Ethyl alcohol, also known as ethanol, or grain alcohol, is a flammable, colorless chemical compound found in alcoholic beverages. It is the active ingredient of alcoholic beverages. Its isolation as a relatively pure compound was probably first achieved by Persian alchemists, such as Geber (721-815AD) and Al-Razi (864-930AD), who developed the art of distillation. In common parlance, it is often referred to simply as alcohol. Its chemical formula is C2H5OH.
Wholesale ethanol prices fell almost 30% between the first four months of 2005, according to the Oil Price Information Service. Economists associate the decline in price with an oversupply of ethanol, which in turn is caused by rather low domestic consumption and increased ethanol production. Ethanol prices have tumbled from a 2005 high of nearly $0.44 per liter (rack) in January to $0.31 in early April. The lowest prices of ethanol were recorded at $0.28 - $0.29 per liter in high-volume markets like Des Moines, Iowa City, Sioux City, and Omaha during the week of April 4-8. An average gallon of vodka costs anywhere between 40 and 100 dollars. Thus a profit from any given bottle of vodka, considering that no extra costs are required, is almost as much as the vodka itself costs to the consumer.
Ethanol is used as a fuel, often mixed with gasoline, and in a wide variety of industrial processes. Ethanol is also used in antifreeze for its low melting point.Ethyl alcohol, also known as ethanol, or grain alcohol, is a flammable, colorless chemical compound found in alcoholic beverages. It is the active ingredient of alcoholic beverages. Its isolation as a relatively pure compound was probably first achieved by Persian alchemists, such as Geber (721-815) and Al-Razi (864-930), who developed the art of distillation. In common parlance, it is often referred to simply as alcohol. Its chemical formula is C2H5OH.
Wholesale ethanol prices fell almost 30% between the first four months of 2005, according to the Oil Price Information Service. Economists associate the decline in price with an oversupply of ethanol, which in turn is caused by rather low domestic consumption and increased ethanol production. Ethanol prices have tumbled from a 2005 high of nearly $0.44 per liter (rack) in January to $0.31 in early April. The lowest prices of ethanol were recorded at $0.28 - $0.29 per liter in high-volume markets like Des Moines, Iowa City, Sioux City, and Omaha during the week of April 4-8. An average gallon of vodka costs anywhere between 40 and 100 dollars. Thus a profit from any given bottle of vodka, considering that no extra costs are required, is almost as much as the vodka itself costs to the consumer.
Ethanol is used as a fuel, often mixed with gasoline, and in a wide variety of industrial processes. Ethanol is also used in antifreeze for its low melting point. In the 1950s some concept cars, such as the Cadillac Cyclone, were made to run both on ethanol and gasoline. Comparing the average gas prices of over $2 to the price of ethanol at $1.23, one might look back at the 1950s with envy. The oil crisis in the 1970s may have made much less of an impact on society if car manufacturers had taken advantage of running the automobiles on ethanol.
Natalie Gertsik -- 2005
In the 1950s some concept cars, such as the Cadillac Cyclone, were made to run both on ethanol and gasoline. Comparing the average gas prices of over $2 to the price of ethanol at $1.23, one might look back at the 1950s with envy. The oil crisis in the 1970s may have made much less of an impact on society if car manufacturers had taken advantage of running the automobiles on ethanol.
I wonder if the Rand corporation would be willing to tell us how high the stack of $100 bills has to be to compress time to tap into the 800 trillion bbls of oil (100 years of 100% of our current demand for oil without any imports)?
I wonder how much we are spending on all the other things that seem to be riddled with issues?
We continue to make ICE engines more powerful, cleaner and more economical via the free market system. Apparently this is true, or at least it is certainly swatted around as if it were true.
We are spending a ton of money -- both public and private -- to develop ethanol with a mountain of information that suggests that it MAY help.
We may want to stop producing the by products that are created by the combustion of oil.
We say we do.
We would probably NOT be having this discussion NOW were we to have many many decades of for sure for sure oil at reasonable prices. Of course, if you believe John Stossel (?) in his book, we are actually NOT paying more for gas per gallon and our cars actually do get better MPG's (all the while polluting less.)
If the Rand report has any merit, is considered accurate, bla bla bla. . .why not pull out all the stops and put $87 billion (to pick a number) into developing the "proven" 800 or so trillion bbls of oil already here in the USA?
We're talking about trucking stuff here, using food for fuel and all sorts of stuff that would appear to have at BEST a weak chance of helping us.
10 years goes very quickly in the scheme of things -- can we, with investment, compress 30 years (as is stated in the Rand report) into 10 or 15 or 20? Is this possible, is it even remotely possible?
We can fritter away a lot of time on technologies that do not currently have a sound economic argument -- or we can invest in getting to the oil that has been demonstrated is already here.
Buying time, buying time -- that is what I am talking about.
Investments of ALL kinds are "justified."
But, what limits should we set?
Humans if "gifted" another "X" trillion bbl of oil would certainly or probably do what?
What if the gift was at least 200 trillion bbl? What if its possible upper limit was 1000 trillion bbl? What if we knew about a currently expensive but NOT impractical otherwise alternative to getting it?
Its only money, eh?
We are spending how many 100's of millions on ethanol research and development? Or is it billions?
I have read these apparently serious studies about how much money it would take to "cure" a serious disease or put a human on Mars or Neptune, bla bla bla.
Somewhere, somebody (other than the genius who forecasted the cost of Boston's Big Dig) must have an estimate of how many monies it would take to accelerate the extraction of the real deal from the US's "vast" petroleum reserves. Sooner rather than later.
Ethanol seems like a scam job of the greatest magnitude if 1/2 of what the posters here write -- why not at least consider putting a bit more of the dough into real oil based gas? Ethanol still seems like using $20 bills to heat your house in the winter -- because it "burns prettier" than old newspapers.
If the world is really concerned about running out of stuff, like oil, why not join forces to come up with some globally beneficial solution.
I'll hold my breath with you -- you start, I'll catch up, oh, in about 9 minutes!
Oh heck, perception is reality -- the perception is that ethanol is the real deal, apparently. Despite evidence to the contrary -- also apparently.
Optimists haven't figured out what to do with a gazillion dead batteries.
All of this caused by the "sudden" awareness that we might not have an unlimited supply of oil. I was born in 1951 and I have heard about every 10 years or so since I can remember, that we were "almost running out of oil" only to find that we -- poof as if by magic -- found another couple of decades of worth of oil based on what is the then current rate of consumption.
According to "the experts" we have enough oil for AT LEAST two generations (of humans) based on BOTH current and assumed consumption increases.
Of course, what has not been said, that I can find, is "at what cost?"
Apparently we have virtually unlimited funds to spend on the unknown but also apparently seem to be unwilling to spend aggressively on development of a resource that if it were to simply squirt up from the bowels of the earth, be quite happy to continue filling up our vehicles with -- oh, until hell freezes over, or so it seems. :confuse:
Or is it just a case of "we can't rewind, we've gone too far?"
By Justin Gillis Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, June 22, 2006; Page A01
IMPERIAL, Neb. -- Just outside this town in the middle of the great American prairie, 37 miles from the nearest traffic light, stands a huge pile of cornstalks and leaves. It looks like a 35-foot mountain of yard trash, yet black cables snake into the pile, attached to sensors that monitor its vital statistics by the minute.
If ambitious plans taking shape in Washington and in state capitals come to fruition, this pile of stalks and many more like it will become the oil wells of the 21st century. The idea is to run the nation's transportation system largely on alcohol produced from bulk plant material, weaning America from foreign oil and the risks that go with it, including wars, global warming and terrorism.
Weaning America from Oil With Corn Ethanol made from corn kernels has replaced only about 3 percent of the nation's gasoline. Now, scientists are focusing on a new type of the gasoline additive, made from agricultural wastes and plant residues - a potentially vast supply of material known as biomass.
Oil and Gas Prices Stock prices, economic forecasts and consumer confidence show that ever-more-volatile oil prices have become a barometer by which consumers, investors, corporate executives and even voters gauge the future.
Farmers have pushed for years to get more people using gasoline mixed with ethanol made from corn kernels, but so far such ethanol has replaced only about 3 percent of the nation's gasoline, and by most estimates, the country would never be able to grow enough corn to replace more than 10 or 12 percent of its fuel supply.
Now many scientists -- and eager Silicon Valley venture capitalists -- are focusing on a new type of ethanol made from agricultural wastes and other plant residues, a potentially vast supply of material known as biomass.
While ethanol made from cornstalks may sound a lot like ethanol made from corn, the technology required is markedly different. The technique was long considered too expensive to compete with gasoline produced from oil, but the cost is declining rapidly just as oil prices hit record highs.
Experts say that soon, those trends will open the possibility of a vast new industry in this country producing a homegrown fuel.
If the notion that a country the size of the United States could power its vehicle fleet on what amounts to moonshine seems crazy, consider this: Brazil is already well on its way to running a fleet on rum. After a 30-year campaign, Brazil has replaced 40 percent of its gasoline with alcohol produced from sugar cane. With new oil wells coming on line this year, the country is expected to declare independence from foreign oil producers.
The sugar-cane plan won't work in the United States -- only a few states have the right climate. But the country has vast supplies of wood chips, sawdust, wheat straw, waste paper and many other materials that could be turned into liquid fuels, and it has millions of acres that could be devoted to growing special energy crops like the switchgrass President Bush has mentioned repeatedly this year.
"If you think we're heading towards a future where oil prices are going to stay relatively high, $50-plus a barrel, then the energy cost delivered in plant biomass is much, much less than the energy cost delivered in oil," said Bruce E. Dale, head of the Biomass Conversion Research Laboratory at Michigan State University. "I'm completely convinced that this industry is going to happen on economic grounds alone. The demand for liquid fuels is so high and rising that we're going to convert an awful lot of stuff to liquid fuels."
Speculative investment capital and even money from some of the big oil companies is moving into the field. A handful of biomass-ethanol companies have built pilot plants, and some are scouting locations for bigger facilities. Politicians are trying to hurry the industry along, with Congress dangling potential loan guarantees to pioneer companies.
Yet fundamental questions about the biomass alternative have yet to be answered. The economics of making ethanol from biomass remain unproven on a commercial scale. Simply collecting all the necessary straw, cornstalks, wood chips and other waste would be a vast logistical problem, and growing energy crops would require big changes in U.S. agriculture.
Nobody is even sure how to store most types of biomass -- an elementary problem in producing a year-round fuel from a seasonal feedstock. That's the question the pile of cornstalks in Nebraska is meant to answer.
"...and the beat goes on and on and on to create a national renewable fuels resource, let's hear it for New Mexico." SJ
New Mexico Business Weekly - 11:05 AM MDT Monday
Carlyle/Riverstone Renewable Energy Infrastructure Fund I, L.P. will build a 105-million-gallon-a-year ethanol plant in Clovis, according to company officials.
The plant will be built on the property of the ConAgra Trade Group Peavey grain elevator. Construction will begin in October and building the plant will employ approximately 300 people. Once the plant opens in late 2007, it will employ 55 people directly and is expected to create 50 to 75 jobs related to indirect service. The plant will more than triple New Mexico's ethanol output.
ConAgra Trade Group, part of ConAgra Inc. (NYSE: CAG), is a minority partner in the venture, and will supply corn and energy for the plant and market the plant's products, including ethanol and distiller grains.
Riverstone Holdings LLC and the Carlyle Group are the co-general partners in the fund. Riverstone is a New York-based energy and power private equity firm managing $6.5 billion. The Carlyle Group is a global private equity firm with $35 billion under management.
New Mexico's only other ethanol plant is Abengoa in Portales, which produces 30 million gallons a year
Manure-powered ethanol plant slated for Jasper County
FAIR OAKS, Ind. A northern Indiana dairy farm is going to be a partner in an ethanol plant powered by cow manure.
Fair Oaks Dairy and Bion Environmental Technologies of New York will start work on the plant sometime next year. Under the plant's design, waste from every thousand dairy cows would be able to provide enough energy to produce one (m) million gallons of ethanol.
Bion officials say it will create ethanol for 75 percent of the normal cost. The cost to operate the plant will vary based on how many farms join the project.
Fair Oaks is about 40 miles south of Gary.
Indiana now has one ethanol plant in South Bend, and eight other ethanol plants and three biofuel plants are under construction around the state.
What might that be? According to the article it is an experiment to see if biomass is even feasible. You need to read what you are posting. It will give you a window into the boondoggle you are so sure is working.
Yet fundamental questions about the biomass alternative have yet to be answered. The economics of making ethanol from biomass remain unproven on a commercial scale. Simply collecting all the necessary straw, cornstalks, wood chips and other waste would be a vast logistical problem, and growing energy crops would require big changes in U.S. agriculture.
Nobody is even sure how to store most types of biomass -- an elementary problem in producing a year-round fuel from a seasonal feedstock. That's the question the pile of cornstalks in Nebraska is meant to answer.
Beginning April 2, 2006, gasoline in Hawaii is required to contain 10% ethanol. [3]
Fuel marketers in Hawaii have already begun preparing for the transition, to ensure that properly-blended E-10 Unleaded gasoline will be available from your favorite service station.
Gasoline Prices The net effect on Hawaii's consumers is projected to be good in the short term and even more important in the long term.
Federal and State incentives reduce the cost of ethanol in order encourage its use, reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuel, and develop renewable alternatives that can be produced in the U.S. and in Hawaii.
Several studies have concluded that ethanol produced in Hawaii can be competitive with imports, and cost-effective for blending with gasoline.
That ethanol plant ought to smell real nice... mmmmm just bleep.... What about all that Iowa pig manure? That should be good to power at least a couple Toyotas.
Ethanol is not a debate any more but a national plan backed by our courts, legislative and the executive branches of our government. Let's see what we can do to assist in rolling out the Ethanol and Biodiesel plans as we ramp up to get renewable fuels into our USA fuel chain.
As I said before, there are three priorities to roll out Ethanol;
1. Replace MBTF with Ethanol to reduce harmful emissions 2. Bring E10 into the main gasoline stream for all autos 3. Provide E85 for FFV vehicles that are rolling out of our auto production plants as we speak, most autos will be newly FFV capable in 2-5 years.
Step 1 is already being implemented as mandated in most states, Step 2 is also mandated in some states as in Hawaii, others will bring it on line as it becomes available from the wholesalers. Step 3 will take the longest to implement the infrastructure that is necessary.
Join in America's promise and strength and try to dispel the many myths and falsehoods about renewable fuels. Ranting and railing against this conspiracy or that sounds a bit out-of-control, but it is your forum.
In effect, I am deliberately attempting to find ways to contradict then argue convincingly against what appears to be the popular (here) notion that E85 won't AND can't work given the constraints that are here and now.
A worthwhile goal, but a tough one to achieve just so long as this thread continues to progress like a schoolyard religious debate (My Fuel God Can Beat Up Your Fuel God), rather than a sober discussion of possible scenarios for the future.
Just in case you thought that all of your tax dollars had gone to waste, I think that the EIA does pretty good work. This report from 2002 is pretty balanced: EIA. Have a look at the forecast for ethanol -- current production already exceeds the worst case scenario, while the best case scenario is pretty promising, but presupposes that other biomass is used and scale is achieved.
Again, the success of any of these alternative fuels is going to be dependent upon the ability to rapidly increase supply, which probably means developing new sources of biomass in order to make it work.
At this stage, the ability to make cars that run on biodiesel or ethanol is not a problem. Likewise, the ability to produce modest quantities of the fuel is not an issue.
The substantive issues are whether the supplies can be expanded enough to reduce oil imports, whether the prices of these products will be reasonable (whether by means of the free market, subsidies, taxes, etc.) and whether consumers will accept them. Whether some of our posters here are willing to address these remains to be seen.
I read these posts and I "appreciate" your enthusiasm -- but this statement:
Federal and State incentives reduce the cost of ethanol in order encourage its use, reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuel, and develop renewable alternatives that can be produced in the U.S. and in Hawaii.
. . . does nothing but make me shudder. Where are the "incentives" coming from if not from our tax dollars.
We're probably not getting the full benefit of every dollar "invested" either. Let's see what the market will do without the incentives.
I read that and I wonder if that is like the pusher who offers his addicting drugs at a low low introductory price and then when there is no way for you to stop, he says "the price just went up"
This argument, in spirit at least, seems approximately what is happening with ethanol.
These posts serve to add weight to the anti-ethanol argument, if you asked me -- and, yes, I know, you didn't ask. :surprise:
From what I have read there is enough biomass in the US to produce 100 billion gallons of ethanol. That would produce 124 billion gallons of E85 which would reduce our oil consumption by almost 50%.
The only trouble with that is that there is no way we would be able to collect all that biomass. Best estiments I have seen are 40% of that which means that at best we can reduce current oil consumption by no more than 20%. And remember that that is the best estiments, most likely we won't even get to that point. Plus it will take years to get there.
The more I read, the more I crunch the numbers ethanol doesn't make sense as a solution.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
1. Replace MBTF with Ethanol to reduce harmful emissions
How about eliminating this poorly concived mandate called for in the "make ADM rich" law simply because it does nothing but drive up the price of gas and put $$$ in ADM's coffers?
2. Bring E10 into the main gasoline stream for all autos
Since E10 reduces mileage and costs more and we can't make enough ethanol to supply all the E10 that is mandated by the "make ADM rich" law (in addition to things stated above) we should eliminate that il conceived mandate.
3. Provide E85 for FFV vehicles that are rolling out of our auto production plants as we speak, most autos will be newly FFV capable in 2-5 years.
Since it cost more to run a car on E85 and there is no way on earth we can supply E85 to all those cars anyway why don't we just abandon this unworkable pie in the sky junk and seek out a workable plan.
Join in America's promise and strength and try to dispel the many myths and falsehoods about renewable fuels.
I agree we need to dispell the myths and falsehoods that people like seniorjose are posting here. We need to make a stand for Americas promise and strength by demanding a program for domestic energy production (preferably renewable) that actually has some chance of working.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I am almost convinced that liquid based fuels are not the way to go. Oil is in a finite amount and we all know the issues with it, we would not be able to produce the ethanol and the jury is still out as far as I am concerned on biodiesel.
I do think that diesel and biodiesel are the best bet for a short term solution to stretch what we currently have. That is until something else comes along. What that something else is I am not sure, but I am hopeful that sometime in the not to distant future Grampa Munster will perfect that magic pill that turns water into gas.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
at a low low introductory price and then when there is no way for you to stop, he says "the price just went up"
Or even a worse case scenario. If we learned anything from Brazil and the last Ethanol boondoggle it should be the fact that Ethanol cannot compete with cheap oil. Everyone including our government predicted that $40 per barrel oil was with us for good. That was 1980 when the adjusted for inflation price was $89.48 per barrel in today's dollars. By 1986 it was at $14 a barrel and sugar was more valuable than ethanol. Thousands of cars in Brazil were built to run on E100. Guess what NO fuel available.
2006 rolls around and we are all ringing our hands over $70 per barrel oil. Still less than it was in 1980. The same thing is happening. We need to have an alternative NOW. So off we go with corn ethanol, that is at best marginal. It is not competitive with gasoline or even world ethanol prices. Think about the dollar per gallon tax subsidy and the 54 cent per gallon tariff on foriegn ethanol. Even at that we are buying 20 million gallons of Brazilian ethanol cheaper than we can grow and produce our own with mega tax incentives. I'm not a math genius but can tell you we are screwed up with this whole business.
Say we follow through with mr seniojose's plan for ALL gas to be E10. We currently use 140 billion gallons of gasoline so we need 14 billion gallons of ethanol to have E10 as the de-facto gas. Hmmmm OK currently we produce 4.4 billion gallons with a hope for 7.5 billion by 2012. We are still short by half to achieve the goal of E10. Now we are producing all these FFV that those folks gotta use E85 to be REAL Americans. Oooops, we are using it all for E10 sorry no E85 available.
Now the bad part starts. To achieve these heavenly goals for ethanol we have to import ethanol. Of course we already know that we cannot compete with Brazil that can make ethanol for 20% of what we make it for from corn. So we tell the American farmer too bad so sad we buy from Sugar cane countries in South & Central America. Where does that leave all those corn ethanol stills WE Americans paid to have built? You got it on the scrap heap. If it was left to free amrket instead of all these tax subsidies NO one would waste the money building this worthless infrastructure that will soon be sitting idle.
You are wrong on this one snake, we have a unlimited supply of crude oil. The old wells here in West Texas that were drilled and sucked dry 20 years ago are replenished with new oil. It's a renewable and the earth makes it by methane and pressure according to scientists. They found enough oil in Indiana to last this country 100 years, but it's deep. Don't believe everything some enviromentalist are telling ya pal.
I do wish to move to alternative sources for fuel. I'm sick and tired of the smog in our big city's and think some of this global warming is man made.
About 80 miles off of the coast of Louisiana lies a mostly submerged mountain, the top of which is known as Eugene Island. The portion underwater is an eerie-looking, sloping tower jutting up from the depths of the Gulf of Mexico, with deep fissures and perpendicular faults which spontaneously spew natural gas. A significant reservoir of crude oil was discovered nearby in the late '60s, and by 1970, a platform named Eugene 330 was busily producing about 15,000 barrels a day of high-quality crude oil.
By the late '80s, the platform's production had slipped to less than 4,000 barrels per day, and was considered pumped out. Done. Suddenly, in 1990, production soared back to 15,000 barrels a day, and the reserves which had been estimated at 60 million barrels in the '70s, were recalculated at 400 million barrels. Interestingly, the measured geological age of the new oil was quantifiably different than the oil pumped in the '70s.
Analysis of seismic recordings revealed the presence of a "deep fault" at the base of the Eugene Island reservoir which was gushing up a river of oil from some deeper and previously unknown source.
Similar results were seen at other Gulf of Mexico oil wells. Similar results were found in the Cook Inlet oil fields in Alaska. Similar results were found in oil fields in Uzbekistan. Similarly in the Middle East, where oil exploration and extraction have been underway for at least the last 20 years, known reserves have doubled. Currently there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 680 billion barrels of Middle East reserve oil.
Creating that much oil would take a big pile of dead dinosaurs and fermenting prehistoric plants. Could there be another source for crude oil?
An intriguing theory now permeating oil company research staffs suggests that crude oil may actually be a natural inorganic product, not a stepchild of unfathomable time and organic degradation. The theory suggests there may be huge, yet-to-be-discovered reserves of oil at depths that dwarf current world estimates.
The theory is simple: Crude oil forms as a natural inorganic process which occurs between the mantle and the crust, somewhere between 5 and 20 miles deep. The proposed mechanism is as follows:
Methane (CH4) is a common molecule found in quantity throughout our solar system - huge concentrations exist at great depth in the Earth.
At the mantle-crust interface, roughly 20,000 feet beneath the surface, rapidly rising streams of compressed methane-based gasses hit pockets of high temperature causing the condensation of heavier hydrocarbons. The product of this condensation is commonly known as crude oil.
Some compressed methane-based gasses migrate into pockets and reservoirs we extract as "natural gas."
In the geologically "cooler," more tectonically stable regions around the globe, the crude oil pools into reservoirs.
In the "hotter," more volcanic and tectonically active areas, the oil and natural gas continue to condense and eventually to oxidize, producing carbon dioxide and steam, which exits from active volcanoes.
Periodically, depending on variations of geology and Earth movement, oil seeps to the surface in quantity, creating the vast oil-sand deposits of Canada and Venezuela, or the continual seeps found beneath the Gulf of Mexico and Uzbekistan.
Periodically, depending on variations of geology, the vast, deep pools of oil break free and replenish existing known reserves of oil.
There are a number of observations across the oil-producing regions of the globe that support this theory, and the list of proponents begins with Mendelev (who created the periodic table of elements) and includes Dr.Thomas Gold (founding director of Cornell University Center for Radiophysics and Space Research) and Dr. J.F. Kenney of Gas Resources Corporations, Houston, Texas.
In his 1999 book, "The Deep Hot Biosphere," Dr. Gold presents compelling evidence for inorganic oil formation. He notes that geologic structures where oil is found all correspond to "deep earth" formations, not the haphazard depositions we find with sedimentary rock, associated fossils or even current surface life.
He also notes that oil extracted from varying depths from the same oil field have the same chemistry - oil chemistry does not vary as fossils vary with increasing depth. Also interesting is the fact that oil is found in huge quantities among geographic formations where assays of prehistoric life are not sufficient to produce the existing reservoirs of oil. Where then did it come from?
Another interesting fact is that every oil field throughout the world has outgassing helium. Helium is so often present in oil fields that helium detectors are used as oil-prospecting tools. Helium is an inert gas known to be a fundamental product of the radiological decay or uranium and thorium, identified in quantity at great depths below the surface of the earth, 200 and more miles below. It is not found in meaningful quantities in areas that are not producing methane, oil or natural gas. It is not a member of the dozen or so common elements associated with life. It is found throughout the solar system as a thoroughly inorganic product.
Even more intriguing is evidence that several oil reservoirs around the globe are refilling themselves, such as the Eugene Island reservoir - not from the sides, as would be expected from cocurrent organic reservoirs, but from the bottom up.
Dr. Gold strongly believes that oil is a "renewable, primordial soup continually manufactured by the Earth under ultrahot conditions and tremendous pressures. As this substance migrates toward the surface, it is attached by bacteria, making it appear to have an organic origin dating back to the dinosaurs."
Smaller oil companies and innovative teams are using this theory to justify deep oil drilling in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, among other locations, with some success. Dr. Kenney is on record predicting that parts of Siberia contain a deep reservoir of oil equal to or exceeding that already discovered in the Middle East.
I'm all for E-85 and bio-diesel, but the fact is that the oil tycoons around here are getting replenished and "big oil" has for years created a "fossil fuel" theory to rake us under the coals. :mad: As far as I'm concern I want these alternative technologies to get here ASAP !!!!
You are wrong on this one snake, we have a unlimited supply of crude oil.
Sorry but we do have a limited supply, it might be a large supply but it is limited.
The old wells here in West Texas that were drilled and sucked dry 20 years ago are replenished with new oil.
But its seeping in from some place else and eventually that some place else will go dry or lose enough pressure to stop the flow.
It's a renewable and the earth makes it by methane and pressure according to scientists.
That is true, but guess what? That takes time. It took millions of years to get what we had and we are using it up much faster that that. The earth cannot produce it as fast as we use it. Thats what makes it finite.
They found enough oil in Indiana to last this country 100 years, but it's deep.
Source?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Sorry but we do have a limited supply, it might be a large supply but it is limited.
How can you be so sure the supply is limited ?
But its seeping in from some place else and eventually that some place else will go dry or lose enough pressure to stop the flow.
It's not seeping, but rather being created IMO from what I've read and witnessed. I don't believe in the fossil fuel theory taught by the Quacks employed by Big Oil.
That is true, but guess what? That takes time. It took millions of years to get what we had and we are using it up much faster that that. The earth cannot produce it as fast as we use it. Thats what makes it finite.
Agree we can't use up more than we make without going to other sources if that theory is true. It takes 20-60 years for most wells to replenish.
Source?
Wished I could find that link pal. It was something I read by a geologist 3 or 4 years ago.
My cousin Eric is a PhD Geologist and he told me that oil was never made from dinosaurs or plants. I asked him truthfully. He said it's a theory to keep oil prices up and let the world believe we are running dry. He did however agree that global warming could be man-made from petroleum based fuel sources but that wasn't his area of expertise
Rocky
P.S. Oh well snake, we can disagree on this one also.
OK, stop stop you're both right. We technically can't prove we have UNLIMITED oil reserves, but what we know about and can prove seems to be "almost" unlimited if you believe this:
"The largest known oil shale deposits in the world are in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Estimates of the oil resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.5 to 1.8 trillion barrels.
Not all resources in place are recoverable. For potentially recoverable oil shale resources, we roughly derive an upper bound of 1.1 trillion barrels of oil and a lower bound of about 500 billion barrels. For policy planning purposes, it is enough to know that any amount in this range is very high.
For example, the midpoint in our estimate range, 800 billion barrels, is more than triple the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.
Present U.S. demand for petroleum products is about 20 million barrels per day. If oil shale could be used to meet a quarter of that demand, 800 billion barrels of recoverable resources would last for more than 400 years."
We keep advancing our ability to increase the power of ICE's, decrease their pollution and increase their MPG's.
And. . .
We actually "know" how to get at this oil shale stuff -- it is [probably] expensive based on the current state of our technology, but there is evidence that this technology can and will advance. See what Shell Oil thinks it can do, below.
Unlimited oil? -- well, perhaps for practical purposes we have unlimited oil for the "mid term" -- if you call 100 to 400 years mid term.
"Oil shale can be mined using one of two methods: underground mining using the room-and-pillar method or surface mining. The current state of the art in mining—both room-and-pillar and surface techniques, such as open pit mining—appears to be able to meet the requirements for the commercial development of oil shale." (2005)
"In-situ retorting entails heating oil shale in place, extracting the liquid from the ground, and transporting it to an upgrading or refining facility.
Because in-situ retorting does not involve mining or above ground spent shale disposal, it offers an alternative that does not permanently modify land surface topography and that may be significantly less damaging to the environment.
Shell Oil anticipates that, in contrast to the cost estimates for mining and surface retorting, the petroleum products produced by their thermally conductive in-situ method will be competitive at crude oil prices in the mid-$20s per barrel."
Our cars using this old internal burn technology can be and are being made better in all the right ways.
Should we abandon other sources of fuel -- no, hell no, in fact.
Should we rush down the Ethanol path -- well, if the word "rush" is omitted, I think I could say "sure, why not." But rushing down this path just keeps getting more and more absurd if what many posters here write has even a hint of verisimilitude.
Well first off there is a limited amount of space underground where it can hide. Secondly it takes a long time for the process to create crude oil. So unless there is a magical oil fairy running around turning water into oil there is a limited supply.
It's not seeping, but rather being created IMO from what I've read and witnessed.
From what I have read it is seeping in from deeper deposits, that is unless there is a magical oil fairy running around turning water into oil.
My cousin Eric is a PhD Geologist and he told me that oil was never made from dinosaurs or plants. I asked him truthfully. He said it's a theory to keep oil prices up and let the world believe we are running dry.
Yes and Elvis is still alive, we never went to the moon and the world is flat.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
WASHINGTON Jun 27, 2006 (AP)— Oil prices rose slightly on Tuesday as traders focused on shipping delays along the Gulf Coast and as Iran's supreme leader rejected the need for nuclear talks with the United States.
Also, rising demand from China Asia's largest consumer of fuels have lifted oil prices in recent weeks, with crude futures now trading about 19 percent higher than a year ago.
"The market seems to be extending some of the gains from last week," said Man Financial broker Andrew Lebow. "Gasoline has provided a lot of the leadership" for the oil-price increases.
Light sweet crude for August delivery rose 25 cents to $72.05 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, where gasoline futures were up nearly 2 cents at $2.197 a gallon.
With gasoline futures up roughly 20 cents over the past week, oil analyst Tom Kloza of the Wall, N.J.-based Oil Price Information Service believes pump prices are headed significantly higher over the next two months.
Brent crude futures on the ICE Futures exchange climbed 54 cents to $71.27 a barrel.
The U.S. Coast Guard said the Calcasieu Ship Channel remains closed but that limited tug and barge traffic has resumed through an intercoastal waterway. The channel has been off limits due to the spread of oil from a spill last week at the Citgo Petroleum Corp. facility in Lake Charles, La., and it could remain closed through the end of the week, depending on how the cleanup proceeds, according to Coast Guard petty officer Chad Saylor.
Saylor said eight ships carrying crude oil are waiting to enter the channel. As a result, four refineries in the Lake Charles area that account for 3 percent of the nation's refining have reduced runs, albeit in tiny amounts.
On Tuesday, Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Iran does "not need" talks with the United States over its nuclear program because nothing would be gained, state television reported.
Washington has warned Iran that it could face political and economic sanctions before the U.N. Security Council if it doesn't stop its nuclear activities, which the United States and its European allies say is an attempt to produce nuclear weapons. Tehran says the uranium will be used only for a peaceful energy program.
Inventory report shows gasoline demand rising at a slower pace Updated: 3:05 p.m. CT April 19, 2006 WASHINGTON - Oil prices leapt above $72 a barrel Wednesday, settling at a record high for the third straight day after a government report showed shrinking U.S. gasoline supplies and traders fretted about nuclear tensions between Iran and the international community.
Supply constraints in Iraq, Nigeria and the Gulf of Mexico are also pushing oil prices higher, and analysts are predicting more pain at the pump this summer for motorists, who so far appear to be only lightly tapping the brakes on demand.
Light sweet crude for May delivery climbed as high as $72.40 a barrel, before settling at $72.17 on the New York Mercantile Exchange, an increase of 82 cents from the previous day. The contract had risen as high as $71.60 on Tuesday.
Oil futures contracts through July 2009 are now trading above $70 a barrel. “In effect, the market is saying this is going to be with us for a while,” said A.G. Edwards & Sons commodity analyst Bill O’Grady.
In its weekly report, the U.S. Energy Department said the nation’s supply of gasoline shrank by a larger-than-expected 5.4 million barrels last week to 202.5 million barrels. It was the seventh straight weekly decline, leaving inventories 4.6 percent below year ago levels.
Gasoline inventories typically decrease this time of year as refiners shut down their plants to perform maintenance ahead of the summer driving season. And oil traders typically point to the decreases as reason for concern about summertime supplies, a routine that, more often than not, sends futures prices higher.
That said, there is additional worry about summer gasoline supplies because of the prospect of tight supplies of ethanol, which is needed in increasing amounts as refiners phase out their use of methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE, which has been found to contaminate drinking water.
Oil analyst John Kilduff of Fimat USA in New York said there would be a “painful runup” in gasoline prices as summer approaches, and he said oil prices could rise as high as $80 a barrel by the end of June. Purchased today, crude for June delivery costs $74 a barrel.
However, in a sign that consumers may be responding to higher prices, the Energy Department report also showed that average daily gasoline demand since the start of the year is up 0.9 percent, compared with an increase of 1.4 percent during the same period in 2005.
And the chief financial officer of Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world’s largest retailer, warned Wednesday that the company’s lower income customers were likely to curtail discretionary spending this year because of higher fuel costs.
Nymex gasoline futures rose 1.55 cent to settle at $2.2394 per gallon on Wednesday and they are more than 40 percent higher than a year ago.
The average retail price of gasoline nationwide is $2.80 a gallon, though stations are charging more than $3 a gallon in many parts of the country.
The biggest factor underpinning higher gasoline prices is the roughly 38 percent rise in crude oil costs over the past year. On an inflation-adjusted basis, oil prices would have to rise above $90 to exceed the all-time highs set a quarter century ago when supplies became tight in the aftermath of a revolution in Iran and a war between Iraq and Iran.
Analysts said the market psychology would likely remain bullish until there is either a significant dropoff in demand or resolution to a variety of geopolitical uncertainties, particularly the West’s nuclear dispute with Iran and output disruptions in Nigeria.
“The worries of Iran won’t go away any time soon, and in that sort of environment very few people are willing to be short on oil,” said Tobin Gorey, a commodities analyst with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia in Sydney.
Traders are anxious that U.S.-led efforts to stop Iran, OPEC’s second-largest member, from pursuing a suspected nuclear weapons program could lead to a disruption in Persian Gulf supplies.
Fanning the flames of a red-hot oil market, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday that record crude oil prices were still below their “real value,” though he stopped short of saying Iran would use its vast resource as a weapon. Oppenheimer & Co. oil analyst Fadel Gheit said he did not believe Iran was likely to cut off its oil supply to snub the West because it is the lifeling of the country’s economy.
In other Nymex trading, heating oil futures rose 1.15 cent to close at $2.0623 a gallon, while natural gas futures rose 15.2 cents to $8.16 per 1,000 cubic feet.
At London’s ICE Futures exchange, June Brent crude fell 9 cents to $72.42 a barrel.
Both Rich and Poor Countries Make Moves To Appease Citizens
By Paul Blustein and Craig Timberg Washington Post Staff Writers Monday, October 3, 2005; Page A01
Rising fuel prices are stoking popular anger around the world, throwing politicians on the defensive and forcing governments to resort to price freezes, tax cuts and other measures to soothe voter resentment.
The latest example came this weekend in Nigeria, where President Olusegun Obasanjo promised in a nationally televised Independence Day speech that the cost of gasoline would not increase further until the end of 2006, no matter what happened in global oil markets. He acted after furious demonstrations shut down whole sections of major cities around the country over the past several weeks.
Indonesians struggle for queue numbers to take cash from the government. This weekend the government said gas prices would nearly double. (By Yusuf Ahmad -- Reuters)
Oil and Gas Prices Stock prices, economic forecasts and consumer confidence show that ever-more-volatile oil prices have become a barometer by which consumers, investors, corporate executives and even voters gauge the future.
Antagonism over the strains inflicted by escalating energy costs is a phenomenon that stretches from rich nations in Western Europe, where filling up a minivan costs upward of $100, to poor countries in Asia and Africa, where rising oil prices have driven up the cost of bus rides and kerosene used for cooking.
Although prices vary widely around the globe, with many governments keeping fuel costs below market levels and others maintaining stiff taxes on petroleum products, the mood in many parts of the world can be summed up in the lamentations of Julia Seitsang, a mother of 10 who lives in Windhoek, the capital of the southern African country of Namibia.
"Gas prices are biting us so hard it stings," said Seitsang, a 46-year-old businesswoman, opening her wallet to show just a few Namibian coins as she stood on a busy street looking for someone to share a taxi. "I have to spend more and more for my husband to drive my children to school every day."
Adding that her children, who go to three different schools according to their grades and talents, might have to be moved to one school because of the family's gasoline bill, she said, "I swear we are living in the hands of Jesus with these gas prices."
The impact is particularly hard on people in nations like Namibia, where the average annual income is $5,000 and gas costs about $5 a gallon. They have watched helplessly as the prices of crude oil and petroleum products, which are set in global markets, have soared over the past two years, first because of the powerful demand generated in large part by China's rapidly growing economy and more recently because of the gasoline shortages generated by Hurricane Katrina. But in many wealthy countries as well, discontent among ordinary citizens is compelling politicians to respond.
In the European Union, there was a brief attempt by the 25 member governments to maintain a united front against consumer demands for tax cuts, rebates and other subsidies to offset rising fuel prices. Many of those governments depend on taxes that add as much as $5 to a gallon of gas.
But the unity cracked last month as Poland and Hungary approved fuel tax cuts and Belgium promised a rebate on home heating fuel taxes. In France, where a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline fetches up to $6.81 in Paris, thousands of farmers and truck drivers staged brief street demonstrations two weeks ago, and the government offered them a $36 million package of gas tax breaks and rebates.
In Canada, too, the government, facing an election next year, is scrambling to put together a package to present to the cabinet this week, including a new agency to monitor gas prices, help for low-income Canadians with their home heating bills, and new powers to investigate price-fixing complaints.
Canadians paid about $4.07 per gallon for gasoline shortly after Hurricane Katrina hit, reflecting the surge in petroleum prices for an industry closely tied to the giant U.S. market and taxes that are generally double those in the United States. Although the pump price subsided to an average of $3.50 a gallon last week, "there is a great deal of consumer frustration and outrage," said Cathy Hay, a senior associate at M.J. Ervin & Associates, an independent gas consulting firm in Calgary, Alberta. "It is hard for the average consumer to translate a refinery closed in Texas or Louisiana with how much they pay at a pump in Alberta."
In such countries, where stiff gas taxes help induce motorists to drive small, fuel-efficient cars, the griping by Americans about high gasoline prices evokes little sympathy. Ruth Bridger, a spokeswoman for the AA Motoring Trust, a British consumer advocacy group, said Britons look at the sport-utility vehicles that dominate U.S. highways and think, "Serves you right."
As I read this, there is at least a possibility that higher oil prices will foreshadow an oil glut.
Moreover, one of the things that all the stuff that seems to be copied from somewhere else suggests (at least sometimes) is that ethanol (to pick a source of fuel for our cars) prices will track overall prices for other energy sources.
When the price of A rises demand for B will increase and of course the price of B then rises in reaction. But as oil rises in price and shortages do not appear likely, well. . .while we're quoting:
"Cost information available from projects and design studies performed in the 1980s can be escalated to give a very rough estimate of the anticipated capital costs for mining and surface retorting plants. Using this approach, a first-of-a-kind commercial surface retorting complex (mine, retorting plant, upgrading plant, supporting utilities, and spent shale reclamation) is unlikely to be profitable unless real crude oil prices are at least $70 to $95 per barrel (2005 dollars)."
o Oil Shale Development in the United States (Rand 2005)
Prospects and Policy Issues -- Prepared for the National Energy Technology Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy
I still think, I'd make my next car diesel even with a glut of oil -- but that is more to appease my joy of acceleration and performance (and lower greenhouse gasses) than any nod to conservation.
"Steak -- somehow, nothing else satisfies as much" -- or words to that effect.
I am attempting to glean a point that in any meaningful way compels the reader to consider ethanol as anything other than a somewhat possible, but thus far improbable, solution to our "dwindling" (but not really) oil supplies.
What is really dwindling apparently is our willingness to pay "the going rate" for a gallon of gasoline (or, the generic "gas".)
So we scurry hither and yon, to and fro to come up with a solution to what technically isn't really even a quantity problem, per se.
No doubt there is an economic problem, looming -- but it isn't here yet in inflation adjusted terms, anyway. Substituting a fuel that is really not fungible with oil at this point seems to be a dead end approach.
But, like many technologies, it is possible that the negatives (economically especially) will be overcome.
We're still talking years before enough comes on line to do much in terms of actually meaningfully extending our supply of oil.
Besides, with estimates of oil, REAL oil, availability that we know about extending between 100 and 400 years, I strongly doubt folks will rush to a technology that is more expensive and gets fewer MPG's.
I cannot imagine going back to black and white, low def TV either.
But, as always, I am OFTEN wrong -- but never uncertain. :surprise:
If your mileage is not much different, then where is the other 30-40% of heat produced by burning gasoline going? Are three of eight cylinders misfiring? (two of six?) I'm just puzzled because energy must equal energy out.
Energy-content wise ethanol:gasoline has only 22:34 energy by mass and 20:29 by volume. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
"If the compression ratio is optimized for a higher octane rating, ethanol has approximately 80 percent or more of the energy density of gasoline." See www.nesea.org/greencarclub/factsheets_ethanol.pdf
The real trouble with E85 vehicles is that they are not tuned to run best on E85. So there must be a drop in mileage with the new E85 compatible verhicles.
The main reason E85 vehicles exist is the EPA gives manufacturers a fleet MPG credit based on E85 compatible vehicles sold. See www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/rulings/CAFE/alternativefuels/analysis.htm
Their summation is that E85 is sold on a national security basis and that petroleum consumption will go up as a result of pursuing E85 for a time.
Corn farmers have their own agenda: See www.carlist.com/autonews/iogen.html
I found a 1940's encyclopedia that listed Iraq and Iran as most favorable to Western ideas. Quite happy to be trading partners and fully committed to modernization.
I'd say that at best Brazil is a trading partner -today- and to expect that they will hold their energy needs above those of the US. Canada is within driving distance and so really cannot have any selfish intentions as long as the US is willing to push hard.
I found a 1940's encyclopedia that listed Iraq and Iran as most favorable to Western ideas. Quite happy to be trading partners and fully committed to modernization.
Back then, they were under the weight of British colonialism. Funny how times change...
In my view, energy diversification should be a national priority, because placing our fortunes in the hands of theocratic dictatorships in the Middle East is a high-risk venture. Even if it costs more money in short run, it's a worthwhile investment if reduced dependency is achievable. While I don't expect that we will stop using oil anytime soon, it's dangerous to be so wholly dependent on one specific type of fuel.
The oil I allude to is but ONE of the sources of oil that we, apparently, have at our disposal.
I'd like to learn more about that source, shale tends to be expensive to extract and refine.
I'm also concerned about the possible environmental impact.That being said, the oil genie seems to be out of the bottle, we're all hooked, the number of addicts is growing (look at the PRC and India for two new sources of junkies), and there seems to be no way to recork the bottle, so what to do? While I'd like us to be green, the demand for energy under even the best of circumstances seems to dwarf any effort in that regard.
So, I don't know what the answer is. Maybe I should just get a V-8, and not worry about it...
Let's start cooking in Colorado (among other things, of course.)
The ghost towns left behind by oil shale operators may still be on the minds of local residents. Not unlike the ethanol operations that went belly up in the Midwest & Brazil. All I can say is don't buy a home thinking you will be employed for a long time in either the shale oil or ethanol business. If the folks that are demonized on a regular basis decide to open up the spigot and sell oil at $30 per barrel again none of this will mean squat.
Several oil shale leases on Federal lands in Colorado and Utah were issued to private companies in the 1970s. Large-scale mine facilities were developed on the properties and experimental underground "modified in situ" retorting was carried out on one of the lease tracts. However, all work has ceased and the leases have been relinquished to the Federal Government. Unocal operated the last large-scale experimental mining and retorting facility in western United States from 1980 until its closure in 1991. Unocal produced 4.5 million barrels of oil from oil shale averaging 34 gallons of shale oil per ton of rock over the life of the project.
I'd like to learn more about that source, shale tends to be expensive to extract and refine.
I agree. I want to get behind an energy source that I don't have to be sorry I supported it 10 years from now. I always thought that Nuclear and Hydro power were the wonderful. Now people want to blow up the dam because we caused some fish or bird to go extinct. I'm not for jumping into biodiesel or ethanol on a devil may care level. I think using waste oil for those that it works for is great. I guess watering down gas in the Midwest with ethanol is fine. Heck I like the wind farms that are cropping up in CA and Hawaii. Discretion is needed with any major undertaking. I do not see it being used at all in this ethanol circus.
Here is but a bit from Rand to "get us all started" in our quest to learn more about ONE source of oil that, to read the report, has promise.
First, the who:
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions. . . .
Next, the what:
The U.S. Oil Shale Resource Base
The term oil shale generally refers to any sedimentary rock that contains solid bituminous materials that are released as petroleum-like liquids when the rock is heated. To obtain oil from oil shale, the shale must be heated and resultant liquid must be captured. This process is called retorting, and the vessel in which retorting takes place is known as a retort.
The largest known oil shale deposits in the world are in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Estimates of the oil resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.5 to 1.8 trillion barrels.
Then, the how:
Processes for producing shale oil generally fall into one of two groups: mining followed by surface retorting and in-situ retorting.
Mining and Surface Retorting.
Oil shale can be mined using one of two methods: underground mining using the room-and-pillar method or surface mining. The current state of the art in mining—both room-and-pillar and surface techniques, such as open pit mining—appears to be able to meet the requirements for the commercial development of oil shale.
Development of surface retorts that took place during the 1970s and 1980s produced mixed results. Technical viability has been demonstrated, but significant scale-up problems were encountered in building and designing commercial plants.
Since then, major technical advances have occurred but have not been applied to surface retorts. Incorporating such advances and developing a design base for full-scale operations necessitates process testing at large but still subcommercial scales.
Cost information available from projects and design studies performed in the 1980s can be escalated to give a very rough estimate of the anticipated capital costs for mining and surface retorting plants. Using this approach, a first-of-a-kind commercial surface retorting complex (mine, retorting plant, upgrading plant, supporting utilities, and spent shale reclamation) is unlikely to be profitable unless real crude oil prices are at least $70 to $95 per barrel (2005 dollars). Current prices are now ~ $72 (June 2006.)
In-Situ Retorting.
In-situ retorting entails heating oil shale in place, extracting the liquid from the ground, and transporting it to an upgrading or refining facility.
Because in-situ retorting does not involve mining or aboveground spent shale disposal, it offers an alternative that does not permanently modify land surface topography and that may be significantly less damaging to the environment.
Shell Oil Company has successfully conducted small-scale field tests of an insitu process based on slow underground heating via thermal conduction. Larger-scale operations are required to establish technical viability, especially with regard to avoiding adverse impacts on groundwater quality. Shell anticipates that, in contrast to the cost estimates for mining and surface retorting, the petroleum products produced by their thermally conductive in-situ method will be competitive at crude oil prices in the mid-$20s per barrel.
The company is still developing the process, however, and cost estimates could easily increase as more information is obtained and more detailed designs become available.
Then, the when:
Currently, no organization with the management, technical, and financial wherewithal to develop oil shale resources has announced its intent to build commercial-scale production facilities. A firm decision to commit funds to such a venture is at least six years away because that is the minimum length of time for scale-up and process confirmation work needed to obtain the technical and environmental data required for the design and permitting of a first-of-a-kind commercial operation. At least an additional six to eight years will be required to permit, design, construct, shake down, and confirm performance of that initial commercial operation. Consequently, at least 12 and possibly more years will elapse before oil shale development will reach the production growth phase.
Under high growth assumptions, an oil shale production level of 1 million barrels per day is probably more than 20 years in the future, and 3 million barrels per day is probably more than 30 years into the future.
Finally, the why:
If the development of oil shale resources results in a domestic industry capable of profitably producing a crude oil substitute, the United States would benefit from the economic profits and jobs created by that industry.
Additionally, oil shale production will likely benefit consumers by reducing world oil prices, and that price reduction will likely have some national security benefits for the United States.
A hypothetical shale oil production rate of 3 million barrels per day was assumed for the purpose of calculating consumer benefits.
Economic Profits.
If low-cost shale oil production methods can be achieved, direct economic profits in the $20 billion per year range are possible for an oil shale industry producing 3 million barrels per day. Through lease bonus payments, royalties on production, and corporate income taxes, roughly half of these profits will likely go to federal, state, and local governments and, thereby, broadly benefit the public.
Employment Benefits.
A manifestation of the economic benefits of shale oil production is an increase in employment in regions where shale oil production occurs or in regions that contain industries that provide inputs to the production process. A few hundred thousand jobs will likely be associated, directly and indirectly, with a 3 million barrel per day industry. The net effect on nationwide employment is uncertain, however, because increases in employment arising from shale oil production could be partially offset by reductions in employment in other parts of the country.
Reduced World Oil Prices.
Production of 3 million barrels of oil per day from oil shale in the United States would likely cause oil prices to fall by 3 to 5 percent, but considerable uncertainty surrounds any calculation on how large the effect might be, especially when trying to model the behavior of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and other major suppliers far into the future.
Assuming a 3 to 5 percent fall in world oil prices, the resulting benefits to consumers and business users in the United States would be roughly $15 billion to $20 billion per year.
The results appear to be positive, even if it would take that long.
The quest appears to be worthwhile.
Ethanol and many other alternatives to current oil production and refining, also should be invested in, despite my current pessimism regarding Ethanol's apparent lack of economic viability.
Are we not willing to get started in the manner suggested by Rand because it is not sexy or happenin' now?
The facts thus far seem to suggest that Ethanol ain't happening either right now. But, Ethanol is a feel good approach, apparently. Finding a new source of dirty old, old fashioned oil seems akin to a child finding out that hamburgers come from cows and that the cows are not willing donors.
Oil isn't guilt-free, like Ethanol is marketed to be.
What would happen if we "just said no" to oil.
I'll bet you already figured that out.
Adopting the state of the art in ICE and advancing the breed must continue -- the rewind button cannot be pushed, in fact there is no rewind button as far as I can tell.
Investing in earnest in alternatives also cannot be, must not be stopped, either.
We must do these things and more, for we apparently have no choice.
Yet, like Gore's conclusion in the Inconvenient Truth, it is not too late.
Never give up.
But there have been scarcely any convincing arguments that favor ethanol in the near (10 years) term.
I would vote to stop frittering so much money and energy on Ethanol and spend a like amount "encouraging" the approaches proffered in the Rand report.
One simple safe source is ANWR. It is good for a million barrels a day for at least 30 years. Like all these projects if approved it would be about 8 years before it went on line. Funny thing is the Canadians are on the Alaska border sucking oil out like a drunk sailor. Just a few miles from ANWR. Next it will be Castro producing oil 45 miles from Key West. Probably selling the excess to US.
I still think, I'd make my next car diesel even with a glut of oil -- but that is more to appease my joy of acceleration and performance (and lower greenhouse gasses) than any nod to conservation
Right now there are none, diesel autos may someday become double ir triple their current numbers ...maybe even a whole 1% of American registrations, but as of 2007, there will be none offered for sale, seems the Europeans can't. won't or are unable to bring a diesel to market to meet USA specifications. I guess the Europeans do not care how much they pollute European skys.
Read the Edmunds VW TDI forum and see just how troublesome mechanically inferior they still are. The Europeans tolerate them because that is all they have at a decent price, but outside of the failed VW nameplate here there is no representation of European autos below approximately $30,000 imported into the United States. Sure, some are some European gas models badged and owned by Ford, GM and DC. Quality, fit and finish and especially reliability of European autos is a distant third behind top nranked Japanese autos and then American cars.
Any hope for a diesel auto that is reliable is probably in the hands of the Japanese, I am sorry to say. Certainly not the dimwit American engineers.
Both Audi and Mercedes have announced plans to bring ULEV diesels to the US lineups -- predicated on the clean diesel that is currently glacially transitioning itself from the refineries to the pumps.
The press that seems to focus largely on European cars -- including some of the popular British TV shows -- seems to love many of the diesels put out by Audi, BMW and Mercedes. And, from this crowd, the love affair is about the weapons grade torque coupled with at least a 20% economy improvement coupled with a slightly lower cost per unit of measure for the fuel.
Here in Cincinnati, virtually every "filling station" I frequent (mostly name brand) has at least one diesel pump out of six -- some of the stations have two and six.
These are quickie marts and ice cream and grocery stops, not Interstate truckers hang outs. In my relatively small residential area there are three stations Marathon and two Mobile's -- they all have diesel today even though there are only a few Mercedes and VW's that ever need the stuff.
Audi's press release says "we're committed to bringing diesel to the US."
Ditto Mercedes.
This availability in no way is a forecaster of any meaningful percentage penetration in the US.
The pundits claim 30% would rid us of our need for Middle Eastern oil.
The crystal ball gazers say we should have 15% adoption of diesel in the next 10 years. It could be less, it could be more.
I would think even at 15% however, assuming that translates to a 50% reduction of Middle eastern oil, that would not be an abject failure of diesel in the market.
Nor would I call that an overwhelming success. Of course, compared to where we are now (0.26%) it would be darn near a miracle.
Oil will be the dominant fuel for our lifetimes and probably our children's lifetimes and, if you believe the Oil Execs, at least the rest of this century and possibly beyond.
The good news is, we actually have plenty of oil -- but as is oft said "at what cost?" :shades:
I hold out some hope for Ethanol -- but TODAY, it cannot survive outside of the subsidized womb our governement has decided to incubate it in. I am not pleased with this subsidy -- all I can do is vote with my dollars and at the polls, though (and blow off some steam here.)
Right now there are none, diesel autos may someday become double ir triple their current numbers ...maybe even a whole 1% of American registrations, but as of 2007, there will be none offered for sale
For someone that does not like misinformation, you sure spread a lot of it. There are diesel cars for sale NOW and will be more by the end of 2006. They will be available in CA and the wannabe states.
The Mercedes E 320 BLUETEC will be launched in fall 2006 in the U.S., as the first BLUETEC passenger car going into series production. Based on the powerful 320 CDI V6-engine the Mercedes engineers have created the world’s cleanest diesel engine to date. The crucial factor for this is the latest innovation in the E 320 BLUETEC, a highly efficient technology that significantly reduces nitrogen oxide emissions. The fall 2006 U.S. launch coincides with the rollout in the U.S. market of the low-sulfur diesel fuel that BLUETEC requires.
As I read this, there is at least a possibility that higher oil prices will foreshadow an oil glut.
Yes that is a possibility. Increasing prices does to things. First it increases the production of that good as producers can make more money and newcomers will join in the production lured by the higher prices. Secondly it decreases the amount used, as prices go up consumers use less by either economizing or finding alternates. Thus increased production and decreased usage brings a glut. That is unless the market of that good expands rapidly (such as people use 10% less but there are 15% more people using it).
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
When Iran was under the Shah it was very pro US. Carter pulled the rug out from under him and the Ayatollah Khomeini came in with his hatred for all things Western. So it went from a dictator that liked us to a dictator that hates anyone not of his faith.
Currently there are several automakers planning on bringing diesel into the US. MB, Audi, Honda and Hyundai are all rumored to be eyeing the US as a diesel market. There is a pent up demand for diesel in this country and with rising gas prices 20+% more mileage is a big selling point.
If lower priced diesels do make it to these shores you could see diesels making up at least 1% of new car sales by 2010 and closing in on European rates by 2020.
Finally you cannot point to problems that one diesel engine is having and make the claim that all diesel engines are like that. Just more misinformation on your part. Most diesel engine enjoy far better reliability than the gas counterparts.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman said on Friday he was concerned about this week's jump in ethanol prices which might be passed on to consumers at the pump, but he said lifting the U.S. duty on Brazilian ethanol imports won't increase supplies that much to help.
"This is something that we're concerned about ... when I see that kind of price for ethanol," Bodman told reporters in a telephone briefing. Ethanol has jumped to $5 a gallon in the spot market.
However, Bodman dismissed the suggestion that either Congress or the Bush administration, acting on its own, should lift the U.S. ethanol import duty to bring in more supplies that would lower prices.
"I don't believe it will materially affect supplies in the short term," he said. Bodman has said he does not believe there are enough votes or time left in Congress to pass legislation this year suspending the U.S. ethanol import duty.
Whew, that was close. The Ethanol charade is safe for a few more months
Comments
Wholesale ethanol prices fell almost 30% between the first four months of 2005, according to the Oil Price Information Service. Economists associate the decline in price with an oversupply of ethanol, which in turn is caused by rather low domestic consumption and increased ethanol production. Ethanol prices have tumbled from a 2005 high of nearly $0.44 per liter (rack) in January to $0.31 in early April. The lowest prices of ethanol were recorded at $0.28 - $0.29 per liter in high-volume markets like Des Moines, Iowa City, Sioux City, and Omaha during the week of April 4-8. An average gallon of vodka costs anywhere between 40 and 100 dollars. Thus a profit from any given bottle of vodka, considering that no extra costs are required, is almost as much as the vodka itself costs to the consumer.
Ethanol is used as a fuel, often mixed with gasoline, and in a wide variety of industrial processes. Ethanol is also used in antifreeze for its low melting point.Ethyl alcohol, also known as ethanol, or grain alcohol, is a flammable, colorless chemical compound found in alcoholic beverages. It is the active ingredient of alcoholic beverages. Its isolation as a relatively pure compound was probably first achieved by Persian alchemists, such as Geber (721-815) and Al-Razi (864-930), who developed the art of distillation. In common parlance, it is often referred to simply as alcohol. Its chemical formula is C2H5OH.
Wholesale ethanol prices fell almost 30% between the first four months of 2005, according to the Oil Price Information Service. Economists associate the decline in price with an oversupply of ethanol, which in turn is caused by rather low domestic consumption and increased ethanol production. Ethanol prices have tumbled from a 2005 high of nearly $0.44 per liter (rack) in January to $0.31 in early April. The lowest prices of ethanol were recorded at $0.28 - $0.29 per liter in high-volume markets like Des Moines, Iowa City, Sioux City, and Omaha during the week of April 4-8. An average gallon of vodka costs anywhere between 40 and 100 dollars. Thus a profit from any given bottle of vodka, considering that no extra costs are required, is almost as much as the vodka itself costs to the consumer.
Ethanol is used as a fuel, often mixed with gasoline, and in a wide variety of industrial processes. Ethanol is also used in antifreeze for its low melting point. In the 1950s some concept cars, such as the Cadillac Cyclone, were made to run both on ethanol and gasoline. Comparing the average gas prices of over $2 to the price of ethanol at $1.23, one might look back at the 1950s with envy. The oil crisis in the 1970s may have made much less of an impact on society if car manufacturers had taken advantage of running the automobiles on ethanol.
Natalie Gertsik -- 2005
In the 1950s some concept cars, such as the Cadillac Cyclone, were made to run both on ethanol and gasoline. Comparing the average gas prices of over $2 to the price of ethanol at $1.23, one might look back at the 1950s with envy. The oil crisis in the 1970s may have made much less of an impact on society if car manufacturers had taken advantage of running the automobiles on ethanol.
Natalie Gertsik -- 2005
I wonder how much we are spending on all the other things that seem to be riddled with issues?
We continue to make ICE engines more powerful, cleaner and more economical via the free market system. Apparently this is true, or at least it is certainly swatted around as if it were true.
We are spending a ton of money -- both public and private -- to develop ethanol with a mountain of information that suggests that it MAY help.
We may want to stop producing the by products that are created by the combustion of oil.
We say we do.
We would probably NOT be having this discussion NOW were we to have many many decades of for sure for sure oil at reasonable prices. Of course, if you believe John Stossel (?) in his book, we are actually NOT paying more for gas per gallon and our cars actually do get better MPG's (all the while polluting less.)
If the Rand report has any merit, is considered accurate, bla bla bla. . .why not pull out all the stops and put $87 billion (to pick a number) into developing the "proven" 800 or so trillion bbls of oil already here in the USA?
We're talking about trucking stuff here, using food for fuel and all sorts of stuff that would appear to have at BEST a weak chance of helping us.
10 years goes very quickly in the scheme of things -- can we, with investment, compress 30 years (as is stated in the Rand report) into 10 or 15 or 20? Is this possible, is it even remotely possible?
We can fritter away a lot of time on technologies that do not currently have a sound economic argument -- or we can invest in getting to the oil that has been demonstrated is already here.
Buying time, buying time -- that is what I am talking about.
Investments of ALL kinds are "justified."
But, what limits should we set?
Humans if "gifted" another "X" trillion bbl of oil would certainly or probably do what?
What if the gift was at least 200 trillion bbl? What if its possible upper limit was 1000 trillion bbl? What if we knew about a currently expensive but NOT impractical otherwise alternative to getting it?
Its only money, eh?
We are spending how many 100's of millions on ethanol research and development? Or is it billions?
I have read these apparently serious studies about how much money it would take to "cure" a serious disease or put a human on Mars or Neptune, bla bla bla.
Somewhere, somebody (other than the genius who forecasted the cost of Boston's Big Dig) must have an estimate of how many monies it would take to accelerate the extraction of the real deal from the US's "vast" petroleum reserves. Sooner rather than later.
Ethanol seems like a scam job of the greatest magnitude if 1/2 of what the posters here write -- why not at least consider putting a bit more of the dough into real oil based gas? Ethanol still seems like using $20 bills to heat your house in the winter -- because it "burns prettier" than old newspapers.
If the world is really concerned about running out of stuff, like oil, why not join forces to come up with some globally beneficial solution.
I'll hold my breath with you -- you start, I'll catch up, oh, in about 9 minutes!
Oh heck, perception is reality -- the perception is that ethanol is the real deal, apparently. Despite evidence to the contrary -- also apparently.
Optimists haven't figured out what to do with a gazillion dead batteries.
All of this caused by the "sudden" awareness that we might not have an unlimited supply of oil. I was born in 1951 and I have heard about every 10 years or so since I can remember, that we were "almost running out of oil" only to find that we -- poof as if by magic -- found another couple of decades of worth of oil based on what is the then current rate of consumption.
According to "the experts" we have enough oil for AT LEAST two generations (of humans) based on BOTH current and assumed consumption increases.
Of course, what has not been said, that I can find, is "at what cost?"
Apparently we have virtually unlimited funds to spend on the unknown but also apparently seem to be unwilling to spend aggressively on development of a resource that if it were to simply squirt up from the bowels of the earth, be quite happy to continue filling up our vehicles with -- oh, until hell freezes over, or so it seems. :confuse:
Or is it just a case of "we can't rewind, we've gone too far?"
Damn.
By Justin Gillis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 22, 2006; Page A01
IMPERIAL, Neb. -- Just outside this town in the middle of the great American prairie, 37 miles from the nearest traffic light, stands a huge pile of cornstalks and leaves. It looks like a 35-foot mountain of yard trash, yet black cables snake into the pile, attached to sensors that monitor its vital statistics by the minute.
If ambitious plans taking shape in Washington and in state capitals come to fruition, this pile of stalks and many more like it will become the oil wells of the 21st century. The idea is to run the nation's transportation system largely on alcohol produced from bulk plant material, weaning America from foreign oil and the risks that go with it, including wars, global warming and terrorism.
Weaning America from Oil With Corn
Ethanol made from corn kernels has replaced only about 3 percent of the nation's gasoline. Now, scientists are focusing on a new type of the gasoline additive, made from agricultural wastes and plant residues - a potentially vast supply of material known as biomass.
Oil and Gas Prices
Stock prices, economic forecasts and consumer confidence show that ever-more-volatile oil prices have become a barometer by which consumers, investors, corporate executives and even voters gauge the future.
Farmers have pushed for years to get more people using gasoline mixed with ethanol made from corn kernels, but so far such ethanol has replaced only about 3 percent of the nation's gasoline, and by most estimates, the country would never be able to grow enough corn to replace more than 10 or 12 percent of its fuel supply.
Now many scientists -- and eager Silicon Valley venture capitalists -- are focusing on a new type of ethanol made from agricultural wastes and other plant residues, a potentially vast supply of material known as biomass.
While ethanol made from cornstalks may sound a lot like ethanol made from corn, the technology required is markedly different. The technique was long considered too expensive to compete with gasoline produced from oil, but the cost is declining rapidly just as oil prices hit record highs.
Experts say that soon, those trends will open the possibility of a vast new industry in this country producing a homegrown fuel.
If the notion that a country the size of the United States could power its vehicle fleet on what amounts to moonshine seems crazy, consider this: Brazil is already well on its way to running a fleet on rum. After a 30-year campaign, Brazil has replaced 40 percent of its gasoline with alcohol produced from sugar cane. With new oil wells coming on line this year, the country is expected to declare independence from foreign oil producers.
The sugar-cane plan won't work in the United States -- only a few states have the right climate. But the country has vast supplies of wood chips, sawdust, wheat straw, waste paper and many other materials that could be turned into liquid fuels, and it has millions of acres that could be devoted to growing special energy crops like the switchgrass President Bush has mentioned repeatedly this year.
"If you think we're heading towards a future where oil prices are going to stay relatively high, $50-plus a barrel, then the energy cost delivered in plant biomass is much, much less than the energy cost delivered in oil," said Bruce E. Dale, head of the Biomass Conversion Research Laboratory at Michigan State University. "I'm completely convinced that this industry is going to happen on economic grounds alone. The demand for liquid fuels is so high and rising that we're going to convert an awful lot of stuff to liquid fuels."
Speculative investment capital and even money from some of the big oil companies is moving into the field. A handful of biomass-ethanol companies have built pilot plants, and some are scouting locations for bigger facilities. Politicians are trying to hurry the industry along, with Congress dangling potential loan guarantees to pioneer companies.
Yet fundamental questions about the biomass alternative have yet to be answered. The economics of making ethanol from biomass remain unproven on a commercial scale. Simply collecting all the necessary straw, cornstalks, wood chips and other waste would be a vast logistical problem, and growing energy crops would require big changes in U.S. agriculture.
Nobody is even sure how to store most types of biomass -- an elementary problem in producing a year-round fuel from a seasonal feedstock. That's the question the pile of cornstalks in Nebraska is meant to answer.
New Mexico Business Weekly - 11:05 AM MDT Monday
Carlyle/Riverstone Renewable Energy Infrastructure Fund I, L.P. will build a 105-million-gallon-a-year ethanol plant in Clovis, according to company officials.
The plant will be built on the property of the ConAgra Trade Group Peavey grain elevator. Construction will begin in October and building the plant will employ approximately 300 people. Once the plant opens in late 2007, it will employ 55 people directly and is expected to create 50 to 75 jobs related to indirect service. The plant will more than triple New Mexico's ethanol output.
ConAgra Trade Group, part of ConAgra Inc. (NYSE: CAG), is a minority partner in the venture, and will supply corn and energy for the plant and market the plant's products, including ethanol and distiller grains.
Riverstone Holdings LLC and the Carlyle Group are the co-general partners in the fund. Riverstone is a New York-based energy and power private equity firm managing $6.5 billion. The Carlyle Group is a global private equity firm with $35 billion under management.
New Mexico's only other ethanol plant is Abengoa in Portales, which produces 30 million gallons a year
FAIR OAKS, Ind. A northern Indiana dairy farm is going to be a partner in an ethanol plant powered by cow manure.
Fair Oaks Dairy and Bion Environmental Technologies of New York will start work on the plant sometime next year. Under the plant's design, waste from every thousand dairy cows would be able to provide enough energy to produce one (m) million gallons of ethanol.
Bion officials say it will create ethanol for 75 percent of the normal cost. The cost to operate the plant will vary based on how many farms join the project.
Fair Oaks is about 40 miles south of Gary.
Indiana now has one ethanol plant in South Bend, and eight other ethanol plants and three biofuel plants are under construction around the state.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press.
What might that be? According to the article it is an experiment to see if biomass is even feasible. You need to read what you are posting. It will give you a window into the boondoggle you are so sure is working.
Yet fundamental questions about the biomass alternative have yet to be answered. The economics of making ethanol from biomass remain unproven on a commercial scale. Simply collecting all the necessary straw, cornstalks, wood chips and other waste would be a vast logistical problem, and growing energy crops would require big changes in U.S. agriculture.
Nobody is even sure how to store most types of biomass -- an elementary problem in producing a year-round fuel from a seasonal feedstock. That's the question the pile of cornstalks in Nebraska is meant to answer.
Fuel marketers in Hawaii have already begun preparing for the transition, to ensure that properly-blended E-10 Unleaded gasoline will be available from your favorite service station.
Gasoline Prices
The net effect on Hawaii's consumers is projected to be good in the short term and even more important in the long term.
Federal and State incentives reduce the cost of ethanol in order encourage its use, reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuel, and develop renewable alternatives that can be produced in the U.S. and in Hawaii.
Several studies have concluded that ethanol produced in Hawaii can be competitive with imports, and cost-effective for blending with gasoline.
As I said before, there are three priorities to roll out Ethanol;
1. Replace MBTF with Ethanol to reduce harmful emissions
2. Bring E10 into the main gasoline stream for all autos
3. Provide E85 for FFV vehicles that are rolling out of our auto production plants as we speak, most autos will be newly FFV capable in 2-5 years.
Step 1 is already being implemented as mandated in most states, Step 2 is also mandated in some states as in Hawaii, others will bring it on line as it becomes available from the wholesalers. Step 3 will take the longest to implement the infrastructure that is necessary.
Join in America's promise and strength and try to dispel the many myths and falsehoods about renewable fuels. Ranting and railing against this conspiracy or that sounds a bit out-of-control, but it is your forum.
A worthwhile goal, but a tough one to achieve just so long as this thread continues to progress like a schoolyard religious debate (My Fuel God Can Beat Up Your Fuel God), rather than a sober discussion of possible scenarios for the future.
Just in case you thought that all of your tax dollars had gone to waste, I think that the EIA does pretty good work. This report from 2002 is pretty balanced: EIA. Have a look at the forecast for ethanol -- current production already exceeds the worst case scenario, while the best case scenario is pretty promising, but presupposes that other biomass is used and scale is achieved.
Again, the success of any of these alternative fuels is going to be dependent upon the ability to rapidly increase supply, which probably means developing new sources of biomass in order to make it work.
At this stage, the ability to make cars that run on biodiesel or ethanol is not a problem. Likewise, the ability to produce modest quantities of the fuel is not an issue.
The substantive issues are whether the supplies can be expanded enough to reduce oil imports, whether the prices of these products will be reasonable (whether by means of the free market, subsidies, taxes, etc.) and whether consumers will accept them. Whether some of our posters here are willing to address these remains to be seen.
Federal and State incentives reduce the cost of ethanol in order encourage its use, reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuel, and develop renewable alternatives that can be produced in the U.S. and in Hawaii.
. . . does nothing but make me shudder. Where are the "incentives" coming from if not from our tax dollars.
We're probably not getting the full benefit of every dollar "invested" either. Let's see what the market will do without the incentives.
I read that and I wonder if that is like the pusher who offers his addicting drugs at a low low introductory price and then when there is no way for you to stop, he says "the price just went up"
This argument, in spirit at least, seems approximately what is happening with ethanol.
These posts serve to add weight to the anti-ethanol argument, if you asked me -- and, yes, I know, you didn't ask. :surprise:
What next -- fluoride in the water?
Man, I am O - L - D.
The only trouble with that is that there is no way we would be able to collect all that biomass. Best estiments I have seen are 40% of that which means that at best we can reduce current oil consumption by no more than 20%. And remember that that is the best estiments, most likely we won't even get to that point. Plus it will take years to get there.
The more I read, the more I crunch the numbers ethanol doesn't make sense as a solution.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
How about eliminating this poorly concived mandate called for in the "make ADM rich" law simply because it does nothing but drive up the price of gas and put $$$ in ADM's coffers?
2. Bring E10 into the main gasoline stream for all autos
Since E10 reduces mileage and costs more and we can't make enough ethanol to supply all the E10 that is mandated by the "make ADM rich" law (in addition to things stated above) we should eliminate that il conceived mandate.
3. Provide E85 for FFV vehicles that are rolling out of our auto production plants as we speak, most autos will be newly FFV capable in 2-5 years.
Since it cost more to run a car on E85 and there is no way on earth we can supply E85 to all those cars anyway why don't we just abandon this unworkable pie in the sky junk and seek out a workable plan.
Join in America's promise and strength and try to dispel the many myths and falsehoods about renewable fuels.
I agree we need to dispell the myths and falsehoods that people like seniorjose are posting here. We need to make a stand for Americas promise and strength by demanding a program for domestic energy production (preferably renewable) that actually has some chance of working.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I do think that diesel and biodiesel are the best bet for a short term solution to stretch what we currently have. That is until something else comes along. What that something else is I am not sure, but I am hopeful that sometime in the not to distant future Grampa Munster will perfect that magic pill that turns water into gas.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Rocky
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Or even a worse case scenario. If we learned anything from Brazil and the last Ethanol boondoggle it should be the fact that Ethanol cannot compete with cheap oil. Everyone including our government predicted that $40 per barrel oil was with us for good. That was 1980 when the adjusted for inflation price was $89.48 per barrel in today's dollars. By 1986 it was at $14 a barrel and sugar was more valuable than ethanol. Thousands of cars in Brazil were built to run on E100. Guess what NO fuel available.
2006 rolls around and we are all ringing our hands over $70 per barrel oil. Still less than it was in 1980. The same thing is happening. We need to have an alternative NOW. So off we go with corn ethanol, that is at best marginal. It is not competitive with gasoline or even world ethanol prices. Think about the dollar per gallon tax subsidy and the 54 cent per gallon tariff on foriegn ethanol. Even at that we are buying 20 million gallons of Brazilian ethanol cheaper than we can grow and produce our own with mega tax incentives. I'm not a math genius but can tell you we are screwed up with this whole business.
Say we follow through with mr seniojose's plan for ALL gas to be E10. We currently use 140 billion gallons of gasoline so we need 14 billion gallons of ethanol to have E10 as the de-facto gas. Hmmmm OK currently we produce 4.4 billion gallons with a hope for 7.5 billion by 2012. We are still short by half to achieve the goal of E10. Now we are producing all these FFV that those folks gotta use E85 to be REAL Americans. Oooops, we are using it all for E10 sorry no E85 available.
Now the bad part starts. To achieve these heavenly goals for ethanol we have to import ethanol. Of course we already know that we cannot compete with Brazil that can make ethanol for 20% of what we make it for from corn. So we tell the American farmer too bad so sad we buy from Sugar cane countries in South & Central America. Where does that leave all those corn ethanol stills WE Americans paid to have built? You got it on the scrap heap. If it was left to free amrket instead of all these tax subsidies NO one would waste the money building this worthless infrastructure that will soon be sitting idle.
I do wish to move to alternative sources for fuel. I'm sick and tired of the smog in our big city's and think some of this global warming is man made.
Rocky
By the late '80s, the platform's production had slipped to less than 4,000 barrels per day, and was considered pumped out. Done. Suddenly, in 1990, production soared back to 15,000 barrels a day, and the reserves which had been estimated at 60 million barrels in the '70s, were recalculated at 400 million barrels. Interestingly, the measured geological age of the new oil was quantifiably different than the oil pumped in the '70s.
Analysis of seismic recordings revealed the presence of a "deep fault" at the base of the Eugene Island reservoir which was gushing up a river of oil from some deeper and previously unknown source.
Similar results were seen at other Gulf of Mexico oil wells. Similar results were found in the Cook Inlet oil fields in Alaska. Similar results were found in oil fields in Uzbekistan. Similarly in the Middle East, where oil exploration and extraction have been underway for at least the last 20 years, known reserves have doubled. Currently there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 680 billion barrels of Middle East reserve oil.
Creating that much oil would take a big pile of dead dinosaurs and fermenting prehistoric plants. Could there be another source for crude oil?
An intriguing theory now permeating oil company research staffs suggests that crude oil may actually be a natural inorganic product, not a stepchild of unfathomable time and organic degradation. The theory suggests there may be huge, yet-to-be-discovered reserves of oil at depths that dwarf current world estimates.
The theory is simple: Crude oil forms as a natural inorganic process which occurs between the mantle and the crust, somewhere between 5 and 20 miles deep. The proposed mechanism is as follows:
Methane (CH4) is a common molecule found in quantity throughout our solar system - huge concentrations exist at great depth in the Earth.
At the mantle-crust interface, roughly 20,000 feet beneath the surface, rapidly rising streams of compressed methane-based gasses hit pockets of high temperature causing the condensation of heavier hydrocarbons. The product of this condensation is commonly known as crude oil.
Some compressed methane-based gasses migrate into pockets and reservoirs we extract as "natural gas."
In the geologically "cooler," more tectonically stable regions around the globe, the crude oil pools into reservoirs.
In the "hotter," more volcanic and tectonically active areas, the oil and natural gas continue to condense and eventually to oxidize, producing carbon dioxide and steam, which exits from active volcanoes.
Periodically, depending on variations of geology and Earth movement, oil seeps to the surface in quantity, creating the vast oil-sand deposits of Canada and Venezuela, or the continual seeps found beneath the Gulf of Mexico and Uzbekistan.
Periodically, depending on variations of geology, the vast, deep pools of oil break free and replenish existing known reserves of oil.
There are a number of observations across the oil-producing regions of the globe that support this theory, and the list of proponents begins with Mendelev (who created the periodic table of elements) and includes Dr.Thomas Gold (founding director of Cornell University Center for Radiophysics and Space Research) and Dr. J.F. Kenney of Gas Resources Corporations, Houston, Texas.
In his 1999 book, "The Deep Hot Biosphere," Dr. Gold presents compelling evidence for inorganic oil formation. He notes that geologic structures where oil is found all correspond to "deep earth" formations, not the haphazard depositions we find with sedimentary rock, associated fossils or even current surface life.
He also notes that oil extracted from varying depths from the same oil field have the same chemistry - oil chemistry does not vary as fossils vary with increasing depth. Also interesting is the fact that oil is found in huge quantities among geographic formations where assays of prehistoric life are not sufficient to produce the existing reservoirs of oil. Where then did it come from?
Another interesting fact is that every oil field throughout the world has outgassing helium. Helium is so often present in oil fields that helium detectors are used as oil-prospecting tools. Helium is an inert gas known to be a fundamental product of the radiological decay or uranium and thorium, identified in quantity at great depths below the surface of the earth, 200 and more miles below. It is not found in meaningful quantities in areas that are not producing methane, oil or natural gas. It is not a member of the dozen or so common elements associated with life. It is found throughout the solar system as a thoroughly inorganic product.
Even more intriguing is evidence that several oil reservoirs around the globe are refilling themselves, such as the Eugene Island reservoir - not from the sides, as would be expected from cocurrent organic reservoirs, but from the bottom up.
Dr. Gold strongly believes that oil is a "renewable, primordial soup continually manufactured by the Earth under ultrahot conditions and tremendous pressures. As this substance migrates toward the surface, it is attached by bacteria, making it appear to have an organic origin dating back to the dinosaurs."
Smaller oil companies and innovative teams are using this theory to justify deep oil drilling in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, among other locations, with some success. Dr. Kenney is on record predicting that parts of Siberia contain a deep reservoir of oil equal to or exceeding that already discovered in the Middle East.
Rocky
"big oil" has for years created a "fossil fuel" theory to rake us under the coals. :mad: As far as I'm concern I want these alternative technologies to get here ASAP !!!!
Rocky
Sorry but we do have a limited supply, it might be a large supply but it is limited.
The old wells here in West Texas that were drilled and sucked dry 20 years ago are replenished with new oil.
But its seeping in from some place else and eventually that some place else will go dry or lose enough pressure to stop the flow.
It's a renewable and the earth makes it by methane and pressure according to scientists.
That is true, but guess what? That takes time. It took millions of years to get what we had and we are using it up much faster that that. The earth cannot produce it as fast as we use it. Thats what makes it finite.
They found enough oil in Indiana to last this country 100 years, but it's deep.
Source?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
How can you be so sure the supply is limited ?
But its seeping in from some place else and eventually that some place else will go dry or lose enough pressure to stop the flow.
It's not seeping, but rather being created IMO from what I've read and witnessed. I don't believe in the fossil fuel theory taught by the Quacks employed by Big Oil.
That is true, but guess what? That takes time. It took millions of years to get what we had and we are using it up much faster that that. The earth cannot produce it as fast as we use it. Thats what makes it finite.
Agree we can't use up more than we make without going to other sources if that theory is true. It takes 20-60 years for most wells to replenish.
Source?
Wished I could find that link pal. It was something I read by a geologist 3 or 4 years ago.
My cousin Eric is a PhD Geologist and he told me that oil was never made from dinosaurs or plants. I asked him truthfully. He said it's a theory to keep oil prices up and let the world believe we are running dry. He did however agree that global warming could be man-made from petroleum based fuel sources but that wasn't his area of expertise
Rocky
P.S. Oh well snake, we can disagree on this one also.
"The largest known oil shale deposits in the world are in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Estimates of the oil resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.5 to 1.8 trillion barrels.
Not all resources in place are recoverable. For potentially recoverable oil shale resources, we roughly derive an upper bound of 1.1 trillion barrels of oil and a lower bound of about 500 billion barrels. For policy planning purposes, it is enough to know that any amount in this range is very high.
For example, the midpoint in our estimate range, 800 billion barrels, is more than triple the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.
Present U.S. demand for petroleum products is about 20 million barrels per day. If oil shale could be used to meet a quarter of that demand, 800 billion barrels
of recoverable resources would last for more than 400 years."
We keep advancing our ability to increase the power of ICE's, decrease their pollution and increase their MPG's.
And. . .
We actually "know" how to get at this oil shale stuff -- it is [probably] expensive based on the current state of our technology, but there is evidence that this technology can and will advance. See what Shell Oil thinks it can do, below.
Unlimited oil? -- well, perhaps for practical purposes we have unlimited oil for the "mid term" -- if you call 100 to 400 years mid term.
"Oil shale can be mined using one of two methods:
underground mining using the room-and-pillar method or surface mining. The current state of the art in mining—both room-and-pillar and surface techniques, such as open pit mining—appears to be able to meet the requirements for the commercial development of oil shale." (2005)
"In-situ retorting entails heating oil shale in place, extracting the liquid from the ground, and transporting it to an upgrading or refining facility.
Because in-situ retorting does not involve mining or above ground spent shale disposal, it offers an alternative that does not permanently modify land surface topography
and that may be significantly less damaging to the environment.
Shell Oil anticipates that, in contrast to the cost estimates for mining and surface retorting, the petroleum products produced by their thermally conductive in-situ method will be competitive at crude oil prices in the mid-$20s per barrel."
Our cars using this old internal burn technology can be and are being made better in all the right ways.
Should we abandon other sources of fuel -- no, hell no, in fact.
Should we rush down the Ethanol path -- well, if the word "rush" is omitted, I think I could say "sure, why not." But rushing down this path just keeps getting more and more absurd if what many posters here write has even a hint of verisimilitude.
Rand Summary pdf - klik here
We are done arguing I think on this subject
Rocky
Well first off there is a limited amount of space underground where it can hide. Secondly it takes a long time for the process to create crude oil. So unless there is a magical oil fairy running around turning water into oil there is a limited supply.
It's not seeping, but rather being created IMO from what I've read and witnessed.
From what I have read it is seeping in from deeper deposits, that is unless there is a magical oil fairy running around turning water into oil.
My cousin Eric is a PhD Geologist and he told me that oil was never made from dinosaurs or plants. I asked him truthfully. He said it's a theory to keep oil prices up and let the world believe we are running dry.
Yes and Elvis is still alive, we never went to the moon and the world is flat.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
We might of never went to the moon though. :P
Rocky
Also, rising demand from China Asia's largest consumer of fuels have lifted oil prices in recent weeks, with crude futures now trading about 19 percent higher than a year ago.
"The market seems to be extending some of the gains from last week," said Man Financial broker Andrew Lebow. "Gasoline has provided a lot of the leadership" for the oil-price increases.
Light sweet crude for August delivery rose 25 cents to $72.05 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, where gasoline futures were up nearly 2 cents at $2.197 a gallon.
With gasoline futures up roughly 20 cents over the past week, oil analyst Tom Kloza of the Wall, N.J.-based Oil Price Information Service believes pump prices are headed significantly higher over the next two months.
Brent crude futures on the ICE Futures exchange climbed 54 cents to $71.27 a barrel.
The U.S. Coast Guard said the Calcasieu Ship Channel remains closed but that limited tug and barge traffic has resumed through an intercoastal waterway. The channel has been off limits due to the spread of oil from a spill last week at the Citgo Petroleum Corp. facility in Lake Charles, La., and it could remain closed through the end of the week, depending on how the cleanup proceeds, according to Coast Guard petty officer Chad Saylor.
Saylor said eight ships carrying crude oil are waiting to enter the channel. As a result, four refineries in the Lake Charles area that account for 3 percent of the nation's refining have reduced runs, albeit in tiny amounts.
On Tuesday, Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Iran does "not need" talks with the United States over its nuclear program because nothing would be gained, state television reported.
Washington has warned Iran that it could face political and economic sanctions before the U.N. Security Council if it doesn't stop its nuclear activities, which the United States and its European allies say is an attempt to produce nuclear weapons. Tehran says the uranium will be used only for a peaceful energy program.
Updated: 3:05 p.m. CT April 19, 2006
WASHINGTON - Oil prices leapt above $72 a barrel Wednesday, settling at a record high for the third straight day after a government report showed shrinking U.S. gasoline supplies and traders fretted about nuclear tensions between Iran and the international community.
Supply constraints in Iraq, Nigeria and the Gulf of Mexico are also pushing oil prices higher, and analysts are predicting more pain at the pump this summer for motorists, who so far appear to be only lightly tapping the brakes on demand.
Light sweet crude for May delivery climbed as high as $72.40 a barrel, before settling at $72.17 on the New York Mercantile Exchange, an increase of 82 cents from the previous day. The contract had risen as high as $71.60 on Tuesday.
Oil futures contracts through July 2009 are now trading above $70 a barrel. “In effect, the market is saying this is going to be with us for a while,” said A.G. Edwards & Sons commodity analyst Bill O’Grady.
In its weekly report, the U.S. Energy Department said the nation’s supply of gasoline shrank by a larger-than-expected 5.4 million barrels last week to 202.5 million barrels. It was the seventh straight weekly decline, leaving inventories 4.6 percent below year ago levels.
Gasoline inventories typically decrease this time of year as refiners shut down their plants to perform maintenance ahead of the summer driving season. And oil traders typically point to the decreases as reason for concern about summertime supplies, a routine that, more often than not, sends futures prices higher.
That said, there is additional worry about summer gasoline supplies because of the prospect of tight supplies of ethanol, which is needed in increasing amounts as refiners phase out their use of methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE, which has been found to contaminate drinking water.
Oil analyst John Kilduff of Fimat USA in New York said there would be a “painful runup” in gasoline prices as summer approaches, and he said oil prices could rise as high as $80 a barrel by the end of June. Purchased today, crude for June delivery costs $74 a barrel.
However, in a sign that consumers may be responding to higher prices, the Energy Department report also showed that average daily gasoline demand since the start of the year is up 0.9 percent, compared with an increase of 1.4 percent during the same period in 2005.
And the chief financial officer of Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world’s largest retailer, warned Wednesday that the company’s lower income customers were likely to curtail discretionary spending this year because of higher fuel costs.
Nymex gasoline futures rose 1.55 cent to settle at $2.2394 per gallon on Wednesday and they are more than 40 percent higher than a year ago.
The average retail price of gasoline nationwide is $2.80 a gallon, though stations are charging more than $3 a gallon in many parts of the country.
The biggest factor underpinning higher gasoline prices is the roughly 38 percent rise in crude oil costs over the past year. On an inflation-adjusted basis, oil prices would have to rise above $90 to exceed the all-time highs set a quarter century ago when supplies became tight in the aftermath of a revolution in Iran and a war between Iraq and Iran.
Analysts said the market psychology would likely remain bullish until there is either a significant dropoff in demand or resolution to a variety of geopolitical uncertainties, particularly the West’s nuclear dispute with Iran and output disruptions in Nigeria.
“The worries of Iran won’t go away any time soon, and in that sort of environment very few people are willing to be short on oil,” said Tobin Gorey, a commodities analyst with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia in Sydney.
Traders are anxious that U.S.-led efforts to stop Iran, OPEC’s second-largest member, from pursuing a suspected nuclear weapons program could lead to a disruption in Persian Gulf supplies.
Fanning the flames of a red-hot oil market, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday that record crude oil prices were still below their “real value,” though he stopped short of saying Iran would use its vast resource as a weapon.
Oppenheimer & Co. oil analyst Fadel Gheit said he did not believe Iran was likely to cut off its oil supply to snub the West because it is the lifeling of the country’s economy.
In other Nymex trading, heating oil futures rose 1.15 cent to close at $2.0623 a gallon, while natural gas futures rose 15.2 cents to $8.16 per 1,000 cubic feet.
At London’s ICE Futures exchange, June Brent crude fell 9 cents to $72.42 a barrel.
By Paul Blustein and Craig Timberg
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, October 3, 2005; Page A01
Rising fuel prices are stoking popular anger around the world, throwing politicians on the defensive and forcing governments to resort to price freezes, tax cuts and other measures to soothe voter resentment.
The latest example came this weekend in Nigeria, where President Olusegun Obasanjo promised in a nationally televised Independence Day speech that the cost of gasoline would not increase further until the end of 2006, no matter what happened in global oil markets. He acted after furious demonstrations shut down whole sections of major cities around the country over the past several weeks.
Indonesians struggle for queue numbers to take cash from the government. This weekend the government said gas prices would nearly double. (By Yusuf Ahmad -- Reuters)
Oil and Gas Prices
Stock prices, economic forecasts and consumer confidence show that ever-more-volatile oil prices have become a barometer by which consumers, investors, corporate executives and even voters gauge the future.
Antagonism over the strains inflicted by escalating energy costs is a phenomenon that stretches from rich nations in Western Europe, where filling up a minivan costs upward of $100, to poor countries in Asia and Africa, where rising oil prices have driven up the cost of bus rides and kerosene used for cooking.
Although prices vary widely around the globe, with many governments keeping fuel costs below market levels and others maintaining stiff taxes on petroleum products, the mood in many parts of the world can be summed up in the lamentations of Julia Seitsang, a mother of 10 who lives in Windhoek, the capital of the southern African country of Namibia.
"Gas prices are biting us so hard it stings," said Seitsang, a 46-year-old businesswoman, opening her wallet to show just a few Namibian coins as she stood on a busy street looking for someone to share a taxi. "I have to spend more and more for my husband to drive my children to school every day."
Adding that her children, who go to three different schools according to their grades and talents, might have to be moved to one school because of the family's gasoline bill, she said, "I swear we are living in the hands of Jesus with these gas prices."
The impact is particularly hard on people in nations like Namibia, where the average annual income is $5,000 and gas costs about $5 a gallon. They have watched helplessly as the prices of crude oil and petroleum products, which are set in global markets, have soared over the past two years, first because of the powerful demand generated in large part by China's rapidly growing economy and more recently because of the gasoline shortages generated by Hurricane Katrina. But in many wealthy countries as well, discontent among ordinary citizens is compelling politicians to respond.
In the European Union, there was a brief attempt by the 25 member governments to maintain a united front against consumer demands for tax cuts, rebates and other subsidies to offset rising fuel prices. Many of those governments depend on taxes that add as much as $5 to a gallon of gas.
But the unity cracked last month as Poland and Hungary approved fuel tax cuts and Belgium promised a rebate on home heating fuel taxes. In France, where a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline fetches up to $6.81 in Paris, thousands of farmers and truck drivers staged brief street demonstrations two weeks ago, and the government offered them a $36 million package of gas tax breaks and rebates.
In Canada, too, the government, facing an election next year, is scrambling to put together a package to present to the cabinet this week, including a new agency to monitor gas prices, help for low-income Canadians with their home heating bills, and new powers to investigate price-fixing complaints.
Canadians paid about $4.07 per gallon for gasoline shortly after Hurricane Katrina hit, reflecting the surge in petroleum prices for an industry closely tied to the giant U.S. market and taxes that are generally double those in the United States. Although the pump price subsided to an average of $3.50 a gallon last week, "there is a great deal of consumer frustration and outrage," said Cathy Hay, a senior associate at M.J. Ervin & Associates, an independent gas consulting firm in Calgary, Alberta. "It is hard for the average consumer to translate a refinery closed in Texas or Louisiana with how much they pay at a pump in Alberta."
In such countries, where stiff gas taxes help induce motorists to drive small, fuel-efficient cars, the griping by Americans about high gasoline prices evokes little sympathy. Ruth Bridger, a spokeswoman for the AA Motoring Trust, a British consumer advocacy group, said Britons look at the sport-utility vehicles that dominate U.S. highways and think, "Serves you right."
That is a COOL word of the day. Fits too...
Moreover, one of the things that all the stuff that seems to be copied from somewhere else suggests (at least sometimes) is that ethanol (to pick a source of fuel for our cars) prices will track overall prices for other energy sources.
When the price of A rises demand for B will increase and of course the price of B then rises in reaction. But as oil rises in price and shortages do not appear likely, well. . .while we're quoting:
"Cost information available from projects and design studies performed in the 1980s can be escalated to give a very rough estimate of the anticipated capital costs
for mining and surface retorting plants. Using this approach, a first-of-a-kind commercial surface retorting complex (mine, retorting plant, upgrading plant, supporting
utilities, and spent shale reclamation) is unlikely to be profitable unless real crude oil prices are at least $70 to $95 per barrel (2005 dollars)."
o Oil Shale Development in the United States (Rand 2005)
Prospects and Policy Issues -- Prepared for the National Energy Technology Laboratory of the
U.S. Department of Energy
I still think, I'd make my next car diesel even with a glut of oil -- but that is more to appease my joy of acceleration and performance (and lower greenhouse gasses) than any nod to conservation.
"Steak -- somehow, nothing else satisfies as much" -- or words to that effect.
I am attempting to glean a point that in any meaningful way compels the reader to consider ethanol as anything other than a somewhat possible, but thus far improbable, solution to our "dwindling" (but not really) oil supplies.
What is really dwindling apparently is our willingness to pay "the going rate" for a gallon of gasoline (or, the generic "gas".)
So we scurry hither and yon, to and fro to come up with a solution to what technically isn't really even a quantity problem, per se.
No doubt there is an economic problem, looming -- but it isn't here yet in inflation adjusted terms, anyway. Substituting a fuel that is really not fungible with oil at this point seems to be a dead end approach.
But, like many technologies, it is possible that the negatives (economically especially) will be overcome.
We're still talking years before enough comes on line to do much in terms of actually meaningfully extending our supply of oil.
Besides, with estimates of oil, REAL oil, availability that we know about extending between 100 and 400 years, I strongly doubt folks will rush to a technology that is more expensive and gets fewer MPG's.
I cannot imagine going back to black and white, low def TV either.
But, as always, I am OFTEN wrong -- but never uncertain. :surprise:
Energy-content wise ethanol:gasoline has only 22:34 energy by mass and 20:29 by volume. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
"If the compression ratio is optimized for a higher octane rating, ethanol has approximately 80 percent or more of the energy density of gasoline."
See www.nesea.org/greencarclub/factsheets_ethanol.pdf
The real trouble with E85 vehicles is that they are not tuned to run best on E85. So there must be a drop in mileage with the new E85 compatible verhicles.
The main reason E85 vehicles exist is the EPA gives manufacturers a fleet MPG credit based on E85 compatible vehicles sold. See www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/rulings/CAFE/alternativefuels/analysis.htm
Their summation is that E85 is sold on a national security basis and that petroleum consumption will go up as a result of pursuing E85 for a time.
Corn farmers have their own agenda: See www.carlist.com/autonews/iogen.html
Great. Let me guess -- you probably don't believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, either, do you?
(By the way, for future reference, the Magic Oil Fairy appreciates having her name capitalized. This is one fairy who you don't want to get upset...)
I'd say that at best Brazil is a trading partner -today- and to expect that they will hold their energy needs above those of the US. Canada is within driving distance and so really cannot have any selfish intentions as long as the US is willing to push hard.
Back then, they were under the weight of British colonialism. Funny how times change...
In my view, energy diversification should be a national priority, because placing our fortunes in the hands of theocratic dictatorships in the Middle East is a high-risk venture. Even if it costs more money in short run, it's a worthwhile investment if reduced dependency is achievable. While I don't expect that we will stop using oil anytime soon, it's dangerous to be so wholly dependent on one specific type of fuel.
I'd like to learn more about that source, shale tends to be expensive to extract and refine.
I'm also concerned about the possible environmental impact.That being said, the oil genie seems to be out of the bottle, we're all hooked, the number of addicts is growing (look at the PRC and India for two new sources of junkies), and there seems to be no way to recork the bottle, so what to do? While I'd like us to be green, the demand for energy under even the best of circumstances seems to dwarf any effort in that regard.
So, I don't know what the answer is. Maybe I should just get a V-8, and not worry about it...
The ghost towns left behind by oil shale operators may still be on the minds of local residents. Not unlike the ethanol operations that went belly up in the Midwest & Brazil. All I can say is don't buy a home thinking you will be employed for a long time in either the shale oil or ethanol business. If the folks that are demonized on a regular basis decide to open up the spigot and sell oil at $30 per barrel again none of this will mean squat.
Several oil shale leases on Federal lands in Colorado and Utah were issued to private companies in the 1970s. Large-scale mine facilities were developed on the properties and experimental underground "modified in situ" retorting was carried out on one of the lease tracts. However, all work has ceased and the leases have been relinquished to the Federal Government. Unocal operated the last large-scale experimental mining and retorting facility in western United States from 1980 until its closure in 1991. Unocal produced 4.5 million barrels of oil from oil shale averaging 34 gallons of shale oil per ton of rock over the life of the project.
http://emd.aapg.org/technical_areas/oil_shale.cfm
I agree. I want to get behind an energy source that I don't have to be sorry I supported it 10 years from now. I always thought that Nuclear and Hydro power were the wonderful. Now people want to blow up the dam because we caused some fish or bird to go extinct. I'm not for jumping into biodiesel or ethanol on a devil may care level. I think using waste oil for those that it works for is great. I guess watering down gas in the Midwest with ethanol is fine. Heck I like the wind farms that are cropping up in CA and Hawaii. Discretion is needed with any major undertaking. I do not see it being used at all in this ethanol circus.
First, the who:
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research
organization providing objective analysis and
effective solutions. . . .
Next, the what:
The U.S. Oil Shale Resource Base
The term oil shale generally refers to any sedimentary rock that contains solid bituminous materials that are released as petroleum-like liquids when the rock is heated.
To obtain oil from oil shale, the shale must be heated and resultant liquid must be captured. This process is called retorting, and the vessel in which retorting takes place
is known as a retort.
The largest known oil shale deposits in the world are in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Estimates of the oil resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.5 to 1.8 trillion barrels.
Then, the how:
Processes for producing shale oil generally fall into one of two groups: mining followed by surface retorting and in-situ retorting.
Mining and Surface Retorting.
Oil shale can be mined using one of two methods:
underground mining using the room-and-pillar method or surface mining. The current state of the art in mining—both room-and-pillar and surface techniques,
such as open pit mining—appears to be able to meet the requirements for the commercial development of oil shale.
Development of surface retorts that took place during the 1970s and 1980s produced mixed results. Technical viability has been demonstrated, but significant scale-up problems were encountered in building and designing commercial plants.
Since then, major technical advances have occurred but have not been applied to surface retorts. Incorporating such advances and developing a design base for full-scale
operations necessitates process testing at large but still subcommercial scales.
Cost information available from projects and design studies performed in the 1980s can be escalated to give a very rough estimate of the anticipated capital costs
for mining and surface retorting plants. Using this approach, a first-of-a-kind commercial surface retorting complex (mine, retorting plant, upgrading plant, supporting
utilities, and spent shale reclamation) is unlikely to be profitable unless real crude oil prices are at least $70 to $95 per barrel (2005 dollars). Current prices are now ~ $72 (June 2006.)
In-Situ Retorting.
In-situ retorting entails heating oil shale in place, extracting the liquid from the ground, and transporting it to an upgrading or refining facility.
Because in-situ retorting does not involve mining or aboveground spent shale disposal, it offers an alternative that does not permanently modify land surface topography
and that may be significantly less damaging to the environment.
Shell Oil Company has successfully conducted small-scale field tests of an insitu process based on slow underground heating via thermal conduction. Larger-scale operations are required to establish technical viability, especially with regard to avoiding adverse impacts on groundwater quality. Shell anticipates that, in contrast to the cost estimates for mining and surface retorting, the petroleum products produced by their thermally conductive in-situ method will be competitive at crude oil prices in the mid-$20s per barrel.
The company is still developing the process, however, and cost estimates could easily increase as more information is obtained and more detailed designs become available.
Then, the when:
Currently, no organization with the management,
technical, and financial wherewithal to develop oil shale resources has announced its intent to build commercial-scale production facilities. A firm decision to commit
funds to such a venture is at least six years away because that is the minimum length of time for scale-up and process confirmation work needed to obtain the technical
and environmental data required for the design and permitting of a first-of-a-kind commercial operation. At least an additional six to eight years will be required to
permit, design, construct, shake down, and confirm performance of that initial commercial operation. Consequently, at least 12 and possibly more years will elapse before oil shale development will reach the production growth phase.
Under high growth assumptions, an oil shale production level of 1 million barrels per day is probably more than 20 years in the future, and 3 million barrels per day is probably more than 30 years into the future.
Finally, the why:
If the development of oil shale resources results in a domestic industry capable of profitably producing a crude oil substitute, the United States would benefit from the
economic profits and jobs created by that industry.
Additionally, oil shale production will likely benefit consumers by reducing world oil prices, and that price reduction will likely have some national security benefits for the United States.
A hypothetical shale oil production rate of 3 million barrels per day was assumed for the purpose of calculating consumer benefits.
Economic Profits.
If low-cost shale oil production methods can be achieved,
direct economic profits in the $20 billion per year range are possible for an oil shale industry producing 3 million barrels per day. Through lease bonus payments, royalties
on production, and corporate income taxes, roughly half of these profits will likely go to federal, state, and local governments and, thereby, broadly benefit the
public.
Employment Benefits.
A manifestation of the economic benefits of shale oil
production is an increase in employment in regions where shale oil production occurs or in regions that contain industries that provide inputs to the production process. A few hundred thousand jobs will likely be associated, directly and indirectly, with a 3 million barrel per day industry. The net effect on nationwide employment is uncertain, however, because increases in employment arising from shale oil production could be partially offset by reductions in employment in other parts of the country.
Reduced World Oil Prices.
Production of 3 million barrels of oil per day from oil
shale in the United States would likely cause oil prices to fall by 3 to 5 percent, but considerable uncertainty surrounds any calculation on how large the effect might be,
especially when trying to model the behavior of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and other major suppliers far into the future.
Assuming a 3 to 5 percent fall in world oil prices, the resulting benefits to consumers and business users in the United States would be roughly $15 billion to $20 billion per year.
The 90 page Rand report
The results appear to be positive, even if it would take that long.
The quest appears to be worthwhile.
Ethanol and many other alternatives to current oil production and refining, also should be invested in, despite my current pessimism regarding Ethanol's apparent lack of economic viability.
Are we not willing to get started in the manner suggested by Rand because it is not sexy or happenin' now?
The facts thus far seem to suggest that Ethanol ain't happening either right now. But, Ethanol is a feel good approach, apparently. Finding a new source of dirty old, old fashioned oil seems akin to a child finding out that hamburgers come from cows and that the cows are not willing donors.
Oil isn't guilt-free, like Ethanol is marketed to be.
What would happen if we "just said no" to oil.
I'll bet you already figured that out.
Adopting the state of the art in ICE and advancing the breed must continue -- the rewind button cannot be pushed, in fact there is no rewind button as far as I can tell.
Investing in earnest in alternatives also cannot be, must not be stopped, either.
We must do these things and more, for we apparently have no choice.
Yet, like Gore's conclusion in the Inconvenient Truth, it is not too late.
Never give up.
But there have been scarcely any convincing arguments that favor ethanol in the near (10 years) term.
I would vote to stop frittering so much money and energy on Ethanol and spend a like amount "encouraging" the approaches proffered in the Rand report.
End of today's bloviation.
Right now there are none, diesel autos may someday become double ir triple their current numbers ...maybe even a whole 1% of American registrations, but as of 2007, there will be none offered for sale, seems the Europeans can't. won't or are unable to bring a diesel to market to meet USA specifications. I guess the Europeans do not care how much they pollute European skys.
Read the Edmunds VW TDI forum and see just how troublesome mechanically inferior they still are. The Europeans tolerate them because that is all they have at a decent price, but outside of the failed VW nameplate here there is no representation of European autos below approximately $30,000 imported into the United States. Sure, some are some European gas models badged and owned by Ford, GM and DC. Quality, fit and finish and especially reliability of European autos is a distant third behind top nranked Japanese autos and then American cars.
Any hope for a diesel auto that is reliable is probably in the hands of the Japanese, I am sorry to say. Certainly not the dimwit American engineers.
The press that seems to focus largely on European cars -- including some of the popular British TV shows -- seems to love many of the diesels put out by Audi, BMW and Mercedes. And, from this crowd, the love affair is about the weapons grade torque coupled with at least a 20% economy improvement coupled with a slightly lower cost per unit of measure for the fuel.
Here in Cincinnati, virtually every "filling station" I frequent (mostly name brand) has at least one diesel pump out of six -- some of the stations have two and six.
These are quickie marts and ice cream and grocery stops, not Interstate truckers hang outs. In my relatively small residential area there are three stations Marathon and two Mobile's -- they all have diesel today even though there are only a few Mercedes and VW's that ever need the stuff.
Audi's press release says "we're committed to bringing diesel to the US."
Ditto Mercedes.
This availability in no way is a forecaster of any meaningful percentage penetration in the US.
The pundits claim 30% would rid us of our need for Middle Eastern oil.
The crystal ball gazers say we should have 15% adoption of diesel in the next 10 years. It could be less, it could be more.
I would think even at 15% however, assuming that translates to a 50% reduction of Middle eastern oil, that would not be an abject failure of diesel in the market.
Nor would I call that an overwhelming success. Of course, compared to where we are now (0.26%) it would be darn near a miracle.
Oil will be the dominant fuel for our lifetimes and probably our children's lifetimes and, if you believe the Oil Execs, at least the rest of this century and possibly beyond.
The good news is, we actually have plenty of oil -- but as is oft said "at what cost?" :shades:
I hold out some hope for Ethanol -- but TODAY, it cannot survive outside of the subsidized womb our governement has decided to incubate it in. I am not pleased with this subsidy -- all I can do is vote with my dollars and at the polls, though (and blow off some steam here.)
For someone that does not like misinformation, you sure spread a lot of it. There are diesel cars for sale NOW and will be more by the end of 2006. They will be available in CA and the wannabe states.
The Mercedes E 320 BLUETEC will be launched in fall 2006 in the U.S., as the first BLUETEC passenger car going into series production. Based on the powerful 320 CDI V6-engine the Mercedes engineers have created the world’s cleanest diesel engine to date. The crucial factor for this is the latest innovation in the E 320 BLUETEC, a highly efficient technology that significantly reduces nitrogen oxide emissions. The fall 2006 U.S. launch coincides with the rollout in the U.S. market of the low-sulfur diesel fuel that BLUETEC requires.
Yes that is a possibility. Increasing prices does to things. First it increases the production of that good as producers can make more money and newcomers will join in the production lured by the higher prices. Secondly it decreases the amount used, as prices go up consumers use less by either economizing or finding alternates. Thus increased production and decreased usage brings a glut. That is unless the market of that good expands rapidly (such as people use 10% less but there are 15% more people using it).
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Chico: Hey whatsa this, "if any part of any party of this contract is found not to be of sound mind the contract is void"?
Groucho: Why, why thats the sanity clause, its in every contract.
Chico: Ah, you can't fool me there is no sanity clause.
or the Easter Bunny, either, do you?
Well something with long ears and a fluffy tail has been eating our rose bushes and what they are leaving ain't no eggs.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Yep and one of those countries (can't remember which one) was very pro Germany then.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
If lower priced diesels do make it to these shores you could see diesels making up at least 1% of new car sales by 2010 and closing in on European rates by 2020.
Finally you cannot point to problems that one diesel engine is having and make the claim that all diesel engines are like that. Just more misinformation on your part. Most diesel engine enjoy far better reliability than the gas counterparts.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman said on Friday he was concerned about this week's jump in ethanol prices which might be passed on to consumers at the pump, but he said lifting the U.S. duty on Brazilian ethanol imports won't increase supplies that much to help.
"This is something that we're concerned about ... when I see that kind of price for ethanol," Bodman told reporters in a telephone briefing. Ethanol has jumped to $5 a gallon in the spot market.
However, Bodman dismissed the suggestion that either Congress or the Bush administration, acting on its own, should lift the U.S. ethanol import duty to bring in more supplies that would lower prices.
"I don't believe it will materially affect supplies in the short term," he said. Bodman has said he does not believe there are enough votes or time left in Congress to pass legislation this year suspending the U.S. ethanol import duty.
Whew, that was close. The Ethanol charade is safe for a few more months