New German 4 seater gets 157 MPG

Actually, so-called 'clean diesel' is on its way to you. The problem is simply that
the diesel fuel you've been using up to now is way too dirty.

Some diesels over here have catalystsand even getting rid of the soot is quite
straightforward.

The US ignores modern diesels at its peril. Yet another way for Detroit to **** up of
course.

Graham

 

When they get cleaner.
Mercedes recently said "they hope to be acceptable to all of the USA in
a few years, that will take more than the coming cleaner diesel fuel".

 

OK. Haven't read much about it. Guess we'll have to - what? - refine it more?

Well, it ain't just Detroit - we don't even import most of the ones that we
could from foreign mfgs, either.

 

Ethanol is a political "solution", but not a viable technical solution
for many reasons. Some investors will make money during the ramp-up
speculation phase, but will then lose their short during the collapse
later when people realize that we simply can't grow enough corn to meet
the need for fuel and we can't do it economically enough or with enough
"net" energy (the energy provided by the fuel less the energy required
to produce the fuel).

Matt

 

Something tells me it will be around for quite a while. Investors don't
build all these places with expectation of losing money. It won't be a
primary source of fuel but will water down gasoline enough to control
the prices of oil. But again, the drawback to all this is that your
food items will rise in price. Pay at the pump or pay at the grocery
store.

 

Yes, that is part of the problem. It just doesn't make sense overall.

Matt

 

ray wrote, on the topic of investing in ethanol production:

Investors never "plan" to lose money -- unless they are investing in
wind factories for tax write-offs -- but they do take risks. There is
a long-established link between risk & reward.

If you think that investors never lose, take a look at the investors
who poured money into natural gas fired electric generators -- after
all, electric demand was going up, gas was a whole lot cheaper than oil
& cleaner than coal, and the super-smart guys like Cambridge Energy
Research Associates said there was plenty of gas in the US. How could
the investor lose?

Now Calpine is bankrupt, and there are lots of good deals on never-used
gas turbines.

 

Actually, it does. For decades now, the Environmentalists have been
plugging up the oil supply to this country along with the refining
process. We haven't built a refinery in this country since the mid
70's. And with a growing energy need, this helped create the situation
we have today.

The Politicians have to figure out a way to supply this country with
more energy to lower the price. But they don't want to do it while
tainting their reputation as a polluter. So now we have to turn to
fuels like this to keep the Environmentalists happy while increasing the
fuel supply. Ethanol is the perfect solution (politically) that would
make everybody happy. This is why I believe it will be around for a
long time. Hydrogen vehicles are a long way off and I don't think we
will see those vehicles for quite a while. And this Global Warming
thing is gaining ground all the time, to the point that the Republicans
are even joining in.

 

Without a doubt investors lose, it's part of the game. But I think what
we are looking at here is the future and partial solution for our energy
problems in this country.

The Natural Gas problem is in the transportation of the Gas. In
transport, it's actually liquid which makes it just as much of a target
as oil or gasoline. At least where I live, most of our electricity is
made from natural gas and since people and companies on the outskirts of
the city switched from Propane to natural gas, they have to run all of
these lines to these places and that elevates the price of gas.

 

There's an AP article by Frederic J. Frommer in the local newspaper this
week on U.S. *sugar* *beet* growers looking into getting into the act.
The article wasn't all rosey about the prospect - talked about the
economics and requirements for subsidies to kick it off.

One interesting paragraph said, quoting an economist with the American
Sugar Allaince, "The way the Brazilians established their program [using
sugar cane] is through 30 years of government intervention in energy and
agriculture markets, to ensure there would be adequate demand and
supplies."

Quotes from him and from certain congressmen made it clear that there
are pushes from within the beet grower community to tap into
government-forced incentives to explore this and make it at least
temporarily (i.e., artificially) lucrative.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Only politically and emotionally, the liberal perspective to use you sig
line.

Being popular doesn't make it a good idea. Depending on who you believe
(Cornell university or the government - It wasn't a hard decision for
me!), ethanol may actually use MORE oil per BTU of energy, or at best be
very slightly energy positive. My fear is that this will only make the
oil crisis worse as we use 1.1 BTUs of oil or gas to make 1.0 BTU worth
of ethanol. This will only increase our dependence on foreign oil and gas.

Matt

 

You're wrong that the sole source is corn.

Your broker may be right about putting money into a government backed initiative
though.

Graham

 

One of the first plants using sugar beet is being built in the UK. Because of
Gatt rules we now import cane sugar and the sugar beet previously used to
provide our sugar was going begging.

Governments often have to intervene on the basis of long term policy.

Once it's rolling it may become perfectly profitable in its own right.

Graham

 

I think what these studies are taking into consideration is that all
machinery and processing procedures are oil burning and will stay that
way. So this depends on how far they take it. The technology hasn't
been taken seriously in the past because of the price of oil. In time,
they will make ethanol using less oil and are currently in the process
of doing that. Brazil has been doing fine for years using Sugar Cane
for their ethanol and in the US, they are talking about using other
products besides corn and sugar to make ethanol.



Dan Kammen and Alex Farrell of the Energy and Resources Group at UC
Berkeley, with their students Rich Plevin, Brian Turner and Andy Jones
along with Michael O'Hare, a professor in the Goldman School of Public
Policy, deconstructed six separate high-profile studies of ethanol. They
assessed the studies' assumptions and then reanalyzed each after
correcting errors, inconsistencies and outdated information regarding
the amount of energy used to grow corn and make ethanol, and the energy
output in the form of fuel and corn byproducts.

Once these changes were made in the six studies, each yielded the same
conclusion about energy: Producing ethanol from corn uses much less
petroleum than producing gasoline. However, the UC Berkeley researchers
point out that there is still great uncertainty about greenhouse gas
emissions and that other environmental effects like soil erosion are not
yet quantified.

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=42661

 

Yes, but currently, corn is the number one source from which the US will
create ethanol. This is not to say that corn will remain the leading
crop, but for now, it's the most promising.

 

But what about this one that gets 6786 mpg?
http://tinyurl.com/fjblk

 

I'll be convinced with a see a bounded system that takes in no fossil
fuels, but which spits out ethanol. No reason that all of the farm
equipment and ethanol production equipment can't also be run on ethanol,
right?

Matt

 

Yes, but again, that won't be a overnight conversion. Before they
convert all of these engines to ethanol fuel only, they have to be sure
they aren't investing these millions for something that will only be
around for a few years. This ethanol will be met with plenty of
resistance too. The Environmentalists will be complaining about all the
additional pesticides used for the crops and the Cattle and Hog farmers
will be complaining about how much it costs to feed their stock.
Quality meats come from quality feed, and then we have to forecast
floods and droughts that naturally occur that could put a halt to these
fuels. Nothing is easy I guess.

 

Specifically in the USA, you may be right. I'd look at sugar beet too and those
who are working on biodiesel from any biomass.

Graham