ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Riding > The perfect line and other riding myths
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 07-28-2013, 02:36 PM   #406
k-moe
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Oddometer: 2,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_sandman_454 View Post
Ethanol as a product cannot be produced efficiently enough to stand alone without government mandate.
Neither can petroleum. Imagine what fuel costs would be if the underlying infrastructure for delivery had to be paid for without any infusion of tax dollars. Then there is the history of leasing (and in some cases outright selling) drilling and mineral rights on public lands for pennies per acre.
k-moe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2013, 02:54 PM   #407
the_sandman_454
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Location: Coleman, Michigan
Oddometer: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-moe View Post
Neither can petroleum. Imagine what fuel costs would be if the underlying infrastructure for delivery had to be paid for without any infusion of tax dollars. Then there is the history of leasing (and in some cases outright selling) drilling and mineral rights on public lands for pennies per acre.
We would have been better off that way (without the subsidies). It is bad enough we have petroleum subsidies. Subsidizing and mandating other projects just adds to the problem. Fuel pricing is a self correcting problem. Other companies would step in on their own to provide alternatives as the alternatives became cost effective.

I don't agree with any subsidies. I don't want money stolen from me and given to someone else. For infrastructure, national defense, and other similar things, sure, no problem paying taxes. I don't want my tax money to be spent so some other guy can get a huge tax credit for installing solar, or an ethanol plant, or a wind farm, or anything. These things can stand alone or not.

As I said in previous posts, ethanol just isn't there yet as a good product. It doesn't have the same backwards compatability biodiesel has. Biodiesel will be the primary fuel of the future, especially if they were to ease the regs slightly and alow light duty diesels in. I would buy one of the smaller commuter euro diesels if more models from more manufacturers were available here (competition brings prices down).
__________________
Tim
09 KLR650
the_sandman_454 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2013, 08:48 PM   #408
stevie88
That's gotta hurt
 
stevie88's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: The place dad always warned me about
Oddometer: 18,290
Sandman, I understand your aversion to subsidizes. However your faith in the free market is more than a bit misplaced when it comes to long term planning. Besides you have to admit that there is no free market in the peteoleum industry. I have no problem with tax breaks and subsidy payment to advance a technology or build infrastructure that betters the nation. If you want to put solar panels on your house and claim a tax credit, more power to you. It'll be good for you and it'll benefit me too through a greener, cleaner environment.
__________________
In Russia we have saying, "if it isn't broke, don't fix it". We also say, "if it is broke, don't fix it".
stevie88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2013, 02:41 AM   #409
the_sandman_454
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Location: Coleman, Michigan
Oddometer: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie88 View Post
Sandman, I understand your aversion to subsidizes. However your faith in the free market is more than a bit misplaced when it comes to long term planning. Besides you have to admit that there is no free market in the peteoleum industry. I have no problem with tax breaks and subsidy payment to advance a technology or build infrastructure that betters the nation. If you want to put solar panels on your house and claim a tax credit, more power to you. It'll be good for you and it'll benefit me too through a greener, cleaner environment.
Have you any idea what sort of nasty chemicals go into the making of solar panels? How much energy it takes to make the stuff to make the panels? I wouldn't exactly call them good for the environment. Especially given the corners they cut in China making them. Granted, that's in someone elses' back yard but that just shifts pollution elsewhere. If solar technology was that good, I wouldn't need an incentive to install panels, I would do it because it made sense on its' own.

I'm considering solar technology but it will be home made. Well, based off a couple of old C band satellite dishes and mirrors or a reflective coating. Satellite dishes because they already have a good parabolic shape and I won't need to mess with doing the calculations. The parabolic shape will be ideal to focus solar energy on a small point which can then make steam or generate power other ways. Much more efficient than pv technology.

Long term planning sorts itself out. Before petroleum would become scarce, there would be people looking into the next big thing. Why? The answer to that is the profit motive. You see the petroleum guys making good money, realize that transportation is an industry that isn't going away and realize if you can develop a competitive product, you can grab a share of the market. This solution is better to me because consumers pick the winners and losers, not the government (who also brought us MTBE, before deciding it was an environmental disaster).

The government didn't invent the car or the plane or the bicycle, the electric range, refrigerators, video games, etc, free enterprising individuals did. The government didn't invent the phonograph or the telegraph, the telephone, or radio communications. People invent cool shit all the time without the assistance of and much of the time despite the seeming opposition of the government, and creating alternatives to petroleum fuels is no different.

To me the winner in alternative fuels for the current timeframe will be the alternative fuel that is compatible with all vehicles (for its' type) both past and present. That one is biodiesel. Ethanol isn't backwards compatible with older engines/fuel delivery systems. Generally, car makers don't make even their entire new 2013 model year lineup accept E85, so this isn't something many consumers can utilize even if they have a brand new car. When I bought my Fusion, only one of the three available engines was E85 capable. I got the one with that engine but not for that reason. (I wanted the V6, because I didn't want the 4 cylinder and the sport model was too much extra money for an extra 20 odd hp, and coincidentally the only e85 capable engine was the mid-range 3L that I ended up with.) On the other hand, anybody with any sort of diesel engine from a decades old one to the latest one to roll off the assembly line can use biodiesel of any percentage without adverse effects. That is a clear winner to me.

For the short to mid term until there is a breakthrough in battery and electrical generation technology, the way to go looks to be biodiesel and open the market up to all of the diesel vehicles euurope and asia have. Again, we don't have more small diesels here not because people don't want them but because of regulations stopping or at least hampering the process of being certified for sale here. Especially with some biodiesel, they can smell like they're running on french fries.

No comment on the biodiesel vs ethanol thing?
__________________
Tim
09 KLR650

the_sandman_454 screwed with this post 07-29-2013 at 03:29 AM
the_sandman_454 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2013, 05:47 AM   #410
_cy_
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Oddometer: 5,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-moe View Post
Neither can petroleum. Imagine what fuel costs would be if the underlying infrastructure for delivery had to be paid for without any infusion of tax dollars. Then there is the history of leasing (and in some cases outright selling) drilling and mineral rights on public lands for pennies per acre.
what a absolute crock of shit!!!!!

just because our natural resources are given away .. has nothing to do with final fuel costs. Oil companies are among the most profitable companies on the face of the earth. due to big oil's monopoly position resulting from all the MEGA mergers .. they control fuel prices at will .. American consumers that has to drive to work has no choice but to pay what ever is charged at pump.

big oil would continue to drill/explore for oil regardless if they receive tax handouts or not.

IMHO it's criminal for big oil to continue receiving tax subsidies while making MASSIVE profits. there folks out there that actually believe big oil actually makes very little profits. due the legal manipulation of their cash flow by team of accountants. their net profits are shown as very low net percent figure. when one looks at big oil gross revenues ... the picture becomes completely different.

world's worst accidental oil spill in Gulf of Mexico was also the world's costliest spill. BP's profits were barely effected for one quarter.... that's right BP's profits are so MASSIVE ... it barely made a difference for ONE quarter of profits.

after Katrina excuses were made that somehow shutting two refineries would disrupt the entire fuel supplies for entire USA. mass hysteria resulted with folks all over trying to fill up their fuel tanks all at once. this is what caused long lines at gas stations... not fuel shortages from Katrina.

overnight fuel prices doubled .. result was an increase of 30X in profits ... that's right an increase of 30x+ increase in profits. despite making MASSIVE profits big oil continues to rake in tax credits. IMHO this should be criminal. that's right big oil are giving Americans a royal fucking!!!

for corn growers .. after mandate that 37% of total corn production be converted to ethanol .. prices for corn tripled .. that's right 3x .. when price received for corn triples while costs to produce corn stays the same and/or goes down due to constantly improving efficiencies though technology.

above law mandating 37% of all corn production be converted to ethanol is corn grower's Katrina. it doesn't take an accountant to figure out resulting MASSIVE profits!

now the American public are receiving a royal fucking from big oil, corn growers/ethanol producers/law makers!!!!

_cy_ screwed with this post 07-29-2013 at 06:39 AM
_cy_ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2013, 07:38 AM   #411
stevie88
That's gotta hurt
 
stevie88's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: The place dad always warned me about
Oddometer: 18,290
You seem to have a problem with "massive profits". A quick google search would reveal that ethanol plant margins are quite tight and as I explained earlier the drought induced price runup in corn didn't result in a windfall for most farmers because there was a DROUGHT. Those farmers crops were much smaller than normal.

Your faith in the free market is quaint, though misplaced. Actually farmers are the closest to free market competitors. There are still enough of them to preclude price manipulation and they do respond to market incentives, often against their own best interest. Witness this years corn crop, with decent weather and average yields farmers planted enough acres of corn to cause a glut that will cause corn prices to drop 50% or more from prices earlier this year. Actually, corn prices already down 35% and we are still a couple of months from harvest.
__________________
In Russia we have saying, "if it isn't broke, don't fix it". We also say, "if it is broke, don't fix it".
stevie88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2013, 07:59 AM   #412
stevie88
That's gotta hurt
 
stevie88's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: The place dad always warned me about
Oddometer: 18,290
Today's Commstock report

"I would be surprised if the EPA didn't modify the RFS. Given the slow development of the cellulosic industry they pretty much have to. There are two primary parts to the RFS. There is the corn based mandate to reach 15 billion gallons by 2015 and the larger mandate including all types of ethanol set to reach 36 billion gallons by 2022. The later, primarily the cellulosic industry, is not going to be met. Given the blend wall there is no market access for cellulosic ethanol. There are ways to creatively fulfill the corn based RFS but the cellulosic industry is actually a problem to the corn based industry as it competes with corn ethanol for limited market access. The blend wall is the biggest obstacle confronting bio-fuel development. The ethanol industry needs more access to consumers and the petroleum industry sees that as a dire threat to their market share having become desperate to contain it. The RFS is going to be continually modified to fit the industry and market fundamentals. That is not what ethanol opponents are asking for when talking of modifying the RFS. They would prefer to kill it altogether."
*
__________________
In Russia we have saying, "if it isn't broke, don't fix it". We also say, "if it is broke, don't fix it".
stevie88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2013, 08:51 AM   #413
the_sandman_454
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Location: Coleman, Michigan
Oddometer: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie88 View Post
"I would be surprised if the EPA didn't modify the RFS. Given the slow development of the cellulosic industry they pretty much have to. There are two primary parts to the RFS. There is the corn based mandate to reach 15 billion gallons by 2015 and the larger mandate including all types of ethanol set to reach 36 billion gallons by 2022. The later, primarily the cellulosic industry, is not going to be met. Given the blend wall there is no market access for cellulosic ethanol. There are ways to creatively fulfill the corn based RFS but the cellulosic industry is actually a problem to the corn based industry as it competes with corn ethanol for limited market access. The blend wall is the biggest obstacle confronting bio-fuel development. The ethanol industry needs more access to consumers and the petroleum industry sees that as a dire threat to their market share having become desperate to contain it. The RFS is going to be continually modified to fit the industry and market fundamentals. That is not what ethanol opponents are asking for when talking of modifying the RFS. They would prefer to kill it altogether."
*
So, is the implication then that the automobile manufacturers are colluding with the petroleum manufacturers to limit the production of E85 capable vehicles produced to the minimum number required by law? Surely the issue couldn't simply be that consumers refuse to pay extra for a vehicle that comes with the priviledge of achieving getting less MPG and dealing with a higher cost per mile while using higher ethanol blends. Surely when combined wth the fact that it costs the automaker a bunch more to make the E85 capable vehicle in terms of complexity, design, and materials, we can see that it isn't collusion causing the market to produce so few E85 capable vehicles, but consumers, the very ones who should hold power over the life and death of products.

This is the crux of the problem with ethanol: the lack of backwards compatibility. The sales of higher ethanol blends are limited by the number of cars and light trucks on the road capable of using it. These modifications include changing o rings, gaskets, and seals to handle the additional ethanol, and significant improvements to the computer and engine instrumentation so it can detect varying amounts of ethanol and adjust fuel delivery accordingly.

Ethanol relies on more people getting newer cars that are certified for more ethanol content in the fuel. That just isn't happening. That's not a conspiracy, it's basic common sense. This is why the ethanol industry has been a loser from the start: no backward compatibility. This is why biodiesel is better because there are no backward compatibility issues, it'll run just fine in pretty much any diesel engine ever made from the first one to the latest one to roll off the assembly line. No mods required.
__________________
Tim
09 KLR650
the_sandman_454 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2013, 09:48 AM   #414
stevie88
That's gotta hurt
 
stevie88's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: The place dad always warned me about
Oddometer: 18,290
In the last year I've spent $500k on 2 new tractors.

They are tier 4 compliant, use urea to meet EPA regs and are not warranted at biofuel blends above 5%. Biodiesel is cool, but it isn't a drop in replacement for regular diesel.

Btw, flex fuel compatibility doesn't cost extra. It's pretty universal throughout certain engine lines.
__________________
In Russia we have saying, "if it isn't broke, don't fix it". We also say, "if it is broke, don't fix it".

stevie88 screwed with this post 07-29-2013 at 11:40 AM
stevie88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2013, 02:17 PM   #415
_cy_
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Oddometer: 5,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie88 View Post
In the last year I've spent $500k on 2 new tractors.

They are tier 4 compliant, use urea to meet EPA regs and are not warranted at biofuel blends above 5%. Biodiesel is cool, but it isn't a drop in replacement for regular diesel.

Btw, flex fuel compatibility doesn't cost extra. It's pretty universal throughout certain engine lines.
now we are getting somewhere .. normally someone that expends $500k in capital improvement would get a loan. but in the case of big oil/refineries after Katrina and resulting doubling of fuel prices with little to no increase in costs of production. results were 30X + increase in profits generated.

big oil was under orders from their tax accounts to spent those profits for acquisitions vs paying taxes. result was a buying frenzy that resulted in consolidation of the entire oil business. literally overnight number of USA refinery owners went from hundreds down to a small handful of owners.

corn producer's Katrina was mandate/law that requires 37% of total corn be converted into ethanol. prices for corn tripled .. resulting in MASSIVE profits.

my guess is your accountants instructed you to make (spend $$) all capital improvement possible to drive down net profits. further my guess is you paid for those $500k tractors from cash flow without loans.

now tell us how far off the mark my guesses are?
_cy_ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2013, 02:43 PM   #416
k-moe
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Oddometer: 2,544
In the late 1800's and early 1900's electric trollies and commuter rail services were in every major, and many minor, metropolitan areas. In the late 30's that changed....oil became king. It wasn't done by way of market forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General...car_conspiracy
k-moe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2013, 02:51 PM   #417
k-moe
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Oddometer: 2,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_sandman_454 View Post
This is why biodiesel is better because there are no backward compatibility issues, it'll run just fine in pretty much any diesel engine ever made from the first one to the latest one to roll off the assembly line. No mods required.
Backwards compatibility only works for Biodiesel if you already have a diesel vehicle. For 90% of U.S. vehicle owners there is no real difference between a change to 85% ethanol blends and a change to Biodiesel. Both require buying a new vehicle, and modifying (or scrapping) existing vehicles.

Do you work for the Association of Diesel Engine Manufacturers? j/k
k-moe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2013, 03:53 PM   #418
stevie88
That's gotta hurt
 
stevie88's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: The place dad always warned me about
Oddometer: 18,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by _cy_ View Post
now we are getting somewhere .. normally someone that expends $500k in capital improvement would get a loan. but in the case of big oil/refineries after Katrina and resulting doubling of fuel prices with little to no increase in costs of production. results were 30X + increase in profits generated.

big oil was under orders from their tax accounts to spent those profits for acquisitions vs paying taxes. result was a buying frenzy that resulted in consolidation of the entire oil business. literally overnight number of USA refinery owners went from hundreds down to a small handful of owners.

corn producer's Katrina was mandate/law that requires 37% of total corn be converted into ethanol. prices for corn tripled .. resulting in MASSIVE profits.

my guess is your accountants instructed you to make (spend $$) all capital improvement possible to drive down net profits. further my guess is you paid for those $500k tractors from cash flow without loans.

now tell us how far off the mark my guesses are?
Pretty far off. As I said, the drought last year was brutal but 2011 was even worse. I bought those tractors to improve operations, not for tax savings and they are financed.
__________________
In Russia we have saying, "if it isn't broke, don't fix it". We also say, "if it is broke, don't fix it".
stevie88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2013, 06:37 PM   #419
k-moe
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Oddometer: 2,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie88 View Post
Pretty far off. As I said, the drought last year was brutal but 2011 was even worse. I bought those tractors to improve operations, not for tax savings and they are financed.
I think that most people who don't farm, or know a farmer, understand that most of the plains states have been in (at least a) moderate drought for a decade now. The High Plains have been in severe drought for nearly 4 years. Less water= less yield = higher market prices, but usually less income for the farmer unless he can figure out how to farm more efficiently.
k-moe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2013, 07:40 PM   #420
_cy_
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Oddometer: 5,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie88 View Post
Pretty far off. As I said, the drought last year was brutal but 2011 was even worse. I bought those tractors to improve operations, not for tax savings and they are financed.
let's see how believable your answer is ... please give me a bit to calculate out yields @ $6.50 bu

here's the historical yield data from Purdue university. two $250k tractors will support at least 10,000 acres.

-------------
Historical Corn Grain Yields for Indiana and the U.S.

Agronomy Dept., Purdue Univ.
West Lafayette, IN 47907-2054

Yields are steadily increasing over time.
Year-to-year departures from trend yield are primarily weather-related.The adoption of hybrid corn by growers after the Dust Bowl years resulted in the first significant improvement in corn productivity and led to an annual rate of yield improvement of about 0.8 bu/ac/year from about 1937 through about 1955 (Fig. 1). A second significant shift in the annual rate of yield improvement occurred in the mid-1950's due to a combination of improved genetics, availability of N fertilizer and chemical pesticides, and mechanization (Fig. 1). Since 1955, corn grain yields in the U.S. have increased at a fairly constant 1.9 bushels per acre per year primarily due to sustained improvements in genetics and production technologies (Fig. 1). Some question whether the yield trend line has shifted again in recent years due to the advent of transgenic hybrid technology in the mid-1990's, but the data show little evidence that a third significant shift in corn productivity has occurred (Fig. 1).
Annual grain yield estimates fluctuate above and below the yield trend line over the years (Fig. 2), primarily in response to weather variability year to year. The Great Drought of 2012 has certainly resulted in dramatic and historic reductions in grain yield relative to trend lines. As of August 2012, the National Ag. Statistics Service of the USDA (USDA-NASS, 2012) estimated that the average U.S. corn grain yield will be 123.4 bu/ac (Fig. 1). This yield estimate would be 23% lower than the predicted 2012 trend yield of 159 bu/ac and would rank as the sixth worst departure from trend yield since the USDA began publishing yield estimates in 1866 (Fig. 2).
Indiana's 2012 corn crop is expected to fare worse than the national average, in part because drought conditions developed earlier than the other major Corn Belt states. As of August 2012, the USDA-NASS predicts a statewide corn grain yield of only 100 bu/ac (USDA-NASS, 2012). This yield estimate for Indiana would be 38% below the 2012 trend yield estimate of 162 bu/ac and would constitute the single worst departure from trend yield since the USDA began publishing yield estimates in 1866 (Fig. 3).

Fig. 1


Fig. 2


Fig. 3.
References

USDA-NASS. 2012. Crop Production. United States Dept. of Agr - Nat'l Ag. Statistics Service, Washington, D.C. Online at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/Mann...ocumentID=1046 [URL accessed Aug 2012].
_cy_ is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

.
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 01:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014