Kiss the Earth GREEN

Add a Comment

Comment by Hugh Hemington on November 21, 2008 at 8:29am

There is plenty of work to do to get alternative fuels in common use.

I looked at the links that Luis provided. On the Flextek site, they have some pretty interesting info about how Flex-fuel vehicles may not be all that different. In which case, EPA and CARB have perpetrated a fairly massive fraud.

CARB lost most of its credibility in CA when it backed off on emission standards and gave the auto industry a pass on their agreements to introduce cleaner fuel vehicles. Now it seems that body may have conspired with the auto makers to prevent ethanol conversion kits into the market.

This is the sort of shenanigans we can't allow. If it's true, those in charge at CARB should be fired for cause and prosecuted.

Comment by david epps on November 21, 2008 at 8:11am

Buy Made in American! I thought you would get it! Everything in life is a trade off. Hard lines positions are always untenable unless they are grounded in a principal.

Natural gas
Consumption - 23 Trillion CF
marketed production - 20 trillion CF
imports - 4 trillion CF
exports - 1 trillion cf
About 87% of NG is made in the USA

Propane
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_gp_dc_nus_mbbl_a.htm
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_neti_a_epll_IMN_mbblpd_a.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propane
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/propane.html

About 70% of propane (LPG) is made in the USA

Ethanol
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_oxy_dc_nus_mbbl_a.htm
About 100% of ethanol is made in the USA

Corn Ethanol is not subsidized today.
The federal ethanol tax credit is A non-refundable or wastable tax credit which cannot reduce the tax owed below zero, and hence cannot cause a taxpayer to receive a refund in excess of their payments into the tax system

The tax credits reduce the federal tax revenue income and does not increase the federal budget outlays. Now if the tax credits creates a budget shortfall the proper course of action would be to reduce government spending. But that will not be necessary as history has shown that increasing disposable income and economic growth through lower taxes as the E-10 Mandate does will only result in increases in revenue. And this is in addition to the positive effect of increased Missouri savings, spent in Missouri, on Missouri products, by Missourians.

Ethanol was subsidized to boot strap the industry to produce an MTBE replacement.
The facts are that E-10 has been blended for consumers in St. Louis since 2002 the time of the phase out of MTBE. See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/rfg/properf/stl-mo.htm This phase out was in effect in Kansas City as well. This phase out had a positive economic impacts because a net 39,000 barrels per day of MTBE was imported. See http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/special/mtbeban.html#Ethanol%20Supply What is true is the consumer has already accepted the reduced gas millage for ethanol oxygenated fuels over MTBE oxygenated fuels as a rational trade off to prevent ground water pollution arising from MTBE leaks and decreased air pollution form NOx in particular by using higher concentration of oxygenated fuel such as ethanol.

You said
" We aren't making cellulosic ethanol, and we aren't going to as long as we make corn ethanol more attractive with subsidies."
Wrong, you did not study H.R. 2419
Reduced the corn ethanol tax credit (Sec. 15331)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2419&tab=summary
Increased the cellulosic ethanol tax credit (Sec. 15321).
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2419&tab=summary
Agreed to by CA representatives and senators.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2419
and CA uses ethanol to replace MTBE during blending
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_inpt3_dc_r50_mbbl_a.htm
and CA produces ethanol all from corn today
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_oxy_dc_r50_mbbl_a.htm
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/m_epooxe_yop_r50_1a.htm
Cellulosic ethanol is subsidized today in America
http://www.energy.gov/news/4827.htm
Cellulosic ethanol is subsidized today in CA
BlueFire Ethanol, Inc. of Irvine, California, up to $40 million.
Ethanol is made in America by Americans for Americans, not in f^%king Brazil
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_oxy_dc_nus_mbbl_a.htm

You said
" So, let's get ethanol competitive. If it can't compete using corn as a feed stock, find something else. If it can't compete using anything as a feed stock, it isn't a good solution. THEN we can talk about pounding safe, certified conversion kits through the EPA."

Wrong
Ethanol is competitive against imports of any other type of fuel and competitive against imports of any oxygenate.
The playing field has been leveled against imported oil..
The playing field has been leveled against corn versus cellulosic ethanol.
The playing field has been leveled against imported ethanol.
155 million barrels of oil ($23 billion) was not imported and replaced by ethanol 2007

I repeat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If we converted approximately 14% of the US fleet to CNG, ethanol, or propane we could eliminate all imports from the Persian gulf.
If we converted an additional approximately 7% we could eliminate all imports from Venezuela.
The primary tenant of conservation is making do with what you have available.
Made in American and CA ethanol is available. Do not buy a damn thing that is imported.

I thought you would get it! Everything in life is a trade off. Which means in context
Buy as many products made in America by Americans for Americans as you can
Convert our cars to made in America CNG, Ethanol, and propane, NOW!!!!!!

You are attempting to use propaganda to make your point.
Probably because it was used to convince you the ethanol "is bad"

A little education for you
Modern propaganda is based mainly on this Hegelian dialectic: the invention of artificial extremes ("thesis'' and
"antithesis'') which superficially conflict with each other, and the synthesis from that conflict of a goal, which is
made to appear to be the product of consensus.

The artificial extremes are chosen and propagandized (marginalizing the population) in such a way that the goal
is "naturally" synthesized from them. It is, essentially, a trick - a fraud. It is a strategy of ideological divide-and conquer.
The dialectic ruse dissipates the energy and coherency of its targets - unless they recognize the ruse
as such. See http://hubpages.com/hub/How_propaganda_works

Here the ruse is to claim that a tax credit (reduced taxation a good thing) is a subsidy (a bad thing).
Here the ruse is to claim that the consumer (the good thing) does not benefit while big agriculture(a bad thing)
does.

A tax credit is a tax credit. The $0.51 per gallon corn ethanol tax credit and the $1.01 cellulosic ethanol tax credit and the bootstrap subsidies stayed in the pockets of hard working Missourians and Californians and Americans where it belongs.

Comment by tom65 on November 21, 2008 at 5:39am

The government puts tariffs on foriegn ethanol because brazil makes its ethanol from sugar which makes double the amount of ethanol per acre , and that way american ethanol can compete .Cellulosic ethanol (an american invention )makes double the ethanol that sugar makes (with about a dozen cellulosic ethanol plants being built in florida as we speak search florida farm to fuel ) . Propane may be a by product of oil refining , but natural gas is not , it comes from the ground , burns very clean , and the U S has a lot of it . My only problem with it is that it is a fossil fuel and will eventually run out. A lot of cars are set up from the factory to run on E85 . The cost is cheaper (where available) but the car gets less mileage (lower BTU's), so it is a break even dollar per mile wise .E85 burns very clean , with one tenth the emissions of gasoline .
I don't think they should tax the foriegn ethanol for many reasons . Corn ethanol was never a good idea , too costly to make . Let the foriegn ethanol through . It will get us off middle east crude sooner , and american cellulosic ethanol will be here soon any way .Brazil has long been an allie .What about the farmers? The list of things they make out of corn grows every day . They make Plastic out of it now (crude oil replacement). The US needs to grow all the corn it can , there will always be a use for it . As for me , this 20 year ASE certified Master Technician turned lineman will be converting my vehicle to E85 as soon as it becomes readily available , and thank you very much for the information on the conversion kits .

Comment by Hugh Hemington on November 20, 2008 at 8:10pm

My car was built in Ohio. All cars are imported since there are no vehicles sold in the US today that are not made from parts produced elsewhere and/or assembled elsewhere.

Propane is a byproduct of oil refining. Since oil is imported, by your logic, so is propane.

Ethanol would be imported if the tariffs were lifted. If we had the same tariffs on NG we have on ethanol it wouldn't be imported either.

On the RFA site (the site you supplied below), the list of ethanol plants is telling -- it goes on for pages and has 7 plants not using corn. Are we subsidizing that corn? Boy howdy! Corn ethanol subsidies totaled 7 billion in 2006 alone.

Surely with all those plants, they must have figured out how to make corn ethanol economically by now, right? So why the subsidy? Why the tariff?

"My" state is broke because it's run by liberals who have done everything possible to foster illegal immigration. We are the escape valve for the failure of every Latin American nation to provide basic opportunities for their people in spite of a wealth of resources and potential. These "invisible" people create all sorts of problems that government tries to solve with more government, and more government is the goal of liberals. I am actually happy that your apple cart isn't in this fix. I wouldn't wish this on anyone.

On top of paying for all that until we're bankrupt, we're also subsidizing your ethanol party. The RFA site claims there is no connection between ethanol and food prices. I think that's probably correct. Then why the subsidy? We aren't helping "family farmers" to feed people. Ethanol production must be successful if there are all those plants right? Yet H.R. 2419 calls for a subsidy of $1.01/gal for fuel ethanol, till 2013 or double the current subsidy. So, we subsidize the corn, then we subsidize the fuel made from the corn.

So ethanol production has improved so much, and become so efficient that now we have to subsidize it TWICE as much as before?

Don't upset your apple cart? You're riding the gravy train, while the rest of us are tied to the track!

I don't think we've deforested a single rain forest in Iowa or Missouri to make ethanol (although Brazil does). Yes, we've got plenty of land. That's not an issue. But if you grow corn specifically for fuel, it takes cultivation (energy) water and fertilizer. Assuming you're growing more -- not growing less food grain to grow more fuel grain, more fertilizer is used requiring more petroleum and producing more pollution.

If you use waste products that would not otherwise be tilled back in to replenish the soil, in a cellolosic process then none of those things is applied to the resulting fuel. This makes cellulosic ethanol better.

We aren't making cellulosic ethanol, and we aren't going to as long as we make corn ethanol more attractive with subsidies.

So, let's get ethanol competitive. If it can't compete using corn as a feed stock, find something else. If it can't compete using anything as a feed stock, it isn't a good solution.

THEN we can talk about pounding safe, certified conversion kits through the EPA.

Comment by david epps on November 20, 2008 at 11:51am

Hugh Hemington we are so close to agreement on many of the points you made..
Keep working through your emotion regarding ethanol, you will get past it.
David

Everything is life is a trade off.

And I also live by this wisdom:
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe. - Thomas Jefferson

Comment by david epps on November 20, 2008 at 11:37am

And here is the data concerning oil imports
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_a.htm

If we converted approximately 14% of the US fleet to CNG, ethanol, or propane we could eliminate all imports from the Persian gulf.

If we converted and additional approximately 7% we could eliminate all imports from Venezuela.

The primary tenant of conservation is making do with what you have available.
Do not buy a damn thing that is imported.
http://www.stillmadeinusa.com/
http://www.madeinusa.org/
http://www.toysmadeinamerica.com/

Comment by david epps on November 20, 2008 at 11:21am

Your car was imported!!!!!!!!!!!
CNG is being imported!!!!!!!!!!
Convert all 244 million vehicles in the US to CNG, ethanol, or Propane, NOW!!!!!!!!

Isn't it interesting that products to convert automobiles to run on CNG and E85 ethanol and propane with a potential 244 million customer base are not represented at the LA Auto show

Could it be that the big foreign auto and big government and the show sponsors don't want you know that you can solve the energy crisis today by allowing inexpensive CNG and ethanol and propane vehicle conversions You don't have to wait on the automakers or be victimized by them to stop exporting wealth today.

All attending Pickens Plan supporters must picket the show with posters and demonstrations demanding CNG and ethanol and propane car conversion now.

Your hatred has blinded you! You don't care enough to study the facts!
You did not provide a single fact, link, document, or authoritative citations for your claims against ethanol

To assist you in your education here are the technical Aspects of the Pickens Plan. http://push.pickensplan.com/group/technicalaspectsofthepickensplan
You can join the group and when you do so you will receive email notices of updates.

You can also digest these or choke I don't care. I am sorry that I live in a state with a balanced budget and you do not. Don't screw with my apple cart until you fix yours.

* U.S. Ethanol Industry Efficiency Improvements, 2004 through 2007
John O. Christianson, CPA
August 5, 2008
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/1916/usethanolefficiencyimprovements08.pdf
* Analysis of the Efficiency of the U.S. Ethanol Industry 2007
Argonne National Laboratory
April 21, 2008
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/1652/2007_analysis_of_the_efficiency_of_the_us_ethanol_industry.pdf
* Ethanol: Energy Well Spent
A Survey of Studies Published Since 1990
Natural Resources Defense Council & Climate Solutions
February 7, 2006
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/572/energywellspent.pdf
* Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals
U.S. Berkeley Faculty and Staff
January 26, 2006
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/541/farrellethanolscience012706.pdf
* Ethanol: The Complete Energy Lifecycle Picture
U.S. Dept. of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
December 1, 2005
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/1303/eere_ethanol_energy_balance.pdf
* The 2001 Net Energy Balance of Corn-Ethanol
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture and Argonne National Lab
May 31, 2004
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/78/net_energy_balance_2004.pdf
* The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update
U.S. Department of Agriculture
July 31, 2002
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/79/aer-813.pdf
* Allocation Procedure in Ethanol Production System from Corn Grain
Michigan State University
April 30, 2002
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/82/allocation_procedures.pdf
* A Rebuttal to "Ethanol Fuels: Energy, Economic and Environmental Impacts" by D. Pimental
Colorado School of Mines & National Corn Growers Association
April 30, 2002
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/84/ethanolffuelsrebuttal.pdf
* Effects of Fuel Ethanol Use on Fuel-Cycle Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Argonne National Laboratory
December 31, 1998
- http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/80/31961.pdfView PDF
* How Much Energy Does it Take to Make a Gallon of Ethanol?
Insitute for Local Self-Reliance
July 31, 1998
View Link - http://www.carbohydrateeconomy.org/library/admin/uploadedfiles/How_Much_Energy_Does_it_Take_to_Make_a_Gallon_.html
* Fuel-Cycle Fossil Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Fuel Ethanol Produced from U.S. Midwest Corn
Argonne National Laboratory
November 30, 1997
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/81/5700.pdf
* Estimating the Net Energy Balance of Corn-Ethanol
U.S. Department of Agriculture
June 30, 1996
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/83/aer721.pdf

* The Potential Role for Corn Ethanol in Meeting the Energy Needs of the U.S. in 2016-2030
Ross Korves, ProExporter Network
October 28, 2008
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/1965/potentialforcornethanol.pdf
* Will the Plunge in Grain Prices Mean Lower Food Prices at the Supermarket?
October 15, 2008
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/1946/will_the_plunge_in_grain_prices_mean_lower_food_prices_at_the_supermarket.pdf
* Feeding the Future:
THE ROLE OF THE U.S. ETHANOL INDUSTRY IN FOOD AND FEED PRODUCTION
September 25, 2008
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/1913/feed_co-products.pdf
* Contribution of the Ethanol Industry to the Economy of the U.S. - 2007
John Urbanchuk, LECG, LLC
February 25, 2008
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/1537/2007_ethanol_economic_contribution.pdf
* Ethanol, Barley and Beer
LECG, LLC
July 12, 2007
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/1193/barley_and_beer.pdf
* The Relative Impact of Corn and Energy Prices in the Grocery Aisle
John Urbanchuk
June 14, 2007
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/1157/food_price_analysis_-_urbanchuk.pdf
* Have Higher Corn Prices Really Driven Consumer Food Prices Higher in the Last Six Months?
National Corn Growers Association
April 26, 2007
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/1072/042307highercornpricesfoodprices.pdf
* Contribution of the Ethanol Industry to the Economy of the United States in 2006
LECG, LLC
February 19, 2007
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/1295/2006_ethanol_economic_contribution_updated_021907.pdf
* Contribution of the Ethanol Industry to the Economy of the U.S. in 2005
Includes Local Economic Impact of a 50 and 100 Million Gallon Ethanol Refinery
LECG, LLC
February 20, 2006
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/576/economic_contribution_2006.pdf
* The Economic Impact of Ethanol Plants in South Dakota
Stuefen Research, LLC
December 26, 2005
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/604/sd_economic_impact.pdf
* Economic Impact of an 8 Billion Gallon RFS
LECG, LLC
May 22, 2005
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/112/rfseconomicimpact.pdf
* Over a Barrel: Why Aren't Oil Companies Using Ethanol to Lower Gasoline Prices?
Consumer Federation of America
April 30, 2005
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/113/consumerstudy.pdf
* Contribution of the Ethanol Industry to the Economy of the United States in 2004
LECG, LLC
December 31, 2004
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/114/economic_contribution_2004.pdf
* Life Without Ethanol
Renewable Fuels Association
June 20, 2004
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/115/lifewithoutethanol.pdf
* Ethanol and Gas Prices
LECG, LLC
May 25, 2004
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/117/ethanolandgasprices.pdf
* Replacing the Volume & Octane Loss of Removing MTBE from RFG
Downstream Alternatives, Inc.
April 30, 2004
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/116/mtbealternatives.pdf
* 2004 Gasoline Price Increases: An Analysis
Innovation and Information Consultants, Inc.
March 30, 2004
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/118/gaspricereport.pdf
* Consumer Impacts of the Renewable Fuels Standard
LECG, LLC
April 30, 2003
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/119/rfs_consumer_impacts.pdf
* Economic Impact of the Ethanol Industry in Minnesota
April 30, 2003
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/608/mneconomicimpact.pdf
* Ethanol & Fuel Cells: Converging Paths of Opportunity
Jeffrey Bentley & Robert Derby
July 31, 2002
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/129/rfa_fuel_cell_white_paper.pdf
* Ethanol and the Local Community
AUS Consultants & SJH & Company
June 19, 2002
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/120/ethanol_local_community.pdf
* An Economic Analysis of Legislation for a Renewable Fuels Requirement for Highway Motor Fuels
AUS Consultants
October 31, 2001
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/121/combined_aus_report.pdf
* Costs and Benefits of a Biomass-to-Ethanol Production Industry in California
California Energy Commission
February 28, 2001
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/122/biomassinca.pdf
* Ethanol's Role in Mitigating the Adverse Impact of Rising Energy Costs on U.S. Economic Growth
AUS Consultants
January 31, 2001
View PDF - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/123/mitigatingcosts.pdf
* Economic Analysis of Replacing MTBE with Ethanol in the U.S.
U.S. Department of Agriculture
December 31, 1999
View - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/reports/view.php?id=124
* The Economic Impact of the Demand for Ethanol
Dr. Michael Evans, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University
January 31, 1997
View - http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/reports/view.php?id=125

Comment by Hugh Hemington on November 20, 2008 at 10:42am

How many "American" cars are assembled in Canada from Mexican parts? More than you might think. We want to sell stuff to other people but not buy stuff from them.

A very small percentage of our NG is imported, but none of it comes from people who legally kill women for honor or rape children for fun. The only reason we're not importing ethanol from Brazil is because the Congressmen from the midwest would rather dig into the pocket of every taxpayer by protecting and subsidizing the people PAYING THEM. Basically, they're hired thugs, not legislators.

Ethanol from corn is NOT energy independence. It's just welfare for ADM passed on to their customers, and the rest of us are paying the bill. Gasoline is no better. Most of the actual cost of the oil is passed on to the taxpayers (paying for defense of the supply) and everyone on earth (paying for the effects on their health).

I care about a lot of things. If I cared about my car, I wouldn't have bought a sensible car from a selection of ONE. I care about my community and country. I care about all of us, including those still unborn being able to pursue happiness, while also breathing. In fact, I can honestly say I don't care about my car at all. It's a vehicle, meaning it gets me and my stuff from where I am to where I need to be and back. Period. It isn't a status symbol, sex symbol or a weapon against others in traffic. America has wallowed in a 60+ year adolescence with the automobile, and it's time we grew up.

If you can get ethanol to actually work, let's see it! I mean actual plants, actual data from credentialed people, not wing-nuts who want you to put a still in your yard.

I agree that the EPA and CARB have hampered efforts across the board -- they (CARB) gave the car companies a pass on emission reduction at a time when embracing it would have avoided the mess they're in now. We have too many Santa Cruz whackos in both agencies -- many of whom would like to see the planet de-populated to save it for other species. We hired them to protect us, and they've gone too far, but we have to meet them half-way with sensible solutions.

Yes, CA voted against prop. 10. Primarily because we now have so many here who want a handout from government that they are effectively "wards of the state", which puts them in the party that didn't care for Mr. Pickens' contributions to swift-boating in the 2004 election. They did vote for the high-speed rail for 10 billion, but fortunately, the morons can't read -- they didn't notice that the proposition requires half of the funding to come from other sources, and there's no way we're going to find another 10 billion to pour into that turkey.

I have McGyvered cars in my time. I converted three trucks to propane, myself -- others we had done professionally. I kept an MGC-GT running (6-cyl in the space barely big enough for 4!), removing and rebuilding the engine and trans. basically rebuilding the car which was necessary considering who built it the first time. I put a V-8 in a Porsche. But how many McGyvers are there really? Vs. how many will try to be who put this stuff in their cars? Maybe they'll work, maybe not, but I don't want to be pulled up next to one when it doesn't. And that includes poorly installed CNG conversions too!

The conversion kit offered by David Blume is supposed to support either 100% ethanol or gasoline "just switch back and forth". So does this switch measure the blend of fuel? Or are consumers supposed to drain their fuel tanks before switching fuels? His kit is "valued" at $400. Does that cover the cost of a new fuel tank that won't corrode with 100% ethanol in it? How does he sell one tank for all cars? The reason you have to make a car "flex fuel" ready is that so many of the fuel system parts will be damaged by ethanol. In Brazil, the "full flex" cars require even more specialized parts. If even a few converted vehicles go up in flames, it'll give the whole effort a bad image.

So, instead of going off over every hair-brained kit and theory, let's find real solutions. Let's apply the right pressure to get EPA and CARB to adopt sensible regulations and fee structures for both CNG and ethanol conversions. The fees could be deposits -- posted along with submissions, which could be pre-vetted with qualified engineers. Once the product passes, the deposit can be returned or carried to the next product from that company. The fly-by-night operators would pay in and lose their deposit, and the real companies with real products could effectively be subsidized by the bozos.

Let's get our universities involved. The best way to learn is by doing, and we need nothing more than qualified engineers. They can do a lot of the heavy-lifting required in getting these products developed and perfected. God knows we're paying enough into these institutions of leftist idiocy! Let's get some good out of them. It's been done before -- ever hear of DARPA?

GM built and killed the EV1 simply to point to it as a failure. Big oil would like nothing better than to see alternative fuels "fail" again. Let's not give them the satisfaction.

Comment by david epps on November 20, 2008 at 3:43am

Your civic CNG was imported
Your PHILL is imported.

CNG is imported today, and unless CA reduces its CNG for electrical generation, then the CNG for your auto will be imported.

We can't wait for EPA or CARB approval on ethanol or CNG conversions of the US 244 million vehicle fleet. Those conversions must be allowed now. It will take 15 years to replace that fleet with new vehicles. You obviously did not read and understand The technical aspects of the Pickens plan.

I am sorry that your car is the only thing of value that you have and that you are so removed from understanding of the cars technology that your are afraid of McGyvering your car and must hide behind government regulation and control to solve your energy crisis.

I am sorry that the Midwest corn belt is well along a path to energy independence and you voting down prop 10 in CA are not.

I am sorry that your hatred for some long past ill of ADM and jealousy of the Midwest cause you to be blinded to the fact that each regions must devise a solution for the energy crisis uniquely customized for that region. Pickens plan is about energy not a political forum for which big company you happen to hate on a given day.

Comment by Hugh Hemington on November 20, 2008 at 12:46am

Robert -

Are you getting all your information from a guy in a Hawaiian shirt, selling a book and a DVD?

I went through his page, and watched the interview. I can't find the $.50/gallon reference. Mr. Blume doesn't provide any references to back anything up, like an address of the plant where this is happing -- that'd be a good reference!

Did you notice his contest is to win a 55-gallon drum of 100% alcohol fuel? First, alcohol is corrosive, so how do you convert all the parts of the fuel system to run 100% alcohol (or "full flex"). Second, if this is so "doable", why do you need to WIN the alcohol -- shouldn't you be able to make your own? Third, I thought we were talking about E85? Are people supposed to blend their own fuel? Mr. Blume's solution is for YOU to setup a still -- that's what his plans are for. Obviously this isn't a cellulosic process. It's a STILL. In your yard. It's Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. This guy's from Santa Cruz, and I'm pretty sure the "cellulose" he's been using is hemp.

Oh, but you can win a conversion kit. What's in that kit? What does it take to install it? Is it EPA approved? CARB certified? You may want to get that car re-registered one day.

He cites that we've spent enough on the Iraq war to build all the plants necessary to supply everyone on earth with all the alcohol they would need forever. HUH? What orifice did he pull THAT out of? He goes from setup your own still to scaling up for world supply with no data to back it up. Do you just scale-up his kit really really big? At least he does cite that corn is a really poor feed stock for ethanol. And that's the big mis-direction! People say you can make ethanol from all kinds of magical stuff, so go ahead and put out E85 all over the place. But we're not making it from magical stuff; we're making it from CORN! And unless someone drops a bomb on the ADM headquarters, we're going to keep making it from corn.

Brazil makes ethanol from SUGAR CANE cheaply, but it's not a cellulosic process. We can't grow sugar cane in the mid-west. Brazil uses 2% of its arable land. Anyone happen to know how much land that is? Brazil is a really big place! And since they're deforesting the land they're using, depleting the soil and moving on, it isn't exactly a sound plan.

Here's a link that quotes (in BRAZIL) $3/gallon for cellulosic ethanol.. http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/06/brazil_may_beco.html

Here's a quote:
""Now it's fallen to about $3 per gallon in 2007, while the cost of producing enzymes has fallen 20-fold in the past four years," she said.

"Enzymes have to cost about 5 U.S. cents per liter here in Brazil, just for us to begin thinking of its economic viability," said Elba P.S. Bon, the scientific coordinator of Brazil's Bioethanol Project. "Right now, 12.4 U.S. cents per liter," she added.

By 2012, if the cost-cutting trend continues, the cost of producing ethanol via cellulosic technologies could slip to a cost-effective $1 per gallon, said Chum."

So, it's $3! IF cost-cutting continues, it COULD slip to $1/gallon. Nothing about 50cents happing today for cellulosic ethanol. And citing anything happening in Brazil still relies on sugar cane material, not anything we can grow here in quantity. And it's in Brazil, so we could buy it from them, but then we'd still be importing our energy.

I think ethanol could contribute to the solution, but not with backyard stills and people McGyvering their cars. If a process can be developed to produce ethanol from cellulosic waste -- not grown specifically for the fuel, but WASTE product, at a viable price, it would contribute to the solution.

But I'd like to see any solution we can get, so please, setup a still, make some alcohol, and put it in your car. Then run it for a while and let is all know how that goes.

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last