Jump to content
TEAM SHELBY FORUM
ABOUT TEAM SHELBY

Episode #7

ColdwaterHotrod

Recommended Posts

PhantomAce Team Shelby New Member

PhantomAce

Posted
Posted

Corn is good, I live in Indiana.

 

 

It's a great idea in theory, but there are a couple of huge holes in it when you analyze.

For example:

Did you know that if you planted the entire country (every inch including Alaska) in corn, you STILL couldn't make enough Ethanol to meet our gasoline needs? :doh:

 

Bottom-line, we love our hot-rods. But truth is the only way out of the energy mess is solar, nuclear and hydro power for electric demands, and better mileage cars for the fossil fuel needs.

That, and level China so they quite taking all the oil! :finger:

 

My opinion.

 

Mike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
My2nd'Stang Team Shelby New Member

My2nd'Stang

Posted
Posted

My 2000 Ranger is flex fuel capable, the problem is, you can't find E85 anywhere (in Tennessee).

 

And I just wonder how long it will take for Bill (Smith) to get more, and will he be able to keep a running supply of E85 to fuel vehicles on a daily basis?

 

Oh well.

 

I think I saw something awhile back (on one of those TV shows, 20/20 or 60 mintues???) about Argentina or Chile being fully independant of foreign oil because they make enough E85.

 

Corn, we got/grow enough corn (and wheat) to feed the world and we send it around the world for almost nothing, maybe if we would start charging for it like we americans have to pay (don't we pay more for a bushel of corn or wheat than the countries we send our grain to?)(RUFDRAFT is gonna chew me up and spit me out (for my lousy grammer :( )).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KCMO-GT500 Team Shelby Member

KCMO-GT500

Posted
Posted

I posted elsewhere once I think, USA is the saudi arabia for coal. not too hard to convert coal into a petroleum type product, and is looking a lot more economically feasible. could be in our future soon

 

..as for corn, I thought I saw something recently that even if all corn was converted to fuel, it would only satisfy about 10 -15 % of our needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jcthorne Team Shelby Member

jcthorne

Posted
Posted

We have the oil. It's off our coasts. If prices don't come down - we'll go and find it.

 

I love corn, too. On my plate.

 

 

 

There is no energy shortage in this world. There is only a shortage of CHEAP energy.

 

Over half of the known reserves of US crude is locked up in areas that are 'off limits' because of the enviroweenies. May or may not ever get used, just drives the costs higher sooner. As the cost of energy goes up, more and more technologies become economical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JETSOLVER Team Shelby Member

JETSOLVER

Posted
Posted

Enjoy & support America buy purchasing American cars that run on E-10, E-85, B-20 & 100% Bio-Diesel

 

If you are a member in good standing with cheap and easy short term solutions. If you really care, the answer is hydrogen. And take this a step or two further. This could allow Ford to lead the change in environmental stewardship on the shipping front. If the cost of shipping was perceived to be the shippers (not Fords OR the customers) they could open a new paradigm. As they have repeatedly mentioned in the Bold moves and other places they are thinking in terms of sustainability. That means the carbon footprint of delivery as well. So by suggesting that they want to get the car to a customer with the most eco-friendly method they are happy to provide a train or truck that is powered by hydrogen. Thereby takeing advantage of the $ Ford already invested in R&D and manufacturing, opening up a new revenue stream and shifting the burden to a third party. And we all know that customer demand forces change. And incidentally the capital cost of the hydrogen infrastructure as well. To score brownie points they could offer to help defray those start-up costs with other company's (synergy and marketing, the mysterious partner) think of it as taxation BY representation. I believe that the potential exists here for the big change but it is going to take real leadership. If Ford wants to they could sell this by putting a big name greenie like say Al Gore on the board at minimum cost and maximum effect, and let him take the guff for putting his money where his mouth is. (And curry favour with the next administration as well.) I love it when a plan comes together. :tequila: (also an ethanol fuel by the way... :hysterical: )
Link to comment
Share on other sites
68fastback Team Shelby Enthusiast

68fastback

Posted
Posted

Corn makes good moonshine.

 

Moonshine running mandated hot cars to lose the police.

 

Junior Johnson, Tiny Lund, started as moonshine drivers and were the grassroots beginnings of NASCAR.

 

So corn has promoted racing for decades.

 

Corn: Eat it, drink it, drive it!

 

(even if it does only limited potential it's a supplementary gas alternative -- I burn some wood in a 2.8 particulate grams/hour woodstove for the same reason -- clean, supplemental, cheap (oh, well, two out of three ain't bad for ethanol ;-)

 

That Ford tri-flex V10 they sowed at NYIAS in the Super Chief superduty p/up not only burns hydrogen directly, but gas and E10-E85 too -- computer figures it out, no 'switch-over' required! Cool truck!

 

.

<edit: uh, corn makes grain alcohol, so, no, don't drink it!>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fastbackman Team Shelby Member

Fastbackman

Posted
Posted

I posted elsewhere once I think, USA is the saudi arabia for coal. not too hard to convert coal into a petroleum type product, and is looking a lot more economically feasible. could be in our future soon

 

..as for corn, I thought I saw something recently that even if all corn was converted to fuel, it would only satisfy about 10 -15 % of our needs.

 

 

You are absolutely correct. Rentech, Sasol, and Syntroleum are some of the companies that do this. Sasol is the furthest advanced I believe. The say that if oil is over $30 barrel they can make this just as cheap. Hell oil will never see $30 barrel again so I would like to see the companies thrive. We have more coal in one or two states than all of the middle east has oil. If they can produce this anywhere close to $30 I hope these companies thrive. This is also cleaner fuel than what we currently make with oil, so we win all the way around. The governor of Montana's state supplied vehicle runs on this fuel and he is a huge advocate for it, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JETSOLVER Team Shelby Member

JETSOLVER

Posted
Posted

I'll go fuel up the Excursion. Anybody have Gore's address? :rant:

 

Bollywood :hysterical2:

 

We have more coal in one or two states than all of the middle east has oil. If they can produce this anywhere close to $30 I hope these companies thrive. This is also cleaner fuel than what we currently make with oil, so we win all the way around.

 

The benefit of coal conversion is as you've stated, however the end result is the same. We finally have a more or less global concensus so it may be time to look a litttle further down the road....say 2 or 3 generations? I fly over the oilsands up here on a bi-weekly basis and it is UGLY!!! Think of all the death and suffering that oil causes us. We have the technology, the will and the need to make hydrogen the solution. Be a crime and a shame not to solve a problem instead of papering over it...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CobraCrazy Team Shelby Member

CobraCrazy

Posted
Posted

There is no energy shortage in this world. There is only a shortage of CHEAP energy.

 

Over half of the known reserves of US crude is locked up in areas that are 'off limits' because of the enviroweenies. May or may not ever get used, just drives the costs higher sooner. As the cost of energy goes up, more and more technologies become economical.

 

 

I'm an enviroweenie I guess, and I'm tempted to provide a term for those who are not, but I'll refrain from doing so. When you say 1/2 of our known reserves are in off limit areas, I think you've bought into some oil company propaganda BS. What ever small amount fossil fuel is there isn't worth sacrificing the wilderness to get it. I agree with Jetsolver--hydrogen is the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
68fastback Team Shelby Enthusiast

68fastback

Posted
Posted

I'm an enviroweenie I guess, and I'm tempted to provide a term for those who are not, but I'll refrain from doing so. When you say 1/2 of our known reserves are in off limit areas, I think you've bought into some oil company propaganda BS. What ever small amount fossil fuel is there isn't worth sacrificing the wilderness to get it. I agree with Jetsolver--hydrogen is the answer.

 

 

+2

 

All of the known oil reserves in the ANWR are less that 14 months of US oil consumption, and that's the high-side estimate (6 months is the low side). I'd rather save that for a dire emergency, because there likely will be one (or more).

 

I am all for hyrdogen too, but realize it's just a 'battery' -- a storage medium. It's not a fuel because you have to put the energy into it in advance (like a battery). The energy to molecularly rip water apart is higher than the energy obtained when a PEM manages it's electron-liberating return to water. So the process is substantially 'lossy' over and above the cost of the energy source. The entire process is about 30-50% less energy efficient than finding, drilling, refinfing, distributing, combusting gasoline. Not defending gas, but it is what it is. I have no problem with that, so long as the energy source to make the hydrogen doesn't polute more than burning gas which it surely would given where electricity comes form. Today, 85% of the electricity produced in the US comes from high-sulfur western coal which includes substantial quantities of mercury. The coal-burning power plans of the mid-west have contaminated virtually all eastern lakes and reservoirs downwind of theri stacks (80% of the Adirondacks' 20,000 lakes are dead and NYC's reservoirs all have levels of mercury high enough to mandate not eating the fish more than 1 meal per month and not at all by pregnant women and young kids).

 

There are ways to burn coal much cleaner but it's expensive. However, such technology could put the US in a leadership position to export it as product since getting off oil will take a couple of generations. There's also solar (which though substantially more expensive than coal, is sustainable ...but the truly vast areas that would have to be populated with collectors (CA's oil usage would require blanketing about half of Nevada with solar cells) are in areas of the country that add signif expense (grid losses and infrastructure) to serve population centers of the east -- ditto wind ...but I think both can (and will) help, they're just not a total answer IMO. And there's nuclear, which has made amazing strides in terms of the control technology and safety (ironically a US company held all the patents -- Westinghouse -- that's why a German company bought them last year -- gone -- duh!) but you'll never hear about that on the nightly news because the 'greens' would be up in arms. But nuclear is by far the most cost-effective transitional technology (20-40 years) as we wean ourselves off oil and onto hydrogen (which requires a whole new production/distribution infrastructure. Which works out well since nuc plants have usefull lives of about 50 years.

 

I was considering putting a grid-interactive solar system on our house (NY state), but, even with strong incentives (state and feb cover about half the cost) and because the way net-metering works (met metering means when you gen more than you use the meter spins backward, and vice versa), you buy your 'underage' at retail but get paid for your 'overage' at wholesale (5-6-fold diff) so even with a large system it will cover only about 80% of a very efficient home (and much less if you have a/c, teenagers, or both ;-) Even with an efficient home, payback period is about 15-16 years in NY, but because of minimum billing, etc, you're still paying about 25% of what you were after the system if fully paid and amortized. Still, I like the idea and may do it next year and it does cap your electric expense somewhat. However, I'd rather install a Kohler or Ballard PEM fuel cell whole-house energy system if I lived in an area serviced by natural gas (rural here). Which leads to the other way to make hydrogen, but then we're still hooked on a fossil fuel, since natural gas comes off the top of oil fields.

 

So, IMO (and every scientific analysis I've seen), there's no realistic, clean, sustainable way to get to a hydrogen economy without a fairly lengthy energy-intensive (substantially more expensive) transition period without the use of nuclear. Since I consider myself to be a rational environmentalist (in contrast to what I call a 'blind' environmentalist or 'green-blind'), I'm willing to entertain most any transitional technology that's cost effective as long as it can lead to a sustainable approach in the future.

 

Speaking of transitional technologies, I really like Ford's approach with the Tri-flex to combust hydrogen. It's fairly efficient, tho not as efficient as a PEM fuel cell with electric motors, but is far cheaper than fuel cells for the near term (until PEM volumes displace about 30% of fossil fuel engines: 5-20 years at best) and has the added benefit of also using gas and E-gas at the same time -- a great cost-effective transitional technology IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alloy Dave Team Shelby Enthusiast

Alloy Dave

Posted
Posted

+2

 

All of the known oil reserves in the ANWR are less that 14 months of US oil consumption, and that's the high-side estimate (6 months is the low side). I'd rather save that for a dire emergency, because there likely will be one (or more).

 

I am all for hyrdogen too, but realize it's just a 'battery' -- a storage medium. It's not a fuel because you have to put the energy into it in advance (like a battery). The energy to molecularly rip water apart is higher than the energy obtained when a PEM manages it's electron-liberating return to water. So the process is substantially 'lossy' over and above the cost of the energy source. The entire process is about 30-50% less energy efficient than finding, drilling, refinfing, distributing, combusting gasoline. Not defending gas, but it is what it is. I have no problem with that, so long as the energy source to make the hydrogen doesn't polute more than burning gas which it surely would given where electricity comes form. Today, 85% of the electricity produced in the US comes from high-sulfur western coal which includes substantial quantities of mercury. The coal-burning power plans of the mid-west have contaminated virtually all eastern lakes and reservoirs downwind of theri stacks (80% of the Adirondacks' 20,000 lakes are dead and NYC's reservoirs all have levels of mercury high enough to mandate not eating the fish more than 1 meal per month and not at all by pregnant women and young kids).

 

There are ways to burn coal much cleaner but it's expensive. However, such technology could put the US in a leadership position to export it as product since getting off oil will take a couple of generations. There's also solar (which though substantially more expensive than coal, is sustainable ...but the truly vast areas that would have to be populated with collectors (CA's oil usage would require blanketing about half of Nevada with solar cells) are in areas of the country that add signif expense (grid losses and infrastructure) to serve population centers of the east -- ditto wind ...but I think both can (and will) help, they're just not a total answer IMO. And there's nuclear, which has made amazing strides in terms of the control technology and safety (ironically a US company held all the patents -- Westinghouse -- that's why a German company bought them last year -- gone -- duh!) but you'll never hear about that on the nightly news because the 'greens' would be up in arms. But nuclear is by far the most cost-effective transitional technology (20-40 years) as we wean ourselves off oil and onto hydrogen (which requires a whole new production/distribution infrastructure. Which works out well since nuc plants have usefull lives of about 50 years.

 

I was considering putting a grid-interactive solar system on our house (NY state), but, even with strong incentives (state and feb cover about half the cost) and because the way net-metering works (met metering means when you gen more than you use the meter spins backward, and vice versa), you buy your 'underage' at retail but get paid for your 'overage' at wholesale (5-6-fold diff) so even with a large system it will cover only about 80% of a very efficient home (and much less if you have a/c, teenagers, or both ;-) Even with an efficient home, payback period is about 15-16 years in NY, but because of minimum billing, etc, you're still paying about 25% of what you were after the system if fully paid and amortized. Still, I like the idea and may do it next year and it does cap your electric expense somewhat. However, I'd rather install a Kohler or Ballard PEM fuel cell whole-house energy system if I lived in an area serviced by natural gas (rural here). Which leads to the other way to make hydrogen, but then we're still hooked on a fossil fuel, since natural gas comes off the top of oil fields.

 

So, IMO (and every scientific analysis I've seen), there's no realistic, clean, sustainable way to get to a hydrogen economy without a fairly lengthy energy-intensive (substantially more expensive) transition period without the use of nuclear. Since I consider myself to be a rational environmentalist (in contrast to what I call a 'blind' environmentalist or 'green-blind'), I'm willing to entertain most any transitional technology that's cost effective as long as it can lead to a sustainable approach in the future.

 

Speaking of transitional technologies, I really like Ford's approach with the Tri-flex to combust hydrogen. It's fairly efficient, tho not as efficient as a PEM fuel cell with electric motors, but is far cheaper than fuel cells for the near term (until PEM volumes displace about 30% of fossil fuel engines: 5-20 years at best) and has the added benefit of also using gas and E-gas at the same time -- a great cost-effective transitional technology IMO.

 

Holy science fair Batman!!!!

 

Heck, I studied Chemical Engineering for 2 years, and I have difficulty following all of this. At least I understand the principle of conservation of energy....energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only converted from one form to another. Many people miss the point you make about the emissions caused by electricity creation used as an enabler for water atom splitting (to make Hydrogen). The proponents only talk about how you burn Hydrogen, and the only byproduct is water. Uh...hello...that's a very narrow view of the process...you have to count the emissions from creating the electricity. As we use fuel, Earth-wide entropy increases....hopefully we can at least slow the entropy growth.

 

That said, I still think we should skip this hybrid battery stuff and pour tons of money into Hydrogen. We'd suffer in the short term, but prosper when Hydrogen arrives...we'd get it sooner by incentivizing it.

 

IMHO.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...
...