poor refiners crying about 15% ethanol fuel

PostmodernProphet said:
you want to consider a win-win situation.....massive fish/algae farms floating across the ocean......fish feed on the algae while growing......fish and algae harvested at same time, fish for human consumption processed on one end, algae for ethanol processed on the other.....
Click to expand...

As I stated.... algae can be grown anywhere. I am glad you were able to at least comprehend one point I made.
 
Superfreak said:
The use of grain based ethanol is moronic. Using a food supply for fuel when it isn't necessary is one of the dumbest ideas the idiots in DC have come up with. The fact that Obama is continuing this is yet another example of his failed leadership.
Click to expand...

i never said that grain based ethanol is good, only that the refiners are bitching about having to use it because then they use less oil

brazil does well making ethanol from sugar cane, not corn
 
refiners are bitching about having to use it because then they use less oil
Click to expand...

You sure it's not because they can't transport ethanol as easily? From what I've read, it is much more expensive to get the ethanol from one point to another, because traditional pipelines can't be used, it has to be transported by rail or truck. This makes it considerable more expensive to handle. Are you sure this couldn't possibly be the reason they are bitching about it? Are you positive it is only because they use less oil, which costs them about the same? Maybe you should think a little harder about that... wouldn't want to strain your brain or anything, but what you are saying doesn't comport with logic, and it makes much more sense to think they are upset because this Federal mandate is going to cost them money to implement.

And OH by the way, on Ethanol... if you have a vehicle made before 1990, or with a carb, it wouldn't be wise to use it.
 
Dixie said:
You sure it's not because they can't transport ethanol as easily? From what I've read, it is much more expensive to get the ethanol from one point to another, because traditional pipelines can't be used, it has to be transported by rail or truck. This makes it considerable more expensive to handle. Are you sure this couldn't possibly be the reason they are bitching about it? Are you positive it is only because they use less oil, which costs them about the same? Maybe you should think a little harder about that... wouldn't want to strain your brain or anything, but what you are saying doesn't comport with logic, and it makes much more sense to think they are upset because this Federal mandate is going to cost them money to implement.

And OH by the way, on Ethanol... if you have a vehicle made before 1990, or with a carb, it wouldn't be wise to use it.
Click to expand...

they complaining about switching from 10% to 15%

also, the fuel would have to be labeled 15% at the pump so it could be avoided - did you read the whole article?

also, since the ethanol is subsidized, it is cheaper than gasoline
 
Schadenfreude said:
they complaining about switching from 10% to 15%

also, the fuel would have to be labeled 15% at the pump so it could be avoided - did you read the whole article?

also, since the ethanol is subsidized, it is cheaper than gasoline
Click to expand...

They haven't extensively tested 15% Ethanol. That is the first problem I see with switching to it, what happens if there is something we don't know, like it will ruin your engine? Who is liable for that, if it should happen?

Mixed gasoline/ethanol, regardless of the percentage, is transported by truck or rail already. The raw ethanol can not be transported to the refinery via a pipeline, it must be transported by truck or rail, increasing the cost of handling, which increases the cost of refining it.
 
Dixie said:
They haven't extensively tested 15% Ethanol. That is the first problem I see with switching to it, what happens if there is something we don't know, like it will ruin your engine? Who is liable for that, if it should happen?

Mixed gasoline/ethanol, regardless of the percentage, is transported by truck or rail already. The raw ethanol can not be transported to the refinery via a pipeline, it must be transported by truck or rail, increasing the cost of handling, which increases the cost of refining it.
Click to expand...

the ethanol is not refined at the refinery, it is mixed with gasoline refined from oil - the total cost of subsidized ethanol is such that it is cheaper than refined gasoline - i am not a proponent of ethanol from corn, but i am commenting on the refineries bitching about having to use more of it

ethanol from sugar beets or sugar cane is cheaper than ethanol from corn - check out ethanol use in brazil
 
Schadenfreude said:
the ethanol is not refined at the refinery, it is mixed with gasoline refined from oil - the total cost of subsidized ethanol is such that it is cheaper than refined gasoline - i am not a proponent of ethanol from corn, but i am commenting on the refineries bitching about having to use more of it

ethanol from sugar beets or sugar cane is cheaper than ethanol from corn - check out ethanol use in brazil
Click to expand...

Where do you think ethanol is mixed with gasoline to make the fuel which goes to the consumer? I believe this is part of the refining process, to blend the ethanol, just as they blend all sorts of other additives, at the "refinery" ...that's where this is done! When they produce ethanol, for every 90 gallons of gasoline, they have to truck or rail in, 10 gallons of ethanol for 90/10 blend... now they will have to truck or rail in 15 gallons for every 85 gallons of gasoline. This is a 50% increase in the amount of ethanol they have to truck or rail in, as opposed to pipe in, as they do with gasoline. The cost to do that is burdensome, and there is no profit to be made from it, only the extra costs. And for what? A product that is essentially stupid for us to even be making from corn!

This is a PRIME example of why The Government needs to be as far away from intruding on our lives as humanly possible!
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so we use cheaper electricity (maybe even generated by solar or wind power) or natural gas to produce a gallon of ethanol which will substitute for a gallon of gasoline which we import.......

there is one argument you are never going to be able to refute......every gallon of gasoline you pump into your car earns money for Venezuela and Saudi Arabia....every gallon of ethanol you pump into your car earns money for Iowa or Kansas......
Click to expand...

That's dumb, PMP. First, there is a lot of electrical power in the US produced by petroleum based fuels, both fuel oil and natural gas, so it doesn't make sense to use that power to produce ethanol. Just use those sources directly in the vehicles.

Every gallon of ethanol you pump in your car requires more petroleum from OPEC and increases the cost of corn, which increase the cost of beef, milk, and most food, which takes money from Iowans and Kansans.
 
Superfreak said:
Again, you can try and limit your previous comment to 'fresh' corn, which is quite ridiculous. Because when you look at the use of corn... 12% (as I stated) goes into FOOD. It doesn't have to be 'fresh' corn to be consumed as a food source.
Click to expand...
okay, this is getting ridiculous.....yes, but the 12% includes corn meal, corn oil and corn syrup.....which I have dealt with......most of that is corn syrup.....as I have already said, corn syrup, while present in many foods does not contribute greatly to the cost of food.......so your Coke costs three cents more per can......it's not like its going to make you starve

Again, the byproduct of ethanol is NOT equal to the byproduct of algae based biofuel. It takes far more water to create, the corn does not absorb pollutants as algae does and ANY corn used in ethanol production takes away a FOOD source. If everyone in the world was well fed, then fine. Use food for fuel. But you and I both know that is not the case. Hence the stupidity of using food as a fuel when it is not necessary given a BETTER alternative exists.
Click to expand...
I don't recall ever mentioning the by product of algae based biofuel so I'm not sure why you felt compelled to say it "again"......I myself have indicated there are more efficient alternatives.....I'm just pointing out that complaining that its the use of a food source when it has virtually no impact on our food is rather lame.....

Also, you ignore the fact that the grain IS consumed by fish and livestock to FEED them to get them to the point where they are a FOOD SOURCE.
Click to expand...
if I have ignored it, why have I said to you, twice, that brewer's mash, the by product of making corn ethanol, can still be consumed by livestock and they can still be a food source?......the simple fact is, making ethanol out of corn does not remove it from the supply of livestock feed and to pretend it does is simply dishonest...

As for your 'assault' on my original post.... I mentioned that grain was used as a food source. YOU twisted that into your 'humans only use 1%' argument. Again, the ACTUAL number is 12% for humans as a food source. The second point to refute your straw man attempt is that I did not limit the use of corn as a food source to humans. YOU did.

So again, if you don't know what you are talking about, you should probably refrain from telling others their points are without merit.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry I had to respond to you....it's just that your post conveyed so much ignorance I had to clear things up......
 
Last edited:
Damn Yankee said:
That's dumb, PMP. First, there is a lot of electrical power in the US produced by petroleum based fuels, both fuel oil and natural gas, so it doesn't make sense to use that power to produce ethanol. Just use those sources directly in the vehicles.

Every gallon of ethanol you pump in your car requires more petroleum from OPEC and increases the cost of corn, which increase the cost of beef, milk, and most food, which takes money from Iowans and Kansans.
Click to expand...

it does not "require" any use of petroleum from OPEC to produce ethanol.....the bulk of electricity in the US comes from coal, which is not imported from OPEC nations, most of the rest of it comes from natural gas, which is not imported from OPEC nations....the balance comes from nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro-electricity.....none of which involve imports from OPEC nations.....

the use of corn for ethanol has no impact on beef or dairy products, since they can be fed brewer's mash.....it is true that pork cannot digest brewer's mash, but apart from that there is no reason to think ethanol increases the cost of food.....in truth, the cost of the petroleum products consumed in shipping a pound of beef contributes as much to the cost of what you pay your grocer than the beef a farmer sells to the packing house, let alone the corn he bought to feed it......
 
Schadenfreude said:
i never said that grain based ethanol is good, only that the refiners are bitching about having to use it because then they use less oil

brazil does well making ethanol from sugar cane, not corn
Click to expand...

Brazil doesn't do "well". They are cutting down rain forest to create more farm land to raise more sugar cane to create more biofuel.

While sugar cane is better than using corn, algae based biofuel is still a better option. It can be developed on ANY piece of land or as PMP pointed out.... also on water.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
okay, this is getting ridiculous.....yes, but the 12% includes corn meal, corn oil and corn syrup.....which I have dealt with......most of that is corn syrup.....as I have already said, corn syrup, while present in many foods does not contribute greatly to the cost of food.......so your Coke costs three cents more per can......it's not like its going to make you starve
Click to expand...

LOL... you need to take a lesson on supply and demand. If you increase demand while not increasing supply, the costs go UP. Add in the TRUE costs by removing the government subsidies.... then chat with us on how it will effect us.

Note the price of meat has escalated greatly over the past several years. That MEAT is a food source as well. You keep ignoring that the livestock that consume 60-70% of the grain is ALSO a food source.


I don't recall ever mentioning the by product of algae based biofuel so I'm not sure why you felt compelled to say it "again"......I myself have indicated there are more efficient alternatives.....I'm just pointing out that complaining that its the use of a food source when it has virtually no impact on our food is rather lame.....
Click to expand...

Comical. given that YOU started a discussion on the 'merit' of my argument and then completely distorted what I said with a straw man.

I stated it was a food source. You in turn tried to spin it into a 'humans only consume 1%'.

First.... I never confined my comments to just what humans consume

Second.... I corrected your erroneous claim that they only consume 1%.


if I have ignored it, why have I said to you, twice, that brewer's mash, the by product of making corn ethanol, can still be consumed by livestock and they can still be a food source?......the simple fact is, making ethanol out of corn does not remove it from the supply of livestock feed and to pretend it does is simply dishonest...
Click to expand...

yes, SOME livestock will still eat the mash, but not all will do so. As stated before... until you have every PERSON on this planet being well fed, it is MORONIC to use a food source for fuel. ESPECIALLY when it is not the most efficient method of biofuel.

You are taking what occurs in the US and projecting it onto the world as a whole. That is one of your many mistakes.

Again... if you want to comment on the 'merit' of someone else's position, you should at a minimum know what you are talking about. You should also try and avoid the straw man creation.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it does not "require" any use of petroleum from OPEC to produce ethanol.....the bulk of electricity in the US comes from coal, which is not imported from OPEC nations, most of the rest of it comes from natural gas, which is not imported from OPEC nations....the balance comes from nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro-electricity.....none of which involve imports from OPEC nations.....

the use of corn for ethanol has no impact on beef or dairy products, since they can be fed brewer's mash.....it is true that pork cannot digest brewer's mash, but apart from that there is no reason to think ethanol increases the cost of food.....in truth, the cost of the petroleum products consumed in shipping a pound of beef contributes as much to the cost of what you pay your grocer than the beef a farmer sells to the packing house, let alone the corn he bought to feed it......
Click to expand...

Actually, since 20.6% of electricity is generated from natural gas or fuel oil(1), again, to use electricity to manufacture ethanol is retarded. It make more sense to use these fuels directly.

Source 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Electricity_production

Although food byproducts can be used for animal feed, corn is by far the largest source of feed. Therefore the more corn used for fuel, the less will be available to the feed market and therefore prices will rise.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Actually, since 20.6% of electricity is generated from natural gas or fuel oil(1), again, to use electricity to manufacture ethanol is retarded. It make more sense to use these fuels directly.

Source 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Electricity_production

Although food byproducts can be used for animal feed, corn is by far the largest source of feed. Therefore the more corn used for fuel, the less will be available to the feed market and therefore prices will rise.
Click to expand...

I question the numbers from wikipedia.

http://www.electricityforum.com/electricity-generation.html

The link above has petroleum products being used to produce much less than 20%.



http://www.dynowatt.com/Energy101/ElectricityArticles.aspx/12_All-About-Petroleum-and-Electricity

That link claims 2% of our electricity is produced by petroleum fueled generators.



http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blelectric1.htm

This link says that petroleum is used to produce around 3% of our electricity.

However, it claims natural gas is used to generate 15% of our electricity.
 
Superfreak said:
LOL... you need to take a lesson on supply and demand. If you increase demand while not increasing supply, the costs go UP. Add in the TRUE costs by removing the government subsidies.... then chat with us on how it will effect us.
Click to expand...
with respect to the cost of food there is no reason to have an effect at all.....as I have said, unless you're talking about corn on the cob, the food uses of corn shouldn't add more than pennies to the products you consume....

Note the price of meat has escalated greatly over the past several years. That MEAT is a food source as well. You keep ignoring that the livestock that consume 60-70% of the grain is ALSO a food source.
Click to expand...
no, I don't keep ignoring it....I have responded three times now that livestock can consume brewer's mash which is the by product of ethanol production.....given that you haven't acknowledged that comment ONCE it only embarrasses YOU to pretend I have ignored it....dumbfuck.....

Comical. given that YOU started a discussion on the 'merit' of my argument and then completely distorted what I said with a straw man.
Click to expand...
I have proved you are a joke....have a nice day...
 
Damn Yankee said:
Actually, since 20.6% of electricity is generated from natural gas or fuel oil(1), again, to use electricity to manufacture ethanol is retarded. It make more sense to use these fuels directly.
Click to expand...

don't try to sneak that shit past....your own link states fuel oil accounts for .2% of production.....and using natural gas in an automobile requires a total refit of the engine......using ethanol up to E10 does not......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
with respect to the cost of food there is no reason to have an effect at all.....as I have said, unless you're talking about corn on the cob, the food uses of corn shouldn't add more than pennies to the products you consume....
Click to expand...

A few pennies on a $.25 cent can of coke is an increase of over 10%. While it certainly doesn't add up if you only drink one can of coke in a year, if you drink 3 cans a day, it will.

When you look at the fact that the FOOD uses are not just the 12% for human, but ALSO the 60-70% for livestock.... again.... IT IS MORONIC to use grain for fuel when better alternatives exist.

DO you agree or disagree? Is it wise to use a less efficient source?


no, I don't keep ignoring it....I have responded three times now that livestock can consume brewer's mash which is the by product of ethanol production.....given that you haven't acknowledged that comment ONCE it only embarrasses YOU to pretend I have ignored it....dumbfuck.....
Click to expand...

AGAIN.... as I HAVE addressed your mash comment... SOME livestock will eat the mash, but not all will. The only dumbfuck here is you. You are embarassed that your 1% number is complete bullshit, so you continue to try and spin away.

As I stated in the beginning. It is absolutely moronic to use a food source for fuel. ESPECIALLY when there are better alternatives.

Take away the government subsidies and see just how expensive it really is. Yet another point you ignore.


I have proved you are a joke....have a nice day...
Click to expand...

You have proven that you lack the ability to comprehend what is written. Hence you continue to duck my questions and ignore the facts of the matter. You have proven that you have no understanding of the concept of supply and demand. You have proven my point from the beginning.... if you are going to judge the 'merit' of people's arguments, you should at least have a basic understanding of the topic being discussed. For if you do not, you simply end up looking like a complete idiot.... as you have on this thread.
 
No on is addressing the fact that 15% Ethanol blends have not been extensively tested. We don't yet know, that Ethanol has no long-term catastrophic effects on engines, we have not tested them with 15% blends. We do know, an internal combustion engine will not run for long on pure Ethanol. We don't know what unintended effects burning Ethanol over long periods of time, might create... are we just going to cross that bridge when we come to it? When everyone's car starts to chug and die, maybe we'll have another 'cash for clunkers' program, and get everyone an electric scooter?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
don't try to sneak that shit past....your own link states fuel oil accounts for .2% of production.....and using natural gas in an automobile requires a total refit of the engine......using ethanol up to E10 does not......
Click to expand...
That's not the issue that you raised. You postulated using electricity to manufacture ethanol, and my link shows that over 20% of electricity is generated by fuel oil and propane, both which are used in motive transportation for decades. So it therefore makes more sense to use these sources directly.

If the government subsidized compressed natural gas as much as they did ethanol and electric cars it would be very inexpensive to retrofit existing vehicles to use this power source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top