Drivers Try E85 - Including Some that Don't Drive Flex-Fuel Vehicles

[.iceman]

It takes so much energy to produce ethanol - and then it appears to even increase CO2 emissions - the whole thing just seems silly. Why are we doing it? Why is our government pouring so much money into this?
The article quotes Chuck Schumer: "If Iowa weren’t the first [presidential caucus] state, I don’t think we would have done as much for ethanol.”

[Earthling]

Originally Posted by Robert Lastick

Our country elects people who say one thing and do another, or go off and do what they want without fear that someone will say, "hold on, what will this do to the cost of food - what will that do to America"? No repercussions. And, getting re-elected again simply consists of playing the same "no accountability" game again.

Bob, I size it up as corruption in the form of taking lobbyists' money and voting their way, against the best interests of the American people. It is corruption, plain and simple.

Harry

[Elixer]

Most modern cars you can throw E85 into and they'll run. That's because with the O2 sensors and things, the timing and other things will automatically be adjusted to compensate. However, without it specifically being adjusted for E85, there is a lot of room for gain. There are also some concerns for the fuel lines, though modern gasoline contains as much as 10% ethanol, so there's not too much worry.

The biggest problem with E85 is how heavily subsidized it is. If you look at the total amount per gallon that the government pays getting from corn to ethanol, it's around $1.50 a gallon, meaning that the real price should be at about $4.50 a gallon for E85.

However, Brazil is a great model of the potential ethanol has as a fuel source. If we can get cellulostic ethanol production working, we could have far more ethanol per land area and amount spent than Brazil makes from its sugar cane crops. However current US corn crops don't have nearly the potential. The wiki is really informative:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil

[rweatherford]

I'll tell you guys a little secret.... The US government this year has saved tax money even though they subsidise ethanol production. WHY you ask?

The LDP (Loan Deficiency Payments, price support) payments have basically been nothing. This has saved money because the ethanol subsidy has cost less than a typical LDP subsidy. The market price is now supporting part of the actual cost of production instead of the government funneling money from your taxes to pay extra when the price to too low to keep farmers in business. You just now see it in food prices (or think you do). Most of the price raise is not from food cost.

Yes the livestock people are adjusting. I know MANY of them and also work for one. Some are using feed stocks that are a by-product of ethanol and getting along fine. This is a high protien supplement and works well after you figure out how to feed it. Just like any ration you have to do it properly. There are currently some market effects going on and the livestock numbers are adjusting like any free market product. The price at the supermarket is also adjusting. There soon will be a new balance point and things will get back to normal. That's how our market works. However "normal" may be a little higher than it was because your taxes are no longer paying a percentage for your food.

This year was a good profit year for row crops. Ever hear "things go in cycles". The price for fuel, seed, fertilizer, rent, tractors, tires, steel, etc, etc... has gone up significantly. So even with the current high prices the profit per acre will likely be back to what is was before the market raise. For years I always thought the goverment kept food cheap to keep the US citizen happy. Keep 'em fed and keep 'em happy. I see the "corporate farmer" to be the next ax to grind for the public and media, much like "big oil". Fact is most of these "corporate" farms are one or two generation farms (father, father - son) that use the corporate tax protection just as any other business. This is not "big evil" corporate business. These are normal people making a normal living and working very hard for it. Most of the time 60-90 hours a week. Not like your typical 40 hour job. Some even have a normal 40 hour job off the farm and also farm in what time is left.

Just like hybrid cars (tax break anyone?) sometimes the government must kick in a little to get the ball rolling until businesses invest enough to make things work on the free market. Just this week there was a news story on a business to create a new pipeline from IA/IL to the north east US. No more trucking ethanol long distances. It is no suprise to me that no one picked up this story and posted it here because the majority seem to be anti-ethanol. We all (most) realize that the current flex-fuel engines are FAR from being built to take advantage of the 105+ octane of E85, thereby sacrificing efficiency. So yes the mileage could be better than it currently is.

I'm not saying corn based ethanol is the instant fix. I DO think it is a part of the puzzle and ethanol as an industry deserves a chance to get rolling. As time goes on there will be better ways to create it, just as the telegraph led to the telephone, which led to the internet, etc.

I'd think this might make sense to some of you?

[bomber991]

I voted no cause I know e85 eats through your fuel lines and other seals if your car is not a flex fuel vehicle.

[99HXCivic]

The poll is flawed - I would have voted, - "No, and I have a flex fuel vehicle."

To use E85 in my flex fuel 99 Dodge Grand Caravan Sport, I think I have to use a flex fuel capable engine oil bought from the Dodge Dealer [probably at ripoff rates].

I get 20.5 mpg tanks on my minivan, and E85 mpg would be depressing!

[xcel]

Hi Rex:

___Someone mentioned the pipeline here the other day but again, just considering E85 in an FFV when we cannot even supply the US with E10? If you have more info on the pipeline, I can help you set it up for a News item tomorrow.

___I am not against Ethanol on the scale it was 4 years ago but the large scale it is headed for costs us all in more ways than $’s at the supermarket or $’s at the pump. I keep seeing the CO2 and Energy ROI at 1.1 – 1.5 to one and on a straight up cost basis ($1.60 per all-in). I than equate that d@mned Dodge Durango at 10 combined on the junk vs. 15 on gasoline and it doesn’t make any sense!!! Not when Brazil is knocking out Sugar Cane based Ethanol at $0.60 per and we are putting up at least a $0.50 + tariff per on its import before it even enters into our country let alone the $0.50 credit per the Ethanol manufacturers receive. Those incentives are beyond the farmer of course but the numbers are being bantered about in such a way I feel like I am in the middle of a Ponzi scheme. There is not enough Ethanol in the country no matter how much Corn is produced and processed to make it yet we are protecting the Ethanol manufacturers with a huge import tariff

___If there were a real positive Energy ROI and it would reduce our imports, I would be ecstatic! The numbers I am seeing do not make a good case of it is all and I am not even considering the water usage issues.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

[rweatherford]

Originally Posted by xcel

Hi Rex:

___Someone mentioned the pipeline here the other day but again, just considering E85 in an FFV when we cannot even supply the US with E10? If you have more info on the pipeline, I can help you set it up for a News item tomorrow.

___There is not enough Ethanol in the country no matter how much Corn is produced and processed to make it yet we are protecting the Ethanol manufacturers with a huge import tariff

___If there were a real positive Energy ROI and it would reduce our imports, I would be ecstatic! The numbers I am seeing do not make a good case of it is all and I am not even considering the water usage issues.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

That was me. I'll admit to not reading them, I just caught a blurb on the radio.

http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/...eline&ei=UTF-8

I'm not much of a fan of tarriffs, so no arguement there. I think given time the MPG numbers on those cars can improve just as the numbers did from the 80s to the 90s on the average car. The energy ROI will improve with time. The ARK wasn't built in a day.

[bomber991]

Ah yes, 1.1 to 1.5 ROI is disappointing. Would be pretty friggn sweet though if it was like a 5.0 ROI. However if that were the case then I'd imagine this ethanol stuff would already be everywhere by now.

Anyways I think this E85 stuff is kind of dumb, seems like they shouldn't focus on E85 until E10 is already everywhere.

[rweatherford]

Originally Posted by bomber991

Anyways I think this E85 stuff is kind of dumb, seems like they shouldn't focus on E85 until E10 is already everywhere.

Sounds like a logical step doesn't it.