Because corn production is such an energy-intensive enterprise, as petroleum prices increase corn production cost will rise in step. The ONLY way corn-based fuel works (economically) is if it is subsidized.
It does not reduce net petroleum consumption, although some will argue that it does. I guess it depends on the priorities of the people doing the calculations. :confuse:
I refer doubters to the link posted earlier... or do a web search on your own. Corn as just so much pie-in-the-sky. But then, so is hydrogen. Algae-based bio-diesel does seem to hold some promise.
Ethanol is not the only alternative fuel. Butanol, another alcohol, could be used also. Take a look at www.butanol.com. If David Raimey is right, butanol can do everything that ethanol can do without the drawbacks. Can use the same feed- stock. Can be stored and pumped through existing infrastruc- ture (which ethanol cannot). No modification to engine required either. Where are the Venture Capitalists when you need them?
They also interview time travellers or people that knew time travellers. Maybe they need to ask one of these guys how this whole ethanol solution will pan out?
There's a lot of posts on how ethanol can't compete withouth government subsidies. What is it about subsidies that we find so appealing? This money has got to come from somewhere, i.e. higher overall taxes. I'm not an economist but it seems that a far more efficient and effective approach would be to tax the competition, in this case gasoline and use this revenue to reduce other taxes. The net result is the same but I think the path from pt. A to pt. B ends up being a lot straighter. And for the people that adamently oppose higher gas taxes then at least eliminate government subsidies of the oil industry and let the price of gas more closely reflect free market conditions. Seems kind of stupid to have competing subsidies. BTW, I consider the billions we spend maintaining stability in the Middle East to be a government subsidy.
The point is that by subsidizing ethanol and the oil industry we end up with artificially low prices for both fuels. I don't hear anyone stating that producing and burning ethanol is good for the environment. At best its just less harmful than burning gasoline. So why have any policies in place that encourage the use of fuel?
.....what vehicles use for fuel? Those that consumers get the fuel from will make sure the fuel you need will take a big bite out of your income, regardless of what it is. If cars start running on nothing but garbage it'll still cost you $50 for a fill-up. So why not just go with what's most abundant and is the easiest on the environment? Whatever it ends up being, it needs to be something we can provide ourselves (as in the U.S.) so we no longer have to rely on countries that want to kill us for our energy needs.
I disagree with your view on costs. With the exceptions of nuclear and tidal all other energy sources originate with the sun. As far as I know nobody has figured out a way to charge us for the sun's rays. There are considerable, initial costs involved with the conversion and storage devices required but these are steadily coming down and are not subject to the whims of unfriendly regimes.
There are considerable, initial costs involved with the conversion and storage devices required
This is true of all large-scale alternative energy sources, not just in dollar cost, but in energy input as well. That is why we (the people of this planet) should be working like mad to develop alternative sources NOW, while energy is relatively inexpensive.
If we wait until the petroleum supply and demand curves cross, we will have more motivation, but oh, the price we will pay! :surprise:
Your point of view is a bit "wet behind the ears." Energy entities control the world economy and even if vehicles were develpoed that ran on nothing but air, they would find a way to charge for the air you use. Many devices have been developed that would allow your current vehicle to get 60-80 MPG, but none of them have been allowed to hit the market because if everyone had one, it would drive the price of gas way down. They will not allow anything to stand in their way of world dominance!
Many devices have been developed that would allow your current vehicle to get 60-80 MPG, but none of them have been allowed to hit the market because if everyone had one, it would drive the price of gas way down.
Yes and we never went to the moon, Elvis is alive, the world is flat and little green men are living in the desert in Arizona.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
"Many devices have been developed that would allow your current vehicle to get 60-80 MPG, but none of them have been allowed to hit the market because if everyone had one, it would drive the price of gas way down."
Let me guess, the famous 80 MPG carburetor from the mid 1970'S, right? Probably snapped up by area 51... :surprise:
My great uncle made a part for the carburetor that improved something to it ? He invented alot of things we use today. I wonder if he had anything to do with the carburetor getting 80 mpg. :surprise: He did get a big payday for whatever he invented for Chrysler.
I'll ask my Grandmother about it next time we talk. :shades:
that the only problem with the one gallon of cold fusion idea is no one has a gallon. It is like asking someone about a car part that you bought somewhere else. They will tell you they would have sold it to you cheeper, except they don't have one to sell.
While it's not that bad, I think people with interest in gasoline producing do try to protect their interest. Think about it, fuel export is the main source of income of a number of countries + put some people into the list of the richest men on earth. If you are one of those people, ....
I remember about 10 years ago, I read an newspaper article about a scientist claimed to have invented an engine that run on water instead of gasoline, and he was ran over by a car soon after making that claim. At that time, I thought that he's probably a mad dude or someone like that. Well, and now, there's fuel cell.
Actually it was quite a bit more than 10 years ago. And it wasn't a scientist, it was Grandpa Munster. And finally, he didn't invent a car that ran on water. His invention was a pill that turned water into gasoline. The fact that this invention never made it to market is a clear sign of the oil industry being able to protect its interests.
Actually, there have been a few claims of engines developed that would run on water....(actually the Hydrogen and Oxygen "H2O" are both volatile gases, and could be utilized as fuels, the problem is separating them in the vehicle)
I can tell you are a skeptic...and rightfully so....but a lot of the claims made in this thread, not sure about the 80 MPG Carb, but are in some manner reality. (believe it or not)
In fact, if someone wants to spend the time (I don't), it was common practice in the 70's for a lot of the auto manufacturers (especially GM) to BUY ($$$) patents from inventors, and them lock them away. The inventors got a nice payday with the anticipation of getting there invention used by a major company, only to have it never come to fruition.
Engine technology has evolved, and I would have to believe a lot of these inventions may no longer have an application, but there are probably a lot of them out there. With GM's current state, I also would have to believe a lot of the patents may have expired! So, if you are adventurous, you might find one you can use today. Get some investors, and your in business! Unfortunately, you looking for the "needle in the haystack".
Actually I never believed in "gas mileage conspiracies" because any car company that could market an 80 mpg car would CRUSH the competition and rule the automotive world---and since capitalism is of course kind of greed/equity driven, I don't see why any car company wouldn't pounce on this. No oil company could afford the bribe necessary to keep Toyota from marketing the 80 mpg car--the profits are too vast to even contemplate.
And you know Americans---if gas were half the price, we'd all drive twice as far. Oil companies wouldn't suffer at all.
I think it's the artifically low price of gasoline that keeps advanced technologies from developing; for instance, the total environmental and health costs of burning gasoline are not factored into the price per gallon, nor taxed accordingly, and even the cost of protecting the foreign oil fields (the cost of maintaining the Middle East fleet for instance) are not factored in. Basically I think the taxpayer bears these costs indirectly for the oil companies. So alternative technologies have potential impacts way beyond what we may think/see at the moment. What the oil companies fear I think is not the 80 mpg car but a car that doesn't use oil at all--because then all their subsidies become unnecessary.
That "artificially low" price isn't so low anymore and my fear is it's only going to get worse. This year I think we will find out just how high of a price our economy can support.
I fear it's going up for the wrong reasons...if it went up and taxpayers got relief, a better world or better health because of it, seems like that would be palatable---but to pay higher prices and get nothing for it, that rankles.
Many better things to use than corn. Any biomash is good. Of course there are ways to use less energy than it takes to produce, it wouldn't be a solution if there wasn't.
Bodman is right in saying electric and hydrogen power is the way of the future, but how long are we going to keep saying this but not acting to make it become a reality? We should be pushing for alternative energy sources NOW because if we don't, we're headed for disaster. Must we wait until the price of gas is so high that the entire world economy ends up in the crapper before we ween ourselves off crude oil?
I agree. GM for instances has invested "In my eyes" alot of dough into alternative fuels. They even did a joint venture with a gas station in Minnesota. I would expect to see even more projects from them. Look at all the fuels that the new Saab engines run on. This Technology might save the Saab brand and have many "green" buyers. I've posted several things on Edmunds since it's a major concern of mine. If you can get the throw away "grease" let's say from McDonalds, you can buy a "kit" to make diesel fuel for as little as $0.08 cents a gallon.
Cool....It was featured on TLC or one of the other discovery channels. I agree this kind of thinking needs to become a priority in this country. average americans can't afford $3.50+ gas. If gas keeps on going up, I'm going to have to start cutting activity's I do with my family and friends such as Golfing, or driving out of town for the day to go to the Mall, or out to dinner. If I want to drive to my nearest metro area (Amarillo) it's about 65 miles away to the heart of the city. :sick:
Sure they can. The rest of the world pays more than this. If the average American can afford to drive a 15 mpg truck when gas cost $1.50 then they can just as easily afford to drive a 30 mpg Camry with $3.00 gas. On top of that I think that most of us could easily drive 10% fewer miles simply by being more efficient in how we plan our trips. All this talk of how high gas prices will cripple our economy is for the most part exaggerated. And even if its true unfortunately we are a country that only reacts to crises. If gas dropped back below $1.50 a gallon this current interest in weening ourselves from oil dependancy would quickly disappear. The small percentage of people that still cared about this issue would once again be labelled as a bunch of "tree huggers" that were outside the mainstream.
Much of the EU gas is $5 plus and the people are taxed at 50% of their income. I imagine the Average European does not make as much as the Average American. Maybe that is the reason they drive a lot of small diesel cars that get 50 MPG. We are spoiled and may have to lower our standards as we bring the third world up to our level.
Anyone familiar with this new type of hybrid? This looks promising http://www.scuderigroup.com/ It uses compressed air to store energy instead of more expensive batteries.
I agree that Americans have become spoiled when it comes to relatively cheap oil and our usage reflects this. Low priced gas is viewed by many as a birthright. I don't know how we developed this mindset but it will eventually become apparent to everyone that we need to re-think this.
However I don't agree that this realization should represent us lowering our standard of living. Alternative/renewable energy could be a huge industry that generates a lot of high paying jobs. This type of energy will eventually be cheaper than what we are currently using, which will increase what we have to spend on other things. Plus we'll enjoy the economic benefits of a much smaller trade deficit. All this and a cleaner environment as an added bonus. High priced gasoline is probably the most effective way to expedite this process so I say, "bring it on".
Comments
It does not reduce net petroleum consumption, although some will argue that it does. I guess it depends on the priorities of the people doing the calculations. :confuse:
I refer doubters to the link posted earlier... or do a web search on your own. Corn as just so much pie-in-the-sky. But then, so is hydrogen. Algae-based bio-diesel does seem to hold some promise.
james
james
"coast to coast" with George Noory and Art Bell. They talk about subjects such as this one
Rocky
There's a lot of posts on how ethanol can't compete withouth government subsidies. What is it about subsidies that we find so appealing? This money has got to come from somewhere, i.e. higher overall taxes. I'm not an economist but it seems that a far more efficient and effective approach would be to tax the competition, in this case gasoline and use this revenue to reduce other taxes. The net result is the same but I think the path from pt. A to pt. B ends up being a lot straighter. And for the people that adamently oppose higher gas taxes then at least eliminate government subsidies of the oil industry and let the price of gas more closely reflect free market conditions. Seems kind of stupid to have competing subsidies. BTW, I consider the billions we spend maintaining stability in the Middle East to be a government subsidy.
The point is that by subsidizing ethanol and the oil industry we end up with artificially low prices for both fuels. I don't hear anyone stating that producing and burning ethanol is good for the environment. At best its just less harmful than burning gasoline. So why have any policies in place that encourage the use of fuel?
Rocky
This is true of all large-scale alternative energy sources, not just in dollar cost, but in energy input as well. That is why we (the people of this planet) should be working like mad to develop alternative sources NOW, while energy is relatively inexpensive.
If we wait until the petroleum supply and demand curves cross, we will have more motivation, but oh, the price we will pay! :surprise:
james
Rocky
Yes and we never went to the moon, Elvis is alive, the world is flat and little green men are living in the desert in Arizona.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Let me guess, the famous 80 MPG carburetor from the mid 1970'S, right? Probably snapped up by area 51... :surprise:
Incorrect, Area 51 (home of the little green men) is in Nevada. Or maybe somewhere near Roswell, NM. But in either case not Arizona... :P
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Rocky-:shades:
"roughly" as 80 gallons of Gasoline.
Rocky
I'll ask my Grandmother about it next time we talk. :shades:
Rocky
I remember about 10 years ago, I read an newspaper article about a scientist claimed to have invented an engine that run on water instead of gasoline, and he was ran over by a car soon after making that claim. At that time, I thought that he's probably a mad dude or someone like that. Well, and now, there's fuel cell.
I can tell you are a skeptic...and rightfully so....but a lot of the claims made in this thread, not sure about the 80 MPG Carb, but are in some manner reality. (believe it or not)
In fact, if someone wants to spend the time (I don't), it was common practice in the 70's for a lot of the auto manufacturers (especially GM) to BUY ($$$) patents from inventors, and them lock them away. The inventors got a nice payday with the anticipation of getting there invention used by a major company, only to have it never come to fruition.
Engine technology has evolved, and I would have to believe a lot of these inventions may no longer have an application, but there are probably a lot of them out there. With GM's current state, I also would have to believe a lot of the patents may have expired! So, if you are adventurous, you might find one you can use today. Get some investors, and your in business! Unfortunately, you looking for the "needle in the haystack".
And you know Americans---if gas were half the price, we'd all drive twice as far. Oil companies wouldn't suffer at all.
Rocky
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060407/AUTO01/604070377/- 1148
Rocky
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060407/AUTO01/604070383/- - 1148
Who needs Ethanol :P
Rocky
P.S. Looks like Doctor Emmitt Brown's invention of Mr. Fusion is right around the corner.
Just imagine if every major US city converted their sewage treatment facilities into thermal depolymerization stations.
New York could charge people for sewage treatment... and then sell the oil from it. Getting paid twice for the same service.
Besides, I think that the sewage waste of a few million people would result in quite a lot of oil being available for sale.
:P
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky
Sure they can. The rest of the world pays more than this. If the average American can afford to drive a 15 mpg truck when gas cost $1.50 then they can just as easily afford to drive a 30 mpg Camry with $3.00 gas. On top of that I think that most of us could easily drive 10% fewer miles simply by being more efficient in how we plan our trips. All this talk of how high gas prices will cripple our economy is for the most part exaggerated. And even if its true unfortunately we are a country that only reacts to crises. If gas dropped back below $1.50 a gallon this current interest in weening ourselves from oil dependancy would quickly disappear. The small percentage of people that still cared about this issue would once again be labelled as a bunch of "tree huggers" that were outside the mainstream.
Much of the EU gas is $5 plus and the people are taxed at 50% of their income. I imagine the Average European does not make as much as the Average American. Maybe that is the reason they drive a lot of small diesel cars that get 50 MPG. We are spoiled and may have to lower our standards as we bring the third world up to our level.
It uses compressed air to store energy instead of more expensive batteries.
Sounds promising.
Of course, the link is from the proponent of the technology. It would be interesting to hear what third parties have to say.
However I don't agree that this realization should represent us lowering our standard of living. Alternative/renewable energy could be a huge industry that generates a lot of high paying jobs. This type of energy will eventually be cheaper than what we are currently using, which will increase what we have to spend on other things. Plus we'll enjoy the economic benefits of a much smaller trade deficit. All this and a cleaner environment as an added bonus. High priced gasoline is probably the most effective way to expedite this process so I say, "bring it on".
Rocky
Rocky