how do you feel about running your jk on ethonol that obama supports?
06-15-2011, 03:16 AM
#21
JK Freak
If. I believe it as an eventual outcome, but not until I see it. Until then, there are "in the works" (not much different than yours, 
, but proven) systems that will allow existing processes to provide more liquid fuel. Liquid fuel for vehicles will be on the way out well before we run out of them, they don't compare to batteries overall. Certainly not to batteries in 20 years. Liquid fuels are a necessity for certain things, aircraft etc, but algal mass plants, etc - they will provide enough
You seem to know your stuff very well. Nice to see some long posts on here.
The issue with the 100 year depletion (I don't particularly believe that, but it is more reasonable - see reservoir estimations around 1970's) is that it is likely to be irrelevant. Ask yourself how much fossil fuel was used 100 years AGO. Not much. Major technological shift led to massive use of the internal combustion engine. We are on the brink/in process of the next major shift. Battery/fuel cell to electrical motor.
The all electric, hybrid, gasoline-electric vehicles that are being produced now ARE the model Ts of this generation. And they still produce over twice the mileage of most vehicles. 15 years from now, the batteries will be better, the motors will be better, etc. It becomes an engineering problem that will lead to the total refinement of a new idea. Kind of like the pentastar is to an internal combustion engine.
100 year issues at this point in time are scare tactics pure and simple. In a society that is fundamentally incapable of seeing basic and fundamental issues like over leveraging in the housing market and debt which bring immediate consequence, it is silly to believe that society as a whole can plan energy to 100 years - even if some members could. The idea that society needs to be involved at a government level (and is unwilling to just list requirements and pay out to the winners) is the primary reason we have legally mandated corn ethanol.
With a 100 year, 50 year, or even 25 year time frame the fossil fuel issues really diminish to nearly irrelevant. Toss in currently "unrecoverable" reserves (tight sands gas for instance, but 20 years ago), increasing efficiency, new technological developments, embracing of nuclear, refinement and actual INSTALLATION of high temp solar thermal, etc - it is really much worry about nothing.
Things are going to be fine as long as there isn't sudden, unexpected and drastic drops in fuel from many sources. And other than political issues, domestic or otherwise, that isn't going to be the case.
, but proven) systems that will allow existing processes to provide more liquid fuel. Liquid fuel for vehicles will be on the way out well before we run out of them, they don't compare to batteries overall. Certainly not to batteries in 20 years. Liquid fuels are a necessity for certain things, aircraft etc, but algal mass plants, etc - they will provide enoughYou seem to know your stuff very well. Nice to see some long posts on here.
The issue with the 100 year depletion (I don't particularly believe that, but it is more reasonable - see reservoir estimations around 1970's) is that it is likely to be irrelevant. Ask yourself how much fossil fuel was used 100 years AGO. Not much. Major technological shift led to massive use of the internal combustion engine. We are on the brink/in process of the next major shift. Battery/fuel cell to electrical motor.
The all electric, hybrid, gasoline-electric vehicles that are being produced now ARE the model Ts of this generation. And they still produce over twice the mileage of most vehicles. 15 years from now, the batteries will be better, the motors will be better, etc. It becomes an engineering problem that will lead to the total refinement of a new idea. Kind of like the pentastar is to an internal combustion engine.
100 year issues at this point in time are scare tactics pure and simple. In a society that is fundamentally incapable of seeing basic and fundamental issues like over leveraging in the housing market and debt which bring immediate consequence, it is silly to believe that society as a whole can plan energy to 100 years - even if some members could. The idea that society needs to be involved at a government level (and is unwilling to just list requirements and pay out to the winners) is the primary reason we have legally mandated corn ethanol.
With a 100 year, 50 year, or even 25 year time frame the fossil fuel issues really diminish to nearly irrelevant. Toss in currently "unrecoverable" reserves (tight sands gas for instance, but 20 years ago), increasing efficiency, new technological developments, embracing of nuclear, refinement and actual INSTALLATION of high temp solar thermal, etc - it is really much worry about nothing.
Things are going to be fine as long as there isn't sudden, unexpected and drastic drops in fuel from many sources. And other than political issues, domestic or otherwise, that isn't going to be the case.
Secondly the estimate that the U.S. has 100 years of coal and natural gas is in fact taking into account all types of reserves (gas shale plays, tight sands, etc) except for natural gas hydrates. We can discuss whether hydrates will play a future in energy plans around the world or not, but back to the topic of ethanol, my point is pretty much that whether we like it or not I am in my late 20s and I fully expect to see the end of fossil fuels in my lifetime (whether it is [hopefully] by replacement with renewable energy or whether it is gasoline going to $30 per gallon and the world going to war over energy). I think ethanol is probably not the end-all answer to renewable energy, but we need a stepping stone to get there. If nothing else ethanol has certainly gotten people aware of renewable fuels and thus hopefully served its purpose of bringing about conversion over to more renewable energy sources.
But what can ya say, either we will make it and eventually convert to renewable energy before we run out of affordable fossil fuels or we won't. Either way I am going to enjoy our liquid fuel while I can or enjoy it because there is no need to worry about running out of fuel in the future
Last edited by tpm152; 06-15-2011 at 03:19 AM.
06-15-2011, 06:06 AM
#23
JK Newbie
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PA
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have started to try to stay away from certain gas stations. I have been in a fight with my tractor for the last 2 years. I have had it in the shop half dozen times and replaced everything that could be. We finally started to look at ethanol gas. The station down the road has it, I quit filling up the tractor there and it has run great ever since. While trying to find and solution for my tractor I came across more then a few articles about gas being mixed with higher levels of ethanol ( some as much as 20%) and the problems that it has caused.
06-15-2011, 06:24 AM
#24
Corn is useless. The government subsidies of corn is causing more problems than it is solving. We get crap fuel and ruined engines that are not designed specifically for that fuel. We also get crap food and health issues arising from eating the food derived from it.
We also get more illegal immigration than before as a result of our over production of corn being sent to Mexico. Our cheap corn has put a lot of Mexican corn farmers and their farm hands out of work. When people gripe about Mexicans coming here and taking jobs away, they need to look at the big picture and see what our government and corn growers are causing elsewhere. http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/corn_subsidies.cfm
Ethanol is a bad replacement for regular unleaded gas. It does produce worse gas mileage, hell they even said that before the NASCAR race sunday. The cars in NASCAR are getting around 1-1.5 MPG's less after they started running ethanol. I run 89 octane from Shell and it is supposed to be ethanol free. I have noticed a 1.5-2.5 MPG increase since I started using it.
Sorry about the long rant that did stray away from the topic a little but this subsidizing corn business is a big gripe of mine. It needs to stop.
We also get more illegal immigration than before as a result of our over production of corn being sent to Mexico. Our cheap corn has put a lot of Mexican corn farmers and their farm hands out of work. When people gripe about Mexicans coming here and taking jobs away, they need to look at the big picture and see what our government and corn growers are causing elsewhere. http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/corn_subsidies.cfm
Ethanol is a bad replacement for regular unleaded gas. It does produce worse gas mileage, hell they even said that before the NASCAR race sunday. The cars in NASCAR are getting around 1-1.5 MPG's less after they started running ethanol. I run 89 octane from Shell and it is supposed to be ethanol free. I have noticed a 1.5-2.5 MPG increase since I started using it.
Sorry about the long rant that did stray away from the topic a little but this subsidizing corn business is a big gripe of mine. It needs to stop.
06-15-2011, 10:02 AM
#26
JK Freak
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Boston, Ma
Posts: 574
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06-16-2011, 12:21 AM
#27
JK Freak
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Arvada, CO
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the main difference between the 100 year max and "100 years" of the 1970s is that this estimate has two things that are different from the 1970s estimate. First of all China was not the highest energy consumer in the 1970s (which it is now) and on course to run out of all of its own fossil fuels within 20 - 25 years (and this is a true estimate). Unfortunately I am fairly certain that politics means that the U.S. will start supplying China with coal natural gas (that we have approximately 100 years left for the U.S. if we do not share) after they run out. That of course brings our coal and natural gas supply down a lot from the 100 year lifespan if we kept it all for ourselves.
Secondly the estimate that the U.S. has 100 years of coal and natural gas is in fact taking into account all types of reserves (gas shale plays, tight sands, etc) except for natural gas hydrates. We can discuss whether hydrates will play a future in energy plans around the world or not, but back to the topic of ethanol, my point is pretty much that whether we like it or not I am in my late 20s and I fully expect to see the end of fossil fuels in my lifetime (whether it is [hopefully] by replacement with renewable energy or whether it is gasoline going to $30 per gallon and the world going to war over energy). I think ethanol is probably not the end-all answer to renewable energy, but we need a stepping stone to get there. If nothing else ethanol has certainly gotten people aware of renewable fuels and thus hopefully served its purpose of bringing about conversion over to more renewable energy sources.
But what can ya say, either we will make it and eventually convert to renewable energy before we run out of affordable fossil fuels or we won't. Either way I am going to enjoy our liquid fuel while I can or enjoy it because there is no need to worry about running out of fuel in the future
Secondly the estimate that the U.S. has 100 years of coal and natural gas is in fact taking into account all types of reserves (gas shale plays, tight sands, etc) except for natural gas hydrates. We can discuss whether hydrates will play a future in energy plans around the world or not, but back to the topic of ethanol, my point is pretty much that whether we like it or not I am in my late 20s and I fully expect to see the end of fossil fuels in my lifetime (whether it is [hopefully] by replacement with renewable energy or whether it is gasoline going to $30 per gallon and the world going to war over energy). I think ethanol is probably not the end-all answer to renewable energy, but we need a stepping stone to get there. If nothing else ethanol has certainly gotten people aware of renewable fuels and thus hopefully served its purpose of bringing about conversion over to more renewable energy sources.
But what can ya say, either we will make it and eventually convert to renewable energy before we run out of affordable fossil fuels or we won't. Either way I am going to enjoy our liquid fuel while I can or enjoy it because there is no need to worry about running out of fuel in the future
All that aside, the current reserves are based upon current consumption levels. The levels of consumption are going to drop, and probably more quickly than anticipated. Which pushes out the supply.
Back to the point, ethanol is a viable source of energy for some engines. The use of CORN for this ethanol source is not the best however. As you said cellulose based ethanol would be great, but it doesn't exist in industrial (or energy positive?) scale yet. The problem with the government getting involved in a micromanaging level is that we have corn ethanol which needs to exist on arable land for crops instead of algal ethanol which can be grown in the deserts of Nevada and is more productive per acre. Ethanol is ok, as long as it is the market that decides it is. When the government gets involved you have to know that things are going to be messed up.
06-16-2011, 03:06 AM
#28
JK Freak
While the world is much more explored than it was in the past, there is still plenty potential for new discovery. I have a feeling you are less than likely to be a believer in abiotic oil - and I am not a believer to the point of conspiracy, but various planets that have been sampled are heavy on "fossil" compounds. No room for debate, they just are. We still just don't know enough.
All that aside, the current reserves are based upon current consumption levels. The levels of consumption are going to drop, and probably more quickly than anticipated. Which pushes out the supply.
Back to the point, ethanol is a viable source of energy for some engines. The use of CORN for this ethanol source is not the best however. As you said cellulose based ethanol would be great, but it doesn't exist in industrial (or energy positive?) scale yet. The problem with the government getting involved in a micromanaging level is that we have corn ethanol which needs to exist on arable land for crops instead of algal ethanol which can be grown in the deserts of Nevada and is more productive per acre. Ethanol is ok, as long as it is the market that decides it is. When the government gets involved you have to know that things are going to be messed up.
All that aside, the current reserves are based upon current consumption levels. The levels of consumption are going to drop, and probably more quickly than anticipated. Which pushes out the supply.
Back to the point, ethanol is a viable source of energy for some engines. The use of CORN for this ethanol source is not the best however. As you said cellulose based ethanol would be great, but it doesn't exist in industrial (or energy positive?) scale yet. The problem with the government getting involved in a micromanaging level is that we have corn ethanol which needs to exist on arable land for crops instead of algal ethanol which can be grown in the deserts of Nevada and is more productive per acre. Ethanol is ok, as long as it is the market that decides it is. When the government gets involved you have to know that things are going to be messed up.
I also agree that corn is absolutely not the answer, that was why I posted the link about the baterial enzyme discovery that breaks down cellulose. I am just curious, if it was cellulosic ethanol rather than corn ethanol, would you support it?
As for the "new discoveries to come" the reason I say that there are no more new discoveries is that we are no longer (like we were in the 70s) limited to how deep we can drill by technology. I doubt this is common knowledge so I will post it so everyone can realize just how far we are pushing our limits.
Current new oil wells being drilled in modern times are generally at 3 MILES (15000 feet) of depth below the earths surface (where the earth's natural geothermal gradient puts the temperature at 160 - 200 degrees C, or 320 - 400 degrees F). In the Gulf of Mexico those wells are at 15,000 feet of depth below 8,000 feet of water, so a total of 23,000 feet of drill, how crazy is that?! People wondered why an accident happened a year ago...this is why. Drilling to an oil reservoir that is almost 5 miles below the surface of the water is no walk in the park! Also considering that there are hundreds of such wells, there had to be an accident eventually (put enough cars on a highway and no matter how careful everyone is, something unexpected will happen eventually unfortunately).
The reason I can say for certainty that there are no more "big finds" is because oil and gas cannot exist at temperatures any higher than the current oil reservoirs that we are drilling, it is physically impossible. Even if there is organic material in deeper reservoirs, it has been converted to rock rather than oil/gas during the geologic processes.
I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news but someone has to put the facts out there that aren't common knowledge so that people can make up their minds for themselves. I'm trying not to tell you what to believe in this post, but just to get the facts about current technology and reservoirs out there so people can read and make up their own logical minds to believe what they want. I just want to put a few key facts out there to get you on your way to figuring out the limits on why oil is limited to what we are producing now. We aren't going to run out of petroleum overnight but it is pretty much unanimous in the petroleum industry that there are no more "big finds" left in the world.
Last edited by tpm152; 06-16-2011 at 03:10 AM.
06-16-2011, 10:25 AM
#29
JK Super Freak
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Aurora, Colorado, United States
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
When we lived in Kansas Gas mileage was awesome you had the option of E10 or two kinds of striat fuel.
in Colorado they don’t tell you which fuel has Ethanol in it its a crapshoot from what i can tell. all the pumps have "may contain up to 10% ethanol" Realistically they are putting 14-20% Ethanol in the fuel and the actual octane rating is not true.
I work in the farm industry and also sell fuel Octane analyzers.
Farmers do not see a benefit from Corn sales to Ethanol, Ethanol plants have been shut down and the price of corn(what they get per bushel) is down.
Colorado does not test the ful only the metering device of gallons despensed.
in Colorado they don’t tell you which fuel has Ethanol in it its a crapshoot from what i can tell. all the pumps have "may contain up to 10% ethanol" Realistically they are putting 14-20% Ethanol in the fuel and the actual octane rating is not true.
I work in the farm industry and also sell fuel Octane analyzers.
Farmers do not see a benefit from Corn sales to Ethanol, Ethanol plants have been shut down and the price of corn(what they get per bushel) is down.
Colorado does not test the ful only the metering device of gallons despensed.