tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post111713765063269858..comments2024-03-06T03:15:58.539-05:00Comments on <b>THE NEW REFORM CLUB</b>: They Must Be Drinking EthanolHunter Bakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1120154405377897072005-06-30T14:00:00.000-04:002005-06-30T14:00:00.000-04:00Indeed, Anonymous can do math. However, I wouldn'...Indeed, Anonymous can do math. However, I wouldn't recommend him for a position as an engineer quite yet.<BR/><BR/>While much of his argument is sound, he, like others, is confusing a feedstock (crude oil) with a finished product (ethanol). A 42-gallon barrel of oil is refined to produce 19.4 gallons of gasoline plus 9.7 gallons of distillate fuel oil plus some other stuff. This factor would seem to cut the estimate of 156 billion gallons down to 72 billion gallons.<BR/><BR/>Yes, that 42-gallon barrel of oil does produce those other products, but bear in mind that it takes energy to refine that barrel of crude oil just as it takes energy to distill that ethanol.<BR/><BR/>My take on this whole situation is that the government should get the hell out of the way and let the free market determine what is most efficient. Taxes, subsidies, and this seemingly atrocious energy bill only hide the truth and lead to inefficiencies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1120072633306191922005-06-29T15:17:00.000-04:002005-06-29T15:17:00.000-04:00Exhaust from vehicle tailpipes is the largest sing...Exhaust from vehicle tailpipes is the largest single source of air pollution in Minnesota. From what I have heard from the MN Dept. of Agriculture, we really are not planting MORE corn to make ethanol-based fuels, we are just using the crop in different ways. Farming, like most industries, has become much more energy efficent, as has ethanol plants. Many MN farmers use biofuels in tractors, combines and trucks. Sure, some petroleum has to be imported to create E85 -- about 85% less than to create a gallon of gas.<BR/><BR/>Question for anonymous: What kind of clean fuels are YOU using? If you have a better fuel that can be used by many vehicles and available at local stations right now, please let us know.American Lung Association of Minnesotahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08068022274578067069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1119892216881973392005-06-27T13:10:00.000-04:002005-06-27T13:10:00.000-04:00Bob from the ALAMN, surely you must be talking nat...Bob from the ALAMN, surely you must be talking national polution and not the effect on Minnesota, or you have completely ignored the fact that E85 takes the refinement of fuel that was done elsewhere and brings it home here to MN. Combined with all the fuel (and chemicals) it takes to produce corn and turn it into ethanol, trucking it to stations, etc..., just at what point is E85 supposed to be making our air here cleaner? All this is of course while burning 30 percent more of it...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1119216624753179462005-06-19T17:30:00.000-04:002005-06-19T17:30:00.000-04:00As much of the nation (and bloggers) begin to TALK...As much of the nation (and bloggers) begin to TALK about E85, we in Minnesota are using the cleaner-buring alternative in record amounts.<BR/><BR/>It is now easy to travel all across Minnesota and not be far from one of the 150+ E85 pumps, where E85 is selling for 40-60 cents cheaper than regular unleaded.<BR/><BR/>The American Lung Association of Minnesota supports E85 because it is less polluting than gasoline. See more at the ALAMN website:<BR/>www.CleanAirChoice.org<BR/><BR/>Bob from the ALAMNAmerican Lung Association of Minnesotahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08068022274578067069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1117921263140586882005-06-04T17:41:00.000-04:002005-06-04T17:41:00.000-04:00and as the price of oil goes up, more clever solut...and as the price of oil goes up, more clever solutions to providing power needs will be made available. As it stands, there is not enough money to be made for the research required into alternatives to burning oil, so it is not pursued. When it is profitable, people will do it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1117346070889338232005-05-29T01:54:00.000-04:002005-05-29T01:54:00.000-04:00My first try at the calculations I posted above yi...My first try at the calculations I posted above yielded answers that were off by a factor of ten, by the way. But I check my work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1117299351129583172005-05-28T12:55:00.000-04:002005-05-28T12:55:00.000-04:00the AP journalist should have been more skeptical ...<I>the AP journalist should have been more skeptical before printing such an erroneous claim.</I><BR/><BR/>Journalists and popular science writers get away with this nonsense because they, their editors, and most of their readers, are afflicted with basic innumeracy. It is actually considered a virtue to be innumerate in this country. <I>Oh, I'm a people person, not a math person.</I> Can you imagine anyone excusing their own illiteracy by declaring <I>Oh I'm a people person, not a word person</I>?? I was trained as an economic demographer and worked for serveral years in public health, and I have seen articles published not just in newspapers but in professional journals, containing numeric mistakes of factors of ten or more, leading to conclusions that the author would recognize to be ludicrous if he or she were only able to understand the numbers being slung around.<BR/><BR/>You have to operate on the "Will Rogers" principle (All I know is what I read in the papers.) Considering the mistakes you see being made when you read an article on subject with which you are familiar -- how likely are similar mistakes in articles about which you know next to nothing? And how then can you trust <B>anything</B> you read? I think in this respect the blogosphere is an excellent thing. It puts me in easy touch with people of ordinary intelligence who happen to have knowledge and experience of a particular subject, and these mistakes come to light much more quickly and are debunked more widely.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1117202755364166402005-05-27T10:05:00.000-04:002005-05-27T10:05:00.000-04:00corn or sugar (the only sources politicians favor)...<I>corn or sugar (the only sources politicians favor)</I><BR/><BR/>For now, anyway. The soybean producers are persistent in trying to elbow their way up to the trough with biodiesel. I'm not sure how hard the corn lobby will fight this, or what American Farm Bureau's position is, as they have to represent both constituencies.<BR/><BR/>It's so encouraging to be a free-market libertarian from a farm state and watch my neighbors step on each other's heads like a litter of piglets racing for the mother sow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1117159470296748482005-05-26T22:04:00.000-04:002005-05-26T22:04:00.000-04:00Never thought I'd say this here, but, I agree whol...Never thought I'd say this here, but, I agree wholeheartedly.<BR/><BR/>Ethanol is a completely unrealistic energy solution, as are hydrogen-based vehicles. Real solutions will need to include short-term and long-term goals. Mixing in biodiesel and hybrid technology is a good start, while we push for better electric vehicle technology. Increased mass transit will make infinitely more sense for commuting, especially in urban and suburban areas (When, oh, when will I get my BART in San Jose? Or at least some functioning light rail?). <BR/>Better electricity generation, from improved nuclear technology and new, innovative sources, such as John Pina Craven's Natural Energy Lab project, will be key.<BR/><BR/>Hey, maybe Governator Ahnuld will drop the speed limit to 55mph and the American motor companies will drop their lawsuit to stop the state's new fuel emission and mileage standards. That'd do wonders too.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1117139260421559052005-05-26T16:27:00.000-04:002005-05-26T16:27:00.000-04:00The energy density of Texas crude oil is 45 MJ/kg....The energy density of Texas crude oil is 45 MJ/kg. The density of Texas crude oil is 873 kg/m^3. Thus, at 39285 MJ/m^3, a 42 gallon barrel of crude oil contains 6246 MJ of energy.<BR/><BR/>The energy density of ethanol is 26.8 MJ/kg. The density of ethanol is 789 kg/m^3. Thus, at 21145 MJ/m^3, a gallon of ethanol contains 80 MJ of energy.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, in order to replace 2 billion barrels of crude oil, you would need 156 billion gallons of ethanol.<BR/><BR/>Or perhaps I've made a mistake somewhere.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, my point is: don't equate volume with energy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com