Alternative Fuel E85 Ethanol Corn Gas E70 (Beginner) [MERGED]

[311GSX]

THIS WILL BE RESERVED FOR BEGINNER E85 QUESTIONS, FOR TUNERS THAT HAVE NEVER HEARD OF RUNNING IT OR HAVEN'T RESEARCHED IT YET. THE ADVANCED E85 THREAD IS HERE FOR THE MORE ADVANCED QUESTIONS ---> http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/newbie-forum/372386-alternative-fuel-e85-ethanol-corn-gas-e70-advanced-merged.html

HOPEFULLY THIS WILL MAKE THE BASIC E85 INFORMATION MORE CENTRALIZED AND EASIER TO FIND FOR THE DSM'rs WHO ARE JUST GETTING THEIR NOSE WET AND ARE UNSURE OF WHAT E85 IS.

THANKS,

GOFER

__________________________________________________​

Has anyone tryed running E85 in their dsm? Their is a station in my area that sells it and it's not much more than regular gas. It is 85% ethanol and 15% gas and is 110 octane . It could be a cheap alternative to race gas.

 

[Splitpi]

I'd like to read up on the de-polymerization. What were you reading? Good like to the wind study.

Here you go, from my earlier post on it, I have really enjoyed reading Discover magazine and they have some really interesting articles:
Another option for making is oil, is actually physically producing it. In the Discover Magazine, April 2006, they ran the article "Anything into oil". The article was a story of the "Changing World Technologies" an outfit operating an oil producing plant out of Carthage Missouri. They litterally make oil from turkey carcases. They are currently making 500 barrels of oil a day out of 270 tons of turkey guts and 20 tons of pig fat from Butterball Turkeys. They are claiming a 65%+ return on energy usage.

The process used is Thermal depolymerization:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

The company web site:
http://www.changingworldtech.com/

Synopsis of the article:
http://www.discover.com/issues/apr-0...ng-oil/?page=2

Back to ethanol, ou don't have to use corn to produce it, if you read that link on the last page. Cellulose ethanol uses the plant stems to produce ethanol instead of the fruits/grains etc. So you can harvest the food crop and then turn the stems into ethanol. I'm not sure what the soil depletion rate is.

http://www.iogen.ca/key_messages/overview/m4_fuels_vehicles.html

Check that out too. Again, only one source, and biased as they are a leading producer, but still valuable.

Alright, I promised I would back up my claim earlier about where I read about the amount of land usage necessary to make ethanol the primary fuel source. I just remembered where I read it, in Popular Mechanics, May 2006 in the article "The truth about Bio Fuels". Page 77 stated, " One acre of corn can produce 300 gal. of ethanol per growing season. So, in order to replace that 200 billion gal of petroleum products, American Farmers would need to dedicate 675 million acres, or 71% of the nation's 938 million acres of farmland to growing feedstock. Clearly, ethanol alone won't kick our fossil fuel dependence - unless we want to replace our oil imports with food imports."

Here is the issue with that. Crops must be rotated every few years to maintane soil nutrients. I believe soy and corn, for example, are rotated to compensate each other. In which case we will see lessened supplies after a few years as the crops are rotated and refineries have to regear and recalibrate for the changing feed stocks. Ironically, which is similar to what we see now as refineries switch over to different fuel blends as a result of legislation and too few refineries. Then we run into the issue of food outright. The US is the single largest producer of agricultural food in the world. I read once that Iowa alone can feed America and the majority of else is exported to other countries. In which case, by changing over to producing ethanol we are in effect removing food from the global table. And lastly, as in the case of Brasil, the forested areas are being destroyed to plant crops. And this would be necessary to compensate for the second point I mentioned earlier. But that has huge enviromental impacts associated with it as well. And with all this crop usage comes the associated risks of soil degredation, soil salinization, erosion, pesticide pollution, water depletion, etc... Its all a balancing act. And that is my point really, Ethanol is great and helpful. It just is not the great "Oil solution" it is being hyped up to be. Atleast, not from what I have read.

There is a great book by Jared Diamond, entitled "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed". The book dealves into the topics of how over farming for instance destroyed entire civilizations, as well as several other reasons for other civilizations. Or atleast the book makes a pretty convincing case of it. I don't agree with everything in the book, but it is an interesting book to read. Jared Diamond also wrote the pulitzer price winning "Guns, Germs and Steel: Fates of Human Society". Collapse is the flipside of his previous book. Guns, Germs and Steel was made into a National Geographic series.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0670033375/104-7584764-1651101?v=glance&n=283155

 

[eclipsh]

Ahh, but the information you're siting is still based on corn ethanol, not cellulose. What happens if we produce both?

http://www.iogen.ca/issues_environment/energy_security/index.html

So Iogen says it can replace 10% of currnet gasoline use in the U.S. with ethanol. Add in some corn ethanol and get all cars running at 40+ mpg like the do in Europe and we're in a lot better shape.

 

[GTM]

...
Popular Mechanics, May 2006 in the article "The truth about Bio Fuels". Page 77 stated, " One acre of corn can produce 300 gal. of ethanol per growing season. So, in order to replace that 200 billion gal of petroleum products, American Farmers would need to dedicate 675 million acres, or 71% of the nation's 938 million acres of farmland to growing feedstock. Clearly, ethanol alone won't kick our fossil fuel dependence - unless we want to replace our oil imports with food imports."
...

I seem to recall a statement from many years ago that the US supplied 1/3rd of the world's food supply with Ca being at the top of that list which has made it 7th highest economy in the world. I've not documented this thus may be treated as hearsay.

I can fully understand why corn for it has a dual market, however, some corn has been bio-engineered and cannot be sold as a food product in this country. The flip side of the cane source is the tropical climate which yields a significant increase per acre but is not freeze tolerant.


There is a certain slant in the following article which fails to mention all the favorable tax incentives our government has given and continues to subsidize to the tune of some $4+ billion dollars so some Exon vip can take early retirement of $400 mil buy out. Rounded off that's $1.42 from every person in the US.
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn52539.htm

"What works for Brazil won't necessarily work in the United States. The Brazilian government has for decades subsidized an ethanol delivery system that put pumps in every gas station.
And Brazil has a much easier path to energy independence. It imports 240,000 bpd, or just over 10 % of its oil. US imports are running at 13.7 mm bpd, or nearly two-thirds of oil demand.

... is made for one-half to two-thirds the cost of US ethanol made from corn. ... Brazil has a better climate for biofuels. After the 18-month, frost-free growing season in Brazil, sugar cane yields high ethanol volumes. Corn and other crops grown between winter freezes in the US don't have the same yields per acre of crop.
Second, Brazilian sugar mills use the cane husks as a boiler fuel, and they send surplus electricity into the national grid.

The ethanol plants popping up all over the US corn belt don't yield as much energy because they are consumers of natural gas, coal and electricity. And US farmers don't have Brazil's cheap land and labour costs.
Mario Gandini, manager of the Sao Martinho sugar mill and distillery, said his cost of producing ethanol is $ 200 per cubic meter -- which works out to 75 cents a gallon.
"We know no country can beat us in production costs," he said."

Cheers,
GTM

 

[Splitpi]

GTM,

Also the enviromental practices for soil usage, maintance (lack there of), etc..., in Brazil wouldn't fly here in the US. Thus added cost.

And while it is easy to point fingers at the figure head for making a profit that is not the whole story. Unless of course your saying companies should not make profits? Companies owe allegence to their share holders and nothing more. Their only purpose is to make money for their share holders.

But according to DOE in 2003, 14% of the price per gallon went to Distribution & Marketing, 15% towards Refining Costs & Profits, 27% towards Federal & State Taxes, and 44% towads Crude Oil. In 2004 the figures shifted to 12% towards Distribution & Marketing, 18% towards Refining Costs & Profits, 23% towards Federal & State Taxes, and 47% towards Crude Oil. Now while you mocked the CEO of Exxon for being extremely well compensated for his work, his profit and the companies profits only come from a portion of the 18% as a large portion of that is actually refining costs. Its just that we are consuming billions of gallons that they can turn a huge profit. But did you notice anything curious about the gas price? The single largest percentage outside of the actual oil purchasing is Taxes. Its a huge profit for the Government... and while its easy to blame the dastardly "Big Oil", there isn't much interest in the government itself to cut off a very good source of income. Bare in mind, this is AFTER the government has subsidized the gas... because the money for subsizing from somewhere. California is the worst, as the report states:

The State of California operates its own reformulated gasoline program with more stringent requirements than Federally-mandated clean gasolines. In addition to the higher cost of cleaner fuel, there is a combined State and local sales and use tax of 7.25 percent on top of an 18.4 cent-per-gallon Federal excise tax and an 18.0 cent-per-gallon State excise tax. Refinery margins have also been higher due in large part to price volatility in the region. California prices are more variable than others because there are relatively few supply sources of its unique blend of gasoline outside the State. California refineries need to be running near their fullest capabilities in order to meet the State’s fuel demands.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...ns/primer_on_gasoline_prices/html/petbro.html

The truely bizarre thing about all this is that the Oil prices are jumping on the looming threat of Iran, but Iran doesn't even supply enough oil to the US to rate in the top 15 oil providers. The majority of our oil comes from Mexico, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Venezuela in order of significance. I.e. Iran is insignificant to our oil needs.

So why does the oil jump? Well, several ideas... paranoia of Iran cutting our oil supply based upon ignorance as the DOE chart shows for one. Two, a threat of Iran nuking or attacking say Saudi Arabia which would disrupt oil to the US. But then this poses a GIGANTIC problem to Iran as it would effect the entire world, in effect Iran would be committing heri-keri, they wouldn't have a country to hide behind. Iran's main importers of its oil is Russia (oddly who has vast untapped supplies as well) and China (who is near exponentially increasing oil demands). And of course there are other factors for increasing which I did not mention or am not aware of, for instance the whole China "syndrome" that I touched ever so breifly on in the previous sentence. And of course gouging by the companies as they increased their take from '03 to '04 (I am assuming that as explanation for the increase of 3% in Refining Costs & Profits, but could be actual increase in Refining Costs and not Profits).

But I would like to leave with this point, the gouging is not as astronimical as it may seem. It is large in total dollar terms because of the sheer amount of oil consumed and purchased but the percentage is not that large. Like in the movie "Office Space" where they carred over the fraction of a penny on a transaction that happened thousands of times a day (in this case 3 pennies). World demand for Oil is increasing as China and other countries modernize. That will drive up price as available supply lessens. Thus the need for alternatives that are cost effective and will not put a drag on the environment. I just don't think ethanol meets these requirements. Its feasable on a small to medium scale, but not on the large scale which is what we truely need. Afterall, you must consume more ethanol to go the same distance on gasoline alone. So while ethanol is cheaper (subsidized) you must consume more of it and currently it breaks even or nearly... but the subsidizing won't last for ever... especially if it was to become prevelent. The tax money to subsidize has to come from somewhere.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...ons/company_level_imports/current/import.html

Anyways, I think I said my speil. This was a great thread and I enjoyed reading everyone's oppinions and statements, as well as the option to voice mine as well.
Take care.

 

[eclipsh]

The truely bizarre thing about all this is that the Oil prices are jumping on the looming threat of Iran, but Iran doesn't even supply enough oil to the US to rate in the top 15 oil providers. The majority of our oil comes from Mexico, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Venezuela in order of significance. I.e. Iran is insignificant to our oil needs.

So why does the oil jump? Well, several ideas... paranoia of Iran cutting our oil supply based upon ignorance as the DOE chart shows for one. Two, a threat of Iran nuking or attacking say Saudi Arabia which would disrupt oil to the US. But then this poses a GIGANTIC problem to Iran as it would effect the entire world, in effect Iran would be committing heri-keri, they wouldn't have a country to hide behind. Iran's main importers of its oil is Russia (oddly who has vast untapped supplies as well) and China (who is near exponentially increasing oil demands). And of course there are other factors for increasing which I did not mention or am not aware of, for instance the whole China "syndrome" that I touched ever so breifly on in the previous sentence. And of course gouging by the companies as they increased their take from '03 to '04 (I am assuming that as explanation for the increase of 3% in Refining Costs & Profits, but could be actual increase in Refining Costs and not Profits).

Actually, that is also a slight misprepresentation. The problem is that we live in a GLOBAL oil market. There is very little flexibility. If one source is taken out, everyone pays more, regardless of who their suppliers are. So when Iran's oil stops flowing to Russia and China, they have to get their oil from Saudi Arabia and other countries that we rely on. So the fear of Iran's supply being removed is somewhat justified, especially considering the posturing by the Bush administration and the Iranian government.

But I would like to leave with this point, the gouging is not as astronimical as it may seem. It is large in total dollar terms because of the sheer amount of oil consumed and purchased but the percentage is not that large.

Actually, that isn't entirely true. Gasoline cost has risen from $2/gal to $3+/gal. Oil has risen much slower. I think the ratio was something like 150% to 15-30%.

 

[GTM]

GTM,

Also the enviromental practices for soil usage, maintance (lack there of), etc..., in Brazil wouldn't fly here in the US. Thus added cost.

And while it is easy to point fingers at the figure head for making a profit that is not the whole story. Unless of course your saying companies should not make profits? Companies owe allegence to their share holders and nothing more. Their only purpose is to make money for their share holders.
...
Anyways, I think I said my speil. This was a great thread and I enjoyed reading everyone's oppinions and statements, as well as the option to voice mine as well.
Take care.

Thanks for the extensive information and the energy (pun) to post it.

I am aware there is an absence of data yet know that Brazil has addressed environmental concerns and they pale to what the oil companies have abused. I'm not in a position to say who has the higher standards but I don't always feel we get the whole truth. Just consider the crap the American public was fed with SUVs.

Hells bells, no I'm not suggesting companies should not make profits. The conflict I have is only in the US where we allow/tolerate/encourage these to be so disproportionate to the rest of the civilized world. It is also the power to corrupt in their own self interests and insulate themselves from a variety of issues where a staff of lawyers devise new ways to circumvent the law. politicians are bought and sold in back rooms to prevent competition from alternative fuel sources is not too far fetched to entered common sense. What Gov. agency is willing to close it's doors because suddenly all businesses developed a sense of morality. Holding this country hostage while as the latest quarterly earnings show huge profits and all we get is lip service from our elected officials.

While this may be off topic it does explain in part why we don't have the options which should have been in place decades ago. I cannot begin to count all the small oil companies who have been devoured in the name of the public welfare to the point we now have 4 companies controlling the market. I cannot help be pessimistic that we will ever see a viable alternative to gasoline until I know that $400 million benefit package has not been bought and paid for by the corrupt system that has been foisted off as being good for the country.

I may have seen a million or more dollars in my lifetime of earnings but my IQ and skills don't make me 1/400 as smart as this ONE example. It is the extreme capitalization off the blood sweat and tears of all Americans not getting a fair shake while in this case the insouciant attitudes of my life's work are dismissed. Unless we Americans are willing to demand accountability for the corruption of the American Dream we can only expect jack ~. My father after 44 years as a Professor of foreign languages who wrote most of the language books for the military in WWI and WWII died with less than $7,000 to his name. With degrees in 22 foreign languages surely his IQ was equal to the CEO or VIP or some oil exec. While I may be totally out of my element in this forum I still did not totally fall off the turnip wagon.

Make no mistake I have an ax to grind and that includes the difficulty the original poster must have encountered when doing his term paper. Whether he was sagacious enough to realize the sources of information were tainted by those who can buy the most coverage with Google when doing his search is unknown. I am more than willing to delete this tangent post and/or start a new thread in a more proper forum.

I'm not a professional debater so excuse the amateurish quality, I fixed cars for a living because it afforded me a better standard of living than I could have earned as a research scientist or an economist. Little did I dream that driving a city bus would be the measure of my worth, as a college dropout with a career in medicine I fix someone's car problems for I was at the top of my game.

I'm unclear as to of the intent of the "?" while providing a wealth of info. Perhaps that is while I'm here in abject poverty and those of your ilk are thumping chests defending a corrupt system. So now you have outed me let's get back to why we are here either in this thread or the dehumanization which I detect offsets a sense of privilege.

Please correct me, please tell me I'm out of line and I will remove this post. Much of what I have written in the last few posts are personal opinion and is just as tainted as Gov figures promoting the Oil industry is next to god or is it God.

Oh dear oh dear~
GTM

 

[eclipsh]

*hugs GTM* It'll be ok... No really, good rant. There is a lot of BS out there. If you feel like filling yourself in more on why all this BS is going on go read:

Robert Baer's "Sleeping with the Devil, how Washington sold our souls for Saudi Crude."

? "Blood & Oil"

"Winning the Oil Endgame" - free download.

That other book that was mentioned, same author as Guns, Germs and Steel, I've heard from many people it is a great read too.

Basically what they all come down to is corruption, greed and a lack of accountability in the upper echalons of society.

 

[Dark_Horse]

I cannot help be pessimistic that we will ever see a viable alternative to gasoline until I know that $400 million benefit package has not been bought and paid for by the corrupt system that has been foisted off as being good for the country.
GTM

Wow, that has to be one of the most intelligent posts I've seen on this forum. Seriously.

I totally agree with you in your line of thinking too.

With that said, while I don't think that E85 is going to ever be able to make a dent in the oil industry, my facination with it is purely because it's cheap and has very high octane. I realize that it's highly possible that all/most of the tests that show ethanol creates positive energy may just be the govt blowing smoke up our a$$es, but without researching it ourselves, I can't rule out the possiblilty that it can create positive energy.

I have also seen statistics that show that if we put solar pannels on just 1% of the earths surface that we'd be able to power the world a few times over. Will this ever happen, nope. Will we ever use more nuclear power, nope. Wind power? Nope. None of those power sources make the fat cats as much money as oil will.

It's the same reason that the govt is unwilling to mandate that all vehicles get better fuel economy. It's been what, 20+ years since the govt changed the avg fleet fuel economy mandates? In those 20+ years, the technology has been developed and engines have gotten more efficient, but we just keep making cars heavier and heavier.

I have no idea who said this quote, but it sums up the United States economy very nicely. "Capitalism is a self-destructive entity." I may have misquoted the last word, it's either entity or mechanism.

 

[eclipsh]

That last bit is basically Marxism. He stated that capitalism will basically self-destruct in the future when it essentially canibalizes itself (hasn't happened yet, well besides the Great Depression...)

The other side to this argument is that eventually the market will demand alternatives to oil, like when it is over $100 barrel and gas costs $5/gal. Right now the general populace is to apathetic to really do much besides complain. Once people are really pissed and start doing something, the market will hopefully respond and offer REAL alternatives. As it is, the topic is becoming increasingly discussed and thought about. It's really just a matter of time before things change, though hopefully sooner than later.

 

[GTM]

Wow, that has to be one of the most intelligent posts I've seen on this forum. Seriously.

I totally agree with you in your line of thinking too.

With that said, while I don't think that E85 is going to ever be able to make a dent in the oil industry, my facination with it is purely because it's cheap and has very high octane. I realize that it's highly possible that all/most of the tests that show ethanol creates positive energy may just be the govt blowing smoke up our a$$es, but without researching it ourselves, I can't rule out the possiblilty that it can create positive energy.

I have also seen statistics that show that if we put solar pannels on just 1% of the earths surface that we'd be able to power the world a few times over. Will this ever happen, nope. Will we ever use more nuclear power, nope. Wind power? Nope. None of those power sources make the fat cats as much money as oil will.

It's the same reason that the govt is unwilling to mandate that all vehicles get better fuel economy. It's been what, 20+ years since the govt changed the avg fleet fuel economy mandates? In those 20+ years, the technology has been developed and engines have gotten more efficient, but we just keep making cars heavier and heavier.

Thank you for the compliment.

I'm fairly confident that sugar cane is a much better choice if they are able to develop a hybrid more suited to our climate. I don't know if there is any yield from corn stalks which are used for cattle and other feed. This obviously requires another energy consuming process and then trucking or rail shipping to the beef feed yards. On the other hand the pressed cane is used for fuel on site to propel the machinery and generating electricity which is sold to the grid. It's a win win for the farmers who have less overhead.

As for wind generators I see so few being installed in these vast corn fields and I don't understand why. We have a few wind farms in the desert areas outside Los Angeles, what I've noted is there are basically 2 sizes. The larger units must have an 80' diameter blade which need a fence around the blade for it sweeps dangerously close to the ground. These turn much slower and I actually find their motion to be graceful plus they make no noise unlike the smaller units.

Solar cells still have not achieved that 25¢ production cost that would make them cost effective for normal home use. I do see them being used to some extent in the rural areas of the Antelope Valley but these are also backed up with you guessed it, gasoline generators.
..................

It has even been theorized that JFK was assassinated by the oil cartel in this country when he was planning on doing away with the Oil Depletion Allowance Tax. This tax credit was based on the idea that the US would run out of oil and thus the oil companies would be all be out of jobs. That was valid until the oil companies started building tankers and buying from foreign sources. I have always wondered if the oil companies are actually pumping some this crude back into the ground where it's easy to recover. There is an oil field a few miles away and I note that when prices jump many of these pumps are turned on when they sat dormant for 6 months.

Before most of you were born Los Angeles had a decent light rail system, the city was having some operational cost issues. Goodrich tire, Standard Oil, and GM convinced the city they could make it profitable if they were to collectively run it. Within 2(?) years they completely bankrupted the system and it shut down leaving only busses to provide public transportation. Some 30 years later records were found proving a conspiracy existed between the 3 companies before they ever took over to bankrupt the system. No prosecution was ever made because the Gov. argued it would be in the public best interest for the damage awards would have bankrupted all three companies. Why the conspiracy, it was to force more people into buying cars (GM presumably) Goodrich tires and Standard/Chervon gasoline. The slogan back then was "What is Good for GM is Good for the Country". As I mentioned not 1 law suit, not $1 out of court and thus private citizens could not sue for their losses. So if you wonder why I'm such a skeptic and a pessimist that upper management not only of oil companies will ever take any classes in moral turpitude. Another PBS broadcast some discussed this lack of morality in big business and indicated it would get worse unless upper management realized they had a responsibility to their companies, employees, and to society to be honest.

Cheers,
GTM

 

[eclipsh]

GTM

Yes, there is yeild from corn stalks, but it requires using cellulose ethanol technology. Any plant stems, husks etc. will work.

I agree, we aren't putting up wind generators fast enough. Part of that is also lobbyists for the coal industry. The reservation south west of me just got a few million dollars to build another coal plant instead of wind mills which would do extremely well in their area, or solar wich would also do well (both lots of wind and clear, rarely couldy skies).

Solar is still more expensive then wind energy, but wind energy is on par with coal and natural gas. We need to get DC out of the pockets of big oil and coal to make the changes necessary.

If you watch the documentary, The Corporation, they rip corporations to shreds. Since corporations have all the legal rights of people, they do a psychological profile and come to the conclusion that corporations are in fact sociopaths.

 

[Dark_Horse]

It has even been theorized that JFK was assassinated by the oil cartel in this country when he was planning on doing away with the Oil Depletion Allowance Tax. This tax credit was based on the idea that the US would run out of oil and thus the oil companies would be all be out of jobs. That was valid until the oil companies started building tankers and buying from foreign sources. I have always wondered if the oil companies are actually pumping some this crude back into the ground where it's easy to recover. There is an oil field a few miles away and I note that when prices jump many of these pumps are turned on when they sat dormant for 6 months.
Cheers,
GTM

That would mean that Oswald was in with the oil companies. Or that the oil companies were in bed with the Communist party. I can't buy that theory, though it does sound quite interesting.

Someone thought it was in the cities best interest to have 3 oil companies run a light rail system? Didn't anyone think that it was a conflict of interest? I wonder how much $$ the oil companies had to pay to the right people to make that happen?

I honestly don't know if gas in America will ever hit $5 a gallon. Since there have been record profits in the oil/gas industry, people are starting to build new refineries and invest in oil shale recovery and excavating the oil sands in Canada. I heard a report that says Canada has enough oil sands to power the world's needs for the next 150 years at the current consumption rate. It costs the Canadian companies $20 per barrel to recover this oil...so as long as the prices stay above $40 per barrel, I think they'll do just fine.

In fact, I've started thinking about checking into getting a job in the Canadian oil industry (if it's even possible since I'm an American).

Eclipsh - You forgot to mention hydro power. There are hundreds of dams that could be converted to hydro power for minimal cost...but the $$ just isn't there. Plus the fish activists usually block any attempt to build hydro power because it kills some fish. You'd be surprised at how much a fish ladder costs!

The same argument can be said for wind power too...The bird activists complain because wind turbines kill birds. I read an article in Popular Science that stated that wind farms kill hundreds and hundreds of birds each year. Hopefully the next generation of wind turbines will address this problem as it would lessen the blockage by activists they currently face.

 

[eclipsh]

Yeah, but you can tell from the bullets in the ground that Oswald wasn't the only shooter.

The Canadian oil sands are one decent source of oil, but it is extremely damaging to the environment and it doesn't help the issue of global warming one bit (wich is also part of this equation).

Also, with China, India and other countries expanding their needs for oil at a rapid rate, oil supplies are becoming increasingly fought over. Good old fashioned geopolitics leading to more conflict, potentially militaristic in nature.

On the other hand, China's being a one-party system means that they are investing into more efficient vehicles faster than the U.S. is. The question is if this trend in innovation will be able to keep up with their vast population's economic expansion.

Hydroelectric power on a large scale is basically tapped out, aside from potential off-shore tidal based systems, which you could probably build wind mills on top of. On a minature scale, hydroelectric turbines (picture under water jet engines) can be dropped into rivers, but the fish kill issue is still there.

As far as birds and wind mills, let Darwin sort it out. Kidding, of course. I haven't heard anything on how the new larger, slower windmills effect this issue.

We just have to way the impact of oil production/consumption on the environment to that of wind and hydro and see what comes out the winner. Just remember, there aren't any spills or air pollution associated with wind.

The other issue is the supply network. The US's electric grid is in a sad state, as the brown & black-outs on the east coast a few years ago showed. Our pipe-lines for natural gas are in just as bad a shape. As the Bush administration has been pointing out lately, we also haven't built any refineries since the 70's.

So, do we invest in repairing and updating all three systems, or focus on one or two? Obviously it is more cost effective to rebuild one network. Since there is no way we'll be going without electricity, it makes rebuilding the power grid the most sensible option. With a stronger national grid, placing windmills, solar, geothermal and hydro plants on it means if one area's power production is lagging (no wind, cloudy etc.) then the other areas can help pick up the slack. With a country as big as ours, there is always wind and or sun somewhere.

 

[Dark_Horse]

Hydroelectric power on a large scale is basically tapped out, aside from potential off-shore tidal based systems, which you could probably build wind mills on top of. On a minature scale, hydroelectric turbines (picture under water jet engines) can be dropped into rivers, but the fish kill issue is still there.

I'm starting to believe that Oswald was the only shooter...I watched histories detectives on the Discovery Channel and they proved you can make all the fatal shots from the book depository in the time required with the gun he used.

Actually, hydro power is far from tapped out. How do I know this? Because I work for the dept of energy which goes hand in hand with hydro power...The specific off-shoot of the DOE I work for is solely devoted to hydro power. I've sat through many presentations on how many dams could be converted into hydro dams, but the govt funding just isn't there anymore. I forget the exact number, but something like only 3 hydro dams have been built/retrofitted in the last 10 years. Again, I don't know the exact number, but there are something like 400+ dams that could be retrofitted with hydroelectric generators...And many, many other low head dams could be built.

I don't think you can beat hydro or wind power. There are no spills to clean up, it's definitely renewable, doesn't create any pollution when used and besides killing some birds and fish (which are being addressed in both hydro and wind power) has no downsides. Well, hydro needs water, so in a drought it's not very useful.

Then there's always nuclear power...

 

[LazerSRT-4]

I'm starting to believe that Oswald was the only shooter...I watched histories detectives on the Discovery Channel and they proved you can make all the fatal shots from the book depository in the time required with the gun he used.

Actually, hydro power is far from tapped out. How do I know this? Because I work for the dept of energy which goes hand in hand with hydro power...The specific off-shoot of the DOE I work for is solely devoted to hydro power. I've sat through many presentations on how many dams could be converted into hydro dams, but the govt funding just isn't there anymore. I forget the exact number, but something like only 3 hydro dams have been built/retrofitted in the last 10 years. Again, I don't know the exact number, but there are something like 400+ dams that could be retrofitted with hydroelectric generators...And many, many other low head dams could be built.

I don't think you can beat hydro or wind power. There are no spills to clean up, it's definitely renewable, doesn't create any pollution when used and besides killing some birds and fish (which are being addressed in both hydro and wind power) has no downsides. Well, hydro needs water, so in a drought it's not very useful.

Then there's always nuclear power...

Hmm..........................



fusion

 

[eclipsh]

Then there's always nuclear power...

Can we say "Chyernobl?" (I said say, not spell). How about 3 Mile Island?

Aside from the risks of catastrophic failure, you should well know the costs of just running a nuke plant. You're easily looking at 2-3x the cost of any other energy source. It even costs more then solar at this point. It just isn't worth the up-front costs.

Then there's the waste that's deadly for over a thousand years. They're stuffing it in a Nevada mountain in an earth quake zone above an aquifer?! Are they NUTS?!!?!?!

I know! Lets transport all that hazardous fuel cross-country to stuff it in a risky place above drinking water. Sound good?

Let's do it!

PS. We're friggin' NUTZ!!!!

 

[Dark_Horse]

Can we say "Chyernobl?" (I said say, not spell). How about 3 Mile Island?

Aside from the risks of catastrophic failure, you should well know the costs of just running a nuke plant. You're easily looking at 2-3x the cost of any other energy source. It even costs more then solar at this point. It just isn't worth the up-front costs.

Then there's the waste that's deadly for over a thousand years. They're stuffing it in a Nevada mountain in an earth quake zone above an aquifer?! Are they NUTS?!!?!?!

I didn't think anyone would like that idea. But it will save on oil/gas.

And what's wrong with drinking green glowing nuclear waste laden aquifer water? Spider Man got his powers after being bitten by a radioactive spider (I think that's now he got those powers at least)...So drinking it would only give us more super powers.

 

[GTM]

I'm starting to believe that Oswald was the only shooter...I watched histories detectives on the Discovery Channel and they proved you can make all the fatal shots from the book depository in the time required with the gun he used.

Actually, hydro power is far from tapped out. How do I know this? Because I work for the dept of energy which goes hand in hand with hydro power...The specific off-shoot of the DOE I work for is solely devoted to hydro power. I've sat through many presentations on how many dams could be converted into hydro dams, but the govt funding just isn't there anymore. I forget the exact number, but something like only 3 hydro dams have been built/retrofitted in the last 10 years. Again, I don't know the exact number, but there are something like 400+ dams that could be retrofitted with hydroelectric generators...And many, many other low head dams could be built.

I don't think you can beat hydro or wind power. There are no spills to clean up, it's definitely renewable, doesn't create any pollution when used and besides killing some birds and fish (which are being addressed in both hydro and wind power) has no downsides. Well, hydro needs water, so in a drought it's not very useful.

Then there's always nuclear power...

I tend to think he was and not familiar with any other bullets or casings being found. The profiles on him show he was bouncing from one cause to another and was a USSR reject after living there for1.5-2 yrs because of his Russian wife. I don't think he had a clue who was manipulating his strings for I don't think the ladder went all the way to the top. There is a sealed container with a 100 year time lock from the Kennedy family, it supposedly either has information or proof who was responsible. I can only guess this points fingers at either a group of big business in the US or foreign Gov. which if known would outrage the public to the point of killings or waging war. For the reasons previously cited it would cause another great depression should it be shown a particular industry was responsible. Consider we were flirting with nuclear war over Cuba, would our Gov. have not been willing to launch ICBM to Russia?? Would it make sense to bring down the US economy just for the sake of getting _JUSTICE_ in court or to punish a whole country?? The world lost a great statesman who was nobody's fool unlike some presidents who have followed him.

Sorry about the tangent, it was just to show how big businesses can and has operated outside the law and public interests. BTW it wasn't 3 oil companies, 1 oil, 1 car maker, and 1 tire maker so it was not just an oil Board member's coffe clutch at the local Denny's. They had written evidence between the companies that took decades to uncover. The info is on the Internet if interested.
.............

Re: Hydro power. A yacht club friend was one of the engineers who in the last 5(?) years completed a water pipeline which elevated water over a mountain range (3,000'?) using a syphon. This was the first of it's kind bringing water to the ever expanding So. Calif. needs. Other than the necessary pumps to fill the system it is not a power consumer as are all the other water sources. This is not rocket science yet had been poo pooed for decades. My question is why not build the same idea with pipes leading over the tops of dams and a generator exiting just as we have turbos inline with exhaust flow???? They can be supported at either end and thus no load bearing on the dam it's self. It may not be pretty, but it wouldn't change the current function of the dam and it's current spillways.

Wouldn't hurt my feelings if we had a lot fewer European Startlings running into wind generators. Talk about impact on so many native species it's mind bending. Consider that in 1900 there were 120 known species of butterflies here in greater Los Angeles... in 2000 there are exactly 11. I see a Morning Cloak maybe twice a year rather than 10 times a day. I've not seen an El Segundo Blue in 30 years, thanks to Standard Oil's second refinery and then LAX destroying their habitat.
..................

China's competition for oil reminds me of a recent news release where our standard for fuel economy have _JUST_ been brought up to China's standards. What the blazes is wrong with our Gov. who sit there swilling at the Public Trough thinking of... I know of one president who rolled back these standards along with crash protection, then sold out to the truck/suv/van production because they were all built on truck chassis with no regulation at that time. Oh, and these standards don't take effect until 2008 and 2010. This did in the family stationwagon industry which was built on car chassis and had to meet economy stds and more strict crash protection.

The hydro power is a 24/7 source unlike wind or solar. My money is on Dark Matter if I should live so long.

Cheers,
GTM

 

[GTM]

I didn't think anyone would like that idea. But it will save on oil/gas.

And what's wrong with drinking green glowing nuclear waste laden aquifer water?
...

My contrabution to mankind was that of an activist to protest atmospheric nuclear testing some 40+ years ago. As "The Minoirty of One" no Gov. official will hear your/our voices, all I can suggest is finding the most lucid sagacious person who is able to take on these problems. I am not an anarchist, I believe in the right of free speech, I believe in the good will of man. I believe in society and the right to have protests which do not bring harm to public, private property, or persons.

If 2 million illegals can walk the streets of this country a week ago to have their cause heard why are we so apathetic to what has happened to our country and it's current course... It's up to _you_ younger generations to get up from behind the monitor and see who in your community is doing something that reflects what has made this country great. Were it not for the corrupt business and Gov. who have sold our souls and our children's souls for thier greed.

Gandhi had a cause who's time had come, MLK had a cause who's time had come, WHO will now step up and replace them...

Cheers,
GTM

 

[Maglin]

Just wanted to see if anyone else was running E85 for a fuel source. I just recenlty tried it out. Man it's sweet. Not only does the exhaust not smell it sort of cleans as it burns. It's 105 octane and usually cheaper than regular unleaded. Most see a 15% increase in fuel consumption DDing and 30% increase in WOT. That is due to is't 10.1:1 Stioch AFR.

I was running 13* of timing @ 7500+ RPM with 11.1:1 AFR and 28 PSI. Now I'm running 17* advance and 11.7:1 AFR @ 7500+ RPM and 28 PSI still. I went from the occasional 3-5 counts of knock to totally zero knock. Car is of course much strongher now.

On another forum one guy was running straight methonal in his banchee (sp) and outputing like 80 HP. Went to E85 rejetted and did some tuning and is now outputing 85 HP. That didn't make to much sence to me and I fell it's was just cause of a better tune but it is 85% ethanol and is very cheap form of high octane fuel.

This is just a rough tune done making broad adjustments. I'm going to get around to doing some fine tuning and getting it closer to it's knock threshold.

If anyone would like to try it out you will need to be able to control your fuel with something. An AFC would sufice and a WB would help but isn't totally needed. Your stock NB will help you still get your closed loop trims pretty good and you can tune your WOT from their. You also need to have at least 30% more injector duty cylce free on regular gas to be able to run the needed richer mix. Also be aware that if you do switch shortly aferwards it will probably be necessary to change your fuel filter as the E85 will clean your fuel tank of any old fuel varnish along with your fuel lines and start to plug up your fuel filter.

So I would like to hear from others out their that may be runing or is running E85.

 

[GVR4592]

How are you determining your A/F ratio? E85 stoich A/F ratio is 9.765:1 if you are at 11.7:1 you are very very lean. E85 generally makes best power around 7:1.

 

[95blackGsTurbo]

I used it for years in Iowa and you don't wanna be anywhere near 11.7:1. I was around 7.8:1 in my 2g and that is where it performed the best. I would not recommend messing with it unless you have completely redone your fuel system. I replaced all the rubber O-rings with Teflon one's and replaced all of my rubber line with SS and even got a special fuel filter to help it out. Just putting E85 in your tank straight and running it is going to cause a lot more problems a little later down the road. It sucks gas something fierce too. I mainly just used it for track gas but would burn a tank going to and from the track. About 200 miles on a full tank. Because of the alcohol it is very corosive and you will start to get chunks of rubber in your line and start plugging stuff up. And to do it properly you will need more than an AFC because it cannot compensate enough to get the car as rich as it needs. I garentee you look in your cylinder and your walls are starting to score. Running to lean on it once will start to do crazy things to your internals.

 

[larsrya8]

So does the stock narrowband oxygen sensor read 0.5 volts when running E85 at it's stoich ratio? Or does it read 0.5 volts when running E85 at gasoline's stoich ratio? Or is it somewhere in between?

If the stock sensor can be used to get a good tune on E85, that'd be pretty neat. But if it can't, the ECU will be fighting your tune with its fuel trims as it will think you're running waaay too rich.

If I can't run straight E85, I'm sure that there will be some gains from mixing it with the 93 octane around here.

 

[GVR4592]

The oxygen sensor doesn't care about what type of fuel you are using, it measures oxygen content in the exhaust gas. The problem is actually getting to stoich without maxing out your fuel trims, which is basically impossible with a stock ecu.

 

[Maglin]

Opps I forgot to mention I didn't change the programing on my Wideband so it's pretty much still ouputing numbers for 14.7:1 stioch. So I'm running about .8 Lambda. I have changed out most of my lines. It's hard lines going to and from the tank. Their is only a few lines to change out. And yes I personally do have "control" of my fuel.

It's actually easier to do on a stock ECU with a AFC. Most people that run the 14b or 16G can do it with a SAFC and a set of 880cc injectors. Their wouldn't be very much correction needed on the low end.

it doesn't suck fuel something fierce either. It requires 30% more fuel. Most places just premium unleaded is more than 30% more than E85. That is if it's available in your area.