Ethanol....

[Ms_Aloha_Nui]

I have been following the news lately and have seen all the 'stuff' about boat engines experiencing problems since the ethanol blended gas has been mandated for use......I've been experiencing low mileage on with my mid-sized sedan....does anyone know of an additive that I can use? or does anyone have any suggestions as to how to improve my gas mileage?????

[LikaNui]

Did you see this story (http://honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070411/NEWS01/704110403/1001) on the front page of today's Advertiser?

:eek:

[Ms_Aloha_Nui]

Yes, I did see the article and that is what has prompted me to begin this posting.....I wonder if I should call Checkers or some automotive store and ask them.....

[GnosticWarrior]

I don't know what could be more cost effecitve in raising your gas mileage except to add more gasoline to dilute the percentage of ethanol. Ethanol is not a cost effective way of getting rid of our dependence to foreign oil. It's been around for along time. I don't think there was any conspiracy by oil compaines why gasoline became the standard fuel of choice, and people are slowly beginning to recognize this. But mandating ethanol was a good way to have our U.S. farmers make more money at the expense of higher costs per mile by drivers. If any its serves as an indirect tax on gasoline and might discourage excess consumption.

[joshuatree]

I have been following the news lately and have seen all the 'stuff' about boat engines experiencing problems since the ethanol blended gas has been mandated for use......I've been experiencing low mileage on with my mid-sized sedan....does anyone know of an additive that I can use? or does anyone have any suggestions as to how to improve my gas mileage?????

Don't have any direct answer to improving your gas mileage with ethanol, not unless you've got the equipment to separate ethanol from the petrol. :D

But I would suggest other little things you can do to help improve mileage. Make sure your tires are properly inflated, is your oil routinely changed? Spark plugs? Fuel filter? Any unnecessary junk in the car, ie dead weight, that can be taken out? Driving habits?

[Miulang]

I don't know what could be more cost effecitve in raising your gas mileage except to add more gasoline to dilute the percentage of ethanol. Ethanol is not a cost effective way of getting rid of our dependence to foreign oil. It's been around for along time. I don't think there was any conspiracy by oil compaines why gasoline became the standard fuel of choice, and people are slowly beginning to recognize this. But mandating ethanol was a good way to have our U.S. farmers make more money at the expense of higher costs per mile by drivers. If any its serves as an indirect tax on gasoline and might discourage excess consumption.
Increasing ethanol production is also driving up the cost of the food we eat, too.:eek: Worrisome is the potential for direct competition between growing crops to feed people v. crops to turn into biofuel, and the amount of water it takes to do both.

Miulang

[joshuatree]

Increasing ethanol production is also driving up the cost of the food we eat, too.:eek: Worrisome is the potential for direct competition between growing crops to feed people v. crops to turn into biofuel, and the amount of water it takes to do both.

Miulang

That's because the powerful American farmer lobby is guiding our ethanol production to basing it on corn. Sugar is out of the question for the US since only a handful of states have the right climate though more ethanol can be squeezed out of X amt of sugar vs X amt of corn. Switchblade grass holds potential but I don't think they've refined the extraction method to a reasonable cost yet.

[Ms_Aloha_Nui]

MAHALO NUI for sharing....I will definitley be sure that the things I can control - tire pressure, dead weight, etc. - I do....any other suggestions are most welcome.....

aloha, ahui hou!

[Miulang]

That's because the powerful American farmer lobby is guiding our ethanol production to basing it on corn. Sugar is out of the question for the US since only a handful of states have the right climate though more ethanol can be squeezed out of X amt of sugar vs X amt of corn. Switchblade grass holds potential but I don't think they've refined the extraction method to a reasonable cost yet.

I suppose that's why our President is cozying up with the government of Brazil (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/business/worldbusiness/03ethanol.html?ex=1330578000&en=49d2a415a1826960&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), which has now converted 100% over to sugar-based ethanol for cars. But hopefully, Brazil's production of sugar-based ethanol will not come at the expense of destroying even more of the rainforests there, which would be even more detrimental to all life on earth than not having enough fuel for cars.

Miulang

[glossyp]

Increasing ethanol production is also driving up the cost of the food we eat, too.:eek: Worrisome is the potential for direct competition between growing crops to feed people v. crops to turn into biofuel, and the amount of water it takes to do both.

Miulang
This is one of the really unbelievable things we are doing - using our food supply for energy. I fear the results of the inevitable 'law of unintended consequences' with this approach. Will we be the first society in history to burn up our food and starve as a result?

[joshuatree]

This is one of the really unbelievable things we are doing - using our food supply for energy. I fear the results of the inevitable 'law of unintended consequences' with this approach. Will we be the first society in history to burn up our food and starve as a result?

Nah, we'll just starve a little and actually resolve the obesity problems we hear so often. ;)

[Da Rolling Eye]

I have been following the news lately and have seen all the 'stuff' about boat engines experiencing problems since the ethanol blended gas has been mandated for use......I've been experiencing low mileage on with my mid-sized sedan....does anyone know of an additive that I can use? or does anyone have any suggestions as to how to improve my gas mileage?????
You could try going the route of hotrodders. Aftermarket free flow intake and exhaust systems and tweaking the puter. May get you a bit more horsepower as well, but I wouldn't hold my breath on it since the ethanol kinda makes for an inefficient alternative. Horsepower and fuel economy is sacrificed for lower emissions. Also, you're looking at several hundred up to a couple thousand on parts and installation, depending on what model car you have.

Also do what other have already suggested about tire pressure and keeping your engine clean inside and out. Everyone who has to commute has experienced a drop in performance and fuel economy. If it's the economy you're after, then the other alternative is to buy a hybrid.

[glossyp]

Nah, we'll just starve a little and actually resolve the obesity problems we hear so often. ;)
Good one! Actually it's not us so much us overfed folks I'm concerned about, but rather the areas where hunger is already a problem and many are dependent upon food from more prosperous and/or productive areas.

[waioli kai]

Politicians and lobbyists never have let solid science and sound reason get in their way.

There's at least one fuel distributor my area who has had to have at least one of his underground gasoline tanks pumped out and decontaminated of water due to contaminated EtOH in the gasoline.

According to Lika Nui's link (http://honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070411/NEWS01/704110403/1001) :
-- ' Ethanol that has more than a half percent of moisture introduced into it suffers "phase separation." The water pulls the ethanol and some hydrocarbons into a bottom layer that's difficult for engines to burn — while the lighter fuel floats on top.

' "Alcohol attracts water like a sponge, and marine engines are surrounded by water all of the time, obviously," Hoevel said. "You're left with contaminated, junk gas."

' Fuel that has experienced phase separation should not be reused, but engine owners have no cheap way to dispose of it. Some boat owners have received quotes of $300 and $350 for private disposal companies to safely get rid of 18 gallons of contaminated ethanol ' --

0.05% is a very low concentration of water in alcohol achieved by distilling azeotopic 95% EtOH / 5%H20 with benzene or some other added chemical(s) which can effect the more concentrated distillation of EtOH from 95% EtOH. The resulting super-concentrated (at least 99.95%) EtOH is then not significantly contaminated by water. Instead, the 99.95% EtOH is contaminated by some percentage of benzene (or whatever chemical(s) is employed for the purpose of further concentrating EtOH) which burns in motors' combustion cycles and/or is exhausted for us to breath in with all the other partially combusted by-products spewed into the air we need by the vehicles we love so much... ...so much that 30,000+ dead/year and 10's if not 100's of thousands more maimed is the ticket we are willing to purchase and tolerate in order to live in this society with some relative sense of security and predictability in the absence of extensive, dependable and safe means of public transportation.

-- ' Ethanol also eats away at fiberglass-based marine fuel tanks, which not only destroys fuel tanks but also ends up clogging boat engines with the debris.

' But boat owners hope they've found an answer in the past few weeks.

' Aloha Petroleum last month started selling old-fashioned, 89 octane fuel without ethanol at five O'ahu boat harbors and one on the Big Island.

The volume of fuel is so low that it doesn't jeopardize the state's requirement that 85 percent of all gasoline sold in Hawai'i must be blended with ethanol, Aloha Petroleum officials said. ' --
--

The so called "old-fashioned" gasoline has oxygenated additives which, like the oxygen in EtOH, is added in order to get a higher octane rating from lower grades of gasoline.

At least U.S. subsidized corn growers, the highe$T subsidized farmers and agro-businesses in the U.S., have a market for their product, and, the U.S. and state governments-subsidized industrial EtOH producers and distributors are getting a great deal of return on their investments!

[Miulang]

You could try going the route of hotrodders. Aftermarket free flow intake and exhaust systems and tweaking the puter. May get you a bit more horsepower as well, but I wouldn't hold my breath on it since the ethanol kinda makes for an inefficient alternative. Horsepower and fuel economy is sacrificed for lower emissions. Also, you're looking at several hundred up to a couple thousand on parts and installation, depending on what model car you have.

Also do what other have already suggested about tire pressure and keeping your engine clean inside and out. Everyone who has to commute has experienced a drop in performance and fuel economy. If it's the economy you're after, then the other alternative is to buy a hybrid.
I've heard that keeping your windows rolled up has an aerodynamic effect that might also help a little bit. Also, get rid of anything that's not absolutely necessary in the trunk of your car (including any dead bodies:D ) or passenger compartment. Extra weight in the car will also decrease the mileage your car gets. Those "flex fuel (http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/may2006/bw20060508_184780.htm)" cars that are now starting to be marketed may not be the answer, since what is causing the corrosion in the fuel systems in cars and boats is water, so unless the fuel systems of the flex fuel cars are made with stainless steel, the hygroscopic nature of ethanol will continue to damage fuel systems.

Maybe the auto industry needs to figure out how to use methanol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol) instead (like the high performance drag racers). Methanol is highly flammable (but less so than gasoline and methanol fires can be extinguished with plain water), but it can be made out of many sources (including cow burps). Like ethanol, though, it is corrosive, so a fuel system would have to be able to resist the acidity.

Miulang

P.S. in looking at the different models of cars that run on E85 fuel, what I'm seeing is that if you want to help cut down on greenhouse gases significantly, you have to be willing to pay more for the gas and the car, and your mileage is far less than with a conventionally powered car.

[Ms_Aloha_Nui]

Wow! We are truly an educated group here on HT...thank you again, all of you, for sharing....

[glossyp]

This article (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/consumer_goods/article1642746.ece) from the Times of London addresses the rising cost of food due to crops being used for fuel. Paragraph six tells the tale of the rising cost of tortilla woes from Mexico. The figure that 18% of current food acreage will be needed to meet EU bio-fuel requirements (in Europe, of course) is a huge re-direction of resources.

[Miulang]

This article (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/consumer_goods/article1642746.ece) from the Times of London addresses the rising cost of food due to crops being used for fuel. Paragraph six tells the tale of the rising cost of tortilla woes from Mexico. The figure that 18% of current food acreage will be needed to meet EU bio-fuel requirements (in Europe, of course) is a huge re-direction of resources.
Yeah, the situation really sucks. Imagine the Mexicans not having any corn tortillas to eat? Sheesh. Corn tortillas are a symbol of national identity for Mexicans like apple pie and hot dogs are for Americans! What makes it worse is I read somewhere that the varieties of corn used for biofuel are different from the varieties grown for human consumption. Eventually, will we be forced to choose between eating beef, pork or poultry and putting fuel in our car's gas tanks? A nation of unwilling vegetarians?

The production of palm oil (which, BTW, would make some really poor countries an awful lot of money) to use as a fuel source will require clearcutting lots of rainforests which would further degrade the environment. And some of the islands which today can produce the palm oil are sinking into the ocean due to rising water levels.:(

I'm still holding out for hydrogen fuel cells or a fuel source that's not plant-or petroleum-based. Somehow I have this feeling that the technology exists, but only needs to be tested and tweaked.

Miulang

[joshuatree]

The technology exists but none that has reached a commercially viable level of production, it costs too much presently. Fuel cells are great but the amount of energy needed to separate the components for fuel cells is a large amount. Maybe if we were all accepting of nuclear energy, then cheap electricity can be produced in large amounts with no greenhouse gases to power fuel cell production. The interesting thing is, countries like France don't generate as much nuclear waste as us because they recycle the waste back into fuel. The supposed downside is that this recycling creates plutonium and we all freak out because that's the stuff weapons are made of. Funny considering we probably have the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons on this planet. :D

I'm looking forward to the roll out of plug in hybrids. That would be a promising stop gap measure to make the most out of the existing petrol supplies.

[timkona]

I have been shying away from this thread, as I felt I had no sourcing for some of the things I'm sure I know about the big Ethanol lie.

Couple of things are facts.

Fact - Environmentalists, Warmongers, and Farmers all love the idea. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

Fact - Ethanol added to gasoline results in an increased rate of evaporation for the resulting mixture.

Fact - Ecology professors from Cornell and Berkeley say ethanol is a net energy loser. And you know how those 2 universities would NEVER let politics skew perfectly good research.

Fact - Ethanol is a dessicant, which means it attracts water. Not good in tropical weather especially.

Fact - Water, being heavier than gas or alcohol, sinks to the bottom of your fuel tank, won't burn in your engine, and usually only happens 12 miles out by F buoy, with a strong current and tradewinds pushing you south.

Fact - Ethanol added to gasoline lowers the combustion temperature. Lower combustion temperatures produce less efficient combustion resulting in higher levels of unburned hydrocarbons, which as all you enviros know, is the big problem with the ozone layer. This fact is still being studied, but makes sense to me.

Now if an idea has the support of Enviro's AND Warmongers at the same time, with the most powerful lobby in America (the Farmers) agreeing, then I just gotta say that the FIX IS IN. If it smells like doo-doo, it's prolly doo-doo.

It is my not-so-humble opinion that the money spent on ethanol research would be better utilized to create energy storage technologies in the form of electricity. Solar Power is the answer to creating unlimited electricity. We already have electric cars, brand new, seats 4, for under $10000.


So what is really going on here would be my question.

[Miulang]

Hey Tim, you must be getting old...now you're actually saying NO to something?:D

Miulang

[timkona]

After careful review, I was unable to find the word no anywhere in my last post. Maybe my age is causing blindness also, or dementia perhaps.

In addition to that, dear Miulang, rather than say no, I was simply outlining the case for various arguments concerning Ethanol, hoping that rational logic, and cognitive acuity would help folks see for themselves. I'm certain, that you, being a good environmentalist, and a logical person, are dead set against the idea of Ethanol as "alternative energy". Aren't you?

[Miulang]

After careful review, I was unable to find the word no anywhere in my last post. Maybe my age is causing blindness also, or dementia perhaps.

In addition to that, dear Miulang, rather than say no, I was simply outlining the case for various arguments concerning Ethanol, hoping that rational logic, and cognitive acuity would help folks see for themselves. I'm certain, that you, being a good environmentalist, and a logical person, are dead set against the idea of Ethanol as "alternative energy". Aren't you?
Not primarily because of environmental concerns. Won't touch the stuff unless someone points a gun to my head and forces me to use it because of many of the reasons you cite (or takes away all other alternatives). Plant based biofuels are diverting resources that should be used to feed people.

Your thoughtful listing of considerations ends with your opinion that the money for research being done on ethanol as an alternative fuel could be better used to investigate other sources of alternative energy, which implies a certain dislike for ethanol. If you were pro-ethanol, shouldn't you have included some facts about why it's a good alternative fuel too?

Miulang

[joshuatree]

It is my not-so-humble opinion that the money spent on ethanol research would be better utilized to create energy storage technologies in the form of electricity. Solar Power is the answer to creating unlimited electricity. We already have electric cars, brand new, seats 4, for under $10000.

But solar power is limited by the sun setting. So how does that form the basis of a constant reliable source? I'm surprised why the Big Island has not pursued geothermal even further? As I understand, the current plant is a success, no? If the entire Big Island's electricity needs can be created from geothermal, that would be a huge leap in the state's attempt to wean off fossil fuel.

Which electric car under $10000? You referring to those Smart carts? I can't wait to see the US version of the Toyota Aygo. The diesel version gets about 68 MPG, all without any hybrid gizmos, just good old fashion transportation, no luxury items.

[Miulang]

But solar power is limited by the sun setting. So how does that form the basis of a constant reliable source? I'm surprised why the Big Island has not pursued geothermal even further? As I understand, the current plant is a success, no? If the entire Big Island's electricity needs can be created from geothermal, that would be a huge leap in the state's attempt to wean off fossil fuel.

Which electric car under $10000? You referring to those Smart carts? I can't wait to see the US version of the Toyota Aygo. The diesel version gets about 68 MPG, all without any hybrid gizmos, just good old fashion transportation, no luxury items.

These would be great in-city cars (would definitely help with parking!:D ) but my fear is of being crunched between 2 behemoth cars on the freeway. I guess for long distance travel, you'd have to resort to mass transit (which wouldn't be bad) or taking your own big car on the road. Now if everybody was forced to drive one of those teeny cars, then the roads would become very very safe because the playing field would be levelled. But I don't think some people would be willing to give up their big cars for anything short of being put in jail or in front of a firing squad.

Miulang

[waioli kai]

. --The interesting thing is, countries like France don't generate as much nuclear waste as us because they recycle the waste back into fuel. The supposed downside is that this recycling creates plutonium and we all freak out because that's the stuff weapons are made of.--jtree

While it is true that plutonium fission bombs and plutonium triggers for nuclear and thermonuclear explosive devices are uses for plutonium the main reason that breeder reactors (which use plutonium instead of uranium in their reactors) were not extensively developed in the U.S. goes back to Jimmy Carter's presidency. Carter, a Navy nuclear engineer (possibly the best educated President the U.S. has ever had, at least on par with Thomas Jefferson), and his administration decided that it was not worth the risks associated with plutonium-based nuclear power plants in the United States that would necessitate the accumulation and transport of plutonium all over the U.S. Few substances in the known universe are as lethal to life as is plutonium whose half-life is around 10,000 years. The risks and the consequences of accidents, terrorism, sabotage involving even relatively small quantities of plutonium, muchless tons of the stuff, is incalculable. Should France ever suffer a major instance of plutonium dispersion inside their nation as a result of their energy dependence on the element there would be likely be a calamitous redistribution of the nation's population. Perhaps they would move France, the nation, to the Pacific and rename Tahiti.

[Miulang]

The risks and the consequences of accidents, terrorism, sabotage involving even relatively small quantities of plutonium, muchless tons of the stuff, is incalculable. Should France ever suffer a major instance of plutonium dispersion inside their nation as a result of their energy dependence on the element there would be likely be a calamitous redistribution of the nation's population. Perhaps they would move France, the nation, to the Pacific and rename Tahiti.What if humankind is only given a choice between running the risk of being blown to smithereens or cooked to death due to a nuclear accident or nuclear war vs. slowly starving to death over months or years because we have no food? Which option do you think the majority of people would choose? A relatively quick death or a slow, painful one?

Miulang

[waioli kai]

What if humankind is only given a choice between running the risk of being blown to smithereens or cooked to death due to a nuclear accident or nuclear war vs. slowly starving to death over months or years because we have no food? Which option do you think the majority of people would choose? A relatively quick death or a slow, painful one? Miulang

Barring some mass or supernova's cosmic energy ramming into us from Space or our Sun exploding I doubt that for the whole of humanity any death is going to be quick and relatively painless.

Plutonium (apparently does not, see below*) kill humans a lot like the polonium that was used to poison the Russian ex-patriate in London a couple of months ago. As I understand it his death was not one of being cooked to death per se , instead it was an agonizingly slow and painful total shutdown of his body due to his ingestion of a mass of polonium whose volume was similar to that which defines a grain of salt. Imagine such substances, with such long half-lives dusting a modern metropolis as a result of an accident, sabotage or a 'dirty bomb'. Then imagine that metropolis abandoned by humans for centuries to come. Options? In some respects we don't have any options since such events are not as much "If?" as they are "When?"

All plutonium isotopes are radioactive. The most important is plutonium-239 because it is fissionable, has a relatively long half-life (24,360 years), and can be readily produced in large quantities in breeder reactors by neutron irradiation of plentiful but nonfissile uranium-238. Critical mass (the amount that will spontaneously explode when brought together) must be considered when handling quantities in excess of 300 grams ( 2/3 lb). The critical mass of plutonium-239 is only about one-third that of uranium-235.

Plutonium and all elements of higher atomic number are radiological poisons because of their high rate of alpha emission and their specific absorption in bone marrow. The maximum amount of plutonium-239 that can be indefinitely maintained in an adult without significant injury is 0.008 microcuries (equal to 0.13 micrograms). Longer-lived isotopes plutonium-242 and plutonium-244 are valuable in chemical and metallurgical research. Plutonium-238 can be manufactured to harness its heat of radioactive decay to operate thermoelectric and thermionic devices that are small and lightweight but long-lived (the half-life of plutonium-238 is 86 years). britannica.com

*And then in "the myth of plutonium toxicity" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium) there is interesting info contradicting some of that which I stated above.

[timkona]

To Joshua....of course solar panels don't work at night. That's why I'm for researching electricity storage devices, such that we can continue at night. There are several promising technologies under research.

The number one problem with GeoThermal is the unpredictabliltiy of the source. One day barely a trickle of steam, the next day it blows your collector/exchanger pipes sky high.

The GEM is a perfect example of a brand new electric vehicle for under $10k. I know because I almost bought one.

To Miulang....its not a question of "pro-ethanol" or "anti-ethanol". I prefer the best ideas. Ethanol is not even close to the best idea. Solar/wind generation with better storage technology would be better.

But what really worries me is how the Enviros, the Warmongers, and the Farmers all agree on a technology that is clearly not the best choice.

Reminds me of some kind of Orwellian episode of Twilight Zone.

[craigwatanabe]

Maybe we should harness all the energy expelled from those thousands of tread climbers, bow flexes, and tread mills that seem to be selling across the nation.

Imagine 24-Hour Fitness machines hooked up to generators providing some net metering for HECO.

If one could count the amount of calories burned during an evening at these fitness centers and harness it we may be onto something. Lose weight and lower two things: 1) your cholesterol and 2) your electric bill.

[joshuatree]

While it is true that plutonium fission bombs and plutonium triggers for nuclear and thermonuclear explosive devices are uses for plutonium the main reason that breeder reactors (which use plutonium instead of uranium in their reactors) were not extensively developed in the U.S. goes back to Jimmy Carter's presidency. Carter, a Navy nuclear engineer (possibly the best educated President the U.S. has ever had, at least on par with Thomas Jefferson), and his administration decided that it was not worth the risks associated with plutonium-based nuclear power plants in the United States that would necessitate the accumulation and transport of plutonium all over the U.S. Few substances in the known universe are as lethal to life as is plutonium whose half-life is around 10,000 years. The risks and the consequences of accidents, terrorism, sabotage involving even relatively small quantities of plutonium, muchless tons of the stuff, is incalculable. Should France ever suffer a major instance of plutonium dispersion inside their nation as a result of their energy dependence on the element there would be likely be a calamitous redistribution of the nation's population. Perhaps they would move France, the nation, to the Pacific and rename Tahiti.

But that's the major difference in how nuclear power is approached in the US vs France. The French strongly believe in reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. In fact, 95% of spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed and reused as fuel again. The estimate is that nuclear fuel can be reprocessed up to 60 times before it is no longer useful in a nuclear power plant. This is why the amount of actual nuclear waste coming out of France is little compared to the US. We basically store the waste in temporary ponds after one use while they recycle it many times over. French nuclear plants don't have the numerous ponds that our plants do. The logic is this, if you have a well secured plant, why not recycle the fuel to make the most of it, to reduce the actual amount of waste? Plutonium is produced, yes, but even the one-use nuclear rods in ponds are dangerous so you still need security. So why not just go all the way?

[joshuatree]

To Joshua....of course solar panels don't work at night. That's why I'm for researching electricity storage devices, such that we can continue at night. There are several promising technologies under research.

The number one problem with GeoThermal is the unpredictabliltiy of the source. One day barely a trickle of steam, the next day it blows your collector/exchanger pipes sky high.

The GEM is a perfect example of a brand new electric vehicle for under $10k. I know because I almost bought one.

Well you could use the excess energy produced by solar panels during the day to split hydrogen and oxygen for fuel cells. Or perhaps store the energy in the form of mechanical energy, pumping water uphill to be run down at night. But both will have energy loses as you convert the power from one form to another. As much as I like solar, I see solar more as a supplemental power source rather than a base load source. Even if the electricity storage issue has been resolved, a rainy day or a cloudy day will affect consistent power output.

I would think geothermal is a little more predictable than one day trickle of steam, another day steam geyser. If Iceland can meet 50% of their energy needs via geothermal and The Geysers north of San Francisco can produce 1360MW, I think it's a very viable solution for the Big Isle.

The GEM vehicles are cool but they seem to be more like golf carts. I mean, do they even meet crash standards on public roadways?

[joshuatree]

Maybe we should harness all the energy expelled from those thousands of tread climbers, bow flexes, and tread mills that seem to be selling across the nation.

Imagine 24-Hour Fitness machines hooked up to generators providing some net metering for HECO.

If one could count the amount of calories burned during an evening at these fitness centers and harness it we may be onto something. Lose weight and lower two things: 1) your cholesterol and 2) your electric bill.

I remember reading somewhere a gym actually did that with their treadmills to help offset their power usage for lighting and AC.

[GnosticWarrior]

I prefer the best ideas. Ethanol is not even close to the best idea. Solar/wind generation with better storage technology would be better.

What do you think of Flying Electric Generators (http://www.skywindpower.com/ww/index.htm)harnessing high altitude wind power? Then plug-in hybrids or EV's coupled with V2G technology (http://www.acpropulsion.com/technology/v2g.htm)? I think EV's are going to be the future and if Tesla's (http://www.teslamotors.com/learn_more/energy_efficiency.php) facts are right, the most energy efficient. I think their limited range should be less of a concern here in Hawaii.

[waioli kai]

But that's the major difference in how nuclear power is approached in the US vs France. The French strongly believe in reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. In fact, 95% of spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed and reused as fuel again. The estimate is that nuclear fuel can be reprocessed up to 60 times before it is no longer useful in a nuclear power plant. This is why the amount of actual nuclear waste coming out of France is little compared to the US. We basically store the waste in temporary ponds after one use while they recycle it many times over. French nuclear plants don't have the numerous ponds that our plants do. The logic is this, if you have a well secured plant, why not recycle the fuel to make the most of it, to reduce the actual amount of waste? Plutonium is produced, yes, but even the one-use nuclear rods in ponds are dangerous so you still need security. So why not just go all the way?

"So why not just go all the way?" That idea is certainly still on the table for those who hold open the possibility that the U.S. may or is in the not too distant future going to become greatly more fissile-nuclear power dependent. Until the time that there may be such a nuclear energy based society in the U.S. there is no economic incentive to reprocess uranium-based nuclear energy wastes for the extraction of plutonium needed for breeder reactors; likewise, there is little economic incentive to forever dispose of such wastes so long as they contain such a potentially recoverable and valuable energy resource like plutonium.

Certainly there are vast amounts nuclear wastes in the U.S. (that we created as well as collected from other nations) that is both absolutely dangerous and absolutely useless which must be properly disposed of for the duration of human existence.

I feel that, aside from nuclear weapons, with the advent of nuclear energy we have opened the lid to a Pandora box enough to see more possible horrors for mankind, for Life on Earth as we know it, than it is humanly possible for us to wrap our great minds around. Though we cannot truly comprehend the infinite absoluteness of the finality of Life, we are often too willing and eager to forego attaining such comprehension prior to doing things that have all the potential of leading all human life, when not as well all life on Earth, into an abyss in which Life will be greatly and irreparably altered, if not altogether extinguished on Earth. Not something to which any one of us wants wake up on an otherwise beautiful, early Spring morning thinking about.

[timkona]

http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/record-corn-prices-mean-more-expensive/n20080622160709990014

U.S. production of ethanol, an alternative fuel that can be made with corn, has also pushed prices higher, prompting livestock owners to lobby Washington to roll back ethanol mandates.

Simple logic demands that anybody who claims intelligence must certainly be against ethanol as a fuel.

Imagine the cognitive dissonance that it takes for a person to actually think and believe this statement......

"Let's take food out of baby's mouths, and burn it in a fire."

[Frankie's Market]

U.S. production of ethanol, an alternative fuel that can be made with corn, has also pushed prices higher, prompting livestock owners to lobby Washington to roll back ethanol mandates.

Simple logic demands that anybody who claims intelligence must certainly be against ethanol as a fuel.

Imagine the cognitive dissonance that it takes for a person to actually think and believe this statement......

"Let's take food out of baby's mouths, and burn it in a fire."

Funny. Brazil produces enough sugarcane-based ethanol to be energy independent. And I haven't heard of any food shortage problems in that country. Neither have they experienced any shortage in sugar. As a matter of fact, Brazil has had sugar surpluses.

Stop believing all that oil industry propaganda.

[Composite 2992]

Some quick figures:

Hawaii used about 472.6 million gallons of gas in 2006.

Brazil produces ethanol from cane sugar at the rate of about 800 gallons per acre.

To produce half of the volume used by Hawaii, more than 295,000 acres would have to be devoted to cane sugar production.

Ethanol doesn't produce as much power as gasoline per gallon so that will have to be taken into account as well.

In the 1960s about 221,000 acres were devoted to sugar production, so it's not inconceivable to greatly reduce the amount of gas we would have to bring in, although it's very unlikely that we would be entirely free of our dependency on imported gas.

[timkona]

Show me a 100,000 acres, without a minimum wage law, and I will get started tomorrow on growing sugar cane in Hawaii.

I wonder what the minimum wage law says in Brazil? US$239 per month. I will gladly pay double that for a worker here in Hawaii, and I will throw in healthcare.

We admire Brazil for their ethanol from sugar cane mission, but we won't go so far as to try to mimic their success formula by changing any liberal sacred cow laws like minimum wage or environmental concern. The playing field is not level, and the folks who made it that way would sure like to see more alternative fuels in use in the US. Classic Cognitive Dissonance.

[Composite 2992]

One way to reduce cost is through mechanization. For example there's farm equipment guided by GPS which helps make the process of tilling, planting, fertilization and harvesting more efficient. This technology can be applied toward the cane industry.

The previous method of burn-and-harvest might change if the rest of the plant is considered valuable in producing methanol. Separating the stalk from the leaves might also become a mechanized process.

I'm not saying ethanol from cane should be the answer. Rather I'm thinking that it's something worth considering. Not only could it help reduce our dependency on shipped fuel, but it could help create a few jobs along the way, make our fallow fields productive and perhaps give our economy a needed boost.

There's other options open, too. With battery technology, such as nano-phosphate cells from A123 Systems, it's possible to make a practical all-electric car. There's a kit being developed (available by the end of this year) for the Toyota Prius that can make it a plug-in hybrid capapble of going about 40 miles on electricity alone. That could reduce gas use to almost zero for a lot of commuters.

Combine efficient mass transit with other modes of transportation (electric cars) and the amount of gas we use (or ethanol or biodiesel) can be greatly reduced.

There's almost always a solution to problems. But these often ingenious solutions can't be found when people start off by saying it can't be done.

[TuNnL]

Show me a 100,000 acres, without a minimum wage law, and I will get started tomorrow on growing sugar cane in Hawaii ... The playing field is not levelBe that as it may, Tim, sugar grower Gay & Robinson, one of two surviving sugar plantations in Hawai‘i, is moving full speed ahead (http://starbulletin.com/2007/11/16/business/story02.html) with local ethanol production. They should be commended for their efforts.
Gay & Robinson is currently in the permitting stage for a 12-million-gallon-a-year biodiesel plant set to start production in 2009. The plant would create ethanol made from sugar juice and molasses. The company also has plans for a biomass boiler and turbine facility, both to power the ethanol plant and to sell to a local utility company.

[timkona]

I think that is excellent.

[Frankie's Market]

In the 1960s about 221,000 acres were devoted to sugar production, so it's not inconceivable to greatly reduce the amount of gas we would have to bring in, although it's very unlikely that we would be entirely free of our dependency on imported gas.

Nobody's talking about local ethanol production making Hawaii energy self-sufficient. But anything that would reduce our dependence on imports helps.

And let me just say here that anyone who would demonize production of ethanol and other biofuels needs to wake up to reality. The world supply of fossil fuels won't last forever. The Saudis won't admit it, but the fact that they are only willing to boost production by modest amounts has people thinking that even their oil supply may finally, after 3 decades of being the world's leading exporter, be running out.

The future is in renewable fuels. And the sooner we come to grips with that, the easier we make it. Not only for ourselves, but for our children, grandchildren, and so forth.

[Composite 2992]

There's a lot of ag land laying fallow right now, and if that acreage can be turned into fuel then I'm all for it, whether it's with cane or switchgrass, or some other crop that's efficient.

Of course we can't be completely self-sustained. But there's a lot we can do to greatly reduce our dependency on shipped goods. Every little bit helps.

[TuNnL]

One way to reduce cost is through mechanization. For example there's farm equipment guided by GPS which helps make the process of tilling, planting, fertilization and harvesting more efficient. This technology can be applied toward the cane industry.

The previous method of burn-and-harvest might change if the rest of the plant is considered valuable in producing methanol. Separating the stalk from the leaves might also become a mechanized process.
I hope Gay & Robinson has incorporated this, considering the ethanol facility alone is costing them (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080705/NEWS01/807050313&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL) $40 million. :eek:

[timkona]

El Salvador is lucky. Minimum wage is $81.51 per month. Environmental laws are nearly nonexistant. Land use laws and zoning restrictions are nearly non-existant.

All three of those issues are liberal hot buttons. The same libs who want ethanol production in Hawaii simply do not understand that they are their own worst enemy. 35 years spent creating laws designed to protect us from ourselves gives us no ability whatsoever to be economically competitive with nations that have less "concern" for all the issues. On top of all that, ethanol is as big, or bigger due to less total energy/unit, a contributor to global warming.

It's just another example of liberal Cognitive Dissonance.

I say give Gay & Robinson a loophole on min wage law, a loophole on an EIS, and 5 years of tax free profits, and the ethanol plant would be there tomorrow. I will also predict that at some point libbies will realize that ethanol does not help the global warming cause, and will likely turn against it in the next 5-10 years. Guarantee poor folks are hating ethanol due to rising food costs. There are so many bad things about ethanol that you really have to drink a lot of Kool-Aid to embrace the idea.

[Kalalau]

Those lucky Salvadorans are streaming across the border! In the interest of accuracy, among the heaviest supporters of corn based ethanol have been conservative Republican corn producing "red" states.

[timkona]

Correct....as I have said before


Refer to a prior post in April to find that Environmental Whackos, Subsidized Farmers, AND EconoWarmongers all agree that ethanol is a fantastic idea.

How often do those 3 groups agree on ANYTHING?

If that don't make chickenskin, you not payin' attention.

[Frankie's Market]

I will also predict that at some point libbies will realize that ethanol does not help the global warming cause, and will likely turn against it in the next 5-10 years. Guarantee poor folks are hating ethanol due to rising food costs. There are so many bad things about ethanol that you really have to drink a lot of Kool-Aid to embrace the idea.

At least Gay & Robinson are trying to do something about the problem, besides just shooting down the plans of others while doing nothing..... Nothing, that is, but to drill, drill, drill. As if that is supposed to be any better for our environment.

Even T. Boone Pickens, a man who made his fortune with oil and knows the industry better than anyone else (and has the bank account to prove it) has said that there's no way for us to drill our way out of this energy crisis. We need to develop alternative forms of energy,..... and we need to do it NOW. Enough with the talk already.

[timkona]

Frankie is right.

So walk right up to the next Knuckehead you see driving a Truck, SUV, Magnum, or nearly anything from GM/Ford/Chrysler, and tell him/her that they are stupid, stupid, stupid.

Then yell at them a little, and make them feel like idiots. Then stomp some mud on their shoes, and hock a loogie on the hood of their Arab-lovin, gas-guzzler.

Of course, only do this if you are truly gettin 30+ mpg.

BTW, best selling car in America is Toyota Prius. Surprise!

[sinjin]

Even T. Boone Pickens, a man who made his fortune with oil and knows the industry better than anyone else (and has the bank account to prove it) has said that there's no way for us to drill our way out of this energy crisis. We need to develop alternative forms of energy,..... and we need to do it NOW. Enough with the talk already.Not entirely true. I have maintained for years that geothermal energy is our best bet with existing technology. That would indeed require drilling. In fact it would require us to push drilling technology to heights, depths actually, that we have never reached before. Part of the problem until now has been who it is that controls drilling technology.

[timkona]

When considering the BEST source for mass produced "grid" energy, and by taking into account cost, time-to-market, power output, risk, reliability, duration in years, and a variety of other factors............

1. Hydroelectric - hands down, build more damns, and fix the old ones. And the water storage is a bonus. Not to mention fish farming, recreational possibilites, and the wonderful possibility for preserving surrounding 'mauka' areas. China realizes this in a big, big way.

2. Nuclear - stop freakin on the waste, and blast it to the sun. It's really the BEST idea. But the Politics of NO is a problem. Ask France how good it is. And don't believe the hype in Pennsylvania. Chernobyl is the exception, not the rule.

3. Source based Solar/Wind with lithium battery technology. Every house with panels. Think of it. This is truly the #1 idea of all. But remember, this is NOT a 'grid' based solution. Requires a shift in the paradigm of power theory, from a community based ideal to an individual ideal.

[acousticlady]

Not entirely true. I have maintained for years that geothermal energy is our best bet with existing technology. That would indeed require drilling. In fact it would require us to push drilling technology to heights, depths actually, that we have never reached before. Part of the problem until now has been who it is that controls drilling technology.

When considering the BEST source for mass produced "grid" energy, and by taking into account cost, time-to-market, power output, risk, reliability, duration in years, and a variety of other factors............

1. Hydroelectric - hands down, build more damns, and fix the old ones. And the water storage is a bonus. Not to mention fish farming, recreational possibilites, and the wonderful possibility for preserving surrounding 'mauka' areas. China realizes this in a big, big way.

2. Nuclear - stop freakin on the waste, and blast it to the sun. It's really the BEST idea. But the Politics of NO is a problem. Ask France how good it is. And don't believe the hype in Pennsylvania. Chernobyl is the exception, not the rule.

3. Source based Solar/Wind with lithium battery technology. Every house with panels. Think of it. This is truly the #1 idea of all. But remember, this is NOT a 'grid' based solution. Requires a shift in the paradigm of power theory, from a community based ideal to an individual ideal.

I agree with all four of these ideas. Geothermal is probably the easiest fix for heating and hot water. Not only for Hawaii, but the entire east coast could be changed over to geothermal with out too much difficulty. The physics dept. where I did my undergraduate work built an experimental house run entirely on geothermal and solar for relatively little money. It has been up and running since the early 90's. There are reserves up and down the east coast that wouldn't require extensive drilling. Just looked it up - 425 ft. They have since incorporated various alternative energy methods to run the college itself. Here is the link:

http://www.njheps.org/ereports/stockton.pdf

Electricity should be the easiest thing in the world to create. In addition to the very real sources Tim and Sinjin listed, is the idea of fuel cells and extracting energy from the ocean waves. Both have proven track records of working.

Tim, you talk about the politics of NO being the major reason alternative methods have not been developed. That may be true to a degree. Unfortunately, it is also the politics of special interest oil that have squashed this research. Another issue is the lack of communication and cooperation between various research entities. The environmentalists don't speak to the physicists who don't speak to the chemists who don't speak to the biologists - and so it goes. I heard a woman speak a couple of months ago who heads up a national accelerator. As part of her job, she has to represent all physics research in Washington. When she asked why more money is not being spent on alternative energy research, a well known senator told her it was simple - those who want it don't yell loud enough. She was told that it is the squeaky wheel that gets the grease (no pun intended).

If we all truly want alternative energy to take over from our dependence on oil, we must all yell. A constant barrage of letters, phone calls and emails to national and state representatives would be a good place to start. But only when we (collectively as a nation) decide to make the change will it begin to happen.

[timkona]

The Politics of NO has totally killed Nuclear Energy in America. Can you imagine trying to build a nuke facility today? The mindless handwringing would be overwhelming.

There is not one single hydroelectric project either under construction or in the planning stages in America. Yet China, Russia, India all have lots of plans and damns being built. Can you imagine the whining in America if a large scale damn were proposed somewhere today?

Here's the irony of it. Most, if not all, of the major hydro facilities in America were built or proposed during Dem administrations like Roosevelt. Used to be, back in the day, that Democratic politics was the politics of the future, the politics of advancement, the politics of accomplishment, of infrastructure, of great ideas. Today's Dem politics exists in a framework of negativism rooted in protest and activism. They use a shield of "concern" to deflect criticism of their behaviors. Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.

AcousticLady makes a killing point in the last paragraph. Basically, when CONSUMERS CHOOSE to purchase alternatives, demand will drive change.

[Frankie's Market]

Not entirely true. I have maintained for years that geothermal energy is our best bet with existing technology. That would indeed require drilling.

Absolutely true. And I'm sure that T. Boone Pickens is well aware about geothermal drilling. But in the context of what he was talking about when he said that we "can't drill our way" out of this energy crisis, he clearly was talking about drilling for oil. Let's not obscure the point he's trying to make with technicalities.

[Kalalau]

It was reported on the news, very briefly of course, that Morgan Stanley now owns more oil than Exxon. The price rise is due to speculators. Giving oil companies leases to drill in your national parks or even more off shore leases is irrelevant to the price of oil or gas; they hold tens of thousands of acres of leases now that they have not bothered to drill. The problem of speculation needs to be addressed. Either ban speculation in oil completely, or tax it prohibitively, but end it. Talk of attacking Iran may be nothing but a ploy to drive the price even higher. We do have oil men in the White House, serving the interests of the oil industry has been their entire focus and for that at least they have done a truly great job. It is time to nationalize the oil companies. Use the RICO anti racketeering statute, declare them criminal conspiracies and sieze all of their assets. If the economy continues to collapse into Depression this will seem like a mild solution.

[TuNnL]

...Morgan Stanley now owns more oil than Exxon. The price rise is due to speculators....Timkona has already begun a discussion on this topic here (http://hawaiithreads.com/showthread.php?t=15317). Or, you might start a dedicated thread. This thread is about ethanol. Mahalo for staying on topic. ;)

[Kalalau]

Thank you very much, I appreciate your kind advice.

[salmoned]

Timkona has already begun a discussion on this topic here (http://hawaiithreads.com/showthread.php?t=15317). Or, you might start a dedicated thread. This thread is about ethanol. Mahalo for staying on topic. ;)

Huh? That link took me to a thread about impeachment, no mention of who owns how much oil.

[Leo Lakio]

Huh? That link took me to a thread about impeachment, no mention of who owns how much oil.Perhaps this thread (http://www.hawaiithreads.com/showthread.php?t=15353) might be more appropriate?