The Truth About Oil

When did the oil addiction begin? It was at the turn of the 20th Century when Rockefeller was battling Ford for oil to be the fuel of choice instead of Alcohol, which was what all of Fords cars ran on for the first several years of production.

Since Rockefeller's money and power rested on oil, he fought hard. Ford wanted Alcohol to be the National fuel because anyone could produce it cheaply and it didn't pollute the environment. In fact, alcohol wasn't abrasive to engines like oil and was found to cause almost no deterioration of the engine cylinders allowing vehicles to travel over a million miles without significant wear.

A farmer seeing the value of alcohol operated vehicles at this time went to Germany for a couple months to learn how the Germans set up stills for creating alcohol for vehicles to use. He came back with the plans and set up a meeting at a local Lodge and invited hundreds of other farmers to learn how to set up their own 'gas' station using alcohol. Rockefeller heard about the meeting and promptly called the police that a meeting that would endanger the United States national security was taking place from a guy who lived in Germany. This was close to the start of WW1 and the police believed Rockefeller, arrested everyone at this meeting, and burned the plans to build these alcohol fuel stills.

Rockefeller didn't make his millions because he was stupid. A short time later there was a group of Abolitionist women whom he supported with over $4 million dollars in today's money. They went before Congress and convinced Congress to pass the law abolishing alcohol. In the fine print however, Rockefeller was able to include ALL alcohol, including the alcohol that Ford was using to operate his vehicles up to that point in time.

So, history has it that Rockefeller Won! He gained even more wealth and fame. The Oil Companies of today carry on that wealth and fame. Just like Rockefeller, they don't want to let that go and will go to any measures to confuse the average American that drilling more will solve our energy needs.

I wonder what this Country would be like if Ford had won using an alcohol based fuel. Do you think over the last ninety years we could have improved upon that and even created other cheap and clean efficient fuel sources? I wonder what our children and grandchildren will think of us when they see the truth that it was the almighty dollar that dictated a policy that in the end destroyed the world we live in. Even in the midst of the obvious, the people in power defend a policy that amounts to a once defended policy stating that cigarettes are not bad for your health.

Phil

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Chris on August 4, 2008 at 11:24pm

Hi Phil.

I'm confused about one key assertion from this post. I had always heard that additives are needed to prevent corrosion to engine components where alcohol is used as fuel or a component of the fuel. Do you have any links to sources supporting the claim that "In fact, alcohol wasn't abrasive to engines like oil and was found to cause almost no deterioration of the engine cylinders allowing vehicles to travel over a million miles without significant wear.". I know alcohols breakdown rubber and other compounds commonly used in fuel systems or engine components. Or maybe I'm just misinterpreting the non-abrasive and non-corrosive?

See http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-02-01-ethanol_x.htm and text search for "corrosion".
Also http://www.enertechlabs.com/ethanol_in_gasoline.htm

Thanks.

Permalink Reply by Phil Dugas on August 5, 2008 at 8:19am

It is non-abrasive. Alcohol is not non-corrosive and different fuel related hoses and tanks would have to be used. The alternate parts are a little more expensive but more than adequate to work as well as existing parts. Again, if we had used alcohol as our primary fuel source nearly a century ago, technology would have solved any of those issues long ago.

Permalink Reply by PeterCusick on August 5, 2008 at 9:06am

The truth is aclohol is not used as a fuel is because it is not as efficient as a fuel as gasoline. Oil is one of the most efficient fuels known to man. As far as the amount of fuel used compared to the energy produced. The reason ethanol has failed is because it is an alcohol based fuel. Ethanol is an alcohol. So when you add ethanol to gasoline you actually decrease the miles per gallon. So using ethanol in addition to gasoline does not decrease gasoline usage at all. So your whole rant is just a political tirade with no basis in fact.

Permalink Reply by Phil Dugas on August 5, 2008 at 12:40pm

The only one ranting and creating tirades is the person you have to look at in the mirror every morning.
If your assertion is that over the last ninety years we would not have made progress with alcohol based fuels weaknesses, then not much I can say for you. Where I'm coming from is an assumption that most if not all of the drawbacks would have been overcome decades ago had we put just a fraction of the money that we have spent drilling for oil onto alternative fuels such as alcohol. I don't even think alcohol is the most efficient source of fuel our ingenuity as a Country would have come up with. After 'debugging' the fuel from its weaknesses, it certainly would be better than oil.

Permalink Reply by PeterCusick on August 5, 2008 at 7:58pm

You cannot change the efficiency at which alcohol burns compared to gasoline. It is impossible. That is why alcohol is not a fuel for cars. It is simple chemistry, not the lack of innovation.

Permalink Reply by David on August 8, 2008 at 2:13pm

It saddens me that although this was positioned to be a forum for discussion on alternative fuel technology, it only took 3 replies to the original post for the crap slinging to start. If we are serious about this issue, can we not leave out personal attacks?

Permalink Reply by Chris on August 7, 2008 at 1:45pm

Abrasive and corrosive are not the same thing. I think you're using the two interchangeably though. I can see your point that the technology might have evolved differently and the corrosion or abrasion might not be an issue anymore if alcohol had not been supplanted by petroleum. However, what are those other engine parts made of? Just curious.

Also, what's your take on clean diesel alternatives, including bio-diesel? To me that seems a better long term option...although less likely for converting existing vehicles. Converting a gasoline engine to run a mix of alcohol and gas is going to be easier than converting to diesel. Basically you'd have to completely replace the gas engine with a diesel one. http://www.dieselforum.org/where-is-diesel/cars-trucks-suvs/

Fuel economy for diesel seems much better than alcohol based fuels even factoring in the premium currently paid for petroleum based diesels (given current technology), and some are claiming the biodiesel could be made from algae and such -- thus not leading to the current situation where farmers are growing corn for fuel instead of food....compounding some of the price increases for food related to increased fuel costs. I don't know whether the energy density of bio-diesel is on par with petroleum based diesels.

Also if you're going back to the dawn of motoring, wasn't Rudolf Diesel's original plan to use vegetable and/or coal dust based diesel fuels vs petroleum based stuff we've come to know as diesel? Check http://www.answers.com/topic/rudolf-diesel and this link to one of his patents http://www.pat2pdf.org/pat2pdf/foo.pl?number=0542846 ...scan through and you'll see the reference to coal dust, although I can't seem to indepently verify the vegetable based oil claims from some biographies. It is kind of interesting if we're coming full circle though. :)

I haven't done a lot of research yet, just learning.

While petroleum interests certainly could be seen as diverting attention from both alcohol and vegetable based diesel, seems to me that for the future from an energy efficiency standpoint diesel is where we should look.

Permalink Reply by David on August 5, 2008 at 2:12pm

I did a research project for school of alterative fuel and when Henry ford made the very first model T he put ethanol in it, but when the demand became to high for ethanol they stopped and produced oil because is was also more ready available, this shows that America is lazy when it comes to energy, we do what is easy. This is not how this country was built this jut makes us look horrible. I BLAME ALL THIS ON THE PAST THREE PRESIDENTS, FOR SITTING AROUND AND NOT DOING ANYTHING, I may only be in high school but I care a lot, I can see the crunch in this county this is a problem that need to be fixed ASAP.

Permalink Reply by PeterCusick on August 5, 2008 at 8:00pm

The fact is that ethanol does not burn as efficiently as gasoline. That is why gasoline is the primary fuel. If you mix ethanol with gasoline you decrease the miles per gallon of your car and therefore you do not decrease the amount of gasoline usage. The simple fact is alcohol based fuels do not burn as efficiently as gasoline. It is simple chemistry.

Permalink Reply by Dave on August 8, 2008 at 2:07pm

Hello Peter,

It seems clear by your comments, and home page, that you have a different agenda than the majority of individuals on this web site.

I suppose it could be "simple chemistry" that gasoline burns more "efficiently" than other possible fuels.

Unfortunately it seems you want to ignore the issues being address on this web site.

The issues, here, are:
1) What burns cleaner? Gasoline, or ethanol, CNG, and electricity.
2) What is less destructive to the world we live in? Gasoline, or ethanol, CNG, and electricity?
3) What is more destructive to our national economy and security? Foreign oil, or American produced ethanol, CNG, and electricity.
4) And, as a country, can we continue to be so dependent on your gasoline/ foreign oil?

Is oil/ gasoline going to continue to be around, for the foreseeable future, as a transportation fuel? Yes.

Should it continue to be our principle source of transportation fuel? No!

I'd be happy for my car to get 100 miles out of a tank of CNG, then flip a switch to start using my tank of gasoline. Until I refuel with CNG of course! Think of the long-term benefits and saving this would produce.

Okay, tell me the 101 reasons you'll have for why I'm wrong, and why the hundreds of thousands like me are wrong.

Permalink Reply by Chris Tidman on August 11, 2008 at 1:35pm

Peter,

Any engine is designed to run best on a particular fuel. A few years ago we dropped compression ratios in gasoline engines to meet emission standards, and performance suffered. Perhaps if we used straight alcohol we could raise compression again and make an engine that is clean and better than 30% efficient..

There have been all kinds of very functional efficient two cycle engines, and different engines run most efficiently on different types of fuel. Model airplanes burn ethanol/caster oil. Some use ethanol/kerosene and during WW 2 the Japanese flew planes on something distilled from pine tree roots.

Diesel fuel has a greater energy density than gasoline but it will affect the performance of a gasoline engine every bit as much as ethanol.

Permalink Reply by Caleb on August 8, 2008 at 1:51pm

So, as far as efficiency goes, I think I need to set the record straight. Ethanol burns just as efficiently as gasoline does (slightly more efficiently, I think... lower combustion temp., less heat loss), it just doesn't have the energy density of gasoline. The difference is that a liter of ethanol has less energy in it as a liter of gas. To be precise gasoline has 34.6 MJ/L (Mega Joules per Liter) and Ethanol has 24 MJ/L. The E10 (10% ethanol) gasoline that we currently use has 33.7 MJ/L. Diesel fuel has 43.3 MJ/L (much better than both).

All this means is that you need more Ethanol to drive a mile than you would it you used gasoline to drive the same mile. 44% more to be exacty. You would need a larger fuel tank to travel the same distance before filling up. However, if ethanol was significantly less expensive (which it currently is not), then it could be more efficient in terms of dollars per mile. The only reason I bring this up is to show that 'effciency' can mean something significantly different depending on which resource you are trying to be efficient about consuming. So what are we talking about? Economic efficiency, natural resource efficiency??