How to Beat the High Cost of Gasoline. Forever! - Fortune magazine article

[JohnWxy]

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/02/06/8367959/

some excerpts(emphasis my own):

"(FORTUNE Magazine) - You probably don't know it, but the answer to America's gasoline addiction could be under the hood of your car. More than five million Tauruses, Explorers, Stratuses, Suburbans, and other vehicles are already equipped with engines that can run on an energy source that costs less than gasoline, produces almost none of the emissions that cause global warming, and comes from the Midwest, not the Middle East.

These lucky drivers need never pay for gasoline again-- if only they could find this elusive fuel, called ethanol."

"Even the cautious Department of Energy predicts that ethanol could put a 30% dent in America's gasoline consumption by 2030."

BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A FFV TO USE ETHANOL. ANY CAR THAT RUNS ON GAS CAN USE ETHANOL15 (15% ethanol) or Gasohol (10% ethanol). IF you run Gasohol in your car you are immediately cutting your gasolline consumption by 10% WITHOUT SPENDING THOUSANDS FOR A HYBRID VEHICLE!!!.

If you own a FFV (many own them and DON'T EVEN KNOW THEY DO BECAUSE IT DIDN'T COST THEM ANYTHING EXTRA!) you can use Ethanol85 (85% ethanol) and you will be cutting your gas consumption by 65%!!(by the mile).

But if you can get a SAAB 9-5 Bio Power you have a FFV which GETS JUST AS GOOD MILEAGE AS A GAS POWERED CAR SO YOU WILL BE CUTTING YOUR GAS CONSUMPTION BY 85%!!! SAAB used turbo charging (super charging works too) to take advantage of the higher octane of Ethanol (ethanol85 is octane 105 , gasoline premium grade is 92-93) to get MORE POWER AND MORE PERFORMANCE out of the engine. It gets just as good mileage as a gas powered engine would.(Interestinly enough, Saab is ownded by GM!)

But you have to FIND these ethanol fuels. If you think we need ethanol to be more available so you can choose it if you want it, go to Congress.org and email your legislators - (Federal and state) and let them know that Ethanol is a valuable alternative fuel that will help reduce dependence on imported fossil fuel, strengthen our economy, reduce Greenhouse Gas emmissions and that is cheaper than gasoline (ethanol85 goes for about $2.10 while mid grade gas is at about $2.45 and premium grade is about $2.55).

Given the political instability in the world (and increasingly more severe weather in the Gulf) there is a pretty good chance (55%-100% ?) that in the next 5 to 7 years we will experience a disruption of the supply of oil of 5% or more. This would lead to a recession with many people riding busses to work and many people not haveing a job to go to. We need to quickly raise ethanol's percentage of the fuel supply from 3% to 6% and then 9% to provide us some cushion against this kind of oil supply shock. We already are producing corn based ethanol and can rapidly boost it's production, especially if it is more widlely available. The increased demand would drive the increase in production.

Email your representatives and urge we achieve the protection that a 5% or 10% supply from ethanol would provide. Beyond this, of course ethanol can be furhter developed (with cellulosic ethanol providing much of the furthre increase) to 30% of the total transportation fuel supply.

Do this for yourself, and for the rest of us.

[cosmicone]

1. Utter BS

a) It takes energy to convert corn/wheat/rice to ethanol. This energy has to come from fossil fuels. Thus ethanol will ALWAYS cost more than gasoline.
b) In my opinion it is criminal to convert food into something that can power your SUV when people are dying of hunger around the world.

[phantom power]

2. Not so: the energy can also come from solar, wind or nuclear power

[Jayhawk Lib]

8. BS

Some of the greenest greens moan and groan about the possibility of wind generators being in their area. They want them in somebody Else's neighborhood. Right now there are thousands of wind generators being installed around the country but it will be years before there are enough to make much of a dent.

Nuclear power is also very unpopular with the greens and a host of others. It is almost impossible to get a permit to build a nuclear plant and the process if approved takes many years. Energy and utility companies have pretty much given up on the idea and will not invest in nuclear plants.

Solar power is very expensive and we are years away from it being a practical alternative for energy.

It really looks like we are going to be stuck with fossil fuels for many many more years

[phantom power]

9. Not likely.

We'll either stop using them because they run out, or because massive climate change kills us off. One way or the other, the age of fossil fuels is coming to an end sometime this century. Whether or not we have adequate replacements is a choice we get to make, as a nation, or as a species.

[Massacure]

10. Plans have been announced for six new nuclear reactors in the U.S.

Progress Energy has plans for 2 reactors and Duke have plans to build 2 reactors each. Sante Cooper and Areva have plans for one reactor each.

[JohnWxy]

5. Here is Dr. Wang's report. Dr. Wang, of the Argonne National Laboratory is

a recognized authority on this field. You can email him at the Argonne National Laboratory if you think you can help him out. He's been working in this field for 17 yrs, developed a model (GREET) for evaluating various fuels. This model is used by hundreds of researchers and (informed) interested parties in private industry, government and the academia.

Report on Wang's study


NOBODY is talking about using food crops for ethanol. NOBODY. They are starting plants to convert agricultural WASTE into ethanol. This is cellulosic ethanol. It's productivity is much higher than corn based ethanol, but it is a few years away (5 -6 yrs) from being fully marketable. As te term "waste" implies, this material is not used for anything right now (it's certainly not eaten). IT's actually burned or buried in land fills. A small portion is now left on the harvested fields to reduce wind erosion and evaportion.

Oh yeah, they extract the protein in the ethanol process as they only use the starch for the production of ethanol. The protein component is made into a feed supplement for cattle!

The use of ethanol for fuel in no way should be considered an endorsement of wasteful uses of energy sources. That is the subject of another thread.

[newscott]

3. I thought the knock on Ethanol was that it takes more energy to

make the fuel than the fuel in turn delivers, no?

[phantom power]

4. Two things...

1) Apparently, that's not quite true: it's EROEI is 1.67

2) Although that's quite a low EROEI, there's no actual reason you can't add energy in other forms. For instance, you could supply the heat for distillation with solar, or nuclear, or what-have-you.

Of course, there are other big issues, such as the amount of crop-land required to grow {corn|switchgrass|hemp}, the amount of water (if we'll have any water, 20 years from now), etc. Under the old climate regime, it might actually be do-able. Nobody knows what the new climate will be like, but none of the predictions are rosy. Unless you are Rush Limbaugh or Exxon.

[JohnWxy]

6. No. This is very popular (and effective ) disinformation -

Dr. Michael Wang of the Argonne National Laboratory found that ethanol yields 38% MORE energy than is consumed in the production of it. GAsoline by comparison takes more energy to produce than it delivers (gasolline delivers about 19% LESS energy than required to produce it. See study, below.)

Report on Wang's study

Subsequent studies to Wang's by Michigan State University and the USDA have concluded a 56% and a 65% energy gain (respectively) for ethanol.

[phantom power]

7. I'd like to clarify this figure for gasoline.

I can only assume that if they claim EROEI for gasoline is < 1, that figure must "start" with crude oil. Because the EROEI for extracting crude oil is enormous. Far higher than 1.

[JohnWxy]

11. I'm sure Wang is looking at all the costs involved, including getting

the crude out of the ground.

[phantom power]

17. Seriously. There's just no *way* that's true.

Think about it for a moment. If the process of getting crude out of the ground and turning it into fuel is a net loss, how do you get more crude out? That system grinds to a halt almost immediately. Where's the energy coming from??

If Wang really is claiming that, I'm afraid he's a quack with no credibility whatsoever. He may as well be peddling perpetual motion machines.

[markam]

15. That result on gasoline is a crock

He is looking at energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) for ethanol and raw energy vs final product energy for gasoline. The EROEI for petroleum is about 20.

Ethanol is a joke. Using Wang's figure, you would need to grow four acres of corn in order to get one acres worth of energy out of it. From an energy standpoint, you would be much better off just burning the crop to produce electricity. You would get a lot more from it.

The only liquid fuel alternative (unfortunately) that gives you a substantial energy benefit is the manufacture of gasoline from coal.

[Strelnikov_]

16. And If You Burned The Corn, The Food Value Would Be Gone

Corn ethanol is a marginal energy source. Corn ethanol can be a valuable liquid fuel energy carrier, dependant on the source of the energy input to the ethanol process. Use wind, solar, or cogeneration and it provides an energy dense liquid fuel from renewable or waste energy, with most of the food value of the processed corn remaining.

On the other hand, using coal or natural gas for process energy makes no sense from an energy standpoint. Coal liquefaction has an EPR of 5, so using the coal to produce corn ethanol with an EPR of 1 is a big energy loser. I have no EPR figures for syn petrol from natural gas, but I would imagine it is at least as high as coal liquefaction.

Look at it this way. Using wind power to produce corn ethanol with an EPR of 1 (1.7 with coproduct credit) makes a lot more sense than using the wind power to produce hydrogen (electrolysis) with an EPR of 0.2.

[umass1993]

12. Pure BS

I am sure that some sort of liquid biofuel will
be the liquid fuel of the future, but that
future will be nothing like the present. That
is, the scale of use will only be a fraction
of current times.

So, yes, biofuel is probably the future, it's
just that the future will not be as most imagine.

There is no magic bullet. The Baby Boomer lifestyle
will soon go the way of the dinosaur and the dodo. It
can not be avoided, so quit with this ridiculous evangelicalism over supposed energy crisis panaceas. It is really tiring.

[umass1993]

13. BTW: I can do the math for myself...

I wouldn't rely on ANYBODY else to do it for me, because this issue is rife with interested parties pursuing self-serving agendas.

[JohnWxy]

14. The choice of that magazine article was Fortune's not mine.

The title of that article is absurd, but if you read the article you would see that it presents ethanol in a reasonable way. (the excerpt I provided included the quote that the dept. of Energy forecasts ethanol will meet 30% of gasoline demand by 2030. This is hardly evangelical or a deus-ex-machina scenario. There are no panaceas. I just think we should start doing what we can to help the situation right now. But even if we had ethanol at 30% of the gasaoline supply TOMORROW we would still be in deep trouble. That still leaves 70% to dealt with other technologies (hybrid vehicles and efficiency improvements( and biodiesel will contribute some). Now, ultimately the real solution to fossil fuels for vehicles will be , I believe, fuel cell cars. But they will not be pracatical for about 20 to 30 yrs. We cannot wait until then to act.

Then we still have coal and natural gas for electricity and heating. One big factor there will be wind power - huge potential athere. But regarding Global Warming, we are in for a very rough time, very rough.

Yes, there are no panaceas and I don't mean to say ethanol is one. But we have to start doing things to help the situation right away, regardless. IF we don't do what we can it will be even worse.

[umass1993]

18. You still don't seem to understand what I am saying...

your response shows me that you are still clinging to the notion of the "personal automobile for everybody" happy horseshit. That will not happen.

A car for everybody is a thing of the past. It seems to me that this statement does not compute for you.

Jared Diamond articulates in "Collapse" how civilizations that were inflexible, or unable to change when the conditions about them changed, were doomed to collapse.

What I see here, is an extremely inflexible America, and the times have changed in a fundamental way. We can't even imagine living without a car. We will probably be buried in them.

[JohnWxy]

21. I can't predict what life will be like in 50 or 70 yrs ...

I am just trying to work with what we have right now.

If you want to try to convince people to give up their cars and go everywhere by bus or bycicles, you're welcome to try. I certainly support your willingness to achieve this grand design. I just do not see why we should ingore technologies that can improve the situation we are in and which do stand a better chance of being accepted more quickly than plans to induce enormous life-style and social changes on a society wide scale. It may very well be that individual vehicles will not be feasible in the future. I just think it's more practical to do something to reduce fossil fuel consumption right now, as opposed to trying to get people to give up their cars (and businesses give up their trucks) right now. I think you've got a 'hard sell' on your hands.

As I think I said, most experts think fuel cell cars will be practical in 20 to 30 years. Fuel cell cars will operate without any fossil fuel. The hydrogen will be supplied by wind turbines (electrolysis). But until then we should be doing what we can to reduce GHG emissions (ethanol, hybrid vehicles, other bio-fuels), not so?

I am not opposed to your trying it (changing society and eliminating use of cars and trucks), I even admire your efforts to achieve this. But, that doesn't mean trying to develop technologies that can improve the situation should not be pursued. Your plan, do you have one? is certainly ambitious. I applaud any efforts you might make in achieving whatever it is you plan to do.

I HOPE YOUR PLAN ISN'T TO DO NOTHING!! YOU DON'T PROPOSE THAT WE DO NOTHING DO YOU??? For myself, I don't consider inaction an option.

Read the STORY OF TOMMY the TURD: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x41836

[umass1993]

22. Uh, I don't expect to convince anybody...

I don't expect anybody to listen to me. I expect a lot of people to suffer needlessly because they didn't listen to me, or people like me. The first batch to suffer were the people left behind in New Orleans. In the case of hurricane Katrina, the technical experts were ignored (because of politics), and people suffered needlessly. I expect it too happen more.

So no, my suggestion is not to do nothing. I never said to do nothing. This was a straw man that you invented on your own.

That being said, I don't suggest pursuing something that won't deliver under real world conditions. I suggest taking immediate action that we know will work. Most of your assertions were based on fiction rather than fact.

Hybrid cars will not reduce greenhouse emissions, it will put more cars on the road, with the same net emissions.

I have no idea why anybody would want to make hydrogen, this consumes energy, exactly the opposite of what you need in an energy strapped world.

Ethanol and bio-fuels are nice, but we will have to feed billions of people, and global warming will almost surely contribute to the decline agricultural production (along with soil degradation, water shortage and fertilizer shortage.)

The facts won't change because Americans love to drive cars...only the consequences will change.

Given that the appropriate action runs counter to contemporary American culture, I predict that our response will slower than required...and many people will suffer as a result.

[4dsc]

19. SO what about PEAK OIL!!

By the year 2030, the world will have as much oil as it did in 1930 or LESS. thus making the cost of oil extremely expensive.. The high cost of oil will have direct relationship to the cost of ethanol and its production. Not to mention the cost of raising the crop for our wastefull purposes..

[JohnWxy]

20. THE STORY OF TOMMY THE TURD

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x41836