Lr

"Leon"

09/01/2008 5:39 PM

OT: The value of Ethanol

Totally OT but like Global Warming, Ethanol is a political hot bed.

I read today that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory states that
"Today" 1 Btu of fossil energy consumed in producing and delivering corn
ethanol results in 1.3 Btu of usable energy in your fuel tank.

David Pimentel a Cornell University professor estimates that it takes
approximately 1.3 gal. of oil to produce a single gallon of ethanol. That's
1.3 gallons of oil for 1 gallon of ethanol. By comparison, simply refining
a gallon of oil results in multiple gallons of gasoline.
One year ago refineries in California were able to produce gasoline at about
98 cents per gallon when oil was $75 per barrel. So today California is
producing gasoline at a cost of about $1.30 per gallon. Keep in mind "that
cost" is not only the oil cost but also the cost to refine the oil.
Assuming that $1.30 is strictly the cost of the oil needed to produce a
gallon of gasoline, a barrel of oil probably yields about 2.3 gallons of
gasoline, again assuming that the cost to refine the oil is $0.

I suspect that if we simply built more refineries we would consume less oil
and the price of gasoline would go down.


This topic has 113 replies

RC

Robatoy

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 6:05 AM

On Jan 10, 5:26=A0am, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:e3a8b6a2-3070-4a90-9c0f-85cd1ab2d12b@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> A 42 gallon barrel of crude will yield approx 44 gallons of product.
> But it sure as fuck isn't all gasoline. 50% if it really sweet crude
> max!
>
> Bummer! =A0Here I thought there was some cold fusion as well as hot cracki=
ng
> going on

To put it mildly

> to make one barrel of crude feed a multitude....

Toss a few loaves of bread and a few fish to that formula while we're
at it?

LH

"Lew Hodgett"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

09/01/2008 8:03 PM


"Leon" wrote:

> Totally OT but like Global Warming, Ethanol is a political hot bed.
>
> I read today that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory states
that
> "Today" 1 Btu of fossil energy consumed in producing and delivering
corn
> ethanol results in 1.3 Btu of usable energy in your fuel tank.

If you do the math you quickly realize that grain based ethanol is a
non sustainable operation.

Basically, there is a very limited net energy gain.

Thanks to ADM, ConAgra and Cargil, there will be a short term gain for
the agriculture industry, but the bubble will break.

> I suspect that if we simply built more refineries we would consume
less oil
> and the price of gasoline would go down.

As one of my suppliers said years ago, "Lew, we will never see another
grass roots refinery built in our lifetime."

If somebody wanted to build a new refinery, my guess it would take at
least 10-15 years just to get the necessary permits and the local
citizens to allow construction in their back yard..

The last refinery built in california sat idle for years due to legal
hassles

Finally, some smart oil company attorney figured out that if they
defied the courts and opened the refinery, they could pay the fines
and still make money.

Finally opened refinery, didn't pay fines.


Lew

LH

"Lew Hodgett"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

09/01/2008 9:02 PM

"Leon" wrote:

> I think, believe, that those smart oil company attourneys decided to
merge
> with other oil companies. Let's make it so there are only half as
many oil
> companies as there are now, 1990. Now that all the major oil
companys in
> the U.S. have merged the competition has basicly been cut in half.
Funny
> how the gasoline prices have been rising ever since the mergers
began.

Go back and take a look at 1911 history when they broke up Std Oil and
a few other monopolies.

Clayton anti-trust comes to mind.

>I'm
> betting that with mergers/down sizing of "big oil" some refinerys
got moth
> balled too.

Some are so obsolete they need to be closed and then rebuilt but tax
incentives are not yet in place.

Lew

CF

Chris Friesen

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 9:16 AM

Robatoy wrote:
> On Jan 10, 8:17 am, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:

>>The Economist reports that hop growers in the Pacific Northwest are
>>turning their fields over to corn in order to sell in a hot market
>>driven by the ethanol boom.


> Now why would the hop harvests be down? Surely they don't use hops for
> alcohol manufacturing would they?


I think you missed the bit that I extracted in the above paragraph.
They're growing corn instead of hops.

Chris

LH

"Lew Hodgett"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 9:50 AM


"Jeff" wrote:

> Gordon Biersch in every town is certainly better than selections
> limited to Bud, Coors and Miller but we were headed in the direction
> of genuine local beer selections. It's time to rethink ethanol.

When we were very young boys, the father of a friend of mine once
suggested to his son that if milk came from a contented cow, then beer
must come from a discontented horse.

Obviously an attempt to delay his venture into the land of suds.

IMHO, Bud, Coors and Miller have no problem being clasified as
products that come from discontented horses.

They certainly don't qualify as beer.

Lew



RB

"Rod & Betty Jo"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 3:08 PM


"Frank Boettcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Absolutley, and the shortage of hops is much greater in certain
> countries in Europe where the subsidies for growing biofuel materials
> are greater and have been in place longer. Read an article recently
> about the price of good German beer to increase by 25% because of the
> hop shortage.
>
> Frank


Since it takes (give or take) 1 ounce of dried hops for 10 gallons of beer
any beer price increase would more likely be grain prices and/or simply
profit taking......Rod

http://schmidling.com/hops.htm

RB

"Rod & Betty Jo"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

11/01/2008 3:08 AM


"Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:187692b1-0283-4906-a7fb->
Which is why the brewers who suffer are the ones who brew the beers
> that matter. Rod and Betty Jo won't be affected as Coors Litey beers
> suffer from flavor impairment.

Hey I can't stand lite beer<G>......I simply looked up a few
recipes....nonetheless I'm a near expert since my Dad in the depression
picked hops in Eastern Or, in highschool I shoveled spent hops by the
ton(mulch for a nursery) and I worked 3 years at a malt plant (back then we
had free beer in the tap room)...beer still takes more malt by far than hops
and malt is considerably more significant to the brew. And do you really
think a guy brewing 5 gals a pop both uses the same amount per gal and pays
the same price for hops as a brewer whom buys by the ton.... Rod




RB

"Rod & Betty Jo"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

11/01/2008 10:42 AM


"J T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I understand Brazil is a large user of ethanol for vehicle use.
> The ethanol is brewed from sugar cane, after the sugar is processed
> apparently,

Not quite...the "sugar" is where the alcohol is brewed from.....regrettably
the fiber doesn't feed the yeast and when yeast don't get fed, yeast don't
pass "gas".......


>and then the cane is burned for the fuel to process the
> ethanol. I have NOT looked for details on this, just from items I've
> read here and there. Sounds reasonable to me. Like I said, it's my
> belief that if the politicians would just stay out of the way, the
> people that actually know what they're doing could git er done.

While I like the concept of politicians staying out of the way.......in
Brazil it was the politicians that created and encouraged their very
successful alcohol fuel program (desired energy independence following the
70's oil shocks).......nonetheless the recent oil price run up and as
importantly the development of flex fuel vehicles has taken a "ho hum" with
falling public interest program and made it a wild success. Rod

RC

Robatoy

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 4:53 PM



J. Clarke wrote:

> Don't assume that because something isn't
> being done at this time it _can't_ be done.
>


You're right.
I will send you a couple of blocks of lead, turn them into gold for me
okay?

Ahhh shit.... HE PLONKED ME!

My life is worthless now...

JJ

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

11/01/2008 11:00 AM

Wed, Jan 9, 2008, 5:39pm (EST-1) [email protected] (Leon)
doth sayeth:
Totally OT but like Global Warming, Ethanol is a political hot bed.
<snip>

I figure it's a political hot bed because the politicians are so
busy sticking their ignorance in the way that a workable solution is
delayed that much longer.

Politicians? Politicians? We don' need no steenkin' politicians.

I understand Brazil is a large user of ethanol for vehicle use.
The ethanol is brewed from sugar cane, after the sugar is processed
apparently, and then the cane is burned for the fuel to process the
ethanol. I have NOT looked for details on this, just from items I've
read here and there. Sounds reasonable to me. Like I said, it's my
belief that if the politicians would just stay out of the way, the
people that actually know what they're doing could git er done.

Politician Pol`i*ti"cian, n. Latin for career criminal



JOAT
10 Out Of 10 Terrorists Prefer Hillary For President
- Bumper Sticker
I quite agree.

Jj

Jeff

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 6:41 PM

On Jan 10, 6:25 pm, "Garage_Woodworks" <.@.> wrote:
> > Since it takes (give or take) 1 ounce of dried hops for 10 gallons of beer
> > any beer
>
> I wouldn't want to drink that beer. It would be WAY under hopped.
>
> I homebrew, and typically use 2-4 ounces for a 5 gallon batch. Depends on
> beer style which determines bitterness level (IBU) and hop aroma.
>
> Some recipes if you are interested:
> (http://www.hbd.org/brewery/cm3/CatsMeow3.html)
>
> Hops are already getting more expensive and in short supply.
> Check out this poor guy:http://www.justhops.com/
>
> Read a little blurb about why it is on the minds of craft brewers.http://www.beertown.org/craftbrewing/index.html

Which is why the brewers who suffer are the ones who brew the beers
that matter. Rod and Betty Jo won't be affected as Coors Litey beers
suffer from flavor impairment. Cheap to make, cheap to drink. I've
already seen prices rise at the local breweries. The other option is
even less appealing.

Cheers,
Jeff

RC

Robatoy

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 8:10 PM

On Jan 10, 10:30=A0pm, "Artemus" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "J. Clarke" =A0wrote >
>
> > The lube oils can be cracked to gasoline.
>
> Yes, they can and are.
>
> > The LP Gas can be recombined to gasoline.
>
> Yes, it can and is.
>
> Yet both cracking and reforming will still not yield more than 1 gal of
> gasoline from 1 gallon of crude oil. =A0Nor will allowing for density vari=
ation
> change this.
>
> > Don't assume that because something isn't being done at this time
>
> it _can't_ be done.
>
> If it violates the known laws of physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, et al=

> then it positively, absolutely *CAN'T* be done at this time. =A0Call me a
> heretic if you want, but neither politics, religion, nor the phase of the =
moon
> is going to change this either.
>
> Art
>
> PS Robatoy send his best regards.
>
lol... you bad....

RC

Robatoy

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 8:52 AM

On Jan 10, 11:38=A0am, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jan 10, 9:35 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 10, 8:17 am, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 9, 6:39 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Totally OT but like Global Warming, Ethanol is a political hot bed.
>
> > > > I read today that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory states th=
at
> > > > "Today" 1 Btu of fossil energy consumed in producing and delivering =
corn
> > > > ethanol results in 1.3 Btu of usable energy in your fuel tank.
>
> > > > David Pimentel a Cornell University professor estimates that it take=
s
> > > > approximately 1.3 gal. of oil to produce a single gallon of ethanol.=
=A0That's
> > > > 1.3 gallons of oil for 1 gallon of ethanol. =A0By comparison, simply=
refining
> > > > a gallon of oil results in multiple gallons of gasoline.
> > > > One year ago refineries in California were able to produce gasoline =
at about
> > > > 98 cents per gallon when oil was $75 per barrel. =A0So today Califor=
nia is
> > > > producing gasoline at a cost of about $1.30 per gallon. =A0Keep in m=
ind "that
> > > > cost" is not only the oil cost but also the cost to refine the oil.
> > > > Assuming that $1.30 is strictly the cost of the oil needed to produc=
e a
> > > > gallon of gasoline, a barrel of oil probably yields about 2.3 gallon=
s of
> > > > gasoline, again assuming that the cost to refine the oil is $0.
>
> > > > I suspect that if we simply built more refineries we would consume l=
ess oil
> > > > and the price of gasoline would go down.
>
> > > America's ethanol policies are stupid for many reasons but primarily
> > > because the cost is augmented with subsidized corn and corn-based
> > > ethanol is more environmentally damaging than the product it
> > > replaces. =A0But here's the *real* reason why this policy is
> > > detrimental: IT'S DRIVING UP THE PRICE OF BEER!!!
>
> > > The Economist reports that hop growers in the Pacific Northwest are
> > > turning their fields over to corn in order to sell in a hot market
> > > driven by the ethanol boom. The magazine reports that hop harvests are=

> > > down by as much as 50%. Small brewers - those who make the beers that
> > > really matter - suffer the most. Ethanol now suppresses what was the
> > > fastest growing segment of the beer market. The next brewery that
> > > opens in your town will probably be a chain, not an independent. At a
> > > time when America was finally recovering from the effects of
> > > Prohibition, I fear the McDonaldsization of local beer markets. A
> > > Gordon Biersch in every town is certainly better than selections
> > > limited to Bud, Coors and Miller but we were headed in the direction
> > > of genuine local beer selections. It's time to rethink ethanol.
>
> > > Cheers,
> > > Jeff
>
> > Beer with corn in it? ------>>>DO NOT WANT. Wheat? (Weiss Bier)
> > suuure, but no corn or rice..nooo.
>
> > Now why would the hop harvests be down? Surely they don't use hops for
> > alcohol manufacturing would they?
>
> > Just asking.
>
> They're ripping up hop fields and replacing them with corn....

"Oh the humanity!!!" :-}In

To tell you the truth, I never even knew there such things as 'hop
fields'. Then again, there must be such a thing. Just never thought
about it.

Di

"Dave in Houston"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

11/01/2008 3:14 PM


"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Jeff wrote:
> ...
>
>> Barley and wheat are suffering a similar fate:
>
>
> Actually, wheat is at a premium at the moment owing to poor crops in most
> of the major wheat producing areas last year (Russia, Australia, mixed in
> US)...

Back in November, wheat for December delivery was $9.42 +/- ,
approximately double from the previous year. Last I talked with our
ranchers/farmers/lessees a few weeks back it was still holding in the
mid-eight dollar range.
--
NuWave Dave in Houston

Jj

Jeff

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

11/01/2008 5:00 AM

On Jan 11, 6:08 am, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:187692b1-0283-4906-a7fb->
>
> Which is why the brewers who suffer are the ones who brew the beers
>
> > that matter. Rod and Betty Jo won't be affected as Coors Litey beers
> > suffer from flavor impairment.
>
> Hey I can't stand lite beer<G>......I simply looked up a few
> recipes....nonetheless I'm a near expert since my Dad in the depression
> picked hops in Eastern Or, in highschool I shoveled spent hops by the
> ton(mulch for a nursery) and I worked 3 years at a malt plant (back then we
> had free beer in the tap room)...beer still takes more malt by far than hops
> and malt is considerably more significant to the brew. And do you really
> think a guy brewing 5 gals a pop both uses the same amount per gal and pays
> the same price for hops as a brewer whom buys by the ton.... Rod

Oh, and sorry, your comment above seemed to paint you as a lite beer
fan...

RC

Robatoy

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

11/01/2008 8:58 PM

On Jan 11, 11:39=A0pm, Hank <[email protected]> wrote:

> =A0I'm not into a pissing contest. I'm just relating my experience.

> Hank =A0

Beer would BE an excellent choice for a pissing contest though.

r

Erdinger Weiss RULES!

RC

Robatoy

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

11/01/2008 5:59 AM

On Jan 10, 11:27=A0pm, "Artemus" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > Artemus wrote:
> > > "J. Clarke" =A0wrote >
> > >> The lube oils can be cracked to gasoline.
>
> > > Yes, they can and are.
>
> > >> The LP Gas can be recombined to gasoline.
>
> > > Yes, it can and is.
>
> > > Yet both cracking and reforming will still not yield more than 1 gal
> > > of gasoline from 1 gallon of crude oil. =A0Nor will allowing for
> > > density variation change this.
>
> > >> Don't assume that because something isn't being done at this time
> > > it _can't_ be done.
>
> > > If it violates the known laws of physics, chemistry, thermodynamics,
> > > et al then it positively, absolutely *CAN'T* be done at this time.
> > > Call me a heretic if you want, but neither politics, religion, nor
> > > the phase of the moon is going to change this either.
>
> > What specific law or laws does it violate?
>
> The obvious one is E =3D M*C^2 .
> You claim to input 1 gal of crude and output 1 gal of gasoline.
> Since there are other factions also output (fuel oil, grease, and asphalt
> for example), there must be a corresponding increase in mass. =A0As
> you haven't input massive amounts of energy to create this new mass
> it is clearly impossible.
>
>
>
> > If you start with a gallon of crude oil and end up with a gallon of
> > gasoline, then where does the remaining mass go?
>
> Precisely! =A0The remaining mass is the heavier factions and hence, there
> cannot be 1 gal of gasoline output. =A0Q.E.D.
>
> Art

You are wasting your time, bro'.

You take a bucket, put in a handful of sand and add water till you hit
the one gallon mark.
Then in John Clarke's world, you then have a gallon of water, which
you can pour off, leave the sand behind and still have a gallon of
water. Then, in order to win the argument, convert the sand to water
while you're at it.

It's funnier 'n shit if it wasn't so pitiful.

r---> who's really tired of this, so last message on this...back to
woodworking.

ym

yugami

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

09/01/2008 6:25 PM

On Jan 9, 7:52 pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Zz Yzx wrote:
> > Everthing else so far discussed aside, keep in mind that ethanol is an
> > alcohol (i.e. "oxegenated hydrocarbon"), the use of which in gasoline
> > is primarily designed to decrease greenhouse emmisons (ie.carbon
> > dioxide). It is NOT supposed to replace the BTU value of the other
> > stuff (i.e. alkanes, alkenes, etc) of gasoline, ...
>
> Might tell that to the Brazilians.

The Brazilians have a little advantage in that they use sugar cane.
Much more energy in that than the Government sponsored corn.

Jj

Jeff

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

11/01/2008 4:59 AM

On Jan 11, 6:08 am, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:187692b1-0283-4906-a7fb->
>
> Which is why the brewers who suffer are the ones who brew the beers
>
> > that matter. Rod and Betty Jo won't be affected as Coors Litey beers
> > suffer from flavor impairment.
>
> Hey I can't stand lite beer<G>......I simply looked up a few
> recipes....nonetheless I'm a near expert since my Dad in the depression
> picked hops in Eastern Or, in highschool I shoveled spent hops by the
> ton(mulch for a nursery) and I worked 3 years at a malt plant (back then we
> had free beer in the tap room)...beer still takes more malt by far than hops
> and malt is considerably more significant to the brew. And do you really
> think a guy brewing 5 gals a pop both uses the same amount per gal and pays
> the same price for hops as a brewer whom buys by the ton.... Rod

Barley and wheat are suffering a similar fate:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2007-07-02-beer-prices_N.htm

mmmm weissbier

G@

"GarageWoodworks" <.@.>

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

09/01/2008 6:56 PM


"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Totally OT but like Global Warming, Ethanol is a political hot bed.
>
> I read today that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory states that
> "Today" 1 Btu of fossil energy consumed in producing and delivering corn
> ethanol results in 1.3 Btu of usable energy in your fuel tank.
>
> David Pimentel a Cornell University professor estimates that it takes
> approximately 1.3 gal. of oil to produce a single gallon of ethanol.
> That's 1.3 gallons of oil for 1 gallon of ethanol. By comparison, simply
> refining a gallon of oil results in multiple gallons of gasoline.
> One year ago refineries in California were able to produce gasoline at
> about 98 cents per gallon when oil was $75 per barrel. So today
> California is producing gasoline at a cost of about $1.30 per gallon.
> Keep in mind "that cost" is not only the oil cost but also the cost to
> refine the oil. Assuming that $1.30 is strictly the cost of the oil needed
> to produce a gallon of gasoline, a barrel of oil probably yields about 2.3
> gallons of gasoline, again assuming that the cost to refine the oil is $0.
>
> I suspect that if we simply built more refineries we would consume less
> oil and the price of gasoline would go down.
>

No way Jose! If we could get politics out of energy I think we would be
much better off (a dream, I know).

Why corn? Washington corn lobbyists?

Why not cellulose or grass? Too bad their is no money in yard clippings!
Or maybe their will be, one day.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-better-ethanol-than-corn

Cellulose:
http://www.harvestcleanenergy.org/enews/enews_0505/enews_0505_Cellulosic_Ethanol.htm

G@

"GarageWoodworks" <.@.>

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

09/01/2008 7:51 PM

Another ethanol from grass article I just dug up (published yesterday) from
Chemical and Engineering News (a darn good rag!).

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/86/i02/8602news3.html

And no, smoking grass doesn't solve our energy problem.

G@

"GarageWoodworks" <.@.>

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

09/01/2008 8:17 PM


> That would indeed be a neat trick, but I'm pretty sure even the oil
> companies haven't repealed the Second Law...

What does this have to do with entropy? :^)

I think you meant the Law of Conservation of Mass.

rp

r payne

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 2:21 AM



dpb wrote:

> Leon wrote:
> > Totally OT but like Global Warming, Ethanol is a political hot bed.
> >
> > I read today that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory states that
> > "Today" 1 Btu of fossil energy consumed in producing and delivering corn
> > ethanol results in 1.3 Btu of usable energy in your fuel tank.
> >
> > David Pimentel a Cornell University professor estimates that it takes
> > approximately 1.3 gal. of oil to produce a single gallon of ethanol.
>
> Pimentel uses some very questionable assumptions in including a very low
> yield number on ethanol/bushel feed material that has been refuted in
> several studies. The last DOE study I saw was 1.6 iirc, but it includes
> some waste byproducts (dry distillers grains) used in that figure.
>
> > ... By comparison, simply refining
> > a gallon of oil results in multiple gallons of gasoline.
>
> That would indeed be a neat trick, but I'm pretty sure even the oil
> companies haven't repealed the Second Law...
>
> ...

SNIP

I don't know all the facts but crude oil is a mix of many different
hydrocarbons. Gas is a mix of a certain select hydrocarbons. Since larger chain
hydrocarbons can be cracked into smaller chains, by repeated refining and
cracking cycles it may be possible to get more gas by volumn than the volumn of
crude oil started with. It depends on the densities of the various products. Of
course you can't create more hydrogen or carbon than you start with.

ron

G@

"GarageWoodworks" <.@.>

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

09/01/2008 9:15 PM


> Guess waht the use to denare the ethanol for bulk shipments.

Methanol (wood alcohol). It gets metabolized to formaldehyde in your
system. It's the formaldehyde that makes you sick.

G@

"GarageWoodworks" <.@.>

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

09/01/2008 9:21 PM

> Methanol (wood alcohol).

Hey, I just made this thread ON TOPIC!! :)

G@

"GarageWoodworks" <.@.>

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

09/01/2008 10:08 PM


> Has to do with splitting heavy molecules into lighter ones, a process
> called "cracking" in the industry. A pound of CH3 takes up more
> volume than a pound of C2H6.

I take it you mean CH4 (methane) and not CH3 (free radical).

But aren't we talking about liquids in this case right (GASOLINE)? Density
of octane is 0.69 g/mL. Density of crude (varies from oil field to oil
field) 0.85 g/mL.

1 pound of crude (metric conversion, Ugh! 1lb = 453.5 g) = 657 mL = 0.17
gallon
1 pound of octane = 533.5 mL = 0.14 gallon

If you could convert ALL crude to octane (and you can't, you lose some to
volatiles) you would only get 0.03 gallons more.

(Considering ONLY straight chain hydrocarbons here)
Larger hydrocarbons (than octane) would have smaller densities and the
difference would be even less.
Smaller hydrocarbons than octane (that are still a liquid at 25 oC) include
pentane (d = 0.626 g/mL), hexane (d = 0.655), and finally heptane (d = 0.684
g/mL).

Considering the smallest hydrocarbon that is still a gas (pentane d = 0.626)
gives 724 mL
1 pound of pentane yields 0.19 gallons for a difference of (from crude) 0.02
gallons.

So in order to make an 'marginal' increase in volume per unit weight, you
would have to convert most of your crude into the lighter (and still liquid)
hydrocarbons like pentane.




>
>> ...
>>
>>> I suspect that if we simply built more refineries we would consume
>>> less oil and the price of gasoline would go down.
>>
>> You might suspect that, but you would be wrong. Adding refinery
>> capacity would help potentially, but that doesn't address why oil
>> futures have touched $100 -- making more refining capacity available
>> will not do a thing to quell demand nor settle the political
>> situation
>> in the oil-rich regions of the world.
>>
>> Granted ethanol is _not_ the panacea but can be beneficial in
>> filling
>> in supplies and will continue to be less costly w/ time as both
>> genetics and processing technologies improve combined w/ sufficient
>> infrastructure to handle it more efficiently than at present.
>
> Does that mean that liquor's gonna get cheaper?
>
> --
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
>

G@

"GarageWoodworks" <.@.>

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

09/01/2008 10:14 PM

> (Considering ONLY straight chain hydrocarbons here)
> Larger hydrocarbons (than octane) would have smaller densities and the
> difference would be even less.

Above should have read:

Larger hydrocarbons (than octane) would have LARGER densities and the
difference would be even less.

G@

"Garage_Woodworks" <.@.>

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 6:25 PM

> Since it takes (give or take) 1 ounce of dried hops for 10 gallons of beer
> any beer

I wouldn't want to drink that beer. It would be WAY under hopped.

I homebrew, and typically use 2-4 ounces for a 5 gallon batch. Depends on
beer style which determines bitterness level (IBU) and hop aroma.

Some recipes if you are interested:
(http://www.hbd.org/brewery/cm3/CatsMeow3.html)

Hops are already getting more expensive and in short supply.
Check out this poor guy: http://www.justhops.com/

Read a little blurb about why it is on the minds of craft brewers.
http://www.beertown.org/craftbrewing/index.html

G@

"Garage_Woodworks" <.@.>

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 6:48 PM

> Absolutley, and the shortage of hops is much greater in certain
> countries in Europe where the subsidies for growing biofuel materials
> are greater and have been in place longer.

I occasionally buy hops from this guy:

http://morebeer.com/search/102163

Look how many hop varieties are "Temporally out of stock". Depressing...

G@

"Garage_Woodworks" <.@.>

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 9:58 PM

> Which is why the brewers who suffer are the ones who brew the beers
> that matter. Rod and Betty Jo won't be affected as Coors Litey beers
> suffer from flavor impairment.

I can't comment on Rod and Betty, but I am VERY familiar with the type you
are describing.

> Cheap to make, cheap to drink. I've
> already seen prices rise at the local breweries. The other option is
> even less appealing.

The big discussions for homebrewers these days is 'growing your own hops'.
I have never tried it and probably never will.

And hop alternatives. Desperate Times Call for Desperate Measures?

http://forums.moreflavor.com/viewtopic.php?p=246005&sid=3dd8c201eaf6de1545438282e73fb9ab

http://www.tedbrews.com/2007/11/no-hopswell-then-no-hops.html

G@

"Garage_Woodworks" <.@.>

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

11/01/2008 8:23 AM

> Hey I can't stand lite beer<G>......I simply looked up a few
> recipes....nonetheless I'm a near expert since my Dad in the depression
> picked hops in Eastern Or, in highschool I shoveled spent hops by the
> ton(mulch for a nursery) and I worked 3 years at a malt plant (back then
> we had free beer in the tap room)...beer still takes more malt by far than
> hops and malt is considerably more significant to the brew.

Not sure what you mean by 'significant'. I wouldn't want to drink a beer
made w/o hops, and I doubt you would either. Hops are VERY significant.

> And do you really think a guy brewing 5 gals a pop both uses the same
> amount per gal

Uhhh. YES. If you need to hit a target IBU you have to use the same
amount of hops/gallon. Regardless of batch size.

> and pays the same price for hops as a brewer whom buys by the ton.... Rod

No. But he also doesn't pay the same for grain either. Hops are 20% of
the cost (not including yeast and water) for me. I'm not sure what the %
cost is for the big brewery, but it is going UP.


* http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/whatsontap/archives/128701.asp




>
>
>
>
>

GN

"Greg Neill"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

11/01/2008 11:31 AM

"J T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Politician Pol`i*ti"cian, n. Latin for career criminal
>

Politics: A combination of the word "poly", from the
Greek meaning "many", and the word "tick"
meaning a blood-sucking parasite.

RC

Robatoy

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 11:52 AM

On Jan 10, 12:40=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> =A0As a matter of
> trivia, it's scientific name is "humulus lupulus". =A0It has a close
> relative, "humulus cannabis sativa".
>
No such thing as humulus cannabis sativa or humulus cannabis indica
even.
Humulus is a subspecies of Cannabaceae as cannabis is also a
subspecies (and another 170 or so)

So... that's
-1 on Chemistry
-1 on Israel
-1 on Botany

Next!

ym

yugami

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

09/01/2008 6:22 PM

On Jan 9, 6:51 pm, "GarageWoodworks" <.@.> wrote:
> Another ethanol from grass article I just dug up (published yesterday) from
> Chemical and Engineering News (a darn good rag!).
>
> http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/86/i02/8602news3.html
>
> And no, smoking grass doesn't solve our energy problem.

Theres a lot of good possibilities for this. If nothing else small
plants could be built for individual cities. My city has free yard
waste pickup. Think of all the free energy that could generate to run
public services.

ZY

Zz Yzx

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

09/01/2008 6:06 PM

As an aside:

Ethonal, aka "grain alcohol", is the stuff in wine, beer, whiskey,
vodka, all kinda' booze, &tc. Its the stuff that gets us drunk, or
tipsy, &tc. To transport said product from Kansas, Nebraska (aka
"Gateway to Kansas"), to refineries in places, east, south, and west,
they either have to pay the licquor tax, or de-nature the product so
it can't be used as drink.

Guess waht the use to denare the ethanol for bulk shipments.

-ZZ


On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 17:39:48 -0600, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Totally OT but like Global Warming, Ethanol is a political hot bed.
>
>I read today that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory states that
>"Today" 1 Btu of fossil energy consumed in producing and delivering corn
>ethanol results in 1.3 Btu of usable energy in your fuel tank.
>
>David Pimentel a Cornell University professor estimates that it takes
>approximately 1.3 gal. of oil to produce a single gallon of ethanol. That's
>1.3 gallons of oil for 1 gallon of ethanol. By comparison, simply refining
>a gallon of oil results in multiple gallons of gasoline.
>One year ago refineries in California were able to produce gasoline at about
>98 cents per gallon when oil was $75 per barrel. So today California is
>producing gasoline at a cost of about $1.30 per gallon. Keep in mind "that
>cost" is not only the oil cost but also the cost to refine the oil.
>Assuming that $1.30 is strictly the cost of the oil needed to produce a
>gallon of gasoline, a barrel of oil probably yields about 2.3 gallons of
>gasoline, again assuming that the cost to refine the oil is $0.
>
>I suspect that if we simply built more refineries we would consume less oil
>and the price of gasoline would go down.
>

Uu

"Upscale"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

12/01/2008 1:50 PM


"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> That's been going on for years. He paints himself into a corner then
> plonks his way out.

Har! That's pretty funny when you think about it.

RC

Robatoy

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

09/01/2008 3:47 PM

On Jan 9, 6:39=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Totally OT but like Global Warming, Ethanol is a political hot bed.
>
> I read today that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory states that
> "Today" 1 Btu of fossil energy consumed in producing and delivering corn
> ethanol results in 1.3 Btu of usable energy in your fuel tank.
>
> David Pimentel a Cornell University professor estimates that it takes
> approximately 1.3 gal. of oil to produce a single gallon of ethanol. =A0Th=
at's
> 1.3 gallons of oil for 1 gallon of ethanol. =A0By comparison, simply refin=
ing
> a gallon of oil results in multiple gallons of gasoline.

Somehow, that doesn't make any sense. Maybe a gallon of oil can REFINE
multiple gallons of gas?

> One year ago refineries in California were able to produce gasoline at abo=
ut
> 98 cents per gallon when oil was $75 per barrel. =A0So today California is=

> producing gasoline at a cost of about $1.30 per gallon. =A0Keep in mind "t=
hat
> cost" is not only the oil cost but also the cost to refine the oil.
> Assuming that $1.30 is strictly the cost of the oil needed to produce a
> gallon of gasoline, a barrel of oil probably yields about 2.3 gallons of
> gasoline, again assuming that the cost to refine the oil is $0.
>
> I suspect that if we simply built more refineries we would consume less oi=
l
> and the price of gasoline would go down.

RC

Robatoy

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 11:22 AM

On Jan 10, 1:00=A0pm, "efgh" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:e3a8b6a2-3070-4a90-9c0f-85cd1ab2d12b@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> A 42 gallon barrel of crude will yield approx 44 gallons of product.
>
> Where do the extra two gallons come from?

It is a volumetric expansion. kinda like popcorn or a small block of
sugar becoming a giant puff of candy-cotton. I sort of understand it
that way. More compact molecules are altered to become larger. The
weight does not increase AFAICT.

Go ahead, laugh!

Jl

John

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

09/01/2008 8:19 PM

But there may be a better source than corn...

See this report on switchgrass:
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080107/full/news.2008.415.html

John

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 17:39:48 -0600, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Totally OT but like Global Warming, Ethanol is a political hot bed.
>
>I read today that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory states that
>"Today" 1 Btu of fossil energy consumed in producing and delivering corn
>ethanol results in 1.3 Btu of usable energy in your fuel tank.
>
>David Pimentel a Cornell University professor estimates that it takes
>approximately 1.3 gal. of oil to produce a single gallon of ethanol. That's
>1.3 gallons of oil for 1 gallon of ethanol. By comparison, simply refining
>a gallon of oil results in multiple gallons of gasoline.
>One year ago refineries in California were able to produce gasoline at about
>98 cents per gallon when oil was $75 per barrel. So today California is
>producing gasoline at a cost of about $1.30 per gallon. Keep in mind "that
>cost" is not only the oil cost but also the cost to refine the oil.
>Assuming that $1.30 is strictly the cost of the oil needed to produce a
>gallon of gasoline, a barrel of oil probably yields about 2.3 gallons of
>gasoline, again assuming that the cost to refine the oil is $0.
>
>I suspect that if we simply built more refineries we would consume less oil
>and the price of gasoline would go down.
>

RC

Robatoy

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 12:00 PM

On Jan 10, 2:49=A0pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jan 10, 1:00 pm, "efgh" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:e3a8b6a2-3070-4a90-9c0f-85cd1ab2d12b@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com..=
.
>
> >> A 42 gallon barrel of crude will yield approx 44 gallons of product.
>
> >> Where do the extra two gallons come from?
>
> > It is a volumetric expansion. kinda like popcorn or a small block of
> > sugar becoming a giant puff of candy-cotton. I sort of understand it
> > that way. More compact molecules are altered to become larger. The
> > weight does not increase AFAICT.
>
> ...
> But "product" ain't all gasoline by any stretch...
>
Most certainly not.
I already stated elsewhere in this thread that a decent, sweet crude
can yield 40% gasoline, through basic distillation and some other
cracking methods. The rest is LPG's and even asphalt. Industrial fuels
like Bunker C etc. and a whole lot more crap.

tt

"todd"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 10:03 PM

"Frank Boettcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:52:13 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 10, 11:38 am, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Jan 10, 9:35 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>
>>>
>>> They're ripping up hop fields and replacing them with corn....
>>
>>"Oh the humanity!!!" :-}In
>>
>>To tell you the truth, I never even knew there such things as 'hop
>>fields'. Then again, there must be such a thing. Just never thought
>>about it.
>
>
> Absolutley, and the shortage of hops is much greater in certain
> countries in Europe where the subsidies for growing biofuel materials
> are greater and have been in place longer. Read an article recently
> about the price of good German beer to increase by 25% because of the
> hop shortage.
>
> Frank

Now I enjoy a nice stout on occasion, but if the price of beer going up 25%
creates a serious financial problem for you, it might be time to back away
from the bar.

todd

Di

"Dave in Houston"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 8:05 PM


"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Last night we sampled a bottle of Negro Mondelo... very nice and a LOT
cheaper.

Negro Modelo; I never eat Mexican food without one (or two, OK,
occasionally three).
--
NuWave Dave in Houston

Di

"Dave in Houston"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 6:00 PM


"Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ca28e88a-a1ca-4a8c-aa75-e5ebf4146888@v46g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...

> NY Times? Mexican food??? Are you *sure* you're from Houston ;-)

Born, raised, and tired of it.

I look at (often even read some articles) in the Times and the
Washington Post, and a handful of others mostly because I have some
connection to the community.
--
NuWave Dave in Houston

Di

"Dave in Houston"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 8:02 PM


"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...


> As a matter of
> trivia, it's scientific name is "humulus lupulus". It has a close
> relative, "humulus cannabis sativa".


But can you use it to brew beer? Huh, can you? Can you?
--
NuWave Dave in Houston

Al

"Artemus" <[email protected]>

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 7:30 PM


"J. Clarke" wrote >
> The lube oils can be cracked to gasoline.

Yes, they can and are.

> The LP Gas can be recombined to gasoline.

Yes, it can and is.

Yet both cracking and reforming will still not yield more than 1 gal of
gasoline from 1 gallon of crude oil. Nor will allowing for density variation
change this.

> Don't assume that because something isn't being done at this time
it _can't_ be done.

If it violates the known laws of physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, et al
then it positively, absolutely *CAN'T* be done at this time. Call me a
heretic if you want, but neither politics, religion, nor the phase of the moon
is going to change this either.

Art

PS Robatoy send his best regards.

"Robatoy" wrote...
>
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > Don't assume that because something isn't
> > being done at this time it _can't_ be done.
> >
>
>
> You're right.
> I will send you a couple of blocks of lead, turn them into gold for me
> okay?
>
> Ahhh shit.... HE PLONKED ME!
>
> My life is worthless now...






Lr

"Leon"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 2:18 AM


"Zz Yzx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> As an aside:
>
> Ethonal, aka "grain alcohol", is the stuff in wine, beer, whiskey,
> vodka, all kinda' booze, &tc. Its the stuff that gets us drunk, or
> tipsy, &tc. To transport said product from Kansas, Nebraska (aka
> "Gateway to Kansas"), to refineries in places, east, south, and west,
> they either have to pay the licquor tax, or de-nature the product so
> it can't be used as drink.
>
> Guess waht the use to denare the ethanol for bulk shipments.

Gasoline?

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 1:53 AM


"Artemus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" wrote...
> [snip]
>> David Pimentel a Cornell University professor
> [snip]
>> By comparison, simply refining a gallon of oil results in multiple
>> gallons of
> gasoline.
>
> This is a nice trick. Refining 1 gallon of crude results in *more* than 1
> gallon of
> gas
> even though gasoline is only 1 of many products in the crude oil.

Correct, I was only addressing gasoline however.



>
>> One year ago refineries in California were able to produce gasoline at
>> about
>> 98 cents per gallon when oil was $75 per barrel. So today California is
>> producing gasoline at a cost of about $1.30 per gallon. Keep in mind
>> "that
>> cost" is not only the oil cost but also the cost to refine the oil.
>



> Who is doing the math here? Enron?

My neighbor who was the cost engineer in charge of revamping a refinery in
California last year.

> Fact: 1 barrel of oil = 42 gallons.

Yes

> $75/bbl / 42 = $1.79 just for the crude oil.

That is true if 1 gallon of Oil only produces 1 gallon of gasoline. The
yield is much higher.



> Add to this the yield (1 gal of oil nets less than 1 gal of gas); and the
> costs of
> transportation and refining (I don't know what these are but they're
> certainly
> greater than zero).


>> Assuming that $1.30 is strictly the cost of the oil needed to produce a
>> gallon of gasoline, a barrel of oil probably yields about 2.3 gallons of
>> gasoline, again assuming that the cost to refine the oil is $0.
>
> Completely invalid assumptions.

Yeah, I don't think so.


>> I suspect that if we simply built more refineries we would consume less
>> oil
>> and the price of gasoline would go down.
>>
>
>

Al

"Artemus" <[email protected]>

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 2:36 AM


"Leon" wrote
[snip]>
> That is true if 1 gallon of Oil only produces 1 gallon of gasoline. The
> yield is much higher.
>
Your simply repeating this statement does not make it true, nor does it
seem that anyone has said anything that has altered your belief in it.
How about you provide something credible and convince the rest of us
that your belief is correct?

Art

Gg

"George"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 2:29 PM


"Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
But here's the *real* reason why this policy is
> detrimental: IT'S DRIVING UP THE PRICE OF BEER!!!
>
> The Economist reports that hop growers in the Pacific Northwest are
> turning their fields over to corn in order to sell in a hot market
> driven by the ethanol boom. The magazine reports that hop harvests are
> down by as much as 50%. Small brewers - those who make the beers that
> really matter - suffer the most. Ethanol now suppresses what was the
> fastest growing segment of the beer market. The next brewery that
> opens in your town will probably be a chain, not an independent. At a
> time when America was finally recovering from the effects of
> Prohibition, I fear the McDonaldsization of local beer markets. A
> Gordon Biersch in every town is certainly better than selections
> limited to Bud, Coors and Miller but we were headed in the direction
> of genuine local beer selections. It's time to rethink ethanol.
>

Read in the press that the folks in Mexico, where petrol is plentiful were
peddling their corn for other than tortillas because the price was better.
Mutatis mutandis....

Al

"Artemus" <[email protected]>

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

09/01/2008 5:15 PM


"Leon" wrote...
[snip]
> David Pimentel a Cornell University professor
[snip]
> By comparison, simply refining a gallon of oil results in multiple gallons of
gasoline.

This is a nice trick. Refining 1 gallon of crude results in *more* than 1 gallon of
gas
even though gasoline is only 1 of many products in the crude oil.

> One year ago refineries in California were able to produce gasoline at about
> 98 cents per gallon when oil was $75 per barrel. So today California is
> producing gasoline at a cost of about $1.30 per gallon. Keep in mind "that
> cost" is not only the oil cost but also the cost to refine the oil.

Who is doing the math here? Enron?
Fact: 1 barrel of oil = 42 gallons.
$75/bbl / 42 = $1.79 just for the crude oil.
Add to this the yield (1 gal of oil nets less than 1 gal of gas); and the costs of
transportation and refining (I don't know what these are but they're certainly
greater than zero).


> Assuming that $1.30 is strictly the cost of the oil needed to produce a
> gallon of gasoline, a barrel of oil probably yields about 2.3 gallons of
> gasoline, again assuming that the cost to refine the oil is $0.

Completely invalid assumptions.

> I suspect that if we simply built more refineries we would consume less oil
> and the price of gasoline would go down.
>

Ld

LRod

in reply to "Artemus" <[email protected]> on 09/01/2008 5:15 PM

11/01/2008 3:06 AM

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:53:57 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Don't assume that because something isn't
>> being done at this time it _can't_ be done.
>>
>
>
>You're right.
>I will send you a couple of blocks of lead, turn them into gold for me
>okay?
>
>Ahhh shit.... HE PLONKED ME!

Again.


--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

Hh

Hank

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

12/01/2008 3:39 AM

Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in news:ad51076c-22e4-444d-aead-
[email protected]:

> On Jan 10, 1:46 pm, Frank Boettcher <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:52:13 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Jan 10, 11:38 am, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Jan 10, 9:35 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> They're ripping up hop fields and replacing them with corn....
>>
>> >"Oh the humanity!!!" :-}In
>>
>> >To tell you the truth, I never even knew there such things as 'hop
>> >fields'. Then again, there must be such a thing. Just never thought
>> >about it.
>>
>> Absolutley, and the shortage of hops is much greater in certain
>> countries in Europe where the subsidies for growing biofuel materials
>> are greater and have been in place longer.  Read an article recently
>> about the price of good German beer to increase by 25% because of the
>> hop shortage.  
>>
>> Frank
>
> So it is going to be a daily choice. To walk to work drunk, or to
> drive sober...mmmmmmm
> Premium fuel for me, or premium fuel for car..... damn....
>
> Now, about good German Beer. My Coast Guard buddy and I have been
> sampling a variety of German WeissBrau, Like Erdinger. Wheat-based
> beers. They must have a lot of hops in them because they're stupid
> money. $8.00 for a 500ml (about a pint, I guess) glass at the pub.
> VERY nice stuff though.
> Last night we sampled a bottle of Negro Mondelo... very nice and a LOT
> cheaper.
> I guess Mexican trucks are allowed across this border if that's what
> they're carrying. Maybe to a Mexican it's not a great beer, like when
> I was in Australia, my friend shuddered at the though of having a
> Fosters, she insisted that only Americans drink that slop. *smirk*

Why not. The Americans also drink Budweiser and Molson (Fosters might be
slop, but Budweiser and Molson can best be described as (pick one) piss
flavored beer like beverage or beer like piss flavored beverage. I don't
know if it is still true, but most Fosters sold in the US was brewed
under license in Canada (probably by Molson). For all I know, LaBatt
might even own Fosters. I haven't visited utopia for some time, but the
last time I was there skiing, beer or any other booze was priced very
dear. I was in the bar at Mt. Ste. Anne and this foxy lady asked a guy to
buy her a drink and he said "it will cost you a BJ". She thought long and
hard about it. That trip was the first time I had ever heard an adult
refuse a request for a cigarette from another adult. When I smoked I
would usually offer a cigarette to the person or persons I was in
converstion with. I wouldn't think of refusing a request for one (even
from a 'hey buddy can you spare a' on the street). Eight bucks for
slightly more than a US pint of beer is pretty pricey even in real money
(except in NYC).
I am a brewer, home not commercial. The price of EU hops has risen and
some varieties are difficult or impossible to obtain for homebrewers.
Both Utopia and the Great Satan grow outstanding hops. The North American
versions of noble hops are excellent (same root stock different climate).
There are subtle flavor and nose differences, but Budweiser and Molson
drinkers never really sense hops anyway.
If you you enjoy weissbrau, a Berlinner might be up your alley. I much
prefer a lambic myself (Belge).
Ever wonder how the Germans beat the purity laws by brewing with wheat?

Hank (an imp in the belly of the Great Satan)

Hh

Hank

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

12/01/2008 4:39 AM

"Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "Frank Boettcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Absolutley, and the shortage of hops is much greater in certain
>> countries in Europe where the subsidies for growing biofuel materials
>> are greater and have been in place longer. Read an article recently
>> about the price of good German beer to increase by 25% because of the
>> hop shortage.
>>
>> Frank
>
>
> Since it takes (give or take) 1 ounce of dried hops for 10 gallons of
> beer any beer price increase would more likely be grain prices and/or
> simply profit taking......Rod
>
> http://schmidling.com/hops.htm
>
>
>

Hi Rod,
I don't know if you are a brewer, but if you use an ounce of hops per 10
gallons, you must certainly like it very mildly flavored. Rarely do
brewers use fresh hops (i.e. green hops). I've used my home grown green
hops as an experiment in three batches (each 5 gals) and the beer was
very far from steller, but what the hell, it was beer. In fact, I only
started liking lambics and Berlinner Weiss after I became a homebrewer.
Most if not all hops used in home or commercial brewing are dried. They
are shipped in leaf form, compressed into a plug form, or ground and
compressed into pellets. Some hops are super compressed and sold as hop
oil. A brewer would use slightly less (by weight) of the compressed hop
pellets than the other hop forms for a given brew. Most home brewers that
I know only use hop oil to rescue an under hopped brew. I don't know of
any commercial brewers that use hop oil, but I suspect that some do.
For a ten gallon brew of a medium strength beer or ale, I would probably
mash 14-18 lbs. of malt and hop the brew with 3 or 4 ounces of bittering
hops and 2 or three ounces of finishing hops. The hop quantities may vary
depending on the alpha acid content of the hops. Brewing with high alpha
hops (more bitter) requires fewer hops depending on the style being
brewed. I ounce of 20% alpha hops will have almost twice the bittering as
10% alpha hops. Most hops used as flavor hops are close to the same alpha
content. I buy malted barley in 50 lb. sacks at less than a buck a lb.
Depending on the variety, hops are hitting a buck or more on ounce and
noble varieties, two bucks or more an ounce.
At this point the price of hops is approching 50% of the cost of the
ingredients required to brew beer (again, I am talking home brewing). The
price of hops has been rising for several years. The price of hops from
the EU has risen to a much higher degree than North American hops. Grain
prices for the homebrewer have remained fairly stable. Beer brewed with
barley malt and hops is the most costly. The price comes down when corn,
rice or wheat are added to the grist.
I'm not into a pissing contest. I'm just relating my experience.
Hank

Hh

Hank

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

12/01/2008 6:45 AM

Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in news:15f60d44-dd3e-4204-8d89-
[email protected]:

>
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Don't assume that because something isn't
>> being done at this time it _can't_ be done.
>>
>
>
> You're right.
> I will send you a couple of blocks of lead, turn them into gold for me
> okay?
>
> Ahhh shit.... HE PLONKED ME!
>
> My life is worthless now...
>

Shit Rob,
He plonked me not that long ago and I was agreeing with him at the time. He
is one big motherplonker.

Hh

Hank

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

12/01/2008 5:46 AM

"Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:187692b1-0283-4906-a7fb-> Which is why the brewers who suffer are
> the ones who brew the beers
>> that matter. Rod and Betty Jo won't be affected as Coors Litey beers
>> suffer from flavor impairment.
>
> Hey I can't stand lite beer<G>......I simply looked up a few
> recipes....nonetheless I'm a near expert since my Dad in the
> depression picked hops in Eastern Or, in highschool I shoveled spent
> hops by the ton(mulch for a nursery) and I worked 3 years at a malt
> plant (back then we had free beer in the tap room)...beer still takes
> more malt by far than hops and malt is considerably more significant
> to the brew. And do you really think a guy brewing 5 gals a pop both
> uses the same amount per gal and pays the same price for hops as a
> brewer whom buys by the ton.... Rod
>
>
>
>
>

The ratio of hops to grist is not quite the same when brewing 5 gals.
versus 500 gals., but the difference (ratio) is not that significant. The
home brewer probably pays a bit more for his/her hops (PC) as a percentage
of the cost to produce a gal of beer than a commercial brewery does.
It doesn't matter what the commercial brewer pays per ton or ounce compared
to the 5 gal. a pop guy. If the home brewer pays a buck an ounce and a
commercial brewer pays a cent an ounce and the price of hops doubles, both
buyers now face the same percentage increase in their ingredient cost. This
is very over simplified. What I'm really trying to say is hops are not an
insignificant percentage of the cost of the ingredients used in brewing.

Gg

"George"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 10:26 AM


"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:e3a8b6a2-3070-4a90-9c0f-85cd1ab2d12b@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
A 42 gallon barrel of crude will yield approx 44 gallons of product.
But it sure as fuck isn't all gasoline. 50% if it really sweet crude
max!

Bummer! Here I thought there was some cold fusion as well as hot cracking
going on to make one barrel of crude feed a multitude....

Di

"Dave in Houston"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

11/01/2008 3:02 PM


"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Dave in Houston wrote:
>> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>> Jeff wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Barley and wheat are suffering a similar fate:
>>>
>>> Actually, wheat is at a premium at the moment owing to poor crops in
>>> most of the major wheat producing areas last year (Russia, Australia,
>>> mixed in US)...
>>
>> Back in November, wheat for December delivery was $9.42 +/- ,
>> approximately double from the previous year. Last I talked with our
>> ranchers/farmers/lessees a few weeks back it was still holding in the
>> mid-eight dollar range.
>
> Actually broke $10 at terminal for cash delivery for a while...never made
> it here as the price drops (precipitously) as get away from the terminals
> owing to transportation cost (and, imo, the dockage is _far_ greater than
> the incremental cost :( ). We're typical almost 50-cents lower than Hutch
> which is less than 200 miles away and both on mainline rail
> service--they're Santa Fe, we're SP. _Can't_ cost $0.50(/bu!) for rolling
> a boxcar load 200 miles further.
>
> Of course, where they had such bad winter weather and previous fall
> drought plus those same areas had the late spring freeze followed by
> widespread hail and then too much rain at harvest time so much of central
> KS/OK had nothing to cut. Doesn't matter what the price is if you don't
> have it to sell. OTOH, some of the NW and far SW corner KS and OK
> panhandle had first good crop in 5 to 7 years owing to the longterm
> drought we've been suffering under. Right here, there's very little
> dryland wheat again this year because we had no rain from July 4 until
> about a month ago so it was too dry to get it planted and up last fall
> over large area. We've had some decent rain/snow recently so we'll see if
> any that was "dusted in" will manage to now come up and make
> anything--it'll be thin at best...

I should mention tht those prices were for "contracted" wheat which, of
course, means you gotta have some gonads to gamble making a crop to cover
your contract.
Our guys were planting back before the new year and it's up. But it's
going to need a couple of inches of rain PDQ and I'm not seeing that. After
more than three times the normal 19-20 inch annual rainfall average in a
period of February to mid-August we've had damned little since

--
NuWave Dave in Houston

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 2:17 AM


"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Zz Yzx wrote:
>> Everthing else so far discussed aside, keep in mind that ethanol is an
>> alcohol (i.e. "oxegenated hydrocarbon"), the use of which in gasoline
>> is primarily designed to decrease greenhouse emmisons (ie.carbon
>> dioxide). It is NOT supposed to replace the BTU value of the other
>> stuff (i.e. alkanes, alkenes, etc) of gasoline, ...
>
> Might tell that to the Brazilians.


Now exactly how many is a Brazilian? ;~) I could not help that.

Gg

"George"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 3:10 PM


"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Zz Yzx wrote:
> ...
>> ...To transport said product from Kansas, Nebraska (aka
>> "Gateway to Kansas"), to refineries in places, east, south, and west,
>> they either have to pay the licquor tax, or de-nature the product so
>> it can't be used as drink.
>
> I don't believe that is so for industrial ethanol -- I'll ask, but never
> heard there's anything done but ship product (a neighbor is also a
> principal in the largest production facility in KS just up the road which
> just started production in December.)
>
> There _are_ somewhat onerous rules on vintners/distillers in the state
> regarding out-of-state sales, but I'm virtually positive they don't apply
> to the large-scale ethanol production facilities.
>
> As an aside, there's legislation pending for next session to further relax
> the out-of-state sale restrictions as well.
>

Do know that the stuff sold to you and I is denatured with something which
forms an azeotrope with EtOH, and can't be distilled away differentially.
Rather suspect that gasoline denaturing would be some sort of a loophole
method easily reversed.

RC

Robatoy

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 3:36 PM

On Jan 10, 5:51=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > "Leon" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> "Artemus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
>
> >>> "Leon" =A0wrote
> >>> [snip]>
> >>>> That is true if 1 gallon of Oil only produces 1 gallon of
> >>>> gasoline. =A0The yield is much higher.
>
> >>> Your simply repeating this statement does not make it true, nor
> >>> does it seem that anyone has said anything that has altered your
> >>> belief in it. How about you provide something credible and
> >>> convince
> >>> the rest of us that your belief is correct?
>
> >>> Art
>
> >> How about you do the contrary. =A0I am convinced and that is what
> >> matters to me.
>
> >http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=3Doil-refining.htm&url=3Dh=
...
>
> > A barrel of crude is 30-40% gasoline content. =A0Several other
> > fractions are chemically
> > converted into gasoline to raise the yield to about 50%.
>
> > The remaining fractions are, of course, also commercially useful and
> > sold. =A0This
> > helps offset the actual per-gallon gasoline refining cost.


Here we go again.....
>
> Compare the densities. =A0The density of gasoline is less than that of
> crude, so 10 pounds of gasoline will have more volume than 10 pounds
> of crude.
>
> So potentially, yes, a gallon of crude can produce slightly more than
> a gallon of gasoline.

Rubbish! At best, a gallon of crude might yield 1/2 gallon of gasoline
after much manipulation but the bitumen/black shit that makes up the
balance becomes asphalt and bunker fuels. The rest is LPGas and lube-
oils and a few other products.


> Not several gallons but a few percentage
> points. =A0

Again, rubbish, wrong, incorrect.


> Whether that is doable commercially depends on the prices of
> the various products of refining and the exact chemisty of the
> particular batch of crude. =A0It's not now but that doesn't mean that if
> demand for gasoline is high enough compared to demand for other
> products that it couldn't be.
>
What a load of crap.You cannot convert an entire barrel of crude into
gasoline any more than you can covert an entire cow into tenderloin.
Ain't gonna happen, has never happened, you are wrong, John. Get over
it.

A 42 gallon barrel of crude will yield 44 gallons of PRODUCTS but only
(on average) 19.2 gallons of gasoline. Period. End of story.

ZY

Zz Yzx

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 6:33 AM

Yup.

-Zz

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 02:18:21 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Zz Yzx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> As an aside:
>>
>> Ethonal, aka "grain alcohol", is the stuff in wine, beer, whiskey,
>> vodka, all kinda' booze, &tc. Its the stuff that gets us drunk, or
>> tipsy, &tc. To transport said product from Kansas, Nebraska (aka
>> "Gateway to Kansas"), to refineries in places, east, south, and west,
>> they either have to pay the licquor tax, or de-nature the product so
>> it can't be used as drink.
>>
>> Guess waht the use to denare the ethanol for bulk shipments.
>
>Gasoline?
>

RC

Robatoy

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 6:35 AM

On Jan 10, 8:17=A0am, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jan 9, 6:39 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Totally OT but like Global Warming, Ethanol is a political hot bed.
>
> > I read today that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory states that
> > "Today" 1 Btu of fossil energy consumed in producing and delivering corn=

> > ethanol results in 1.3 Btu of usable energy in your fuel tank.
>
> > David Pimentel a Cornell University professor estimates that it takes
> > approximately 1.3 gal. of oil to produce a single gallon of ethanol. =A0=
That's
> > 1.3 gallons of oil for 1 gallon of ethanol. =A0By comparison, simply ref=
ining
> > a gallon of oil results in multiple gallons of gasoline.
> > One year ago refineries in California were able to produce gasoline at a=
bout
> > 98 cents per gallon when oil was $75 per barrel. =A0So today California =
is
> > producing gasoline at a cost of about $1.30 per gallon. =A0Keep in mind =
"that
> > cost" is not only the oil cost but also the cost to refine the oil.
> > Assuming that $1.30 is strictly the cost of the oil needed to produce a
> > gallon of gasoline, a barrel of oil probably yields about 2.3 gallons of=

> > gasoline, again assuming that the cost to refine the oil is $0.
>
> > I suspect that if we simply built more refineries we would consume less =
oil
> > and the price of gasoline would go down.
>
> America's ethanol policies are stupid for many reasons but primarily
> because the cost is augmented with subsidized corn and corn-based
> ethanol is more environmentally damaging than the product it
> replaces. =A0But here's the *real* reason why this policy is
> detrimental: IT'S DRIVING UP THE PRICE OF BEER!!!
>
> The Economist reports that hop growers in the Pacific Northwest are
> turning their fields over to corn in order to sell in a hot market
> driven by the ethanol boom. The magazine reports that hop harvests are
> down by as much as 50%. Small brewers - those who make the beers that
> really matter - suffer the most. Ethanol now suppresses what was the
> fastest growing segment of the beer market. The next brewery that
> opens in your town will probably be a chain, not an independent. At a
> time when America was finally recovering from the effects of
> Prohibition, I fear the McDonaldsization of local beer markets. A
> Gordon Biersch in every town is certainly better than selections
> limited to Bud, Coors and Miller but we were headed in the direction
> of genuine local beer selections. It's time to rethink ethanol.
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff

Beer with corn in it? ------>>>DO NOT WANT. Wheat? (Weiss Bier)
suuure, but no corn or rice..nooo.

Now why would the hop harvests be down? Surely they don't use hops for
alcohol manufacturing would they?

Just asking.

db

dpb

in reply to Robatoy on 10/01/2008 6:35 AM

11/01/2008 1:53 PM

On Jan 11, 2:00 pm, Frank Boettcher <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:55:44 -0600, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
...
> >Care to refute any specific portion of it when you have?
>
> been there done that, ...

But you didn't refute any portion of their analysis at all; all you
did was show a correlation which supported _your_ bias... :)

The basic conclusion that the majority of the cost spread is in the
non-food portion (ie., processing, marketing and distribution) and
that the farm-commodity portion of food costs has dropped from 35% to
about 20% during this time is pretty much incontrovertible
irrespective of one's opinion on ethanol.

--

FB

Frank Boettcher

in reply to Robatoy on 10/01/2008 6:35 AM

11/01/2008 2:00 PM

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:55:44 -0600, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:

>Frank Boettcher wrote:
>...
>
>> Didn't we go through this a couple of weeks ago? Thought I provided
>> unbiased raw data, not massaged by any entity that had an agenda.
>> Maybe not.
>
>"raw" data isn't the whole story -- did you read the analysis?

I prefer raw data that I can use to draw my own conclusions using
logic and without any agenda.

If it is the same one you referenced last month, yes plus a bunch of
others from other organizations that had an agenda to keep the
subsidies going. If not, no.
>
>Care to refute any specific portion of it when you have?

been there done that, not going again. Our opinions will just have to
differ on the issue.

Frank

RC

Robatoy

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

12/01/2008 10:26 AM

On Jan 12, 1:45=A0am, Hank <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in news:15f60d44-dd3e-4204-8d89-
> [email protected]:
>
>
>
>
>
> > J. Clarke wrote:
>
> >> =A0Don't assume that because something isn't
> >> being done at this time it _can't_ be done.
>
> > You're right.
> > I will send you a couple of blocks of lead, turn them into gold for me
> > okay?
>
> > Ahhh shit.... HE PLONKED ME!
>
> > My life is worthless now...
>
> Shit Rob,
> He plonked me not that long ago and I was agreeing with him at the time. H=
e
> is one big motherplonker.

That's been going on for years. He paints himself into a corner then
plonks his way out.

Ft

Fred the Red Shirt

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

11/01/2008 11:48 AM


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22027663/

--

FF

RC

Robatoy

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 11:34 AM

On Jan 10, 1:46=A0pm, Frank Boettcher <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:52:13 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Jan 10, 11:38=A0am, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Jan 10, 9:35 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> They're ripping up hop fields and replacing them with corn....
>
> >"Oh the humanity!!!" :-}In
>
> >To tell you the truth, I never even knew there such things as 'hop
> >fields'. Then again, there must be such a thing. Just never thought
> >about it.
>
> Absolutley, and the shortage of hops is much greater in certain
> countries in Europe where the subsidies for growing biofuel materials
> are greater and have been in place longer. =A0Read an article recently
> about the price of good German beer to increase by 25% because of the
> hop shortage. =A0
>
> Frank

So it is going to be a daily choice. To walk to work drunk, or to
drive sober...mmmmmmm
Premium fuel for me, or premium fuel for car..... damn....

Now, about good German Beer. My Coast Guard buddy and I have been
sampling a variety of German WeissBrau, Like Erdinger. Wheat-based
beers. They must have a lot of hops in them because they're stupid
money. $8.00 for a 500ml (about a pint, I guess) glass at the pub.
VERY nice stuff though.
Last night we sampled a bottle of Negro Mondelo... very nice and a LOT
cheaper.
I guess Mexican trucks are allowed across this border if that's what
they're carrying. Maybe to a Mexican it's not a great beer, like when
I was in Australia, my friend shuddered at the though of having a
Fosters, she insisted that only Americans drink that slop. *smirk*

Jj

Jeff

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 8:38 AM

On Jan 10, 9:35 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jan 10, 8:17 am, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 6:39 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Totally OT but like Global Warming, Ethanol is a political hot bed.
>
> > > I read today that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory states that
> > > "Today" 1 Btu of fossil energy consumed in producing and delivering corn
> > > ethanol results in 1.3 Btu of usable energy in your fuel tank.
>
> > > David Pimentel a Cornell University professor estimates that it takes
> > > approximately 1.3 gal. of oil to produce a single gallon of ethanol. That's
> > > 1.3 gallons of oil for 1 gallon of ethanol. By comparison, simply refining
> > > a gallon of oil results in multiple gallons of gasoline.
> > > One year ago refineries in California were able to produce gasoline at about
> > > 98 cents per gallon when oil was $75 per barrel. So today California is
> > > producing gasoline at a cost of about $1.30 per gallon. Keep in mind "that
> > > cost" is not only the oil cost but also the cost to refine the oil.
> > > Assuming that $1.30 is strictly the cost of the oil needed to produce a
> > > gallon of gasoline, a barrel of oil probably yields about 2.3 gallons of
> > > gasoline, again assuming that the cost to refine the oil is $0.
>
> > > I suspect that if we simply built more refineries we would consume less oil
> > > and the price of gasoline would go down.
>
> > America's ethanol policies are stupid for many reasons but primarily
> > because the cost is augmented with subsidized corn and corn-based
> > ethanol is more environmentally damaging than the product it
> > replaces. But here's the *real* reason why this policy is
> > detrimental: IT'S DRIVING UP THE PRICE OF BEER!!!
>
> > The Economist reports that hop growers in the Pacific Northwest are
> > turning their fields over to corn in order to sell in a hot market
> > driven by the ethanol boom. The magazine reports that hop harvests are
> > down by as much as 50%. Small brewers - those who make the beers that
> > really matter - suffer the most. Ethanol now suppresses what was the
> > fastest growing segment of the beer market. The next brewery that
> > opens in your town will probably be a chain, not an independent. At a
> > time when America was finally recovering from the effects of
> > Prohibition, I fear the McDonaldsization of local beer markets. A
> > Gordon Biersch in every town is certainly better than selections
> > limited to Bud, Coors and Miller but we were headed in the direction
> > of genuine local beer selections. It's time to rethink ethanol.
>
> > Cheers,
> > Jeff
>
> Beer with corn in it? ------>>>DO NOT WANT. Wheat? (Weiss Bier)
> suuure, but no corn or rice..nooo.
>
> Now why would the hop harvests be down? Surely they don't use hops for
> alcohol manufacturing would they?
>
> Just asking.

They're ripping up hop fields and replacing them with corn....

Jj

Jeff

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 1:29 PM

On Jan 10, 3:14 pm, "Dave in Houston" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Jan 10, 8:17 am, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 9, 6:39 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> As chance would have it, this from today's NY Times.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/opinion/10cohen.html?_r=1&hp&oref=l...
>
> --
> NuWave Dave in Houston

NY Times? Mexican food??? Are you *sure* you're from Houston ;-)

Jj

Jeff

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

11/01/2008 5:09 AM

On Jan 10, 11:03 pm, "todd" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Frank Boettcher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:52:13 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>On Jan 10, 11:38 am, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> On Jan 10, 9:35 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> They're ripping up hop fields and replacing them with corn....
>
> >>"Oh the humanity!!!" :-}In
>
> >>To tell you the truth, I never even knew there such things as 'hop
> >>fields'. Then again, there must be such a thing. Just never thought
> >>about it.
>
> > Absolutley, and the shortage of hops is much greater in certain
> > countries in Europe where the subsidies for growing biofuel materials
> > are greater and have been in place longer. Read an article recently
> > about the price of good German beer to increase by 25% because of the
> > hop shortage.
>
> > Frank
>
> Now I enjoy a nice stout on occasion, but if the price of beer going up 25%
> creates a serious financial problem for you, it might be time to back away
> from the bar.
>

Beer might be the most important consumer good whose price is affected
by ethanol but it's not the only one. The Economist has been tracking
food prices since its inception.They are now at their highest point
since 1850. The rise can be attributed to increased demand (meat in
emerging economies) and America's ethanol policy.

http://www.economist.com/images/20071208/CLD454.gif

(Hopefully, they don't require authentication for images)

Jeff

Al

"Artemus" <[email protected]>

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 1:52 PM


"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Artemus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Leon" wrote
> > [snip]>
> >> That is true if 1 gallon of Oil only produces 1 gallon of gasoline. The
> >> yield is much higher.
> >>
> > Your simply repeating this statement does not make it true, nor does it
> > seem that anyone has said anything that has altered your belief in it.
> > How about you provide something credible and convince the rest of us
> > that your belief is correct?
> >
> > Art
> >
>
>
> How about you do the contrary. I am convinced and that is what matters to
> me.
>
>
As *you* are the one making the ridiculous claim it is up to you to provide
supporting evidence.
It appears that you have a mind like a steel trap... rusted shut.
Art

RC

Robatoy

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

09/01/2008 8:39 PM

On Jan 9, 9:02=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jan 9, 6:39 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Totally OT but like Global Warming, Ethanol is a political hot bed.
>
> >> I read today that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory states
> >> that "Today" 1 Btu of fossil energy consumed in producing and
> >> delivering corn ethanol results in 1.3 Btu of usable energy in your
> >> fuel tank.
>
> >> David Pimentel a Cornell University professor estimates that it
> >> takes
> >> approximately 1.3 gal. of oil to produce a single gallon of
> >> ethanol.
> >> That's
> >> 1.3 gallons of oil for 1 gallon of ethanol. By comparison, simply
> >> refining a gallon of oil results in multiple gallons of gasoline.
>
> > Somehow, that doesn't make any sense. Maybe a gallon of oil can
> > REFINE
> > multiple gallons of gas?
>
> Well, now we know that you know as much about chemistry as you do
> about Israel.
>

A 42 gallon barrel of crude will yield approx 44 gallons of product.
But it sure as fuck isn't all gasoline. 50% if it really sweet crude
max!
So, as usual, you're wrong, John.

BTW, have you ever been to Israel?

r

Jj

Jeff

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 5:17 AM

On Jan 9, 6:39 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Totally OT but like Global Warming, Ethanol is a political hot bed.
>
> I read today that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory states that
> "Today" 1 Btu of fossil energy consumed in producing and delivering corn
> ethanol results in 1.3 Btu of usable energy in your fuel tank.
>
> David Pimentel a Cornell University professor estimates that it takes
> approximately 1.3 gal. of oil to produce a single gallon of ethanol. That's
> 1.3 gallons of oil for 1 gallon of ethanol. By comparison, simply refining
> a gallon of oil results in multiple gallons of gasoline.
> One year ago refineries in California were able to produce gasoline at about
> 98 cents per gallon when oil was $75 per barrel. So today California is
> producing gasoline at a cost of about $1.30 per gallon. Keep in mind "that
> cost" is not only the oil cost but also the cost to refine the oil.
> Assuming that $1.30 is strictly the cost of the oil needed to produce a
> gallon of gasoline, a barrel of oil probably yields about 2.3 gallons of
> gasoline, again assuming that the cost to refine the oil is $0.
>
> I suspect that if we simply built more refineries we would consume less oil
> and the price of gasoline would go down.

America's ethanol policies are stupid for many reasons but primarily
because the cost is augmented with subsidized corn and corn-based
ethanol is more environmentally damaging than the product it
replaces. But here's the *real* reason why this policy is
detrimental: IT'S DRIVING UP THE PRICE OF BEER!!!

The Economist reports that hop growers in the Pacific Northwest are
turning their fields over to corn in order to sell in a hot market
driven by the ethanol boom. The magazine reports that hop harvests are
down by as much as 50%. Small brewers - those who make the beers that
really matter - suffer the most. Ethanol now suppresses what was the
fastest growing segment of the beer market. The next brewery that
opens in your town will probably be a chain, not an independent. At a
time when America was finally recovering from the effects of
Prohibition, I fear the McDonaldsization of local beer markets. A
Gordon Biersch in every town is certainly better than selections
limited to Bud, Coors and Miller but we were headed in the direction
of genuine local beer selections. It's time to rethink ethanol.

Cheers,
Jeff

JJ

in reply to Jeff on 10/01/2008 5:17 AM

11/01/2008 3:37 PM

Thu, Jan 10, 2008, 5:17am (EST-3) [email protected] (Jeff) doth
posteth:
<snip> But here's the *real* reason why this policy is detrimental:
IT'S DRIVING UP THE PRICE OF BEER!!! <snip>

It's my understanding that the so-called non-alcholic beers are
created from regular, alcholic, beer, and processed to remove the
alcohol. There's still a bit left, sufficient to give me a mild buzz -
you've gotta realize tho that it's been years since I've drank, and
seldom drink even a NA beer anymore. A couple even taste decent.
However, what I'm getting to, I would think it would be totally possible
to caprure this processed out alcohol and then process it as fuel. Fuel
prices will drop, beer supplies will increase, a winning solution all
around. By the way, found this picture on the web, this isn't a picture
of you, is it?
http://www.beastforum.com/uploads/av-560671.gif



JOAT
10 Out Of 10 Terrorists Prefer Hillary For President
- Bumper Sticker
I quite agree.

dn

dpb

in reply to Jeff on 10/01/2008 5:17 AM

11/01/2008 11:55 AM

Frank Boettcher wrote:
...

> Didn't we go through this a couple of weeks ago? Thought I provided
> unbiased raw data, not massaged by any entity that had an agenda.
> Maybe not.

"raw" data isn't the whole story -- did you read the analysis?

Care to refute any specific portion of it when you have?

--

FB

Frank Boettcher

in reply to Jeff on 10/01/2008 5:17 AM

11/01/2008 9:48 AM

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:58:30 -0600, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:

>Jeff wrote:
>...
>
>> ... The rise can be attributed to increased demand (meat in
>> emerging economies) and America's ethanol policy.
>
>Ethanol (corn) is not really a significant factor in a more detailed
>analysis...
>
>http://www.informaecon.com/Renew_Fuels_Study_Dec_2007.pdf


Prepared by..........an unbiased entitiy?

Very difficult to believe that when you have a record crop but prices
go up instead of going down, that the increased cost of feed does not
cause the price of meat to increase. That's my butcher's position
when I asked him why beef had risen so much in the last year.

Didn't we go through this a couple of weeks ago? Thought I provided
unbiased raw data, not massaged by any entity that had an agenda.
Maybe not.

Frank

Gg

"George"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

11/01/2008 6:52 PM


"Dave in Houston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> Jeff wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> Barley and wheat are suffering a similar fate:
>>
>>
>> Actually, wheat is at a premium at the moment owing to poor crops in most
>> of the major wheat producing areas last year (Russia, Australia, mixed in
>> US)...
>
> Back in November, wheat for December delivery was $9.42 +/- ,
> approximately double from the previous year. Last I talked with our
> ranchers/farmers/lessees a few weeks back it was still holding in the
> mid-eight dollar range.
> --

Price-gouging! Windfall profits!

RC

Robatoy

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 8:53 AM

On Jan 10, 11:38=A0am, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jan 10, 9:35 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 10, 8:17 am, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 9, 6:39 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Totally OT but like Global Warming, Ethanol is a political hot bed.
>
> > > > I read today that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory states th=
at
> > > > "Today" 1 Btu of fossil energy consumed in producing and delivering =
corn
> > > > ethanol results in 1.3 Btu of usable energy in your fuel tank.
>
> > > > David Pimentel a Cornell University professor estimates that it take=
s
> > > > approximately 1.3 gal. of oil to produce a single gallon of ethanol.=
=A0That's
> > > > 1.3 gallons of oil for 1 gallon of ethanol. =A0By comparison, simply=
refining
> > > > a gallon of oil results in multiple gallons of gasoline.
> > > > One year ago refineries in California were able to produce gasoline =
at about
> > > > 98 cents per gallon when oil was $75 per barrel. =A0So today Califor=
nia is
> > > > producing gasoline at a cost of about $1.30 per gallon. =A0Keep in m=
ind "that
> > > > cost" is not only the oil cost but also the cost to refine the oil.
> > > > Assuming that $1.30 is strictly the cost of the oil needed to produc=
e a
> > > > gallon of gasoline, a barrel of oil probably yields about 2.3 gallon=
s of
> > > > gasoline, again assuming that the cost to refine the oil is $0.
>
> > > > I suspect that if we simply built more refineries we would consume l=
ess oil
> > > > and the price of gasoline would go down.
>
> > > America's ethanol policies are stupid for many reasons but primarily
> > > because the cost is augmented with subsidized corn and corn-based
> > > ethanol is more environmentally damaging than the product it
> > > replaces. =A0But here's the *real* reason why this policy is
> > > detrimental: IT'S DRIVING UP THE PRICE OF BEER!!!
>
> > > The Economist reports that hop growers in the Pacific Northwest are
> > > turning their fields over to corn in order to sell in a hot market
> > > driven by the ethanol boom. The magazine reports that hop harvests are=

> > > down by as much as 50%. Small brewers - those who make the beers that
> > > really matter - suffer the most. Ethanol now suppresses what was the
> > > fastest growing segment of the beer market. The next brewery that
> > > opens in your town will probably be a chain, not an independent. At a
> > > time when America was finally recovering from the effects of
> > > Prohibition, I fear the McDonaldsization of local beer markets. A
> > > Gordon Biersch in every town is certainly better than selections
> > > limited to Bud, Coors and Miller but we were headed in the direction
> > > of genuine local beer selections. It's time to rethink ethanol.
>
> > > Cheers,
> > > Jeff
>
> > Beer with corn in it? ------>>>DO NOT WANT. Wheat? (Weiss Bier)
> > suuure, but no corn or rice..nooo.
>
> > Now why would the hop harvests be down? Surely they don't use hops for
> > alcohol manufacturing would they?
>
> > Just asking.
>
> They're ripping up hop fields and replacing them with corn....

were

Jj

Jeff

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 6:45 PM

On Jan 10, 7:00 pm, "Dave in Houston" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:ca28e88a-a1ca-4a8c-aa75-e5ebf4146888@v46g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
> > NY Times? Mexican food??? Are you *sure* you're from Houston ;-)
>
> Born, raised, and tired of it.
>
> I look at (often even read some articles) in the Times and the
> Washington Post, and a handful of others mostly because I have some
> connection to the community.

I was in Houston for a weekend in early May. It was way too hot. I
can't imagine what it's like in July. Personally, I'd like to move
further north. Maine has a great deal of appeal

Cheers,
Jeff

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 1:45 AM


"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>> Totally OT but like Global Warming, Ethanol is a political hot bed.
>>
>> I read today that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory states that
>> "Today" 1 Btu of fossil energy consumed in producing and delivering corn
>> ethanol results in 1.3 Btu of usable energy in your fuel tank.
>>
>> David Pimentel a Cornell University professor estimates that it takes
>> approximately 1.3 gal. of oil to produce a single gallon of ethanol.
>
> Pimentel uses some very questionable assumptions in including a very low
> yield number on ethanol/bushel feed material that has been refuted in
> several studies. The last DOE study I saw was 1.6 iirc, but it includes
> some waste byproducts (dry distillers grains) used in that figure.

Still that is a poor ratio when compaired to oil.




>> ... By comparison, simply refining a gallon of oil results in multiple
>> gallons of gasoline.
>
> That would indeed be a neat trick, but I'm pretty sure even the oil
> companies haven't repealed the Second Law...
>
> ...
>
>> I suspect that if we simply built more refineries we would consume less
>> oil and the price of gasoline would go down.
>
> You might suspect that, but you would be wrong. Adding refinery capacity
> would help potentially, but that doesn't address why oil futures have
> touched $100 -- making more refining capacity available will not do a
> thing to quell demand nor settle the political situation in the oil-rich
> regions of the world.

Oil futures have reached $100 per barrel because we have been deceived that
gasoline has to sell for almost $3.00 per gallon. When you sell gasoline
for $3.00 per gallon you are not so pickey with what you pay for the raw
materials to produce that gasoline. Even those sellling the oil when it was
$70 per barrel indicated that that price was absurdly high.
Building more refineries would increase the supply of gasoline and drive
down the proice. There is no shortage of oil, only the ability to turn it
into gasoline and I am not so sure that is true either. I have not seen any
gasoline lines like we had in the 70's.




RC

Robatoy

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 3:38 PM

On Jan 10, 5:43=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Jan 10, 12:40 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> As a matter of
> >> trivia, it's scientific name is "humulus lupulus". It has a close
> >> relative, "humulus cannabis sativa".
>
> > No such thing as humulus cannabis sativa or humulus cannabis indica
> > even.
> > Humulus is a subspecies of Cannabaceae as cannabis is also a
> > subspecies (and another 170 or so)
>
> > So... that's
> > -1 on Chemistry
> > -1 on Israel
> > -1 on Botany
>
> > Next!
>
> Just because you think it doesn't make it true, Robatoy. =A0You got me
> on tht one but you're still an idiot.
>
Yessssss, but I'm a 'right' idiot.

dn

dpb

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

09/01/2008 7:11 PM

Leon wrote:
> Totally OT but like Global Warming, Ethanol is a political hot bed.
>
> I read today that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory states that
> "Today" 1 Btu of fossil energy consumed in producing and delivering corn
> ethanol results in 1.3 Btu of usable energy in your fuel tank.
>
> David Pimentel a Cornell University professor estimates that it takes
> approximately 1.3 gal. of oil to produce a single gallon of ethanol.

Pimentel uses some very questionable assumptions in including a very low
yield number on ethanol/bushel feed material that has been refuted in
several studies. The last DOE study I saw was 1.6 iirc, but it includes
some waste byproducts (dry distillers grains) used in that figure.

> ... By comparison, simply refining
> a gallon of oil results in multiple gallons of gasoline.

That would indeed be a neat trick, but I'm pretty sure even the oil
companies haven't repealed the Second Law...

...

> I suspect that if we simply built more refineries we would consume less oil
> and the price of gasoline would go down.

You might suspect that, but you would be wrong. Adding refinery
capacity would help potentially, but that doesn't address why oil
futures have touched $100 -- making more refining capacity available
will not do a thing to quell demand nor settle the political situation
in the oil-rich regions of the world.

Granted ethanol is _not_ the panacea but can be beneficial in filling in
supplies and will continue to be less costly w/ time as both genetics
and processing technologies improve combined w/ sufficient
infrastructure to handle it more efficiently than at present.

--

dn

dpb

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

09/01/2008 7:50 PM

Leon wrote:
> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> Leon wrote:
>>> Totally OT but like Global Warming, Ethanol is a political hot bed.
>>>
>>> I read today that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory states that
>>> "Today" 1 Btu of fossil energy consumed in producing and delivering corn
>>> ethanol results in 1.3 Btu of usable energy in your fuel tank.
>>>
>>> David Pimentel a Cornell University professor estimates that it takes
>>> approximately 1.3 gal. of oil to produce a single gallon of ethanol.
>> Pimentel uses some very questionable assumptions in including a very low
>> yield number on ethanol/bushel feed material that has been refuted in
>> several studies. The last DOE study I saw was 1.6 iirc, but it includes
>> some waste byproducts (dry distillers grains) used in that figure.
>
> Still that is a poor ratio when compaired to oil.

Sorry, I mixed metaphors...I don't know the DOE number for the estimated
oil consumption; while reading I was thinking of the Btu out/Btu in net
energy gain that Pimentel has also been ranting on since forever...that
is the 1.6 number the the DOE analysis produced. It's improved since
the date of that report as well...

--

dn

dpb

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

09/01/2008 7:52 PM

Zz Yzx wrote:
> Everthing else so far discussed aside, keep in mind that ethanol is an
> alcohol (i.e. "oxegenated hydrocarbon"), the use of which in gasoline
> is primarily designed to decrease greenhouse emmisons (ie.carbon
> dioxide). It is NOT supposed to replace the BTU value of the other
> stuff (i.e. alkanes, alkenes, etc) of gasoline, ...

Might tell that to the Brazilians.

Ethanal was about 20% less than spot gasoline market last time I looked...

--

JC

"J. Clarke"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

09/01/2008 9:00 PM

dpb wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> Totally OT but like Global Warming, Ethanol is a political hot bed.
>>
>> I read today that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory states
>> that "Today" 1 Btu of fossil energy consumed in producing and
>> delivering corn ethanol results in 1.3 Btu of usable energy in your
>> fuel tank.
>>
>> David Pimentel a Cornell University professor estimates that it
>> takes
>> approximately 1.3 gal. of oil to produce a single gallon of
>> ethanol.
>
> Pimentel uses some very questionable assumptions in including a very
> low yield number on ethanol/bushel feed material that has been
> refuted in several studies. The last DOE study I saw was 1.6 iirc,
> but it includes some waste byproducts (dry distillers grains) used
> in
> that figure.
>
>> ... By comparison, simply refining
>> a gallon of oil results in multiple gallons of gasoline.
>
> That would indeed be a neat trick, but I'm pretty sure even the oil
> companies haven't repealed the Second Law...

Has to do with splitting heavy molecules into lighter ones, a process
called "cracking" in the industry. A pound of CH3 takes up more
volume than a pound of C2H6.

> ...
>
>> I suspect that if we simply built more refineries we would consume
>> less oil and the price of gasoline would go down.
>
> You might suspect that, but you would be wrong. Adding refinery
> capacity would help potentially, but that doesn't address why oil
> futures have touched $100 -- making more refining capacity available
> will not do a thing to quell demand nor settle the political
> situation
> in the oil-rich regions of the world.
>
> Granted ethanol is _not_ the panacea but can be beneficial in
> filling
> in supplies and will continue to be less costly w/ time as both
> genetics and processing technologies improve combined w/ sufficient
> infrastructure to handle it more efficiently than at present.

Does that mean that liquor's gonna get cheaper?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

JC

"J. Clarke"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

09/01/2008 9:02 PM

Robatoy wrote:
> On Jan 9, 6:39 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Totally OT but like Global Warming, Ethanol is a political hot bed.
>>
>> I read today that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory states
>> that "Today" 1 Btu of fossil energy consumed in producing and
>> delivering corn ethanol results in 1.3 Btu of usable energy in your
>> fuel tank.
>>
>> David Pimentel a Cornell University professor estimates that it
>> takes
>> approximately 1.3 gal. of oil to produce a single gallon of
>> ethanol.
>> That's
>> 1.3 gallons of oil for 1 gallon of ethanol. By comparison, simply
>> refining a gallon of oil results in multiple gallons of gasoline.
>
> Somehow, that doesn't make any sense. Maybe a gallon of oil can
> REFINE
> multiple gallons of gas?

Well, now we know that you know as much about chemistry as you do
about Israel.

>> One year ago refineries in California were able to produce gasoline
>> at about 98 cents per gallon when oil was $75 per barrel. So today
>> California is producing gasoline at a cost of about $1.30 per
>> gallon. Keep in mind "that cost" is not only the oil cost but also
>> the cost to refine the oil. Assuming that $1.30 is strictly the
>> cost
>> of the oil needed to produce a gallon of gasoline, a barrel of oil
>> probably yields about 2.3 gallons of gasoline, again assuming that
>> the cost to refine the oil is $0.
>>
>> I suspect that if we simply built more refineries we would consume
>> less oil and the price of gasoline would go down.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Ds

"DouginUtah"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

09/01/2008 7:56 PM

"r payne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I don't know all the facts but crude oil is a mix of many different
> hydrocarbons. Gas is a mix of a certain select hydrocarbons. Since
> larger chain
> hydrocarbons can be cracked into smaller chains, by repeated refining and
> cracking cycles it may be possible to get more gas by volumn than the
> volumn of
> crude oil started with. It depends on the densities of the various
> products. Of
> course you can't create more hydrogen or carbon than you start with.
>
> ron

They get about 19.2 gallons of gasoline out of a barrel of light, sweet
crude (42 gallons).

dn

dpb

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

09/01/2008 9:17 PM

yugami wrote:
> On Jan 9, 7:52 pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Zz Yzx wrote:
>>> Everthing else so far discussed aside, keep in mind that ethanol is an
>>> alcohol (i.e. "oxegenated hydrocarbon"), the use of which in gasoline
>>> is primarily designed to decrease greenhouse emmisons (ie.carbon
>>> dioxide). It is NOT supposed to replace the BTU value of the other
>>> stuff (i.e. alkanes, alkenes, etc) of gasoline, ...
>> Might tell that to the Brazilians.
>
> The Brazilians have a little advantage in that they use sugar cane.
> Much more energy in that than the Government sponsored corn.

Has no bearing on whether it is end result used for -- namely, a fuel
replacement, not simply additive.

We have much more corn than we have sugar, though...although that will,
as somebody else already noted, transition to other sources w/ time...

--

dn

dpb

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 8:53 AM

Zz Yzx wrote:
...
> ...To transport said product from Kansas, Nebraska (aka
> "Gateway to Kansas"), to refineries in places, east, south, and west,
> they either have to pay the licquor tax, or de-nature the product so
> it can't be used as drink.

I don't believe that is so for industrial ethanol -- I'll ask, but never
heard there's anything done but ship product (a neighbor is also a
principal in the largest production facility in KS just up the road
which just started production in December.)

There _are_ somewhat onerous rules on vintners/distillers in the state
regarding out-of-state sales, but I'm virtually positive they don't
apply to the large-scale ethanol production facilities.

As an aside, there's legislation pending for next session to further
relax the out-of-state sale restrictions as well.

--

dn

dpb

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 9:16 AM

George wrote:
...

> Do know that the stuff sold to you and I is denatured with something
> which forms an azeotrope with EtOH, and can't be distilled away
> differentially. Rather suspect that gasoline denaturing would be some
> sort of a loophole method easily reversed.

That's at the retail pump though where the blending has occurred. (Or,
are you talking about on-the-shelf sales, maybe, not fuel just occurred
to me? That, certainly is so, but that's a completely different
market/distribution stream.)

I'll ask Nick what they ship from their facility...

--

JC

"J. Clarke"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 12:40 PM

Robatoy wrote:
> On Jan 10, 11:38 am, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jan 10, 9:35 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 10, 8:17 am, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jan 9, 6:39 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Totally OT but like Global Warming, Ethanol is a political hot
>>>>> bed.
>>
>>>>> I read today that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
>>>>> states
>>>>> that "Today" 1 Btu of fossil energy consumed in producing and
>>>>> delivering corn ethanol results in 1.3 Btu of usable energy in
>>>>> your fuel tank.
>>
>>>>> David Pimentel a Cornell University professor estimates that it
>>>>> takes approximately 1.3 gal. of oil to produce a single gallon
>>>>> of
>>>>> ethanol. That's
>>>>> 1.3 gallons of oil for 1 gallon of ethanol. By comparison,
>>>>> simply
>>>>> refining a gallon of oil results in multiple gallons of
>>>>> gasoline.
>>>>> One year ago refineries in California were able to produce
>>>>> gasoline at about 98 cents per gallon when oil was $75 per
>>>>> barrel. So today California is producing gasoline at a cost of
>>>>> about $1.30 per gallon. Keep in mind "that cost" is not only the
>>>>> oil cost but also the cost to refine the oil. Assuming that
>>>>> $1.30
>>>>> is strictly the cost of the oil needed to produce a gallon of
>>>>> gasoline, a barrel of oil probably yields about 2.3 gallons of
>>>>> gasoline, again assuming that the cost to refine the oil is $0.
>>
>>>>> I suspect that if we simply built more refineries we would
>>>>> consume less oil and the price of gasoline would go down.
>>
>>>> America's ethanol policies are stupid for many reasons but
>>>> primarily because the cost is augmented with subsidized corn and
>>>> corn-based ethanol is more environmentally damaging than the
>>>> product it replaces. But here's the *real* reason why this policy
>>>> is detrimental: IT'S DRIVING UP THE PRICE OF BEER!!!
>>
>>>> The Economist reports that hop growers in the Pacific Northwest
>>>> are
>>>> turning their fields over to corn in order to sell in a hot
>>>> market
>>>> driven by the ethanol boom. The magazine reports that hop
>>>> harvests
>>>> are down by as much as 50%. Small brewers - those who make the
>>>> beers that really matter - suffer the most. Ethanol now
>>>> suppresses
>>>> what was the fastest growing segment of the beer market. The next
>>>> brewery that opens in your town will probably be a chain, not an
>>>> independent. At a time when America was finally recovering from
>>>> the effects of Prohibition, I fear the McDonaldsization of local
>>>> beer markets. A Gordon Biersch in every town is certainly better
>>>> than selections limited to Bud, Coors and Miller but we were
>>>> headed in the direction of genuine local beer selections. It's
>>>> time to rethink ethanol.
>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Jeff
>>
>>> Beer with corn in it? ------>>>DO NOT WANT. Wheat? (Weiss Bier)
>>> suuure, but no corn or rice..nooo.
>>
>>> Now why would the hop harvests be down? Surely they don't use hops
>>> for alcohol manufacturing would they?
>>
>>> Just asking.
>>
>> They're ripping up hop fields and replacing them with corn....
>
> "Oh the humanity!!!" :-}In
>
> To tell you the truth, I never even knew there such things as 'hop
> fields'. Then again, there must be such a thing. Just never thought
> about it.

FWIW, one of the main streets in Simsbury, CT is "Hopmeadow Street".
There's a state park named "Devil's Hopyard" ("Devil" is apparently a
corruption of "Dibble" who according to legend was the owner of the
hopyard in question). Not really grown in "fields" though, it's a
flowering vine that is grown on trellises or arbors. As a matter of
trivia, it's scientific name is "humulus lupulus". It has a close
relative, "humulus cannabis sativa".

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

dn

dpb

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 11:58 AM

Robatoy wrote:
...
> To tell you the truth, I never even knew there such things as 'hop
> fields'. ...

And, unfortunately, it's that same level of awareness that is about that
of the "pontificators and thinkers" of the Washington Post, etc., that
attempt to influence farm policy... :(

--

dn

dpb

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 1:49 PM

Robatoy wrote:
> On Jan 10, 1:00 pm, "efgh" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:e3a8b6a2-3070-4a90-9c0f-85cd1ab2d12b@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> A 42 gallon barrel of crude will yield approx 44 gallons of product.
>>
>> Where do the extra two gallons come from?
>
> It is a volumetric expansion. kinda like popcorn or a small block of
> sugar becoming a giant puff of candy-cotton. I sort of understand it
> that way. More compact molecules are altered to become larger. The
> weight does not increase AFAICT.
...
But "product" ain't all gasoline by any stretch...

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/eng99/eng99288.htm

Has some info, I'm sure the API and DOE sites as well as the other
government labs and the oil companies themselves will have as much as
you wish to delve into.

It will vary from essentially none to maybe as much as 65% depending on
the source of the crude and the processing. Overall, I'd be surprised
if it were much over 50% although I did no exhaustive searching.

--

JC

"J. Clarke"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 5:51 PM

Scott Lurndal wrote:
> "Leon" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> "Artemus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Leon" wrote
>>> [snip]>
>>>> That is true if 1 gallon of Oil only produces 1 gallon of
>>>> gasoline. The yield is much higher.
>>>>
>>> Your simply repeating this statement does not make it true, nor
>>> does it seem that anyone has said anything that has altered your
>>> belief in it. How about you provide something credible and
>>> convince
>>> the rest of us that your belief is correct?
>>>
>>> Art
>>>
>>
>>
>> How about you do the contrary. I am convinced and that is what
>> matters to me.
>>
>
> http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=oil-refining.htm&url=http://elmhcx9.elmhurst.edu/~chm/onlcourse/chm110/outlines/distill.html
>
> A barrel of crude is 30-40% gasoline content. Several other
> fractions are chemically
> converted into gasoline to raise the yield to about 50%.
>
> The remaining fractions are, of course, also commercially useful and
> sold. This
> helps offset the actual per-gallon gasoline refining cost.

Compare the densities. The density of gasoline is less than that of
crude, so 10 pounds of gasoline will have more volume than 10 pounds
of crude.

So potentially, yes, a gallon of crude can produce slightly more than
a gallon of gasoline. Not several gallons but a few percentage
points. Whether that is doable commercially depends on the prices of
the various products of refining and the exact chemisty of the
particular batch of crude. It's not now but that doesn't mean that if
demand for gasoline is high enough compared to demand for other
products that it couldn't be.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

JC

"J. Clarke"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 5:43 PM

Robatoy wrote:
> On Jan 10, 12:40 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> As a matter of
>> trivia, it's scientific name is "humulus lupulus". It has a close
>> relative, "humulus cannabis sativa".
>>
> No such thing as humulus cannabis sativa or humulus cannabis indica
> even.
> Humulus is a subspecies of Cannabaceae as cannabis is also a
> subspecies (and another 170 or so)
>
> So... that's
> -1 on Chemistry
> -1 on Israel
> -1 on Botany
>
> Next!

Just because you think it doesn't make it true, Robatoy. You got me
on tht one but you're still an idiot.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

JC

"J. Clarke"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 7:27 PM

Robatoy wrote:
> On Jan 10, 5:51 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> "Leon" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>>> "Artemus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>>> "Leon" wrote
>>>>> [snip]>
>>>>>> That is true if 1 gallon of Oil only produces 1 gallon of
>>>>>> gasoline. The yield is much higher.
>>
>>>>> Your simply repeating this statement does not make it true, nor
>>>>> does it seem that anyone has said anything that has altered your
>>>>> belief in it. How about you provide something credible and
>>>>> convince
>>>>> the rest of us that your belief is correct?
>>
>>>>> Art
>>
>>>> How about you do the contrary. I am convinced and that is what
>>>> matters to me.
>>
>>> http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=oil-refining.htm&url=h...
>>
>>> A barrel of crude is 30-40% gasoline content. Several other
>>> fractions are chemically
>>> converted into gasoline to raise the yield to about 50%.
>>
>>> The remaining fractions are, of course, also commercially useful
>>> and
>>> sold. This
>>> helps offset the actual per-gallon gasoline refining cost.
>
>
> Here we go again.....
>>
>> Compare the densities. The density of gasoline is less than that of
>> crude, so 10 pounds of gasoline will have more volume than 10
>> pounds
>> of crude.
>>
>> So potentially, yes, a gallon of crude can produce slightly more
>> than
>> a gallon of gasoline.
>
> Rubbish! At best, a gallon of crude might yield 1/2 gallon of
> gasoline
> after much manipulation but the bitumen/black shit that makes up the
> balance becomes asphalt and bunker fuels.

Not if it's cracked into lighter compounds.

> The rest is LPGas and lube-
> oils and a few other products.

The lube oils can be cracked to gasoline. The LP Gas can be
recombined to gasoline. Don't assume that because something isn't
being done at this time it _can't_ be done.

>> Not several gallons but a few percentage
>> points.
>
> Again, rubbish, wrong, incorrect.

Why?

>> Whether that is doable commercially depends on the prices of
>> the various products of refining and the exact chemisty of the
>> particular batch of crude. It's not now but that doesn't mean that
>> if
>> demand for gasoline is high enough compared to demand for other
>> products that it couldn't be.
>>
> What a load of crap.You cannot convert an entire barrel of crude
> into
> gasoline any more than you can covert an entire cow into tenderloin.
> Ain't gonna happen, has never happened, you are wrong, John. Get
> over
> it.
>
> A 42 gallon barrel of crude will yield 44 gallons of PRODUCTS but
> only
> (on average) 19.2 gallons of gasoline. Period. End of story.

Yeah, like Israel planning to conquer Iraq is the end of the story.

Everything with you is that your opinion is the end of the story.

Well, <plonk> is the end of the story.


--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

JC

"J. Clarke"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 7:28 PM

Robatoy wrote:
> On Jan 10, 5:43 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Jan 10, 12:40 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> As a matter of
>>>> trivia, it's scientific name is "humulus lupulus". It has a close
>>>> relative, "humulus cannabis sativa".
>>
>>> No such thing as humulus cannabis sativa or humulus cannabis
>>> indica
>>> even.
>>> Humulus is a subspecies of Cannabaceae as cannabis is also a
>>> subspecies (and another 170 or so)
>>
>>> So... that's
>>> -1 on Chemistry
>>> -1 on Israel
>>> -1 on Botany
>>
>>> Next!
>>
>> Just because you think it doesn't make it true, Robatoy. You got me
>> on tht one but you're still an idiot.
>>
> Yessssss, but I'm a 'right' idiot.

Right the same way Rush Limbaugh is "right".

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

JC

"J. Clarke"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 10:54 PM

Artemus wrote:
> "J. Clarke" wrote >
>> The lube oils can be cracked to gasoline.
>
> Yes, they can and are.
>
>> The LP Gas can be recombined to gasoline.
>
> Yes, it can and is.
>
> Yet both cracking and reforming will still not yield more than 1 gal
> of gasoline from 1 gallon of crude oil. Nor will allowing for
> density variation change this.
>
>> Don't assume that because something isn't being done at this time
> it _can't_ be done.
>
> If it violates the known laws of physics, chemistry, thermodynamics,
> et al then it positively, absolutely *CAN'T* be done at this time.
> Call me a heretic if you want, but neither politics, religion, nor
> the phase of the moon is going to change this either.

What specific law or laws does it violate?

If you start with a gallon of crude oil and end up with a gallon of
gasoline, then where does the remaining mass go?


--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

JC

"J. Clarke"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

11/01/2008 2:06 AM

Artemus wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Artemus wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" wrote >
>>>> The lube oils can be cracked to gasoline.
>>>
>>> Yes, they can and are.
>>>
>>>> The LP Gas can be recombined to gasoline.
>>>
>>> Yes, it can and is.
>>>
>>> Yet both cracking and reforming will still not yield more than 1
>>> gal
>>> of gasoline from 1 gallon of crude oil. Nor will allowing for
>>> density variation change this.
>>>
>>>> Don't assume that because something isn't being done at this time
>>>> it _can't_ be done.
>>>
>>> If it violates the known laws of physics, chemistry,
>>> thermodynamics,
>>> et al then it positively, absolutely *CAN'T* be done at this time.
>>> Call me a heretic if you want, but neither politics, religion, nor
>>> the phase of the moon is going to change this either.
>>
>> What specific law or laws does it violate?
>
> The obvious one is E = M*C^2 .

How?

> You claim to input 1 gal of crude and output 1 gal of gasoline.
> Since there are other factions also output (fuel oil, grease, and
> asphalt for example), there must be a corresponding increase in
> mass.

Huh? If the input is 1 gallon of crude oil and the output is 1 gallon
of gasoline then how do fuel oil, grease, and asphalt, none of which
were produced by the process in question, enter into the calculation?

If the output was to be one gallon of gasoline plus some unspecified
quantity of other substances then that would have been stated.

> As
> you haven't input massive amounts of energy to create this new mass
> it is clearly impossible.

What new mass? There is no new mass. You seem to be confusing volume
with mass.

>> If you start with a gallon of crude oil and end up with a gallon of
>> gasoline, then where does the remaining mass go?
>
> Precisely! The remaining mass is the heavier factions and hence,
> there cannot be 1 gal of gasoline output. Q.E.D.

Well, actually if you are going to change the problem statement to
allow some output other than gasoline then you can get one gallon of
gasoline and use up the remaining mass on those "heavier fractions".


--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

dn

dpb

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

11/01/2008 8:49 AM

Jeff wrote:
...

> Barley and wheat are suffering a similar fate:


Actually, wheat is at a premium at the moment owing to poor crops in
most of the major wheat producing areas last year (Russia, Australia,
mixed in US)...

--

dn

dpb

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

11/01/2008 8:58 AM

Jeff wrote:
...

> ... The rise can be attributed to increased demand (meat in
> emerging economies) and America's ethanol policy.

Ethanol (corn) is not really a significant factor in a more detailed
analysis...

http://www.informaecon.com/Renew_Fuels_Study_Dec_2007.pdf

--

dn

dpb

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

11/01/2008 9:26 AM

Dave in Houston wrote:
> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> Jeff wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> Barley and wheat are suffering a similar fate:
>>
>> Actually, wheat is at a premium at the moment owing to poor crops in most
>> of the major wheat producing areas last year (Russia, Australia, mixed in
>> US)...
>
> Back in November, wheat for December delivery was $9.42 +/- ,
> approximately double from the previous year. Last I talked with our
> ranchers/farmers/lessees a few weeks back it was still holding in the
> mid-eight dollar range.

Actually broke $10 at terminal for cash delivery for a while...never
made it here as the price drops (precipitously) as get away from the
terminals owing to transportation cost (and, imo, the dockage is _far_
greater than the incremental cost :( ). We're typical almost 50-cents
lower than Hutch which is less than 200 miles away and both on mainline
rail service--they're Santa Fe, we're SP. _Can't_ cost $0.50(/bu!) for
rolling a boxcar load 200 miles further.

Of course, where they had such bad winter weather and previous fall
drought plus those same areas had the late spring freeze followed by
widespread hail and then too much rain at harvest time so much of
central KS/OK had nothing to cut. Doesn't matter what the price is if
you don't have it to sell. OTOH, some of the NW and far SW corner KS
and OK panhandle had first good crop in 5 to 7 years owing to the
longterm drought we've been suffering under. Right here, there's very
little dryland wheat again this year because we had no rain from July 4
until about a month ago so it was too dry to get it planted and up last
fall over large area. We've had some decent rain/snow recently so we'll
see if any that was "dusted in" will manage to now come up and make
anything--it'll be thin at best...

--

dn

dpb

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

11/01/2008 9:48 AM

dpb wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> ...
>
>> ... The rise can be attributed to increased demand (meat in
>> emerging economies) and America's ethanol policy.
>
> Ethanol (corn) is not really a significant factor in a more detailed
> analysis...

And, as one indicator, "to the farmer" percentage of retail food cost
has gone from roughly 1/3-rd in the mid-70s to just a little over 20%
last quarter (based on DOA survey cost data).

--

sS

[email protected] (Scott Lurndal)

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 10:01 PM

"Leon" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>"Artemus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Leon" wrote
>> [snip]>
>>> That is true if 1 gallon of Oil only produces 1 gallon of gasoline. The
>>> yield is much higher.
>>>
>> Your simply repeating this statement does not make it true, nor does it
>> seem that anyone has said anything that has altered your belief in it.
>> How about you provide something credible and convince the rest of us
>> that your belief is correct?
>>
>> Art
>>
>
>
>How about you do the contrary. I am convinced and that is what matters to
>me.
>

http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=oil-refining.htm&url=http://elmhcx9.elmhurst.edu/~chm/onlcourse/chm110/outlines/distill.html

A barrel of crude is 30-40% gasoline content. Several other fractions are chemically
converted into gasoline to raise the yield to about 50%.

The remaining fractions are, of course, also commercially useful and sold. This
helps offset the actual per-gallon gasoline refining cost.

scott

Al

"Artemus" <[email protected]>

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 8:27 PM


"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Artemus wrote:
> > "J. Clarke" wrote >
> >> The lube oils can be cracked to gasoline.
> >
> > Yes, they can and are.
> >
> >> The LP Gas can be recombined to gasoline.
> >
> > Yes, it can and is.
> >
> > Yet both cracking and reforming will still not yield more than 1 gal
> > of gasoline from 1 gallon of crude oil. Nor will allowing for
> > density variation change this.
> >
> >> Don't assume that because something isn't being done at this time
> > it _can't_ be done.
> >
> > If it violates the known laws of physics, chemistry, thermodynamics,
> > et al then it positively, absolutely *CAN'T* be done at this time.
> > Call me a heretic if you want, but neither politics, religion, nor
> > the phase of the moon is going to change this either.
>
> What specific law or laws does it violate?

The obvious one is E = M*C^2 .
You claim to input 1 gal of crude and output 1 gal of gasoline.
Since there are other factions also output (fuel oil, grease, and asphalt
for example), there must be a corresponding increase in mass. As
you haven't input massive amounts of energy to create this new mass
it is clearly impossible.

>
> If you start with a gallon of crude oil and end up with a gallon of
> gasoline, then where does the remaining mass go?

Precisely! The remaining mass is the heavier factions and hence, there
cannot be 1 gal of gasoline output. Q.E.D.

Art

Lr

"Leon"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 1:19 PM


"Artemus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" wrote
> [snip]>
>> That is true if 1 gallon of Oil only produces 1 gallon of gasoline. The
>> yield is much higher.
>>
> Your simply repeating this statement does not make it true, nor does it
> seem that anyone has said anything that has altered your belief in it.
> How about you provide something credible and convince the rest of us
> that your belief is correct?
>
> Art
>


How about you do the contrary. I am convinced and that is what matters to
me.

ZY

Zz Yzx

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

09/01/2008 5:39 PM

Everthing else so far discussed aside, keep in mind that ethanol is an
alcohol (i.e. "oxegenated hydrocarbon"), the use of which in gasoline
is primarily designed to decrease greenhouse emmisons (ie.carbon
dioxide). It is NOT supposed to replace the BTU value of the other
stuff (i.e. alkanes, alkenes, etc) of gasoline, especially as a
cost-effective measure, no matter what stupid fuck-head 'dubya has to
say.

-Zz

PS: I know this industry



On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 17:39:48 -0600, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Totally OT but like Global Warming, Ethanol is a political hot bed.
>
>I read today that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory states that
>"Today" 1 Btu of fossil energy consumed in producing and delivering corn
>ethanol results in 1.3 Btu of usable energy in your fuel tank.
>
>David Pimentel a Cornell University professor estimates that it takes
>approximately 1.3 gal. of oil to produce a single gallon of ethanol. That's
>1.3 gallons of oil for 1 gallon of ethanol. By comparison, simply refining
>a gallon of oil results in multiple gallons of gasoline.
>One year ago refineries in California were able to produce gasoline at about
>98 cents per gallon when oil was $75 per barrel. So today California is
>producing gasoline at a cost of about $1.30 per gallon. Keep in mind "that
>cost" is not only the oil cost but also the cost to refine the oil.
>Assuming that $1.30 is strictly the cost of the oil needed to produce a
>gallon of gasoline, a barrel of oil probably yields about 2.3 gallons of
>gasoline, again assuming that the cost to refine the oil is $0.
>
>I suspect that if we simply built more refineries we would consume less oil
>and the price of gasoline would go down.
>

Gg

"George"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 3:12 PM


"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Economist reports that hop growers in the Pacific Northwest are
> turning their fields over to corn in order to sell in a hot market
> driven by the ethanol boom. The magazine reports that hop harvests are
> down by as much as 50%.

Now why would the hop harvests be down? Surely they don't use hops for
alcohol manufacturing would they?

Just asking.

Reading might have done it for you.

Al

"Artemus" <[email protected]>

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

11/01/2008 1:32 PM


"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Huh? If the input is 1 gallon of crude oil and the output is 1 gallon
> of gasoline then how do fuel oil, grease, and asphalt, none of which
> were produced by the process in question, enter into the calculation?
>
> If the output was to be one gallon of gasoline plus some unspecified
> quantity of other substances then that would have been stated.
>

> What new mass? There is no new mass. You seem to be confusing volume
> with mass.
>
> Well, actually if you are going to change the problem statement to
> allow some output other than gasoline then you can get one gallon of
> gasoline and use up the remaining mass on those "heavier fractions".
>
> --John
>

You win. I concede defeat.
You have beaten me at your own game.

Art
(Who had a mental lapse ignored the time honored principle:
"Never argue with an idiot.
They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.")


Lr

"Leon"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

09/01/2008 10:47 PM


"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Basically, there is a very limited net energy gain.
>
> Thanks to ADM, ConAgra and Cargil, there will be a short term gain for
> the agriculture industry, but the bubble will break.

The article I read indicated that about 95% of the U.S. farm land would have
to be devoted to growing corn and then,, where would we get out food? ;~)


>
>> I suspect that if we simply built more refineries we would consume
> less oil
>> and the price of gasoline would go down.
>
> As one of my suppliers said years ago, "Lew, we will never see another
> grass roots refinery built in our lifetime."

Yeah, probably too many politics involved.


>
> If somebody wanted to build a new refinery, my guess it would take at
> least 10-15 years just to get the necessary permits and the local
> citizens to allow construction in their back yard..
>
> The last refinery built in california sat idle for years due to legal
> hassles
>
> Finally, some smart oil company attorney figured out that if they
> defied the courts and opened the refinery, they could pay the fines
> and still make money.

I think, believe, that those smart oil company attourneys decided to merge
with other oil companies. Let's make it so there are only half as many oil
companies as there are now, 1990. Now that all the major oil companys in
the U.S. have merged the competition has basicly been cut in half. Funny
how the gasoline prices have been rising ever since the mergers began. I'm
betting that with mergers/down sizing of "big oil" some refinerys got moth
balled too.






FB

Frank Boettcher

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 12:46 PM

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:52:13 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Jan 10, 11:38 am, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jan 10, 9:35 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>

>>
>> They're ripping up hop fields and replacing them with corn....
>
>"Oh the humanity!!!" :-}In
>
>To tell you the truth, I never even knew there such things as 'hop
>fields'. Then again, there must be such a thing. Just never thought
>about it.


Absolutley, and the shortage of hops is much greater in certain
countries in Europe where the subsidies for growing biofuel materials
are greater and have been in place longer. Read an article recently
about the price of good German beer to increase by 25% because of the
hop shortage.

Frank

ee

"efgh"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 6:00 PM


"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:e3a8b6a2-3070-4a90-9c0f-85cd1ab2d12b@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...


A 42 gallon barrel of crude will yield approx 44 gallons of product.


Where do the extra two gallons come from?

Di

"Dave in Houston"

in reply to "Leon" on 09/01/2008 5:39 PM

10/01/2008 2:14 PM


"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jan 10, 8:17 am, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jan 9, 6:39 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:

As chance would have it, this from today's NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/opinion/10cohen.html?_r=1&hp&oref=login

--
NuWave Dave in Houston


You’ve reached the end of replies