Original Gas Thread: Americans enjoying $4 gallon despite oil oversupply highest in 8 yrs

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
LOL, because of all the ethanol we produce. If it weren't for ethanol, gas stations would be running out of fuel all the time.

The US produced 80,952,380 barrels of ethanol last year. That is approximately 4 days worth of fuel for the US. Hardly a panacea to keep the US stations from running out.

Click me!

From the 2004 Renewable Fuels Association's 2004 Ethanol Industry Outlook

Among the accomplishments of the U.S. fuel ethanol industry:

Annual record of 3.41 billion gallons produced in 2004;

U.S. fuel ethanol use reached a record 3.57 billion gallons in 2004 (estimated);

Ethanol use reduces U.S. gasoline prices by nearly 30 cents per gallon;

Currently, 81 ethanol plants can produce over 3.6 billion gallons annually;

With 16 plants under construction, annual production capacity will soon expand to 4.4 billion gallons;

Farmer-owned ethanol plants account for 40% of total industry capacity;

Ethanol use consumed more than 1.26 billion bushels of corn in 2004;

Ethanol production raised corn prices and, thereby, reduced federal farm program cost by $3.2 billion dollars in 2004;

Ethanol production supports over 147,000 U.S. jobs;

Ethanol produces 167% of the fossil energy that is used to grow, harvest, transport and process the grain into ethanol;

Ethanol use reduced over 7 million tons of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions in 2004;

Every 1 Btu of petroleum fuel used to produce ethanol generates 13.2 Btus of ethanol.
=====================================================
Interesting.

So we have an additional 16 Ethanol plants coming online but no new additional Gas refineries.

Government corn subsidies coming down while 40% of the farmers own the Ethanol plants.

It's pretty clear that Corn Farmers are now reaping the profits the same as OPEC.

 

[cquark]

Ethanol won't help with oil shortages.

First, it's not an energy source. It's an energy sink. Several studies have shown that it takes more oil to produce ethanol (think about tractors, combines, artificial fertilizers which are made from petroleum, and transportation) than you get out of it.

Second, even if ethanol production becomes efficient enough to make it an energy source, we just can't produce enough of it. It would take an area 20X the size of Minnesota completed planted in corn to produce enough ethanol to fuel America's automobiles. More would be needed to replace heating oil and other uses.

Third, corn is about 2% efficient in converting sunlight into energy. To get that 2% out, you'd have to use the entire plant--stalk, leaves, roots, and all, not just the kernels as we do for ethanol production. Solar panels capture about 15% of the energy that shines onto them.

Ethanol production is a government giveaway to the agricorporations that produce corn, nothing more.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
Since we are in a fiscal crisis with a sizable defecit, can we shut down medicare until that's paid off too?

Absolutely

I agree with this idea...let those old Red State farts and their families feel the burden of the Republican's credit card economic policies.

No pain, no gain but that is for a different thread. Back to topic.

When will Refining capacity be able to meet demand?

We have plenty of refineries. The large oil companies aren't investing in more refining capacity, because all indications are that we have reached or have almost reached peak oil production, so there won't be a need for more refinery capacity in the long term.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Engineer
No, but it's still a bandaid (not that I don't support it...I do). It slows "growth" of consumption, one that will still grow due to world thrist for oil (other than US too). Alternative energy is going to be needed at some time. My lifetime? Maybe, maybe not (who knows, there may be a huge discovery of oil or something), but regardless, oil, unless made (Changing World Tech, etc), is going to be unsustainable.

The best predictions are that we'll reach peak oil production this decade and that oil production by the end of the next decade will be 90% of what it is today, so you'll almost certainly be around to experience peak oil. It's unlikely that there will be a major new oil discovery. Petrogeologists have a good understanding of how and where oil forms and is retained underground and have extensively surveyed the areas of the world that have the right conditions to have oil. They haven't made a new big discovery for decades.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Did you know it costs about 5-6$ to get out one barrel of crude oil from the ground in the middle east. Where does the additional 56$ come from?
It can't cost that much to refine.

Middle-eastern oil is cheap to produce, but Middle Eastern production isn't nearly enough to satisfy the world's demands. Oil from other places like Russia costs much more to produce, but in the end what matters is that demand for oil is greater than production.

 

[sandorski]

Re: current title: "Gas Thread:8-21-05 I propose Nascar be shutdown until Gas crisis passes"

NASCAR should have been shutdown before the Gas Crisis IMO.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: cquark
Ethanol won't help with oil shortages.

First, it's not an energy source. It's an energy sink. Several studies have shown that it takes more oil to produce ethanol (think about tractors, combines, artificial fertilizers which are made from petroleum, and transportation) than you get out of it.

Second, even if ethanol production becomes efficient enough to make it an energy source, we just can't produce enough of it. It would take an area 20X the size of Minnesota completed planted in corn to produce enough ethanol to fuel America's automobiles. More would be needed to replace heating oil and other uses.

Third, corn is about 2% efficient in converting sunlight into energy. To get that 2% out, you'd have to use the entire plant--stalk, leaves, roots, and all, not just the kernels as we do for ethanol production. Solar panels capture about 15% of the energy that shines onto them.

Ethanol production is a government giveaway to the agricorporations that produce corn, nothing more.

"Economics of Corn Ethanol in the U.S.
While the energy balance of ethanol production is controversial and estimates vary widely, the economics are more certain. Ethanol production from corn costs $1.10 per gallon. [7] This figure takes into account a government subsidy of $0.214 per gallon. Additionally, corn farmers receive subsidies equivalent to about $0.61 per gallon of ethanol. Finally, the government subsidizes $0.54 per gallon of ethanol sold as fuel. Totaling these subsidies and including the $1.10 cost of production gives $2.464 per gallon of ethanol. Economists estimate that with out government subsidies for gasoline (in all their many forms) gasoline would cost between five and fifteen dollars per gallon. [8] [9]

Ethanol has roughly two thirds the energy of gasoline on a volumetric basis. It, however, is a more efficient fuel than gasoline for two reasons. First, ethanol has a much lower adiabatic flame temperature, meaning it burns cooler. Less heat, therefore, needs to be rejected through the radiator and wasted. Second, ethanol has a much higher octane rating than gasoline (115). This allows engines running on ethanol to use a higher compression ratio and/or forced induction. Both of which improve fuel economy. Automobiles optimized to run on ethanol can travel further on a gallon of fuel than equivalent cars setup for gasoline.

The national trade deficit (USA) has risen to an all time high of $686 billion. Most of this rise has been attributed to the record high prices of crude oil ($67/barrel). [10] Domestic production of ethanol for fuel has the potential to ease this deficit."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_fuel

You really ought to get your facts straight. Myabe you would change your mind??

 

[1EZduzit]

Ethanol production results in a net energy gain?producing 67 percent more energy than it takes to grow and process the corn into ethanol

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_fuel

You really ought to get your facts straight. Myabe you would change your mind??

You really ought to find an authoratative primary source, instead of a secondary source web page that anyone can edit. Maybe you would change your mind then.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
Since we are in a fiscal crisis with a sizable defecit, can we shut down medicare until that's paid off too?

Absolutely

I agree with this idea...let those old Red State farts and their families feel the burden of the Republican's credit card economic policies.

No pain, no gain but that is for a different thread. Back to topic.

When will Refining capacity be able to meet demand?

How come Gas stations are not running out of gas during this refining crisis???

Probably because refinary capacity is tight, but not maxed out. Also we do import gas....

Ah, so then you agree with me that if we cut out unneccesary and wasteful Gas binging like Nascar refinery capacity would not be as "tight".

Thanks :thumbsup: , did you sign the Petition yet???

Removing nascar would have near zero effect on the gas market.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_fuel

You really ought to get your facts straight. Myabe you would change your mind??

You really ought to find an authoratative primary source, instead of a secondary source web page that anyone can edit. Maybe you would change your mind then.

LMAO, you don't even provide any links to your claim and you critisize mine???? Here are some more:

http://www.ethanolfacts.com/ebasics.html

http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/main/

Energy sink??? Hardly.

http://www.ethanol.org/documents/NetEnergyBalanceissuebrief_000.pdf

 

[0marTheZealot]

The numbers on ethanol vary wildly, but from the studies I've seen the EROEI (energ returned on energy invested) varies between 1.6 to .8. That means, at best, ethanol is a slight energy winner (16 units of energy for 10 units of energy put in) and at worst is a energy sink (8 units of energy for 10 invested).

Ethanol can never make up for imports, not in anyone's wildest dreams. You can pour 100 trillion dollars of research, infrastructe and legislation and we will still import copious amounts of crude oil. Ethanol will always be a bit player in the liquid fuel industry.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: alent1234

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zendari
This is great news. Hybrids should be a viable alternative to regular cars.

Maybe there will be less foolish gaswhiners who don't give a sh!t about the environment and feel entitled to cheap plentiful gas driving big SUVs around after this development.

Dont worry, when they start making large SUV hybrids people will bitch about them. I beleive dodge is planing a durango hybrd for 2007.

wife and I are planning for a Toyota Highlander hybrid in a few years

jumbo shrimp is still shrimp.

BTW, hybrids do very little to current demand. If you put 1 million hybrids in today on the road and replace 1 million gas guzzlers, you have a net savings of 49,600 barrels of oil per day. This is a paltry amount compared to how much is consumed (20,500,000 barrels per day). It might push oil down a cent or two. Consider that ANWR would probably only push down the price of oil by 50 cents.

And lets suppose that over the next decade that most of the cars in the US become hybrids and fleet mpg rises by 50%, would you still call this trivial fuel savings?

Yes, because increased demand worldwide will consume our savings. On top of that, we will still be importing even more oil, simply because we will still continue our sprawl, still have declining oil production and spend even more on materials to make cars.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
The numbers on ethanol vary wildly, but from the studies I've seen the EROEI (energ returned on energy invested) varies between 1.6 to .8. That means, at best, ethanol is a slight energy winner (16 units of energy for 10 units of energy put in) and at worst is a energy sink (8 units of energy for 10 invested).

Ethanol can never make up for imports, not in anyone's wildest dreams. You can pour 100 trillion dollars of research, infrastructe and legislation and we will still import copious amounts of crude oil. Ethanol will always be a bit player in the liquid fuel industry.

My understanding is that the studies that claim an energy loss don't take into account the value of the bi-products of ethanol production, let alone the value of job creation and the reduction in our trade deficit.

A June 2004 study determined that ethanol now provides a 1.67 to 1 gain in energy.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: alent1234

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zendari
This is great news. Hybrids should be a viable alternative to regular cars.

Maybe there will be less foolish gaswhiners who don't give a sh!t about the environment and feel entitled to cheap plentiful gas driving big SUVs around after this development.

Dont worry, when they start making large SUV hybrids people will bitch about them. I beleive dodge is planing a durango hybrd for 2007.

wife and I are planning for a Toyota Highlander hybrid in a few years

jumbo shrimp is still shrimp.

BTW, hybrids do very little to current demand. If you put 1 million hybrids in today on the road and replace 1 million gas guzzlers, you have a net savings of 49,600 barrels of oil per day. This is a paltry amount compared to how much is consumed (20,500,000 barrels per day). It might push oil down a cent or two. Consider that ANWR would probably only push down the price of oil by 50 cents.

And lets suppose that over the next decade that most of the cars in the US become hybrids and fleet mpg rises by 50%, would you still call this trivial fuel savings?

Yes, because increased demand worldwide will consume our savings. On top of that, we will still be importing even more oil, simply because we will still continue our sprawl, still have declining oil production and spend even more on materials to make cars.

You are now assuming that feul saving technologies would not spread across the world.

 

[jimkyser]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
The numbers on ethanol vary wildly, but from the studies I've seen the EROEI (energ returned on energy invested) varies between 1.6 to .8. That means, at best, ethanol is a slight energy winner (16 units of energy for 10 units of energy put in) and at worst is a energy sink (8 units of energy for 10 invested).

Ethanol can never make up for imports, not in anyone's wildest dreams. You can pour 100 trillion dollars of research, infrastructe and legislation and we will still import copious amounts of crude oil. Ethanol will always be a bit player in the liquid fuel industry.

My understanding is that the studies that claim an energy loss don't take into account the value of the bi-products of ethanol production, let alone the value of job creation and the reduction in our trade deficit.

A June 2004 study determined that ethanol now provides a 1.67 to 1 gain in energy.

I think the other energy requirement they use to beat down ethanol efficiency is charging it for the sun's energy even though it costs earthlings nothing to allow the corn to soak it up. Also, they don't downgrade the energy efficiency of oil based on the billions of years of decay, heat and pressure that has been required to create it from the original biomass.

 

[CessnaFlyer]

We just need to drill in ANWR, and off the coast of Florida, and California!

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: CessnaFlyer
We just need to drill in ANWR, and off the coast of Florida, and California!

Will take years and is a bandaid for the longer run. When oil runs down the a point, then what? New, full scale energy doesn't just happen overnight. Hell, it may not happen over a decade or two...maybe more.

 

[dmcowen674]

I'm sure we will be seeing a lot more of this:

8-21-2005 Alabama Gas Station Owner Run over & Killed During Theft of $52 worth of Gas by SUV driver

FORT PAYNE, Ala. - A gas station owner was run over and killed when he tried to stop a driver from leaving without paying for $52 worth of gasoline, police said.

Witnesses told police that Husain Caddi, owner of Fort Payne Texaco, "grabbed onto the vehicle" Friday when the driver began to drive off.

Caddi was dragged across the parking lot and onto a highway, where he fell to the pavement and was run over by the late model sport utility vehicle's rear wheel.

Caddi, 54, later died at a hospital, Walker said.

Police said the driver was in his 20s or 30s.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
The numbers on ethanol vary wildly, but from the studies I've seen the EROEI (energ returned on energy invested) varies between 1.6 to .8. That means, at best, ethanol is a slight energy winner (16 units of energy for 10 units of energy put in) and at worst is a energy sink (8 units of energy for 10 invested).

Ethanol can never make up for imports, not in anyone's wildest dreams. You can pour 100 trillion dollars of research, infrastructe and legislation and we will still import copious amounts of crude oil. Ethanol will always be a bit player in the liquid fuel industry.

My understanding is that the studies that claim an energy loss don't take into account the value of the bi-products of ethanol production, let alone the value of job creation and the reduction in our trade deficit.

A June 2004 study determined that ethanol now provides a 1.67 to 1 gain in energy.

I listed a range of values; there is no true consensus.

The point I was trying to make was that the discussion of ethanol is fairly academic. It will never be even a small scale alternative to gasoline/diesel.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: alent1234

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zendari
This is great news. Hybrids should be a viable alternative to regular cars.

Maybe there will be less foolish gaswhiners who don't give a sh!t about the environment and feel entitled to cheap plentiful gas driving big SUVs around after this development.

Dont worry, when they start making large SUV hybrids people will bitch about them. I beleive dodge is planing a durango hybrd for 2007.

wife and I are planning for a Toyota Highlander hybrid in a few years

jumbo shrimp is still shrimp.

BTW, hybrids do very little to current demand. If you put 1 million hybrids in today on the road and replace 1 million gas guzzlers, you have a net savings of 49,600 barrels of oil per day. This is a paltry amount compared to how much is consumed (20,500,000 barrels per day). It might push oil down a cent or two. Consider that ANWR would probably only push down the price of oil by 50 cents.

And lets suppose that over the next decade that most of the cars in the US become hybrids and fleet mpg rises by 50%, would you still call this trivial fuel savings?

Yes, because increased demand worldwide will consume our savings. On top of that, we will still be importing even more oil, simply because we will still continue our sprawl, still have declining oil production and spend even more on materials to make cars.

You are now assuming that feul saving technologies would not spread across the world.

Show me evidence outside of Europe that real efficencies gains are taking place.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: alent1234

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zendari
This is great news. Hybrids should be a viable alternative to regular cars.

Maybe there will be less foolish gaswhiners who don't give a sh!t about the environment and feel entitled to cheap plentiful gas driving big SUVs around after this development.

Dont worry, when they start making large SUV hybrids people will bitch about them. I beleive dodge is planing a durango hybrd for 2007.

wife and I are planning for a Toyota Highlander hybrid in a few years

jumbo shrimp is still shrimp.

BTW, hybrids do very little to current demand. If you put 1 million hybrids in today on the road and replace 1 million gas guzzlers, you have a net savings of 49,600 barrels of oil per day. This is a paltry amount compared to how much is consumed (20,500,000 barrels per day). It might push oil down a cent or two. Consider that ANWR would probably only push down the price of oil by 50 cents.

And lets suppose that over the next decade that most of the cars in the US become hybrids and fleet mpg rises by 50%, would you still call this trivial fuel savings?

Yes, because increased demand worldwide will consume our savings. On top of that, we will still be importing even more oil, simply because we will still continue our sprawl, still have declining oil production and spend even more on materials to make cars.

You are now assuming that feul saving technologies would not spread across the world.

Show me evidence outside of Europe that real efficencies gains are taking place.

\You only have to look at car dealers advertising higher mpg vehicles and slumping SUV sales. Of course there a syntehtic oils that last 15k miles instal of a standard change every 3k miles. As oil become more expensive, people will change their habits.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison

You only have to look at car dealers advertising higher mpg vehicles and slumping SUV sales.

Of course there a syntehtic oils that last 15k miles instal of a standard change every 3k miles.

As oil become more expensive, people will change their habits.

Intersting you brought this up.

Can you explain why Motor Oil has not gone up exponentially as Gas???

Based on the Gas run up, a quart of Oil should be at least $3.50 a quart and it is still just over a $1.

It should be at least more expensive than synthetic and it is not.

I'm sure you cannot explain this just like cannot explain gas prices.

 

[zendari]

Text
Text

Where do you find this $1 a quart motor oil? With some water mixed in?

According to many synthetic is the superior product, of course regular inferior motor oil is going to be cheaper.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: zendari
Text
Text

Where do you find this $1 a quart motor oil? With some water mixed in?

According to many synthetic is the superior product, of course regular inferior motor oil is going to be cheaper.

I do not know the latest prices for motor oil, however, oil at Dave's favorite store last year used to be under $1 per quart for generic 10W-40 and $1.60-$1.99 for brand names.