Archives

Some see a drop of over 28% using E10! (http://www.sunjournal.com/story/266962-3/Business/Ethanol_reduces_mileage/)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/500/cmpg_ethanol.JPGGail Kinsey Hill - Newhouse News Service - May 24, 2008

Maybe with enough attention, ethanol will be stopped in its tracks and identified as the scam it truly is. I had to use this picture though. :) - Ed.

PORTLAND, Ore. - When ethanol began flowing into Oregon fuel tanks early this year, its costly little secret was scarcely mentioned: It packs one-third less explosive energy than gasoline and so reduces vehicle mileage on the road.

Oregon requires a 10 percent blend with gasoline, known as E10, which cuts mileage by 3 percent, according to official estimates. That costs you an additional $73 a year at the fuel pump, based on today's prices for regular gasoline.

But many Oregonians don't believe the 3 percent figure and maintain the drop is 10 percent or more, raising out-of-pocket costs much higher. It's enough to throw into question the real cost of cleaner air from ethanol use and reduced dependence on fossil fuels.

When Oregon lawmakers enthusiastically passed the alternative fuels bill in 2007, they barely mentioned ethanol's lower energy content. Instead, they emphasized E10's benefits: cleaner air and a healthier economy.

Now, record-high gas prices have thrown the mileage gap into sharp relief. Tapped-out consumers are scrutinizing every penny they have to shell out at the pump and track any discernable upticks. Drivers are finding that their mileage has dropped far more than 3 percent.

"It's just not fair to anyone who drives a car," said Ron Spuhler, a retiree who lives in Gresham, Ore., and now gets 21.5 miles per gallon in his 1999 Buick instead of the previous ethanol-free readings of 24 mpg.

That's a drop of 10 percent and an extra $7 every time he fills the tank.

Spuhler, like so many Oregonians, is unimpressed with the government's account.

He insists the truth comes out when the rubber meets the road. Decades as a truck driver taught him the ups and downs of gas mileage, he said.

Besides, he said, his Buick has a computerized mileage read-out and "it doesn't lie."

For years, gas stations in the greater Portland area have pumped E10 in the winter months to meet federal clean air requirements. "I noticed it every time," Spuhler said.

Spuhler said he has complained to state and federal officials but "it's like talking to a brick wall."




James Bong, who lives in Milwaukie, Ore., and drives a 1994 Ford pickup to work in Oregon City, has channeled his frustration into trips across the Columbia River into Washington state, where he fills up on ethanol-free gasoline.

Sherman Harris owns the 76 station in Vancouver, Wash., that Bong visits. He said an "amazing number" of Oregon drivers seek him out.

"They say they're noticing a huge difference," Harris said of the Oregon customers. "If they're driving from Oregon, across the bridge, they should know what they're talking about."

Washington stations must pump at least E2 - a blend of 2 percent ethanol - by Dec. 1 of this year, with increases to E10 if certain conditions are met. Many already have made the switch.

Harris' station is one of the few that still uses no ethanol at all.

Bong said his truck gets 13.9 miles per gallon with Harris' gas but just 10 mpg with E10. That's a wallet-pounding difference of 28 percent.

"I'll do anything to shave a cost," he said.

Bong rejects officials' arguments that poor maintenance or inconsistent driving behavior is to blame. He said he takes good care of both his vehicles - he also owns a four-wheel-drive pickup - and has compared mileage over like terrain.

"They can say what they want, but those of us who use cars and observe what's going on, we notice a big difference," Bong said… http://www.sunjournal.com/story/266962-3/Business/Ethanol_reduces_mileage/

Bong, James Bong. Hehe, I'd be saying that all the time if that was my name.

I'm gonna be taking a trip to Houston in June, it'll be interesting to see how gassing up with the 10%ish ethanol there will affect the mileage on the return trip. However, I'm thinking the change in elevation from there back to here is also going to skew my numbers.

I wouldn't have such a problem with E10 if it was only a 2 to 3% hit, but anything higher than that is just no good.

Ahh... ethanol sounds so good in theory. Grow the gas here instead of drilling it out of the earth in the evil bungholes of the world. Less pollution as well, so that also sounds good. But I guess it doesn't work like that at all.

You know I've been wondering to myself lately, what would be better for the USA, to get us off of foreign oil, or to get us off of imported goods from China and the like? Maybe we can't mine all of the raw materials we need, but it seems like we could process them and make our own goods at home, seems that all those jobs created would be great for our economy. If we accomplished one of those two things I'd think it would make things a lot better here, but anyways this is going offtopic, sorry guys.

Is this really the kind of thing we want on the front page? We just had a thread about how the worst of the ethanol bashing is impossible and now its showing up on the front page?

I'll be honest. When I joined, CleanMPG was very positive and accepting even with my Dakota but lately its started being more outlandish and negative.

IMO, this sort of thing not only hurts the community but also our image with the public.

my $.02

Is this really the kind of thing we want on the front page? We just had a thread about how the worst of the ethanol bashing is impossible and now its showing up on the front page?

I'll be honest. When I joined, CleanMPG was very positive and accepting even with my Dakota but lately its started being more outlandish and negative.

IMO, this sort of thing not only hurts the community but also our image with the public.

my $.02

I see what you mean, but isn't the whole point about the news is to report the truth however controversial or unpopular it may be?

And as to your Dakota, I can't speak for everyone but I'm accepting and positive towards people and their vehicles no matter what they drive.

I have a particular bone to pick with ethanol because 1) it's in EVERY gas station in Northern Kentucky, as well as RFG so it's a double whammy and 2) neither Kentucky, Ohio, nor Indiana have laws that let us know what we're really putting in our tanks! I've seen what happens with mileage and I can tell you with yet another E10 tank in my car I'm losing 10 possibly 15% of my FE. :(

Why does fuel with 3% less energy cut mileage by 10% or more? I know it's possible but really don't understand how ethanol has such a drastic impact on mileage.

Why does fuel with 3% less energy cut mileage by 10% or more? I know it's possible but really don't understand how ethanol has such a drastic impact on mileage.

I'm no mechanic but from my understanding, the oxenygation in the fuel gets to the O2 sensor, which then tells the engine to squirt more fuel into the chamber to burn up the oxygen. It would be a vicious cycle, though. I'm not 100% on that though (again, not a mechanic.)

I do know one thing though: the mileage logs don't lie.

Then again it is very possible that some stations are selling ethanol at a much higher percentage than 10 :angry:


Here's the last three fillups of E10 RFG, from the Shell on Dixie Highway in Erlanger:

50.221 MPG , 364.2 miles, 7.252 gallons
49.926 MPG , 271.6 miles, 5.44 gallons
48.743 MPG , 306.3 miles, 6.284 gallons

Average of 49.65 MPG over 942.1 miles, 18.976 gallons.


And for the three fill ups of straight gas (I did four but did not count the first one because I suspected underfill).

58.484 MPG , 476.7 miles, 8.151 gallons
56.813 MPG , 501.6 miles, 8.829 gallons
56.891 MPG , 480.1 miles, 8.439 gallons

Average of 57.37 MPG over 1458.4 miles, 25.419 gallons.


This is straight gas vs. E10 RFG. I'm going to add three tanks of E10 soon (<10 days) to this, to see the mileage drop. My Sg is already reporting 50.6 after half a tank so I'm already looking at ~15% drop. :(

I have to respectfully ask anyone who believes this is impossible please hold judgment until after I get three tanks of E10 in my car to verify this data.

Great sign!

I for one wouldn't feel so bad about he ethanol issue if (BIG IF!):

We would start making most, if not all cars as efficient as the available technologies. Why do we seem to choose to devote our resources to technologies that will help us go to war and protect (take?) other countries fossil fuels, rather than making technology available that will reduce our dependence on those countries. We can decide to put a man on the moon and make it happen in less than ten years, but we can't make a fleet of vehicles that averages 40+ mpg? We can go from "not even bag phones yet" to a cell phone in every man, woman, and child's pocket, many of them with a pc on board in less than 10 years. I just watched some friends put a non military vehicle into orbit not so long ago, and they didn't take 10 years to do it. I heard somewhere we have some pretty educated and creative engineers that may be capable of developing affordable fuel efficient cars. Maybe we should let them?

Why does something designed to make the air cleaner make me feel so dirty??? If we were making the strides we are capable of in making more efficient cars, I doubt that I would mind (more than a little) that we were using Ethanol to further (??) reduce emissions...

How much of a reduction in emissions does Ethanol give exactly us versus the increase in emissions because we have to burn more gas? Is Haliburton in the corn business too?

[/end sarcasm, I'm tired]

I'm confused, but thats not news...:eek: (<<== that's also not sarcasm ;))

Lamebums is on the right track with this.

Computer ECUs that burn straight gasoline are not equipped to take on any chemical mixture other than gasoline for proper burning.

When your car's computer is basing its fuel maps, Air/Fuel Ratio, and Injector durations on 10 parts per 10 Gasoline, reducing it to 9 parts per 10 Gasoline starts an avalanche of problems. When the ECU reads the sensors and finds that the target AFR does not match the fuel map position - which happens with E10 or 9/10 gas, it tends to compensate by running the injector & fuel pump durations longer compared to 10/10 gas. But, making the problem worse is the fact that the computer needs to pump more 9/10 gas to bring it up to the missing fuel volume for the AFR reading in the fuel maps.

So, as far as the computer is concerned, the injectors have to pump in 115% (or more) 9/10 gas to bring the AFR up to its necessary Fuel map reading.

I avoid E10 like the plague it is. Since I have to drive my vehicle for more than 60k miles per year (the nature of the business I run) and I need to squeeze every reasonable mile out of my cars, things that are not business efficient or time efficient must be cut out. And based on my fuel bills versus my mileage, E10 is bad for business.

I agree with the Dakota driver - we want to keep it positive, especially now that we have a wide audience.


One of the key differences with this site compared to the other hypermiling sites is this is set up to encourage everyone (even the FSP) to increase their MPG.


And heck - if a FSP increases their MPG by 20% it will do a lot more good than if I increase my MPG another 5%.

Please Keep it positive

Let's see... The ethanol scam has made my car drop from 46 MPG to 42 MPG. It's also quadripled the price of a gallon of milk and doubled the price of a loaf of bread. It's raised gas prices by at least 50 cents (probably more). It doesn't actually help the environment, since corn-ethanol is a net energy loss compared to just refining gasoline. It has, however, sparked food riots around the world and caused people to actually starve to death.

Since Bush invented this scam, I guess it falls under the category of "Compassionate Conservatism", ha ha.

I'm not fan of ethanol and the politics surrounding it, but this issue gets overplayed.

Some of us have been dealing with E10 gas for quite some time now.

Don't forget that ethanol was added as a replacement for MTBE, which was some nasty stuff.

If everyone stopped b*tching and applied a few simple hypermiling techniques, you'd easily compensate for the FE differences in the fuel. If that doesn't work, stop obsessing about FE and think a little about VMT (Vehicle Miles Travelled). Do you really need to take all those little wasteful trips to Dunkin Donuts, or can you consolidate your trips?

IMO, cutting your VMT is a lot easier than raising your FE, and its a shame that a lot of people overlook that.

Hi,

I have a log to throw onto the fire.

The "Truth" is subjective. I prefer a well controlled experiment with hard data and peer review.

Everyone here is concerned about fuel use. The problem is we all have differing opinions.

Some people are worried about price, other are worried about global warming, others are worried about the third world, others are worried about personal choice. This list can go on and on.

I understand it is human nature to be interested in sensationalism, but I would also like to see more scientific, hard core data and results.

Blaming, hating and other detractions may help people feel better that the problems we are confronting are not their fault (Yep, I am guilty as anyone). Very human, but also very easy to use as a tool to control other people.

I do not understand how Brazil can use sugar cane ethanol and I have heard sugar cane ethanol has 12% more energy in it that corn ethanol. Why do we not use sugar cane? Why are we not copying the Brazilians on this matter? Oh ya, I forgot BIG OIL. The scam is we use more so we pay more.One day we might have a government that represents us the people. Does anyone remember "WE THE PEOPLE"?

Don't forget that ethanol was added as a replacement for MTBE, which was some nasty stuff.

Good point.

Also, ethanol engines are twice as efficient as gasoline engines (40% vs. 20%). Flex-fuel engines may not be the wisest way to use ethanol.

But in the end, I think we're near the end of the internal combustion engine era, at least for most uses of personally-owned vehicles.

Let's see... The ethanol scam has made my car drop from 46 MPG to 42 MPG. It's also quadripled the price of a gallon of milk and doubled the price of a loaf of bread. It's raised gas prices by at least 50 cents (probably more). It doesn't actually help the environment, since corn-ethanol is a net energy loss compared to just refining gasoline. It has, however, sparked food riots around the world and caused people to actually starve to death.



I agree 100 percent. Now how the heck am I supposed to be positive about that? :mad:

Harry

This has been my argument every since my first tank of this corn-polluted fuel. I put it on Digg as I would like to see things like this gets as much exposure as possible. http://digg.com/autos/Ethanol_Reduces_Mileage

I do not understand how Brazil can use sugar cane ethanol and I have heard sugar cane ethanol has 12% more energy in it that corn ethanol. Why do we not use sugar cane? Why are we not copying the Brazilians on this matter? Oh ya, I forgot BIG OIL. The scam is we use more so we pay more.One day we might have a government that represents us the people. Does anyone remember "WE THE PEOPLE"?

It's not big oil, but our climate that prevents us from growing sugar cane in quantity in the US.

Sugar cane grows in the tropics which in the US includes Hawaii, and to some extent Louisiana and Florida, but there would be some serious protest if we turn the Everglades and southern Louisiana it into sugar cane plantations.

Not everything is under Big Oil's or Big Government's control.:rolleyes:

And ethanol is ethanol, sugar cane ethanol doesn't have 12% more energy.

First off, Bush didn't invent this. Ethanol has been around long before Bush ever became president. Secondly, if you go to chevrolet's website it list the mpg for their flex fuel vehicles for gasoline and ethanol separately. At least they inform their buyers that if you use ethanol you'll be using a lot more gas per mile. Thirdly, Louisiana is about to have a plant built to convert sugarcane to ethanol. This is the part of the cane that's used after the sugar is removed so it shouldn't impact the price of sugar. I'd rather car buyers be informed of the impact of ethanol on their fuel economy and then let them decide for themselves which fuel to use in their vehicle.

It's not big oil, but our climate that prevents us from growing sugar cane in quantity in the US.

Sugar cane grows in the tropics which in the US includes Hawaii, and to some extent Louisiana and Florida, but there would be some serious protest if we turn the Everglades and southern Louisiana it into sugar cane plantations.

Not everything is under Big Oil's or Big Government's control.:rolleyes:

Well put. And it is the truth. Heck lets drill for more oil. Its there. But that upsets the epa and some of the wack-o greenies. Lets all move to the citys and work from home and ride bikes and take mass transit. I would rather be dead than live like a dead sardine in a can.

Ive been running the crap corn squeezin gas here. I won't run it anymore as long as I can buy reg gas. and yes my station sells both. Reg. unleaded is 10 cents more a gallon. But I can easly push the Mazda or Honda into the low 40 mpg area. With corn squeezin in the gas Im lucky to get 35 to 37 mpg area. While my hpermiling efforts are no longer on the wicked edge and I don't post tanks anymore. I still do strive for mpg.

I was appalled as I watched the Indy 500 and all the E85 crap. What was wrong with them running meth like they have for generations? We tried this corn squeezin crap in the 70's. It didn't work then. And it won't work now. You have to design a ICE to run on high grade booze. Just like one has to for hydrogen or diesel. Compression, fuel mapping, timing curves and build materials from the types of metals to gaskets, hoses and such have to change.

This seems to drive home the point that America is getting real good as doing things half a## now days. It would seem now days we can't seem to take a crap or get off the pot.

Hi - I just came across this site/forum - Quickly scanned some posts and noticed some to be filled with misleading information.

E10 may or may not reduce mileage.
E85 certainly does reduce mileage, but the reduced cost is suppose to reflect the change.

It's always misleading to say E10 reduces mileage by "x" percent, without listing and comparing the same exact engine model type/year.

Due to the decrease in fuel efficiency (FV) E10 is expected to reduce mileage by about 2-3%...The price for E10 should also be lower, but (with rising gas prices since E10 became more widespread) this is difficult to prove.

A newer car in excellent condition, designed to run on alcohol-blends of fuel (E10) will notice minimal decrease in mpg, maybe none.

An older car or a car in poor condition may notice as much as 20% reduction in mpg for E10. Many older cars were not designed for ethanol-blends, and the fuel system (and parts) needs changes/modifications to accept E10 safely.

Most important is to follow simple precautions with E10 to maintain quality of fuel, and maximize mpg.

As for blaming E10 for rising food prices, that's ridiculous!
High gas/fuel prices certainly affects manufacturing costs of food...
but you can't blame it on "corn" fuel (yet).

Several types of grains (not just corn) are used to make ethanol.

We're far from being an "ethanol fuel" nation - If FFV's (E85) were more popular here we probably would not have enough domestic grains to meet our fuel consumption "someday", but the resistance of U.S. consumers to alternative fuels means that's not going to happen soon.

Overall E10 gas in conventional vehicles causes more problems than benefits (mostly due to lack of consumers' knowledge on fuel system management with ethanol) and partly due to the many older engines (cars, marine, small equipment, motorcycles, classic cars, etc.) not designed to run on E10.

E85 offers more benefits - but the lack of E85 pumps in many areas, and limited choice for American made FFV's has made the switchover to E85 a philosophical discussion, not a reality - (closest "public" E85 pump to my residence is 140 miles away and I can't find a FFV car I like, most sold in the U.S. are bland).

Hybrid cars offer a possible good solution (short term) to decrease our dependence on foreign fuel - but again, far from being a current affordable or widely available option.

Cellulose, biofuels...and more alternatives fuels have possibilities.
----------
I suspect our high investment in petroleum stocks, bonds, mutual funds etc. prevents "us" from really wanting to decrease our petroleum consumption, especially by the lawmakers, lobbyists and decision-making wealthy Americans.

Fuel accounts for 8% of our GNP. getting rid of petroleum in the U.S. could cause major economic disruption.
-----------
On the other hand, it amazes me how Brazil has been so successful over the past decade in switchover to E100 (sugar cane) fuels.

The U.S. instead is just causing alot of distress, inconvenience and unnecessary costs to consumers (repairs, driveability problems, lower mpg, short shelf life of E10, contaminated fuel - and much more) to consumers with the mandated increased distribution of E10 over past 2 years, without educating consumers on proper use of E10.

Ethanol alcohol readily absorbs water (non-alcohol fuel did not) - it's basic science that oil (petroleum) and water don't mix well together...

E10 makes no sense whatsoever...
Does not decrease our dependence on foreign fuels (esp. when you consider all the older engines now getting decreased mpg with E10) -
Plus, the increased pollution (health hazards) from ethanol producing plants, now being documented, only adds more reasons to conclude E10 switchover is fuelish.

Looking at fuel history you will realize it usually takes the U.S. government about 10 years to admit and correct mistakes on fuel composition standards/laws/mandates...
Remember lead in the 70's (now banned), followed by MTBE in 80'-90's (now banned)...it sadly may be several more years before E10 disappears.

Learn how to manage E10 gasoline and your problems and risks should be minimal +
encourage the EPA and U.S. government to pass E10 consumer friendly laws -

Examples:

1. Labeling of gas pumps whenever ethanol is added in ALL states,
2. Require gas stations to monitor E10 fuel daily to assure it meets legal limit (10% or less for most states),
3. Availability of gas without ethanol at all stations for owners of vehicles/engines not designed to run on alcohol-blends of fuel
4. Require public education (by the EPA and/or engine manufacturers) on how to properly manage E10 fuels...

Post way too long - I'll add more later...
- I'd like to add links to reports/studies by EPA auto manufacturers and scientific studies, but being new here, not sure links allowed (?)

Post way too long - I'll add more later...
- I'd like to add links to reports/studies by EPA auto manufacturers and scientific studies, but being new here, not sure links allowed (?)

Sure, why not, as long as they are on topic.

By the way, I do not agree with your assessment that ethanol is not raising our food prices. It most certainly is. And if the country wants to put in place a major program like ethanol, it should have been based on science, and not as a result of lobbying by Archer Daniels Midland and GM. And how about a referendum on the subject, something a true democracy would have done regarding ethanol?

Harry

You guys won't believe them, but you can watch it anyway.

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2008/05/0130.xml

They are telling us Anhydrous Ammonia will be around $1000 a ton this year. Two years ago it was about $300? I can't remember exactly. Monsanto has stated that chemicals will go up 20-30%. Diesel fuel is over $4, this was about $2 last year. I drive a tractor that uses 100-200 gallons of diesel a day. We have 3-4 tractors running each day to plant crops that you consume either directly or indirectly. I have been working 80+ hour weeks for several months and the weather this year is NOT cooperating for many of us. Expect reduced yields, which will not help year ending stocks and prices.

The price of food better continue to rise to keep up with the increasing input costs or farmers will go out of business (or the government will save them) and food shortage concerns will only increase.

Try walking in one man's shoes....

Enjoy your meal today and your fuel too.

Sure, why not, as long as they are on topic.

By the way, I do not agree with your assessment that ethanol is not raising our food prices. It most certainly is. And if the country wants to put in place a major program like ethanol, it should have been based on science, and not as a result of lobbying by Archer Daniels Midland and GM. And how about a referendum on the subject, something a true democracy would have done regarding ethanol?

Harry

We've been over this many times before, but ethanol has a very minimal impact to American grocery store prices.

http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10174

Do you have any sources on how much the production of ethanol is increasing grain prices...and then how much the increased grain prices are affecting grocery store prices? Perhaps comparing that along with the multitude of other factors that are pressuring them upwards, as well? I'd love to see them.

To me, Americans complaining about high grain prices is a lot like a Saudi complaining about high oil prices. I find there to be some sort of disconnect there.

Actually Im pro-high-corn-prices. :) High-Fructose Corn Syrup has been indicated in a whole myriad of health problems. As an odd concidence, the American obesity rate has followed very closely to consumption of HF Corn Syrup. There are suggestions that it screws with human metabolism and causes food craving. 20 years ago we were under 10% obesity everywhere in the nation. Today, by the same standard of obesity, we are over 25% nationwide, and some places more than 35%. Personally I hope that manufacturers will find it cost effective to use sugar again so we can see if America's Wide Ass doesnt shrink a bit.

You think it is from corn syrup or lack of excersise and sitting in front of computers all day, texting on phones, and watching TV all night? Not to mention the ever "super sizing" of lunches and soft drinks? (yea I know more HFCS)

Personally I hope that manufacturers will find it cost effective to use sugar again so we can see if America's Wide Ass doesnt shrink a bit.

That'll happen right after corn syrup passes the rather high price floor for sugar the US Congress passed to "protect" sugar growers on the advice of ADM :(.

Coincidently, its over the price where manufacturers would switch from Sugar to corn syrup. America's biggest source of corn syrup? ADM.

Update--I'm at half a tank or so. My Sg reports 48.0 MPG even. Some city driving involved, but the tank average was never above 50.8 even when it was all road miles where I used the same technique as I did with regular 100% gas just before I filled up. Not good. :angry:

I may top it off before I leave Philly on Monday to get a tank and log it.

We've been over this many times before, but ethanol has a very minimal impact to American grocery store prices.

http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10174

Do you have any sources on how much the production of ethanol is increasing grain prices...and then how much the increased grain prices are affecting grocery store prices? Perhaps comparing that along with the multitude of other factors that are pressuring them upwards, as well? I'd love to see them.

To me, Americans complaining about high grain prices is a lot like a Saudi complaining about high oil prices. I find there to be some sort of disconnect there.

I put the onus back on you to prove that corn ethanol has "very minimal" effect on grocery prices. You previous posts fall short of proving your assertion.

Your Saudi analogy ignores the fact that Saudi's benefit from high oil prices, but there is at best very selective benefits (but mostly negatives) to the US from high grain prices, or please explain? Might as well say there is no reason to care about high oil prices, since someone in the US benefits.:Banane13:

I'd suggest you go out and tear out your grass in your back yard and start growing your own food if you don't like current food prices. Many people complain about fuel and food cost, yet go out and manicure the lawn and go out to eat. (or pay someone to manicure the lawn) The urban lawn uses far more fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides and fuel than the same acres in farm production.

The fact is that the current input prices are going to REQUIRE the current grain prices or farmers will be out of business. People don't seem to understand this. Why? Most all of the farm input costs are energy dependent. Labor is not much of your food cost.

If the prices go back down the government will be forced back into price supports and the US taxpayer will then complain about subsidies. How many people want food from China or some other countries? If you think you are over a barrel when oil supplies are from another country just wait till your food is. At least we can control our own food and fuel production with ag related ventures.

I put the onus back on you to prove that corn ethanol has "very minimal" effect on grocery prices. You previous posts fall short of proving your assertion.

Your Saudi analogy ignores the fact that Saudi's benefit from high oil prices, but there is at best very selective benefits (but mostly negatives) to the US from high grain prices, or please explain? Might as well say there is no reason to care about high oil prices, since someone in the US benefits.:Banane13:

I guess we can throw the onus back to me, although I am merely responding to those who are making wild accusations with no sources. If my previous post (which you were party to) did not persuade you, I doubt there is much more I can do to change your mind. We may have to agree to disagree. :)

I'll recap the argument, and perhaps you can highlight the portion that you disagree with and why.

(1) Ethanol is hardly the only reason grain prices have increased

Devalued dollar putting upward pressure on all commodities, decreased world wide production due to drought and floods, increased demand in developing nations (esp China and India). I admit I do not have concrete numbers on how these factors affect grain, but you cannot argue that ethanol is the only factor (and it is hard to argue it is the biggest out of these).

(2) Grain prices have little effect on American's food bills

First, not all of our food contains or uses grain to be produced. Any increases on those items must be something else. I use my favorite example... the 10% increase in my price for bananas over the past year. For the foods that do contain grain, the raw ingredient is still very cheap and contributes very little to the final price. The corn flake example in the article. This only leaves the most affected, meat and dairy. These items are affected by grain prices, from the article:

Over the past 20 years, the average price of a bushel of corn in the U.S. has been $2.28, implying that a pound of chicken at the retail level uses 8 cents worth of corn, or about 4 percent of the $2.05 average retail price for chicken breasts. Using the average price of corn for 2007 ($3.40 per bushel) and assuming producers do not change their animal-feeding practices, retail chicken prices would rise 5.2 cents, or 2.5 percent. Using the same corn data, retail beef prices would go up 14 cents per pound, or 8.7 percent, while pork prices would rise 13 cents per pound, or 4.1 percent.

For argument's sake, lets say that corn is $6.00/ bushel...

To avoid downplaying potential impacts, this analysis uses upper-bound conversion estimates of 7 pounds of corn to produce 1 pound of beef, 6.5 pounds of corn to produce 1 pound of pork, and 2.6 pounds of corn to produce 1 pound of chicken.

The new amount of corn cost in a pound of retail meat is (56 lbs/bushel): Beef - 7*.107 = $0.75; Pork - 6.5*.107 = $0.70; Chicken - 2.6*.107 = $0.28. So the feedstock accounts for a small portion of the actual price you pay in the grocery store...or more often these days, at a restaurant.

Energy costs have also increased in this same time frame. The food you eat takes several trips on a truck before it gets to your table.

In summary, ethanol is hardly the only reason grain is increasing, and grain is not a large portion of American's food bills.

As for the Saudis... they are a net exporter of oil, and a net importer of food. We are the opposite. Grain is one of the few things that we can put in the positive column for our trade deficit. We pay taxes for grain price floor supports, which I would rather not have to pay. Grain is a virtually infinitely renewable resource, if properly managed. Rural American schools are supported by land taxes paid by farmers...the higher the grain price, the higher the land price...more tax base. I believe I have demonstrated that grain prices are not a hardship yet for the American grocery consumer. So, I would say that high grain prices are a net benefit for America and high oil prices are not.

And, as rweatherford points out, everyone can grow their own food if they so desire. I think you will quickly find it is cheaper and more reliable to continue to use the supermarket.

My advice is to search out farmer's markets to utilize fresh, local foods and support smaller agricultural producers. I have found the prices are comparable to the supermarket. Also, grass-fed meats should have little dependence on grain prices.

Actually Im pro-high-corn-prices. :) High-Fructose Corn Syrup has been indicated in a whole myriad of health problems. As an odd concidence, the American obesity rate has followed very closely to consumption of HF Corn Syrup. There are suggestions that it screws with human metabolism and causes food craving. 20 years ago we were under 10% obesity everywhere in the nation. Today, by the same standard of obesity, we are over 25% nationwide, and some places more than 35%. Personally I hope that manufacturers will find it cost effective to use sugar again so we can see if America's Wide Ass doesnt shrink a bit.

I would agree HFCS is probably not very healthy to ingest in large quantities. However, white sugar is hardly much better. Large amounts of simple carbs (fructose, sucrose whatever) with low activity levels is a great way to increase fat storage. From my readings, the obesity epidemic can be traced to large amounts of refined grains, low amounts of whole grains, low amounts of real fruits and vegetables and an extremely sedentary lifestyle.

The new amount of corn cost in a pound of retail meat is (56 lbs/bushel): Beef - 7*.107 = $0.75; Pork - 6.5*.107 = $0.70; Chicken - 2.6*.107 = $0.28. So the feedstock accounts for a small portion of the actual price you pay in the grocery store...or more often these days, at a restaurant.

Are you really making the argument that the price of corn increasing a pound of ground beef by $0.75 is minimal? Pork loin increasing from $1.99 to $2.69 is a 35% increase before the other costs you brought up add to it.

I agree, we disagree on what very minimal means.

Are you really making the argument that the price of corn increasing a pound of ground beef by $0.75 is minimal? Pork loin increasing from $1.99 to $2.69 is a 35% increase before the other costs you brought up add to it.

I agree, we disagree on what very minimal means.

Not increasing $0.75 - that is the total amount of corn. If corn goes from $3.00 - 6.00 then it is a $0.325 increase for beef. Which for hamburger would probably be 10-20% increase, but for steak...much less. The article also mentions that meat producers will find other sources of feedstock other than corn...such as gluten meal (a byproduct of corn-ethanol production) or grass or silage.

I did not say meat was minimally affected, only overall American food prices. Everyone might not be able to dine exclusively on pork loin and rib eye anymore. Beef and other meats will be affected rather highly (lets say 10-25%)...but protein (which should only be 20-30% of one's calories) has many substitutes that are not affected nearly as much. And a 10-25% increase is a far cry from a "doubling or quadrupling" that was quoted from a previous poster.

Do you have any sources on how much the production of ethanol is increasing grain prices...and then how much the increased grain prices are affecting grocery store prices?

http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2008/Update69.htm

Why Ethanol Production Will Drive World Food Prices Even Higher in 2008

Lester R. Brown

We are witnessing the beginning of one of the great tragedies of history. The United States, in a misguided effort to reduce its oil insecurity by converting grain into fuel for cars, is generating global food insecurity on a scale never seen before.

The world is facing the most severe food price inflation in history as grain and soybean prices climb to all-time highs. Wheat trading on the Chicago Board of Trade on December 17th breached the $10 per bushel level for the first time ever. In mid-January, corn was trading over $5 per bushel, close to its historic high. And on January 11th, soybeans traded at $13.42 per bushel, the highest price ever recorded. All these prices are double those of a year or two ago.

As a result, prices of food products made directly from these commodities such as bread, pasta, and tortillas, and those made indirectly, such as pork, poultry, beef, milk, and eggs, are everywhere on the rise. In Mexico, corn meal prices are up 60 percent. In Pakistan, flour prices have doubled. China is facing rampant food price inflation, some of the worst in decades.

The irony is that U.S. taxpayers, by subsidizing the conversion of grain into ethanol, are in effect financing a rise in their own food prices. It is time to end the subsidy for converting food into fuel and to do it quickly before the deteriorating world food situation spirals out of control.

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=biofuels&id=18173&a=

The recent rise in corn prices--almost 70 percent in the past six months--caused by the increased demand for ethanol biofuel has come much sooner than many agriculture economists had expected.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture, this year the country is going to use 18 to 20 percent of its total corn crop for the production of ethanol, and by next year that will jump to 25 percent. And that increase, says Marshall Martin, an agriculture economist at Purdue University, "is the main driver behind the price increase for corn."

The rising food costs fueled by ethanol demand are also affecting U.S. consumers. "All things that use corn are going to have higher prices and higher cost, to some extent, that will be passed on to consumers," says Wally Tyner, professor of agriculture economics at Purdue University. The impact of this is being felt first in animal feed, particularly poultry and pork. Poultry feed is about two-thirds corn; as a result, the cost to produce poultry--both meat and eggs--has already risen about 15 percent due to corn prices, says Tyner. Also expect corn syrup--used in soft drinks--to get more expensive, he says.

The situation will only get worse, says David Pimentel, a professor in the department of entomology at Cornell University. "We have over a hundred different ethanol plants under construction now, so the situation is going to get desperate," he says. Adding to the worries about corn-related food prices is President Bush's ambitious goal, announced in his last State of the Union address, that the United States will produce 35 billion gallons of ethanol by 2017.

The best article:

http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm

Ethanol Fuel from Corn Faulted as ‘Unsustainable Subsidized Food Burning’

David Pimental, a leading Cornell University agricultural expert, has calculated that powering the average U.S. automobile for one year on ethanol (blended with gasoline) derived from corn would require 11 acres of farmland, the same space needed to grow a year's supply of food for seven people. Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion into ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make one gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTUS. Thus, 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in it. Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs.Mr. Pimentel concluded that "abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuels amounts to unsustainable subsidized food burning

The ethanol scam is just that, a blatant, immoral scam perpetrated on Americans by Archer Daniels Midland, GM, and other agri-business lobbyists. It makes no sense at all.

Harry

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree...

Your articles just rehash many of the same arguments with no hard numbers about how ethanol truly increases grain prices and/or final food prices. We all know they are going up...my assertion is that ethanol is only one small factor.

And while not the best way to do it, corn-ethanol is a net energy producer...

The USDA findings have been confirmed by additional studies conducted by the University of Nebraska and Argonne National Laboratory. In fact, since 1995, nine independent studies found ethanol has a positive net energy balance, while only one study – which used outdated data – found the energy balance to be negative.

Ethanol opponents frequently cite a study by Cornell University’s Dr. David Pimentel, who concluded that it takes 70 percent more energy to produce ethanol than it yields. Pimentel’s findings have been consistently refuted by USDA and other scientists who say his methodology uses obsolete data and is fundamentally unsound.

http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/main/energy.htm

Good day to you, sir.

We can agree on that chief302, David Pimental is not an unbiased source.

Here's a previous thread related to Pimental.

http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6565&highlight=pimental

I'm no fan of Lester Brown either, both of them profit from an underlying hatred of mankind and the guilt of humans effecting our surroundings.

I think ethanol is a bad solution, but not because of David or Lester's spin. If ethanol makes sense then we don't need mandates.

+1 for what chief302 said

Fuel prices are the main driver for the current food price increases, except for maybe corn (and products that require corn). Oil and natural gas are used to produce many of the agricultural inputs: diesel, gas, fertilizer, pesticides, etc. The on-farm fuel usage is not just tractor driving either: Irrigation, drying of grains, heating of barns/livestock pens, etc all use fuel. Looking beyond food production, activities within processing and distribution such as refrigeration/freezing, transport, pasteurization, cooking, drying, etc are also quite fuel intensive.

IMO: the ethanol fuel energy loss controversy was dead a LONG time ago (NET GAIN HERE PEOPLE!). Pimintel overlooked many things, and has admitted to some of them (http://pubs.acs.org/email/cen/html/010207085554.html). Also, the factories are now getting much better ethanol yields.

Disclaimer: I own a FFV and there is a pump not too far from me, but I don't run E85.

We can agree on that chief302, David Pimental is not an unbiased source.

Here's a previous thread related to Pimental.

http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6565&highlight=pimental

I'm no fan of Lester Brown either, both of them profit from an underlying hatred of mankind and the guilt of humans effecting our surroundings.

I think ethanol is a bad solution, but not because of David or Lester's spin. If ethanol makes sense then we don't need mandates.

I would probably vote for ending the import tariffs immediately, unless someone could give me a good reason not to...

As for the direct per gallon subsidy, I'd like cellulose production plants to get off to a better start first. Otherwise, yes, if ethanol is a good idea, it should stand on its own. I'd only be *afraid* of prices dropping in the near term and taking away incentive. Since that most likely isn't going to happen, it probably can be taken away pretty soon.

I certainly don't want to come across as a corn-ethanol nut job apologist, in my view, it is a means to an end. I still don't think high corn prices are really that bad, though. :)

Agreed.

If ethanol made such sense why would it need mandates? The market would immediately catch on and would take over in a few short years.

Agreed.

If ethanol made such sense why would it need mandates? The market would immediately catch on and would take over in a few short years.

That could be said about any alternative energy source. Why give tax breaks for hybrids, solar, wind, etc... Currently they have trouble competing with fossil fuels.