It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ethanol?

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Govt subsidies for grain to grow more raw material for ethanol. = screw the taxpayer.
Higher costs for fuel due to addition of ethanol = screw the consumer
Higher costs for food because crain crops are being used for ethanol = screw the consumer
Paying more for fuel and food means paying more sales tax on both = screw the taxpayer.

Who is winning? Not the taxpayers or the consumers.

There are countries where gasoline AND LP or natural gas can be burned in the same vehicle with the flip of a switch. In Australia this is common and allows the consumer to use the less expensive choice depending on availability of gasoline or LP/Natural gas. It is simple, convenient and utilizes the abundance of natural gas in Australia.

We have enough natural gas in the US to run for centuries but it isn't profitable for the agenda setters.
So, we spend tax dollars to subsidize the least effective method of fueling vehicles that we can find and call it "green" technology. The green apparently stands for dollars wasted, taxed or just plain stolen from the average citizen.




posted on May, 27 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
figured I'd give the thread a bump for any new opinions on this as this thread never got much attention



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Once again, when cars were first invented, fuel octane was fairly high and the mileage was great, but Oil Companies don't make BIG money that way, they do not care how much they pollute either. Ethanol, like Nitrogen, REDUCE fuel mileage substantially, this has been proven. I have a friend who works at a refinery as a chemical engineer, he says it costs less than half as much to produce high octane racing fuels, they do not break down the oil as far. The octane numbers are high. In a high compression engine, the horsepower would also be big, the mileage would be great. But again, the Oil Companies would not be selling as much fuel, they would not be wasting as many other products breaking down the fuel and they would have less by product from the waste. They make money on everything, including the waste.

So why do the right thing? High octane race fuels are known to pollute a lot less too and the smell good. But we would not need catylitic converters or other emmisions crap which I am sure they own stock or actually own the companies that manufacture these things. The auto industry does not care and most consumers are ignorant of all this. Sad isn't it, very sad.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 


yes I find it truly disturbing how the oil companies and auto manufacturers are in bed with each other to rape a huge profit off of the consumers they are supposed to have the best interests in...

It is literally a slap to the face of all people across the globe from the oil companies to allow this to continue...I think a true revolution for the people of this planet would be to bring these companies down via alternatives (which are probably being suppressed)...how much longer must it continue



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
I guess I have a lot to add to this thread! I have a MS and a PhD in cellulosic ethanol production.

First of all. OP, you got that wrong. The conspiracy is actually against biofuels. Think about it. The OPEC (organization of petroleum exporter countries) and the oil companies have a lot of power. In fact, the world is at their hands! They control the oil production, and therefore they can control the price. Do you think they would let alternative sources of energy to play a bigger role? Of course not! They want oil to continue as the mains source of energy of the world. Biofuels can be produced in almost every country. No country would need to rely exclusively on a few oil producer countries and companies. There's a conspiracy against biofuels! Well, there's conspiracy against biofuels, but there's also a lobby in favor of the wrong biofuel, which is corn ethanol. Corn ethanol consumes a lot of diesel to be produced, so maybe that's the reason.

Now let's go to the facts about ethanol.

Regarding ethanol efficiency in engines:
1) You can expect a decrease of 25 to 30% when running a car with pure ethanol. If you get 20 mpg with gas, you'll get around 15 mpg with ethanol. I've been driving flexfuel cars for a long time, please don't tell me that the reduction is greater than that because it isn't.
2) Older car need to be converted to ethanol. The modifications are protection against corrosion in the fuel tank and fuel lines, and a different ECU system. That's it.
3) Ethanol does NOT produce glunk or sludge in the engine. In fact, ethanol engines are much cleaner. The oil is still clear between oil changes. Last time I replaced my spark plugs they were as clean as new.

Regarding the efficiency of the ethanol production systems:
1) Not all ethanol are the same. Some are good and some are bad. You will see that corn ethanol is bad, and sugar cane and switchgrass ethanol are good.
2) Ethanol can be produced from sugar cane (Brazil), corn grains (US) and cellulose. Cellulose is found in the plant cell wall, so every plant can be a feedstock. The most promising ones for the US are switchgrass and miscanthus due to high biomass production per area. Sugar cane produces 800 gallons of ethanol per acre, corn produces only 180 gallons per acre. Switchgrass is estimated to produce between 600 and 1000 gallons of ethanol per acre. Bad corn ethanol.
3) Net energy efficiency (NEV) is the energy input divided by the energy output. It shows if there's a gain or a loss of energy in the system. In other words, it shows if are spending more energy to produce the ethanol than you can get out of it. There's no point in using more energy than produced. Corn has a NEV of 1.2, sugar cane of 6, and switchgrass of 7. Therefore, corn only produces 20% more energy, sugar cane produces 7 times more and switchgrass produces 8 times more energy than spent. Bad corn ethanol! It's like driving 18 miles to get a free gallon of gas with a car that gets 20 mpg. It's almost pointless.
4) Corn is also a food source, so diverting corn grains to ethanol production can increase food prices. The magnitude of the increase is not high though. Corn directed to ethanol production was responsible for only 10% of the increase in maize prices in 2008 (it was the peak). Switchgrass is a non-food crop, so no direct effects on food prices!

I think that's it! If I remember something else I'll add it later.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ChingLing
 


so there is a conspiracy in itself that we primarily use corn as our main source of ethanol and as you said...it has a very low yield compared to others...seems a deliberate attempt of reducing our food supply (i.e. the food we feed to cows/pigs/horses/chickens) is all corn and grain thus driving food prices up as more and more farms convert their yields over to produce ethanol...

As for it reducing the gas mileage...I disagree that it is a set reduction like what you're saying...I've filled up on the stuff before and have had so many full tanks go to empty MUCH sooner than they ever should have because I have stopped and filled my 15 gallon tank at less frequented ethanol mixed gas stations...maybe it has something to do with how ethanol and petrol mix together...but trust me when I say my gas mileage was more than cut in half and I've had many other local people that I personally know attest that the same thing has happened to them as well as having more than a few of my friends have to take their vehicles into the shops because of the gumming up of fuel lines and such...

Do you have any idea what the cost of converting a vehicle over for more practical ethanol use is? Because I don't and I personally don't see the cost of performing such a thing as worthwhile to be honest unless it can be done inexpensively. I know that newer vehicles are more prestige at running with ethanol dilated fuels but many and I mean MANY of the people who live around where I live (including myself) drive older vehicles which seem to get wrecked by most of the dilated fuels...I also realized that appliances that run off of gas such as lawnmowers and such tend to have big problems with ethanol dilated gasses because you can have them sit over the winter unused with gas inside them, try and start them up the next summer, and have the gas technically already be stale and completely separated form of ethanol/petrol that ruins the appliance

thanks for your input



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by here4awhile
 


I don't think it's a conspiracy to drive food prices up. I would think it's a conspiracy to keep ethanol production low and expensive, less competitive with gas.

I'm not sure about this, but maybe the reduction in gas mileage might be greater in bigger engines? The 25 to 30% is an average number for the brazilian passenger cars fleet, which are made mostly of 4 cylinders 1.6 liter engine and a 4 cylinders 1.0 liters. And I used to drive a 1.0 liter and verified that. Also, the higher decrease in gas mileage you observed could be due to the cold temperatures during the winter too.

I don't think it would cost much to convert here in the US. A new gas tank costs about $150. I don't know about the fuel lines. Maybe the newer cars already have a corrosion resistance tank and fuel lines due to the recent 10% ethanol mixture and substitution to MTBE. The new "ECU" is actually an add-on. It's a small computer chip with an on/off switch, so you can turn it on to run on ethanol and turn it off to run on gas. This ECU is not so expensive in Brazil, costs around $60 and 1 hour of labor for installation.

Someone posted before that carburetor engines can't run on ethanol. That's not true, they can run on ethanol. But they don't run well when the engine is cold, and they have a hard time starting up in cold weather. Older ethanol cars in Brazil used to have a small gasoline container to help with cold start up. Fuel injected engines don't have that problem.
edit on 3-6-2011 by ChingLing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ChingLing
 


I actually run on a smaller engine...if you refer back a few posts I said I had a 92 toyota 4 cylinder 4x4 pickup truck...relatively small engine which usually gets around 30 to the gallon...as of recently i give it around 22-25mpg's...

Also noted that you are right about cold startup and winter startups and you're spot on there as I've had the problem myself (we get cold ass winters here in montana)

Also as I said before...I stopped fueling up on ethanol dilated gasses and have had 0 problems since
edit on 3-6-2011 by here4awhile because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by here4awhile
 


So, you get 30 mpg with gas and 22-25 with ethanol. That's pretty good. You should get between 21-22.5 mpg with a 25 to 30% reduction in gas mileage. An engine block heater could solve your cold start problem.

BTW, nice truck! The 1992 toyota trucks have a straight front axle, don't they? I've been looking for one of those to do modify for 4 wheeling, but they are quite expensive.
edit on 3-6-2011 by ChingLing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ChingLing
 


no no...i get 22-25 right now without using ethanol..the reduction in mileage is probably just wear and tear on the truck itself (i've had it for about 4 or 5 years now and it's been through a lot and nearly doubled the mileage from 77k up to 160k)

They are damn nice trucks though and will ride through just about anything...you'd be impressed to see what it can go through for such a light truck haha

ya i think they do have a straight front axle but I don't know much about vehicle makes and the mechanics regarding it
edit on 3-6-2011 by here4awhile because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Wars make the sweatless rich by using their bullets their shells , their concrete to rebuild.
Ethanol could be water but then we would just say we will add our own water.
Ethanol is a way to feed the sweatless and their endless hunger for unearned profit.
Yes and oh Ethanol is carcegenic?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Wow this thread is perpetuating every myth about ethanol ever invented! Ethanol is a better fuel then gasoline and it won't ruin your engine, it gets less mileage in an engine tuned for gasoline but if the engine is tuned for ethanol it will get equal or better mileage. It burns clean runs cooler so there is more power and no carbon build up so engines last 3 times as long. 10% ethanol in gasoline is about the worst mix ratio for those two. Who do you think influenced that? Henry Ford designed his engines to run on ethanol not gasoline. Big oil has perpetuated these myths for a nearly a century now. The Rockefeller's bankrolled prohibition not for drinking but to cut ethanol out of the fuel market, it worked.

Corn is not the best for ethanol but it is not as bad as they make it out to be, it is about in the middle for efficiency. We could be energy independent in a few years with ethanol. if you doubt that one only need look at Brazil. They use 1% of thier land to produce ethanol and run 50% of thier cars on it and import no oil. Ethanol can be used in diesels and jets also with minor modifications. it renewable etc. it is not raising food prices the corn used for ethanol is feed corn not for human consumption and it is better for the cattle after it has been through the distilling process. And it does not take more energy to produce it then it returns.

There is much more, get educated folks: Alcohol Can Be A Gas


edit on 20-6-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


you failed to mention that brazil uses sugar to create their ethanol which has a higher yield per acre and isn't tied to their food supply...as for it ruining engines it may not ruin the engine but it will ruin your fuel lines and seals refer to this post earlier in thread...I know he's right as I've had friends of my own have to take in their vehicles for this exact thing...maybe if our vehicles were more suited for it like the newest ones are...but I can tell you right now not many average americans can afford to finance something expensive such as a newer vehicle...

Also refer to this post and you can see that the yield from corn is much less in consideration with switchgrass or sugar...just take a look at switchgrass ethanol here...it just goes to show we could get ethanol from a much better source than corn and not have it tied to our food supply at all...switchgrass is a perennial as well so you only need to plant it once and it requires very little watering and grows all over the place

Don't get me wrong...I'm all for biofuels...the way we currently do it right now is absolutely horrid though...I mean come on America we can do better...
edit on 20-6-2011 by here4awhile because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by here4awhile
reply to post by hawkiye
 


you failed to mention that brazil uses sugar to create their ethanol which has a higher yield per acre and isn't tied to their food supply...as for it ruining engines it may not ruin the engine but it will ruin your fuel lines and seals refer to this post earlier in thread...I know he's right as I've had friends of my own have to take in their vehicles for this exact thing...maybe if our vehicles were more suited for it like the newest ones are...but I can tell you right now not many average americans can afford to finance something expensive such as a newer vehicle...

Also refer to this post and you can see that the yield from corn is much less in consideration with switchgrass or sugar...just take a look at switchgrass ethanol here...it just goes to show we could get ethanol from a much better source than corn and not have it tied to our food supply at all...switchgrass is a perennial as well so you only need to plant it once and it requires very little watering and grows all over the place

Don't get me wrong...I'm all for biofuels...the way we currently do it right now is absolutely horrid though...I mean come on America we can do better...
edit on 20-6-2011 by here4awhile because: (no reason given)


I am not going to argue with you, However it doesn't matter I read the thread and there are much better crops we can use then sugar cane. Sorghum is a better yield then sugar cane grows anywhere in the states and will give four crops a season, and switch grass is not even a viable crop for ethanol yet it would be cellulose and the bacteria needed to break it down is proprietary and not available except in Canada. We can grow as much or more sugar cane as Brazil if we wanted too down south also mesquite and averiety of other unconventional crops is also a high yield crop and grows in arid areas too.. The corn used for ethanol is not part of our food supply and never has been that is a myth.

Also it will not ruin the fuel line or seals that is another myth. All cars after 1986 will have no problems with ethanol and can run 50-80% with no modifications except they will get a little less mileage cause they are tuned for gasoline.

I have been involved in alternative fuels for years. As I said educate yourselves. I provided a link his book is the bible for ethanol viability and dispels all these myths with hard facts... All these myths can be traced to one professor who was on the Standard Oil payroll. if you want to understand ethanol and dispel the myths get the Book Alcohol Can Be A Gas by David Blume. He's been making and promoting ethanol since the 80's And wrote for Mother Earth News Back then.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


how can you say corn isn't tied to our food supply? about 10% of corn is used for human consumption and if I remember right about 40-50% is used as feed for animals on farm which influences meat prices in the super market...

Also if it doesn't ruin fuel lines and the like then why do people need to take their cars in to get this type of problem fixed as the mechanic earlier mentioned? I know people locally who have had to do this personally as well...i've also had a riding lawn mower that sat over the winter that's been ruined because of the ethanol already in the tank...it only takes like what...a couple weeks for the ethanol to separate into water content and ruin the small engine...
edit on 20-6-2011 by here4awhile because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by here4awhile
reply to post by hawkiye
 


how can you say corn isn't tied to our food supply? about 10% of corn is used for human consumption and if I remember right about 40-50% is used as feed for animals on farm which influences meat prices in the super market...

Also if it doesn't ruin fuel lines and the like then why do people need to take their cars in to get this type of problem fixed as the mechanic earlier mentioned? I know people locally who have had to do this personally as well...i've also had a riding lawn mower that sat over the winter that's been ruined because of the ethanol already in the tank...it only takes like what...a couple weeks for the ethanol to separate into water content and ruin the small engine...
edit on 20-6-2011 by here4awhile because: (no reason given)


If you read my first post more carefully I said the corn used for ethanol is not used for human consumption. It is feed corn for cattle and not fit for human consumption so it does not effect the human food supply. Also when used to make ethanol after is has been through the distilling process it can and is still used for feed and is better for the animals then if it had not been through the distilling process. It has been found to add up to 20% more yield in cattle as the starches and sugars have been stripped away and it is almost pure protein.

You would be hard pressed to prove it was ethanol that caused the problems especially in cars. If the car is older then 1986 there is a possibility. And it might be possible on lawnmowers as they might have a problem if they used the cheaper rubber or are chinese engines etc. However lots of mowers have trouble if they sit over a a season with just gas in the line as gas goes bad ethanol does not. A little water will not hurt and ethanol absorbs water not separates from it. If you have water in your gas and you buy some of that additive to get rid of it guess what it is? It's Ethanol read the label. Today's cars from 1986 on will have no problems with ethanol.

To run it lawn mowers etc it is pretty simple to change out the lines and filters etc. to handle it. Please do a little reading on the site I linked to.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Are you a mechanic? I ask this because I highly doubt it. I've had too many friends I know who have a lot of mechanical experience attest that it WAS the ethanol mixture in the gas that caused it...hell a mechanic even came in here and posted that as well...and it's not just vehicles before 86 that have this problem...

You seem to think that you can just mix up to a 50%-80% ethanol solution with gas and not expect consequences...I can tell you right now that a mechanic would look at you like you were crazy and then ask you to bring the business to his shop once your car starts having problems...the only way that would be possible without wrecking havoc on your vehicle is if it was converted to ethanol...
edit on 21-6-2011 by here4awhile because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by here4awhile
 


Actually its the ethanol breaking down the rubber seals and gaskets in the engine. It's not the actual ethanol gunking things up. If used in a motor with ethanol safe materials then it doesn't happen.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


and an ethanol safe motor is implemented into what year vehicles? Are you talking brand spanking new ones? 2005? 2002? 1999? I know it's not 1986+ like the other guy was saying...

converting over to an ethanol safe engine is pretty spendy as well...
edit on 21-6-2011 by here4awhile because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by here4awhile
reply to post by daskakik
 


and an ethanol safe motor is implemented into what year vehicles? Are you talking brand spanking new ones? 2005? 2002? 1999? I know it's not 1986+ like the other guy was saying...

converting over to an ethanol safe engine is pretty spendy as well...
edit on 21-6-2011 by here4awhile because: (no reason given)


Ok you can believe what you want without doing any research doesn't matter to me however it just simply is not true. All vehicles after 1986 are fine with ethanol and it is not very expensive to tune a vehicle for optimum performance for ethanol there is a reason high performance cars like indy and dragsters etc. use it because it is a better cleaner more efficient fuel when used properly. You can keep repeating myths or do some research and get the facts. Thanks for you time.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join