Shell gas

[Mormegil]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(doyourealize @ Aug 18 2007, 06:30 AM) [snapback]498284[/snapback]</div>

I personally don't use Shell (or Exxon or Mobil or a few others) after reading a lot of information on their ethics and practices (look up the Ken Saro-wiwa execution in Nigeria). I think part of our responsibilities of liberating ourselves from foreign oil dependency is to keep large multi-nationals accountable for their actions.

[/b]

Heh, even though the boycotted ended years ago, I still don't like going to 76 Stations. The said boycott was against Unocal's business dealings with the Burmese military Junta and use of slave labor in building pipelines there. I'm glad there's finally some mainstream press covering the Burma/Myanmar situation.

To the original topic, I guess most people are in the know the major concern is the lower energy density of ethanol over pure gasoline. So that can be an issue.

I personally like driving a hybrid, in part to lessen our country's burden on foreign oil, and lessen my carbon footprint. The problem with ethanol, at least from corn is, it may very well use up more fossil fuel in the agriculture part of production, than you would use otherwise.

I'd be happier if we can move to Switchgrass ethanol or something along those lines.

[patsparks]

I go out of my way to get E10. I get 4.3L/100km driving normally. Even if ethanol had 30% less energy per litre than petrol it could only increase fuel consumption by 3% at most but reduces petrol consumption by at least 7%
E10 is good, repeat this over and over.
Australian ethanol is made from sugar which has a much lower carbon cost than corn ethanol.

[bwilson4web]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(patsparks @ Oct 12 2007, 03:58 AM) [snapback]524490[/snapback]</div>

. . .
Australian ethanol is made from sugar which has a much lower carbon cost than corn ethanol.
[/b]

I suspect you meant "lower carbon production cost." We also have sugar beets and it would be interesting to see the relative carbon production cost of each feed. No doubt, cane sugar leads but relative amounts would be useful information. Also, yeast conversion efficiencies since there are different sugars involved with each feed stock.

Bob Wilson

[patsparks]

That's what I mean't.
I just had a read about it and the product used to make ethanol is molasses which is a byproduct of cane sugar production. It is often used for stock feed. I wonder if replacing some petrol with molasses derived ethanol is resulting in lower emissions than putting it in a bovine so they pass wind more?

[JimboJones]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(patsparks @ Oct 12 2007, 04:58 AM) [snapback]524490[/snapback]</div>

I go out of my way to get E10. I get 4.3L/100km driving normally. Even if ethanol had 30% less energy per litre than petrol it could only increase fuel consumption by 3% at most but reduces petrol consumption by at least 7%
[/b]

How did you arrive at those figures?