No more BP's is North Dakota
-
SmitEvo;200355 wrote:
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2006/tc20060519_225336.htmThere are arguments all over the place....I will spare the copy and paste....
From your source:
> There's no absolute consensus in the scientific community, but that argument is losing strength. Michael Wang, a scientist at the Energy Dept.-funded Argonne National Laboratory for Transportation Research, says "The energy used for each unit of ethanol produced has been reduced by about half [since 1980]." Now, Wang says, the delivery of 1 million British thermal units (BTUs) of ethanol uses 0.74 million BTUs of fossil fuels. (That does not include the solar energy -- the sun shining -- used in growing corn.) By contrast, he finds that the delivery of 1 million BTUs of gasoline requires 1.23 million BTU of fossil fuels.
-
most don't know- don't worry- but the pins can be used for different things- for example DCX cars are different pin selection for flashing than are the trucks, can-bus is different than cubic... etc, etc, etc
anyway, just FYI E85 does sigificantly reduce ALOT of emissions, but some stay the same (there have been a few states that have tested our stuff)
BUT hydrogen power actually produces a very harmful greenhouse gas- we call it WATER VAPOR- it's weight and retention capabilities (there's a big explanation) actually are very harmful, some would argue its considerably worse than gasoline emissions. -
tjamz;200363 wrote:
From your source:...which scientists do not agree on and they did not include solar energy needed to produce. I agree it has gotten cheaper.
I like this section
In 2006, the feds paid ethanol blenders $2.5 billion and ethanol corn farmers $0.9 billion. We paid an extra $3.6 billion at the pump. Total was $2.21 extra per gallon of gasoline replaced. Of all that, $5.4 billion went for windfall profits, creating what USDA's chief economist called "ethanol euphoria."
-
tjamz;200342 wrote:
Brazil uses ethanol in ALL of their cars and is completely energy independent.Brazil uses sugar cane to make their ethanol, from what I've read that is a lot more efficient way to make ethanol than corn is. I don't think there is any way we can get corn based ethanol to really help our dependency on oil. Time to plant sugar cane around here.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
In 2006, the feds paid ethanol blenders $2.5 billion and ethanol corn farmers $0.9 billion. We paid an extra $3.6 billion at the pump. Total was $2.21 extra per gallon of gasoline replaced. Of all that, $5.4 billion went for windfall profits, creating what USDA's chief economist called "ethanol euphoria."
How many billions in tax breaks did we give big oil again last year and how much money did they lose? Oh I forgot we gave them tax breaks AND they posted record profits. Makes perfect sense- and somehow on the new energy bill their tax breaks are STILL THERE. You can't expect an industry to start up overnight and be super efficient. Mainstream ethanol has only gained popularity in the last 3-5 years, although it has been around as a fuel subsititute since the 1880s.
-
DaveH;200373 wrote:
Brazil uses sugar cane to make their ethanol, from what I've read that is a lot more efficient way to make ethanol than corn is. I don't think there is any way we can get corn based ethanol to really help our dependency on oil. Time to plant sugar cane around here.
you bring up a good point... but thats were corn hybrids come into play... and from what i have been told they are developing ways to use whole corn plans instead of just corn seed.. -
SmitEvo;200352 wrote:
So your telling me they wont come up with something better? Lol....I guarantee there will be vehicles that are not oil dependent. The demand for corn will not be as high and farmers will switch to the next cash crop.
im not saying that they wont come up with something better... but your not going to see it in yoru lifetime... and neither will your childeren.... ethanol is here to stay... they just got the goahead to build another plant around the hawley/ulen area.... might even pop up in moorhead... -
Obsolete technology in older plants. Easier to build new ones than convert old one.
-
not sure what to think of this.
i know i run BP 92 in my GP as often as i can. some of it is non oxy some is not. and if i see 10% ethanol added i skip over it. so i always keep my eye on pumps as i am driving around so i know where i can get gas that i like. as my GP def runs better on BP 92 than anything else. as i said it is usually the non-oxy version.
BP here in TRF (non-oxy), the BP down the road from bradys in moorhead, BP down the block from tintmasters in GF, BP south of DL on 59 (has non-oxy or just 92), BP in ames ia (took me some driving to find a station that had 92 at home), maple grove has a BP that is 92,
i drove around one night taking pics of pumps. some were labeled 10% ethanol added some were not. only found the one pump with 92.i know things change. i remember when i dads 68 camaro ran leaded gas and unleaded was taking its place. there was alot of concern about how cars would run and power and so on.
Monty
-
well that just sux.
i forget which forum i found it on, but there was linkage from MSRA about stations that sell non-oxy gas in MN for the street rod crowd. MSRA(minnesota street rod association)
will see if i can find that link.Monty
-
well as someone else pointed out about seatbelts. it should be my decision to wear them or not. i do not like being told i have to wear them. yes some get saved or at least reduced injuries, but there are also some that are killed due to them. so for me there is no proof that i should wear them.
same goes for E85. there is no proof that it is better. in fact there is more proof that it is not better then regular gas. as in it takes more of it as compared to regular gas. as well as it really does not cost less and is not as environmentally friendly as once was led to believe. mpg's go down compared to regular gas. typically you have to change some items in the car to run it. yes it is renewable. but at the expense of what? use the corn and there is a chance food prices go up. how about the coal or other fossil fuels needed at the ethanol plants needed to make the E85? and the fossil fuels needed to transport the E85? how is this really better?
now for E10. if this is such a good thing then why are the car companies not jumping on it and saying yes it is a good thing?
why are gas prices not going down?
if MN is required to run it and ND is not then why is gas prices the same on both sides of the river? why in IA was the gas prices the same when i was there over christmas?
yes it is cool that you get the octane bump, but really where is the benefit?i know there are alot of cars that convert to E85 for the added power. but what about soccer mom barb. does she really care about that power? no she wants good mpg as she has to run johnny and suzy all over for practices and school events. she also needs to get to work and not worry about breaking down on the commute daily. she needs reliabilty and good mpg. and with noone saying ethanol is good for cars over the long haul why force it upon us? if it really does not cost less then why force it upon us?
here is the linkage to the non-oxy info i found.
how bout these guys. do they want to run E10?http://www.msra.com/NonOxygenatedFuel/Non-OxyFuel.htm
http://www.msra.com/NonOxygenatedFuel/Non%20Oxygenated%20Fuel%2012.07.pdf
on way to fargo saturday we went through GF. stopped at the truck stop by the settle inn. think this is off demers or gateway. this was on the ND side and they had 10% ethanol added on all the pumps on all grades of gas.
Monty
-
musthavemuzk;204618 wrote:
same goes for E85. there is no proof that it is better. in fact there is more proof that it is not better then regular gas. as in it takes more of it as compared to regular gas. as well as it really does not cost less and is not as environmentally friendly as once was led to believe. Montyserisously? have you not read my earlier posts?? ethanol is FAR more environmentally freindly than regular gas. they even have used it in AGG stuff for a number of different things other than fuel becuase its water soluble.
musthavemuzk;204618 wrote:
mpg's go down compared to regular gas. yes it is renewable. but at the expense of what? use the corn and there is a chance food prices go up.Montyand once again the only reason it gets such poor mileage is becuase all the motors that currently run it are set up to run both pure gasoline or E85. this mean the motor cant have a higher compression ratio needed to use the benefits of a higher octane fuel, because when they switch back to gas it'll denate to beat hell. switch to a different motor design and ethanol will produce plenty of power and get good mileage.
and around here why would you ever bitch about the cost of corn going up? that means good economy for the farmers around here. if you would rather spend $.10 less on a ear of corn than have a renewable fuel source for years to come i think your priorities may need a readjustment.
musthavemuzk;204618 wrote:
typically you have to change some items in the car to run it.Montyno you do not need to change things on your car to run it unless you run aluminum fuel lines(not typical). anything else will only stay cleaner from the alcohol, even rubber lines. gm themselves have done numerous tests where they run just one of their normal cars reflashed to run E85 and had no problems. in fact the fuel pump and rubber hoses were in MUCH better condition from the E85. the 15% gasoline lubricates the lines so they WILL NOT CRACK.
musthavemuzk;204618 wrote:
how about the coal or other fossil fuels needed at the ethanol plants needed to make the E85? and the fossil fuels needed to transport the E85? how is this really better?Montyhow can this be a good argument when the same money would just be spent to produce and transport any other fuel? your complaing about costs of transporting the fuel and producing it. both are things that money is ALREADY spent on, either way SOMETHING HAS to be moved why dont you just move the funds to a different truck or plant for a renewable fuel.
the only difference is when corn is grown it uses CO2 to grow and produces clean o2, and when manufactured it produces feed for livestock, ethanol, and biomass to burn for energy and other things.musthavemuzk;204618 wrote:
now for E10. if this is such a good thing then why are the car companies not jumping on it and saying yes it is a good thing?Montyhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23033773/ they are
musthavemuzk;204618 wrote:
why are gas prices not going down?
if MN is required to run it and ND is not then why is gas prices the same on both sides of the river?the difference is the octane rating. the 10% ethanol both helps in cold weather and increases the octance FOR THE SAME PRICE.
the benefit of a e10 is that your using 10% less fossil fuel. its RENEWABLE. thats the point of it. not to poduce the new cure all for a a fuel. they are trying to find an efficient way to cut down on fossil fuels. supply and demand, the less we demand fossil fuels the more surplus they will have and prices will eventually go down.
also that 10% acts as "heet" for your motor so the fuel doesnt freeze up. you ever seen the price of heet that some people dump in every tank of gas? its like spending money on adding another 2 gallons of gas for 10 oz of ETHANOL, thats what heet is, alcohol.
musthavemuzk;204618 wrote:
i know there are alot of cars that convert to E85 for the added power. but what about soccer mom barb. does she really care about that power? no she wants good mpg as she has to run johnny and suzy all over for practices and school events. she also needs to get to work and not worry about breaking down on the commute daily. she needs reliabilty and good mpg. and with noone saying ethanol is good for cars over the long haul why force it upon us? if it really does not cost less then why force it upon us?WHY WOULD IT BREAK DOWN OR BE LESS RELIABLE? you need to understad that ethanol does not hurt anything on your vehicle. its BETTER in most cases. and as far as mileage goes i refer to what i said about why ethanol doesnt get the same kind of mileage earlier. No one is saying its bad for cars other than the people that refuse to believe that its good, they do their own weak tests on it and dont take everything into consideration. ever seen an article from an actual car manufacturer doing actual R&D that says its bad? if it was BAD for cars they wouldnt have flex fuel vehicles and gm wouldnt be busting balls to convert.
here a psht, there psht, everywhere a psht psht
PVC SQUAD MEMBER #2- 95 CIVIC EX- DD 320whp on a mustang dyno
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login