bigshovel
Gold Member
PitbullMidwest said:
RIGHT ON!
BRAD
Ethanol
- Thread starter AchingBack
- Start date
- Views: 5358
- Status
RIGHT ON!
BRAD
joerocker
Silver Member
Hmmm...500,000,000 acres to grow corn for fuel...couldn't that be used more productively?
Everyone pretty much agrees that the oil has peaked... If nothing else, demand is outstripping the supply.
Is it all a con? Maybe, I don't know, but a lot of people are saying the days of cheap, plentiful oil are over.
Everyone pretty much agrees that the oil has peaked... If nothing else, demand is outstripping the supply.
Is it all a con? Maybe, I don't know, but a lot of people are saying the days of cheap, plentiful oil are over.
John47
Silver Member
BUT, is oil running out??? For many years I've really wondered if how oils made, ie the photoplankton theory is correct. There's not much evidence to support this theory that crude oil is really fossil fuel at all. Coal yes, I've seen with my own eyes in all seams I've worked in, leaves, branches, even the odd tree trunk or two, plus small shell fossils in the rocks above seams. But oil is oil, no fossil remains!
Google "abiogenic" This is an alternative and more realistic theory, and remember, both thoughts on how crude was formed are theories!
Now IF crude was formed by the abiogenic method, then oil is still being produced by the earth and is a "renewable resource".
During my years as an electrician and also working in electronics, I've seen theories change at a whim, so don't discount this one, there is a good chance the theory of "abiogenic crude oil" is actually fact with more evidence to support this theory than the opposite "accepted theory"
Google "abiogenic" This is an alternative and more realistic theory, and remember, both thoughts on how crude was formed are theories!
Now IF crude was formed by the abiogenic method, then oil is still being produced by the earth and is a "renewable resource".
During my years as an electrician and also working in electronics, I've seen theories change at a whim, so don't discount this one, there is a good chance the theory of "abiogenic crude oil" is actually fact with more evidence to support this theory than the opposite "accepted theory"
patrick_g
Elite Member
If Iowa didn't vote in early primaries and otherwise be so powerful of a political force we wouldn't have as much impetus behind corn to ethanol. Politicos pander to the folks who help get them elected while putting on a phony passion play about ethanol being green.
Whether or not petroleum is being made as we discuss it is not hugely important. Old oil fields do not rejuvenate in 100 years so any ongoing petroleum generation is NOT making a viable contribution to our energy needs. Either way, oil supply is limited and dwindling and alternatives are needed.
Ethanol from corn is not an intelligent response to the need. Estimates vary but there is a consensus among unbiased sources that, at best, you get only a little more out of the process than you put in. Between diesel burned and petrochemical fertilizers the production of ethanol consumes nearly as much oil (mostly imported foreign oil) as the ethanol produced offsets when blended into gasoline. It is a charade, a scam.
Other renewable resources that do not compete directly or indirectly (animal feeds) with humans for food are available and if properly funded could be rapidly brought on line in a meaningful way. Cellulosic processes yielding butanol are one viable alternative to corn to ethanol. Butanol is a better motor fuel, closer to gasoline than ethanol.
You can't blame the ethanol debacle on a political party. It is the child of American politics in general.
Recall the stirring speeches given by ***** Obama and Hillary all about how they will, when elected, move quickly to alter the corn to ethanol situation and get the alternative energy situation under rational control based on good science? No, of course you don't because they are mute on the topic aside from some glib generalisms vaguely identifiable under the topic of energy.
So long as we have the ethanol scam deluding us and diverting attention from reality, we aren't making nearly the progress toward a real and viable alternative energy fuel production industry that we could and should.
Pat
Whether or not petroleum is being made as we discuss it is not hugely important. Old oil fields do not rejuvenate in 100 years so any ongoing petroleum generation is NOT making a viable contribution to our energy needs. Either way, oil supply is limited and dwindling and alternatives are needed.
Ethanol from corn is not an intelligent response to the need. Estimates vary but there is a consensus among unbiased sources that, at best, you get only a little more out of the process than you put in. Between diesel burned and petrochemical fertilizers the production of ethanol consumes nearly as much oil (mostly imported foreign oil) as the ethanol produced offsets when blended into gasoline. It is a charade, a scam.
Other renewable resources that do not compete directly or indirectly (animal feeds) with humans for food are available and if properly funded could be rapidly brought on line in a meaningful way. Cellulosic processes yielding butanol are one viable alternative to corn to ethanol. Butanol is a better motor fuel, closer to gasoline than ethanol.
You can't blame the ethanol debacle on a political party. It is the child of American politics in general.
Recall the stirring speeches given by ***** Obama and Hillary all about how they will, when elected, move quickly to alter the corn to ethanol situation and get the alternative energy situation under rational control based on good science? No, of course you don't because they are mute on the topic aside from some glib generalisms vaguely identifiable under the topic of energy.
So long as we have the ethanol scam deluding us and diverting attention from reality, we aren't making nearly the progress toward a real and viable alternative energy fuel production industry that we could and should.
Pat
PitbullMidwest
Platinum Member
joerocker said:
I assume you mean as food acreage. Farmers are independant businessmen with a product to sell for profit. If the grain companies offer more than ethanol plants they'll sell to them. Farmers don't farm to "feed the world", they farm to feed their families.
joerocker said:
You mean like "everyone pretty much agrees" that global warming is man made and is true? This isn't true and everyone doesn't agree. There is no shortage of oil. OPEC could meet the demand today but chooses not to. The supply is available, just at a price.
If we'd drill in ANWR, the Gulf of Mexico (like all of our neighbors) and tap the field in North Dakota, we wouldn't need OPEC and oil prices would fall drastically. But with record profits in the oil industry and a government suckling at the teet of the enviro-lobby, what motivation is there for change?
If the days of cheap, plentiful oil are over it's our own fault.
patrick_g
Elite Member
I haven't the time nor inclination to go through point by point, at this time, but I will comment on this one.
**************************************
"I assume you mean as food acreage. Farmers are independant businessmen with a product to sell for profit. If the grain companies offer more than ethanol plants they'll sell to them. Farmers don't farm to "feed the world", they farm to feed their families."
***********************************
The playing field is not level. There are subsidies driving the corn to ethanol scam. Without these subsidies more corn would go to animal feed to give the American consumer better meat prices and more corn would go to foodstuffs rather than feeding the corn to ethanol scam.
Once you have the corn, of course you want to sell it to the highest bidder. The highest bidder would not be corn to ethanol without subsidies and animal feed for egg production, chickens, hogs, turkey, and beef would be more moderate in price so all the meat sources would be more reasonably priced for the consumer.
Meanwhile we are NOT offsetting foreign oil dependence nor developing more efficient and intelligent alternative fuel processes while side tracked by the corn to ethanol scam.
I have no doubt but that being on the tax payer subsidized gravy train is a nice arrangement but it is not fair treatment for the rest of the country. Feeding at the Gov trough is a long established activity but those of us who do not have their heads so immersed have a right to criticize the activity when it is not in the long term best interests of the country or the overwhelming percentage of folks not "dipping their beaks" in the "pork."
Not only is corn to ethanol, when audited end to end, bad science and bad economics it is in the way of establishing and developing more rational and viable long term alternative energy processes that can actually significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Pat
**************************************
"I assume you mean as food acreage. Farmers are independant businessmen with a product to sell for profit. If the grain companies offer more than ethanol plants they'll sell to them. Farmers don't farm to "feed the world", they farm to feed their families."
***********************************
The playing field is not level. There are subsidies driving the corn to ethanol scam. Without these subsidies more corn would go to animal feed to give the American consumer better meat prices and more corn would go to foodstuffs rather than feeding the corn to ethanol scam.
Once you have the corn, of course you want to sell it to the highest bidder. The highest bidder would not be corn to ethanol without subsidies and animal feed for egg production, chickens, hogs, turkey, and beef would be more moderate in price so all the meat sources would be more reasonably priced for the consumer.
Meanwhile we are NOT offsetting foreign oil dependence nor developing more efficient and intelligent alternative fuel processes while side tracked by the corn to ethanol scam.
I have no doubt but that being on the tax payer subsidized gravy train is a nice arrangement but it is not fair treatment for the rest of the country. Feeding at the Gov trough is a long established activity but those of us who do not have their heads so immersed have a right to criticize the activity when it is not in the long term best interests of the country or the overwhelming percentage of folks not "dipping their beaks" in the "pork."
Not only is corn to ethanol, when audited end to end, bad science and bad economics it is in the way of establishing and developing more rational and viable long term alternative energy processes that can actually significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Pat
Z-Michigan
Veteran Member
John47 said:
The abiogenic oil is an interesting theory. I first heard of it maybe a year ago from a friend who likes to believe whatever is convenient, so I thought it was total bunk. But I asked my dad, a professional geologist, out of curiousity if he had heard of it. Not only had he heard of it, but he didn't think it was bunk - he thought there was some evidence for it, and while it is far from proven, it couldn't be ruled out (FWIW he's a groundwater geologist instead of a petroleum geologist, so he doesn't have direct expertise on oil). His view is that it may be that oil can be generated both ways.
Unfortunately Patrick_G makes good points on the availability. In particular, if the abiogenic theory is valid, most of that oil will be very, very deep, so it won't be cheap to get out. It's not likely that we will find enough oil of whatever origin for prices to drop much. I don't think we'll run out in my lifetime (hopefully >60 years left!) but I expect it to get scarcer and more expensive. We do need a real alternative.
As for OPEC - they are making incredible profits at current prices. If they could pump any more oil they would. They worry that high prices will drive people to conserve, or make alternatives viable, and therefore kill their future market. For the past 15-20 years OPEC has not really been limiting supply. OPEC is a wonderful case study in a cartel, and just as the economic models predict, cheating within the cartel is rampant.
SkyPup
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2003
- Messages
- 3,079
- Location
- North Central, Florida
- Tractor
- Kubota L-39 GST TLB, Kubota L3130GST, Massey 1030 HST, Kubota ZD-21 ProDecK, Two Euro VW TDIs
The recent hurricanes and gasoline issues are proof of the existence of a
new chemical element A major research institution has recently announced
the discovery in 2007 of the heaviest element yet known to science named
Governmentium.
Governmentium (Gv) has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy
neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of
312.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are
surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.
Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be
detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into
contact. A minute amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that
would normally take less than a second to take over four days to
complete.
Governmentium has a normal half-life of 4 years; it does not decay, but
instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant
neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's
mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will
cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.
This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe
that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical
concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical
morass.
When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium -- an
element which radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has
half as many peons but twice as many morons.
new chemical element A major research institution has recently announced
the discovery in 2007 of the heaviest element yet known to science named
Governmentium.
Governmentium (Gv) has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy
neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of
312.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are
surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.
Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be
detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into
contact. A minute amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that
would normally take less than a second to take over four days to
complete.
Governmentium has a normal half-life of 4 years; it does not decay, but
instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant
neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's
mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will
cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.
This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe
that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical
concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical
morass.
When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium -- an
element which radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has
half as many peons but twice as many morons.
firefighter9208
Platinum Member
Whatever he said ^ .
Chris
Chris
- Status
