It’s semi off topic, I suppose. I would love to see Gingrich, or Santorum (or Mickey Mouse) address the ethanol mandate and subsidy issue.
The math says I am using a good percent more gasoline to drive the same distance, plus the added corn alcohol.
Using more gas, plus more corn, seems to be a win only for certain industries, and OPEC.
Try this (actual mileage will vary with vehicle and driving conditions, but this has been observed):
1000 miles at 18 miles per gallon = 55.56 gallons of “gas with up to 10% ethanol added”
1000 miles at 22 miles per gallon = 45.45 gallons of pure gas
if the full 10% ethanol is added, example one requires 50 gallons of gasoline, plus 5 gallons of ethanol, to drive the same 1000 miles that 45.45 gallons of gasoline plus NO ethanol will take me.
In 20,000 miles (I drive a lot), that is an extra 90 gallons per year of gasoline, plus 100 gallons of ethanol, to go the same distance.
Our actual gas consumption has gone up thanks to mandate as much as to more driving on our part. But it is environmentally friendly, big oil gets to sell more, big agra gets to sell more, opec gets to sell more. I get to spend more and pay more for it due to increased demand (and put 90 more gallons’ worth of burnt petroleum pollutants into the air).
There are a lot of variables that are hard to control - driving conditions, maintenance conditions - but the 18% reduction reported above seems to be within the typical range, and no politician seems inclined to address the issue that stupid policies are driving up demand and prices, or say that we ought not only do away with the corn subsidy, but the requirement that it be added even unsubsidized (so to speak). So I wonder if they are influenced by big oil and big agra to ignore it, since these groups gain from over use.
Of course, I could be utterly wrong in how I am looking at this, but no one has shown me the error of my thinking yet (please do, if it is there). So it would be better if someone could come up with harder, more statistically valid numbers on actual mileage figures before making a case.
In spite of the good-natured rivalry between Texas and our neighbors to the north, Oklahoma, one of the things I enjoy when driving across the Red River are numerous signs like this at gas stations:
I think they have it right. 100% pure gasoline yields better mileage and doesn't damage the engine as does an ethanol mix.
Okay. Between your simplification, and nortex’s pic, I understand it... Pure gas is better and more efficient... and to be truthful, when Newt was in Iowa, I think he did say he supported subsidies, though at the time, I didn’t really know what that meant.
Try this (actual mileage will vary with vehicle and driving conditions, but this has been observed):
1000 miles at 18 miles per gallon = 55.56 gallons of “gas with up to 10% ethanol added”
1000 miles at 22 miles per gallon = 45.45 gallons of pure gas