Ethanol - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

DieselAddict · #46 02-26-2006, 02:31 AM

You obviously haven't read up on the potential of algae when it comes to biodiesel production. I read that with algae 1/8 of the Sonora Desert is all that would be needed to supply the entire US. Granted, there are some obstacles to be overcome, but this is possible. Similarly with ethanol, Bush mentioned something about switchgrass and other stuff that would yield a lot more ethanol than just corn. Keep your eyes and minds open because there are many possibilities, some of which may still be beyond our imagination at this time. Just look at all the great inventions and advances of science in the 20th century.

aklim · #47 02-26-2006, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

I read that with algae 1/8 of the Sonora Desert is all that would be needed to supply the entire US.

Is that current needs or what? Because the way I see it, we use diesel mostly for trucking. If we wanted to make a huge move to diesel, would that number still hold? IOW if say half of our cars were to be diesel, would that number still hold true?

DieselAddict · #48 02-26-2006, 02:03 PM

If I remember correctly that 1/8 figure included biodiesel usage for every vehicle in the US, so for current needs we'd need a lot less than 1/8. Yes, diesel is currently used mainly by commercial trucks, but that still accounts for around 60 billion gallons annually, which is about a half of the gasoline usage.

Maroon 300D · #49 02-26-2006, 03:35 PM

Now seems like a silly time to start drilling in the ANWR. It's a strategic oil reserve. It was originally set aside for a time when we would need it, and now is clearly not that time.

If we were in dire need of oil, we as a nation wouldn't be able to waste so much of it in wildly ineffecient vehicles that for the most part serve no real utilitarian purpose. Many of the people with the most inefficient vehicles in this country could be just as well-served in something smaller.

Oil is used for many things that are more important than average people driving around. It seems like it would be smarter, for now, to simply let the prices rise than to tap into a reserve we might really need in the future.

Well, there's my pocket change on that!

Botnst · #50 02-26-2006, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maroon 300D

Now seems like a silly time to start drilling in the ANWR. It's a strategic oil reserve. It was originally set aside for a time when we would need it, and now is clearly not that time. ...

Why is it clearly not that time?

Maroon 300D · #51 02-26-2006, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Why is it clearly not that time?

Because we are not in desperate need of oil at the present time. My previous post explains why I think that.

aklim · #52 02-26-2006, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maroon 300D

If we were in dire need of oil, we as a nation wouldn't be able to waste so much of it in wildly ineffecient vehicles that for the most part serve no real utilitarian purpose. Many of the people with the most inefficient vehicles in this country could be just as well-served in something smaller.

Well, how many of us are driving vehicles that are more than what we need? IMO, seeing as the top of the heap is around 66, if you are not around that region, aren't you part of the problem? So, your vehicle that efficient? Anyone here?

Botnst · #53 02-26-2006, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maroon 300D

Because we are not in desperate need of oil at the present time. My previous post explains why I think that.

In contrast, I think anytime is a great time to develop oil and gas reserves. Turn and burn!

Interestingly...

According to the latest global warming predictions the rate is going to accelerate faster than previous models had indicated because of anaerobiosis is kicking-off as the Siberian permafrost melts earlier every years and refreeze later in the fall. This releases methane gas, a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

Bot

Maroon 300D · #54 02-26-2006, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Well, how many of us are driving vehicles that are more than what we need? IMO, seeing as the top of the heap is around 66, if you are not around that region, aren't you part of the problem? So, your vehicle that efficient? Anyone here?

I'm not saying I drive an efficient vehicle; I'm saying that if you look around, you will see we are not oil-starved by any stretch of the imagination, and that tapping into our strategic oil reserves because gas is a dollar more than it used to be is short-sighted.

I did buy my car with vegetable oil in mind, however, and when I have the money for a conversion I may run it on WVO. I'm still contemplating that.

Bot: As a reserve we don't have to develop it, do we? It's safely waiting for us in the ground. And while greenhouse gasses concern me, they are not the reason I'm pointing out the poor mileages some modern vehicles get. My point is that a relatively small conservation effort over a period of a several years could save us more oil than we would get from the ANWR anyway. I have read that the reserve is thought to hold a roughly 6-month supply of oil for the U.S. at current consumption rates.

But speaking of greenhouse gases, it could be that auto emissions do have a little bit to do with the ever-thawing permafrost seen in the northern hemisphere, although I imagine it is merely one small component in a myriad of reasons.

Botnst · #55 02-27-2006, 08:50 AM

What is the point in hoarding petroleum? The price of fuel will force hoarding without some damn-fool bureaucrat deciding when prices are "too low." IMO no price for anything is too low.

As prices rise people will either burn less or pay more. To burn less they may change their driving habits, lifestyle, or energy source. These are individual choices made of their own free will and imposed impartially by the market.

If the market price goes high enough formerly 'unrecoverable oil' suddenly becomes commercially recoverable. Competing or alternative sources become viable and fuel-saving technology suddenly becomes reasonable, all without bureaucratic intervention.

Concerning the global warming issue, I don't know. I am leaning increasingly to the belief that humanity is a significant contributor. The most dire predictions are a run-away greenhouse effect that will essentially convert Earth into a planent like Venus. If that were preventable by curtailing carbon release then that would be an occaission that government intervention would be more than reasonable.

What if it is something that doesn't threaten life on Earth but will raise sea-level by a meter? That would essentially destroy all communities around the world within a couple of kilometers of the coast. Yeah, Big Sur would be okay but Bangledesh would all but disappear. Billions of people would be displaced. If that could be prevented by cutting carbon emissions by some percent, would that be a reasonable intervention by government? What percent cutback would be acceptible? Should it be per capita? Should it be by nation? GDP? Energy produced?

Maroon 300D · #56 02-27-2006, 10:56 AM

Well I suppose the only reason to hoard it is that most of our oil comes from other nations; if we were on bad terms with these nations in the future, we would ostensibly no longer have access to their oil.

As to the other points, I can't say I disagree with them. I feel that when the U.S. is ready to mandate more serious emissions cuts, though, we ought to do what we can without worrying whether other countries are following our lead or not. If we were to lead by example in this regard we could get the rest of the world to follow soon enough.

TheDon · #57 02-27-2006, 11:01 AM

not only emission cuts but more fuel efficent vehichles for govt use

do we really need big cruisers? it is time to sacrifice comfort for fuel saving in mind for the govt vehichle pool.. it is time to dump the 4.3litre rwd boats and put in its place 4 cylinder fwd rockets.

aklim · #58 02-27-2006, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maroon 300D

Well I suppose the only reason to hoard it is that most of our oil comes from other nations; if we were on bad terms with these nations in the future, we would ostensibly no longer have access to their oil.

As to the other points, I can't say I disagree with them. I feel that when the U.S. is ready to mandate more serious emissions cuts, though, we ought to do what we can without worrying whether other countries are following our lead or not. If we were to lead by example in this regard we could get the rest of the world to follow soon enough.

Money is still money. While the ME is hostile to us our money is just as green as anyone's so they will take it.

As far as emmissions, why do we care if other countries are going to follow us or not? Why do we bother to lead, follow or get out of the way? Kyoto was a bad idea which would hamstring us so I am glad that Bush stood up and told them to take it and shove it. That does not mean I don't think we should or shouldn't do it. We should do it but according to OUR timetable and not some unfair timetable that benifits other but hurts us.

DieselAddict · #59 02-27-2006, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maroon 300D

My point is that a relatively small conservation effort over a period of a several years could save us more oil than we would get from the ANWR anyway.

I couldn't agree more. I mentioned elsewhere that a mere 5 mpg increase of our vehicles would save us the equivalent of imported oil from Saudi Arabia. I'm actually glad that oil is getting more expensive because I see nothing but positive changes so far as a result of it. People are finally starting to think about fuel economy, and alternatives like biodiesel and ethanol have a much better chance now of taking a hold in the market. Do you really think Bush would speak so fondly of ethanol if gas was still $1.50 per gallon?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDon

not only emission cuts but more fuel efficent vehichles for govt use

do we really need big cruisers? it is time to sacrifice comfort for fuel saving in mind for the govt vehichle pool.. it is time to dump the 4.3litre rwd boats and put in its place 4 cylinder fwd rockets.

Agreed. But I wouldn't call it sacrificing comfort. I've driven compact, efficient cars like the Jetta and Civic and they're quite comfortable. The nice thing about diesels is that you can get good size if that's your thing and still get pretty good fuel economy, or go for a compact car and get superb economy, better than the complicated and potentially dangerous gas hybrids.

aklim · #60 02-27-2006, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

I couldn't agree more. I mentioned elsewhere that a mere 5 mpg increase of our vehicles would save us the equivalent of imported oil from Saudi Arabia. I'm actually glad that oil is getting more expensive because I see nothing but positive changes so far as a result of it. People are finally starting to think about fuel economy, and alternatives like biodiesel and ethanol have a much better chance now of taking a hold in the market. Do you really think Bush would speak so fondly of ethanol if gas was still $1.50 per gallon?

Agreed. But I wouldn't call it sacrificing comfort. I've driven compact, efficient cars like the Jetta and Civic and they're quite comfortable. The nice thing about diesels is that you can get good size if that's your thing and still get pretty good fuel economy, or go for a compact car and get superb economy, better than the complicated and potentially dangerous gas hybrids.

I don't know about that. I asked this question before and got no answer so here goes. My dad, among many others, I am sure cancelled a vacation or two because fuel prices were so high last year from Katrina. Also several fishing trips. So, who benifited from his sitting at home? Certainly not the fishing stores or the truck stops or the restaurants, etc, etc. So, is it still only good? Yes, his truck didn't suck up any fuel but neither did he spend any money on the trips he cancelled. As far as Bush endorsing ethanol, why is it greeted so warmly when everything else he says is met with skepticism? IMO, I haven't seen any benifits to me running ethanol. I don't see any lower prices at the pump and I will never run E85 again since my power and mileage sucked the big one. Lastly, the government will endorse pretty much any product that will pay them enough. Think the Corn Farmers didn't have a thing to do with it?

I disagree. I would. I have never sat in a compact car that was comfortable for anything more than a 5 - 10 mile trip. The diesel Jetta I drove for a bit was ok for short distances but when it comes to longer distance driving, it didn't do so good. I noticed myself feeling more beat up than when I drove the 201, 202 or 210. Having survived better than the driver of a Civic who T-boned me in the driver side door, I think I can earn a few dollars more to drive my larger car than to drive a Civic or any smaller compact car. If I wanted to sit in a beercan, I'd fill my bathtub up with beer.