for Jam and Dec

Forums: 

I start this thread in the hope my copy/paste job does not run off the page.
Study Finds Certain Ethanol Blends Can Provide Better Fuel Economy Than Gasoline - Auto News from December 05, 2007
"Optimal Blend" Is Likely E20 or E30; Coalition Calls for Further Government Research
SIOUX FALLS, S.D., Dec. 5 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Research findings released today show that mid-range ethanol blends--fuel mixtures with more ethanol than E10 but less than E85--can in some cases provide better fuel economy than regular unleaded gasoline, even in standard, non-flex-fuel vehicles.
Previous assumptions held that ethanol's lower energy content directly correlates with lower fuel economy for drivers. Those assumptions were found to be incorrect. Instead, the new research strongly suggests that there is an "optimal blend level" of ethanol and gasoline--most likely E20 or E30--at which cars will get better mileage than predicted based strictly on the fuel's per-gallon Btu content. The new study, cosponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and the American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE), also found that mid-range ethanol blends reduce harmful tailpipe emissions.
"Initial findings indicate that we as a nation haven't begun to recognize the value of ethanol," said Brian Jennings, executive vice president of the American Coalition for Ethanol. "This is a compelling argument for more research on the promise of higher ethanol blends in gasoline. There is strong evidence that the optimal ethanol-gasoline blend for standard, non-flex-fuel vehicles is greater than E10 and instead may be E20 or E30. We encourage the federal government to move swiftly to research the use of higher ethanol blends and make necessary approvals so that American motorists can have the cost-effective ethanol choices they deserve at the pump."
The University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) and the Minnesota Center for Automotive Research (MnCAR) conducted the research using four 2007 model vehicles: a Toyota Camry, a Ford Fusion and two Chevrolet Impalas, one flex-fuel and one non-flex-fuel. Researchers used the EPA Highway Fuel Economy Test (HWFET) to examine a range of ethanol-gasoline blends from straight Tier 2 gasoline up to 85 percent ethanol. All of the vehicles got better mileage with ethanol blends than the ethanol's energy content would predict, and three out of four actually traveled farther on a mid-level ethanol blend than on unleaded gasoline.
"I applaud the American Coalition for Ethanol for taking action and studying the impact of intermediate blends of ethanol. I am encouraged by the findings of this study, which should benefit the federal regulatory process for approving higher blends of ethanol," said U.S. Senator John Thune (R-SD). "Intermediate blends of ethanol will offer consumers more choices at the pump, reduce dependence on foreign oil, and benefit our domestic ethanol industry for years to come."
In addition to the favorable fuel economy findings, the research provides strong evidence that standard, non-flex-fuel vehicles can operate on ethanol blends beyond E10. The three non-flex-fuel vehicles tested operated on levels as high as E65 before any engine fault codes were displayed. Emissions results for the ethanol blends were favorable for nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and nonmethane organic gases, showing an especially significant reduction in CO2 emissions for each vehicle's "optimal" ethanol blend (E20 for the flex-fuel Chevy, E30 for the Toyota and Ford, E40 for the non-flex Chevy).
"These studies show that moderate 20-30 percent ethanol blends can reduce air pollution, improve gas mileage, and save drivers money in the most popular cars on the road today," said Brett Hulsey, president of Better Environmental Solutions, an environmental health consulting firm. "Moderate ethanol blends are homegrown in America, can be delivered with existing pumps to current vehicles, and cost less than gasoline. Ethanol lowers CO2 emissions 20 percent from gasoline, making it one of our most effective greenhouse gas reduction programs currently in place."
KEY FINDINGS
Ethanol's energy content was not found to be a direct predictor of fuel economy. A fuel's energy content in British Thermal Units (Btu) is current standard practice for estimating fuel economy, a method that, because of ethanol's lower Btu value, leads to estimates of decreased fuel economy in proportion to the percentage of ethanol in the fuel blend.
-- This research, however, did not find ethanol's Btu content to be a direct predictor of fuel economy. All four vehicles tested exhibited better fuel economy with the ethanol blends than the Btu-value estimates predicted.
E20 and E30 ethanol blends outperformed unleaded gasoline in fuel economy tests for certain autos. Contrary to Btu-based estimates of fuel economy for ethanol blends, three of the four vehicles tested achieved their highest fuel efficiency not on gasoline, but on an ethanol blend. Mid-level blends of ethanol E20 (20% ethanol, 80% gasoline) and E30 (30% ethanol, 70% gasoline) offered the best fuel economy in these tests.
-- E30 offered better fuel economy than gasoline (a 1% increase) in both the Toyota and the Ford.
-- E20 offered better fuel economy than gasoline (a 15% increase) in the flex-fuel Chevrolet.
-- The non-flex-fuel Chevrolet more closely followed the Btu-calculated trend for fuel economy, but did experience a significant improvement over the trend line with E40 (40% ethanol, 60% gasoline), indicating that this may be the "optimal" ethanol blend level for this vehicle.
Standard, non-flex-fuel vehicles operated well on ethanol blends beyond 10 percent - All automakers currently cover the use of up to E10 (10% ethanol, 90% gasoline) by warranty for standard, non-flex-fuel vehicles. In this preliminary research, the three non-flex-fuel vehicles tested each operated successfully on ethanol blends significantly higher than this 10% ethanol level.
-- The Ford Fusion operated on E45, the Toyota on E65, and the non-flex-fuel Chevy on E55. No engine fault codes were displayed until these levels were surpassed.
[/b]

This has been cussed and recussed on this site before. I believe it was Jabber who first brought this to our attention.
Your theories are not proven out in this test. Ethanol is just as valuable as gasoline.
[/b]

Your sources are pretty flimsy and certainly not from reputation research institutions...undoubtedly poisoned with ethanaholic researchers...hee, hee. Listen pal, if ethanol through some miracle performed as well as gasoline and has much energy (btu's) as gasoline, every arbitrageur in the fuel business would see to it that the ethanol price was approximately the same as gasoline...but its not and that is the irrefutable fact...but I doubt if you can come to grips with that and would rather choose to believe more of the fairly tale.
dec
[/b]

r3020: Good post. I think it was sludgeman that talked about E40 before. My neighbor to the SE blends 50/50 and runs it in all their pickups which is quite a few. And, they are not flex fuel either. He was one of the honchos who was instrumental in getting the local ethanol plant in here. He saves a fortune. Best.
[/b]

Dec, here is a link to the University of ND Energy and environmental research center' list of clients. They have a lot of deverse clients.
http://www.undeerc.org/businesswithus/clients.aspx
Here is a list of professional associates at the MSU research center.
http://cset.mnsu.edu/aet/orgs/
I would say they are at least as good as some of the stuff you put up.
[/b]

quote:
Originally posted by r3020
[br]Dec, here is a link to the University of ND Energy and environmental research center' list of clients. They have a lot of deverse clients.
http://www.undeerc.org/businesswithus/clients.aspx
Here is a list of professional associates at the MSU research center.
http://cset.mnsu.edu/aet/orgs/
I would say they are at least as good as some of the stuff you put up.


Isn't it curios that this so-called "research" is largely sponsored and paid for by the conflicted ethanol/bio-diesel folks? Again, the acid test is the market...and the overwhelming scientific evidence is clear. Ethanol has approximately 1/3 less BTUs than gasoline...you fruit cakes are impossible, as your conflicted positions have only self interest in mind.
dec
[/b]

dec: I saw a picture of a jet in Brazil with E100 on the tail.
Think of all the money you could save flying your Citation.
You might want to take a parachute along until, you get all
the bugs worked out. lol.
[/b]

Do you guys not understand what "preliminary research"
means? Obviously not. So until this gets further down
the research line it at best is a possibility.
48, told you that you would have no concept of the
marketplace passing something along. What I did like
best of all though was how you first cite the post as
proof of your position and then when I simply pointed
out in that very post that it stated within the post
itself exactly what I have been saying you quickly come
back and say you don't believe everything in the post.
And yet I am the one spinning this. I bet you plant
corn and tell your neighbors you plant soybeans. Oh,
that's right, you don't plant corn. Or own ethanol stock.
So you and 3020 want to come on here and claim to represent agriculture and know all the benefits of ethanol but
yet you don't put your money where you mouth is.
I think that says it all. Either put up or shut up.
As Dec correctly points out, it is not just a few
of us that say ethanol does not result in the same
mileage as gas. It is the marketplace. Or is it your
claim that everyone that runs a gas station, everyone
that makes their living buying and selling fuel, everyone
that deals with this stuff day in and day out are simply
not as smart as the 2 of you? How ridiculous can you 2 get?
The claim that you 2 alone know so much more than all
the rest involved in the marketplace.
And before you go back to your normal scapegoat, all of
the pumps, and all of the trade in ethanol, and all of
the trade in fuel, is not handled or controlled by Big Oil.
The claim itself shows an extreme lack of understanding
of the marketplace. But you 2 have already shown that,
numerous times. Just as 48 has now clearly shown that
he has no concept or understanding of how a pass through
works in the marketplace with the blenders credit. It is
not that hard but somehow you guys still don't get it. I
doubt if painting a picture would help as you guys would
refuse to look at it anyway.
You guys make Forrest Gump look bright. If nothing else
it is entertaining to see you 2 try so hard to ignore the
obvious.
[/b]

What we do know is that things are fine the way they are and we are having fun with you two cry babies.
[/b]

Sooooooooooooo, research that shows ethanol does not cut mileage is bad research, and research that shows ethanol does cut mileage [although you have yet to produce said research] is good research.
Typical lawyer double talk, take the obvious and turn it into question. I guess if the glove don't fit we must acquit.
[/b]

That is not at all what I stated. However, since you have no other argument or any idea of how to respond correctly you give us that explanation. But now since you have shown everyone on this Board that you do not even know the basics about how research is conducted, not the terminology related to research, we can safely put aside any references you make to research projects.
Thank you for your blatant admission of lack of knowledge on this subject 3020. It fits perfectly into your other posts about ethanol.
You guys really are entertaining. It is much like watching freshman come to college thinking they know everything but everyone else knows just how little they actually do know. And the more they talk the deeper the hole they dig for themselves. It is amusing to say the least.
[/b]

glad you know all the rules jam... lol So you are the research expert. Did you learn that from a text book you moron(? just back changing the period to a question mark so that dumb f^cking jam will know it is a question) Sorry but you are not going to get your way on this one... cry all you want.
Getting sort of old listening to dec and jam cry all the time about ethanol.
[/b]

Just curious Verb, is English your second language? Or did your high school actually pass you with this type of English ability? I have an M.S. degree from a very high ranking university FYI. I do know a little about research. Obviously a lot more than you.
But please, try to work on your English. Most of the time your posts have little relevance to what others posted before you. And no one has any idea (a common theme in your posts) of what you are referring to. I, and I do not get from Dec's posts, that either of us are drying. What we have done is stated facts that, try as several of you might, have not been able to refute or counter.
[/b]

jam does that have something to do with corn for ethanol? lol I have a couple books you need to read. they are not text books though so I don't know if you will take them serious. Probably why you have a bag of nails for a personality.
Tell that crap to Bill Gates.
[/b]

Tell this ignorant corn farmer just what it is that is so flawed about the research Mr Jam.
Do you have any research that says differently?
[/b]

My friend r3020 while you continue to support your argument with more facts and research. Jam has proved nothing but his arrogance... this he has backed up with post after post while leaving the argument of the thread topic in the dust. I am not sure if he even knows what the tread topic is. He only tactic is go off on some self indulgent triad of how he pounded a bunch of money down a rat hole on his education a major university and how you prove how stupid you are with your research. ROTFLMAO Best
[/b]

I simply quoted research you posted 3020 and asked you whether you knew what it meant. Your answer is "no". I think that says it all.
I have posted, time after time, results of other studies but you have chosen to ignore those. Again, I think that says it all. You will not be swayed by anything that goes against what you want to believe even though you do not know what you post actually means.
As far as Verb goes, his posts are one step above Alzado. He has tried hard to be alzado jr. and has succeeded. One cannot figure out what his posts have to do with the posts above it, when he has no actual argument (which is quite often) he simply makes a personal attack. I have no doubt he will respond to this, as he does to other posters in this situation, with something that will show his high maturity level indicating that if he tried real hard he could hit the Pee Wee Herman level. As above, he shows his disdain for anyone that has education. Insecure Verb? He has shown time after time that his tactic is nothing more than trying to be a pathetic bully. He reacts with such gems as "hit yourself in the morning" and so on. Go ahead Verb, prove me wrong.
[/b]

How impressive, now Jam has to bring in his Masters Degree. Most of us on the farm who`ve been in the business and survived also have our Masters Degree. Just because you spent a few weeks studying others ideas doesn`t mean you have attained any practical knowledge. I`ve worked with a man with a masters degree every day for the last 30+ years and I think he`d tell you it was more an exercise than a guarantee of applicable knowledge. Bully for you JAM, we`re all real impressed, with ETHANOL THAT IS! Many of us have used it ourselves for the last 20 years or so and know that it does work well and doesn`t harm engines. It`s not all of the answer but will be part of the solution in spite of you or DEC or other detractors with so many false claims. What are you afraid of, that the world is flat like the educated used to believe, bet they had pointy hats and colorful sashes too.
[/b]

Jam my argument is simple and I have made the case simple enough for you to understand and that is we need alternative fuel.
1.) We do not have an endless supply of oil.
2.) Before gas power where one gallon equals 18 man hours, food was raised using oxen, horse, steam, engine, or by hand.
3.) If one gallon of gas equals 18 man hours, it is reasonable to assume this vast expanse of farm land that has been providing food and fiber for the greatest expansion in the history of mankind has been at the exploitation of a limited resource.
4.) We can feed the world using gas from oil, however if it is to be assumed that this can go on for endless generations then it is necessary to limit the use in other areas such as transit in cities where electric and bicycles can be used.
5.) Other energy sources need to be developed now. Not in 20 or 30 more years while we argue the merits of ethanol. Energy sources such as nuclear, hydro, wind and those that have not been thought of yet need to be expanded.
6.) I have a Farmall A that was produced in 1949 that I will convert to run on ethanol just in case we run out of oil and you are able to shut down the ethanol industry.
7.) I have made all of these arguments in the past in previous and other threads where you were absent. I am sorry you feel none of them have any relation to topic. Part of the problem is I don?t feel repeating or covering stuff where the point has already been made. You are a part time poster and do not keep up with the debate.
8.) One of the things that I do on this board is watch for people like you who come on these boards meant for those involved in everyday agriculture just to kick the dog so to speak, as you do. If you want to stroke your ego do it, but don?t expect everyone to just sit by and not respond to your arrogances.
9.) I am sorry you feel I am uneducated compared to you. My family comes from stock that thinks more in the line of math. On my mothers side she has a brother who was called in when that plane was forced to land in China because he was responsible for design and development of this countries Air superiority. He designed the hydraulics allowing for the doors to open and shut for supersonic speeds at high altitudes. His name is Arnold Anderjaski and he is now with the FAA. His father quit school in the 6th grade as a one room school house student a older girl in the 8th grade always picked on him so he called her out side one day and as she approached the door he slammed it in her face and never went back. He was one of the best wheat farmers in the world.
10.) On my dads side we have civil engineers in Fort, Smith Arkansas. My sons are more mechanical engineers. My daughter just finished 8th grade and being 14 years old tested beyond 12th grade level in math and science when she was in the 6the grade. She is supposed to be taking college math and science.
So we may not be able to write the essay that will convince you of your need for developing future energy sources but we can build them if you do not put all the farmers out of business first and starve yourself to death.
[/b]

quote:
Originally posted by dec
[br]Your sources are pretty flimsy and certainly not from reputation research institutions...undoubtedly poisoned with ethanaholic researchers...hee, hee. Listen pal, if ethanol through some miracle performed as well as gasoline and has much energy (btu's) as gasoline, every arbitrageur in the fuel business would see to it that the ethanol price was approximately the same as gasoline...but its not and that is the irrefutable fact...but I doubt if you can come to grips with that and would rather choose to believe more of the fairly tale.
dec


Does a laboratory test for the BTUs in various fuels and energy sources
ALWAYS dictate the results in an internal combustion engine????????
If so the ONLY ways to increase fuel economy are aerodynamics, vehicle
weight, and driving styles. Seems like our auto manufacturers are
spending some time and money on other ways to increase the power we get
out of a gallon of fuel while at the same time cleaning up exhaust
emissions.
Why don't we just burn the barrel of crude oil and save ourselves the
energy losses that come with converting it to gasoline and diesel?
Is it possible that if we make a fuel burn more completely using an
oxygenate blend, that we can get more energy out of that gallon of
fuel????????????????
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
John Fitzgerald Kennedy
[/b]

Good posts 3020 and Verbo.
It is apparent that your opposition will accept the opinion of those
who state an opinion that they agree with (no matter how shaky the
evidence) and refuse anything to the contrary.
How else would you explain the opposition posting the food inflation
articles and yet be unable to defend the articles using grade school
math. (Food Inflation articles = The Mexican Tortilla Crisis, The
Thanksgiving Turkey Tax, Beer Price Increase in Europe,
the Movie Popcorn price problem, etc)
Every one of these articles stated bio fuels as the cause of rampant
food inflation. Every one of these articles mentioned price increases
that were LARGE multiples of the actual price increase that the
growing farmer was receiving for the crop that they were using to make
the food.
Every one of these articles was challenged using simple grade school
math. Not one of these articles was successfully defended by the
original poster other than to call those who disagreed names.
Keep up the good questions and topics. Those who primary tactics are
name calling, selective logic, and ruling valid arguements as
irrelevant are looking shakier by the day.
Those that see cropland as only a food and feed source will have to
think about future supply and price issues if crop prices are not
successfully linked to energy prices now.
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
John Fitzgerald Kennedy
[/b]

You guys must really feel insecure. A study was posted. I quoted from the study and asked if they knew what it meant. The answer was "no". I was asked what I knew about research. I responded that I did know something about research as I have an M.S. from a very good university. You guys then go into a rampage calling yourselves names and saying that I made those statements. You called yourselves stupid, not me. In response to the comment that one of you have worked with a guy for 30 years with an MS and that it is not a guarantee for applicable knowledge, I would agree. It does not guarantee knowledge. But such a degree from a good university does show that most of the people that obtain that do have some knowledge in how to figure some things out. You guys are the ones making a big deal out about it. Not me.
It is nice to know Verb that you are the self appointed watch dog for agriculture on this Board. And yet you claim I am the arrogant one! I am not the only one on here that has stated that they cannot figure out how your posts relate to what has been posted. And NOT ONCE have I EVER said that we need to stop ethanol. But yet you guys are so threatened by any questioning of any aspect of ethanol that you take the position that you are either all for it or completely against it. You cannot show ONCE where I have ever made a statement that ethanol production should be stopped. I have stated repeatedly that the subsidies need to end and that there needs to be a level playing field. You guys are the ones that argue against that. You do not want a level playing field. Your position seems to be that until all subsidies everywhere are ended we cannot end any subsidies. I disagree with that.
Your claim jabber that ethanol makes gas "burn more completely" is not true in a combustion engine. If the ignition is not at the proper time then the burn is less efficient. Ethanol has higher octane which means it sparks sooner than regular gas. The earlier spark results in an incomplete combustion, damaging the valves and resulting in less mileage due to the incomplete combustion. That is why an engine has to have higher combustion and the proper timing to effectively use ethanol. Without the combination of higher compression and proper timing, (most cars on the road today do not have the higher compression and therefore cannot effectively use ethanol) ethanol is not a cleaner burning fuel. The statement that it is is only true in a particular set of circumstances that does not exist in most engines today.
The other problem with ethanol is that as a solution it is an extremely poor one. Overall it adds extremely little to the overall fuel supply. Considering the amount of money that has been thrown at it most of you would complain greatly if the same amount of money had been thrown at some other program with similar small gain. A gallon of ethanol does not off set a gallon of gas simply because it takes a lot of oil based products to get that gallon of ethanol to the car tank. The offset is much lower than 1:1. But even assuming it is 1:1, ethanol has only added 5-6% of total gas supplies to the US. With the billions that have been spent it would seem that we could have found other ways, just as effective as ethanol, to accomplish the same thing. Would you guys support such a move by our government? Would you guys support spending billions to find another substitute that amounts to 5% of our fuel supply?
[/b]

Yesterday during the Indy 500 I was surprised at how small a gas...er....alcohol tank they have....even the 650 HP engines get pretty good mileage....and going back to Ford....maybe he was right in believing that ethanol was the fuel of the future....however, I too agree that the solution, as there are so many of us on this rock, will be multidimensional....but ETHANOL is here to stay....and I might add that the post by DEC about all the support given to Ethanol is misleading.....many of these benefits/giveaways are provided to MANY other businesses....drop them all and then let's see what happens to our prices of EVERYTHING....actually that would be fine if the government would drop ALL OF OUR TAXES at the same time....JMHO
[/b]

Jam all one has to do to refute what you say is read by through the thread. Your answer to my argument is that you agree ethanol is a genuine alternative fuel. The fact that your last post pretends to be a transcriptss of the discussion does not make it so. Name the other poster who does not think my posts have anything to do with the topic. Just because you are an educated lawyer does not mean you are more intelligent. I will continue to call anyone to task that strokes their ego at the expense of others. I enjoy your posts Jam an appreciate your input, because as jabber points out it exposes the truth.
The tone of your last post is much better than the one at the top of the page. Best have a good day.
[/b]

Excellent point jabber.
[/b]

JAM SAID-
Your claim jabber that ethanol makes gas "burn more completely" is
not true in a combustion engine. If the ignition is not at the proper
time then the burn is less efficient. Ethanol has higher octane which
means it sparks sooner than regular gas. The earlier spark results in an
incomplete combustion, damaging the valves and resulting in less mileage
due to the incomplete combustion. That is why an engine has to have higher
combustion and the proper timing to effectively use ethanol. Without the
combination of higher compression and proper timing, (most cars on the road
today do not have the higher compression and therefore cannot effectively
use ethanol) ethanol is not a cleaner burning fuel. The statement that it
is is only true in a particular set of circumstances that does not exist in
most engines today.
JABBER- SOMEWHAT TRUE IN THAT A CURRENT ENGINE CAN BE TUNED TO GET LESS OR MORE
OUT OF ETHANOL BLENDS. JAM DO YOU FEEL THAT YOU HAVE A RELIABLE SOURCE THAT
SUGGESTS THAT CURRENT ENGINES PROPERLY TUNED HAVE HIGHER EMMISSIONS
WHEN BURNING ETHANOL BLENDS?
JAM SAID-The other problem with ethanol is that as a solution it is an extremely poor
one. Overall it adds extremely little to the overall fuel supply. Considering
the amount of money that has been thrown at it most of you would complain
greatly if the same amount of money had been thrown at some other program with
similar small gain.
CURRENT GAINS ARE SIGNIFICANT. FUTURE GAINS HELP EXPLAIN THE MONEY SPENT.
USING YOUR CRITERIA, WE WOULD SPEND ABOUT 0 ON HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS AS
WE USE ABOUT 0 HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS NOW.
0
JAM SAID- A gallon of ethanol does not off set a gallon of gas
simply because it takes a lot of oil based products to get that gallon
of ethanol to the car tank. The offset is much lower than 1:1.
JABBER ASKS-
JAM- DO YOU HAVE A SOURCE THAT YOU CONSIDER RELIABLE THAT CLAIMS THAT
WE USE THE SAME OR MORE PETROLEUM PRODUCTS TO MAKE A GALLON OF ETHANOL?????????
LOWER THAN 1 TO 1???????????? I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT SOURCE. THE USDA
HAS A STUDY THAT SUGGESTS THAT WE GAIN TOTAL BTUS AND GET OVER 6 TIMES
THE TOTAL BTUS WHEN COMPARED TO JUST PETROLEUM PRODUCTS USED TO PRODUCE
THE CORN AND MAKE THE ETHANOL.
PS- MY CORN ACRE IN 2007 WOULD YIELD 570 GALLONS OF ETHANOL, WHILE LEAVING
OVER 30% OF THE BUSHEL AS DDGS. I USED LESS THAN 9 GALLONS OF FINISHED
READY TO USE PETROLEUM HERE ON THE FARM TO MAKE THAT 570 GALLONS. CAN
YOU ACCOUNT FOR THE OTHER 561 GALLONS OF PETROLEUM ENERGY THAT YOU MUST
BE SUGGESTING WERE USED FOR THE CORN TO ETHANOL TO EQUAL 1 TO 1?
ALSO NOTE-IF THIS ACRE WOULD HAVE INSTEAD BEEN SOYBEANS, THE SOY YIELD
WOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT EQUAL TO THE DDG YIELD AFTER MAKING THE ETHANOL.
SOOOOOOO WE ARE STILL PRODUCING LOTS OF ANIMAL FEED PER ACRE.
JAM SAYS- But even
assuming it is 1:1, ethanol has only added 5-6% of total gas supplies
to the US. With the billions that have been spent it would seem that we
could have found other ways, just as effective as ethanol, to
accomplish the same thing. Would you guys support such a move by our
government? Would you guys support spending billions to find another
substitute that amounts to 5% of our fuel supply?
WE SPENT LOTS OF MONEY RIGHT NOW TO ACTUALLY BUY OUR PETRO ENERGY. MOST
OF THAT MONEY ENDS UP OVERSEAS. SPENDING ON OTHER ALTERNATIVES-
IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE LONG TERM
POTENTIAL FOR THE ENERGY SOURCE WHETHER I WOULD SUPPORT THE USE OF THESE
GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES FOR OTHER ENERGY VENTURES. POTENTIAL FOR SUPPLY,
SECURITY OF THE SUPPLY, ENVIRONMENTAL GAINS, AND HOW SOON THE NEW SUPPLY
WOULD FIT OUR NEEDS WOULD ALL HAVE TO BE WEIGHED.
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
John Fitzgerald Kennedy
[/b]

There you guys go again, Either you are for something or you are against it. Wile I stated I was not opposed to ethanol I certainly did not state that I was for it either. My opinion is that ethanol will add extremely little to the fuel supply concerns faced by this nation while at the same time costing a lot of time, disrupting a lot of markets, resulting in very little actual good. If ethanol wants to compete than let it compete. It has been given billions of dollars to get it going but instead of letting it now compete on its own the subsidies and mandates just continue to increase.
Verb, you asked for another poster that could not figure out your posts. Recently Beaner asked what your posts had to do with previous posts. That is but one example. And no where did I state that being a lawyer made me more intelligent On the other hand, not being educated does not automatically make one more intelligent either.
Jabber, I am not going to go back and repeat the research that has been posted on agweb time after time simply because you want to ask the same question time after time. As if asking it more times will change the answer. You want to claim that adding 5-6% to the US gas supply at a cost of millions to billions is significant. I disagree. I don't think it is significant. Especially since that is the amount of gross addition, not net addition to the fuel supply. The net addition is much lower than that. There are numerous studies that show that fertilizer use has increased dramatically to grow corn. And this cannot simply be laid at the doorstep of increased world demand. World demand is for increased protein. Corn does not produce protein. But yet corn acres have increased dramatically, due to the ethanol mandates. There is direct correlation and causation there. In addition studies also have shown that the miles trucks have driven to deliver the corn, the DDGS, the ethanol, etc. have increased dramatically. All of this due solely to ethanol. To figure into the net addition to the fuel supply all of this has to be subtracted from the ethanol side of the equation. Therefore it is not 1:1 with gas. You only use part of the numbers in your calculations to get to the answer you want.
And the argument that an acre will be planted to something if not corn is not an argument at all. Growing corn uses a lot more water than many other plants. In addition the other inputs used on that acre are far more intensive on an acre of corn than on most other crops that would be grown there. Plus acres that probably should not be planted to corn are simply because of the ethanol mandates.
In addition your consistent claims as to DDGS as an animal feed are falling apart. Studies are showing that poultry, dairy and pork produce poorer on DDGs than on other feeds. And that is at low levels of using DDGs. The quantity and quality of what each acre will produce with corn is significantly reduced when used for ethanol.
Your claim that most of our petro money ends up overrseas is also untrue. The US produces over 40% of its current oil needs. 70% of the remaining that is imported is imported from the American content. The last time I traveled the American continent I did not cross any seas whatsoever. Maybe you traveled a different American continent.
You can twist what I have stated all you want. It does not change the facts and the facts are really rather clear. Ethanol has added little to the fuel solution to the US. It has extremely little future as adding a great deal as a viable fuel solution, and it disrupts markets, as any government mandated program will do, especially when the mandates take in over 1/3 of total production of that substance.
[/b]

Jam I don't see where your post has anything to do with the previous post.
Here is how you started your previous post... not including the last one.
Jam says "You guys must really feel insecure. A study was posted. I quoted from the study and asked if they knew what it meant. The answer was "no". I was asked what I knew about research. I responded that I did know something about research as I have an M.S. from a very good university. You guys then go into a rampage calling yourselves names and saying that I made those statements. You called yourselves stupid, not me.
You are driving down the road of life with your head lights on dim pal. Show me specifically where you quoted from a study and ask anyone if they knew what it meant. Then show me specifically where anyone answered your question with no. ROTFLMAO best. You must be sitting in some mental institution pretending to be a lawyer. Lmao
[/b]

Jam: I'm just a simple farmer and when I do the arithmetic we are now raising 12-13.5 billion bu. of corn (up from 9-10.5 before achohol) and using slightly less than 3 billion for biofuels I have a hard time seeing the shortage of corn because of achohol. 12 billion divided by 3 = 1/4 of the total not 1/3. Then when you figure in the at least 1/3 of what comes in the front door comes out the back door as good cattle feed I actually see a large increase in food and fuel. I do agree that this is not the total answer to our energy usage lifestyle it is a cogg in the gear. My personal favorate is hydrogen. Available everwhere there is water. Cleanest burning of all fuels, excellent way to store solar and wind power.(when the sun does not shine or the wind does not shine also is portable no power cord to drag along behind) Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.
[/b]

JAM-You`re an intelligent man, could you please bring us up to speed on what it costs us to make sure oil is available to the free world from the Mid-East? Even if we get most of our oil from the American Continent, what would a major disruption in the Mid-East do to the world wide price of crude? I`ve no investment in any ethanol plant, so other than the fact that I raise corn and know the water figures are skewed, what would you suggest, that we no longer allow it to rain on a corn field? Seriously, I`m confused about the water issue and for that matter the transportation rhetoric. All grain has to go to market somewhere if it is made into ethanol or not. One more, what would it cost today from the ground up to start up the crude oil business? That should be what you compare the start up cost of any other new source of energy since you talk about a level playing field. Ethanol is not the solution, but long range it will be part of it!
[/b]

Iowa 55 hit the nail on the head-
"The fact that they are being conned
will only help our side when they know the truth."
True.
Buuuuuuuuuuuutttttttttt the public has to be informed by credible
sources that they are being conned. Those in the media who don't
correct some serious inaccuracies/lies will have to be embarassed by
the facts or the public will just see ethanol as a new scam. That is
what many in the media are portraying.
It isn't too hard to disprove lots that has been run as news about ethanol
in the media.
It is very hard to get the coverage that the false charges have gotten.
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
John Fitzgerald Kennedy
[/b]

quote:
Originally posted by r3020
[br]48, my take is the oil companies are doing the blending themselves before it gets to the jobbers, so they are getting the $.51 blenders credit. Also they will not sell the blenders straight gasoline making it impossible to blend more than what the oil companies want blended.
A couple of questions, may be you can answer
1) Is it illegal to add more ethanol to E10 to make it E85?
2) If all a jobber can buy is E5, can he add ethanol to it?
Looks to me like this could explain why ethanol is $.90 cheaper than gas. The oil companies reduce demand for ethanol, create a glut, now they can buy ethanol much cheaper than refinning gas, plus they get paid $.51/gallon to do it. If they can put a few ethanol plants out of business, all the better, increases demand for their main product, gasoline. Not only do we need to get rid of the subsidy, we need to break up the monopoly.


Yep and if the "energy companies" can talk the value of ethanol in-
vestments down, they are free of course to invest in ethanol at a dis-
count while still keeping control of the nations fluid fuel supply in
a very few hands. Not sure that the "energy companies" really want
bio fuels to go away- they just want to have control of as much of the
market as possible. That is how they have operated in the past and it
has worked well for them.
Bio fuels as they are- are a big headache for energy companies. Wholly
owned bio fuels refineries supported by government mandates purchased at
a discount would be easier than counting on Hugo Chavez.
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
John Fitzgerald Kennedy
[/b]

Verb, I am not going to rehash multiple posts simply because you cannot follow a thread. All of that is in this thread. Look it up yourself before you start calling names.
Iowa55, USDA projects a 12 billion bushel corn crop with 4 billion going to ethanol in the 08-09 crop year. That is 1/3, not 1/4 of the corn crop. And that is if we get 153.9 bu/acre national yield. Considering the late start to the corn crop this year most likely we will not see those yields. So unless acreage is much higher we could be looking at 1 billion less bushels by the end of the crop year. However, the amount going to ethanol won?t change because it is mandated to be used. So we will be over 1/3 of the corn crop being used for ethanol. If you guys want to argue at least keep up with your own arguments.
And optfmr, oil is a fungible commodity. Disruptions in the Mideast affect the price of oil regardless of where it is bought or used. The argument that costs should always be compared from the ground up only is disingenuous, at best. We are where we are at. Costs have to be figured from where we are at. Sorry you are confused about rain falling on corn fields. But water use is different for different plant species and land uses. If you want to understand more about that and no longer be confused get a book and learn form it.
[/b]

dear JAM I see you can pick and choose you passed over the fact that 33-50% of corn used in an ethonol plant returns as livestock feed has not entered into your figures (mostly cattle feed). This makes your figures less than factually correct. The bigger picture is the export figures are increasing maybe we should try the Carter cure. I am sure with your logic the same trick should get different results this time. If not maybe next time?
[/b]

I know this is off the original topic, and at the risk to being taking to the woodshed, I would like to ask some questions.
How are the alternative fuel mandates enforced?
What are the penalties if they are not met?
Who is the enforcer?
[/b]

r3020: All good questions. I dunno. I assume the EPA is the
enforcer since that is who TX Gov. Rick Perry and Sen.
Hutchinson are appealing to, to cut the mandate in half. Best.
[/b]

JAM: USDA is saying 4bil bu of corn for ethanol, but it
will never happen cuz the mandate is 9bil gal/2.8bu/gal=
3.21bil bu cuz Big Oil will not blend one more drop than
they have to. All last year they had corn for ethanol
projected higher, and then corrected it on the last report.
Using the May USDA S&D, they are showing Total Supply=
13.523 bil bu. You are correct that the yield may be
down due to wet, delayed planting. But, due to the high
corn price, acres will be more than 86 mil. So, for right
now it's a wash. The June report should show reduced
yield and higher acres, but it is not uncommon for USDA
to take forever to get it right. A bushel of corn yields
2.8 gal of ethanol + 17# of DRIED distillers. 17# distillers/
56#/bu=.3036=30.36%. Most corns now are really 58-60#/bu
test weight, and most modern ethanol plants have yields
approaching 3gal of ethanol/bu. But, using the old figures
3.21 bil bu X 30.36%=.9745bil bu that comes back as feed
as distillers. So, the NET use for ethanol=3.21-.97=2.24
bil bu. 2.24 bil bu net corn used for ethanol/13.523 bil
bu of supply=.17= 17% of corn supply used for ethanol--
NOT your 30%. I know that you can SPIN numbers to say
anything that you want. But, that is not what I am doing.
I am endeavoring to show the hard, cold facts. Best.
[/b]

BTW, I don't know if the distillers is 56#/bu. I will try
to get the correct density and will revise my numbers if
necessary. Best.
[/b]

Jamazdo OK so you can recreate the thread history however you want then accuse me of not being able to follow the thread. Have a good day Jeffery.
[/b]

17# of dried distillers/56#/bu=.3036=30.36% of a bu
regardless of the actual density, so I think the figures
are correct.
[/b]

JAM-When I posed the question of the water issue, I was fully aware that corn uses more than most other crops grown in the corn belt. My point basically is, why would you not grow the crop that made the most use of all of the rainfall you received and why would you make a big deal of a crop using the rain that fell from the sky in the most rewarding way possible? Is it better to let it run down to the Gulf of Mexico? It is no more fair to count all water used in ethanol production than it would be to count all the money it takes to maintain a presence in the Middle East against the price of oil, in fact the latter makes a lot more sense. As far as reading a book about water consumption, I`m very well informed on the subject having been an irrigator of crops for the last 50 years. Thanks for the slam, o learned one. Ethanol isn`t the answer but it is part of the solution.
[/b]

JAM SAID- A gallon of ethanol does not off set a gallon of gas
simply because it takes a lot of oil based products to get that gallon
of ethanol to the car tank. The offset is much lower than 1:1.
JABBER ASKS-
JAM- DO YOU HAVE A SOURCE THAT YOU CONSIDER RELIABLE THAT CLAIMS THAT
WE USE THE SAME OR MORE PETROLEUM PRODUCTS TO MAKE A GALLON OF ETHANOL?????????
LOWER THAN 1 TO 1???????????? I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT SOURCE. THE USDA
HAS A STUDY THAT SUGGESTS THAT WE GAIN TOTAL BTUS AND GET OVER 6 TIMES
THE TOTAL BTUS WHEN COMPARED TO JUST PETROLEUM PRODUCTS USED TO PRODUCE THE CORN AND MAKE THE ETHANOL.

To which JAM replies-
Jabber, I am not going to go back and repeat the research that has been
posted on agweb time after time simply because you want to ask the
same question time after time.
TO WHICH I SAY- NO JAM, I DON?T BELIEVE ANYONE HAS EVERY POSTED A
REPUTABLE STUDY THAT SUGGESTS THAT ?- A gallon of ethanol does not off
set a gallon of gas simply because it takes a lot of OIL BASED PRODUCTS
to get that gallon of ethanol to the car tank. The offset is much lower
than 1:1.?

THE ONLY ONE I REMEMBER SUGGESTING THIS IS A TALKING HEAD ON TY WITH NO
RESEARCH TO QUOTE. SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO GO AHEAD MAKE MY DAY- SHOW
ME REPUTABLE RESEARCH THAT SUGGESTS THAT WE USE MORE THAN A GALLON OF OIL
(PETROLEUM BASED) PRODUCTS TO MAKE A GALLON OF ETHANOL .
PS- YOU ARE TECHNICALLY CORRECT THAT LOTS OF OUR IMPORTED OIL COMES FROM
THIS CONTINENT AND IS THEREFORE TECHNICALLY NOT ?FROM OVERSEAS?. THE
MAJORITY OF OUR OIL IS IMPORTED FROM OTHER COUNTRIES SOME OF WHICH SHARE
A LAND BORDER WITH US. FOR THESE COUNTRIES THE OIL IS TECHNICALLY NOT
OVERSEAS THOUGH IT MAY OR MAY NO BE SHIPPED BY SEA.
I SHOULD HAVE SAID IMPORTED OIL VS OIL FROM OVERSEAS.
COME ON JAM- BREAK SOME NEW GROUND HERE.
SHOW US HOW WE USE MORE PETROLEUM TO MAKE ETHANOL THAN
WE GET IN ETHANOL YIELD.[}]
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
John Fitzgerald Kennedy
[/b]

Jabber, I gave several of the reasons from several studies in an earlier post. Go back and read that one for your answer. You simply want to compare 1 gallon of ethanol with one gallon of oil with both as a finished product. I am considering what it takes to get them there. Open you eyes a little and the answers are there. And posting the same study over and over again does not make it any more correct. The study itself said that it is a preliminary study and needs more research. So if you actually buy into the research you should buy into all of it.
Or we can use 48's standard. If the research is funded by Big Oil then it cannot be trusted. The corollary would also be true, if it is funded by Big Corn it cannot be trusted. You cannot, without being a hypocrite, claim it for one and not for the other.
And 48, for the last time, many other posters have proven your statement incorrect that they will only blend what they have to. Other ethanol supporters have given numerous examples of where the ethanol content is higher than 10% and where they are blending where they don't have to blend. As a matter of economics, if ethanol is cheaper to buy and put into gas, all things considered, they will do it. Many on here have posted these things. Or are you going to use your normal excuse after posting a study, or somebody else posting a study, that you claim supports your side, only to have me quote it showing that the study stated exactly what I was stating and then you come back and say you don't agree with all of that study, only those parts of it that support your side?
[/b]

48, and others of you that want to keep posting about how we really are not using 1/3 of our corn crop for ethanol because close to a billion bushels is coming back in the form of feed, please explain the following then;
1) Corn for feed use went up over 500,000 this past year. Animal numbers are up slightly. So your claim is that somehow we are now feeding 1.5 billion bushels more feed to animals this year?
2) In addition, even most of you now admit that only ruminants (beef and dairy) can actually use most of this. So explain how all of a sudden the US beef herd is now using an additional 1.5 billion bushels of corn?
And you cannot claim that it is replacing soybean meal because crush is higher for the past several years also. Unless you are claiming that all of a sudden we are overfeeding protein to beef and dairy animals, at a rate far higher than ever before.
3) Also please explain recent studies that show lower productivity by both pork and poultry when fed DDGS if it is such a good protein source. These are studies done by major land grant universities in the Midwest.
The excuse that USDA numbers are not accurate is not acceptable unless you can give another source of accurate numbers.
We await your wisdom.
[/b]

jam you are free to raise all the corn you want and do as you please with it.
[/b]

JAM: Corn for "Feed and Residual" for 2007/8=6.15bil bu.
2008/9=5.30bil bu. 6.15-5.30=.85bil bu LESS. So where are
you getting, first 500,000, and then in the same paragraph
1.5 bil MORE??? Hummm??? re 2} "In addition, even most of
you now admit only ruminants (beef and dairy) can actually
use most of this." We have always known that distillers
can comprise a higher portion of the diet of ruminants
than monogastrics. Apparently, you are just now learning
this. And, as I have already pointed out to you, your 1.5
bil bu is in error. And, no I'm not going to claim that
distillers is replacing SB meal. Cattle were never fed SB
meal. They were fed cotton seed meal cuz it was cheaper
than SBM. But, distillers is replacing cotton seed meal.
re 3) studies showing lower productivity on pork and poultry
fed distillers... The lower productivity only results
when the distillers portion of the ration is pushed too
high for a monogastric. If distillers is so bad, why do
they want it so bad??? Hummmm??? re "The excuse that USDA
numbers are not accurate is not acceptable..." Who says
it's not acceptable? You? Why don't you ask your buddy
dec if he blindly trades USDA numbers if he knows that
they are wrong. I will bet you $1,000 right now that the
May 2009 USDA Corn S&D report is closer to 3.21 bil bu
than 4.0 bil bu for corn for ethanol use. Put up or shut
up or do what you do best=spin it. lol. I will really
LMAO if you take this bet and then get your wish that the
EPA cuts the mandate cuz then it will be even less than
3.21 bil bu. lol. And, with the prospects of lower yields
due to wet, delayed planting, corn prices are likely to
stay high and ethanol margins slim or non-existent. But,
since you believe USDA's 4.0bil bu, you have nothing to
worry about. lol. Best.
[/b]

JAM: With the exception that you are a patriotic American,
you remind me of ivn. Somebody pays ivn to find out what
we do. ivn posts a bunch of BS, then American farmers rush
to correct him and tell him how it really is. That's how
ivn learns what we do. I ought to charge you a consulting
fee. lol. Best.
[/b]

48, you really cannot this dense. I clearly stated feed use this past year. We are in the 07-08 crop year. Last years feed number was for 5.598 bil. bus. This years feed use is 6.150 bil. bu. That is over a 500,000 bu increase for feed alone. You are the one that stated we get 1 bill. bu. of feed from DDGs. I was using YOUR figure. But of course, now that you have been questioned you are going to deny it. You stated it just a few hours ago on this post. So we have increased feed use by over 500,000 bushels and we have 1 billion bushels worth of DDGs. I simply asked where it all went. You have not provided an answer. And cottonmeal seed is not used exclusively in cattle rations for the protein source. It is used extensively only in fairly limited areas of the US.
And if you would actually read what is printed rather than what you wish was printed I also clearly stated that production is lowered on pork and poultry in feeding trials. I did NOT state anything about the different rates being fed the different species. You have simply made that part up. Contrary to your claim the studies show reduced production at LOW rates of DDGs being fed.
I also clearly stated that if you do not use the USDA then give us some reliable numbers to use. But all you can do is rant on about you. How pathetic.
It is nice to see however that you finally admitted that without the mandates ethanol production will drop. SO you agree that the ONLY reason we are producing this amount of ethanol is because the federal government mandates it. NOT because it is a great fuel. As you keep saying, fuel suppliers will only blend as much as they have to. So you agree that with being forced ethanol would fail. That it cannot stand on its own. That blenders will not use it even if the economics indicate they should. And as your buddy jabber pointed out, the blenders are not Big Oil. So exploain that one too.
So go ahead, explain the numbers. So far you have NOT explained the increased feed use numbers. Have at it oh wise one. Instead of rants about you show us the figures.
Can't explain the numbers so you make personal attacks. Real maturity there 48. You obviously can't even explain anything
useful about ethanol so the last thing I would want from you
is a lesson in agriculture. I will bet I have worked in
agriculture in more areas of the US, in more diverse areas
of agriculture, than you have ever thought of.
[/b]

jam before you get your toga all knotted up check on the export numbers for DDG's .
[/b]

I am not clear here. Several of you ethanolics have posted numerous times that some of us are failing to take into account that the DDGS produced by ethanol are added back to the corn feed numbers and that we have been failing to take them into account. Now 48 tells us that the DDGS are not used as a corn or soybean substitute but rather as a cottonseed meal substitute. Iowa, you are telling us that the DDGS are exported. It seems that both answers indicate that we should NOT add the DDGS back to the corn feeding S&D's because in fact the DDGS are not used here or are not a substitute for either corn or soybean meal. Interesting.
[/b]

Well JAM it appears you are "not clear" on a lot of things.
It appears from our earlier discussion that you have made a BIG
MISTAKE in your claims that we use more than a gallon of PETROLEUM
PRODUCTS to make a gallon of ethanol.
I have read lots of energy balance work. I have not read one that
suggests that you are even close to the truth on a BTU basis. Let
alone gallon per gallon.
For your information about 15 energy balance studies have been done.
Most suggest that we gain significant energy when all sources are
considered when we grow corn and make ethanol out of the corn.
The 3 that suggest that we actually loose some energy when we grow
corn to make ethanol all have Pimental involved. I believe that even
Pimental's research would suggest a large gain in energy if we are
just considering how much PETROLEUM ENERGY is used to grow corn and
make ethanol.
Sooooooooooooooo in energy balance comments you should know that the
sound majority suggest that we gain energy by making ethanol measured
in BTUs.
Even those that disagree would not support your claim that we use more
petroleum than we get in ethanol.
No matter how you cut the info, ethanol is a great petroleum extender.
It takes much less than a gallon of petroleum (about 1/6th) to make
a gallon of ethanol. Even Pimental would have to admit that. We are in
effect making petroleum, coal, nuclear, and solar (gathered by the corn)
energy into fluid transportation fuel that can be used in todays cars
today.
Don't feel too bad in not understanding this issue.
The media has been saying this stuff for so long without documenting
their source that it now sounds true to very many.

Ethanol is also used as an oxygenate, which when used properly, makes
gasoline burn more completely.
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
John Fitzgerald Kennedy
[/b]

Add new comment

Images
More information
  • Files must be less than 2 MB.
  • Allowed file types: png gif jpg jpeg.
Attachment
More information
  • Files must be less than 2 MB.
  • Allowed file types: zip rar.