Is this the end of e85? Senate backs repeal of ethanol credit
Jun 20, 2011, 06:53 PM
#32
America has no room to complain about gas prices. If we were all driving these little vehicles that got 40+ and were still going broke from gas prices, then we have some reasoning behind us.
I can think of 3 guys I know right now, that do nothing but ***** about gas price. They drive the biggest damn trucks you can buy that get 12mpg lol
All I am saying, if you hate gas prices that much, buy something that doesnt use as much.
Sorry for going off topic a bit.
Back on!
Jun 20, 2011, 07:05 PM
#33
We have to have an alternative to oil, and we have to have it now. Spending a thousand billion dollars every 10 years or so to stabilize the middle east is not sustainable. An additonal 300 billion a year buying foreign oil is not sustainable. This is sustainable:
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/artic...t-near-chicago
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/artic...t-near-chicago
Jun 21, 2011, 07:11 AM
#37
We have to have an alternative to oil, and we have to have it now. Spending a thousand billion dollars every 10 years or so to stabilize the middle east is not sustainable. An additonal 300 billion a year buying foreign oil is not sustainable. This is sustainable:
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/artic...t-near-chicago
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/artic...t-near-chicago
This isn't the thread for it but as I said, I've been updating the thread on my ethanol production on our site.
People throw out WAY too much garbage. At our house we recycle our cans, donate them to a church actually they use them for some funds for kid projects. All of our food waste is either composted or fed to some chickens I raise. Metal is all hauled to the shop and scrapped along with all metal from the shop. This leaves us with glass/paper/plastic/cardboard to dispose of. I admit to not messing with the glass, that is about the only thing that ends up back in a landfill because I am too lazy to haul it 30+ miles to get rid of it. Sheets paper/newspaper is shredded at our house and shop and used for packing parts to ship. The rest of the plastic and misc papers I use in my burner to produce the ethanol. I ran a full small batch last night just using that trash from my house, I used two small pieces of wood at the very end to keep the fire going long enough to finish off the process. There is SO much energy that could be produced burning garbage that ends up in the landfill, they could power entire cities from it instead of burning coal.
There are a lot of other "things" that ethanol can be made from but the problem is the most efficient thing to make it out of in the USA is corn.
Jun 23, 2011, 10:53 AM
#40
I read somewhere, I do not remember the source, that if the goverment was to stop subsidizing ethanol the prices would drop by 7 percent and the producers profit margin would decrease by 20 percent. But ethanol is developed enough where the producers will still continue to produce.
This makes sense as goverment subsidies are put in place to give producers an incentive to produce a certain product by keeping the price higher. goverment subsidies are not used to keep prices lower for the consumer.
This makes sense as goverment subsidies are put in place to give producers an incentive to produce a certain product by keeping the price higher. goverment subsidies are not used to keep prices lower for the consumer.
Jun 23, 2011, 11:02 AM
#41
-Acree
Jun 23, 2011, 07:15 PM
#43
Evolving Member
I read somewhere, I do not remember the source, that if the goverment was to stop subsidizing ethanol the prices would drop by 7 percent and the producers profit margin would decrease by 20 percent. But ethanol is developed enough where the producers will still continue to produce.
This makes sense as goverment subsidies are put in place to give producers an incentive to produce a certain product by keeping the price higher. goverment subsidies are not used to keep prices lower for the consumer.
This makes sense as goverment subsidies are put in place to give producers an incentive to produce a certain product by keeping the price higher. goverment subsidies are not used to keep prices lower for the consumer.
The VEETC blending credit was never paid to ethanol producers- it went to oil companies who were supposed to pass it on thru the invoice to the station owner- to you-the end user. As long as ethanol remains lower than gas- they will put 10% ethanol in and this is backed by the RFS anyway (required). The VEETC blender credit is not necessary for E10 BUT- it sure would have been nice to leave it in place for E85 only (where only 1% of the subsidy has gone) to continue to encourage it's growth- -where the heck is the gen 2-3-4 ethanols from waste, cellulose, other feedstocks such as cane or sweet sorghum supposed to go if we are to reduce use of oil? E85 was that path that the govt and automakers choose years ago. I am afraid the path will be ethanol to chemicals such as succinic acid which are higher value than fuel. I also do not see currently that drop in fuels from other feedstocks are gaining fast ground in spite of oil companies investment and push there. Worse yet- i do see some ethanol plants going to butanol from corn.
I do still hold out some hope for better FFV's which has always been the key- making engines optimized for the poorest octane (87) and then simply adapting them to tolerate E85 was a poor choice that turned many away from running E85. Give me an engine of either dedicated tuned high compression E85 only OR give me a turbo/supercharged engine with medium base compression that is perhaps undersized (to save weight) on gas but lights up on e85 and then----we can win. The closest the automakers have come so far to that is the 2L turbo Buick Regal that is supposed to only lose less than 9% of range in E85. If that car were affordable (not $34,000) and widespread- e85 would work pricewise all over the USA and with no subsidy required. That friends - is the path.
Last edited by 1outlaw; Jun 23, 2011 at 07:28 PM.
Jun 24, 2011, 09:51 AM
#45
Here is the biggest problem as I see it...
Performance...or more accurately, the lack of performance.
For example, a good friend of mine bought a new Chevy Tahoe a few years back. She drives it to work each day and pulls a horse trailer every weekend. When she first bought the SUV she tried a few tank-fulls of E85 and saw her already low fuel mileage drop even lower with nothing in return. She has been on pump gas ever since and feels like she was sold something she can’t really use.
None of the OEMs making flex-fuel vehicles are taking advantage of the 105 octane in E85, so owners see no reason to spend more for E85. Not one single person I know with a flex-fuel car/truck uses E85 on a regular basis. I think if tuning was optimized for E85 and engines were rated with higher output when flexed to E85 a lot of owners would actually use it.
I’ve been watching closely the evolution (hahaha) of the new 2011 Buick Regal Turbo. This is I believe the first US produced turbocharged engine to be flex-fuel. To my utter amazement and disappointment GM did not optimize this engine for E85. This would have been the first great opportunity to showcase the advantages of E85 over gasoline. This engine is rated at 220/258 hp/trq on 91 pump gas. I'd guess this engine could easily be rated at 240/283 hp/trq if optimized for E85, perhaps even a bit more. I think that would be enough reward to actually change some owners fueling habits.
Until OEMs actually make cars that BENEFIT from E85, and not just USE it, E85 will not catch on with the general automotive consumer or even with the typical enthusiast.
Performance...or more accurately, the lack of performance.
For example, a good friend of mine bought a new Chevy Tahoe a few years back. She drives it to work each day and pulls a horse trailer every weekend. When she first bought the SUV she tried a few tank-fulls of E85 and saw her already low fuel mileage drop even lower with nothing in return. She has been on pump gas ever since and feels like she was sold something she can’t really use.
None of the OEMs making flex-fuel vehicles are taking advantage of the 105 octane in E85, so owners see no reason to spend more for E85. Not one single person I know with a flex-fuel car/truck uses E85 on a regular basis. I think if tuning was optimized for E85 and engines were rated with higher output when flexed to E85 a lot of owners would actually use it.
I’ve been watching closely the evolution (hahaha) of the new 2011 Buick Regal Turbo. This is I believe the first US produced turbocharged engine to be flex-fuel. To my utter amazement and disappointment GM did not optimize this engine for E85. This would have been the first great opportunity to showcase the advantages of E85 over gasoline. This engine is rated at 220/258 hp/trq on 91 pump gas. I'd guess this engine could easily be rated at 240/283 hp/trq if optimized for E85, perhaps even a bit more. I think that would be enough reward to actually change some owners fueling habits.
Until OEMs actually make cars that BENEFIT from E85, and not just USE it, E85 will not catch on with the general automotive consumer or even with the typical enthusiast.