Ethanol in gasoline.....a scam or benificial ?

Now, now, you're just being a little old Elmer FUD, aren't you? ;-)

There is no rational explanation for 10% mandated ethanol in the US: It's entirely a creature of political/agribusiness logrolling.

 

Here's the litmus test - If the data doesn't add up, something's not right.

 

Someone give this man a prize!! I couldn't agree with you more.

 

It's not a government thing, so much as a corrupt politicians + treasonous businesses (media and agri-) + anti-American welfare-addicted farmers-thing.

 

So why is is that we keep re-electing politicians who are fundamentally on the side of business.

 

Beware the power of stupid people in large groups.

I'm starting to feel that Americans deserve what they elect (a fool & their money are soon parted).

Too bad we ALL get to pay for the mistakes of the stupid people at large.

"Remember, half the people you know are below average," -George Carlin

 

You know we won't be seeing the epa window stickers that show highway and city driving mpg on cars with 2 figures. One for straight gas and one for 10% ethanol showing less mpg.

Russell

 

Now THAT would be an eye opener! It would also shoot their stories to you-know-where.

 

The gov was talking about increasing the ethanol content to 15% across the board. I hate it at 10%. F^&%$#)(! lobbyists!

 

this is exactly why ethanol is hailed as some big idea of progress: corporate welfare of course, masquerading as innovation; what else would it be:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html

(excerpt)
Archer Daniels Midland:
A Case Study In Corporate Welfare

ADM is certainly the nation's most arrogant welfare recipient. And it is one of the few welfare recipients that spend millions of dollars each year advertising on Sunday morning television shows populated and watched by politicians. Chairman Dwayne Andreas's and ADM's success in farming Washington represents the rational result of contemporary government policies that turn elections into "an advanced auction of stolen goods," as H. L. Mencken quipped. Thanks to its multi-million-dollar hustling in Washington, a company that lives and dies on the generosity of the American taxpayer has managed to get itself revered as a great public servant. Although ADM is not the only corporation with its hand out in Washington, it is easily one of the most successful beggars on the block.(1)

Andreas recently told a reporter for Mother Jones, "There isn't one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not one! The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians. People who are not in the Midwest do not understand that this is a socialist country."(2) Andreas's comment about "no free markets" is like the old joke about the son who murdered his parents and then asked for the court's mercy because he was an orphan. ADM champions political control over markets and then invokes that control as an excuse for its continued political manipulation. Andreas has exerted his influence in Washington to ensure that the U.S. form of "socialism" resembles 1930s' Italian corporate statism: the government plunders the citizenry for the benefit of politically connected corporations. And, though Andreas does not like to admit it, there are many markets in the world for agricultural products that are not controlled by politicians.

 

from:
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:F6A1c2LQVRsJ:247wallst.com/2009/03/17/adm-pursuing-brazilian-ethanol-adm/+archer+daniels+midland,+ethanol&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

ADM Pursuing Brazilian Ethanol? (ADM)

Posted: March 17, 2009 at 11:03 am

A Brazilian newspaper reports this morning that Archer Daniels Midland Company (NYSE: ADM) may purchase the Brazilian ethanol group Unialco, together with a mill belonging to Da Mata. According to the news report, a Unialco shareholder stated that ADM has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Brazilian company but there has been no comment from ADM.

Making ethanol from sugar cane is more energy efficient than making ethanol from corn. However, imported ethanol gets hit with a $0.54/gallon import tax. It is unclear whether or not that tax would apply to ethanol imported by a US company. The Obama administration has so far demonstrated no willingness to lift the import tax on ethanol, and pressure from US farmers is likely to keep the tax in place.

This deal does not sound like a winner for ADM, which is the largest ethanol producer in the US. It’s hard to believe that ADM sees ethanol as anything but a transition transportation fuel, until something better (more efficient and cleaner) than gasoline comes along. Corn-based ethanol was a winner for the company because it supported ADM’s overall agricultural business. Sugar cane-based ethanol doesn’t offer the same overlap. Then there is that great new development from Aventine over its “going concern” which shows more holes in ethanol.

This whole deal may just be wishful thinking on the part of some Brazilian shareholders. That’s where I come down on today’s report.

Paul Ausick
March 17, 2009

 

Screw em.
I'm going Diesel.

 

No. Never saw that one before. Nice find. Thanx.

It is the ethanol seperation/destruction that caused Dave to conduct THOUSANDS (perhaps 10's of) of dollars of research and develop a hole new product line of fuel lines nearly impervious to the effects ethonol at almost any thinkable blend.

Not prohibitively expensive $$$-wise, AND worth 3+times the price IMHO. Your car will likely end up in the dust bin long before you'd EVER have to replace them again.

I'll try to find the thread I was refering to.

Try the ads dept here for more info in his new fuel and coolent hoses or Dave directly.

 

Medieval "thinking".

 

As others have said, and as I've understood it, the main problem with high ethanol blends is almost everything but the engine itself-- that is, all the vulnerable rubber and non-metal pieces. As for the political/economic side of it... I, personally, think it's government, as it often does, making it look as if they're doing something to help correct a problem that ends up having little or no positive effect, but they can add it to their resume as haven't "accomplished something", in this case, to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil. I lean more towards that than the prime motivation being "corporate welfare", but, really, the argument is neither here nor there.

The possible good side, though, of all this is (note, I do use the word "possible") that it does put in place a distribution system in place for higher ethanol content fuel that could really be beneficial once more economical and productive ways of producing ethanol come on line, which I feel is liable to happen. To me, the corn based ethanol is just the first step, albeit an inefficient one, to get a system in place, for when the next generations of ethanol production are developed and come on line. In a newer vehicle designed for it or in an older car updated for it, I don't see a problem with E85 in and of itself, just issues with the current non-economically sound model of production of it. All else being equal, even with the decrease in fuel efficiency, I'd rather, long term, use a renewable source of fuel then the current petroleum based model. I'll admit, I do have this niggling fear in the back of my mind that one day in the future vehicles with gasoline (or diesel, for that matter) engines will be outlawed unless some great strides are made in terms of renewable, cleaner sources of energy, both for electricity and fuel for vehicles, however misguided I feel such a law would be.

 

Well, amigo, the argument is actually very "here." It is corporate welfare incontrovertibly. Ethanol isn't a big innovation whatsoever insofar as moving ahead in the energy technology advancement sector. It is about ADM, and others, reaping gigantic profits. It has nothing to do with energy efficiency or kicking dependency on oil.

By the way, the oil crisis is non-existent in actuality. There is actually no shortage of oil within our lifetimes nor in others beyond. Oil also is not a "fossil fuel" but is abiotic in origin.

Some of the largest oil fields are miles below the tenable baseline for any organic processes to have ever existed in the manner explained in the outdated and false theory of organic fossil-origin of oil.

 

Source?

 

Me too.
Not to argue but to learn.
I have never believed that oil came from "buried forest decomposition".
A fairy tale told and believed for years.
Sometimes "I dont know" is an OK answer.

 

Even supposing that last statement is true, that doesn't disprove that other locations of oil are of organic / fossil origin.

 

There is no scientifically verified process for low chemical energy potential molecules (biological detritus) to convert to high chemical energy potential molecules (oil), and the second law of thermodynamics prevents such a process from taking place in the low pressure and temperature of Earth's shallow crust. Synthesis of oil occurs at far depths, under high pressure.

http://www.gasresources.net/EssayforWebPageFaudulantClaimsreSponEvolutionPetroleumCompounds.htm

(excerpt)
" Of the lies told to try to defend the childish notion of a “Biological-Origin-of-Petroleum” [BOOP], none are more egregious or more blatant than the claims that “the (spontaneous) generation of oil from organic matter at low pressures has been demonstrated in the laboratory.” All such claims are entirely fraudulent, without a single exception. There has never been observed a spontaneous generation of natural petroleum (crude oil) from biological matter at low pressures in any laboratory, anywhere, ever... In short, whatever petroleum might be observed emanating from a rock upon heating has been inside the pore spaces and fissures of the rock all along. The effect of heating is simply to cause the fluid to move out of the rock, a phenomenon called often thermally-induced outgassing."

http://www.gasresources.net/ThrmcCnstrnts.htm
http://www.gasresources.net/disposalbioclaims.htm
http://www.physorg.com/news167835116.html
http://www.hgs.org/en/articles/printview.asp?236
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/abstracts/2005research_calgary/abstracts/extended/keith/images/fig01.htm
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/abstracts/2005research_calgary/abstracts/extended/keith/keith.htm
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005EO420002.shtml
http://geology.about.com/cs/volcanology/a/aa051604a.htm
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2006/06088houston_abs/abstracts/keith.htm
http://www.gasresources.net/
http://www.gasresources.net/OnSpontaneiousRenewalVasyl.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090726150843.htm
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.full
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2007/12/01/22225/massive-deep-water-oil-find-in.html
http://www.martinhovland.com/new_salt_theory.htm
http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/Sess_182.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=a4ovp7R5a5gA
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aiwFt8vbefYM
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/energy-tech-04ze.html

 

+1

+1

The easy stuff has been found. The industry is steeped in tradition too, and legacy methodologies in exploration aren't easily kicked. The fact of the matter is, there are many of the major discoveries that were accidents, not skill. You have to fit the data to the model, and not fit the model to the data, as the data doesn't lie.

+1

These were models that were taken fact. The Russians have done some marvelous work on the abiotic origins of hydrocarbon. Hydrocarbon is a complex chemical compound. As was stated earlier, when biotic material decomposes, it breaks down into its components, not into complex chains with high potential energy. That energy was converted from other sources, namely heat, which is found much, much deeper than the reserves being drilled.

 

the increased useage of ethanol was advanced by #43. remember him?

i read somewhere that this increase will/ or is leading to starvation in parts of
the world.

corn is a quantifiable food commodity. for fuel, debatable.

what's going on here?

 

Well, corn isn't the only source of ethanol. In Brazil it is sugar cane. Here they are working on and building plants for cellulosic ethanol, that is, making ethanol from the non-edible parts of the corn plant.

I agree though, using the edible part of the corn plant for ethanol is, hmm, questionable.

 

Not to mention the fact they clear rainforest in brazil to grow sugarcane and corn, two crops that are harsh on the soils.

 

Out of curiosity, do you read the story from both sides, trying to reach your own conclusions, or have you jumped onboard with the abiotic theory and simply dismiss anything that goes against it / for biotic theory?