The Ethanol Racket

7-5-07 | MrArbitrage123

[MrArbitrage123]

While a viable gas alternative exists that could cut prices at the pump in HALF (OR MORE), the Government is Promoting and Subsidizing an inferior fuel. MrArbitrage Takes a Look into WHY that is and WHAT he believes to be the best alternative to oil at this time - in his Weekend Review.

Part 1. http://youtube.com/watch?v=nLyzf-adG0s

Part 2. http://youtube.com/watch?v=I7uwC-ZXSHM&mode=related&search=

[MrArbitrage123]

I am looking forward to getting your input on this subject as I am sure I will learn even more on this subject. I hope to do an update video after all of your feedback.

God Bless!

Arb

While a viable gas alternative exists that could cut prices at the pump in HALF (OR MORE), the Government is Promoting and Subsidizing an inferior fuel. MrArbitrage Takes a Look into WHY that is and WHAT he believes to be the best alternative to oil at this time - in his Weekend Review.

Part 1. http://youtube.com/watch?v=nLyzf-adG0s

Part 2. http://youtube.com/watch?v=I7uwC-ZXSHM&mode=related&search=

[thackney]

I am looking forward to getting your input on this subject

Any written information available outside watching a video?

[jonrick46]

Ping for Part II. My vote is for Bio Diesel from algae. Anyone with thoughts about this method?

[CPT Clay]

We are the Saudi Arabia of coal.

Coal can be made into a great diesel fuel.

New turbocharged engines can lead the way to energy Independence.

[thackney]

Has the Algae Cavalry Arrived?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1861081/posts

[Red Badger]

We are the Saudi Arabia of coal.

Except for the Low Sulfur type thanks to Klintoon.......

[Red Badger]

Rest In Peace, old friend, your work is finished....... If you want on or off the DIESEL ”KnOcK” LIST just FReepmail me........ This is a fairly HIGH VOLUME ping list on some days......

[MrArbitrage123]

Yes thackney. Thank you for the request. I just googled some key words and found a link the article to which I referenced in the video.

I found it quite interesting. Let me know what you think.

Best.

http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage420.html

[thackney]

To promote Methanol and not address the poor fuel economy and toxicity of Methanol seems dishonest or uninformed.

[Jack of all Trades]

Butanol is a better replacement for, or ammendment to gasoline than Methanol: higher energy content, lower toxicity, and corrosivity.

The only way you’re going to get either material at half the current price of gasoline is to make it yourself. Even then you’re going to have to get the feedstock virtually for free.

[MrArbitrage123]

“To promote Methanol and not address the poor fuel economy and toxicity of Methanol seems dishonest or uninformed.”

Actually, I don’t feel that I fall under either of the two categories. Having discussed this with the gentleman who was the subject of the PB Post story, Jack Alexander Jr., who obviously has an understanding of auto-parts having been CEO of a major auto parts related company all those years, I came to the conclusion that as he indicated - it would require minor modifications to the cars to use the fuel or a process of removing certain elements from the fuel itself. I think one of the byproducts of making methanol is acetic acid, which would corrode the fuel tanks as they are now made. If memory serves me correctly, I think he told me that a stainless steel or glass lining to the gas tank would be necessary.

I’m not sure exactly what the precise changes to the car would be needed because this was a couple years ago when we spoke. However, I do recall that they were not major, expensive changes. Realize, he should know as he was in the business of supplying the auto-industry and the auto industry was behind this coalition because their sales were hurting partly due to the energy crises. What I postulate from that is that 1. they wouldn’t care how it affects the oil industry, because they sell AUTOS, not gas. 2. I would think that if the modifications would be highly impractical, THEY of all people would not be PROMOTING the use of Methanol.

I’m no scientist and am not approaching this subject from that perspective. Again, I found the details of the article compelling & credible and what I could ascertain from other sources lead me to feel it is reasonable to think this can be done safely and much more cost effectively than Ethanol.

As for the toxic nature of the Methanol, I wouldn’t advise drinking it. I haven’t sipped on refined petroleum lately but I don’t know if I would advise drinking that either. Seriously, the toxic aspect can be mitigated. There’s plenty on that if you google ethanol vs. methanol or something to that effect. Methanol is already being produced in mass quantities for the paint and solvent industry according to the PB Post article, I would think they have some ways to use it without it poisoning everyone. I mean, with paint and solvent, people are getting a hell of allot more direct exposure than one would get by using it in their gas tank. I don’t spend much time with my mouth around my gas tank nozzle entry.

Regarding the fuel economy, I’m sure you probably wouldn’t get the same mileage but I do believe the disparity between the price of gasoline and the price of the 80/20 Meth/gas blend would show that the methanol flex-fuel would still make the savings substantial.

Regards,

MrArbitrage

[jonrick46]

The use of Methanol for automobiles does make sense. The use of diesel for trucks, trains, and etc makes sense for our product distribution system and farming. Biodiesel from algae looks like a promising method because if can be done where land is not be used for anything else.

I would consider methanol as an alternative fuel if it did not have such a low energy content. Gasoline has 30 megajoules/litre, ethanol has 23 megajoules/litre, and methanol has 16 megajoules/litre. As you can see, people would not be happy if they had to fill up their tanks almost twice as much as they did with gasoline. If they got their methanol at $2.00/gal. the real cost would be $3.75/gal.

This gets me to the proposition of ethanol from cellulose. Even though the technology is not quite there to make such a method cost effective, the technology is just around the corner. Anything to hurry up the technical difficulties with cellulose derived methanol would be welcome. This way, our motorists could get more bang for the buck from a source that is renewable.

[thackney]

As for the toxic nature of the Methanol, I wouldn’t advise drinking it.

Or inhale the fumes or get it on your skin. Methanol is absorbed through the skin. Dangerous doses will build up if a person is regularly exposed to vapors or handles liquid without skin protection. The usual fatal dose is 100–125 mL (4 fl oz). Also the combustion of Methanol produces formic acid and formaldehyde. Methanol is colorless and the flame of methanol burning is near colorless making detection of ignited spill difficult.

Regarding the fuel economy, I’m sure you probably wouldn’t get the same mileage but I do believe the disparity between the price of gasoline and the price of the 80/20 Meth/gas blend would show that the methanol flex-fuel would still make the savings substantial.

That is quite an assumption given the large difference in fuel economy. When the Indy racing league switched to 100% ethanol this year, they reduced the fuel tank from the 30 gallons they used with methanol to 22 gallons; they needed to keep the fuel refilling time required with tire wear. Do you have any numbers available to back up your assumption?

[MrArbitrage123]

” ...Do you have any numbers available to back up your assumption? “

No, take it - EASY. WHY do I get the feeling that you are looking for someone to castigate?

I didn’t propound this as cannon. I tried to elicit feedback from readers. If I claimed to be all knowing - I wouldn’t have done so. No need to question my integrity. I am not in any type of business that would benefit from the use of methanol.

Based upon what I’ve read about methanol being able to be produced from such an extraordinary number of sources, I believe that it would be substantially less expensive in price than ethanol.

Someone else wrote that if you bought methanol blend at a gas station for $2.00 per gallon, the real cost would be something more like $3.75.

I imagine that was a hypothetical and understand that methanol would get less milage than gas or ethanol. However, I suspect that it would cost significantly less than ethanol to produce, making it a better value. I don’t believe the cost would be $2.00 per gal. The main reason is because of the availability of the key ingredient. The corn ethanol is much more scarce.

I have no numbers to support this but I think it is sensible to conclude that something that is made from a scarce product such as corn would be more expensive to make than something that can be made from corn, corn kalbs, corn stocks, grass clippings, wood chips, left over waste from the sugar cane industry, and many, many more things that are considered garbage.

The thesis of the Palm Beach Post article is that it is SO plentiful that there was no a strong lobby to support it. If something is so abundant, the cost of it is naturally LOW.

Arb

[thackney]

” ...Do you have any numbers available to back up your assumption? “ No, take it - EASY. WHY do I get the feeling that you are looking for someone to castigate?

Perhaps because you are reading into my few words emotion that is not there? You stated a belief that "methanol flex-fuel would still make the savings substantial". Given that methanol has about half the energy of gasoline I was surprised that someone would make that assumption. I wondered if you had any data that would give me further information. It appears you do not.

I have not found a good source of current pricing of methanol. I did find this citing $1.80 per gallon for large purchases and $4.50 to $8.00 a gallon for small purchases such as a biodiesel producer would make.

http://www.oceanethanol.com/site/Ocean%20Ethanol/F9A8F052-8F3D-4C00-939A-0B78CF9F0C8C.html

I have no numbers to support this but I think it is sensible to conclude that something that is made from a scarce product such as corn would be more expensive to make than something that can be made from corn, corn kalbs, corn stocks, grass clippings, wood chips, left over waste from the sugar cane industry, and many, many more things that are considered garbage.

Ethanol can also be made from the items, just not as economically as it is made corn with current technology. It seems foolish to assume it is going to be cheaper if you do not have cost information.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

I’ve just been reading a lot about biodiesel from algae. Desert land can be used, not replacing crop land and it’s not that much either. I’ll have to look for the link to the info on this.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Read this short research paper. It has a LOT of good info in it:

Widescale Biodiesel Production from Algae by Michael Briggs, University of New Hampshire, Physics Department

An excerpt:

In the previous section, we found that to replace all transportation fuels in the US, we would need 140.8 billion gallons of biodiesel, or roughly 19 quads (one quad is roughly 7.5 billion gallons of biodiesel). To produce that amount would require a land mass of almost 15,000 square miles. To put that in perspective, consider that the Sonora desert in the southwestern US comprises 120,000 square miles. Enough biodiesel to replace all petroleum transportation fuels could be grown in 15,000 square miles, or roughly 12.5 percent of the area of the Sonora desert (note for clarification - I am not advocating putting 15,000 square miles of algae ponds in the Sonora desert. This hypothetical example is used strictly for the purpose of showing the scale of land required). That 15,000 square miles works out to roughly 9.5 million acres - far less than the 450 million acres currently used for crop farming in the US, and the over 500 million acres used as grazing land for farm animals.

I can hear the enviro-nazis now: "No desert for oil!!!"

[thackney]

Algae has great potential, but at this time it is only potential as the commercial production has some significant short comings so far. But it does have promise.

[jonrick46]

What is nice about this technology is that it can be set up anywhere. The Sahara desert would make those African nations wealthy. Roof tops might be used. The algae can live on biomass—sewage makes good food. CO2 is pumped into the system and converted to oil. This technology is made for the small time operator wishing to make extra income on their spare land. This is one of the few renewable fuels that does not compete with agricultural products we need for food, clothing, and housing. With bioengineering, we will have algae that produces the most oil per acre. I can say that this is the most promising technology we have.

This does not say we need to forget about methanol. Methanol is needed. I read somewhere that some form of alcohol needs to be added to the biodiesel. I think it is needed to keep the biodiesel a liquid when temperatures drop around freezing. I have looked at certain web sites that describe home processes for people using used vegetable oil. They are putting vegitable oil in blenders and whirling ethanol into it. Once it is done, the biodiesel is good to go.

I am waiting for the algae technology to go forward.