Brazil....oil free!

[e85_burner]

Just saw the CBS piece on Brazil ethanol! Totally non-dependent on foreign oil.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/04/60minutes/main1588659.shtml

What do all you "anti's" have to say about this ?

:rotflmao:

[C Hughes]

Our goverment needs to step up and take control of this before it is out of control . They drove a truck across the US and save over 300 bucks with E85 instead of gas . Bring the FMF home and put our boys to work buiding whatever it takes to make it happen . If they don't do something fast they are going to make me vote for HILARY I don't want to but I will . I will !

[Gil]

Hummmmmm--------- GOSH ! ! !

Wondering IF it will get 'that' bad ??????

[Dacotah Eye]

I was watching a news program a couple of weeks ago and they said that if we get all of the ethanol plants going that we need for ethanol in this country, 73% of our farmland will be used to grow crops for ethanol production and we will have to import food. It looks like we will be importing one way or the other. :banging:

[kliph]

NY to build ethanol plant
Business First of Buffalo - 3:05 PM EDT Monday

New York state will allocate $6 million toward construction of an ethanol plant in the Town of Shelby in Orleans County.

The plant will cost some $85.2 million and will sit on a 144-acre site. Shelby is some 30 miles northeast of Buffalo.


Officials said it will produce 55 million gallons of dry mill ethanol each year. Production will include corn raised by area farmers.

Details were released Monday during a visit by Gov. George Pataki and U.S. Rep. Thomas Reynolds, R-Clarence.


Yes, we need more ethanol plants. But this is a start. And the farmers are happy. It's a win-win.:)

[Marv Sandbek]

Thought the show was compelling . . . the theme really left very little doubt regarding what MUST HAPPEN!!!!! Can you imagine it?? Extracting motor fuel from prairie grasses??? Incredible!!!! AND. . .tell me AGAIN that Detroit cannot produce the technology to burn E-85 or other synthetic fuels??? The show last night kinda put a damper on that notion, huh??? The time is now! And, if the Republicans don't want to "Get 'Er Done," let's give the other party a shot! Someone has to take a leadership role in gettin' this mess straightened out! AND . . it has to be the ENTIRE congress . . not just a few "partisans" who follow the party line!

"Minnesota Marv"

[Mr.Seaguar]

I caught that program also. The best part was when it could be from any cellulose based material. Imagine Saving your lawn clippings so you could drive to the lake. Lets hope this hurries along. I wonder if the slow progress is so that the machinations of the economy arent affected by oil not being the center of the economy. Cheap power would definitely have drastic impact if it came on the scene quickly. But thats kind of Oliver Stone-esque.

[Alcohol is for drinking]

Are There Problems with E85?
By ED WALLACE || BUSINESSWEEK ONLINE



During the comment period for the RFG (reformulated gas) program, supporters of ethanol had argued that the volatile organic compound (VOC) emission standards in the program -- 42 U. S. C. 7545 (k) (3) (B) (i) -- would preclude the use of ethanol in RFG because adding ethanol to gasoline increases its volatility and raises VOC emissions, especially in the summertime.

Background
The American Petroleum Institute v. the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [Docket #94-1502 (Heard by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and decided on April 28, 1995)]

If there were ever a time when the truth in advertising standards should be put back into place, it's now -- during the current (third) attempt to convince the public that the massive use of corn-derived ethanol in our gasoline supply will alleviate our need for foreign oil. Ultimately, the answer to just one question determines ethanol's actual usefulness as a gasoline extender: "If the government hadn't mandated this product, would it survive in a free market?" Doubtful -- but the misinformation superhighway has been rerouted to convince the public its energy salvation is at hand.

Act I, Scenes 1 and 2
The use of ethanol to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is nothing new. We also considered it during our nation's Project Independence in 1974, the year after the first Arab oil embargo. After the second energy crisis in 1979, an income tax credit of 40 cents per gallon of 190-proof ethanol produced was instituted as an incentive for refiners of ethanol to blend this product into gasoline.

Because this federal largesse now existed, within five years, 163 ethanol plants had been built -- but only 74 of them were still in operation. As gasoline availability opened up in the 1980s and gas prices went down, many ethanol plants simply went out of business.

More Autos Stories
Other autos articles from BusinessWeek Online:
1. Europe’s Hottest Diesel’s
2. MPG Winners and Losers
3. Get the Most from Your Fossil Fuel
4. Return of the High-End Fiat
Shortly thereafter, in yet another attempt to broaden the product's usage, Congress enacted a law that allowed car manufacturers to take excess mileage credits on any vehicle they built that was capable of burning an 85% blend of ethanol, better known as E85. General Motors took advantage of the credits, building relatively large volumes of the Suburban as a certified E85 vehicle. Although in real life that generation of the Suburban got less than 15 mpg, the credits it earned GM against its Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) ratings meant that on paper, the Suburban delivered more than 29 mpg.

Other manufacturers also built E85-capable vehicles -- one such car was the Ford (F) Taurus. Congress may have intended simply to create a market for this particular fuel by having these vehicles available for sale. But what the excess mileage credits actually did was save Detroit millions each year in penalties it would have owed for not meeting the CAFE regulations' mileage standards.

Act II, Scenes 1 and 2
In the mid-'90s the Clean Air Act of 1990 kicked in, mandating that a reformulated gasoline be sold in the nation's smoggiest cities. So the Clinton Administration again tried to create an ethanol industry in America, by having the Environmental Protection Agency mandate that fully 30% of the oxygenates to be used in gasoline under that program come from a renewable source. But members of the American Petroleum Institute had already geared up for the production of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), their oxygenate of choice. The ensuing lawsuit was argued before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on February 16, 1995.

The EPA took the position that it had been given a mandate to find ways to conserve the nation's fossil-fuel reserves, so it needed a renewable fuel -- and ethanol neatly fit that bill. But there were problems with that argument, not least of which was the fact that the judges could find no charter or mandate from Congress that gave the EPA the statutory right to do anything about fossil fuel, reserves or otherwise.

Even more damaging, the EPA's own attorney admitted to the judges that because of its higher volatility, putting ethanol into the nation's fuel supply would likely increase smog where it was used. One of the judges, on hearing that the EPA was actively promoting a substance that could in fact diminish air quality, wondered aloud, "Is the EPA in outer space?"

The final decision favored the American Petroleum Institute. The judges agreed that the EPA was bound by law only to promote items that would improve air quality -- not to reverse the nation's advances in smog reduction. That decision was apparently forgotten with record speed. In the summer of 2000, ethanol as an additive was mandated for the upper Midwest, including the city of Chicago and parts of the state of Wisconsin.

More About E85
Learn more about the potential of E85:
1. Study Boosts Ethanol as Fuel
2. Does E85 Cost More?
3. New Ethanol Production Methods
4. Brazil Paves Ethanol Future
Act II, Scenes 3 and 4
After Asian economies had collapsed in the late '90s, the price of oil had fallen to as low as $10 a barrel. Gasoline was selling in many parts of the U.S. for as little as 99 cents a gallon. But by 2000, the per-barrel price had risen to $32, and gas was averaging $1.55 a gallon nationally. As they are today, the nation's drivers were incensed by the rising prices of gasoline and oil. And then reformulated gasoline made with ethanol hit Chicago and points north. Gas prices there suddenly soared over $2.00, with a few stations selling their product for as much as $2.54 per gallon.

At some stations in southeast Wisconsin, where reformulated gasoline wasn't required and gas cost considerably less, pumps ran dry in the panic, as savvy consumers topped off their tanks. Citing the Lundberg Survey, the Associated Press on June 12, 2000, stated, "Dealers in the Midwest, where many cities use a reformulated gas blended with the corn derivative ethanol, are paying a premium at wholesale."

Just a few months later, Brazil -- which had worked toward energy independence since the mid-'70s oil crisis and had already mandated that the percentage of ethanol in its fuel be raised to 24% -- was forced to import ethanol refined by the Archer Daniels Midland Co. when the nation's sugar-cane crop suffered a devastating drought. Brazil understood that a year of poor crops was just as damaging to its national fuel supply as Iran taking its oil off-market would be to the rest of the world.

Then came the third act in this ethanol play -- and possibly the most misleading and disingenuous PR campaign ever.

Act III: Cue the Fact-Checker
It started with Congress, which mandated that even more ethanol be used to extend the nation's fuel supply. From General Motors, an ad campaign called "Live Green, Go Yellow" gave America the impression that by purchasing GM vehicles capable of using E85 ethanol, we could help reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

What GM left out of its ads was that the use of this fuel would likely increase the amount of smog during the summer months (as the EPA's own attorneys had admitted in 1995) -- and that using E85 in GM products would lower their fuel efficiency by as much as 25%. (USA Today recently reported that the Energy Dept. estimated the drop in mileage at 40%.)

But one final setup for the public has gone unnoticed. At the Web site, www.fueleconomy.gov, which confirms the 25% to 30% drop in mileage resulting from the use of this blended fuel, another feature lets users calculate and compare annual fuel costs using regular gasoline to costs using E85.

But the government site's automatic calculations are based on E85 selling for 37 cents per gallon less than regular gasoline, when the USA Today article reports that at many stations in the Midwest E85 is actually selling for 13 cents per gallon more than ordinary gas. Using the corrected prices for both gasoline and E85, the annual cost of fueling GM's Suburban goes from $2,709 to $3,763. Hence the suggestion that truth in advertising should come back into play. Possibly GM could rename this ad campaign "Shell Out Green, Turn Yellow."

From BusinessWeek

Epilogue: Get this Wasteful Show Off the Road
The other negative aspect of this inefficient fuel is that numerous studies have found that ethanol creates less energy than is required to make it. Other studies have found that ethanol creates "slightly" more energy than is used in its production. Yet not one of these studies takes into account that when E85 is used, the vehicle's fuel efficiency drops by at least 25% -- and possibly by as much as 40%. Using any of the accredited studies as a baseline in an energy-efficiency equation, ethanol when used as a fuel is a net energy waste.

Furthermore, no one has even considered the severe disruption in the nation's fuel distribution that mandating a move into ethanol would cause. Over the past month, gas stations from Dallas to Philadelphia and parts of Massachusetts have had their tanks run dry due to a lack of ethanol to blend. The newswires have been filled with stories bemoaning the shortage of trucks, drivers, railcars, and barges to ship the product. Ethanol can't be blended at refineries and pumped through the nation's gasoline pipelines.

The recent price spikes for gasoline have forcibly reminded the people of Chicago and Wisconsin of what happened when ethanol was forced on them during the summer of 2000. Moreover, the promise of energy independence that Brazil has explored through ethanol is widely misunderstood. Recently a Brazilian official, commenting on our third and most recent attempted conversion to ethanol, said that when Brazil tried using agricultural crops for ethanol, it achieved only a 1:1.20 energy conversion rate, too low to be worth the effort.

Final Bow?
On the other hand, ethanol from sugar cane delivered 1:8 energy conversion, which met the national mandate. Unfortunately for us, sugar cane isn't a viable crop in the climate of our nation's heartland. But the part of Brazil's quest for energy independence that the media usually overlooks is that ethanol wasn't the only fuel source the country was working on: Its other, more important, thrust was to find more oil. To that end, last week Brazil's P50 offshore oil platform was turned on. Its anticipated daily output is high enough to make Brazil totally oil independent.

More smog, infinitely worse gas mileage, huge problems in distribution, and skyrocketing prices for gasoline. Maybe now that we're witnessing the third act in America's ethanol play, the upcoming epilogue will close this show forever. Even great advertising works only if the product does.

[DaveB]

We had someone from the U of M Dept of Economics come in and speak last week. He was an expert on alternative fuels.

He talked about Brazil and what they are doing. Here is the big difference, you need one part energy (coal, oil, etc) to produce 1.3 parts ethanol from corn. So you are only gaining 30% energy. If you use sugar cane, like Brazil, that is one part energy to 8 parts ethanol, or 800% extra energy.

You cant grow sugar cane or sugar beets everywhere.

Now consider that your one part energy along with adding corn equals 1.3 parts energy. An alternative is to use the 1 part energy and eat the corn. You "gain" is 30% extra energy LESS whatever you lose by not using the corn for food or feed.


It should still be looked into, but for now, we are a ways away from being able to turn off the oil.

[walleyeangler]

Is voting for Hilary really the answer?? Is she going to make us use no forgin oil??

[mac]

And on top of this the city of Rochester Minn is blocking the rail shipment of coal (the one fuel resource that the USA has more of than any other place on earth) from Wyoming to the barges on the Mississippi River. Not in my backyard huh?

[Eyehound]

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

That's what I think!

[Democrat UL]

Brazil is a special case because they have a huge amount of arable land relative to their population, and a climate that allows growing sugar cane. See Dacotah Eye's post above; as he says, it would take 3/4th's of America's farmland to produce enough E85 to replace oil. In addition, ethanol does not contain as much energy per gallon as gasoline, which means less range and more frequent refueling stops. E85 may (or may not) be a piece of a solution, but it is not a "silver bullet" that, by itself, can slay the Oil Monster.

[Dacotah Eye]

We use natural gas to run the ethanol plants where I live and I have heard that when the price of natural gas is high it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than you get out of it. Sounds like a typical government band wagon. Why don't we just pump and refine our own oil instead of leaving it in the ground. Are the oil companies waiting for the middle east to run out of oil so they can make huge profits selling oil to them? Naw, they don't care about huge profits.

[Laaaarsvik]

There are many solutions.
I believe Iceland is almost 100% switched over to hydrogen powered autos.

[unlogged rock2me]

Hydrogen requires cheap electricity to make. Can you say Nuclear? The hydrogen fuel is made using electricity and water. Which fuel are you going to use to make the electricity?

Wait until the first explosion from a hydrogen fuel tank. Can you say lawsuit.

To me, the most viable answer is building additional nuclear reactors and go with the hydrogen solution. Ethanol is not the answer, even in the short-term. it is too dirty to make and the resulting product is inferior to gasoline.

What to do with the nuclear waste? Place it on the border between the U.S. and Mexico. If you cross the border we should be able to pick you out with a simple geiger counter. TeeHeeHee.

[Laaaarsvik]

Ok, enough of my trying to be a "greenie".
I'd have been a lousy one anyway.

Can you say -put the pedal to the metal and kick in the nitrous?
:)

[Laaaarsvik]

Ok, enough of my trying to be a "greenie".
I'd have been a lousy one anyway.

Can you say -put the pedal to the metal and kick in the nitrous?
:)

[VMS steve]

My wife's Ranger is E85 capable...so we did a test. We ran tanks of E85 and recorded gallons used and mileage, then did the same thing with 87 octane unleaded. Her truck is specifically used to for work so the style of travel was the same for both types of fuel.

To make a long story short, for every 4 tanks of regular unleaded gas, we needed 5 tanks of E85 for the same distances. In the end, it cost us $5.00 MORE to run E85 than it did to run regular unleaded...

E85 is a bandaid only...it is definitely NOT the solution.

I could see Hydrogen cells happening, though. Someone out there will get the cells correct so that they cannot just blow up. Heck...if LP can be compressed and liquified, and yet maintain being safe for use, so can Hydrogen.

Steve

[VMS steve]

My wife's Ranger is E85 capable...so we did a test. We ran tanks of E85 and recorded gallons used and mileage, then did the same thing with 87 octane unleaded. Her truck is specifically used to for work so the style of travel was the same for both types of fuel.

To make a long story short, for every 4 tanks of regular unleaded gas, we needed 5 tanks of E85 for the same distances. In the end, it cost us $5.00 MORE to run E85 than it did to run regular unleaded...

E85 is a bandaid only...it is definitely NOT the solution.

I could see Hydrogen cells happening, though. Someone out there will get the cells correct so that they cannot just blow up. Heck...if LP can be compressed and liquified, and yet maintain being safe for use, so can Hydrogen.

Steve

[mac]

I can tell your heart isn't in it. Get out your ax and start chopping.

[mac]

I can tell your heart isn't in it. Get out your ax and start chopping.

[GoodNews]

I just left a meeting that the speaker was the "Worlds Smartest Energy Guru". He has done extensive research on Energy and has spent millions of Goverment Grant$$$$ on his research. His conclusion is that cars will run the best on buckets of Walleye carcasses and skin. While this flys in the face of catch and release it will give about 65 MPQ for each quart of Walleye Carcass and skin. Since Walleyes are a renewable resource this will cause extensive Govt funded Walleye stocking programs and give all us Walleye bums full time jobs with top pay and fringe benifits with a fat 401K program. You also will be able to deduct all your boat, equipment, bait and maybe a six pack or two from your taxes.

How does that sound....maybe Dud can even buy a real fishing pole.

[GoodNews]

I just left a meeting that the speaker was the "Worlds Smartest Energy Guru". He has done extensive research on Energy and has spent millions of Goverment Grant$$$$ on his research. His conclusion is that cars will run the best on buckets of Walleye carcasses and skin. While this flys in the face of catch and release it will give about 65 MPQ for each quart of Walleye Carcass and skin. Since Walleyes are a renewable resource this will cause extensive Govt funded Walleye stocking programs and give all us Walleye bums full time jobs with top pay and fringe benifits with a fat 401K program. You also will be able to deduct all your boat, equipment, bait and maybe a six pack or two from your taxes.

How does that sound....maybe Dud can even buy a real fishing pole.

[e85_burner]

LOL!!!

Leave it to all you "anti's" to blow er all out of the water!

I hope you all someday drown in your be-loved dino oil and acid rain, and are then preserved in the CO2 and SO4 you are so belligerent about producing

Go and read the first reply to the "parkertwins" Fourth of July Gas Out thread. That about says it all dont it!? Goes to show that most who frequent here, are all "over the hill", and really could care less what happens.....as long as they arent deprived of their cushy retirement incentives / days.


Lets hope the next generation cares a little more about there planet, cause this one sure dropped the ball.

[e85_burner]

LOL!!!

Leave it to all you "anti's" to blow er all out of the water!

I hope you all someday drown in your be-loved dino oil and acid rain, and are then preserved in the CO2 and SO4 you are so belligerent about producing

Go and read the first reply to the "parkertwins" Fourth of July Gas Out thread. That about says it all dont it!? Goes to show that most who frequent here, are all "over the hill", and really could care less what happens.....as long as they arent deprived of their cushy retirement incentives / days.


Lets hope the next generation cares a little more about there planet, cause this one sure dropped the ball.

[Jim Ordway]

This is probably the most factual thread I have seen on this subject.
Once again, the politicians have latched on to a false notion in hopes that all us voters think they are really doing something worthwhile. Where there are government dollars, there is waste. Or should I more accurately say, where the government spends my tax dollars, they are looking to there own incumbency.
Take care,

[Jim Ordway]

This is probably the most factual thread I have seen on this subject.
Once again, the politicians have latched on to a false notion in hopes that all us voters think they are really doing something worthwhile. Where there are government dollars, there is waste. Or should I more accurately say, where the government spends my tax dollars, they are looking to there own incumbency.
Take care,

[Hmmmm]

e85 burner....Take a pill

[mtelkhunter]

I actually find it funny whenever I see someone mention the pollutants that us uncaring old U.S. citizens cause.
Do you know that one single...ONE decent sized volcanic eruption releases more 'pollutants' than the U.S. could produce in many, many, MANY years?
STOP THE POLLUTING VOLCANOES!
Fill all active or semi-active volcanoes with greenies. Plug em up and stop the pollution!