Alt fuels was Re: [AT] Gasoline $

[Roger Welsch]

The problem here is that they are pumping geologic water, for which there is
no substitute, to grow corn to make auto fuel, for which there is a
substitute.  Not a very bright direction for those of us who like a bit of
branch with our bourbon....


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Willer" <gwill at toast.net>
To: "Antique tractor email discussion group" <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: Alt fuels was Re: [AT] Gasoline $


> Jim,
>
> My (old) chemical engineer's handbook lists the energy content of ethanol
at
> 12,780 BTU/Lb., and gasoline (varies) at about 20,000 BTU/Lb.  From the
> amount of energy contained, I would expect mileage to suffer by about 36%
>
> If I were to figure the total fuel used in the production of ethanol for
> fuel, I would also figure in the total fuel used in the production and
> transportation of the raw material and transportation of the finished
> product.  I   would also figure in an amortized amount for the energy used
> to produce the farm  equipment necessary and the energy used to produce
the
> chemicals necessary to produce a successful crop.  Wouldn't you?
>
> Using your figure of 1.29/gal and adjusting for the poorer mileage, the
> ethanol would cost $2.02/gal BEFORE ADDING TAXES to be equal to gasoline.
>
> George Willer
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jim and Lyn Evans" <jevans at evanstoys.com>
> To: "'Antique tractor email discussion group'"
> <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 7:13 AM
> Subject: RE: Alt fuels was Re: [AT] Gasoline $
>
>
> > I think real mileage loss is around 25%.  Here are production E85 fuel
> > economy ratings:
> > http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/byfuel/FFV2000.shtml
> >
> > I don't buy the argument that it takes more energy to produce alcohol
than
> > it returns.  That is propaganda from the oil companies.  The only way
you
> > come up with that much energy is if you include the solar energy that it
> > took to grow the corn.
> >
> > You can make the same argument with any energy source - gasoline,
diesel,
> > electricity, hydrogen, etc.  In all cases, it takes "more energy" to
> > produce
> > it than it returns.  There are always inefficiencies in the production,
> > making the return less than 100%.  If there wasn't, then it would be a
> > perpetual motion machine.  The secret is finding a cheap, renewable fuel
> > source, and transforming it into a product that can be transported and
> > easily used by consumers.  If you can use natural gas, coal, or wood
> > (which
> > isn't handy to use directly in a car) and a bushel of corn and create a
> > product that can be easily handled and burned in a car, then you have
> > something.
> >
> > The alcohol plants here are making it for about $1.29/gallon.  That
> > includes
> > the cost of the corn (which is fairly high here because of demand), and
> > the
> > price of the natural gas (expensive) they use to make the product.
There
> > are no government subsidies in that cost.  If it took so much energy to
> > make
> > it, wouldn't it cost more?
> >
> > Jim
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>
>
> __________ NOD32 1.1191 (20050810) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>
>