gasoline production is going to hit a wall soon

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yeah, we definately have a supply problem. The question should be - what can we do short-term to hold off a shortage until we can build more refinerys. One suggestion I have is Ethynol(for more than one reason). It is a 10% additive. Another is getting more hybrids on the road quicker than planned. We probably need to do a variety of things as there isn't one smoking gun answer to the problem.

Oh and we could get off our fat asses and ride a bike. I have decided that by the end of the summer I want to be riding my bike to work a couple days a week. I live 11.4 miles from my office.

CkG

Province/State: Iowa

Well it is easy to see at least one of your reasons.

*cookie*

Now the question is - do you want gov't subsidies to keep farmers farming or would you rather them grow a marketable product that will help(could to a point) the gas issue we may face? A renewable resource, an additive to reduce petrol needs by up to 10%, and will create a profitable market for those currently heavily subsidized by the gov't.
Hmm...I know what my choice is.

CkG

I vote for none of the above. It not like the farmers would starve to death if we stoped subsidening them. But if I Had to choose one or the other I would vote pay them to sit on their ass. At least that why we can Have the richest people pay for the farmers thru higher income tax then force the poor to subsidize the farmers thru higher gas prices.

Yeah - figured as much... You think the poor, you try to care about, aren't going to pay more at the pump if we don't find a way to lessen the potential shortage?

I want productive and working people...it seem you'd rather them have a handout. It seems dave might have some words for you since you'd like to keep us dependent on the "oil thugs"(as dave calls them) instead of relying on our own sources of energy. But sure, whatever you want....

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yeah, we definately have a supply problem. The question should be - what can we do short-term to hold off a shortage until we can build more refinerys. One suggestion I have is Ethynol(for more than one reason). It is a 10% additive. Another is getting more hybrids on the road quicker than planned. We probably need to do a variety of things as there isn't one smoking gun answer to the problem.

Oh and we could get off our fat asses and ride a bike. I have decided that by the end of the summer I want to be riding my bike to work a couple days a week. I live 11.4 miles from my office.

CkG

We could also work towards getting ultra-low sulfer diesel fuel widely produced in the US, as well as biodiesel or biodiesel/ultra low sulfer diesel mixed versions. Considering a midsize seden using diesel gets around 45mpg, I think I know which I'd prefer.

Absolutely! I was going to put that in my original post but I figured I'd stick to the gas issue and not dive into the diesel issue. But again I'd rather see us promoting and developing renewable bio-diesel products than be increasingly dependent on dave's oil thugs. The next vehicle I purchase(fiscal situation willing ) will be a diesel that can run atleast B2 with few changes(if any) or some other form of "friendly" vehicle. But again - I'm not a tree-hugger but I am willing to do what I can to not only help the environment but also promote renewable energies that can be cultivated here at home instead of overseas.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Diesel, anyone?

What I mean is that in a typical crude heating tower you can manipulate the temperatures and the level where you precipitate a certain fuel, or its raw form..

We could easily create a diesel that is lighter than the present and increase output of diesel, while maintaining current gasoline refining capabilities..

The pollution created using more diesel would be less than using ethanol.

Many Ethanol Plants are being built across the corn belt, but there is still the one basic flaw with ethanol.

It takes almost as much energy to produce a gallon of ethanol as the same gallon of ethanol contains. So we have a cleaner burning fuel, but we have the pollution it creates plus the pollution created to make it.

Then you have to factor in the energy used to cultivate, plant, irrigate, farm, harvest, handle, and transport the corn or other grains.

There are many uses for the by-products of the process used to make ethanol, but with current technology the process's are not profittable without current government ethanol subsidies, and that money comes from highway and bridge funds..I *think* that that is currently somewhere around
500 million a year....Well, Enough of with that..


I have heard of these gasoline production probs for years, but i've never had a problem getting gas, never.




edited a cost figure

Ahem

Ethanol provides 30 to 40 percent more energy than it takes to produce, according to a recent University of Nebraska study on the fuel?s net energy balance. The study, conducted by scientist Dan Walters, confirms earlier U.S. Department of Agriculture research that shows ethanol has a positive net energy balance.

Walters said popular media reports often cite studies that show ethanol production uses more energy than it produces. But those studies are decades old and don?t take into consideration changes in agriculture and the ethanol production process, Walters said.

The Nebraska study?s methodology assesses the amount of fossil fuel required to grow, transport and convert corn into ethanol. The amount of energy required to blend ethanol with gasoline and transport it to the pump is also considered.

Technological advances in ethanol conversion and plant efficiency are responsible in part for the positive net energy balance, Walters said, pointing to the fact that a bushel of corn now produces at least 2.7 gallons of ethanol, where as a bushel only produced 2.5 gallons in 1990. Ethanol co-products also factor into the equation because additional energy would be needed to make these products if they weren?t being made during the ethanol conversion process.

Crop production is also more efficient now than in the past, according to the study. Farm equipment, seed genetics, irrigation practices, crop management and nitrogen efficiency have all improved dramatically during the past 20 years. According to the research, the energy balance will continue to improve as farming and ethanol production practices become more efficient.

You were saying

CkG

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Diesel, anyone?

What I mean is that in a typical crude heating tower you can manipulate the temperatures and the level where you precipitate a certain fuel, or its raw form..

We could easily create a diesel that is lighter than the present and increase output of diesel, while maintaining current gasoline refining capabilities..

The pollution created using more diesel would be less than using ethanol.

Many Ethanol Plants are being built across the corn belt, but there is still the one basic flaw with ethanol.

It takes almost as much energy to produce a gallon of ethanol as the same gallon of ethanol contains. So we have a cleaner burning fuel, but we have the pollution it creates plus the pollution created to make it.

Then you have to factor in the energy used to cultivate, plant, irrigate, farm, harvest, handle, and transport the corn or other grains.

There are many uses for the by-products of the process used to make ethanol, but with current technology the process's are not profittable without current government ethanol subsidies, and that money comes from highway and bridge funds..I *think* that that is currently somewhere around
500 million a year....Well, Enough of with that..


I have heard of these gasoline production probs for years, but i've never had a problem getting gas, never.




edited a cost figure

Ahem

Ethanol provides 30 to 40 percent more energy than it takes to produce, according to a recent University of Nebraska study on the fuel?s net energy balance. The study, conducted by scientist Dan Walters, confirms earlier U.S. Department of Agriculture research that shows ethanol has a positive net energy balance.

Walters said popular media reports often cite studies that show ethanol production uses more energy than it produces. But those studies are decades old and don?t take into consideration changes in agriculture and the ethanol production process, Walters said.

The Nebraska study?s methodology assesses the amount of fossil fuel required to grow, transport and convert corn into ethanol. The amount of energy required to blend ethanol with gasoline and transport it to the pump is also considered.

Technological advances in ethanol conversion and plant efficiency are responsible in part for the positive net energy balance, Walters said, pointing to the fact that a bushel of corn now produces at least 2.7 gallons of ethanol, where as a bushel only produced 2.5 gallons in 1990. Ethanol co-products also factor into the equation because additional energy would be needed to make these products if they weren?t being made during the ethanol conversion process.

Crop production is also more efficient now than in the past, according to the study. Farm equipment, seed genetics, irrigation practices, crop management and nitrogen efficiency have all improved dramatically during the past 20 years. According to the research, the energy balance will continue to improve as farming and ethanol production practices become more efficient.

You were saying

CkG

That was my point, It takes 100 btu of fossil fuel to produce 130 to 140 btu of ethanol.

It takes almost as much energy to produce a gallon of ethanol as the same gallon of ethanol contains.

Brings us back to the pollution issue...pollution from 240 btu fuel for a net gain of 140 btu of energy...

I am all for alternative energy sources, but there has to be a better way than this..

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
We need to start doing heavy and serious R&D on non fossil fuels and do it now. If we had an administration willing to pursue this as adamantly as this dumb ass Iraq war, we might get somewhere. No chance of that. Neither side wants to rock the boat.

we've had 30 years since the first oil embargo to do something, and they only thing they've come up with is CAFE. but because of all the added safety/comfort systems in todays cars making them weigh more, in addition to the average truck having the aerodynmics of a brick, apparently we get worse mileage today than ever before, anyway.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yeah, we definately have a supply problem. The question should be - what can we do short-term to hold off a shortage until we can build more refinerys. One suggestion I have is Ethynol(for more than one reason). It is a 10% additive. Another is getting more hybrids on the road quicker than planned. We probably need to do a variety of things as there isn't one smoking gun answer to the problem.

Oh and we could get off our fat asses and ride a bike. I have decided that by the end of the summer I want to be riding my bike to work a couple days a week. I live 11.4 miles from my office.

CkG

Province/State: Iowa

Well it is easy to see at least one of your reasons.

*cookie*

Now the question is - do you want gov't subsidies to keep farmers farming or would you rather them grow a marketable product that will help(could to a point) the gas issue we may face? A renewable resource, an additive to reduce petrol needs by up to 10%, and will create a profitable market for those currently heavily subsidized by the gov't.
Hmm...I know what my choice is.

CkG

I vote for none of the above. It not like the farmers would starve to death if we stoped subsidening them. But if I Had to choose one or the other I would vote pay them to sit on their ass. At least that why we can Have the richest people pay for the farmers thru higher income tax then force the poor to subsidize the farmers thru higher gas prices.

Yeah - figured as much... You think the poor, you try to care about, aren't going to pay more at the pump if we don't find a way to lessen the potential shortage?

I want productive and working people...it seem you'd rather them have a handout. It seems dave might have some words for you since you'd like to keep us dependent on the "oil thugs"(as dave calls them) instead of relying on our own sources of energy. But sure, whatever you want....

CkG

I think that a domistic source of energy would be great but ethonal is closer to a rechargable battery then an energy sources. I also think that the enviromental benifits of ethonal are greatly overstated.

Long term I think that we will be using a plants to produce energy is a useful form. I would send the money given to farmers to make ethonal to fund research into produceing a more eithicent way of producing energy.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
I think that a domistic source of energy would be great but ethonal is closer to a rechargable battery then an energy sources. I also think that the enviromental benifits of ethonal are greatly overstated.

Long term I think that we will be using a plants to produce energy is a useful form. I would send the money given to farmers to make ethonal to fund research into produceing a more eithicent way of producing energy.

You seem to think it's an either or situation. It's not. There can still be research and innovation promotion while we use something like an ethanol blend to help with our current situation. Ethanol isn't a show stopper by any means - and I never stated it was or could be, but it most definately can be a stop-gap solution which could also help economically.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Diesel, anyone?

What I mean is that in a typical crude heating tower you can manipulate the temperatures and the level where you precipitate a certain fuel, or its raw form..

We could easily create a diesel that is lighter than the present and increase output of diesel, while maintaining current gasoline refining capabilities..

The pollution created using more diesel would be less than using ethanol.

Many Ethanol Plants are being built across the corn belt, but there is still the one basic flaw with ethanol.

It takes almost as much energy to produce a gallon of ethanol as the same gallon of ethanol contains. So we have a cleaner burning fuel, but we have the pollution it creates plus the pollution created to make it.

Then you have to factor in the energy used to cultivate, plant, irrigate, farm, harvest, handle, and transport the corn or other grains.

There are many uses for the by-products of the process used to make ethanol, but with current technology the process's are not profittable without current government ethanol subsidies, and that money comes from highway and bridge funds..I *think* that that is currently somewhere around
500 million a year....Well, Enough of with that..


I have heard of these gasoline production probs for years, but i've never had a problem getting gas, never.




edited a cost figure

Ahem

Ethanol provides 30 to 40 percent more energy than it takes to produce, according to a recent University of Nebraska study on the fuel?s net energy balance. The study, conducted by scientist Dan Walters, confirms earlier U.S. Department of Agriculture research that shows ethanol has a positive net energy balance.

Walters said popular media reports often cite studies that show ethanol production uses more energy than it produces. But those studies are decades old and don?t take into consideration changes in agriculture and the ethanol production process, Walters said.

The Nebraska study?s methodology assesses the amount of fossil fuel required to grow, transport and convert corn into ethanol. The amount of energy required to blend ethanol with gasoline and transport it to the pump is also considered.

Technological advances in ethanol conversion and plant efficiency are responsible in part for the positive net energy balance, Walters said, pointing to the fact that a bushel of corn now produces at least 2.7 gallons of ethanol, where as a bushel only produced 2.5 gallons in 1990. Ethanol co-products also factor into the equation because additional energy would be needed to make these products if they weren?t being made during the ethanol conversion process.

Crop production is also more efficient now than in the past, according to the study. Farm equipment, seed genetics, irrigation practices, crop management and nitrogen efficiency have all improved dramatically during the past 20 years. According to the research, the energy balance will continue to improve as farming and ethanol production practices become more efficient.

You were saying

CkG

That was my point, It takes 100 btu of fossil fuel to produce 130 to 140 btu of ethanol.

It takes almost as much energy to produce a gallon of ethanol as the same gallon of ethanol contains.

Brings us back to the pollution issue...pollution from 240 btu fuel for a net gain of 140 btu of energy...

I am all for alternative energy sources, but there has to be a better way than this..

Pssstttt

Anyway - Yes, ethanol isn't a replacement, but as an additive it can be effective. I do agree however that ultimately there needs to be a better way but why overlook something that had upside potential just because it doesn't "fully solve" the energy issue.

Anyway- I hope people start taking this issue seriously instead of trivializing it by throwing "oil thugs" around and whining about costs. We have to do something eventually - so why not put things in place to help while we search for the winning solution.

CkG

 

[Mardeth]

Originally posted by: drnickriviera

Originally posted by: Strk
We could also work towards getting ultra-low sulfer diesel fuel widely produced in the US, as well as biodiesel or biodiesel/ultra low sulfer diesel mixed versions. Considering a midsize seden using diesel gets around 45mpg, I think I know which I'd prefer.

Which car are you referring to? I know the Jetta TDI would get those numbers, but I don't consider that a mid size.

Our 95' E300D gets 30-32 no matter what, city, highway. Little less in the winter. It doesn't have a turbo so in accelerates like a pig. Out 87' 300D gets 25-27

Well Volkswagen Passat 1.9 TDI = 42mpg.

(100hp/250Nm)

 

[B00ne]

oh come on guys, we pay $5+ per gallon and we still drive more and more each year - and we earn leass on average than you guys - now stop complaining.


Off course the percentage of SUVs is nowhere near yours and the percentage of cars with 200+ horsepower is way lower too - but we still drive faster...

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: B00ne
oh come on guys, we pay $5+ per gallon and we still drive more and more each year - and we earn leass on average than you guys - now stop complaining.


Off course the percentage of SUVs is nowhere near yours and the percentage of cars with 200+ horsepower is way lower too - but we still drive faster...

yeah, but you guys have the Autobahn, it's worth paying a bit more at the pump to enjoy no speed limits...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by:CADkindaGUY

Anyway- I hope people start taking this issue seriously instead of trivializing it by throwing "oil thugs" around and whining about costs. We have to do something eventually - so why not put things in place to help while we search for the winning solution.

CkG

If I had any way of helping things to be different, Detroit never would've cranked out all those massive 8 mpg SUV POS. I'm not saying I would outlaw them, just saying they never would've been promoted even more than sugar water like they were to have so much of the TinFoiless Hat sheep of the Country that are so easily brainwashed into buying these things.

So I am by no means "trivializing" what we as a Country have allowed the Sand Thugs and the minions they own here in the U.S. By calling them as I see it, is all I currently can do while passing out some Tin Hats in the hopes to turn away as many other people as possible from the brainwashing affects as well.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: B00ne
oh come on guys, we pay $5+ per gallon and we still drive more and more each year - and we earn leass on average than you guys - now stop complaining.


Off course the percentage of SUVs is nowhere near yours and the percentage of cars with 200+ horsepower is way lower too - but we still drive faster...

If we gots to pay more for fuel, there is less left for our foreign welfare programs...

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: B00ne
oh come on guys, we pay $5+ per gallon and we still drive more and more each year - and we earn leass on average than you guys - now stop complaining.


Off course the percentage of SUVs is nowhere near yours and the percentage of cars with 200+ horsepower is way lower too - but we still drive faster...

make that little engine cry!