Skip to comments.
Senate bill raises ethanol usage
ASSOCIATED PRESS ^
| 26 May 05
| None Given
Posted on 5/26/2005, 12:23:26 PM by .cnI redruM
A Senate committee, over the strong objections of oil companies, yesterday approved a requirement that refiners must use more corn-based ethanol and other renewable fuels in gasoline. The legislation would mandate that refiners use at least 8 billion gallons of renewable components -- almost all of it ethanol made from corn -- in gasoline annually by 2012. That would double ethanol production, .......
----snip-----
By a 12-10 vote, the committee agreed to give California a summertime waiver to the ethanol mandate if needed to meet air-quality requirements, although refiners in the state still would be required to use 900 million gallons of ethanol annually. Meanwhile, President Bush again urged Congress to move expeditiously on energy legislation.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: boondoggle; cary; corpwelfare; energy; ethanol
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
The oil companies are really lucky that we aren't scrapping gasoline entirely for bio-diesel. We could probably do that in about 25 years. This ethanol sop is what's keeping them and OPEC afloat.
To: .cnI redruM
What I've read about biodiesel, with my limited knowledge, it sounds immediately doable. And sensible.
2
posted on
5/26/2005, 12:28:54 PM
by
tkathy
(Tyranny breeds terrorism. Freedom breeds peace.)
To: .cnI redruM
I am running on compressed natural gas. It is cheaper than gasoline, for now. It burns clean. Filling stations are rare. I ride around hope I don't get rear ended.
3
posted on
5/26/2005, 12:30:49 PM
by
carumba
To: tkathy
It's a good R&D project right now. Ten years from now, it could be marketable and very easy to mass produce.
4
posted on
5/26/2005, 12:31:29 PM
by
.cnI redruM
("Every man's your brother 'til the rent comes due" - Anon.)
To: carumba
So you've got a basic working prototype....Has anyone done more with your model?
5
posted on
5/26/2005, 12:32:15 PM
by
.cnI redruM
("Every man's your brother 'til the rent comes due" - Anon.)
To: carumba
In New Mexico, I saw a lot of those types of cars and tractors. Kind of funny actually, natural gas is way cheaper than gasoline there.
6
posted on
5/26/2005, 1:09:09 PM
by
redgolum
("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
To: .cnI redruM
There are a number of small plants now, and the neat thing is it is easy to make. Where I work, one of our byproducts is grease and fat. We are looking at doing a partial conversion to use it as supplemental boiler feed. (If the dang EPA doesn't scream that is).
The market for Bio Diesel is pretty small right now, so we aren't looking to go the whole way yet.
7
posted on
5/26/2005, 1:11:22 PM
by
redgolum
("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
To: .cnI redruM
Ethanol is a religion not a fuel-product.
Ethanol requires far more energy to create it from corn than the energy you get from Ethanol. Thus, using Ethanol increases total national use of fossil fuels; for it is mostly coal or natural gas that feeds the plants that produce ethanol. But politicians bow at the alter of Ethanol because they know that if they prostrate themselves before the agro-industrial empires they will be well rewarded come time for their next election campaign. Where do the agro-industrial empires get the money with which to reward the penitent politicans? They just recycle some of the billions in the subsidies that you pay to them with your taxes. Meanwhile, the belief in Ethanol just goes on and on.
8
posted on
5/26/2005, 1:13:29 PM
by
Wuli
(The democratic basis of the constitution is "we the people" not "we the court".)
To: Wuli
Ethanol is a religion not a fuel-product. Ethanol requires far more energy to create it from corn than the energy you get from Ethanol. Thus, using Ethanol increases total national use of fossil fuels; for it is mostly coal or natural gas that feeds the plants that produce ethanolExactly. ADM loves this sort of legislation, because it makes growing corn in the midwest more profitable.
9
posted on
5/26/2005, 1:20:15 PM
by
Amelia
(Common sense isn't particularly common.)
To: Amelia
ADM doesn't have near the market share it once did. To many farmer and cattle producer plants going up.
As I said on another thread, the biggest growth in new plants isn't do to subsidies, it is because of the price of beef. Distillers grains (the stuff left after the starch in corn in fermented) is better cattle feed than straight corn. Heck, in west Texas, there are plants being built just to supply feed to the cows. All the corn and milo has to come by rail, and all the ethanol sales just barely make the corn price break even. The money is made on the feed.
ADM has restarted a plant in North Dakota, but hasn't built any new ethanol plants. The new ones don't fit their business model (to small).
10
posted on
5/26/2005, 1:25:25 PM
by
redgolum
("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
To: carumba
I am running on compressed natural gas. It is cheaper than gasoline, for now. It burns clean.I knew several people who were doing this in the late 1970s - either NG or propane; I'm not sure which but they had added large propane tanks behind the cabs of their pickup trucks and made a minor conversion so they could switch between natural gas and gasoline.
They were quite pleased with the results, but then gasoline prices came down and/or natural gas prices went up and they all stopped.
11
posted on
5/26/2005, 1:26:32 PM
by
Amelia
(Common sense isn't particularly common.)
To: .cnI redruM
According to WSJ's today editorial, ethanol probably burns more gasoline in its creation than it produces, does not produce less pollution, and increases the cost of gasoline. About the only thing it is good at is putting money in Archer Daniels pocket.
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111706233975143474,00.html?mod=opinion%5Fmain%5Freview%5Fand%5Foutlooks
Another article, but dated, but then this pork has been around awhile. My favorite quote from this one:
Given that ethanol production involves the conversion of massive amounts of energy from one form to another, the contention that the process is an efficient way to make fuel seems to fly in the face of basic physics--so much so that I'm inclined to regard the subsidy program, and the fact that it has survived for a quarter century, with something approaching awe. Money-wasting government schemes are hardly rare. But how many do you know of that flout the second law of thermodynamics? http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031128.html
To: sportutegrl
>>>>>ethanol probably burns more gasoline in its creation than it produces
No wonder the US Senile, I mean Senate voted in favor. That explains it right there. Pardon my silly interrogatory at the beginning of the thread.
13
posted on
5/26/2005, 1:49:43 PM
by
.cnI redruM
("Every man's your brother 'til the rent comes due" - Anon.)
To: redgolum
You have to start somewhere...
Prove it works well first, then the market will expand. Sometimes solutions create their own problem and hence, demand.
14
posted on
5/26/2005, 1:52:00 PM
by
.cnI redruM
("Every man's your brother 'til the rent comes due" - Anon.)
To: .cnI redruM
Yet another prime example of why the FedGov should be stuffed back into their Constitutional box. Where, again, does it give them the authority to legislate this? It must be in another of those "penumbra's and emanations".
Let me know when I can convert my Grand Am over to a Nitromethane based fuel. I want MORE power and BETTER performance out of a CHEAPER fuel. Not the other way around. Same goes for hybrids. Want me to buy one? Fine. Get it to go 350 miles on one "recharge", able to go 0-60 in 5 seconds and hold a top speed of 120MPH or better like a petrol ICE can.
15
posted on
5/26/2005, 1:56:03 PM
by
Dead Corpse
(Never underestimate the will of the downtrodden to lie flatter.)
To: Dead Corpse
>>>>>>Where, again, does it give them the authority to legislate this?
Nowhere....
Another thread that caught my eye claimed that Bush may be the worst President in US History. GWB may be flawed in some aspects, but compared to FDR, who enshrined the socialistic premise that provides the gravamen for acts of socialistic brigandage such as ethanol subsidies, Bush would have to start a nuclear war to be the worst President ever.
16
posted on
5/26/2005, 2:02:03 PM
by
.cnI redruM
("Every man's your brother 'til the rent comes due" - Anon.)
To: .cnI redruM
Biggest problem is the diesel engine makers. Biodiesel burns a tad different than regular, and unlike ethanol thier can be traces of chemicals in it that are very hard on machinery (NaOH and sulfuric acid are used in the esterfication process, both are hard on certain materials).
I have heard of a number of people using esterfied cooking oil to run their Suburbans, but haven't heard much on the life of those engines.
17
posted on
5/26/2005, 2:03:48 PM
by
redgolum
("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
To: redgolum
>>>>NaOH and sulfuric acid are used in the esterfication process
That is a problem....ceramic engine design? Anything that cuts loose large quantities of OH is hell on most metal..
18
posted on
5/26/2005, 2:06:06 PM
by
.cnI redruM
(McCain's home state is the newsroom of The New York Times! -Hugh Hewitt)
To: .cnI redruM; sportutegrl
The study you are talking about was done by a Cornell Prof. named Piemetal. He took everything from the energy to run the tractor in the field to the energy used to make the concrete to make the highways that the grain trucks drive on. A bit of a stretch, but he got his desired result. A former colleague of mine once applied the same criteria to gasoline production, and came up with a huge result.
There is a new generation of enzymes that are beginning to be used that lowers the energy cost dramatically. Also, there are some hemicellose enzymes being worked on that will let feed stocks like leaves and grass clippings be used. I have worked with the first generation of these, and they hold great promise. If they can be perfected, you will be able to fill part of you gas tank with ethanol made from the leaves on your lawn.
Also, when you look at how much energy it takes to refine a gallon of gas and compare it, ethanol is about equal in energy usage.
I also agree with Redrum. Bio Diesel is the next big thing. I expect that in five years, it will really start to take off. With the depolymerization in use by some packing plants, much of the animal waste can be converted into crude.
19
posted on
5/26/2005, 2:10:43 PM
by
redgolum
("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
To: .cnI redruM
Right now, the preferred option is to get the caustic and acid out of the product. I don't think ceramic engines would work to well, because of the high pressures needed for diesel combustion. Maybe a thin coat of ceramic inside the fuel lines or pistons would work.
You can neutralize the acid and caustic, but that can lead to other processing problems. It is being worked on, and believe me they are close.
20
posted on
5/26/2005, 2:13:08 PM
by
redgolum
("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson