Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Hybrid Vehicles Ethanol - E85 FlexFuel The Inconvenient Truth About Ethanol
921 messages, Last post on Oct 07, 2009 at 10:53 AM
You are in the Ethanol - E85 FlexFuel Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jun 01, 2008 7:20 am) |
|
|
|
|
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/05/verenium-commis.html Good old Zymomonas mobilis may save the day. I see that Canada has decided to dip their toe in the alcohol, so to speak, by requiring an E5 mix by 2010. In 2004, Canada used 10.5 billion gallons of gasoline per year. The E5 mix will require about 500 million gallons of ethanol. In 2007 Canada produced 211 million gallons. Canada will need to build 5 to 6 new ethanol plants, if they are not already in the works. Those extra 289 million gallons of ethanol will require about 100 million more bushels of corn. Canada already imports about 43 million bushels a year. The ethanol needed in Canada pales when compared to the 4 billion gallons of U.S. ethanol production coming on line in 2008. Corn will be in high demand. Makes me glad I don't own any livestock that eats corn.  I wonder what happens in 2009 or beyond when there is a problem with corn production. Weather happens. http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/statistics/ https://topcropmanager.annexweb.com/content/view/1481/67/ http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/outlook/
|
|
|
Replying to: avalon02wh (Jun 02, 2008 3:08 pm) If Canada is hoping for a quick fix with Corn ethanol, they are in for a big surprise.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jun 02, 2008 4:05 pm) Canadian company nixes Idaho for ethanol plant, picks Saskatchewan May 8, 2008 http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jVhFVIjScxoTrAR8kwpFjTlEZrOg "If Canada is hoping for a quick fix with Corn ethanol, they are in for a big surprise. " The Canadian plants under construction are going to use corn, wheat and canola. http://www.greenfuels.org/lists.php I get a kick out of the spin they are putting on the whole fuels vs. food debate. The idea that you can divert 25% of the corn to fuel and claim it is not contributing very much to the increase in food is nonsense. There are several major drivers for the increased food costs; demand for food, transportation, increased inputs like fertilizer and biofuels. If you go back a few years you will see that I was for a modest amount of ethanol production. The local jobs helped in many mid-western towns. They should have stopped the ethanol mandate at about 5 billion gallons (corn part), however. I've actually stopped buying the E10 (89 octane) fuel. The 10 cent difference does not cover the 3% loss in fuel mileage. The car runs very well on 87. I need to compare my mpg with and without ethanol to see if I can tell what the actual difference is between E10 and plain RUG. So far it looks like it is at least 3%.
|
|
|
Replying to: avalon02wh (Jun 03, 2008 3:18 am) I think in CA they put 10% ethanol in our regular 87. I know the times I have driven to AZ in both my 05 GMC PU and our Sequoia we would get better mileage with the gas over there that does not say ethanol added. We usually fill at the ARCO in Yuma, AZ. The last trip was in the Sequoia and the trip from home to Yuma we got 15 MPG over the 200 miles, much of it down hill into the desert. From Yuma to Phoenix we got just over 17 MPG driving mostly 75-80 MPH. It has to be the crap E10 gas in CA that kills mileage. That is about a 12% loss in mileage. Same results on the return trip. |
|
|
Replying to: avalon02wh (Jun 03, 2008 3:18 am) McDaniel said that without greater loan guarantees, Iogen and backers Royal Dutch Shell and Goldman Sachs weren't comfortable building in Idaho. What risk will Shell and Sachs have if Canada is putting up the money to build the plant? Will Shell reap the benefits if it is a booming success? To my way of thinking if tax dollars are spent on these ethanol plants, the profits belong to the taxpayers. We did this in the late 1970s with corn ethanol. Our tax dollars guaranteed the investment in those ethanol stills. When the market went flat and 90 stills went out of business you and I were the ones that lost money. I consider that corporate welfare. I would love to have a multi million dollar business without investing my own money. I do think the Iogen system shows promise and that using government funds would be good as long as they get repaid if the project is successful.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jun 03, 2008 5:09 am) Remember Congress is looking at lowering subsidies for corn ethanol.
|
|
|
Replying to: bpizzuti (Jun 03, 2008 5:29 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jun 03, 2008 5:46 am)  Of course, the whole corn ethanol thing was corny to begin with. Laugh har har. I still think we should have just licensed Brazil's sugarcane technology..it's a better starting point. At least Hawaii would be able to grow it's own fuel.
|
|
|
Replying to: bpizzuti (Jun 03, 2008 5:52 am) Sadly most of the sugar growers are gone from Hawaii. None left on the Big Island. A bit left on Maui. I think they are selling off the last of the cane land on Kauai. It seems that I read Oprah and Bette Midler are buying a lot of it. If Congress were serious about ethanol replacing any of our fossil fuel they would lift the 53 cent tariff on Brazilian ethanol. The sooner if becomes a fair market commodity the sooner we will know if it is viable. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Hybrid Vehicles Ethanol - E85 FlexFuel The Inconvenient Truth About Ethanol
