Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Not another Oil Thread...

mountain muscle

New member
Here is a good editorial from US News and World Report for all those interested. Take the time to read it, it may prove enlightening for some of you.


Getting Serious About Oil

By Mortimer B. Zuckerman

Posted Sunday, July 30, 2006
Related Links

* Browse through an archive of columns by Mortimer B. Zuckerman.

Here's a nasty thought. Every day you and I subsidize the propagators of terrorism. To import oil for our cars, homes, and workplaces, America now spends and borrows a staggering $1 billion every single day. In the past four years alone, oil producers' revenue has grown from $300 billion a year to $800 billion. When oil goes up by a dollar a barrel, it costs us an additional $7.4 billion! An increasing share of that money goes to countries in the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia, and through them to extremist religious groups who support Islamist militancy throughout the Middle East and beyond, disseminating a message of hatred and violence against western influence and ideas. Small wonder, then, that the overwhelming judgment from a hundred foreign policy experts polled in Foreign Policy magazine is that the highest priority in fighting terrorism must be to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil.

Everyone knows that over the past three years the price we pay at the pump has doubled. The populist rant that this is the fault of "rapacious" oil companies is a glib and false response, and it's especially unattractive when it comes from Democrats, who have systematically blocked attempts to increase domestic oil production. Oil prices, in fact, are determined by a complex, and increasingly competitive, global market.

Action points. The roots of our predicament don't lie in the boardrooms of Big Oil but at our own back door. In the two decades after 1980, when gas was still cheap, Americans switched from cars to minivans and SUVs, and they moved from the cities to the suburbs and then to the exurbs. Now 3 out of every 4 Americans commute to work, many spending hours on the road each day. One in five European workers, by contrast, gets to work by rail and bus; only 5 percent of Americans rely on public transport.

Two thirds of our petroleum consumption is for transportation. We live in a car-driven culture, relying more and more on large, heavy vehicles for getting to work, running errands, and taking our kids to school. Consumers enjoy the size, power, and sense of security from their SUVs, which now account for roughly half of all cars in the United States, compared with just 7 percent in 1990. Every day 200 million cars in America guzzle about 11 percent of the world's daily oil output. We are the only industrialized country that is less energy efficient than it was two decades ago. It's going to cost us billions and billions more because the supply-demand equation is going to get worse, not better. Last year, for the first time ever, Asia consumed more oil than North America. China is already the second-largest importer of oil; yet, on average, a person in China uses only 10 percent of the primary energy that an American does and 20 percent of the energy of a Japanese, but still twice as much as the average Indian. Over the next 25 years, if China and India grow as much as South Korea has since 1980, those two countries alone will consume three times as much energy as the United States does today. As the Third World becomes the Second World and then the First World, energy demand will soar, and not surprisingly, so will energy prices.

What to do? We can't escape relying on our passenger cars, our airlines, and the vast trucking network that makes this economy so flexible and productive. Alternative energy sources will not give us anything like energy independence. Here are some action points, though, that would, over time, give us a fighting chance to control our own destiny:

*SUPPLY. There's simply no quick fix when oil is being consumed at twice the rate of the past decade, but we can ease the restraints on domestic exploration and drilling and the creation of new refineries. They have the potential over time to increase domestic production by over 2 million barrels a day.

*INCENTIVES. Offer greater tax credits for new energy-efficient technologies and reduce barriers to the creation of new nuclear power plants.

*CONSUMPTION. We must increase fuel efficiency and set reasonable targets now for the auto industry to replace gas guzzlers and gradually encourage the move by slowly raising gas taxes to European levels. If American cars were to average 40 miles per gallon, over time, consumption could be reduced by another 2 million to 3 million barrels a day, saving us at least $40 billion a year.

*MASS TRANSIT. Encourage more movement of people and bulk goods by rail. The reduced friction of steel wheels on steel rails makes rail 10 times as energy efficient as highway travel. A single locomotive with two men can haul the same amount of freight it would take 70 drivers and 70 semitractor-trailer rigs to move.


A straightforward, serious, and powerful package of measures to reduce our dependence on foreign oil could easily win public support. Energy is just one more big issue facing the nation--like health, immigration, global warming, and budget deficits--where our dysfunctional, irresponsible political system is failing us.
 
Last edited:
I've been wondering lately if Flax really has much benefit over other oils, but for now I'm still using it with Fish oil. Hemp oil has been shown to have a lot of goodies in it and I'm doing more research. Good thread.
 
Y_lifter said:
Lots of facts and problems, and yet NO suggestions of possible solutions..

Good show US Booze..


Thanks for pointing that out, The magazine article offers up solutions but apparently they skipped it online. I will add the missing copy.
 
mountain muscle said:
Thanks for pointing that out, The magazine article offers up solutions but apparently they skipped it online. I will add the missing copy.
you work in an oil field?
 
bluepeter said:
How's that hybrid vehicle MM? :)


In case you forgot, higher oil prices make me more money. I am doing my small part to increase demand with my F-150.

Wait, it is a hybrid... it is a work/pleasure truck. So there.

Bran I work in the oilfield yes, drilling for natural gas.

Y-Lifter, is it a more agreeable post for you now?
 
mountain muscle said:
In case you forgot, higher oil prices make me more money. I am doing my small part to increase demand with my F-150.

Bran I work in the oilfield yes, drilling for natural gas.
lol we might be the only 2 ppl on EF who like higher oil prices
 
Thanks for posting what you should have posted in the first place Gassy

Incentives are good IMO.. An example..

Much like they have in some areas regarding water usage..
I Mr Goverment, will not tell you that you cannot own a non efficient vehicle, much like I will not tell you that you cannot take 27 baths a day.

But I will say that you are using more than your share of water/fuel per normal usage, and therefore you will pay much more per gallon for anything above that normal level per gallon. Stay below the normal usage range and you will pay less per gallon.

Same dealio with having say, 5 kids instead of only 1 or 2.
We aren't going to be like China and say you can't have more than 2 kids
But your tax deductions will be normal for 1-2 but you will be either severely reduced for everyone over that or maybe even have to pay more in taxes for everyone over 2 you have..
Your additional kids are a greater burden on infrastructure like schools, trash, water usage etc and as such you should pay a greater share.

Man, I should run for President in the Reformed Communist party
 
Y_lifter said:
Thanks for posting what you should have posted in the first place Gassy

Incentives are good IMO.. An example..

Much like they have in some areas regarding water usage..
I Mr Goverment, will not tell you that you cannot own a non efficient vehicle, much like I will not tell you that you cannot take 27 baths a day.

But I will say that you are using more than your share of water/fuel per normal usage, and therefore you will pay much more per gallon for anything above that normal level per gallon. Stay below the normal usage range and you will pay less per gallon.

Same dealio with having say, 5 kids instead of only 1 or 2.
We aren't going to be like China and say you can't have more than 2 kids
But your tax deductions will be normal for 1-2 but you will be either severely reduced for everyone over that or maybe even have to pay more in taxes for everyone over 2 you have..
Your additional kids are a greater burden on infrastructure like schools, trash, water usage etc and as such you should pay a greater share.

Man, I should run for President in the Reformed Communist party


Well said.

I actually don't use that much fuel, a majority of it is used getting to work.

Please place a tax on my girlfriend for her fuel consumption though. She seems to have forgotten about her fuel-efficient car and instead prefers to drive my truck to run all over the countryside.

I make her pay for the fuel though. Work pays for mine.


Are you suggesting a ration of fuel per person or vehicle? Not a terrible idea. Put something in the vehicle that tracks consumption and increases tax or price when you go over your ration? That could be effective.

The question is, would putting a tinfoil hat on your vehicle interupt their ability to track consumption?
 
Ethanol! Now!!!

It wipes-out about 25% of our trade deficit overnight too.
 
mountain muscle said:
That would be a good start, but it is only part of a greater solution.
Well, people don't realize that corn-based ethanol basically gets us completely out of around 1/3 of our oil dependence -- it basically wipes out the middle east needs. Sad thing is, we can get there simply by re-using retired corn fields and feeding animals DDGS (a feed byproduct of ethanol plants) instead of cracked corn.

To get the other 2/3, we need to look toward cellulose-based ethanol production, which should be online in the next 10ish years.
 
gjohnson5 said:
this thread is worthless without answers

The Democrats have atleast 3
1. Cellulose Ethanol
2. Fuel Cell
3. Biodeisel
The democrats? What???

The democrats are the ones holding-up the construction of ethanol plants until union bosses are paid. Just try to get a minor source emissions permit ANYWHERE in the midwest until a PLA (Project Labor Agreement) is in place. You'll get one... sometime between 2015 and 2018.
 
gjohnson5 said:
this thread is worthless without answers

The Democrats have atleast 3
1. Cellulose Ethanol
2. Fuel Cell
3. Biodeisel


Do the democrats have an answer for the cost of conversion to those fuel sources as well? What to do during the transition period?
 
mrplunkey said:
The democrats? What???

The democrats are the ones holding-up the construction of ethanol plants until union bosses are paid. Just try to get a minor source emissions permit ANYWHERE in the midwest until a PLA (Project Labor Agreement) is in place. You'll get one... sometime between 2015 and 2018.


Nonsense....
Companies such as ADM and Cargill build when they choose and how they choose. Democrats and Republicans have nothing to do with that. These companies already have the permits they need because they are already in operation
 
gjohnson5 said:
Nonsense....
Companies such as ADM and Cargill build when they choose and how they choose. Democrats and Republicans have nothing to do with that. These companies already have the permits they need because they are already in operation


Who has held up the building of a new oil refinery since 1979? Who opposes building more nuclear power plants?
 
gjohnson5 said:
Nonsense....
Companies such as ADM and Cargill build when they choose and how they choose. Democrats and Republicans have nothing to do with that. These companies already have the permits they need because they are already in operation
No, dry mill ethanol plants (the most efficient and cost-effective flavor we have now) are considered minor sources up to 100 Million gallons/year. At 150+M gallons a year they are considered major sources. You have to get an air permit to build one of these plants even if you are ADM, Cargill, Fagan, Lurgi PSI, Delta-T, etc. etc.

What the democrats across the midwest have done is attach a PLA to every air emissions permit. It works well because you have to agree to all-union labor, which jacks the price of a 100M gallon/year plant from about 140M to about 165M. Then they get you your air permit, point you toward between $5M and $10M of taxpayer money for grants, and try to lure you with other perks like enterprise zones.

The mainstream media will *never* report the damage democrats and all of their associated payoffs cost taxpayers and the nation in general.
 
Oh, and back to your original comment -- expanding an existing plant still requires re-permitting. Any application will beg the democrat/union driven question -- "Do you have a PLA in place?".

Also... around 150M to 200M gallons, you experience some dis-economies of scale (even beyond sucking-up all the corn in the area). It's better to just build another plant somewhere else. There are lots of issues even beyond the air permit then -- a lot of normally shop-fabricated items like your DDGS dryer have to be field-erected instead and that *really* jacks-up the cost.
 
mrplunkey said:
No, dry mill ethanol plants (the most efficient and cost-effective flavor we have now) are considered minor sources up to 100 Million gallons/year. At 150+M gallons a year they are considered major sources. You have to get an air permit to build one of these plants even if you are ADM, Cargill, Fagan, Lurgi PSI, Delta-T, etc. etc.

What the democrats across the midwest have done is attach a PLA to every air emissions permit. It works well because you have to agree to all-union labor, which jacks the price of a 100M gallon/year plant from about 140M to about 165M. Then they get you your air permit, point you toward between $5M and $10M of taxpayer money for grants, and try to lure you with other perks like enterprise zones.

The mainstream media will *never* report the damage democrats and all of their associated payoffs cost taxpayers and the nation in general.

Not sure , but it sounds like blanket Replublican propoganda at best
Here are the permit rules in Nebraska and no such restriction is mentioned

http://www.deq.state.ne.us/Publica....3234ef46ff9e372a06256cef00743a18?OpenDocument
 
gjohnson5 said:
PLA's are not limited to unions either. Any contractor qualifies
ROFL! And technically collective barganing isn't exclusive to unions either. Any group of employees can engage in "protected, concerted activity" -- but guess what percentage of this activity is union-sponsored or union-supervised?
 
gjohnson5 said:
Not sure , but it sounds like blanket Replublican propoganda at best
Here are the permit rules in Nebraska and no such restriction is mentioned

http://www.deq.state.ne.us/Publica....3234ef46ff9e372a06256cef00743a18?OpenDocument
Yeah, they normally put the union payoff guidlines right in the permit application!!!

Just apply for a permit on a 100M gallon/year plant and see how long it takes the board of trade union representitives to show-up on your doorstep.
 
gjohnson5 said:
It's not my fault that your claims have no basis. Just stating the facts...
Yeah, you're right. I'm sure someone with Internet access has a much better perspective than someone who works in the industry every single day. My bad!
 
gjohnson5 said:
It's not my fault that your claims have no basis. Just stating the facts...
BTW, I read on a web page that all pro wrestling is real too.

HTH
 
mrplunkey said:
ROFL! And technically collective barganing isn't exclusive to unions either. Any group of employees can engage in "protected, concerted activity" -- but guess what percentage of this activity is union-sponsored or union-supervised?


I'm sure you have another baseless number.... As long as contractors are available to do the work, then the employment contracts or PLA can be met.
 
gjohnson5 said:
I'm sure you have another baseless number.... As long as contractors are available to do the work, then the employment contracts or PLA can be met.
Now you're just being silly...

Protected, concerted activity is one of the "rights" put forth in the National Labor Relations Act. Techinically any employee can exert this right but unless you have a union backing you up, you're toast.

I was making an analogy. Let me explain. You see, even though PCA is a right *any* American can demonstrate, you need the support of a union to fully exert it. Simlarly (cause that's how analogies work), you don't get your air permit unless you have a PLA. But, you don't really have a "valid" PLA unless you've worked with (read: agreed to use) union members from the local trade unions.

The "mystery number" you are waiting for me to quote is ZERO. Nobody engages in PCA without a union backing them up. When's the last time an individual citizen successfully filed and prosecuted an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP)?
 
mrplunkey said:
Now you're just being silly...

Protected, concerted activity is one of the "rights" put forth in the National Labor Relations Act. Techinically any employee can exert this right but unless you have a union backing you up, you're toast.

I was making an analogy. Let me explain. You see, even though PCA is a right *any* American can demonstrate, you need the support of a union to fully exert it. Simlarly (cause that's how analogies work), you don't get your air permit unless you have a PLA. But, you don't really have a "valid" PLA unless you've worked with (read: agreed to use) union members from the local trade unions.

The "mystery number" you are waiting for me to quote is ZERO. Nobody engages in PCA without a union backing them up. When's the last time an individual citizen successfully filed and prosecuted an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP)?

These are the conclusions that I disagree with. I had to leave the argument because of this. This is the only silliness that I see
 
mrplunkey said:
Now you're just being silly...

Protected, concerted activity is one of the "rights" put forth in the National Labor Relations Act. Techinically any employee can exert this right but unless you have a union backing you up, you're toast.

I was making an analogy. Let me explain. You see, even though PCA is a right *any* American can demonstrate, you need the support of a union to fully exert it. Simlarly (cause that's how analogies work), you don't get your air permit unless you have a PLA. But, you don't really have a "valid" PLA unless you've worked with (read: agreed to use) union members from the local trade unions.

The "mystery number" you are waiting for me to quote is ZERO. Nobody engages in PCA without a union backing them up. When's the last time an individual citizen successfully filed and prosecuted an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP)?


The word contractor doesn't have to imply individual. A contractor be me having my own LLC/LLP or straight up corporation. A corp to corp doesn't have to be a 1 to 1 contract... You have simply narrowed the word contractor into a small piece of what reality is.
 
mountain muscle said:
Are you suggesting a ration of fuel per person or vehicle? Not a terrible idea.

Sort of, but Not a ration per se, more like a tiered cost per gallon structure.
You can use as much damn gas as you want. If you can afford it.

Fuel would cost you so much per gallon up to a certain amount per month, then that cost goes way way up per gallon for gas used over that amount.
Of course commercial vehicles would be rated at higher usage rates than individuals etc per political pressures.

Not sure how it would be tracked since gas pumps aren't as controlled as home water meters are.

Speaking of Ethanol, I understand south Fla is looking to startup a sugar cane based Eth test plant to validate its higher yields much like the Brazilians.
 
mrplunkey said:
To get the other 2/3, we need to look toward cellulose-based ethanol production, which should be online in the next 10ish years.

Sugarcane produces better ethanol. Of course, all the fatties in the U.S. might panic when they see the price of candy bars and sodas increase.
 
Which party controls the Senate's Agriculture Committee??? Senator Saxby Chambliss (R) refuses to cut the tariffs this year on imported ethanol.

Ironically, the U.S. cannot produce enough of our own. The other Caribbean nations can only ship about 1/3 of what we need annually.

Whether U.S. farmers like it or not, we need imported sugarcane.

Instead of paying farmers subsidies on their crops, farmers should receive tax credits for planting other products that can be refined into ethanol.

The farmers are the people who need the tax breaks...not the gas companies.
 
mrplunkey said:
One word: Ethanol


dullboy says yes.

and the people who say it won't work live in an alternate reality.

Brazil is a disorganized 2nd world nation with 2/3 the population of the US and they got it done.

we certainly can.
 
Y_lifter said:
I'd like to visit Brazil..

Not so much for the Ethanol, but more for the hot ass tanned women.



dullboy broke his brazil cherry on november 21, 1990. lol

many happy trips since.
 
gotmilk said:
Sugarcane produces better ethanol. Of course, all the fatties in the U.S. might panic when they see the price of candy bars and sodas increase.
Sugar cane produces great ethanol -- we just don't have the climate to produce it like more tropical climates can. If the global ethanol war is fought in the short term using sugar cane as the source we're due for an ass-kicking. We'll trade the middle east for the tropics and who knows, maybe we can try to "spread democracy" there too!

The best plan for the US is to drive our existing corn production hard until cellulose technology is ready. If we can pull that off we may be able to bypass sugar cane and compete globally using a source we can actually get our hands-on. Sugar cane, as great as it is, represents a solution that's good enough to beat corn hands-down but not good enough to beat cellulose long term.
 
mrplunkey said:
Sugar cane produces great ethanol -- we just don't have the climate to produce it like more tropical climates can. If the global ethanol war is fought in the short term using sugar cane as the source we're due for an ass-kicking. We'll trade the middle east for the tropics and who knows, maybe we can try to "spread democracy" there too!

The best plan for the US is to drive our existing corn production hard until cellulose technology is ready. If we can pull that off we may be able to bypass sugar cane and compete globally using a source we can actually get our hands-on. Sugar cane, as great as it is, represents a solution that's good enough to beat corn hands-down but not good enough to beat cellulose long term.

We gotta work on this...
Those companies you named that produce ethanol are international companies and probably all of them have plants in tropical climates such as Brazil. Most all have trucking , rail and sea transportation departments as well.

The problem is that US farmers cannot compete with third world countries simply due to the cost of the work being too expensive.


But I agree , nothing beats cellulose long term
 
gjohnson5 said:
We gotta work on this...
Those companies you named that produce ethanol are international companies and probably all of them have plants in tropical climates such as Brazil. Most all have trucking , rail and sea transportation departments as well.

The problem is that US farmers cannot compete with third world countries simply due to the cost of the work being too expensive.


But I agree , nothing beats cellulose long term
Well, the real danger is that sugar cane-based ethanol from the tropics could provide cheap enough ethanol that it stalls cellulose for a while. Think of it like $1.85 gasoline... it would quell alternative fuel efforts in general for a few more years. And once an initiative gets squashed, it can take decades for capital to return.

Corn is only a short term solution. Cellulose is the end game.
 
mrplunkey said:
Sugar cane produces great ethanol -- we just don't have the climate to produce it like more tropical climates can. If the global ethanol war is fought in the short term using sugar cane as the source we're due for an ass-kicking. We'll trade the middle east for the tropics and who knows, maybe we can try to "spread democracy" there too!

The best plan for the US is to drive our existing corn production hard until cellulose technology is ready. If we can pull that off we may be able to bypass sugar cane and compete globally using a source we can actually get our hands-on. Sugar cane, as great as it is, represents a solution that's good enough to beat corn hands-down but not good enough to beat cellulose long term.



dullboy would assume that sugarcane would grow just fine in places like the lower half of mississippi. no?
 
dullboy said:
dullboy would assume that sugarcane would grow just fine in places like the lower half of mississippi. no?
Yes -- MS and FL
 
gjohnson5 said:
Louisiana...
Yup -- some grows there too.

I need to double-check, but I don't think sugar cane produces quality animal feed either. We'd have to factor-in the quality and quantity of by-products generated from corn versus sugar cane.
 
there hasnt been new refineries built because we havent had to, but wait.....it benefits the consumer, like i said, we havent had to. the only time i ever remember going to to the gas pump and it being empty is during hurricane rita, and that had nothing to do with capacity.

you dont have to build a new refinery to increase refining capacity, most refineries have been de-bottle-necking(not sure if three hyphens are needed), retooling existing units, or actually building new units.

no need for a whole new refinery.
 
good article. we complain about suv's, but who spends 1 hour going to work everyday?

we funded 9/11. that's the bottom line. thank a hippie.
 
spongebob said:
there hasnt been new refineries built because we havent had to, but wait.....it benefits the consumer, like i said, we havent had to. the only time i ever remember going to to the gas pump and it being empty is during hurricane rita, and that had nothing to do with capacity.

you dont have to build a new refinery to increase refining capacity, most refineries have been de-bottle-necking(not sure if three hyphens are needed), retooling existing units, or actually building new units.

no need for a whole new refinery.

Exponentional growth in the demand for oil since 1979, yet we need no new refineries? How about refineries suited for refining sour oil?

You must be a proponent for foreign oil.
 
Google "sugar cane byproduct feed"...

Yes, it has many uses after the cane tops are cut off and the sugar is removed
 
Interesting read across the spectrum. Not certain on this source though.

http://mindlace.net/archives/2006/06/12/biomass-for-fuel/



The severity of the global warming problem and sugar cane’s status a net-positive biofuel source means that expansion of sugar cane production is likely. Even if we were willing to countenance monocropping sugar across half the arable land of earth, the 79.5 liters of ethanol per ton of sugarcane and ethanol’s lower energetic value mean that we would produce about 56% of our 2005 fuel consumption.

65 tons/ha x 79.5 l/ton = 5167.5 l/ha.
5167.5 l x 0.0063 barrels/liter = 32.55 barrels ethanol
32.55 barrels ethanol x 66% energy value of crude = 21.5 barrels crude equivalent
21.5 x (1.65 x 109 hectares arable land / 2) = 17.738 x 109 barrels crude equivalent/year
31.426 x 109 barrels oil consumed in 2005
 
mountain muscle, mr. plunkey, gjohnson...etc, - you guys really seem to have your shit together.


thank you for sharing your knowledge with dullboy about this fascinating industry.



oh, and dullboy doesn't want to fuck you guys or anything so don't get any crazy ideas.
 
spongebob said:
there hasnt been new refineries built because we havent had to, but wait.....

There's a new one being built now. 150,000 bpd expected capacity.

Plus, two new ones in the Baja of Mexico with pipelines into Southern California..

And...Pat Robertson's old refinery is still available although that dog looks like hell froze over there. I'd tear it down, clean up the property, and build on the 100 oceanfront acres he owns.

Let the gov't pay for hauling out the first 6 inches of top soil.
 
For all you ethanol proponents, can any of you send me information on the amount of acreage it would take to say, produce half of our energy demands? While ethanol may be the future, it is going to take a mutli-source plan to mitigate our dependance on foreign oil. Wind, Solar, Coal, Nuclear, Ethanol, as well as existing oil resevoirs. IMO oil resevoirs should be the first to take priority since the current structure is set around this resource.

BTW are sugar beets a viable source of ethanol fuels? Cane is grown in a certain climate, one which we have a limited capacity. Beets are sustainable in a colder climate such as the Northern part of our country. (My grandparents were sugar beet farmers)
 
mountain muscle said:
For all you ethanol proponents, can any of you send me information on the amount of acreage it would take to say, produce half of our energy demands? While ethanol may be the future, it is going to take a mutli-source plan to mitigate our dependance on foreign oil. Wind, Solar, Coal, Nuclear, Ethanol, as well as existing oil resevoirs. IMO oil resevoirs should be the first to take priority since the current structure is set around this resource.

BTW are sugar beets a viable source of ethanol fuels? Cane is grown in a certain climate, one which we have a limited capacity. Beets are sustainable in a colder climate such as the Northern part of our country. (My grandparents were sugar beet farmers)
Well, here is my three-corona and two tequlia shot estimate (so it may be wrong).

About 15% of our total US corn goes into ethanol and makes about 4.5B gallons per year.

About 30% of our our total US corn production is "retired" land -- not 30% of the total, basically an "extra" 30% should we chose to use it.

About 15%-30% (yeah, I forget which number it is) of our total US corn production goes into cracked corn for animals, which could easily be replaced with DDGS (a by product of ethanol plants). Let's run with the 15% number here.

About 30% of our total US corn goes into exports on the spot market. Let's only cut that amount in half.

--------------------------------------
so 15% now makes 4.5B gallons.

so 15% (current) + 30% (retired land) + 15% (cracked corn) + 15% (exports) = 75% total = 75/15 = 5 * 4.5B gallons = 22.5B gallons of ethanol.

We use around 140B gallons/year of gasoline with 1/3 of that coming from the middle east. So that is about 46M gallons.

Therefore, without really sacrificing anything else (i.e. corn for human consumption, corn oil, etc. etc.) we've cut the middle east in about half. Let ethanol take off, and you'll see people planing corn behind corn instead of corn behind soybeans (like we do now). Then the corn production would dramatically increase, but we'd have to fertalize the soil more as well since soybeans offset some of that need.

Mind you, these numbers may change when the corona's and tequila wears off. I'm doing my own ethanol experiment right now :)
 
Y_lifter said:
Interesting read across the spectrum. Not certain on this source though.

http://mindlace.net/archives/2006/06/12/biomass-for-fuel/



The severity of the global warming problem and sugar cane’s status a net-positive biofuel source means that expansion of sugar cane production is likely. Even if we were willing to countenance monocropping sugar across half the arable land of earth, the 79.5 liters of ethanol per ton of sugarcane and ethanol’s lower energetic value mean that we would produce about 56% of our 2005 fuel consumption.

65 tons/ha x 79.5 l/ton = 5167.5 l/ha.
5167.5 l x 0.0063 barrels/liter = 32.55 barrels ethanol
32.55 barrels ethanol x 66% energy value of crude = 21.5 barrels crude equivalent
21.5 x (1.65 x 109 hectares arable land / 2) = 17.738 x 109 barrels crude equivalent/year
31.426 x 109 barrels oil consumed in 2005
We have to be careful about ethanol's lower "energy" value -- that's measured in BTW which is a measure of heat. But heat doesn't make cars go, explosions do. Ethanol has a much higher octane rating (well over 100) so it makes a really good explosion with less heat byproduct (in cars, heats is a waste that has to be dealt with using radiators and such). As cars are built with smarter carberators/injectors and built to higher compression ratios, ethanol will shine.
 
mrplunkey said:
Well, here is my three-corona and two tequlia shot estimate (so it may be wrong).

About 15% of our total US corn goes into ethanol and makes about 4.5B gallons per year.

About 30% of our our total US corn production is "retired" land -- not 30% of the total, basically an "extra" 30% should we chose to use it.

About 15%-30% (yeah, I forget which number it is) of our total US corn production goes into cracked corn for animals, which could easily be replaced with DDGS (a by product of ethanol plants). Let's run with the 15% number here.

About 30% of our total US corn goes into exports on the spot market. Let's only cut that amount in half.

--------------------------------------
so 15% now makes 4.5B gallons.

so 15% (current) + 30% (retired land) + 15% (cracked corn) + 15% (exports) = 75% total = 75/15 = 5 * 4.5B gallons = 22.5B gallons of ethanol.

We use around 140B gallons/year of gasoline with 1/3 of that coming from the middle east. So that is about 46M gallons.

Therefore, without really sacrificing anything else (i.e. corn for human consumption, corn oil, etc. etc.) we've cut the middle east in about half. Let ethanol take off, and you'll see people planing corn behind corn instead of corn behind soybeans (like we do now). Then the corn production would dramatically increase, but we'd have to fertalize the soil more as well since soybeans offset some of that need.

Mind you, these numbers may change when the corona's and tequila wears off. I'm doing my own ethanol experiment right now :)


Thanks Mr. P. That combined with an agressive exploration and research program and we could be putting nearly all of our Middle Eastern oil into reserves in a relatively short time.
 
Y_lifter said:
Google "sugar cane byproduct feed"...

Yes, it has many uses after the cane tops are cut off and the sugar is removed
I did a quick search and it looks like they burn most of what's left over.

An ideal ethanol conversion process yields by-products that have residual fermentable starch levels in the low single-digit range (i.e. 3%-4%). What makes corn byproducts valuable (DDGS) isn't just the fiber -- it's also the fat and small amount of protein that comes from the germ of the corn kernel (assuming you aren't using a fractionated process, which isn't popular in dry mills yet).

I'm not aware (but could be wrong) of any germ or other fat/protein byproduct that would be left-over with sugar cane. I'll look more later.
 
mountain muscle said:
BTW are sugar beets a viable source of ethanol fuels? Cane is grown in a certain climate, one which we have a limited capacity. Beets are sustainable in a colder climate such as the Northern part of our country. (My grandparents were sugar beet farmers)

Beets..potatoes..
Scientists in Europe are working on a potato that has ten times the normal levels of a regular potato. A super potato grown specifically for ethanol production.
 
Top Bottom