Posted on 06/24/2005 2:18:04 PM PDT by mikemikemikecubed
A lot of times, trying to get something done here in Washington can get pretty frustrating. There's bitter partisanship, petty politics, and a general atmosphere that isn't always conducive to passing legislation that people actually care about.
But I'm happy to report that today wasn't one of those days.
Today, the Senate passed my proposal, which will be included in the transportation bill, that would make it easier for people to fill their cars with a cheaper alternative to gasoline.
Now, I know most of you are as tired as I am of pulling into a gas station and seeing that the prices are even higher than they were the last time you filled up. It's $2.19, then it's $2.24, then it's $2.35, and up and up. When will it stop? As long as we're dependent on oil from the Middle East, we don't know.
That's why we need to stop just talking about energy independence and actually do something about it.
If someone told you that you could fill your cars and trucks with fuel that's 50 cents cheaper than current gas prices, you'd jump at the chance. But what a lot of people don't know is that this option is already out there. It's called E-85, and it's a fuel made of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. It's cleaner than gasoline, it's cheaper, and most importantly, it reduces our dependence on oil from the Middle East. In fact, the Indianapolis 500 thought it was such a good alternative that pretty soon, their entire fleet will run on E-85.
Right now, there are millions of cars and trucks that can run on E-85. You might even have one yourself. They're known as "flexible fuel vehicles," and the auto industry is turning out hundreds of thousands of them every year.
Of course, the reason you're not seeing more cars run on E-85 is that we've got a severe shortage of E-85 fuel stations. While there are more than 180,000 gas stations all over America, only about 400 offer E-85.
This is where my proposal comes in. It's going to cost stations to install E-85 pumps, so we thought we'd give them a tax credit that would encourage them to do so. As more and more stations realize how popular this cheap alternative to gas is becoming, more will utilize this tax credit and install their own pumps.
If you're driving a carburated vehicle, you'll need to adjust the lean-rich mixture to compensate for the higher oxygen content of the ethanol. If you're the real macho sort and have a manual choke, you'll have no trouble if you leave the knob pulled just slightly.
Yes. But that is Brazil. This is the United States. And that is a significant difference.
The economic viability and net energy return for ethanol (and every other farmed fuel for that matter) is completely dependent on the source crop used to produce the ethanol. In the United States, we predominately make ethanol from corn. In Brazil, with their significantly warmer climate and milder seasonal variations, they make it from sugarcane. And sugarcane is a much more efficient and productive source crop to make ethanol from than corn is. The net energy balance for ethanol made from sugarcane is somewhere in the 2.5 region. For ethanol made from corn, it's around 1.25.
Unfortunately for the United States, we have large tracts of land suitable for corn growing, but not many areas suitable for sugarcane. The states of Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, and Ohio make up our vast and productive Corn Belt, which is very suitable for producing tasty steaks. But for ethanol production, it would be better for us if we had a Sugar Belt.
We DO have a "Sugar Belt". Two, in fact. One in the hot steamy marshlands of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, with a detached part in Hawaii, and another across the northern tier of states, where sugar beets are grown, Minnesota, North and South Dakota, and Montana.
Because it is not economically feasible to grow these crops in this country any more (because of overseas production driving down prices), production in these areas has fallen sharply in recent years.
In calculating the energy efficieny of corn derived ethanol, how much of the energy input is attributed to the products such as gluten meal or DDG's?
Right you are, doc! This point is so often overlooked in these discussions. Never have figured out why.
Ah, E85, the bane of my existence. Poorer gas mileage, reduced performance, modifications that probably affect resale...you know, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Thank heaven I don't own the cars the company was conned into buying!
see#32 and get over it.
You sound as if once corn is used for ethanol, there's nothing else left...which is bovine scat - which is literally true if you use one of the other products in producing ethanol to feed cattle...
PS:
http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/PDF/03_28_05ArgonneNatlLabEthanolStudy.pdf
Ethanol generates 35% more energy than it takes to produce, according to a recent study by Argonne National Laboratory conducted by Michael Wang. The finding goes against a belief among many that ethanol production uses more energy than it creates.
Perhaps you had a different meaning in mind, but ethanol has a higher volumetric efficiency (or higher latent heat of evaporation) than gasoline, which is why it makes such a much better racing fuel.
No.
If the chains are C-16 to C-18, will they crack to yield octanes? Can we afford it?
Corn is not a universal solution, but burning my granny's underdrawers is preferable to dependency on the savages in the Middle East. I don't understand why people are so quick to attack ethanol as an alternative fuel. It almost seems like they're content to suckle at some Arab's teat for the rest of their lives.
Or some other foreign teat...Once again - you are so correct...
The answer may not be what you expect.
A gallon of ethanol will yield about 30% less mileage than a gallon of gasoline; however, a gallon of ethanol is still more energy efficient.
A gallon of ethanol will yeild 1.35 to 1.67 times the energy consumed in producing it. A gallon of gasoline yields only .805 times the energy consumed in producing it.
Seems to me that if the taxes were taken off of gasoline, in many cases gasoline would fall by $1.00/gal or more.
Isn't racing gasoline a mixture of fuel?
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.