Comments on: Ethanol’s future

By: bth

bth — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:45:16 +0000

The process would largely be to gut it of most of the ‘hot’ stuff and then entomb in concrete. However, being on the conservative side I would not build homes there for a number of reasons. I might, however, consider developing most of the site as an industrial zone.

As for the garrisons – it will take a LOT more troops to secure all of the infrastructure from attacks by citizens of the country. Just take a look at what is going on in Nigeria.

By: jerry

jerry — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:52:52 +0000

Oh, I don’t know. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq for starters.

Our “military garrisons” have been there for 60 years. They will be there another 60 whether we like it or not.

Side question: Regarding a nuclear reactor. Let’s say Wolf Creek gets closed. How long does that facility stay “hot”? How long until we could level it and safely put homes on the site?

By: bth

bth — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:10:21 +0000

If we want hydrocarbon-based fuel then coal-to-liquid makes more sense than colonizing producing countries. Two routes:

Direct via SRC (solvent refined coal) which leads to a feedstock for high-octane gasoline.

Indirect via coal gas/syn gas/Fischer Tropsch which leads to clean high-cetane diesel.

These are the technologies I worked on a quarter-century ago at Gulf Oil. We found that a cobalt carbonyl based catalyst was rather effective at producing straight-chain alkanes from syn gas.

By: bth

bth — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:48:44 +0000

a) What countries?

b) At what cost to maintain our military garrisons?

We tried that when we installed a dictator (the Shah) to rule Iran. It didn’t work out too well.

The fact is jerry – such arrangements have not worked out too well over the years.

By: jerry

jerry — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:03:35 +0000

In a response that I am quite sure will not go over real well…

There are a couple of countries that we should enter into a firm fixed oil pricing agreement at reduced market prices for the next 50 years in exchange for their freedom and their wealth.

I call it a return on our investment.

By: bth

bth — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:29:42 +0000

jerry – I see that today the Ford chairman says the US government needs to take steps to ensure fuel price stability. Note that he said STABLE – not just cheap. With over half of our liquid hydrocarbon fuel coming from overseas how can that be done? I submit that the only way is with a floor – not a ceiling. That is, some sort of import fee that will result in a high but manageable price. That would then incentivize efficiency/conservation and reduce consumption. That might even reduce how many dollars we give Osama bin Ladin.

Yes – it will be a hard sell. However, in the long run it will be beneficial. It would also encourage development of alternatievs including hydrogen and electric vehicles. However, as long as the Houses of Saud/binLadin can periodically undercut alternatives and lull us back into our Hummers our addiction (Bush’s word) to their product will continue to grow.

By: bth

bth — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:20:06 +0000

jerry – when you do a ’straight run’ distillation you get various fractions. The diesel fraction is one of those. Diesel does not like aromatics of branched hydrocarbons. So, there is a balancing act. If demand for any fraction exceeds its proportionate supply then the cost of that fraction will increase. Diesel used to be cheap compared to gasoline – before diesel cars became popular.

By: jerry

jerry — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:48:52 +0000

I had really high hopes with a company called “Changing World Technologies” that installed a facility over in Carthage taking all of the chicken offal from Tyson and converting it to pure oil. Unfortunately their efficiencies have not matched their promises…yet. I hope one day it does, because its applications seem endless.

I always thought diesel was made at all refineries and it went through additional steps to become regular gasoline. I never understood why it cost more for diesel when it was easier to make.

I’m not at all in favor of adding duties to the cost of oil. We get into that “unintended consequences” situation again.

By: bth

bth — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:56:42 +0000

jerry – of course it would – at least on its face. Keep in mind, however, that we are going to be raising revenus somehow and that also increases costs/prices. So, revenue collected from this fee could offset revenues we must get elsewhere from the ecoomy.

Diesel is an interesting issue. I think that the improved efficiency is largely due to higher compression. One problem however – if we significantly alter the mix of fuels demanded in the marketplace (gasoline vs diesel) can the refineries adjust?

BIOdiesel is also an interesting possibility. As with ethanol I’d like to see it from ‘garbage’ – discarded cooking oil, turkey guts, etc. In fact; might ‘downed’ cattle and pigs be a feedstock for diesel? Right now they are a serious disposal problem.

By: jerry

jerry — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:44:01 +0000

bth, if a significant import duty is added on oil would we not see price increases for virtually everything we consume? Then when the alternative programs reach fruition the prices would naturally adjust back down? I don’t see that happening.

I am quite interested in your thoughts on straight diesel. Europe seems to really be making significant advances here, primarily Audi, Peugeot and VW. It appears to me that this is a realistic possibility with cars having excellent HP, torque and averaging well over 50 MPG.

Autombile racing is an excellent test-bed for these programs (Diesel powered cars have won LeMans the last 2 years, Formula One with Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems-KERS, IRL with Ethanol), and I would prefer to see the new technologies proven on the track in plain sight, FWIW.

I could not agree with you more on “unintended consequences”. Spot on.