Jump to content

1outlaw

Full Member
  • Content Count

    3,393
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by 1outlaw


  1. Regarding the rise in corn prices;

     

    While this does raise the cost of producing ethanol 35 to 40 cents it should save the Federal govt a pile of money,

    put life back into small rural towns, and encourage agriculture in other countries. I suspect that beef producers will either need to raise their own grains like midwest dairies always have or feed a combination of high quality forages and alternative fat (energy) rations otherwise we will get grass fed beef (yuck-though it is better for us).

    Swine and poultry producers also will need to modify rations a little and start raising or contracting corn themselves.

     

    For foreign exchange $ just think- the article indicated that exports of corn were equal to last year. This would be hopefully with no export subsidy to move unwanted corn and other countries are sending the US $1.00 more/bu at the same time we imported less refined gasoline and crude oil than we would have w/o ethanol. Now, let the world produce their own food- they can do it if we let grains rise enough that they can compete.

     

    Also- all this will help bring on the cellulose ethanol production which can be produced easily outside of the corn belt. The only danger to ethanol is the falling oil prices but I would be suprised if oil stays low very long.


  2. I do not consider Pimentel to be a professor of anything but what the bugs in his skull said to him today- heck, he got his Phd in 1951 to be a bug doctor- he has got to be 80+years old. I am surprised his sidekick Ted Pateck of Shell- oops- I mean UC Berkley did'nt also toss his 2 cents worth of crap in too!

     

    I suppose that Cornell wanted to finally invest in ethanol to balance their investment in their  Dubai campus- you know look good to who looks quick.


  3. I will take a stab at answering the several questions that came up over last 24 hours;

     

    E85 can be blended at some ethanol plants provided they have a blending load arm like a standard oil terminal (most do not since they cost about $100,000). In a plant blend denaturant (natural gasoline) will generally be used instead of gasoline usually saving a little $- but biggest savings is that additional hands do not get to "touch" it. Disadvantage to the ethanol plant is the added equipment, loading area, and congestion it causes (more e85 out means more denaturant coming in)

     

    Blending at a station eliminates the cost of blending at an ethanol plant and makes it so all ethanol producers could participate in E85/ high alcohol blends and major oil still does not get their fingers in it -but again-this will probably only work at first in minor brands such as Kwik Trip, Fleet Farm, Holiday, Super America, etc.

     

    Only one problem with price on E100- since it is not a blend, it will not get the blenders tax credit like e10 thru e85! Can racers file for motor fuel taxes back from state and local govt ????

     

    Utica/ Renew plants are Delta T designed.

     

    I cannot answer what financers want (not my area) but most plants have agreements with marketer/brokers (not major oil) before construction. I do not know if lenders would require long term price contracts before construction- wouldnt do much good if corn, byproducts, power, and other imputs were not locked in too.

     

     


  4. By the way- one real potential advantage to a blender is that it has the ability to change blends within about 5 minutes if labels are ready. What if the govt. would allow sale of straight denatured ethanol thru a non-blocked pump (open retail for all) so racers could buy it retail- this would be easy to set one dispenser in a station up for.


  5. Dan- I am saying that oil company terminals tack on anywhere from $0.20 to $1.50/ gal to ethanol.

     

    I do not see the ethanol producers pushing for blender pumps- this group is too fragmented to agree on this (there are something like 50-75 different ownership groups in ethanol). Blender pumps are squarely against what oil companies want to see because they make it harder to control the station owners and to easy for the consumer to choose a product with less of their product in it. They (oil co) say E85 should be on a separate pump so the consumer will not accidentally put it in a non-FFV and so no one can blame them for problems ethanol causes. Pump manufacturers just produce for a market- and oil companies are their direct customers.

     

    Blender dispensers do cost more- a standard 3 hose blender dispenser will cost 15-20 thousand each- a few thousand more than a straight product 3 hose dispenser BUT requires one less tank/ submersible/ containment/ etc for a NL/ E10/ E85 or E10/E20/E85 setup. Thus the total cost can be less or the same on a new station and one less tank will be in the ground to potentially leak and one less tank to emit harmful vapors to the air.

     


  6. You are correct Dan.

     

    Blending at the oil terminals costs the consumer an additional $0.20-$1.50 per gallon of straight ethanol so blending should occur at the station in most situations. The ethanol industry could build these stations or develop partnership agreements with stations (generally not major oil company ones who have agreements that kill E85).

     

    Some of the ethanol producers who do not support E85 may fear oil already, most lack retail marketing experience, most lack understanding of the fuel distribution business, some want to help but find the ethanol industry a fragmented everyone for themself situation, and yes, some are taking the easy route of greed today-worry about tomorrow later.


  7. Hi Dan,

     

    I think we are on the same page regarding farming and the need to rapidly evolve to better crops and new processes. I will try address some of your questions when I have a bit more time.

     

    Regarding ethanol pricing following gasoline; ethanol's first and highest value in the energy business is as an octane enhancer/ fuel extender to the oil industry- since the ethanol industry is so new/small, this is the demand that eats today's output. This value & demand therefore rises and falls with gasoline price and volume. Truth is however that ethanol plants tend to contract most of their output in long period contracts, leaving the small volume spot market to rise when gas rises. Oil companies simply price the ethanol they may have bought under contract the same as spot is doing that day.

     

    Explaining E85 pricing gets complex. It can be priced like some of us do- at a price we can can keep fairly steady year round,  OR a % spread to gasoline that hopefully works for the consumer's wallet, OR sold thru the oil company distribution system that follows the spot market and never is right. Since E85 is not run in optimized engines- pricing must be much less than gas and most ethanol producers are not willing to support the cause. A day will come when they will have more ethanol than oil wants- then they may wish they supported E85 or E20, especially if E85 ends up being retailed by a few successfull ethanol producers. Today most E85 stations are pulling product thru oil terminals because few ethanol plants have blend equipment and station owners did not set up blender pumps to blend on site.


  8. Dan- I agree that the cellulose ethanol needs to come faster- perhaps part of the difference between the 9 billion the govt. will save on the farm programs this year and the 2 billion more paid to oil companies to blend ethanol should be invested in cellulose programs. I do think farmers will rapidly fill this corn demand for the next couple of years by responding with additional acres that was in reserve programs, other crop rotations, or just plain idled-- provided they and their bankers feel that profitability to farm is back.

     

    I do not think it has been fair to farmers to support past cheap food policies our govt has had since the 1960's- let them have a profit and you will be amaized what they can produce(if it had been profitable in the 70's, I would still be on the farm). Furthermore- while there is more people in the world today- we have shown much of the world our technology to produce more food. Our cheap food has distorted world food production economics for years- let the world profit and produce more too!

     

    Am I concerned about ethanol costs raising?- Yes- for every $1.00/bu ethanol costs rise $0.35/ gal, but this will drive even more efficiency improvements in plant design. I also do not see gasoline being below $2.759 next summer (I think>$3.00). Currently gasoline prices set ethanol prices-not corn.

     

    As far as food prices- remember that farmers get something like 7 cents/ loaf of bread- marketing, distribution, etc. makes up the rest- the base grain cost in most foods is hardly anything. Poultry and pork would be affected most because those two areas do not currently benefit so much from the now very cheap distillers grain and do feed a lot of corn. Until feed research and feeding programs catch up to help them- I may eat more beef!

     

    Sorry for the long post- Just my opinion!

     

    Phil

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     


  9. Scott- I hope others who have 2006 Dodge Ram FFV's will post, I do not have one but am very interested in your mileage and operability results since I operate several E85 stations. I am asked almost daily by consumers which is the best FFV to buy. You are right about Dodge's experience with ethanol- one of my customers is a retired Chrysler engineer who started testing their engines on it in the first (70's) oil embargo and has kept using it (now in his self tuned FFV Suburban).


  10. Heck Guys- drivin thru Illinois will be like drivin thru northern Minn. or Wi where you cant see anything for the trees. With tall prairie grass the only view of beautiful Illinois will be from elevated roadways. None of that great variety from corn to beans. Maybe a bison will stick his head out once in a while ;D??


  11. Cessna- Innovators are always viewed as kind of out there, a little crazy, perhaps even just plain wrong- until they succeed. 5% of the people lead in innovation, 15% then adopt this into practice, then the herd (50%) joins, and the last 35% just do what daddy did until it is no longer available. We have to address the 15% and then the herd to make things change.

     

    I did not understand the sky diver thing- was he using straight gas, e10, or Age85? Phase separation would occur at approx. 0.13tsp, 4tsp, or 32tsp of water/ gallon of fuel. The later two would end up being 8tsp or 64tsp approx. because they would be about 1/2 water/ 1/2 alcohol. I do not know if a 50/50 alcohol/water mix would fire any better than water in a warm high compression engine ;)


  12. Cessna- I did get ahold of Jim and we talked about several things. Jim did not feel the natural gasoline was the way to go due to some poor product he had heard about in New Mexico. Natural gasoline is variable by source thus the variations could be a concern. He feels that sticking to isopentane (straight) or tolulene is the  best way to go. A reservation he and I have on tolulene is it's high benzene (carcinogen) levels but if handled carefully it could be used--- realistically it is already in the alternative- ave gas. He was not encouraging on trying to calm EAA's e10 resistance.

     

    Our company controller and I discussed AGE85 briefly and I found he had some interest from a couple of parties. I will explore this with him as time allows to see if it can lead anywhere. Unfortunately economics dictate but if enough market could be built - I feel that planes could be easily optimized for alcohol and it could compete very favorably in that market- even better than the low value auto gas marketplace in which FFV's are not truly optimized/ only adapted. What kind of potential gallons do you see in the WI./ Chicago market???? By when???


  13. Cessna- the 4 tps/gal is the number I have heard too. I think you got the equivalent of 8 tsp/gal in your test. In theory what you were seeing was the phase separation w/alcohol and water together- did this freeze at 20 degrees???

    Don't feel bad- I tried the same experiment but on an even smaller scale (50ml) and until I realized the H20 had to be 1/2%- I had trouble too!

     

    Phase separation would be initiated in theory at 4tsp/ 10%, 8tsp/ 20% etc. Thus e85 should be at 34tsp/gal (4.25%) but I suspect this would be temp sensitive.


  14. Cessna- do you know if any certification work is being done w/ AGe85 made w/natural gasoline which is the standard denaturant at ethanol plants? Looking at the AGe85 vapor pressure specs vs e85 I see no diff. Natural gasoline can run from 5% to 70% isopentane according to Wikipedia- I have not ask our nat gasoline supplier for his spec  on this yet but it has me wondering. If the e85 around you in the summer is plant mix (not terminal) and the specs were known on the natural gasoline- I'm wondering if you could just add soy methyl ester (soy biodiesel) to pump grade e85????? The concern could be that while sulfur specs are closely watched on natural gasoline, the vapor pressure is variable-- I heard a while back in the western corn belt, some high RVP natural gasoline was slipped in and caused some vapor lock issues for a while. This would not be too good in a plane.


  15. Guys- Seneca Tank Co. is being short-sighted in my opinion, maybe they feel that they will sell more tanks if companies put a tank in for every product. There is no reason you cannot go from ethanol to gasoline or diesel in a steel tank-in fact the tank will be the cleanest it ever will be at that point. The only concern would be the unanswered question that hopefully UL will answer--- will pump seals have swollen in the dispensers and a conversion to a non-ethanol product start to leak?-This could be the DNR's concern, if they even said this to Seneca. I am assuming we are talking fiberglass clad steel tank here- I have no interest in ever using all fiberglass tanks (singlewall). The main reason you may not be able to go away from offering E85 is if you received a grant or a clean fuels tax credit to install it.

     

    As far as costs go- the $200,000 I had mentioned in the past was for canopy, computers, utilities connections, pavement, 2-12,000 tanks, piping, labor, 2 high end blender dispensers w/cash accepters. To put it in an existing station that has most of that already would be 30-60% of that depending on what they do and what is useable.

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...