Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Brazilian Ethanol Fantasies (Busting the Brazilian Ethanol myth)
Hawaii Reporter ^ | 3 Nov 06 | Michael R. Fox Ph.D

Posted on 11/03/2006 5:00:49 PM PST by saganite

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last
To: OregonRancher
Look at the facts before you jump....

Before I jump??

What is that in reference to?? What 'facts' are you talking about? What did you think my post implied??

I am very interested to hear your answers.

21 posted on 11/03/2006 5:50:51 PM PST by technomage (NEVER underestimate the depths to which liberals will stoop for power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: saganite
Blending ethanol into gasoline is somewhat equivalent to mixing chaff with flour and making bread. It makes the flour go further, but the bread has fewer calories.

There is no free lunch.

EtOH has less energy content than does gasoline. Last year I noticed that my Highway mileage dropped from 30 to 27 MPG, but I am paying the same, or more.

It's feel-good scam at present.

22 posted on 11/03/2006 5:55:19 PM PST by Gorzaloon ("Illegal Immigrant": The Larval form of A Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gorzaloon
It's feel-good scam at present.

I recently read an article where automotive companies get credits for flexible fuel vehicles. Apparently, automakers have to meet a CAFE standard which mandates an average MPG for all vehicles produced.

A loophole is that flexible fuel vehicles are assumed to be running on 90% ethanol full time

The way the math worked, a Hummer gets 35 MPG (on gasoline).

23 posted on 11/03/2006 6:05:38 PM PST by He Rides A White Horse (Unite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Gorzaloon

Mind you, I do support alternatnative fuel/ power sources; only if they meet real objectives and goals.


24 posted on 11/03/2006 6:06:52 PM PST by He Rides A White Horse (Unite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: saganite

BTTT


25 posted on 11/03/2006 6:11:35 PM PST by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s...you weren't really there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: saganite

"The many of the alternative energy sources are being misrepresented to the public."

As hard as I tried, I couldn't get past this first sentence as a guarantee that the author had anything to say that I might likely believe.


26 posted on 11/03/2006 6:20:58 PM PST by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer

Yeah, I had a problem with that too but the rest of the article made sense so I chalked it up to a minor error, either by the author or the proofreader.


27 posted on 11/03/2006 6:23:30 PM PST by saganite (Billions and billions and billions-------and that's just the NASA budget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: technomage
Sorry tech... I spoke to fast. I get tired of all the people who don't bother or can't do the math. The amount of energy this country uses is mind boggling and no amount of wishful thinking is going to get us out of the energy trap.

We are running out of energy and it's going to bite us in the a__ , um, buttocks....

28 posted on 11/03/2006 6:25:59 PM PST by OregonRancher (illigitimus non carborundun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: technomage
Sorry tech... I spoke to fast.

No problem OregonRancher, I have done the same.

Sad isn't it? Our politicians, both sides, would rather keep this problem around indefinitely merely for political gain, rather than releasing the technological muscle of the USA and ridding us of foreign energy supplies. Very sad.

Can you imagine our country energy independent, or at the least cutting the current imports by 50%? Wow, I cannot even imagine the benefits.

29 posted on 11/03/2006 6:29:41 PM PST by technomage (NEVER underestimate the depths to which liberals will stoop for power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: saganite

Interesting article...A few months ago I was in northern Argentina in a town right on the border with Brazil. On a sleepy, hot Sunday I asked the cabbie why there were so many cars lined up at the local petrol stations? He told me they were all Brazilians who come over the border to fill up tanks and cans with gasoline. He said Argie "combustible" was a lot cheaper than the Brazilian ethanol blend. Never hear about this stuff.


30 posted on 11/03/2006 6:30:28 PM PST by Cuttnhorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cuttnhorse

Interesting anecdote.


31 posted on 11/03/2006 6:35:04 PM PST by saganite (Billions and billions and billions-------and that's just the NASA budget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: saganite

BTTT


32 posted on 11/03/2006 6:54:51 PM PST by Fiddlstix (Warning! This Is A Subliminal Tagline! Read it at your own risk!(Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: saganite
Yep.


33 posted on 11/03/2006 7:38:26 PM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: saganite

Bump for later...


34 posted on 11/03/2006 7:41:37 PM PST by tubebender (Growing old is mandatory...Growing up is optional)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tubebender

They are trying to build one of those stupid ethanol plants literally in my back yard. The village is only interested in the property tax dollars. The ethanol bubble will burst soon.


35 posted on 11/03/2006 8:20:18 PM PST by ReaganCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ReaganCountry
The ethanol bubble will burst soon.

I am not a strong proponent of ethanol, but I doubt it will be over soon.

36 posted on 11/03/2006 8:44:34 PM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: saganite

"The Brazilians are taking their energy problems seriously and have even greater plans. They have announced the construction of 7 new nuclear power plants to be completed by 2025 to ensure energy sufficiency with economic efficiency (http://tinyurl.com/y5wlsp). Brazil currently has two operating reactors Angra 1 and 2 near Rio de Janeiro. Angra 3 will be completed by 2010. This is a large nuclear power of German design, and at 1275 MW(e) would provide nearly all of the electrical needs of Oahu."

If BRAZIL can do it, why can't we?


37 posted on 11/03/2006 8:59:07 PM PST by WOSG (Broken-glass time, Republicans! Save the Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: technomage

"If we could start an American Manhattan Project for energy independance we could acieve freedom in less than 10 years.

You are absolutely correct. We are the USA. We could do it. But, neither party currently wants this.

It is sort of like the talk of abolishing the current tax code in favor of a flat tax. Neither party will go for it, at least with the current members. It is a great campaign issue for both sides. "

Disagree ... only ONE party is for the flat tax, and that is GOP. If we had a big majority, like 280 members, we could get a FAIR tax or FLAT tax past the RINOs and Dems.

Likewise on energy independence, the only serious party on this is the Republicans. Serious on nuclear energy, on drilling, on alternatives like hybrids too. However, there is a lack of leadership.

"Well, same with energy independence. A really big campaign issue, a really big issue that each party can bang the other party on the head with. "

True. For Democrats, this is just a way to advocate for fossil fuel taxes and make people feel guilty about driving SUVs. For Republicans, it the drilling etc.

Here is a full solution for energy independence:
key point - we import 15 million barrels of oil a day.
To get those imports to 0, we'd have to double production
and halve consumption...

1. Build 400 nuclear power plants, using it to replace coal plants (reduce greenhouse gas emissions) and supply electricity for transportation (see #2)
2. Get people using hybrid plug-in cars; by making electricity cheaper than oil (see #4 and #5) people will migrate to using plug-ins and hybrids over time
3. Drill offshore, ANWR, and govt lands
4. put a $30 oil import fee on oil
5. put a 50 cent gas tax to discourage oil consumption, but leave it off for natgas CNG, ethanol and home-grown alternatives.
6. exploit the 1 trillion barrels of shale oil deposits in the rockies. If we can get to 2 million barrels a day from that, we can boost our supplies 40%. another 2 million barrels from offshore and 1 million from ANWR and we've met our "double production goal".
7. Manhattan project to focus on batteries and technologies for electric-based and hybrid cars/transports etc.
Transportation uses 10 million barrels a day; make a goal to reduce it to 5 million barrels a day, via alternative fuels (plugins, ethanol, etc), efficiency, alternative transport, etc.

The taxes on gas and oil are the only way to really cut consumption, and even then it might need to be higher.
Still, that can help fund the programs and get rebated as a tax rebate for workers.


38 posted on 11/03/2006 10:36:22 PM PST by WOSG (Broken-glass time, Republicans! Save the Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: He Rides A White Horse
Mind you, I do support alternatnative fuel/ power sources; only if they meet real objectives and goals.

I do also, very much. (see profile).

It is just that, as in the 1970's, every time energy prices soar ("Crisis"), all kinds of quack ideas proliferate.

Every week, we see many examples of "News Stories" that are really just IPO solicitations. Many show up here, and when appropriate, they are (heh) discussed.

I remember the '70's "crisis" very well, and was working in Solar Enery at the time. Maybe a lot of people were not around then or do not remember the some of the scams. Actually, MANY of the silliest were floated by sincere idealist tinkerers who did not understand thing such as the difference between "temperature" and "Heat". Thye became conviced that Big Oil was killing their invention, when in fact, it was Thermodynamics.

One comic tragedy was the "Frenette Furnace". Someone filled a washing machine tub with oil, put it on "Spin", and observed that the oil got hot from hydroviscous shear, just as in an automotive torque converter.

Since the oil was not consumed, the inventor was positive there was "Free Energy". So conviced he was, it was not possible to get him to watch his electric meter.

39 posted on 11/04/2006 5:11:22 AM PST by Gorzaloon ("Illegal Immigrant": The Larval form of A Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: OregonRancher
The truth is: petroleum is the most efficient source of energy known to man. Alternative sources of energy are not
cost effective. I have personal experience with solar and
I find that it's only useful under certain conditions: The
area where you live is very sunny and your house is more
than half a mile from the nearest power pole.
40 posted on 11/04/2006 9:44:01 AM PST by upcountryhorseman (An old fashioned conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson