Author Topic: When the fuel is gone (Read 2008 times)

DropW · « **Reply #15 on:** September 01, 2005, 05:17:59 PM »

Hey all. In regards to my earlier posts, I have been doing more research about E85 fuels and have found quite a bit about the negative effects it has. I just noticed that my earlier posts that got closed were one sided posts. I have been conducting further research and have found that there are lots of possible negative effects as well. Check this forum out: http://www.autoblog.com/entry/1234000233056148/

I no longer know what to think. So many contradicting views can be found on the internet about this. I am no where near a professional in this topic. I therefore am no valid source of information. Please find information about this on your own through the web or other means. It is something to look into. I currently have no stance on the subject as I have yet to understand everything. If you all want to contribute information, both for and against for general public knowledge, I say more power to you! I'm signing out, later. -DropW (Joshua)

SirLoin · « **Reply #16 on:** September 01, 2005, 05:48:20 PM »

When the oil runs out you will see the countries run by Islamic Law crumble and hopefully some moderates will take over and confront their religion as a whole...and join the rest of the human race.

Mukiwa · « **Reply #17 on:** September 01, 2005, 06:03:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FiLtH
Were hurricanes created by the increase of CO2 due to the burning of fossil fuels? Hmm..I thought they were around before then.

Hurricanes have always been around - the current discussion revolves around what appears to be much more violent hurricanes - the number of such events has remained static.

If global warming heats the sea surface temp expect even worse - now would be the time to move away from the ocean view and start enjoying a mountain retreat.

Maverick · « **Reply #18 on:** September 01, 2005, 06:26:45 PM »

Dropw,

I am not a fan of ethanol in gas. I'm from AZ and spent 50 years there. Since they started putting ethanol (MTBE) the mileage in my vehicles dropped off noticably as did the power. In addition to that I had mechanical problems. The stuff sours very very fast in the tank. It has destroyed the rubber fuel hoses and the rubber based fuel pump vibration damper in the tank on my motorcycle, a 90 BMW K75. They got turned to a tar like substance. It also siezed up the fuel pump. So far the stuff has caused me over $700.00 in fuel pumps and related items alone in the last 2 years. As a result of this experiance I want nothing to do with this stuff. Nope it wasn't a pure scientific test but it was a long term test.

Another factor is how much farm production will be relegated to ethanol and how much to food? The amount of fuel used in the US will exceed the production of food very quickly if not immediately. It may be a possible stop gap measure but certainly not a replacement. The same for using old frying oil for diesel. There aren't enough restaraunts to supply the need. It's a nice supply for experimentation but not for everyday use.

Simaril · « **Reply #19 on:** September 01, 2005, 06:46:23 PM »

Production is heavily subsidized through most of the world, so new markets for corn could help the farmer more than hurt I'd bet.

Well, from SCIENCE DAILY, consider this:

Quote

....snip...
UC Berkeley geoengineering professor Tad W. Patzek thinks that's a very bad idea.

For two years, Patzek has analyzed the environmental ramifications of ethanol, a renewable fuel that many believe could significantly reduce our dependence on petroleum-based fossil fuels. According to Patzek though, ethanol may do more harm than good.

"In terms of renewable fuels, ethanol is the worst solution," Patzek says. "It has the highest energy cost with the least benefit."

Ethanol is produced by fermenting renewable crops like corn or sugarcane. It may sound green, Patzek says, but that's because many scientists are not looking at the whole picture. According to his research, more fossil energy is used to produce ethanol than the energy contained within it.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050329132436.htm

Which only proves that we're not there yet. It also shows (once again) that Politically Correct certified green activities may be more politics than truth.

Hydrogen, converted from water by clean energy sources, seems to be the most likely portable energy choice. However, the infrastructure to manufacture, transport, and use hydrogen will be horrendously expensive -- and wont be explored until absolutely necessary. Also, i remeber reading in Scientific American that the chemistry of fuel cells actually favors smaller applications like cell phones... but I'll shut up because I'm in over my head.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #20 on:** September 01, 2005, 06:55:11 PM »

Coupla' points:

The US has, at present, enough hydrocarbon energy to fuel the present rate of consumption for several hundred years in the form of oil shale and most especially coal. Fischer-Tropsch oil synthesis from coal technology was used by the nazis, so it is not any new idea. There is a plant in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming now. South Africa and China have running FT industy.

Canada has several times the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia in the form of oil sands.

Hydrogen is not a source of energy*. It is a storage medium. Energy must be used to seperate h20 into its constituant elements, and physics says you need to put in more energy than the freed hydrogen will provide. The energy needs to come from some other source.

It will not be #1, government needs to get out of the way. Profit drives innovation.

*unless we figure out fusion.

RTSigma · « **Reply #21 on:** September 01, 2005, 07:44:13 PM »

Doubtfull that any companies are hurrying to find alternatives when they can squeeze all these dollars out of the people with high gas prices.

The "Oh shi-" will come when its two days of supply left and last-minute stuff will be done to make a new source of energy.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #22 on:** September 01, 2005, 07:54:51 PM »

Would it be worth it to start investing in horses?

stantond · « **Reply #23 on:** September 01, 2005, 08:33:21 PM »

The whole issue is one of economics and technology. Whatever technology is most economical will be used on a large scale. I don't know if there is a name for that, but for now I'll call it Malta's Law. Where "economical", is a broad term considering base costs, ecological, and political costs.

As such, when (or if) hydrogen storage and distribution becomes economical it will be used. Similarly, as the price of gasoline and diesel rise, other tecnologies are used per Malta's Law. For example, as petroleum diesel cost approachs the cost of biodiesel, biodiesel will be used.

I have not done any analysis, but if the cost of E85 becomes competitive or less expensive than gasoline then it will be adopted. I think there is some uncertainty in determining the total cost for petroleum substitutes. Also, most energy using devices (cars, planes, appliances) are optimized for petroleum or electricity. That requires new petroleum substitutes or new electricity storage technology for use in current devices.

Coal, shale, or oil sands must be converted into a petroleum substitue which will probably require oil to be nearly depleted before they will be used per Malta's law. New technology using electricity, such as hydrogen fuel cells, high energy density batteries, and ultra capacitors can be readily used by current devices. However, If new devices are invented which can use coal, shale, or other energy sources efficiently they will be adopted in accordance with Malta's law.

Myself, I see electrical energy storage with high efficiency solar cells as a solution to the polluition and energy issue provided the energy storage can be provided economically. The biggest benefit of petrochemical products is the energy stored per weight (energy density) and cost for the energy. I am not certain, but even with gasoline at $3.00 per gallon, petroleum fuel products may obey Malta's law.

The US, for whatever reason, has not focused on electrical energy storage as a priority. Fortunately, many other countries need energy and have intelligent scientists and researchers that have. Specifically, Japan and China are leaders in that technology.

Regards,

Malta

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #24 on:** September 01, 2005, 08:56:49 PM »

I wonder what the amish are thinking...

oboe · « **Reply #25 on:** September 01, 2005, 09:06:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
Dropw,

I am not a fan of ethanol in gas. I'm from AZ and spent 50 years there. Since they started putting ethanol (MTBE) the mileage in my vehicles dropped off noticably as did the power. In addition to that I had mechanical problems. The stuff sours very very fast in the tank. It has destroyed the rubber fuel hoses and the rubber based fuel pump vibration damper in the tank on my motorcycle, a 90 BMW K75. They got turned to a tar like substance. It also siezed up the fuel pump. So far the stuff has caused me over $700.00 in fuel pumps and related items alone in the last 2 years. As a result of this experiance I want nothing to do with this stuff. Nope it wasn't a pure scientific test but it was a long term test.

Another factor is how much farm production will be relegated to ethanol and how much to food? The amount of fuel used in the US will exceed the production of food very quickly if not immediately. It may be a possible stop gap measure but certainly not a replacement. The same for using old frying oil for diesel. There aren't enough restaraunts to supply the need. It's a nice supply for experimentation but not for everyday use.

Maverick -

MTBE is NOT Ethanol. According to the EPA's website,

Quote

MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether) is a chemical compound that is manufactured by the chemical reaction of methanol and isobutylene. MTBE is produced in very large quantities (over 200,000 barrels per day in the U.S. in 1999) and is almost exclusively used as a fuel additive in motor gasoline. It is one of a group of chemicals commonly known as "oxygenates" because they raise the oxygen content of gasoline. At room temperature, MTBE is a volatile, flammable and colorless liquid that dissolves rather easily in water.

MTBE is also responsible for contamination of groundwater aquifers if the gasoline mixed with it is spilled or leaks from its storage tanks, because its water soluble. It is very nasty stuff, but was the oxygenate of choice for many refiners I think due to a cost benefit over ethanol.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #26 on:** September 01, 2005, 09:34:50 PM »

Problem if I remember correctly with Hydrogen is Producing hydrogen creates more pollution and costs more than burning gasoline.

I say Grain Alcohol. Renewable. burns clean, and if a couple of unemployed, uneducated backwoods rednecks with little or no money using parts they find laying around can make it.

Then multibillion corporations that employ and have thousands of top notch scientists and engineers can. Probably with parts they also already have on hand (hmm maybe they should start hiring rednecks to show em how)
Not to mention how it would help the farming industry thus killing two birds with one stone.

also there is the gasses created by our own waste (garbage)
Some places are already using these gases for electrical plants. Others And I see it all the time. Just burn it off

DropW · « **Reply #27 on:** September 01, 2005, 09:42:21 PM »

Hey all. What about steam engines? I bet if scientists really put their minds to it they could create awesome steam engines with todays technology. Any ideas? -DropW

vorticon · « **Reply #28 on:** September 01, 2005, 09:47:01 PM »

"
also there is the gasses created by our own waste (garbage)
Some places are already using these gases for electrical plants. Others And I see it all the time. Just burn it off"

not quite that simple, but i suppose there is a way to collect it, compress it, and use it in a diesel engine, which is going to be the only real sticking point, everything else its used for has relativly cheap and readily available alternatives...

i imagine some kind of coast to coast race to determine the replacement, because weve got to have to have some kind of single replacement, even if other alternatives make more sense in different regions

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #29 on:** September 01, 2005, 10:24:03 PM »

Methane (landfill gas) is burned in gas turbines at municipal landfills all over the US and I am sure the world. It is fairly common.

Ethanol needs power to produce and it is being produced in the USA now but the energy balance is in question. Brazil has a huge percentage of its motor fuel in Brazil produced ethanol but equatorial regions growing sugar cane can get a bunch more ethanol per acre and btu in than corn in the temperate clime.

FT coal to liquid fuel technology is working worldwide, and the break even point was when Oil was at $40 to 45 a bbl, so it is profitable now.

Hydrogen is not a power source. You lose energy if you electrolyse hydrogen from water instead of just shoving the electricity directly into car batteries. What hydrogen does is allow you to store more energy in a tank in a car than you can store energy in a battery.

What all this means is that the energy landscape in the future will need to be diverse.