the government should not subsidize it. if the demand is there, let the market support it.

 

its not going anywhere. I have noticed the price going up though almost a dollar more in the last year.. which is bs.

 

The problem with the net energy loss idea is that were gaining a somewhat portable energy source made from a plant that is on a fixed energy grid. Anytime we convert fixed to portable power their is going to be a net loss. Also consider if the conversion process is peaked during non peak power consumption hours. Essentially using the unused potential of secondary power stations (Damns, wind, solar, etc). The cost of increased production during that time as a function of power consumption is very low. Just my conclusions from my readings.

As far as production goes, I think corn for ethanol is short-lived but ethanol itself is not. Currently Corn can produce ~250gal/acre/year of fuel. Compare that to 450 for sugar, 650 for palm trees, 1000 for hemp, or an estimated 2000 for algae. Given that hemp is a weed and much more resilient than corn, I'd say if we can get around the bad image of it (no, you cant get high off hemp...) then that could be a great use of land not suitable for other crops. Also algae can be grown where ever its practical, possibly being something that could actually put a dent in our oil consumption.

 

Well to be honest I wouldn't mind that drive BUT the station is in the opposite direction of my usual commute so that when it get inconvenient. If it was in the direction of my commute then I wouldn't mind but after 5 monthes(20k miles) of filling up almost every other day it got old. Yes I know I drive a lot I don't need a station at every gas station, but maybe one station PER city or maybe even every other city would be nice at this point since we barely any.

 

The highlighted statement used to be true. The entire refining process has been made more efficient as compared to the past. For example in Missouri, Ethanol refineries are located near corn fields to reduce the length traveled to the refinery. I don't believe it's worth it to produce Ethanol in the midwest and ship to the coastal regions. I do believe that would net a (Negative) energy. On top of the above listed (Pro) of reduced transit, water consumption used within the distillation process has almost been nearly cut in half. There are also multiple uses now for the corn byproduct. Every product has to start somewhere and I do believe we are on the correct path. I would much rather use a domestically grown fuel then providing resources to foreign nations from the use of their product. Our Evo's deserve better then that.

 

Go here and read about E85 myths.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/...ths_facts.html

From the Dept. of energy no less

 

I suppose if your getting shi7y mileage and I mean really shi7y like 8mpg but I average 15 mixed and 20-21 freeway. like I said of you have a big enough commute then it may be hard but for the mist part I only have to fill up once a week.

 

Quote:
"Arguments that its here to stay ignore some basic principals:

1) It takes more energy to produce than it contains (net negative)
2) It uses massive quantities of water during production
3) increases food prices disproportionately due to lost product to ethanol production
4) Obviously the market will not support this product, is it in our best interest to subsidize this industry in perpetuity? (Farm lobbiests unite! Oh wait, they already have) Would this product sell if its price was reflective of its true cost? (ie: $0.20-0.30 per gallon more expensive than gasoline) "

Did you not read the link that was provided regarding myths?

1) Crude to gasoline and all products is net negative for energy- happens when energy is converted. 1 BTU of crude will end up with 0.75-0.80 btu of final products- this has been true for years and does not get better even though refineries are improving efficiencies. Environmental controls (ie sulfur emission limits, etc) and harder to reach crude (including poor efficiency tar sands) conspire to make things worse. Using the same wells to wheel analysis of BTU input for fertilizer, tractor fuel, transport, ethanol production to final products yields 1 BTU input equals 1.25 btu out in the most conservative peer reviewed research and more commonly 1.68 btu out per 1 btu in (several newer studies higher yet as efficiencies continue to improve). This analysis does not count the value of sunlight hitting the biocrop but- so what?
2) massive amounts of water? -- here the only crops that are irrigated are vegetable crops- not corn. The ethanol plants in the area use between 1.5-3 gallons of water/ gallon of ethanol- most of which goes a few miles down the road in the wet distillers grains off-setting the same amount of water the cattle eating it would have drank. The rest is emitted to the air to fall back to the ground as rainfall. Do you think oil refineries also do not use water for cooling??? Would you say that the oil and natural gas industries NEVER use water to assist in lifting crude or nat gas from the ground or in fracking?
3) Food prices- some small effect here but only from the starch part used. Last I knew I would get very fat if I ate more starch. While starch has some value to the meat industry for part of the fatting of poultry and swine- they still can include back into the animal diet the now 4X concentrated distiller grains to provide protein, fat, and all the other nutrients that were in the corn to begin with. Corn does not just "go away" into an ethanol plant to make ethanol. These plants all produce feed products that are more concentrated than the beginning corn.
4) Subsidies- While I am not in favor of refunding consumer for using ethanol in the 10% market (that really is who is getting the "subsidy" passed from blend point- terminal to retailer via reduction in tax- to customer. Govt would collect 98-99% more tax if they would have allowed this only where it would have had most of the desired effect- to build out the E85 network. E85 will not need help forever- but for now it must compete with the gas industry that has it's stations, pipelines, refineries, etc all established and paid for over the last 100 years it took to establish. The oil industry has it's tax breaks built into permanent tax law and does not have to deal with such renewals. It is difficult to build a new enterprise into such established markets- especially when they own the distribution channel.

It took me about 25 years in the fossil fuel distribution business to figure out that there is more than one track. Sticking with one old track will end up with you in a tunnel- and the light you see coming is not the tunnels end but instead another train.

 

You mean like the way we subsidize foreign oil by spending billions on military stability around the globe, particularly in the Middle East?

Oops!

I think we usually forget to include all of the various "costs" when comparing oil and ethanol. That said, even if E85 was more than gasoline I'd gladly spend the money. Firstly, for the geopolitical reasons that I prefer to send as few dollars to the oppressive Middle East as possible. Secondly, for the fact that at 105 octane E85 should be compared to race gas, not to pump gas. Comparing E85 to pump gas is like comparing an EVO to a base Lancer. Nadda.

 

um, in all fairness the "link about myths" was posted after my post.....

Also, I do see a technical innacuracy in (my) statement #1 above (and you seem like the incredibly ****/picky type so i'll try to be specific), you (not you specifically, "you" as in "to the general populace" need to take the increased distribution rout and energy consumed to transport the short shelf life Ethanol blends into the comparison against gasoline.

The minor increase in BTU would be further offset by the energy consumed during the growth of medium (corn, sugar, weed or babies), refining, transportation/distribution.

So on that point (#1 above) I do not believe you are winning the argument.


Your response to #4 above: fair market economics and democracy. I win the argument.....
If it really was a product worth of marketplace share then it would stand on its own merit at a price that consumers would pay. Put the price at a non-subsidized ppg (ie: more expensive than gasoline) and ask the American people if they want fewer empegee's for more money. its alot like magic, in that it would disapear very quickly and with a cute puff of smoke.


With that rant done i'll just point out that this was a OPEN ENDED thread where input and debate was encouraged. Some degree of ***-hattery was expected and thats cool as long as its on topic.

 

Ryan- yes I am **** about facts and do not accept myths- that is because I am an engineer and people rely on me to be accurate.

My points on #1 is based on a wells to wheels (total including transport) basis- not refining only process only so you do not win the argument. As far as shelf life- I have never had an issue with properly stored blends- any more than straight fossil products. Each have their own unique needs for storage. One of the greatest problems I have encountered with fuel storage has nothing to do with ethanol or gas- it is plain old low sulfur diesel that caused the most headaches-- water, microbial growths, and cold filter plug issues.

On #4 -- you expect petroleum to be used until the bitter end when prices are beyond what the economy will bear-- then in that environment all the alternatives will magically appear at a time that banks will be unable to finance-- I call that a train wreck. Automakers need time too- the best optimized FFV is only starting to hit the market- this car (and ones like it) will take nearly 5 years to populate the fleet enough to reach the point where E85 will need no help.

FWIW 50% of the ethanol I use comes from a waste whey process (it was formerly land spread for disposal).

 

The last subsidization cost US taxpayers almost $30,000,000,000 and the proposed re-up will be north of that.....

If this was economically viable for the producers why would they rely on the subsidies? Big Oil has prooven that windfall profits await energy producers with good marketshare. Run at a loss for the next 5 years then turn a huge profit! Why involve the taxpayers with your "sure thing"?


Since your an engineer and thusly more **** than non-engineers thought humanly possible (dont take that personally, I grew up in a family of engineers and accountants. You cant help yourself in times like these)

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/201...idy-extension/

"Senate Democrats confirm that an extension of the full 45 cents/gal tax credit and 54 cents/gal import duty has been included in the Senate version of a Bush Tax Credit extension, prompting an angry response from the Brazilian sugar cane ethanol lobby. With Brazilian subsidies set to drop by nine cents per gallon, the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA) claims that the American subsidy is no longer an “offset” but a full-fledged barrier to trade. UNICA’s President Marcos Jank tells brighterenergy.com

It is clear that the United States is not committed to open and fair trade in clean energy, particularly ethanol. We will have exhausted all options to resolve our differences through informal dialogue and the U.S. legislative process. It will then be time for the WTO to resolve this matter in accordance with applicable international rights and obligations.

Previously it was reported that the ethanol Blender’s Credit would be extended at a lower rate of 36 cents/gal, but with the tax credit extension debate snowballing into a lame duck slugfest, it seems that the subsidy extension was included to bring farm-state legislators on board. In addition to pissing off the Brazilians and possibly sparking a WTO battle, a full five-year extension of ethanol subsidies and tariffs at the current rate will cost the government no less than $31b. But don’t start planting corn yet… House Democrats seem set on scuppering the Senate’s tax credit extension deal (even though they support the ethanol extension). If they keep anything from passing during the lame duck session, the subsidies will expire completely, forcing the industry to champion new legislation. The battle rages on…"

 

I suspect we can agree on at least a couple things here Ryan;

1) if you read my comments I am not a fan of paying major oil (obligated parties) to blend up E10. This is where 99% of the subsidy went -whereas only 1% went to E85.
2) Brazil only dropped part of their even higher import tariff about 6-8 months ago themselves. The purpose of the USA tariff was to insure that since imported ethanol also would get the VEETC credit- then if foreign ethanol was to be used then the tariff would be applied so that US taxpayers at least only paid out on something that supported the US economy with jobs, farm income, and reduced farm program expense. Brazil could still send to the Carribean Basin wet ethanol where it could be dried down to US spec. and enter the US tariff exempt. The real problem I have with the current tariff is that IF they continue to allow the blender credit (at whatever level) then the import tariff should match the blender credit as it once did.

I think the issue for the lame duck congress is that they cannot fix what they should be well thought out before the current programs expire and are just taking the fast way out of extending it as is until they can deal with it later. There will be a battle put up by oil companies who will not want E85 (a competing product) to be helped at any level if (e10) gasoline is not. This would narrow the price spread from E10 to E85 by 4.5 cents at the current blender credit level.

 

Oregon use to be E15 during the summer months, now its E15 all year long. Yet we still only get 91oct

Makes me wonder, I dont know if OCT is additive between different chemical compositions but if it were...

91*0.85 + 107*0.15 = 93.4oct... So are we getting 15% eth mixed with 91, or is the net oct 91?

Assuming what is posted is correct, and octane is additive then they are using:

x = (91 - 107*0.15) / 0.85 ==> x = 88.2oct..

Are we getting cheated out of 91oct by using Eth, are we getting an unpublished higher oct rating, or am I just wrong about how the oct betweed the two fuels stack?

 

I pay 3 dollars a gallon right now. I just transported about 70 gallons of E-85 to my garage
55 gallon drum
(3) 5 gallon jerry cans.

I love it.... and I have to drive 57 miles to get E85 I'm working on getting another drum so I can store over a 100 gallons I have a lot of friends that use E85 too in the same city... so I'll see if I can't sell them some fuel and reduce my cost to transport it.

Evidently the legal limit to transport is 120 gallons IIRC