Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Food or Fuel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Here is a good article, 2002, but the facts about the energy density of the fuel are constants.
    relative energy per liter: Diesel=1.00, Gasoline=0.87, Propane=.64, Ethanol=0.56, Methanol=0.46
    This has the most direct impact on mileage - energy per liter
    http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles..._eberhardt.pdf
    sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
    If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Doktor View Post
      1. Price at the pump changed (up up up). Now you drive 85% of what you were used to, for a higher price, but on home made subsided corn. I guess
      Doktor:

      That may well be. I'd like to see what the number crunchers come up with. If the price of gas stayed the same while mileage dropped, you know who the screwee is.
      To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
        Doktor:

        That may well be. I'd like to see what the number crunchers come up with. If the price of gas stayed the same while mileage dropped, you know who the screwee is.
        The usual suspects: general population. Don't forget you are subsiding less mpg
        No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

        To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
          Here is a good article, 2002, but the facts about the energy density of the fuel are constants.
          relative energy per liter: Diesel=1.00, Gasoline=0.87, Propane=.64, Ethanol=0.56, Methanol=0.46
          This has the most direct impact on mileage - energy per liter
          http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles..._eberhardt.pdf
          Wis:

          Great stats. Tells a compelling story. Every one in the Sierra Club should get a copy. Thanks.

          Looking at the relative BTU output of a cubic foot of ethanol vs a a cubic foot of gasoline, it's clear a 10/90 ratio of ethanol to gasoline is going to yield less MPG than gasoline alone, but it does not seem like anything near a 15% reduction.

          Ten cubic feet of pure gasoline will yield 9222 BTU while the same volume but with nine cubic feet of gasoline diluted with one cubic foot of ethanol will yield 8892 BTU or only 4% less than the same quantity pure gasoline. If we translate that into driving distance we lose 4 miles per 100 using gasoline and ethanol mix vs pure gasoline.

          So, if I drive 30K miles a year on the mix, I got 1,200 less miles on the mix vs pure gasoline (30,000/100x4). To make up those 1,200 miles, if my Tacoma gets 20 MPG, I would have to buy 50 gals or roughly 3 extra tanks full over the course of a year. Doesn't seem like much, but if you multiply it by 278 million registered passenger vehicles in the US, you're talking a lot of money not getting into the rest of the economy--something like $278 billion.

          You can use those DOE stats to run all kinds of scenarios. For example would it be better to import more oil to get better mileage? We import 11-12 mil BBLs of oil a day and consume about twice that daily with the rest coming from domestic sources. What would it cost us to increase imports so we could run our vehicle on pure gasoline if one BBL of oil is allocated 47% to gasoline and 17% to diesel. It gets complicated...
          Last edited by JAD_333; 10 Apr 11,, 04:31.
          To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

          Comment


          • #20
            This story is a bit of a downer. And it is such, since it doesn't have the happy ending.
            The will of the people to change lifestyle is THE key factor that will determine how this thing will play out. My amateurish analytical skills have produced rather pessimistic result. Most likely we will keep on fighting for the last remaining cheap energy sources, without changing the lifestyle, economic model...the way how we live that is, regardless of what reality demands. And the reality is that this civilization is build up on cheap energy. As energy becomes more expensive it will push up the costs of living upwards and as the level of despair rises it will create deeper and deeper rifts with society, preventing the social cohesion that is needed to solve the problem. Thus the solution will come too late if it comes at all.
            I don't believe the alternative fuel will be sufficient to keep this model of life go on for much longer and I think that is liable to fail in the most catastrophic way possible. Times that are coming will be recognized by ever increasing senses of insecurity and anxiety that is will only enforce positive feed back loops that will push events on to a course of hostilities and violence. Ultimately it will force the society to become rigid and brittle, which will than lead to epic breakdowns and crashes with immense number of causalities.

            Comment


            • #21
              Your description of the end result will most likely be accurate as you are dealing with human nature. Without any unifying factor it will be every special interest for themselves as you describe. It will take some time to see it here but I will give an example where you can see it already. I travel to the Philippines a lot and their whole economy is based on oil imports. Every commodity moves around the country on boats and trucks. So naturally the price of oil gets factored into every single item that Filipinos buy. The most important items are cooking oil, rice, sugar, meat and fish. For those who have it one can also throw in electricity when not under a rolling brownout. Just recently the price of a jeepney ride went from 8 pesos to 10.5 pesos. That is a pretty big jump for Filipinos and naturally people are complaining. So in a country where jobs are scare, where wages are low, where the national bank bases their yearly forecast on how much money is remitted from overseas Filipinos there is going to be some unrest. How much the country can handle given the endemic corruption and the control of the Catholic Church remains to be seen. Then throw in their inexplicable tendency to put corrupt actors and then incapable sons of former incapable President's into office and you have a real mess. Aquino now with a Ramos and Marcos waiting in the wings for their cut.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Versus View Post
                I don't believe the alternative fuel will be sufficient to keep this model of life go on for much longer and I think that is liable to fail in the most catastrophic way possible. Times that are coming will be recognized by ever increasing senses of insecurity and anxiety that is will only enforce positive feed back loops that will push events on to a course of hostilities and violence. Ultimately it will force the society to become rigid and brittle, which will than lead to epic breakdowns and crashes with immense number of causalities.
                Possibly, but so far the ability to develop technology to meet the increasign demands has kept up. While biofuels as currently envisioned are not an answer they are also not the only game in town which has limited technologies push effect. If we do ever hit peak oil then I think the technology push will pick up.

                Also as important as replacing oil as a source of fuel for vehicles is replacing polluting or dangerous sources of energy for the grid. As Japan shows, old style reactors need to be taken off line and replaced with modern designs that bith prodce less waste (if more radioactive) and are less risky to operate. We also need to really push fusion development.

                Comment


                • #23
                  With higher oil prices, the new technologies will become more affordable and will lead into investments into new infrastructure for those new technologies.

                  FFS, the Otto motor has not changed its' basic principles since the invention.
                  No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                  To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                    FFS, the Otto motor has not changed its' basic principles since the invention.
                    Not changing the basic principles is not- not changing. Modern 4 stroke engines are marvels of technology. standard engine power per liter has about doubled since WWII with massive increases in range and decreases in exhaust particulate output. All this while running on fuel with less energy per volume than seen in WWII. The motors have also seen radical redisgns in cam and valve trains and a swith from pushrods or interference engines w/ timing belts to OHC+ type engines with external timing chains and VVT technology.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Compared to all the other industries, auto industry has a very slow pace, which is not by default a bad thing.

                      Why not hydrogen-driven car? Oh the infrastructure, right. What about electricity? Ah the batteries weight too much. And so on.

                      Every time someone introduces the "next thing" the Otto technology "evolves". Now I see petrol engines are "fuel saving".

                      I am not too much into green. What worries me more is 1) we are too dependent on oil price/availability, 2) what when we will run out of oil without a backup plan.
                      Last edited by Doktor; 12 Apr 11,, 01:13.
                      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        [QUOTE]
                        Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                        7th:

                        I do indeed remember you saying that.
                        ;)

                        I had my doubts too. I had some penny shares in a biodiesel producer a long time ago and the more I studied up on it, the more it seemed the sector was limited by the price of corn. Well, bless the government for coming along and subsidizing corn for biofuel producers.
                        I think there is a big difference btwn Biodiesel and ethanol fuels. Biodiesel is derived from used cooking oil, a waste product that has it hydrocarbons stripped and the remainder gets recycled into other products. Biodiesel is a great!

                        Ethanol however is the devil in disguise. Its a lose lose product.

                        What I don't understand is how we're better off with 10% ethanol. Price at the pump didn't change, as I recall, but MPG dropped about 15%. Pay the same, get worse mileage. How does that reduce oil imports?
                        It doesn't, what it does do is pay farmers subsidies, and who has what to gain from farmers getting govt money?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Doktor View Post

                          Every time someone introduces the "next thing" the Otto technology "evolves".
                          Not really, the really big leaps in technology were driven by war or a public not content with regulation. Unrestrained by emissions US made V8's had explosive power in the late 60's then the government passed emissions laws which stagnated naturally aspirated engines in the US but lead to an increasing use of turbos and opened the door for Japanese automakers. By the late 80's and early 90's the publics demand had driven technology able to create lighter cars with increasingly powerful engines that rivalled the speeds of the great age of muscle cars. The trend has been acceralting since then with modern V6's in cars like the Mustang, 370z and Camaro exceeding 300bhp and high revving or turboed 4 cylinders well past 200bhp. The best of the big V8's now easily exceed 500hp. One the Corvette z06 generates 505bhp but avoids the gas guzzler tax. The only 4 strokes in competition with new technologies are the naturally aspirated ecobox 4 bangers.

                          Heck, my early 80's era VG30ET has with modern electronics, intercooler, better fuel delivery and less restrictive exhaust has gone from 205bhp to something past 400whp if all goes well with my build.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by zraver View Post
                            Not really, the really big leaps in technology were driven by war or a public not content with regulation.
                            I didn't have regulation in mind. I was thinking more of alternative fuels. Every time something new is announced the engines need less gas, the emissions are lower, the bhp are higher...

                            As for war... tell me 5 consecutive years there was no war. And US was involved one way or the other in all of them Not saying it as good or bad.

                            Heck, my early 80's era VG30ET has with modern electronics, intercooler, better fuel delivery and less restrictive exhaust has gone from 205bhp to something past 400whp if all goes well with my build.
                            Don't forget to buy some SERIOUS brakes. Something that when you hit the pedal will make you look like this:
                            No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                            To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                              I didn't have regulation in mind. I was thinking more of alternative fuels. Every time something new is announced the engines need less gas, the emissions are lower, the bhp are higher...

                              As for war... tell me 5 consecutive years there was no war. And US was involved one way or the other in all of them Not saying it as good or bad.
                              I was referrign specifically to WWII and the advances in gasoline and engine technology leading to the muscle car era, the smog era and the current golden age of automotive power.

                              quote]Don't forget to buy some SERIOUS brakes. Something that when you hit the pedal will make you look like this: [/QUOTE]

                              ultimate goal will include a fuly caged interior....

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by zraver View Post
                                Possibly, but so far the ability to develop technology to meet the increasign demands has kept up. While biofuels as currently envisioned are not an answer they are also not the only game in town which has limited technologies push effect. If we do ever hit peak oil then I think the technology push will pick up.

                                Also as important as replacing oil as a source of fuel for vehicles is replacing polluting or dangerous sources of energy for the grid. As Japan shows, old style reactors need to be taken off line and replaced with modern designs that bith prodce less waste (if more radioactive) and are less risky to operate. We also need to really push fusion development.
                                Zraver, this is not the technology issue and therefore it cannot be resolved with technology. Technology and Energy are two different things that are often mixed. If you have a 5 pound cake and you want to eat it,what is the usage of developing super high tech nano knife that will enable you to cut it into perfect slices, you still have a 5 pound cake that you want to eat. And you can eat it with your bare hands,ordinary kitchen knife or nano knife, no matter what way (the technology) you use it is still 5 pound cake (finite resource) that will end up in your stomach. Technology can manage things more or less effectively but in order to manage things it needs things to manage and that is the issue.
                                Net energy, the energy invested for energy returned. If you have a system built up on cheap energy, designed from the ground up to use that cheap energy, removing the cheap energy will remove the base and thus lead to collapse of such system. And since cheap energy is built in every aspect of such system, it will lead to systemic collapse. If you want to produce renewable energy, you can but it will cost more that the non renewable energy source and that will reflect on the financial system that is also built up on cheap energy. The financial system will react by tightening the credit line which will decrease the economic ability for doing things. Less economic activity means less wealth creation, less wealth creation translates to less freedom to explore new ways and possibilities which than lead to even more scarcity which even more enforces feedback until the whole thing grinds to a halt. Which is what is happening right now. You cannot have a man made renewable energy resource and expect same kind of economic growth done with non renewable energy source.
                                As far as world conventional peak oil timing, it happened, in June 2005.
                                Last edited by Versus; 12 Apr 11,, 06:07.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X