Ask the Car People.SM


The Inconvenient Truth About Ethanol

1067 messages,  Last post on May 04, 2013 at 2:12 PM

You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum.

What is this discussion about? Alternative Fuels

Messages Page 3 of 107

#17 of 1067 WOW by nascar57

Apr 17, 2007 (7:50 am)

You anti-ethanol people simply cease to amaze me. Yes, corn is obviously not the most efficient form of making ethanol, but it does create more energy than it takes to make. The talk about fertilizer is pretty mute, farming is always going to be there and fertilizer is used on all crops, NOT just corn. I am a senior in Agricultural Economics at a State University. One CANT say that this is not good for our domestic economy. Yes, switchgrass (Biomass) ethanol is on its way, but corn is the current source, I dont think we should turn our backs on it. And also for the price difference, I have figured with my personal vehicle if, E85 is 50 cents a gallon cheaper, it pays to run ethanol. Calculate it down to a per mile basis and this is the figure that I have come up with for my individual vehicle. Plus your not burning DIRTY, NONRENEWABLE fossil fuels. Nothing is going to be as cheap as pumping stuff out of the ground, but if you think that we should rely only on that, you are a complete idiot and 70 dollar oil will seem cheap if alternative sources on not brought in before demand outstrips supply on fossil fuels.

#18 of 1067 What ethnol has done for you by jkinzel

Apr 17, 2007 (9:15 am)

This is what ethanol is doing for us.
 
My neighbors wife works at QFC and at a meeting a few weeks ago was told by suppliers that food prices will go up about 8% by summer due to the higher price of corn.
 
On Sunday, 4/15 and Monday 4/16, both the ports of Tacoma and Seattle in that order, ran out of corn for export. To my knowledge neither port knew or knows when the next train of corn is to arrive.
The result of this was that both TEMCO (Tacoma) and Pier 86 (Seattle) sent the ships partly loaded with corn to anchor and had ships waiting for soy come in and start loading.
We ran out of corn? What the ...
Ethanol benefits the few at the price of many.
 
Another plus for diesel/bio-diesel

#19 of 1067 RE: by nascar57

Apr 17, 2007 (10:45 am)

Wow, amazing when food goes up 8%, the complaining starts right away. When adjusted for inflation, corn should actually be $8-$9 a bushel. We as americans have become so insistent on a cheap food supply, it has driven this country to import alot of food. That is a whole different story for a different day. The comment that this has helped very few people. I beg to differ, PRIME Example, Farmers receive more money for commodities. With increased revenue purchases go up. Fellow Americans working at John Deere or Case-New Holland receive more work. Americans working at automobile manufacturing facilities receive more orders, because farmers and other people involved in the ethanol chain have more money. So dont bitch about food prices going up 8%, when you spend more every year feeding your cars oil that comes from the dam middle east. Oh yeah since 2000, how much has oil gone up on a percent scale??? Maybe 300%, thats costing your family a heck of a lot more per year than the small 8% increase in food prices. Go try and live in Europe and buy food, then you will get a wake up call my friend.

#20 of 1067 Re: WOW [nascar57] by gagrice

Apr 17, 2007 (11:05 am)

Replying to: nascar57 (Apr 17, 2007 7:50 am)
If your professors are in agreement with your feelings on ethanol. I would question either their credibility or lack of education. You being as young as you are were not around the last time this boondoggle presented itself in the late 1970s. We the tax payers built close to 100 ethanol plants in the Midwest. Less than 10% are still in operation. The rest were scrapped when ethanol was not considered worth the effort. If you have convinced yourself that buying E85 for 50 cents a gallon less than RUL makes it a bargain, who could argue with you. That is a math problem. Also your lack of caring about the environment is noted. The higher levels of anhydrous ammonia used to get a bigger crop of corn IS a serious problem. Whether you or your college professors are willing to accept it. If this whole ethanol production thing was done by the farmers and producers I would be less inclined to beat on them. It is not, as you well know. We are subsidizing every aspect of the process. From farm subsidies, to guaranteeing loans for production facilities. It is a simple case of PORK politics on a Grand Scale.

#21 of 1067 RE: [nascar57] by gagrice

Apr 17, 2007 (11:20 am)

Replying to: nascar57 (Apr 17, 2007 10:45 am)
Here I may have some bit of agreement. The price of corn should be higher. I was getting about $2.75 a bushel in 1977. My yield was about 90 bushels to the acre. I was still going broke as many farmers did during that horrible administration. When you say farmers are getting more, I think you mean mega-ag corporations are getting more. The family farmer is not helped much by these higher corn prices. If there are any small farmers left. They may be able to get a temporary job in the ethanol plant until it folds up in a few years.
 
As for food prices in the EU, that is their problem. They have sat around fat dumb and happy allowing the elitist governments to lull them into a false sense of security. They are taxed way beyond what is reasonable to maintain a stable government. What would they do if they had to defend themselves without the US military?
 
Hopefully your studies will result in a profitable way to produce ethanol. Not the current corn for fuel method. Makes us look real bad in the eyes of the World. We use up all the fossil fuel now we are using up all the food to feed our vehicles. Grow less destructive crops for biodiesel and you might have a good argument.

#22 of 1067 Reply by nascar57

Apr 17, 2007 (3:06 pm)

Alright, my question to you, what is your solution to the energy problem in the SHORT TERM. Yes I know all about the cellulosic approach to ethanol, and yes with time that will come along and be much more efficient. I want you to give me one situation that weans us off fossil fuels and cuts down the pollution we are putting out in the SHORT TERM. Now dont go knocking the education that I am getting, I am attending what people in the Ag. industry consider one of the better Agricultural Economics schools in the country. There are professors that obviously know that corn ethanol is not the final solution. But it is better than sitting and doing nothing as we have for the past 20 years. If we can get to the presidents goal of reducing gas consumption by 20% in 2017, I would be very proud of this country. But people have to WANT to do this, look at Brazil, they stepped up to the plate and their gasoline consumption today is 40-50 % less than it was 20 years ago. It CAN be done

#23 of 1067 E85, a scam i'd like to try for myself by elias

Apr 17, 2007 (4:12 pm)

i think ethanol as fuel in USA is a scam on many levels, especially CAFE. but i'd still like to try it myself.
unfortunately i don't have a gasser that can handle E85 and don't see any available soon that are interesting to me.
i'll buy another SUV some year soon, but i think it's will be a diesel.
i might buy a corvette, M3, M5, or BMW550 or a zippy Audi some year. will any performance car like that be E85 compatible?

#24 of 1067 Re: Reply [nascar57] by gagrice

Apr 17, 2007 (5:49 pm)

Replying to: nascar57 (Apr 17, 2007 3:06 pm)
First let me apologize for treating your educators harshly. I am sure they know their field better than I.
 
I feel very strongly that we as a country and our government are not really interested in solutions to the fossil fuel problem. There is too much money being passed around that keep the votes for the status quo. Ethanol in its current form is one of those well paid for products. It makes a few Congressmen look good to a constituency that has long been forgotten, the farmers. I just do not see the little farmers being helped. If you plan to go into the Mega-Agriculture business I can understand your wanting to protect the field.
 
If I was to pick a short term solution it would be to encourage the use of diesel cars & SUVs. They would give us an immediate 25% to 35% increase in efficiency. That and they can when available run on any mixture of biodiesel. ULSD was an important step to making it possible in states like CA where there has been an anti-diesel bias for years. I am just finding out that the biggest complaint about diesel cars is not quite accurate. According the latest UN report on GHG, NoX can be mostly attributed to farming. Many would have us believe that it is from diesel cars.
 
I also think we are in the dark ages so to speak on our electrical generation. We are the only major country that has not expanded our use of Nuclear energy. It is by far the cleanest energy available. We have untold streams of geothermal that are not used. Off limits due to environmental & religious zealotry. Solar is a solution. It is not near as perfect as some would have us believe. The processes involved in making PV cells is not real eco friendly. Wind is coming under fire also by opposing environmental groups.
 
Nothing is going to satisfy everyone. Even hydrogen could raise the GHG levels more than a gas car.

#25 of 1067 Ethanol may cause more smog, more deaths by gagrice

Apr 18, 2007 (8:34 am)

This was posted elsewhere by one of our fine Hosts. It needs to be read by those advocating the current ethanol craze.

"It's not green in terms of air pollution," said study author Mark Jacobson, a Stanford University civil and environmental engineering professor. "If you want to use ethanol, fine, but don't do it based on health grounds. It's no better than gasoline, apparently slightly worse."
 
His study, based on a computer model, is published in Wednesday's online edition of the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science and Technology and adds to the messy debate over ethanol.
 
Farmers, politicians, industry leaders and environmentalists have clashed over just how much ethanol can be produced, how much land it would take to grow the crops to make it, and how much it would cost. They also disagree on the benefits of ethanol in cutting back fuel consumption and in fighting pollution, especially global warming gases.
 
Based on computer models of pollution and air flow, Jacobson predicted that the increase in ozone _ and diseases it causes _ would be worst in areas where smog is already a serious problem: Los Angeles and the Northeast.
 
The science behind why ethanol might increase smog is complicated, but according to Jacobson, part of the explanation is that ethanol produces more hydrocarbons than gasoline. And ozone is the product of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide cooking in the sun.
 
Also, the ethanol produces longer-lasting chemicals that eventually turn into hydrocarbons that can travel farther. "You are really spreading out pollution over a larger area," he said.
 
And finally, while ethanol produces less nitrogen oxide, that can actually be a negative in some very smoggy places. When an area like Los Angeles reaches a certain high level of nitrogen oxide, that excess chemical begins eating up spare ozone, Jacobson said.
 
Hwang agreed that that is a "well-known effect."
 
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/sciencetech/homepage/article_1660665.php

#26 of 1067 Might as well? by shieatt

Apr 24, 2007 (1:06 pm)

For the first time, E-85 is available at a local station just up the road from my home. I drive an 03 Chevy Suburban that will run on E-85, so I have filled up on it twice to give it a try. E-85 is selling between 20 and 30 cents cheaper than regular unleaded, which I don't think completely compensates for the lost MPG. It seems pretty obvious from the debate that E-85 is not the savior that some politicians want to pretend like it is (yes, I must have the same Congresswoman as markcincinnati - she drives a new Chevy Tahoe with license plates reading "E85 4 OH"... and, coincidentally, the station that started selling E-85 is directly across the street from her farm). Nevertheless, on balance, since I already have a vehicle that will run on it, it seems like on balance it is at least slightly better for the environment and to reduce demand for foreign oil, so I think I will keep filling up on E-85. Interested in your thoughts...

Messages Page 3 of 107

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement