Posted on 05/16/2009 4:43:15 AM PDT by jay1949
The corn ethanol scam is back and if you are driving an older-model vehicle, you should prepare for the worst. An ethanol lobbying group has petitioned the EPA to raise the ethanol content of gasoline to 15 per cent - - which will reduce fuel mileage and may damage older vehicles.
(Excerpt) Read more at news-political.com ...
This sucks.....I have finally figured out what’s been tripping the 02 sensors on my Honda.....it’s the ethanol in gas...I’d been alternating between two or three gas stations for months. and I’d get intermittent trips on the sensors (check engine light) every couple of weeks for a few days, reset it and then unknowingly filling up somewhere else, the problem goes away for a week or so....turned out that the gas I bought from Quik Trip was the culprit....it’s the only gas I know that does this now. They must be right up to the limit on the 10% ethanol thing....the gas I use now at BP doesn’t trip the sensors.
I bought a new ‘95 Nissan Maxima and within 20k miles it would idle like a 1 cylinder John Deere at stop lights. Diagnosis- 2 bad fuel injectors. $400. Less than 10k later the rest of the injectors went bad-$650. I was told by the Nissan-trained mechanic that the ethanol eroded the injectors. I don’t know if this was a Nissan only problem, but I stopped using 10% ethanol and have gone another 75k+ without a problem.
What’s the “energy signiture” caused by endless tune-ups and people being forced to buy newer cars? Ethanol cost more energy to produce than it gives back. What’s next - shall we take a thousand dollars worth of gold, subsidize it, and put it in our gas tanks for $2.00 a gallon?
Ethanol cost more energy to produce than it gives back. What's next - shall we take a thousand dollars worth of gold, subsidize it, and put it in our gas tanks for $2.00 a gallon?
The oil ransom we're paying to many of the world's worst people doesn't finance all the problems of the world, but it does finance a highly disproportionate share. So how can we cut them off, and is it worth the price?
In the long run, the successor to oil may be electric cars or hydrogen fuel cells (although Team Zero is scuttling the federal hydrogen research effort for insanely short-sighted reasons). Unfortunately, however, those options seem to be decades away. Biofuels are available now.
Next two questions: can biofuels be produced in sufficient quantity to make a significant difference, and can this be done at an affordable cost?
The answer to the first question is clearly yes. Corn ethanol can get us out to about E10 nationally while still meeting our traditional food, feed, and export commitment. If U.S. average corn yields double over the next 20 years, as many credible people expect (due to better genetics), corn's share of the fuels market could go much higher than that. But the real wildcards are cellulosic ethanol and third generation feedstocks, which will multiply the potential feedstock base several times over. Give the field researchers time to survey the biosphere for energy feedstocks and the geneticists time to optimize plants for energy yield, and the upside potential is very large. Can't put a number on it now, but as opposed to paying the oil ransom to bad people, it's an option we should explore.
Can all this be done affordably? Good question, but probably yes. Corn ethanol took off earlier this decade when the price of oil rose past $35-40 a barrel. As oil climbed towards $150, ethanol turned into a gold rush. The collapse of oil prices has let some of the air out of the balloon, but oil prices will recover as the global recession comes to an end. I don't know where oil will be 5 or 10 years from now, but I am confident that corn ethanol will have a healthy market niche as a fuel additive and extender. Beyond that, the questions are (1) the price for cellulosic ethanol and (2) third generation feedstocks. I tend to be optimistic on both (1) and (2). Your mileage may differ. But if the goal is to sink OPEC, this is the best bet on the table.
Yes, we should drill in ANWR and drill off the coasts. Yes, we should use tar sands and oil shales. Oil has a long future as a blending agent with ethanol. But the sooner we stop paying OPEC, the better. I'm willing to pay for that.
P.S. There are a couple of idle confusions in the linked article. One of them is the engine compatibility issue. Yes, there will be a transition issue as we move to higher ethanol blends. As problems go, however, this is trivial.
The added cost of fitting an automobile engine for ethanol fuels is commonly reported as about $100, and I would guess it will be substantially less than that, perhaps zero, when flex-fuel engines become standard and the ethanol-compatible components are produced in mass quantities. This is essentially just a matter of using different plastics here and there.
People with older cars will want to be careful about which pump they use until they get their next car. Same for your LawnBoy and the outboard motor on your bass boat. That's a small price to pay for breaking OPEC.
I don't know what the standards were in '95 when you bought your Nissan, but every new car sold in the U.S. today is warrantied to E10. I like the idea of requiring all new engines to be flex-fuel, which would put this problem to bed for good over the next replacement cycle of the nation's car fleet.
Increased use of the corn-based fuel may mean the government pays more for food stamps and other assistance programs, the Congressional Budget Office says.
April 10, 2009 Washington -- The increased use of ethanol could cost the government up to $900 million for food stamps and child nutrition programs, a congressional report says. *(HAS ANYONE SEEN THIS REPORT?)
Higher use of the corn-based fuel additive accounted for about 10% to 15% of the rise in food prices from April 2007 to April 2008, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. That translates into higher costs for food programs for the needy.
The CBO said other factors, such as skyrocketing energy costs, had an even greater effect than ethanol on food prices during that period.
Economists at the agency estimate that higher food prices will increase costs for food programs overall to about $5.3 billion in the current budget year.
Ethanol's effect on future food prices is uncertain, the report says, because an increased supply of corn would have the potential to lower food prices. *(LOL..FAT CHANCE..)
Roughly one quarter of corn grown in the United States is used to produce ethanol, and overall consumption of ethanol in the country hit a record high last year, exceeding 9 billion gallons, according to the CBO. Nearly 3 billion bushels of corn were used to produce ethanol in the United States last year -- an increase of almost a billion bushels over 2007.
The demand for ethanol was one factor that increased corn prices, leading to higher animal feed and ingredient costs for farmers, ranchers and food manufacturers.
Some of that cost is eventually passed onto consumers, since corn is used in so many food products.
Several of those affected groups have banded together to oppose tax breaks and federal mandates for the fuel. They said Thursday that the report showed the unintended consequences of ethanol.
"As startling as these figures are, they do not even tell the story of the toll higher food prices have taken on working families, nor the impact higher feed prices have had on farmers in animal agriculture who have seen staggering losses and job cuts and liquidation of livestock herds," the Grocery Manufacturers Assn., American Meat Institute, National Turkey Federation and National Council of Chain Restaurants said in a statement.
Supporters of ethanol disagreed, saying the report was good news.
sw
There is one fact that causes me to wonder..... why is there not bootleg ethanol ie Everclear present in the black market?
Given the massive production it seem to me impossible that some is not being surreptitiously drained off for drinking.
Around here there is no fuel available that is ethanol free.
I kind of worry about car warranties now that they are backed by the government.
No it doesn't.
The anti-ethanol lobby continues to seize on the Pimental study which has been refuted innumerable times by every other researcher on the subject. Ethanol has a positive energy balance and this continues to grow as production processes are improved and as the energy yield of feedstocks increases.
Most of the energy used in producing ethanol comes from the sun. That's free, so it doesn't count.
Another big share comes from the energy content of natural gas used as feedstock for fertilizers. Improved genetics are reducing the intensity of fertilizer use (and on a related point, we have plenty of natural gas if the enviros would let us produce it).
Yet another factor is the energy used in irrigation. One of Pimental's errors over the years has been to dramatically overstate the amount of irrigation in U.S. corn production. Most U.S. corn is not irrigated.
There is a wealth of information on the debated points online. Just be sure to read both sides.
That said ... the net energy balance issue is a red herring. From an "energy balance" perspective, electricty is massively inefficient -- what's the figure: on average only 12% (give me some slack here; I'm not going looking for it right now) of the energy contained in coal is ultimately consumed as electic current when you turn on your lights. There are massive energy losses at every stage.
We use electricity nonetheless because it is wonderfully adaptable to our purposes, and because we can afford it. Same with ethanol. Until we transition to electric or hydrogen fuel cell cars, we need a liquid fuel to put in our tanks. We will pay what we have to pay to produce it.
But we're not doing those things, so we remain dependent on OPEC and corn ethanol will not take up the slack. I don't mind paying a little more for domestic fuel, but corn ethanol doesn't save petroleum - - we still use about the same amount of gasoline as before, and older vehicles use more.
P.S. There are a couple of idle confusions in the linked article. One of them is the engine compatibility issue. Yes, there will be a transition issue as we move to higher ethanol blends. As problems go, however, this is trivial. The added cost of fitting an automobile engine for ethanol fuels is commonly reported as about $100, and I would guess it will be substantially less than that, perhaps zero, when flex-fuel engines become standard and the ethanol-compatible components are produced in mass quantities. This is essentially just a matter of using different plastics here and there.
For one thing, the cost of repairing and/or retrofitting older vehicles tends to be MUCH higher than $100 each. For another, there are at least 120,000,000 old vehicles which will be adversely affected - - that's a huge number, and the repair/retrofit cost at only a hundred bucks each will run $12 billion, and, again, $100 is too low. Flex fuel engines will be great . . . but we need 240,000,000 of them.
As usual, those of us who are thrifty, who keep our vehicles longer (avoiding the environment costs of building new ones), are being penalized by what amounts to yet another unfunded mandate.
People with older cars will want to be careful about which pump they use until they get their next car. Same for your LawnBoy and the outboard motor on your bass boat. That's a small price to pay for breaking OPEC.
Where I live we have no choice; it's 90-10 gasoline-ethanol, or nothing. I agree, we should have a choice; I should be able to buy 100% gasoline and 90-10 or 85-15 should be available for those with new vehicles. But that's not what is happening.
I live in the cornbelt and we have the choice. Ironic.
You have drunk the Kool ade and are delusional
all pieces in the final puzzle.
I doubt that we will retrofit many older vehicles. The likelier course is that we will run a dual fuel stream for 10-15 years until the fleet is replaced. This is a logistical problem for the industry, but it is manageable.
PING!!! to #7
Thought this post might interest you.
My sedan burns the ethanol but it has gone from 31 mpg to 30 mpg since I was forced to switch to the ethanol blend. I drive about 1,200 miles per month, 14,400 per year. To go 14,400 miles at 30 mpg using the ethanol blend requires 480 gallons of 90-10 gas-ethanol brew. That’s equivalent to just over 468 gallons of gasoline, on a btu-equivalent basis. To go the same 14,400 miles at 31 mpg on gasoline requires slightly more than 464 gallons. Switching to the 90-10 ethanol blend uses slightly MORE gasoline!
One more time: many of us have no choice; it is ethanol blend, or nothing.
Biofuels aren't the only arrow in the quiver. Yes, we should drill for more oil and exploit oil shales and tar sands. But good luck on that.
Lurking in the background is the fact that radical environmentalists are pursuing a not-so-hidden agenda to attack mass consumption society, including private automobiles. With regard to transportation fuels, they will oppose anything that works. They oppose corn ethanol with only slightly less intensity than oil in all its forms (Pimental is a deep ecologist, which helps explain his carelessness with facts), and they will find reasons to oppose cellulosic ethanol when that begins to ramp up in the next decade. But that's a battle we have to fight.
That's because MTBE was phased out as an oxygenate for environmental reasons. My layman's understanding was that ethanol was always recognized by refiners as a technically superior oxygenate, but MTBE was cheaper due to transportation costs from the midwest to our major refining centers on the coasts.
(Be careful drinking that stuff; you know they put gas in it, doncha?)
No, actually it doesn't. I get tired of debunking this trash. A meta-study by Argonne National labs studied all the "peer reviewed" studies on the energy balance of corn ethanol. The vast majority of the studies concluded that the energy balance was positive. But nobody ever hears about the "positive" studies---all they hear about is the two or three "negative" studies that are FAR out of line with the rest. I "wonder" if there could be a connection to the fact that the Associated Press is owned, lock, stock, and tomahawk, by Saudi Arabia???
Ethanol in fuel may have problems for some vehicles, but a negative energy balance is NOT one of them.
And the fact is that any effect on food prices in the United States from the production of ethanol from corn is due to speculation---NOT supply and demand. Go to the Department of Agriculture and look up the size of the corn crops for the last few years, and at the same site, look up the amount used to make ethanol. The only "food costs for the needy" that are effected are giveaway programs for corn shipped to foreign countries as foreign aid. The amount of SURPLUS corn is reduced, so those giveaways shrink.
Actually, "Sphinx" is right on target with all his assertions. The only people that are delusional are the idiots spouting the anti-ethanol propaganda about "negative energy balances" and "higher food costs". Both of those are total and complete bullshit.
Yep - and we get to breath the fumes on our highways...
You must have lined up at the kool aid trough in DC if you think this ethanol dreaming is going to get us off the OPEC teat. Untold billions and billions have been spent in the past(starting with Carter) to achieve the same thing with no effect whatsoever.
The proven strategy is to:
1. Drill, drill, drill for oil and natural gas.
2. Build nukes as fast as we can.
3. Use coal in addition to continued research to clean it up.
4. Continue increasing efficiency of vehicles.
This corn, solar, wind, renewable movement with do nothing in the near future other than decimate this country.
Wow. Reads exactly like a line from "Atlas Shrugged."
Good strategy. Good priority list. It is what the Feds are pursuing, of course - - in reverse order from how you list them, and with no support for the bottom three.
The current mixture of 10% already costs my about 14% in mileage. Has from inception.
Total crap from the beginning.
I favor drilling in ANWR and off the coasts. I also favor utilizing oil shales and tar sands. But no serious analyst believes we can drill our way out of overwhelming import dependency. We need a new fuel stream. That would be biofuels.
Why not methanol. Isn’t it superior to ethanol as far as energy goes?
Everything depends on the price of oil. Things change. Just a few years ago, we would have thought $50 oil was disastrously high; today we are celebrating it as cheap. But today's oil prices reflect the impact of a global recession. When growth resumes, they will rise -- how high, none of us knows. Ethanol is a way of hedging our bets.
Actually, the BEST alcohol fuel is probably butanol, which has none of the disadvantages of either methanol OR ethanol.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Butanol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biobutanol
http://www.zimbio.com/Fossil+Fuel+Energy/articles/27/Butanol+Much+Better+Gas+Replacement+Ethanol
Bio fuels are nothing more than a passing fad once again. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that can approach the btu/gallon/dollar than petroleum fuel and we have decades of the stuff in the ground in this country.
The alternative fuel folks will spend, spend and spend more money trying to develop their pet projects. In the end it will be proven that it is too expensive as well as other costs not directly included. Without subsities the industry will never survive and there are so many ethanol plants filing bankruptcy now it would take a calculator to keep up with them.
It is just a shame, a damn shame that environmentalists and pet project fools have put this country into the disadvantage we are now at in relation to our energy policy and national security.
Russia now understands that to control the world they just need to control the energy supplies. They now virtually own Europe and they said they will go to war with us for the Arctic petroleum production. They have finally gotten a strong foothold in the Middle East and when that tinderbox lights off oil will be 250/barrel.
And what will we be doing? We will still be trying to burn our food in our cars, trying to convince ourselves we are doing the environment some good.
Those 18 wheelers won’t run so great on corn oil while hauling your food from distribution centers to your grocery store. As well, those railroad engines won’t run very well on it either, nor the ships.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.