[quote]rawda wrote:
Zap-
how is ethanol corporate welfare? i admit i don’t have much in-depth information about the situation in Brazil, but they use tons of ethanol and it seems to be working well for them. [/quote]
Indeed. Brazil operates almost 50% of their vehicles on pure ethanol.
They had a big crisis in the 90s, because at the time ethanol was actually twice as expensive as oil – with current technology, the break-even point is at $40 a barrel, and during the 90s oil was much below that.
Now, however, with oil prices much above that, it clearly is cheaper for them and they are starting to get back on it – not only for internal use, but for exports.
We don’t have sugar-canes in the amount Brazil has, but we do have plenty of corn, and if we invested in R&D, we’d quickly find the break-even at around of below $50 a barrel; Brazil cut the cost in half since they began the program, through intensive research and economies of scale. We just have to do the same.
On a related subject, I find it very interesting the lack of discussion on air travel. Do remember that air travel is the biggest consumer of oil-based fuel in the planet on a per-mile-per-passenger basis.
Ethanol takes up too much space for long-range jets. Their range wouldn’t be so long anymore.
Bio-diesel would be feasible, except for the fact that it is currently not reliable – it might thicken too much at low temperatures and the jet would stall. Not a good thing. Design changes in the airplanes can curb that, but they would take years to test and re-test, with possible loss of life.
Bio-diesel also has much higher emissions than kerosene jet fuel.
The only proven alternatives to jet fuel are liquid methane and hydrogen, which are extremely expensive to produce right now – and extremely hairy to handle.
Either way, it’s an even hairier problem than ground travel, because there’s no solution that does not require extensive large-scale modifications and their associated costs.
I don’t see anyone really doing some serious investment on this, except for Virgin Atlantic – Richard Branson did mention a while back he was seriously considering switching to an ethanol blend, which at least reduces the use of oil – saving it for later.
[quote]rawda wrote:
Zap-
how is ethanol corporate welfare? i admit i don’t have much in-depth information about the situation in Brazil, but they use tons of ethanol and it seems to be working well for them. [/quote]
ADM is the largest producer of ethanol in the U.S. and receives unbelievable amounts of farms subsidies.
In other words…corporate welfare. Not to mention corn made ethanol is subsidized by Uncle Sammy.
Fuck ethanol, I want nitro-methane! Ethanol is totally viable. It will just take a while to develope the infastructure. I think all this crap that ethnol won’t work is a load of shit. It works in internal combustion engines. You’re current car will run ethanol. Change the fuel lines and adjust the timing.
The main people who do not like ethenol are the oil companies. Fuck them.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Fuck ethanol, I want nitro-methane! Ethanol is totally viable. It will just take a while to develope the infastructure. I think all this crap that ethnol won’t work is a load of shit. It works in internal combustion engines. You’re current car will run ethanol. Change the fuel lines and adjust the timing.
The main people who do not like ethenol are the oil companies. Fuck them.[/quote]
You are missing the point.
Ethanol productions in the US and in most of the world uses more fossil fuel energy to be produced than is can replace.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Brazil can pay slave labor wages to machete wielding peasants to harvest sugar cane and sugar cane does not grow well in the US.[/quote]
Discounting for a moment the absurdity of your stereotype, I specifically addressed the lack of sugar cane in the US in my post. Read it.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
ADM is the largest producer of ethanol in the U.S. and receives unbelievable amounts of farms subsidies.
In other words…corporate welfare. Not to mention corn made ethanol is subsidized by Uncle Sammy.[/quote]
The subsidies are there because politicians want to remove the incentive to create economies of scale. If one was to remove the subsidies and force them to do some R&D to reduce costs and implement economies of scale, we would reach the same cost levels that Brazil has fairly quickly – using corn instead of sugar cane.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Ethanol productions in the US and in most of the world uses more fossil fuel energy to be produced than is can replace.[/quote]
Can you PLEASE get your facts straight? That is because of pure laziness (and lack of incentive to switch), most of the world uses Natural Gas and other fossil fuels to produce Ethanol. They don’t have to. Brazil has saved billions of barrels of oil with their program. Look it up.
We need to stop complaining about the problems and start looking at solutions. The fact is that changing the habits of the population of a whole country is much harder than finding alternative sources of fuel. There is NOTHING harder than inducing cultural change, and any government or policy that expects to solve problems through cultural change is doomed to fail.
The current situation has been building up since the first gulf war. Americans were just too damn stupid to use less fuel when the prices went up. Now, many years later, those driving the gas hog vehicles are all crying and pointing fingers.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I am so sick of seeing soccer moms use Hummers as grocery getters. Especially when they have John Kerry and “peace is patriotic” bumper stickers. These limo libs are worse than the fat cat republicans.
I’d buy “as bad”, but why “worse”? I’ll agree Limo libs are hypocrites, but why is that worse than being a predator?
Just trying to understand the source of your bias…
[/quote]
Because they are hypocritical predators. They didn’t get rich by chance, they made it the same way the other crooks do.
honest to god I saw some broad driving a white Hummer with those two bumper stickers on it.
I wasn’t sure if it was a subtle joke or what. I wanted to throw up.
[quote]rawda wrote:
Zap-
how is ethanol corporate welfare? i admit i don’t have much in-depth information about the situation in Brazil, but they use tons of ethanol and it seems to be working well for them. [/quote]
Because incredibly rich companies like ADM have their hands in the governments pockets both geting tax money for it as well as mandating the use of it.
It is my understanding that everywhere ethanol has been forced on the public it has increased the price of gas.
I am all for the use of any and all alternate forms of energy. I am not for the rich lining their pockets with our tax dollars while delivering a subpar overpriced fuel.
It is my understanding that the sugar cane is far more easily converted than corn so it is more workable in Brazil.
If oil becomes so expensive that ethanol is economically viable I will embrace it. Until then it reeks of corporate welfare.
[quote]hspder wrote:
On a related subject, I find it very interesting the lack of discussion on air travel. Do remember that air travel is the biggest consumer of oil-based fuel in the planet on a per-mile-per-passenger basis.
Ethanol takes up too much space for long-range jets. Their range wouldn’t be so long anymore.
Bio-diesel would be feasible, except for the fact that it is currently not reliable – it might thicken too much at low temperatures and the jet would stall. Not a good thing. Design changes in the airplanes can curb that, but they would take years to test and re-test, with possible loss of life.
Bio-diesel also has much higher emissions than kerosene jet fuel.
The only proven alternatives to jet fuel are liquid methane and hydrogen, which are extremely expensive to produce right now – and extremely hairy to handle.
Either way, it’s an even hairier problem than ground travel, because there’s no solution that does not require extensive large-scale modifications and their associated costs.
I don’t see anyone really doing some serious investment on this, except for Virgin Atlantic – Richard Branson did mention a while back he was seriously considering switching to an ethanol blend, which at least reduces the use of oil – saving it for later.
[/quote]
Air travel is horribly inefficient as well as uncomfortable (at least for me) and annoying as hell.
I was hoping our amazing modern communication techniques could reduce the amount of air travel.
I love the celebs like Julia Roberts that fly their private jets around the world and bitch about these issues. You are the problem! Of course she brings her own coffee cup to Starbucks so she saves a disposable cup from the landfill.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Brazil can pay slave labor wages to machete wielding peasants to harvest sugar cane and sugar cane does not grow well in the US.
Discounting for a moment the absurdity of your stereotype, I specifically addressed the lack of sugar cane in the US in my post. Read it.[/quote]
There are not stereotypes in my message.
The fact is very poor Brazilians (peasants) are paid horrible wages to harvest sugar cane with machetes.
Show me how my information is factually incorrect.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Ethanol productions in the US and in most of the world uses more fossil fuel energy to be produced than is can replace.
Can you PLEASE get your facts straight? That is because of pure laziness (and lack of incentive to switch), most of the world uses Natural Gas and other fossil fuels to produce Ethanol. They don’t have to. Brazil has saved billions of barrels of oil with their program. Look it up.
We need to stop complaining about the problems and start looking at solutions. The fact is that changing the habits of the population of a whole country is much harder than finding alternative sources of fuel. There is NOTHING harder than inducing cultural change, and any government or policy that expects to solve problems through cultural change is doomed to fail.
[/quote]
Laziness or not has nothing to do with the fossil fuel cost of converting corn into ethanol.
Innovation may change that fact but this is the world of corn based ethanol today.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
rawda wrote:
Zap-
how is ethanol corporate welfare? i admit i don’t have much in-depth information about the situation in Brazil, but they use tons of ethanol and it seems to be working well for them.
Because incredibly rich companies like ADM have their hands in the governments pockets both geting tax money for it as well as mandating the use of it.
It is my understanding that everywhere ethanol has been forced on the public it has increased the price of gas.
I am all for the use of any and all alternate forms of energy. I am not for the rich lining their pockets with our tax dollars while delivering a subpar overpriced fuel.
It is my understanding that the sugar cane is far more easily converted than corn so it is more workable in Brazil.
If oil becomes so expensive that ethanol is economically viable I will embrace it. Until then it reeks of corporate welfare.[/quote]
Ethanol use in gasoline instead of MTBE is mostly a states rights issue.
MTBE makes drinking water taste and smell like kerosene at 5 parts per million while you can not taste ethanol in water until it reaches 5% or more.
MTBE can be mixed with gas and pushed throught pipes while ethanol can not and ethanol ‘grabs’ onto water as well as it separates from gasoline very quickly.
I prefer not to taste MTBE.
Ethanol is subsidized so it is also cheaper but is does create distribution challenges.
