Alcohol fuel - The obvious answer, Yes or No?

I am having a problem with the post above. Are you saying that flared and unflared gases released at the oil fields are 25 times greater in atmospheric carbon than the carbon coming from tail pipes?

The non-gasoline uses of distilled petroleum products can't be blamed on or charged against gasoline usage.

Billy, what are they trying to say?
 
Last edited:
SUMMARY:
The CO2 released by gas powered cars is less than 1/3 of the total released by burning oil!!!

The Tupi and Iara fields of Brazil discovered several years ago are now known to hold 12 billion barrels. 31May09 Folio de Sao Paulo, page A24 mentions that they also hold 3.1 billion tons of CO2 because Petrobras is now making a feasibility study of re injecting it. (Can "carbon credits" pay the cost?)

The “carbon mass fraction” of CO2 is 12 / (32+12) and the metric ton is 1000Kg so the mass of carbon to be released as CO2 from these two Brazilian fields is: 3.1E12x(12/44)kg = 8.45E11kg of carbon.

A barrel of oil, 42 US gallons = 159liters but typically slightly less than half can be converted into gasoline. Thus from these two Brazilian fields approximately 75x12 billion or 9E11 liters of gasoline will come. I will assume it is iso-octane (C8H10) which has a density of 0.7kg/L.

The “carbon mass fraction” of iso-octane is 8x12 / (96 +10) = 90%. So the “carbon density” is 0.63kg/L. Thus these two fields will release 0.63x9E11 = 5.67E11 kg of carbon as CO2 in the burnt gasoline.

The ratio of carbon mass released at the well source to at the car tail pipe is 8.45E11 / 5.67E 11 = 1.49 or in words:

For every five molecules of the CO2 released by using gasoline as car fuel, three are released at the oil field and two from the car tail pipe.

This CO2 gas released at the well, however, does not include the nearly equal amount of natural gas “flared off” as not economical to market. Nor does it included the CO2 in the half of the heavy oil burnt by power plants or used in chemical processes, but some of them stored the carbon in plastics etc. for many years. Thus the molecular “release ratio” is at least 6 to 2, not 3 to 2, when flaring and non-car combustion is considered.

De-sequestering* of safely sequestered oil releases at least 3 times more CO2 than car tail pipes do. (Actually higher - see the PS.)
------------
*Normally one says oil companies “produce oil”, but this is entirely false and misleading. Oil companies have never produced one drop of oil. They only de-sequester it.

PS: these two fields produce low value heavy oil. Brazil newly found “pre-salt” oil is light oil and has approximate 50% HIGHER fraction of CO2 in it. I assume the geothermal processes that produces light oil, such as Saudi-Arabia has, all have this higher fraction of CO2. Thus, when this and the flaring of CH4 at the well head is considered it is not much, if any, exaggeration to suggest that only ~15% of the CO2 released by gasoline powered cars comes from the tail pipe!

The remainder is from the de-sequestering of the Saudi oil. But do not think of driving cheaper on tropical alcohol, the terrorists need the money.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
nirakar said:
I am having a problem with the post above. Are you saying that flared and unflared gases released at the oil fields are 25 times greater in atmospheric carbon than the carbon coming from tail pipes?

The non-gasoline uses of distilled petroleum products can't be blamed on or charged against gasoline usage?

Billy, what are they trying to say?
Click to expand...
I had an error and quickly noted it, but you were too quick - see corrected post 342 that now follows yours. If there were no market for gasoline, then power plants would not burn oil, but coal, or be nuclear. Thus, if gas powered cars did not exist, oil would be used as chemical feed stock and as lubricant only. So, yes I am "charging" or accounting all the release of CO2 from safely sequestered oil to cars.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What would happen to the plastics industry if gasoline was not used?


Nuclear power consumes a lot of diesel and other fuels in the mining and refining of Uranium. Burning Coal for electricity is worse atmospheric carbon wise than burning Natural Gas is.

To what degree Is natural gas production a byproduct of oil production?
 
nirakar said:
(1)What would happen to the plastics industry if gasoline was not used? (2)Nuclear power consumes a lot of diesel and other fuels in the mining and refining of Uranium. (2)Burning Coal for electricity is worse atmospheric carbon wise than burning Natural Gas is.(4)To what degree Is natural gas production a byproduct of oil production?
Click to expand...
(1)It would be changed into only higher value plastics, still based on oil. For example disposable cups, plates, forks, etc. and shopping bags might not exist. Packaging of store bought goos would be paper, not plastic. etc. All in all, and environmental blessing with less trash to get ride of and less CO2 release.

(2) Yes, now true, but that could be replaced with compressed natural gas, alcohol, or even rechargable batteries, I think, but this last would require a near by power line to really not be oil in disguise.

(3) Absolutely, but we do it.

(4) Not much, I think. In fact in the hills of West Virgiania, where I grew up, it was the other way round. I.e. there was "Drip gas" available at many of the natural gas wells. I am not quite sure why, and do not really understand, but think that some room temperature liquids are "disolved" in the high pressure CH4 gass and come out of solution with the pressure release.

Most of the natural gas that France gets from Algeria, (LNG I think but perhaps there is a pipeline on Med floor?), is from gas wells and most that is used in the US also comes from gas wells, I think. When the well recovers (de-sequesters, not "produces") both oil and gas, I think usually the gas is just flared off. I think the Saudis and a few others have at least considered using it locally as chemical feed stock for small fertilizer etc. plants, but not found that to be economial.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
(LNG I think but perhaps there is a pipeline on Med floor?)
Click to expand...
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Algeria/NaturalGas.html says 2/3rds of Algeria's NG goes by pipe to Europe. 1/3rd becomes LNG.

I wonder if there would not already be a NG pipeline from the from the Arab/Persian gulf area to India if the The USA could be trusted to not blow up the pipeline every time the USA got irritated at Iran's refusal to become a compliant member of the USA led foreign policy syndicate.

I would be better if the Saudis and Qataris were piping their NG to India rather than flaring it. It would be better if India was burning more NG rather than more coal.
 
Last edited:
nirakar said:
... It would be better if India was burning more NG rather than more coal.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the pipline link. the pie chart and the second bar chart suggest that all the natural gas France impoorts is LNG, but more than twice that goest ot Italy by pipeline - I should have guessed that was the case, but knew France used Algerian gas.

Unfortunately India gets a lot of natural gas and oil from what was once called Burma. Why I say "unfortunatel":

I am usually not in favor of bombing as too many inocents are always killed, but back when the dictators of Mimar (spelling?) were killing monks etc. I made a post suggesting that their isolated city of million dollar homes they made for the higher ups of the government should first have B-52 drop leaflets telling them to release the nobel peace prize winning lady who was elected president and negotiate a smooth transfer of power to the elected government OR that a week to 10 days later the B-52 would return and all of their homes would be reduced to rubble. The leaflets also told that any attempt to move "humans shields" to their remote capital would result in its immedate bombing. That city is the new capital and far from the straving masses in the jungle

India to some extent but mainly China supplies this dictatorial regiem with the military hardwear and cash it uses to supress the people with. They get energy in exchange, both oil and natural gas. They will not do anything to change this. The US should and could, if it is to interfer anywhere with the local government by dropping bombs, IMHO.

The daughter of the main leader was married about three years ago and wore approximaltely 50 million dollars worth of jewels on the dress and body, in a land where the people are hungry and without medical care. They are dam lucky I am not the POTUS.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
State of Florida will require 10% alcohol blended in to Gasoline after 2010. Here is the summary of recommendations of a report found at: http://newsblaze.com/story/20090802100755zzzz.nb/topstory.html

"... Clearly, the ethanol import tariff should be repealed for the following reasons:

(a) Record prices for gasoline are increasing the costs of producing, transporting, and processing food products. Research shows that energy prices are quickly passed through to higher retail food prices, with retail prices rising 0.52 percent in the short-term for every 1 percent rise in energy prices. As a result, a 10 percent gain in energy prices could contribute 5.2 percent to retail food prices;

(b) Imported petroleum does not pay a tariff, yet clean, renewable ethanol from our own hemisphere is assessed a 54 cent-per-gallon tariff;

(c) Elimination of the ethanol import tariff would provide the U.S. with sufficient ethanol to move ethanol demand beyond being just a blending component in gasoline to a truer fuel alternative and create the required fueling infrastructure;

(d) The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 set a new RFS that starts at 9.0 billion gallons of renewable fuel in 2008 and rises to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Of the latter total, 21 billion gallons of renewable fuel in U.S. transportation fuel is required to be obtained from renewable fuel, other than ethanol derived from corn; and

(e) U.S. oil companies, due to a loophole in the CBI*, are currently allowed to import thousands of barrels of ethanol every month without having to pay the 54 cents per gallon tariff.

Repeal of the 54 cent-per-gallon import tariff on foreign ethanol would create market competition by allowing U.S. blenders, not only oil companies, to purchase cheaper ethanol from foreign sources, which could help lower gas prices, increase the supply of ethanol to coastal markets, and ease the economic strain that is impacting the agriculture, food and beverage industries. ..."

-----------------
* Caribbean Basin Initiative ("CBI"), countries are currently allowed to import modest amounts without having to pay the 54-cent-per-gallon tariff. Brazil send some hydrated (with water still) alcohol to some of these contries, where it is chemically dried to very low water content and then it is anihydrated "Caribbean alcohol" and does escape the $0.54/ gallom tariff.

Billy T notes that Jeb Bush, brother of GWB, was Governor of Florida (or high up in that government, not sure now by memory) an publicly broke with GWB on the question of tariffs against imported alcohol. (I guess Jeb got what few brains the brothers had.) Jeb needed public support and knew the tariffs were raising the cost of driving in Florida (where tourists from NYC etc. come and do a lot of driving.) He knew that corn based alcohol was not a benefit to Florida, but did make the tax payer of Florida pay more taxes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
see somewhat dated but complete article on why it is stupid for the US to keep cheaper alcohol form tropics out here:

http://newsblaze.com/story/20090821074304zzzz.nb/topstory.html

I.e. argument presented includes the $0.54/ gallon tariff against imports + $0.51/ gallon direct subsidity to US alcohol from corn makers (more if from celullous) + subsidy to all corn growers (approximately half of the entire US farn suybsidy program!)

Plus many other reasons why current policy is STUPID AND COSTLY for tax payers, especially those who pay more to drive per mile than need be. (In Brazil diving on alcohol cost about half as much as if gasoline is used and neither has an artifical advantage - both taxed on their energy content.)
 
brazil-gas-pump-md.jpg
The alcohol price is higher now, due to the global shortage of sugar ~R$1.45 / liter.

Alcohol is the least expense / mile driven if the cost is 70% (or less) that of gasoline. Thus alcohol is still a cheaper fuel to use than regular gaoline at R$2.249/ L when price (in Real) is R$1.57 / L (or less).

More tha 90% of car now made and sold in Brazil are "total flex" (can use any mix of gas and alcohol).

Currently the dollar will buy 1.76 R$ so even the current price of R$1.45/ L is $3.05/ gallon. (if memory is correct that 3.7L = 1 gallon).
Is that about the same price as gasoline in the USA now?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gasoline in Louisiana is about $2.55 per gallon Regular. Add 10 to 15 cents for next Octane upgrade each.
 
Interesting, but just a claim (and perhaps not different from others like it?):

"... Qteros was started as a spinoff in the University of Massachusetts in 2006 to make ethanol from non-food feed stocks, like agricultural residue and wood chips. Susan Leschine, the founder of the company could identify one microbe which possesses properties that can reduce the time of traditional ethanol production.

The microbe produces the enzymes which are required to convert plant matter into sugars and ferment them into ethyl alcohol as explained by CEO of the firm named John McCarthy. The process being streamlined and called Consolidated Bioprocessing makes it cheaper than many other competing methods, as stated by the CEO. ..."

From: http://topnews.us/content/231916-qteros-will-be-bringing-ethanol-making-insect-india

The leading cellulosic alcohol company (finished their pilot plant and now building the first commercial scale one) started by disecting termites to learn what enzymes they use. I think they chemically make then now.
 
Carcano said:
Buses in LA now run almost entirely on compressed natural gas...the most obvious alternative for large vehicles!...
Click to expand...
Yes and in many other cities too, but unlike sugar cane alcohol, NG use still increases the release of CO2 even if, like sugar cane alcohol, it burns cleaner with less CO2 release than gasoline but much more than sugar cane alcohol's slightly NEGATIVE NET RELEASE.
 
Billy T said:
Yes and in many other cities too, but unlike sugar cane alcohol, NG use still increases the release of CO2 even if, like sugar cane alcohol, it burns cleaner with less CO2 release than gasoline but much more than sugar cane alcohol's slightly NEGATIVE NET RELEASE.
Click to expand...
Yes, but who wants to send our nation's wealth to Brasil when we can grow cane in Florida and many other southern states.
 
Carcano said:
Yes, but who wants to send our nation's wealth to Brasil when we can grow cane in Florida and many other southern states.
Click to expand...
Well now the US need for liquid fuel is funding the terrorist (along with opium sales) so yes it would be better to buy sugar cane alcohol from Brazil than mid East oil for your car. Unfortunately now that a 200,000 ton per year chemical plant is making polyethylene from sugar cane alcohol (and within a year a second of the same size will be making polypropylene) Brazil needs all the alcohol it is currently producing. There is a lot on abandoned pasture that could be growing cane, which is an easily grown grass so Brazil's production will at least double in the next few years but so will the local needs of alcohol.

Certainly, sugar cane can be grown in Florida, at least the southern part and during the summer; however, alcohol from it would be considerably more expensive than if the cane were grown year round in tropical countries with much lower labor and land costs. I don't know, but bet the average / acre price of southern Florida land is at least five times higher than in most tropical countries. For these same reasons, Florida imports bananas instead of growing them.

SUMMARY: Just because bananas, coffee, sugar cane, etc. will grow in Southern Florida, does not mean it makes economic sense to do so. Trading what US can produce more cheaply (for example wheat) for what US needs that can be produced more cheaply in a tropical country AIDS BOTH partners of the trade. If workers in say Costa Rico have more income they would be importing more from the US etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NhocCuteGirlz said:
... But oil prices must rise a bit more before Ethanol can compete with gasoline in an open market unaided by taxes on gasoline. The price information on the other thread showed that taxes in Brazil on gasolene explain why ethanol can compete there now. ...
Click to expand...
It is true that the tax per liter on alcohol in Brazil is 70% lower than on a liter pf gasoline. That is because BOTH PAY THE SAME TAX on their energy content. I.e. you will fill your tank 10 times instead of only 7 if you use alcohol so the total tax to drive 5,000 mile is the same.

If you tell me where you read these false, or at least very misleading, statements I will correct them also.

Because of the increased use of alcohol for production of plastics and the increasing number of flex fuel cars now on Brazil's roads it is no longer a great cost saving to use pure alcohol. I have even on recent occasions put gasoline in the tank when the price of alcohol was 75% of that of gasoline - to save 5% by using alcohol was not worth making me fill tank more often.

Brazil's government sets the percentage of gasoline that must be alcohol (between 10 to 25%). It does so to help balance supply and demand. When new alcohol is being produced, there typically will be 25% alcohol in the "gasoline." This reduces the alcohol storage tanks costs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Some of us can't use ethenol well at all... like my 1990 Nissan Pathfinder.

I'll average about 22 MPG on regular unleaded with 0 ethenol... but only about 18 mpg on a 15% blend.

Plus, with the blend, I have issues passing emissions... not to mention the increase in buildup in my engine.

Those of us with older vehicles would like to keep them, kthnx.
 
Gasoholics

Yes. That is one thing we could do. It burns clean. con sugar cane scrap waste that ueilds alchohol as a biproduct. Alot of people would rather die than drive an electric car. there are many things we should do. But what i want to see is you run a combine a bulldozer or a boat without gas. or a jet without fuel.. There is some stuff you have to have some kind of fuel to run. wqe should run what we can on alternative stuff. alchohol looks alot better than windmills. nuclear power? I think is too bad for future waste disposal. maybe some but i think that is a good try but no cigar. How about hydro electric. yeah but they can't find a way to blow up A CORN ALCHOHOL RIG i THINK THEY WOULD RATHER DRINK IT. fRICKON HILLBILLIESX
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top