Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ethanol, A Terrible Fuel Alternative
The Bulletin ^ | 11/26/2008 | Paul M. Weyrich

Posted on 11/26/2008 6:37:38 AM PST by IbJensen

The use of ethanol and other renewable fuels supposedly helps gasoline burn cleaner creating less pollution. It also reduces America's reliance upon foreign oil.

Last Monday the Environmental Protection Agency increased the amount of renewable automobile fuels required to be sold in the United States next year from 7.8 percent to 10.2 percent of the 138.5 billion gallons of gasoline projected to be consumed. This mandate mainly directs that higher levels of ethanol be mixed with gasoline.

The higher standard is required by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, a law that requires the increased use of renewable fuels each year in order to reach an annual use of 36 billion gallons by 2022. While burning cleaner gas is an admirable goal, the federal government's ethanol mandate has ensured that the American corn industry has consumers and businesses in a stranglehold without producing quantifiable benefits. In fact, some scientists now argue that there are few, if any, environmental benefits to using ethanol.

According to an April Hudson Institute report, "The Case for Ending Ethanol Subsidies," by Diana Furchtgott-Roth, "converting undeveloped land to cropland - in order to grow more corn and facilitate bio-fuel production - releases a massive amount of carbon dioxide. Only if bio-fuels are made from waste products or grown on abandoned agricultural lands does the production process actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

In addition, since ethanol separates from gasoline in the presence of water, the blends of ethanol and gasoline that we put in our cars cannot be transported through traditional petroleum pipelines. Instead, ethanol is shipped by rail, at greater cost than gasoline and mixed with gasoline near the point of distribution. That is why the 10 percent ethanol-gasoline blends are not available all over the country, only in major metropolitan areas.

Meanwhile American taxpayers subsidize the ethanol industry with $3 billion every year. These subsidies are given to corn farmers and ethanol producers no matter what the price of corn is on the market. These are extremely high because of the EPA requirement for biofuel usage. So many corn farmers have become wealthy from this two-tier system of subsidies and federal environmental mandates which inflate the price of corn on the open market.

Food prices around the world have risen dramatically in the last few years because of this system. Corn, beef, milk, butter, tortillas, gasoline and many other basic food commodities have become more expensive than ever because of the artificial government intervention in the market. This increase in food prices has hurt the world's poor more than anyone else but even middle-income American consumers have felt the pinch at the pump and the grocery store.

And then there is the question of energy independence, which is both an economic and a national security issue. Relying upon bio-fuels, predominantly ethanol, to make ourselves independent of foreign oil is a false hope. It has far less energy density than traditional gasoline, meaning nearly twice as much ethanol is required to equal the energy output of gasoline. We simply cannot convert enough of the land required to make ethanol into cornfields. There isn't enough land in America to do so.

Instead of releasing new federal mandates for ethanol consumption, Congress and EPA ought to overturn our artificial dependence on bio-fuels and begin building clean nuclear-energy power and coal plants, drilling for oil and natural gas in Alaska and off our coasts, and building more traditional petroleum refineries. Then we seriously could discuss the possibility of energy independence while working to clean up air pollution.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: alternativefuel; biofuels; burningfood; energy; environment; enviroprofiteering; ethanol; weyrich
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-164 next last
To: Kitanis

why, do you have a problem using starch for ethanol production for some reason?

Learn how ethanol is made, from what it’s made before you form an opinion. Passing on BS generated by purely ignorant people isn’t very becoming.


41 posted on 11/26/2008 8:09:53 AM PST by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
Also consider using the Bergius process of reacting hydrogen with coal under high pressure in coal beds too deep to mine for coal. Hydrogen down a mile, and then gasoline up.
42 posted on 11/26/2008 8:12:35 AM PST by dr huer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Thermalseeker
All nonsense. Ethanol is a fine fuel, does not "attract" moisture and rupture fuel lines' etc.

What causes that is bad fuel , when the petroleum based fuel already has water in it. When it's blended with ethanol, it causes that water to precipitate out of the fuel. So if anything, ethanol is a good- "bad gasoline" detector. If the gasoline is good when ethanol is blended, say e10, any water entering the fuel tank will be ABSORBED by the ethanol, PREVENTING fuel line freeze up. That's why you DON'T need gas line antifreeze when using e10. Plus you get an octane boost from e10, giving you BETTER gasoline performance.

HOWEVER, I wouldn't recommend burning e85 unless the engine has been extensively modified to burn alcohol properly, taking advantage of it's properties. otherwise, you will get poor efficiency and miss out on a tremendous power increase. E10-25 is perfectly fine for regular gas cars however.

Pure ethanol itself can absorb 60% it's volume of water and STILL burn, without water precipitating out.

In fact you drink ethanol blended with water in even higher ratio's than that.
have you EVER seen water precipitate out of your whiskey?

43 posted on 11/26/2008 8:22:07 AM PST by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Lion Den Dan

Food grains are not used in ethanol production”

There is a direct relationship between corn production for ethanol and our food.
There is less corn to feed to beef cattle, pigs, and chickens.
That affects us in the price of meat and eggs.
The cost of milk has gone waaaay up to the dairy farmer because less acreage is being devoted to HAY production, as the fields are being used for ethanol corn production.

When all is said and done, there is still the pesky little problem of the amount of BTU’s that ethanol produces. It is approximately 2/3 of the amount of BTU’s the same amount of gasoline produces.
Time to take the BS out of this issue and get back to pure science.


44 posted on 11/26/2008 8:28:21 AM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

I lose about 5-6 mpg in my hybrid every time ‘

I used to live in No Calif, where there is mandatory “winter blend” with 10% ethanol.
I lost at least 1-% mileage with that crap.


45 posted on 11/26/2008 8:30:22 AM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: smithandwesson76subgun
"E-85 is more expensive than regular in my hometown. Poor fuel mileage, gov. subsidies and costs more to boot. Isn’t that nice."

Shouldn't be. Ethanol sells at 1.67 a gallon. It only costs more when blended with gasoline, because the gasoline costs more. As for the crappy gas mileage, of course! Tune the car to burn ethanol. It won't run very good tuned to burn gas. Better yet take the engine to the speed shop and have them increase the compression ratio to about 17:1 instead of the 8.5:1 it currently is. Have them reprogram the advance curve to fit alcohol burning properties, as well as generally advancing the initial timing setting 20 degrees more advanced.

Then you'll not only get GREAT gas mileage, you'll be able to lay down some decent rubber too!.

But burning e85 in a gas engine is just plain waste full. No more than e25, which most electronic ignition systems can detect and compensate somewhat for. E10 is best for a regular gas engine.

For high alcohol content blends like E85, you simply MUST have a higher compression engine to get good value and power. If you had that, you would NEVER burn regular gas again.

46 posted on 11/26/2008 8:33:36 AM PST by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Ethanol attacks elastomeric sealing devices more aggressively than does carbon-based fuel. This causes premature failure and ultimately the expensive engine overhauls.
The nanny-ninny liberal pansies know best for us.”

Remember when the Liberals changed the formula for deisel?

The change caused the fuel to eat up all the o-rins, seals, in the deisel engines. Large trucks/semi’s were stalled on roads all over the country.

Many of those trucks were owner/operators. Those repair costs came out of their pockets. Even the costs of repairs that the big outfits paid for were passed on to the consumers.

There is hardly a single action that the Feds and the Liberals dream up that does NOT have a negative impact somewhere.

And I have some real news for those of you who are total city slickers:

Milk doesn’t just come from SAFEWAY!!!!!


47 posted on 11/26/2008 8:34:31 AM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles
Nonsense. They haven't used natural rubber in engine parts and fuel systems since the 60's now.

You are repeating very OLD news. Those warning exist only for those who still might have an old vehicle with natural rubber fuel hoses and gaskets.

Heck, even my old 1935 Minneapolis Moline uses cork because it was MADE to run on alcohol.

48 posted on 11/26/2008 8:40:47 AM PST by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles

And BTW, the same warning exists when using modern fuels with MTBU additive. It attacks rubber as well. MTBU was added in place of lead.


49 posted on 11/26/2008 8:42:26 AM PST by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
All my neighbors that raise beef grind their own feed from the same dent corn that they haul to the ethanol plants. The beef and hogs are eating the whole thing.

Hay and alfalfa prices are through the roof because those fields have been tilled up to plant more corn and soybeans.

Without a cheap supply of hay for winter feed the beef become damn expensive to feed in the winter.

I raised hogs for years and could feed out a 250# hog for around $65 in feed. It now costs more than double that for the same feed from the same grain mill in just the last 2 years.

If that leftover slop was such great feed the meat prices should be down because the corn production has gone way up.

50 posted on 11/26/2008 8:45:27 AM PST by Beagle8U (FreeRepublic -- One stop shopping ....... Its the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles
"This causes premature failure and ultimately the expensive engine overhauls."

And just what 'expensive overhauls' might those be? replacing a fuel line? ($5) A carb kit? ($25)

You certainly won't blow an engine if your carb starts leaking fuel.

51 posted on 11/26/2008 8:47:31 AM PST by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
"Hay and alfalfa prices are through the roof because those fields have been tilled up to plant more corn and soybeans."

BS Alfalfa don't grow where corn grows, and corn don't grow where alfalfa grows.

Hay and alfalfa prices are through the roof because:
A) the price of fuel tripled,
B) the price of fertilizer tripled

NOT because commodity prices for a TON of feed corn went up $3/ton

52 posted on 11/26/2008 8:52:20 AM PST by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Larry381
"Don’t know how true that is but I have seen it written several times."

Well, be sure to repeat it several times more before you try to find out.

53 posted on 11/26/2008 8:52:35 AM PST by JustaDumbBlonde (America: Home of The Free Because of The Brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles
Remember when the Liberals changed the formula for deisel?

Yes. They are so smart.

Now we have the new, reformulation edict of low sulphur content. It drives the cost up $1.00 over the cost of regular (unleaded) gasoline.

I know because I have two diesel autos.

These pansies we've elected to rule and ruin our lives are absolutely functionally illiterate.

54 posted on 11/26/2008 8:54:35 AM PST by IbJensen (Obombazombies have given America to the Communists!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Lion Den Dan
"Food grains are not used in ethanol production, only seed quality grains."

And your source for that statement would be what? Can you define a 'seed quality' grain? Thanks for your time.

55 posted on 11/26/2008 8:55:06 AM PST by JustaDumbBlonde (America: Home of The Free Because of The Brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
Oh, and most beef farmers don't feed their cattle corn, just dairy farmers do, and they grow their own, so commodity, nor ethanol demand has NO effect on them.

I've never seen a farmer BUY all his feed. They certainly wouldn't be a farmer for very long.

Same goes for hogs. they GRW their own feeds stuff, around these parts it's barley.

never try BS a farm boy.

56 posted on 11/26/2008 8:55:39 AM PST by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

“BS Alfalfa don’t grow where corn grows, and corn don’t grow where alfalfa grows.”

I’m done with this thread. Its obvious that you don’t know your a$$ from a grape on this subject!


57 posted on 11/26/2008 8:55:46 AM PST by Beagle8U (FreeRepublic -- One stop shopping ....... Its the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
"Many researchers have found that the production of ethanol consumes more energy than it yields."

There are arguments on both sides of that statement, dependent on which side of the ethanol/no ethanol lobby one sits.

Actually, corn based ethanol uses much more energy to produce than ethanol derived from switchgrass and other materials.

58 posted on 11/26/2008 9:00:06 AM PST by JustaDumbBlonde (America: Home of The Free Because of The Brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: JustaDumbBlonde
I think he meant feed corn, not seed.
as for the other question
Try look up "how ethanol is made"?

Oh, and also look up how much of the corn grown in America is used for human consumption (less than 1%) and even much of that goes unsold and ends up in landfills some years.

The USA is a food IMPORTER not a food exporter. (we import 76% of our food needs) Much of which gets tossed out.

59 posted on 11/26/2008 9:01:41 AM PST by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: JustaDumbBlonde
More nonsense.

The ratio is about 10:1. You get ten times the energy value in ethanol as was used to produce the energy.

It's about the same for oil pumped out of the ground, except much less disastrous on the environment.

Again,

http://www.ethanolproducer.com/

60 posted on 11/26/2008 9:05:35 AM PST by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-164 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson