Posted on 12/11/2007 7:36:22 AM PST by bs9021
fungible — amazing the things you learn here.
Yep, I learned that here on FR, from Mr. Lucky.
to post 72.
are you against all/some non-food uses for land?
if so, which ones?
about DDGs
value of DDG is about 25% that of the corn it started out as.
IMO, correct corn-input , by multiplying
input by 0.75, to correct for value of the co-product.
No, it won’t catch up with the hype. It didn’t in the 70’s either when we thought corn-based ethanol was a good idea.
Now, you just pay double for a box of corn flakes, and double again for gas.
But, there is absolutely NO inflation to speak of. Trust me on that.
For information source see: http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/News/2005/news050823.html
Go to slide 10 in the presentation.
Ah. OK, thanks. I’ll go through this prezo later on tonight. Right now, I’m in the midst of changing out a clutch on our F-350. Done in the best of weather, it is a heavy grunt job. Done in near-zero temps, it is a real bear of a job...
Gotta love the farming life.
NB that there are bio-diesel fuels that are excellent and add lubricity, some that are bad and some that are atrocious.
The problem is that they’re all called “bio-diesel” when in reality, some of them are utter crap. But let’s put that aside for a sec.
The lubricity in mineral diesel used to be, in large part, due to the sulphur content in the fuel. Now that we have ULSD diesel, we see older diesel fuel systems failing at an appalling rate.
On farm equipment, the situation that worries me the most with ULSD is any engine with an old, rotary Roosa-Master injection pump. They had no crank oil put into them for lubrication, they depending upon the fuel entirely. I’ve got at least two of these types of fuel racks on the farm (in older New Holland equipment, on Perkins or Ford engines) and I have to add fuel conditioner to make sure there’s enough lubrication in the fuel to insure these pumps survive. Losing the pump is a $1000+ proposition every time it happens. I’ve heard of guys losing two in a row before they took the time to ask their fuel jobber “Hey, what’s changed about my fuel?!”
In general, I think that you’re correct, but the sulphur is no lubricant. Low sulphur fuels have always yielded greater engine longevity, because the sulphur melts into the ring lands, and onto the exhaust stems, which wears the engine quicker, and also reduces power and efficiency.
I suspect that what is happening is that the refiners are getting better at extracting the light lubricating molecules from the stocks.
I guess that the days of being able to prolong the life of a gasoline engine by adding 2% diesel to the fuel have come to a close.
Just the ones that make the price of food go up with no net benefit to the U.S.
In the golden age of family farms, it was accepted wisdom that a farmer who fed whole corn to his cattle could also raise pigs and chickens without having to feed them. Cheap corn (and woosified sensibilites) have changed feeding practices, but the fact remains that much more of the corn passes through cattle undigested than does DDG's.
Their reply:
Dear Mr. Hackney,
I forwarded your question on to Dr. Michael Wang at Argonne National Laboratory, who conducted the research supporting the information in the brochure at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/program/ethanol_brochure_color.pdf. Here is his response:
"The answer is that energy balance is based on fossil energy input vs.the energy in fuel output.
The chart in the brochure has total energy input, fossil energy input,and petroleum energy input. The purpose was to show the arbitrary natureof energy balance calculation."
I hope this answers your question. Thank you for your interest.
Suzanne Williams, on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy Vehicle Technologies Program web team
“The purpose was to show the arbitrary nature of energy balance calculation.”
I’m kinda lost as to which things we are looking, so, that aside —
If that was the purpose of the brochure, why wasn’t it clear that that was the purpose? Why would you put something like that in a brochure for a specific purpose and then fail to explain that purpose?
Anyway, what’s the bottom line? Does it make sense to use corn for biofuel based on energy input vs. energy output, or not?
And also, understanding that corn used for fuel is not the same as that used for food, do the benefits of using land to raise fuel corn outweigh the benefits of using food corn for food? Or is it just an economic decision to made by farmers? If so, is it a decision based on market prices or do subsidies queer the market?
Michael Wang is trying to promote ethanol. In my opinion, he is selectively considering only part of the energy required to process the ethanol and using that as a comparison to gasoline. On Fossil Energy inputs only, ethanol still takes more energy to process than gasoline, but has a positive balance. But it uses more energy than just that produced from Fossil Fuel. It also uses electricity generated from Nuclear and Hydro as well as others.
Anyway, what’s the bottom line? Does it make sense to use corn for biofuel based on energy input vs. energy output, or not?
His studies show, that when ALL energy inputs are counted, it takes more energy to process the ethanol from the grain, than is contained in the fuel itself.
This does not count the energy of the solar input to the farmer's field. It is only the process to plant, harvest, transport and process into ethanol. It also is giving credit in that all the energy used is not counted because the process also produces DDG and some of the energy inputs are allocated to that product.
And also, understanding that corn used for fuel is not the same as that used for food, do the benefits of using land to raise fuel corn outweigh the benefits of using food corn for food?
That is not clear to me. Domestic production of fuel has value. What value do you assign that?
Or is it just an economic decision to made by farmers? If so, is it a decision based on market prices or do subsidies queer the market?
Keep in mind this process is supported by subsidies. If the subsidies were applied equally to all domestic produced fuel, and our resources such as ANWR, Shale Oil, all Offshore, etc were opened to development, I believe we would get more domestically produced fuel and fewer imports. In time, this would lead to greater energy Independence. In my opinion, North America would be become energy independent. I am not sure if it would be enough for the US would. If the subsidy was large enough, existing technology using Fischer-Tropsch process coal-to-liquids could provide enough fuel, but I doubt it would be worth it versus buying from Mexico and Canada.
“That is not clear to me. Domestic production of fuel has value. What value do you assign that?”
Well, my question does sort of dictate a subjective answer. I guess I’m simply trying to ascertain whether it makes more sense to use the land to grow food or fuel. Hard to do when subsidies are involved. But when I look at the rising prices of corn products for human consumption it seems like we are getting little if any benefit as consumers.
I also see a vicious cycle for farmers. Corn for food prices go up so farmers plant more corn for food. That forces prices for corn for fuel to go up so the next year farmers plant more of that. In each case, the prices will go down because of a glut of corn for food or corn for fuel depending on which part of the cycle your in.
IN the end it seems we accomplish little in terms of energy dependence but pay more for anything made from corn.
I believe you are mistaken here, bio-diesel is better for the engine as long as you don't have any natural rubber seals. The varnish will not build up or cause problems unless you are running stright vegetable oil instead of bio-diesel.
Or, I guess, as NVDave said you have bad bio-diesel...
My over the back fence neighbor owns a diesel machine shop, and he is grinning from ear to ear with all the extra business he has gotten due to biodiesel.
He says that often he can’t salvage the pistons because of the varnish and galling, and has to rebore engines that have less than 100,000 miles on them, compared to normally aspirated petro-diesel burners that go 500,000 on the factory rings and pistons, and can often be re-ringed rather than boring.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.