He says this only cus he is not making a buck on it.

Tim

qmdv wrote:He says this only cus he is not making a buck on it.

Tim

Tim,

Probably true, but doesn't mean ethanol as a fuel ISN'T a bad idea.

MTV

IMO

No I will stay out of this one or it will go to Hot Air.

Good day

Slowly, legislators are starting to change their stances on ethanol. We had a state senator who did an about face on the topic and tried to repeal the legislation that requires the supplement. Hopefully others will follow suit.

A scientist that I know, who works daily in the fuels and alternate fuels sector, made it very clear to me that ethanol fuel will "collapse under its own weight", meaning that it will cost more to make than it's worth.

The big variable factor is probably all the money in farm subsidies and grants and research and testing and demonstration projects and federal bamboozle-ness. When you take all of that out of the equation, ethanol may be clearly undesirable. I've read that it takes more energy to make than it puts out, which would thus kind of defeat the whole f**king purpose according to my physics teacher in high school.

Although a longshot, it may be possible that nuclear powerplants can make energy cheap enough to put into one side of the equation, to make the enthanol car fuel economically viable on the other side of the equation, with enough environmental and "carbon footprint" responsibility to make it worthwhile. But whether that is better or cheaper or easier than using the nuke power to just charge up the battery on your Prius - is a question for greater scientific minds than mine to answer.

In Idaho we had a big ethanol plant go bust before reaching completion. In Burley, as I recall, it never finished construction before losing funding or whatever. I make a point of telling anyone who'll listen which local stations still carry straight gas, (and to give them their business) even if they arn't using it for flying! Most motorists are clueless about the drawbacks, right off the bat less milage. The hypermiling forum guys (I'm one, mid 40's MPG in my Toyota Yaris) know all about that, and document it with their ScanGauges.

Just the other day a neighbor called, his plow truck was dead AND stuck, and he would be hurting if he didn't get his 1/4 mile long driveway plowed before his old lady got home.....so with one Ford truck (mine) pulling another, I got him unstuck and to the local garage 3 miles away (owned by Chevy lovers, it took them maybe 30 seconds to point out the problem, "it's a Ford"). After lecturing my neighbor (hey, he owed me at this point) on the drawbacks of ethanol laced fuel, especially in rigs not driven regularly, not to mention for months at a time, and telling him where to get the "right" gas, he looked me right in the eye and said "it's a diesel". Bottom line, pack rats made a nest out of his underhood wiring, they LOVE Fords.

I've read that it takes more energy to make than it puts out, which would thus kind of defeat the whole f**king purpose according to my physics teacher in high school.

EZ,
This is true, in a sense. Here is why. Once the corn has been cooked the ethanol plants are left with "brewer's grain". Most feedlots love this stuff because the cattle love it(alcohol...) and they gain better eating it. So, when the corn is cooked and we get ethanol and brewer's grain which is still used to feed cattle. So if you consider that the fuel for the tractors and combines would have been used anyways for the cattle side, ethanol is a net gain. I am NOT a promoter of ethanal though, for two main reasons. First it uses a lot of fresh water, which is a lot more scarce than petroleum. The second is it does affect the our food chain. Choose between food or energy.

he looked me right in the eye and said "it's a diesel".

Oh, don't worry there is soy/bio diesel for that.

I've read that it takes more energy to make than it puts out,

You can't believe everything you read---especially today. On another note, anhydrous ammonia is the building block for most nitrogen fertilizer. It is made from natural gas and atmospheric nitrogen. Today with cheap natural gas it should cost in the $300 per ton area but since so few are making(almost monopoly) it is up to around $800 per ton and in short supply. I know you guys want the oil companies back in a monopolistic position so they can charge whatever they want and create shortages when they feel like it but I for one don't. P.S. I must have been the only one on this site that sat in line on even/odd days to get ten gallons of gas back in 1973.

180Marty wrote: I know you guys want the oil companies back in a monopolistic position so they can charge whatever they want and create shortages when they feel like it but I for one don't. P.S. I must have been the only one on this site that sat in line on even/odd days to get ten gallons of gas back in 1973.

Probably, that was before I was born, but at least it lit a fire under the asses of automotive engineers to build more efficient engines and lighter better engineered chasses.

One issue that I have heard is that oil distribution companies can cut their straight gas with cheaper-than-gas ethanol, thereby increasing their sellable volume with a lower priced diluting component (ethanol.) There appears to be no scenario where they [the oil companies] lose.

180Marty wrote:...I know you guys want the oil companies back in a monopolistic position so they can charge whatever they want and create shortages when they feel like it but I for one don't. P.S. I must have been the only one on this site that sat in line on even/odd days to get ten gallons of gas back in 1973.

I was there too-- I mainly remember 1978/79 for odd/even rationing. Now as I recall, that was due to the Arab (OPEC) oil embargo. So to reduce dependency on foreign oil, there are several options, one of which being more drilling in Alaska. I don't really even have a problem with ethanol use- just mandatory ethanol use with no ethanol-free options.
Marty, you usually come off as pro-ethanol. Do you burn ethanolized gas in your airplane?

Zane wrote:

180Marty wrote: I know you guys want the oil companies back in a monopolistic position so they can charge whatever they want and create shortages when they feel like it but I for one don't. P.S. I must have been the only one on this site that sat in line on even/odd days to get ten gallons of gas back in 1973.

Probably, that was before I was born, but at least it lit a fire under the asses of automotive engineers to build more efficient engines and lighter better engineered chasses.

One issue that I have heard is that oil distribution companies can cut their straight gas with cheaper-than-gas ethanol, thereby increasing their sellable volume with a lower priced diluting component (ethanol.) There appears to be no scenario where they [the oil companies] lose.

Zane. Another thing you need to factor into your calculations is ethanol laced gas reduces MPG by 8-15 % so not only are they 'cutting' the gas with cheaper additives they get to sell more product to make up for decreased miles per gallon. As a disclaimer I am a HUGE motor head who has burned god only knows how many gallons of methanol in sprint and drag cars and I appreciate the power gain you get with engines tuned 'specifically' for exotic fuels, but to push the E-10 or E-85 as the only choice for everyone is downright crazy. IMHO

Ben ( flame suit on) Haas

Al Gore says ethanol was a mistake?

That's alright. Others say Al Gore is a mistake. And his whole shebang of political crooks too... from both parties, BTW.

I know you guys want the oil companies back in a monopolistic position so they can charge whatever they want and create shortages when they feel like it but I for one don't.

Stol, not everybody has had your experience with E10, me included. Here is a post from a newby on E85vehicles.com forum that sounds more like my experience.

Hello everyone, just joined up on here after having some curiosity with E85. My dad has a 2010 Ram with the flex fuel 4.7 V8 and at 2.40/gallon for E85 vs. $3.06 for 87 gas, and only a 1-3 mpg hit, I think thats a pretty good tradeoff.

180Marty wrote:Stol, not everybody has had your experience with E10, me included. Here is a post from a newby on E85vehicles.com forum that sounds more like my experience.

Hello everyone, just joined up on here after having some curiosity with E85. My dad has a 2010 Ram with the flex fuel 4.7 V8 and at 2.40/gallon for E85 vs. $3.06 for 87 gas, and only a 1-3 mpg hit, I think thats a pretty good tradeoff.

I ain't argueing with ya ol buddy,,,,, but on a 2010 Ram with a 4.7 V-8, the true mileage is 19 / 23.... 1-3 MPG loss falls right into the 8-15 % MPG reduction.

Tailwinds.
Ben.

Stol wrote:

180Marty wrote:Stol, not everybody has had your experience with E10, me included. Here is a post from a newby on E85vehicles.com forum that sounds more like my experience.

Hello everyone, just joined up on here after having some curiosity with E85. My dad has a 2010 Ram with the flex fuel 4.7 V8 and at 2.40/gallon for E85 vs. $3.06 for 87 gas, and only a 1-3 mpg hit, I think thats a pretty good tradeoff.

I ain't argueing with ya ol buddy,,,,, but on a 2010 Ram with a 4.7 V-8, the true mileage is 19 / 23.... 1-3 MPG loss falls right into the 8-15 % MPG reduction.

Tailwinds.
Ben.

Yes, let's all go out and buy a new $35K 2010 Dodge flex fuel V8 Ram so we can efficiently burn corn squeezin's.

gb

Stol wrote:

180Marty wrote:Stol, not everybody has had your experience with E10, me included. Here is a post from a newby on E85vehicles.com forum that sounds more like my experience.

Hello everyone, just joined up on here after having some curiosity with E85. My dad has a 2010 Ram with the flex fuel 4.7 V8 and at 2.40/gallon for E85 vs. $3.06 for 87 gas, and only a 1-3 mpg hit, I think thats a pretty good tradeoff.

I ain't argueing with ya ol buddy,,,,, but on a 2010 Ram with a 4.7 V-8, the true mileage is 19 / 23.... 1-3 MPG loss falls right into the 8-15 % MPG reduction.

Tailwinds.
Ben.

The true mileage for that vehicle is more like 12 to 16 mpg on a good day. The company that I worked for had a 2008 regular cab, long bed, 4.7L and I put over 25,000 miles on it testing various products specifically checking fuel consumption. A lot of those miles were between Phoenix and Los Angeles on cruise control.

Stol, I'm not trying to be hard to get along with either. I thought you meant 8 to 15% on E10, didn't realize you meant on E85.

How about Greg Poe's ethanol burning aerobatic plane?
http://www.theledger.com/article/20080411/NEWS/804110378/1134

MtCoyote wrote:How about Greg Poe's ethanol burning aerobatic plane?
http://www.theledger.com/article/20080411/NEWS/804110378/1134

Hard to believe... either he's running VERY rich on 100LL or VERY lean on Ethanol.....