interesting it is not a very good source for biodiesel. There are crops that produce much higher yields and other alternatives such as algea may be even better.

Ehthonol may be a useful additive to gas but it is not a very good fuel source from the handling standpoint as a standalone fuel from a cost standpoint unless oil goes to about $200 a barrel and even then could only supplement our needs not replace them.
Author:  Pote [ Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
I eagerly awaiting the dual usage "Hemp" biodiesels. ;) :shock: :shock: with THC emissions that would invariably eliminate road rage. ;)
Author:  chadhargis [ Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
Humm...where can I get some of that? LOL!
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/