Alternative Fuel

#26
#26
therealUT said:
The government should not be spending any R&D money for products that are to be sold in the private sector. Period.
Click to expand...
But they should be doing everything possible to end our country's reliance upon Middle Eastern despots.

Think about that vast wasteland of a desert without our demand for their oil. The consequences are enormous.
 
#27
#27
BigPapaVol said:
But they should be doing everything possible to end our country's reliance upon Middle Eastern despots.

Think about that vast wasteland of a desert without our demand for their oil. The consequences are enormous.
Click to expand...
Then stop using oil based products in your private life.
 
#30
#30
TennTradition said:
I think that there is certainly a place for government investment in future energy sources. It is hard for shareholders to warrant investment in technology that has a long leadtime.
Click to expand...


I've always thought that the US Navy could do the job of the research needed for the nuclear plant design. All ween need is for future nuke plants to have one standard design (such as France) and we just repeat that template about 400-500 times...

You can get rid of most of the gas turbine generators (especially in the northeast and California) and then we can gradually moth ball the coal fired plants.

But building 400 reactors will take 200 years at the current rate because of NRC licensing logjams and the bureacracy associated with all of that.
 
#31
#31
oklavol said:
I'm a fan of nuclear power plants built in conjuction with desalination plants its a great way to take advantage of waste heat from the nuclear plant and provide clean water in areas where its needed, i.e. California, Arizona. It has great promise.
Click to expand...

That will never happen... makes too much sense. :crazy:
 
#32
#32
therealUT said:
It most likely would not. Unfortunately for you, that is how a free market economic system works though.
Click to expand...
Actually more unfortunate for you, because we will have military involvement in the Middle East until oil is no longer a driving force in our economy.
 
#33
#33
What about the old steam engines? Do they produce more emissions than a gas engine. I saw Jay Leno in a Stanley Steamer and he said it would run over a 100 mph and produced very little emissions.
 
#34
#34
therealUT said:
The government should not be spending any R&D money for products that are to be sold in the private sector. Period.
Click to expand...

I would tend to agree with you about that, but in this case, the "research" could be done by the Navy or Air Force and be considered a matter of national security.

Once the gov't completes their design, the private sector would have to worry about patent violations or whatever because private compnaies would buy the license for the technology from the gov't and only be required to use the mandated design.
 
#35
#35
TuskALoosa said:
What about the old steam engines? Do they produce more emissions than a gas engine. I saw Jay Leno in a Stanley Steamer and he said it would run over a 100 mph and produced very little emissions.
Click to expand...

Uhh... what fuel are you going to use for the boiler? :ermm:

Most of the old steam engines used coal.
 
#36
#36
Tenn_Vol_Authority said:
Uhh... what fuel are you going to use for the boiler? :ermm:

Most of the old steam engines used coal.
Click to expand...


I mean would it produce less emissions than an internal combustion engine? I didn't think it actually ran on water. Even though I think the government has a car that does.:)
 
#41
#41
it's a boondoggle because it takes more energy to create E85 than it does to create regular unleaded gasoline.
 
#43
#43
MG1968 said:
it's a boondoggle because it takes more energy to create E85 than it does to create regular unleaded gasoline.
Click to expand...

Why does that make it a boondoggle? As I said before, it seems to make economic sense in the system they are implementing here.

I could care less about how much energy it takes to produce it.
 
#44
#44
therealUT said:
I would have to disagree wholeheartedly with your post. I understand that the government intrusion into the private sector, in this instance, would lead to the greater good. However, I am not completely concerned with the greater good. Everytime the government intrudes in the private sector, the government grows in numbers and in power. Does anyone honestly believe the government is going to simply relinquish said power once this technology is off the ground?
Click to expand...

The government funds technology development at universites all the time. These papers are published and industry can often use it to develop their own technology. Unless specific elements are patented, of course. Technology infusion into the private sector by the government exists..and works.
 
#45
#45
cotton said:
Why does that make it a boondoggle? As I said before, it seems to make economic sense in the system they are implementing here.

I could care less about how much energy it takes to produce it.
Click to expand...

Than you aren't really concerned about conservation of energy... you're just trying to score points by using a trendy alternative.

You are contributing to the problem, not helping.
 
#46
#46
Tenn_Vol_Authority said:
Than you aren't really concerned about conservation of energy... you're just trying to score points by using a trendy alternative.

You are contributing to the problem, not helping.
Click to expand...

The problem about making unsound assumptions is that they often lead you to erroneous conclusions and make you come across as ignorant.

I use ethanol because it is pegged locally at $.50 less per gallon than unleaded. I get about 15-20% worse gas mileage with it than with unleaded depending on the type of driving I do. It makes economic sense to burn corn if the difference in price is greater than the loss of efficiency, which, of course, depends on the current price of gasoline.

As for the ethanol itself, it is produced in a local plant which is owned through a co-op of local farmers. They can subsidize the price to peg it below unleaded because the price of subsidization is offset by the greater price they receive from their corn. It is an example of local market forces working within the framework of the market as a whole. Farmers benefit through higher grain prices, and I benefit through the availability of a fuel source that is often cheaper than gasoline.

I don't think it is contributing to the problem, or being "trendy," to take advantage of market fluctuations in the price of energy because local farmers are hedging an energy investment against the price of corn. You should probably reserve your judgement for situations about which you actually know something.

EDIT: And no, I'm not particularly concerned about the conservation of energy.
 
#47
#47
cotton said:
The problem about making unsound assumptions is that they often lead you to erroneous conclusions and make you come across as ignorant.

I use ethanol because it is pegged locally at $.50 less per gallon than unleaded. I get about 15-20% worse gas mileage with it than with unleaded depending on the type of driving I do. It makes economic sense to burn corn if the difference in price is greater than the loss of efficiency, which, of course, depends on the current price of gasoline.

As for the ethanol itself, it is produced in a local plant which is owned through a co-op of local farmers. They can subsidize the price to peg it below unleaded because the price of subsidization is offset by the greater price they receive from their corn. It is an example of local market forces working within the framework of the market as a whole. Farmers benefit through higher grain prices, and I benefit through the availability of a fuel source that is often cheaper than gasoline.

I don't think it is contributing to the problem, or being "trendy," to take advantage of market fluctuations in the price of energy because local farmers are hedging an energy investment against the price of corn. You should probably reserve your judgement for situations about which you actually know something.

EDIT: And no, I'm not particularly concerned about the conservation of energy.
Click to expand...

That is fantastic. Too bad they haven't went national yet.
 
#48
#48
oklavol said:
That is fantastic. Too bad they haven't went national yet.
Click to expand...

It works, so long as the increase in corn offsets the cost of subsidization. I expect flexfuel engines to improve in efficiency as the technology matures, which will make ethanol even more attractive.

If this happens, expect to continue to see more ethanol plants spring up around the country and automobile producers to continue to produce more flex fuel engines. Right now, the biggest obstacle to conversion is the limited availability of e85 at the pump, but given the economics right now, the marketplace will correct this as well.

By the way, much of the local unleaded is 10% ethanol, which will run in regular engines. It has the benefit of being slightly cheaper that pure petroleum fuel and has the ability to be marketed as a local product that is cleaner burning, both of which appeal to some consumers.
 
#49
#49
The subsidies amd "offsets" artificially decrease the price of ethanol... so in essence the taxpayers (i.e. you and me) are paying for ethanol whether we like it or not.

So lets see, it needs subsidies in order to be competitive in the market place and it uses more energy to produce than gasoline.

How is this economically wise or energy efficient?
 
#50
#50
Tenn_Vol_Authority said:
The subsidies amd "offsets" artificially decrease the price of ethanol... so in essence the taxpayers (i.e. you and me) are paying for ethanol whether we like it or not.

So lets see, it needs subsidies in order to be competitive in the market place and it uses more energy to produce than gasoline.

How is this economically wise or energy efficient?
Click to expand...

The subsidies are provided by the corn producers, not the government, not the taxpayers. Reread the post. It needs subsidies, but those subsidies are gladly provided by those receiving a higher price for their primary product. The only "tax" being paid is by the consumer buying corn for other purposes, as the demand has increased for the commodity due to the new market, but with the amount of tillable land laying fallow in government set-aside programs, there is plenty of availability to turn on the supply tap.

And again, I have no knowledge, nor do I care, about the energy efficiency of ethanol beyond what it does to my MPG.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top