Well you quote from e85fuel.com and I'll quote from cato.org, princeton.edu, etc. I'll take my sources over yours any day.

If I came with quotes from exxon.com I could understand your skepticism but you post from e85fuel.com and its suppose to have some credence.

Show me something with some scientific backing.

 

Scienctific backing is easily swayed in any direction desired with the right amount of financial support.

 

That is true to some extent but quoting me information from the "National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition" holds no water to me.

What not quote facts about gun control from bradycampaign.org?


They have no agenda right?

 

True, but the middle ground can be easily realized when looking at both extremes.

 

Yea I want to make it clear I'm not against e85 fuel. I am for anything that helps. However, I don't believe it is the solution many are making it out to be.

It couldn't stand on its own in the market place right now.

 

Of course it couldn't. Most cars are not E85 capable.

Any science that lends itself to decreasing America's dependence on foreign oil deserves your support.

 

E85 is good, but don't forget that there is LOTS of oil yet to be tapped. Big oil is going to pull it up soon and the price of dino fuel will end up being cheaper than the E85. The ball's in the consumer's court.

 

That's a given I made the statement in the theory that a vehicle could run on either right now. It still wouldnt survive without subsidies.

 

Grain based yes, cellulose based no. The big factor is going to be distribution.


But then I just have a natural dislike for huge corporations making huge profits off something that is essential to a basic quality of life, especially when it has been documented that the oil boys have indeed purposely manipulated markets, including driving out competitors. Anything that takes a penny out of Exxon's pocket and put's it in mine is OK by me.

Besides that, it's not like the government hasn't been subsidizing the oil boys all these years.

 

A part time job at walmart sucks......

 

quote - "Well you quote from e85fuel.com and I'll quote from cato.org, princeton.edu, etc"

too-shay mr. vader.....

you are correct that each side can be slanting it to their views.

i say lets give it a try. Plan-Do-Monitor-Improve..... see what works, what doesn't. fix what doesn't and go from there. i would think if enough E85 gets into circulation that this would reduce the demand for gasoline, thus bringing the price down.... seems plausible. even that effect sounds good to me.

good discussion - oaw

p.s. - mr. vader - just wondering (and please take no offense to this question since i am not a master of the "force" like you )....... do you or your family have some connection to the petroleum industry? just wondering...

 

No connection at all to the fuel industry.

I don't have a problem with the oil industry making money. They are in the right time at the right place. No one stuck up for them 6+ years ago when regular gas was .97 a gallon and oil was <$25 a barrel. Now that the supply has remained constant and demand has driven the price to over $70 a barrel people hate the oil companies. They need new PR people but the fact is they aren't doing anything wrong.

I don't like paying high costs for fuel but it is simply a fact of life. When the price gets high enough, people will develop new methods for energy. Our dependence on oil will decrease. It will be a long and painful process though.

E85 is an alternative, no doubt. However, unlike Brazil, which greats its ethanol from sugar cane, we are restricted to corn or switch grass. It is much less efficient than sugar cane.

We have protectionist tariffs on the overseas Brazilian e85 in order to protect American farmers. They can't produce e85 from corn as efficiently as Brazil can from sugar and we don't have the climate to grow the sugar.

If e85 was the Godsend that it is being made out to be than it would take off. Right now it takes more energy to make it than we get out of it. Not a good deal.

(Nice to be able to discuss something without the childish stuff )

 

not to mention all of the money going to Canada dammit.

Those frozen ba$tard$

 

darth (can i call you by your first name? )

here is the info that i was referring to. it is from the E85 website as i mentioned before. i have never actually read the report for argonne. i don't see a date on it... so what is here may have been taken out of context. it does mention the corn process in the last paragraph. in my opinion the real potential falls into using real waste items such as corn shauks and grass.
just something to think about.

Question:

Does it take more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the energy we get out of it?

Response:

No. This has been a common misconception of the ethanol industry, that it takes more energy to make ethanol than is available to the final consumer. Remember, ethanol is produced from plant matter, today dominated by corn, wheat, potatoes, sorgum, etc. Plants grow through the use of energy provided by the sun and are a renewable resources. In the future, ethanol will be produced from waste products or "energy crops." In fact, a partner of the NEVC, BC International (BCI), is currently constructing an ethanol production plant in Louisiana that will use sugar cane waste to produce ethanol. Additionally, BCI is considering the establishment of ethanol production facilities in California that would use the waste hulls from rice growers and wood waste from the forrest industry to produce ethanol. Energy crops such as perennial switch grasses, timothy, and other high-output/low-input crops will be used in the future.

Current research prepared by Argonne National Laboratory (a U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory), indicates a 38% gain in the overall energy input/output equation for the corn-to-ethanol process. That is, if 100 BTUs of energy is used to plant corn, harvest the crop, transport it, etc., 138 BTUs of energy is available in the fuel ethanol. Corn yields and processing technologies have improved significantly over the past 20 years and they continue to do so, making ethanol production less and less energy intensive.



see ya - oaw

 

I'll try to locate the sources but here is one major hiccup in that debate.

While plants grow from energy received from the sun the current high productivity we receive from each acre of land is due to the use of fertilizers. Those fertilizers require vast energy sources to produce. The amount of ethanol energy generated from an acre of land doesn't equal the amount of energy that is put into the entire planting, fertilizing, reaping and manufacturing process. It just doesn't add up. I will try to find the report for you but it is very long and boring at parts...

And yes Darth is fine