Oil Prices?

[tedrbr]

Originally posted by LePaul
Yet if we use ethanol, corn will become pricey....and millions of Mexicans wont be able to afford tortilias!
 

Other sources than corn can work for various biofuels.  Corn is the often touted one, due to large lobby groups in D.C. and many states.  Last I checked, there was still a 100% tariff on ethanol from Brazil imported to the U.S. (they use sugar, much easier and cheaper than corn to produce ethanol) in order to protect the U.S. corn growers in the nascent ethanol markets here.  So, Brazilian exported ethanol goes to Japan.

With Venezuela's recent actions, and ongoing threat of U.S. pullout of Iraq (and what that could mean for that oil region), I wonder how high gas prices will get this week.  American Tourists and Restaurant markets probably already looking at a very bad season ahead.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by LePaul
Yet if we use ethanol, corn will become pricey....and millions of Mexicans wont be able to afford tortilias!

So, Curval the Barbarian, what are we to do?  Starve the already starving further?  

Actually, we'd be better of to use the massive amount of farm land lying fallow to grow sugar cane. There are other things that can be grown that you can get ethanol or better yet methanol from that offer a better yield than corn.

There are several problems with ethanol or methanol as fuel. Fortunately, racing has solved most of them.

1. Alcohol contains half the energy of gasoline. The stoichiometric mixture for gasoline and air is 14.7:1 where alcohol is around 7.2:1. So fuel mileage will drop by around 50%. The saving grace here is that alcohol can use a much higher compression ratio due to its octane rating. With the correct compression ratio, about 10-15% of the lost mileage can be regained. As an added bonus, a properly tuned alcohol combination makes around 20% more torque. Currently, racing methanol (99.99% pure) is about 1/2 the price of VP C-12, which is comparable in octane. So the price per BTU is fairly comparable.

2. Alcohol is dry, meaning it removes the lubrication in the top of the engine. Racing methanol (as sold by VP for example) has top lube blended in.

3. Alcohol is very corrosive, as well as hygroscopic. Water MUST be kept out of the system, both storage and in the vehicle. The fuel system for alcohol needs to be stainless steel and alcohol resistant rubber. Racing can help with the fuel system, but the storage system is a problem.

4. Burning alcohol produces aldehydes (yes, like formaldehyde) that's what makes your eyes water and your nose run when you are around an alcohol race engine. There are additives to take care of that.

5. The esters in synthetic motor oils are alcohol based. Alcohol fuels will break them down. However, some of the synthetic oils are impervious to alcohol. Of course, you could always use mineral based oil, but that sort of defeats part of the purpose.

[moot]

Lose the oil dependency, and get space industry going.
It's high time to lose some population ballast.

[Toad]

Originally posted by tedrbr
CAFE is an American construct, not a world wide standard, which is why you'll see "CAFE-equivalent" when talking about other countries.

Maybe you can direct me to an international car company that has an average of 45mpg when the entire line of vehicles is considered and taken as a whole?

My statement was that I don't know of ANY company that could make that claim. Do you?

[LePaul]

The problem is this:  the cars that DO get that sort of mileable are thugly looking.  So when the gov't and tree huggers tell companies to make an efficient car, it doesnt always produce profitable sales.

From the car makers point of view, its a danged if you do, danged if you dont.  They make the cars people want, tho not the soaring mileage...they make a profit.  Make the uber-mileage cars....and they wind up not selling so good.

Honestly, I think you need to let the free market decide what is in demand.

[tedrbr]

Originally posted by moot
Lose the oil dependency, and get space industry going.
It's high time to lose some population ballast.

Space industry: be it solar power satellites in orbit or on the lunar surface beaming energy to earth receiving stations as microwaves, then converting it back to electricity and using it to power the grid;
or mining 3He from Luna, Mercury, or the gas giants for use to fuel terrestrial  fusion power plants - which may themselves be dependent on technology and materials developed in the zee-gee, high vacuum environment of space (for highly efficient electro-magnetic bottles and high temperature superconductors);
is a much longer term solution to Earth's energy and resource needs.  

We need interim solutions between oil and fusion.  Several solutions would be better than a single one as well.  And, if we don't develop those alternatives, I don't see mankind ever becoming a fusion powered society at all.


Emigration off world will never make a dent in the population of the Earth.
Over 6 billion now.  Probably be over 8 billion by the time a reasonable space faring society has been created.   That's 8,000,000,000+ and no where to emigrate to that would not have to be constructed first, not to mention the logistical impossibility to transport a sizable chunk of that 8 billion to make any difference.

Education, empowering women and their own reproduction choices, and a higher standard of living for the general population would take the pressure off given enough time,......

...... but my money is on the four horsemen.  They'll cull the herd.

[ygsmilo]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Actually, we'd be better of to use the massive amount of farm land lying fallow to grow sugar cane. There are other things that can be grown that you can get ethanol or better yet methanol from that offer a better yield than corn.

There are several problems with ethanol or methanol as fuel. Fortunately, racing has solved most of them.

1. Alcohol contains half the energy of gasoline. The stoichiometric mixture for gasoline and air is 14.7:1 where alcohol is around 7.2:1. So fuel mileage will drop by around 50%. The saving grace here is that alcohol can use a much higher compression ratio due to its octane rating. With the correct compression ratio, about 10-15% of the lost mileage can be regained. As an added bonus, a properly tuned alcohol combination makes around 20% more torque. Currently, racing methanol (99.99% pure) is about 1/2 the price of VP C-12, which is comparable in octane. So the price per BTU is fairly comparable.

2. Alcohol is dry, meaning it removes the lubrication in the top of the engine. Racing methanol (as sold by VP for example) has top lube blended in.

3. Alcohol is very corrosive, as well as hygroscopic. Water MUST be kept out of the system, both storage and in the vehicle. The fuel system for alcohol needs to be stainless steel and alcohol resistant rubber. Racing can help with the fuel system, but the storage system is a problem.

4. Burning alcohol produces aldehydes (yes, like formaldehyde) that's what makes your eyes water and your nose run when you are around an alcohol race engine. There are additives to take care of that.

5. The esters in synthetic motor oils are alcohol based. Alcohol fuels will break them down. However, some of the synthetic oils are impervious to alcohol. Of course, you could always use mineral based oil, but that sort of defeats part of the purpose.

Just take the tarriff off of imported sugar,,,,,,

I still wonder why Cuba is not the biggerst ethanol plant that the US has ?

[Toad]

Milo, you know we can't do that until Castro has the courtesy to go ahead and die.

[Flit]

Originally posted by john9001
let them eat cake.

but seriously, you don't need corn, all the biodiesel you need can be made from algae.

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

 Biofuels great, but requires handeling of nasty stuff.
 WVO , also known as Waste Vegetable Oil, only needs to be filtered.
 I just bought my wife a WVO converted  '91 Mercedes 350 sdl turbo.
 I have 2 barrels out for oil, and need to take one to the local race track where I instruct.
 It runs good on the WVO, the only difference is it dose'nt smell like diesel

[tedrbr]

Originally posted by LePaul
The problem is this:  the cars that DO get that sort of mileable are thugly looking.  So when the gov't and tree huggers tell companies to make an efficient car, it doesnt always produce profitable sales.

From the car makers point of view, its a danged if you do, danged if you dont.  They make the cars people want, tho not the soaring mileage...they make a profit.  Make the uber-mileage cars....and they wind up not selling so good.

Honestly, I think you need to let the free market decide what is in demand.

Economics of scale.  The development time, dollars, and expertise is directed toward what sells.  The hybrids and economy cars get little attention compared to the SUV market.

American automotive sales in the world market have fallen off dramatically over the years.  The only market for the gas guzzlers in mostly in the American market, and even there, the American companies have been losing market share steadily.  And every time gas hits $3 a gallon or more, the sales of the larger vehicles collapses, and the manufacturers and dealers are stuck with overstock.  This is a cycle that can only end badly.  That can be the justification for the government to step in and at least demand average fleet fuel economies should approach those of the top 5 nation's fuel economy standards.  We are lagging behind.

We keep claiming to be the world leader, but in what category, other than size of the military, are we leading in and expect to continue to do so?

Does anyone know of any efforts to produce a diesel-electric hybrid car?  That would seem to be the next logical step, if a diesel can be made to put up with the on-again, off-again demands of the engine to the battery.  Certainly would have even better mileage than gas-electric hybrids, if there were no engineering roadblocks.

[LePaul]

Granted these are from Wiki...so accuracy isnt guranteed...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_energy_crisis

Interesting reads and conclusion on the '73 one

You almost have to wonder if the Saudis are pumping the support behind us NOT exploring our coasts, etc for our own energy resources.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by midnight Target
According to Bill Bradley we could eliminate all OPEC imports by raising the CAFE to 45 mpg.

My BIKE doesnt even get 45 mpg

[moot]

Yes, Ted, that's why it must be started now.  F=MA, similarly the earlier it starts, the least effort/time is required for a same result X years from now.
Population growth in countries further down the evolution ladder is unrelated to space developments or anything else internal to 1st world countries, and as there are only so many resources on the planet, the latter will more likely be outpaced by the former than not.  Especialy considering initial inertias in getting off the oil dependencies like Oil Snake co's,  general corruption in politics wasting time and money in Wars du Jour and Global Warming and porous immigration borders, etc.

Off hand, total population only hit 1B in 1800s or so, and passed 6B since.
It is better to start now that it is still possible to do it cheaply and relatively slowly, than to rush it later when resources and deadlines will be tighter.
Bush's Vision for Space was cut back in the proposed 2007 budget.. something like 660M$/year in the next 4 years.  
http://planetary.org/programs/projects/sos/testimony_20070424.html
What for?  Alternative energy development?

[FrodeMk3]

Moot, the Oil company's, among other special-interest groups, have too strong a lock on the government to do let it do anything for the long term good. Rather than find an alternative energy source, It's long-odds that they'll have everyone drive until the last barrel of oil is sucked out of the ground, then suddenly say "Oh No, we have a crisis, now what do we do?"

An honest government would have been taking steps to protect it's Citizens and economy already. They should be making plans, encouraging developement of alternative fuels and vehicles for them, and helping set up both Federal and Private enterprise to function in the post-oil environment.

[tedrbr]

Originally posted by moot

Bush's Vision for Space was cut back in the proposed 2007 budget.. something like 660M$/year in the next 4 years.  
http://planetary.org/programs/projects/sos/testimony_20070424.html
What for?  Alternative energy development?

Ah, a believer.  Sorry, but Bush's vision, as the vision of the last few Presidential Administrations, has been all pretty graphics, no commitment, and little action.  They try to inspire with pretty pictures and grand visions, but nothing comes of any of it.  Got copies of the last couple reports around here somewhere in fact.  Very pretty pictures.

NASA and the space program have been changed from the search for knowledge to a government subsidy program for aerospace companies. The small programs tend to get the axe in favor for the big sky programs for much less return on investment.  It's more pork than science.
 
ISS is the great white elephant and a exercise on how not to build a space station whose original idea in the 80's would have taken 8 launches and $8 billion dollars to build, to include the OTV (which got axed) -- anyone at Boeing even remember the S.O.C. design?  The Shuttle-C design would have been better too, instead we get ISS courtesy of the U.S. State Department.

The planned follow on to the space shuttle is a syndicated version of Apollo: expendable stages and an economic dead end to opening space to commercial or ongoing development beyond earth orbiting satellites.  The plane to go to the moon is as flawed as the ISS program ever was.  I suggest reading the stuff from G.H. Stine and Max Hunter on space transportation systems, or the old SSX designs, and compare that to what NASA has planned next to replace the Shuttle.


Space development for resources and energy needs is very important for continued human growth in the long term, and should be pursued even now on it's own merit (and far more intelligently than is being done so now), but there is no way at this time that space development (especially as a government program of all things in the current bureaucratic mess around NASA and related industries and agencies) is in any way an answer to the oil based economy and it's inherit problems.   Even existing international space law is totally inadequate to deal with the idea space development.  Bring back NACA!  Bring back (Space) Prizes!  Give Burt Rutan $1 billion and leave him alone for 5 years.  

It's important, it's just not what's next, nor will it solve the looming peak oil problems.

----
And FrodeMk3 is right.  A responsible government looking to their citizen's and country's best interests would already be doing something.  Oil Industry is the single largest special interest group you'll ever come across, and they can't seem to look past the the current fiscal year.