Article

2006-01-23 Arabia

Saudi Cleric Announces his Return to Religious Activity

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2006-01-23 00:00|| || Front Page|| [7 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The best way to screw the Saudis is to wean yourself off Saudi Black Skag (oil).

Your car does not have to run solely on petrol any more. You can get a modified engine to run on 85% ethanol and only 15% petrol. that's a lot less dollars for those who are trying to kill us.

And diesel engines can run straight on ethanol, no modifying required.

----
Bio-ethanol has been available in the US since the late '90s as a fuel additive commonly sold as 'E10', a blend of 90% petrol and 10% ethanol. While some vehicles have been modified to accept blends of E85, bio-ethanol remains overwhelmingly a fuel additive, rather than a replacement.

Although biodiesel is commonly blended with regular diesel, diesel engines can also run using only biodiesel, or B100, without any vehicle modifications. In fact, when Rudolf Diesel's first engine came to life in 1893, it was fuelled entirely by peanut oil.

So biodiesel can replace petrofuel at no additional cost to immediately achieve improved environmental performance.
---

From Transport Industry Net news (registration required)

"Banking on biodiesel - Part 1"

Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Sabian Wilde

http://transport.industry-news.net//storyview.asp?storyid=52142§ionsource=f25

Posted by anon1 2006-01-23 02:30|| 2006-01-23 02:30|| Front Page Top

#2 Given that producing ethanol requirs using two tons of oil for every ton of oil you "save" I have a better plan.

1) Use nuclear plants for producing electricity

2) Modify cars so they can use the fat of greens and liberals instead of oil.

Posted by JFM"> JFM 2006-01-23 07:12|| 2006-01-23 07:12|| Front Page Top

#3 use the fat of greens and liberals instead of oil.

Soylent Unleaded is people!

Posted by Steve">Steve 2006-01-23 07:30|| 2006-01-23 07:30|| Front Page Top

#4 use the fat of greens and liberals instead of oil.

Offer low cost liposuctions, and we'll have a hundred year supply in no time at all.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-01-23 07:45|| 2006-01-23 07:45|| Front Page Top

#5 Michael Moore, domestic energy source.

Can he take the oil depletion allowance as a deduction on his taxes or is it considered a renewable resource?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-01-23 08:29|| 2006-01-23 08:29|| Front Page Top

#6 it does not take two tonnes of oil for every tonne of methanol you produce, if that were true it would be too expensive to produce it in the first place and these companies wouldn't be in business.

And I don't know WHY you'd want to bring nuke power up, unless you think you can fit a mini nuke reactor to your car. Most power plants burn coal, not oil and therefore do not purchase it from the Saudis who are trying to kill us.

Jeesh, what a maroon

Posted by anon1 2006-01-23 09:25|| 2006-01-23 09:25|| Front Page Top

#7 In the US Ethanol has a negative return on energy invested. Brazil has a positive EROI from sugarcane.

Posted by Ulomoth Whogum2314 2006-01-23 10:12|| 2006-01-23 10:12|| Front Page Top

#8 Michael Moore, domestic energy source.

Forget him, imagine the power available from the alcohol-soaked fat of Ted Kennedy!

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2006-01-23 11:06|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2006-01-23 11:06|| Front Page Top

#9 This link sheds a little light on the ethanol EROEI issue:

Those who extol ethanol fail to look at the energy costs of production, what certain energy analysts call the EROEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested).

Simply put, it takes more energy to produce ethanol than is produced by the combustion of ethanol. According to Cornell professor David Pimentel, an acre of corn ultimately yields 328 gallons of ethanol. This quantity of corn requires 1,000 gallons of fossil fuels to plant, grow and harvest, and costs $347 per acre. This means the corn feedstock costs $1.05 per gallon of ethanol before it is even converted into ethanol. Additional energy costs accrue in distilling the ethanol. Adding it all up, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol, with an energy value of only 77,000 BTUs. This results in an EROEI of roughly 59 percent. That is a 41 percent loss of energy, according the UniSci science daily news website.

The reason companies can make money on ethanol production despite the negative EROEI is that it is heavily subsidized by the government.

Posted by Biff Wellington 2006-01-23 11:37|| 2006-01-23 11:37|| Front Page Top

#10 This quantity of corn requires 1,000 gallons of fossil fuels to plant, grow and harvest,

That's a flat lie, I've had gardens before, and for 10 acres I used less than 50 gallons of gasoline per year total

Posted by Redneck Jim 2006-01-23 12:26|| 2006-01-23 12:26|| Front Page Top

#11 Gardens and "induatrial-size" fields are two very different things. Gardening is more labor-intensive and uses less mecahnization/energy/fertilizers. But gardening doesn't scale. Oh, and you don't transport the products of your garden thousands of miles away, who is quite costly in energy.

Posted by JFM"> JFM 2006-01-23 17:22|| 2006-01-23 17:22|| Front Page Top

#12 The 1000 gallons is way out of line. A 1995 ethanol study had 13.5 gallons of liquid fuels and twice that amount of natural gas (fertilizer synthesis) per acre of corn. Google for details. In the meantime, farm yields go up, driving down ethanol prices. But it's not only fuel inputs, but labor and capital equipment that must be factored in.

Posted by ed 2006-01-23 17:38|| 2006-01-23 17:38|| Front Page Top

#13 Bet Ed is right, but the US is not well placed for efficient ethanol production.... um.... Cuba?

Posted by 6 2006-01-23 17:52|| 2006-01-23 17:52|| Front Page Top

#14 All said so far completely ignores that the "Mash" remaining is a highly nutritious cattle feed, (They love it) and is sold for more than the initial corn costs.

Plus the inclusion of "Costs" not directly related to farming (Transport both ways) leads me to believe that the article is worthless, it's heavily slanted to make alcohol look as bad as possible.
Example if I include the "Costs" of all the copper wires, all the towers, maintenance and all the generators I could make the same argument that it costs $10,000 per lightbulb purchased for 2 bucks at the store. (God, how do they stay in business with a loss like that?)

False accounting here, beware, heavily slanted article.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2006-01-23 20:21|| 2006-01-23 20:21|| Front Page Top

07:02 CaziFarkus
00:01 anonymous2u
23:26 gromgoru
23:24 gromgoru
23:24 Inspector Clueso
23:17 Fred
23:04 John L
22:56 Rembrandt
22:55 Spavigum Ulomosh9738
22:51 trailing wife
22:47 Alaska Paul
22:42 trailing wife
22:39 trailing wife
22:38 Frank G
22:31 RD
22:26 Old Patriot
22:25 SC88
22:23 Alaska Paul
22:23 badanov
22:23 badanov
22:22 trailing wife
22:16 Danking70
22:14 3dc
22:04 Alaska Paul