Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
...and this is what Auto Manufacture's state http://ethanolrfa.org/resource/warranty/documents/2006AutoManufacturerFuelRecomm- endations04-18-06.pdf
They say that Methanol corodes metal and damages plastic & rubber and that damage is not covered by warranty (note, there is now word VOID in there).
And they can't recommend E85 in non FFV because they didn't certify the vehicle with EPA to run E85.
I know this from experience being a Field Service Engineer for 3 years in TX, back in the late 90's. I saw lots of converted vehicles -- chips, different sized pulleys, large exhaust, glass packs, etc.. I could not VOID a warranty, because of it. The only time I have seen voided warranties were on flood vehicles. The title is branded that way.
VOID means no warranty whatsoever -- as in cancelling a bumper to bumper, or powertrain warranty.
Not covering a component is different. The burden is on the person or entity denying the claim and you as a consumer have legal rights, per the Magnuson-Moss Act to fight it.
There are aftermarket warranties for Flex Fuel conversions, if you are worried.
I agree that gas isn't necessarily the best fuel simply becasue we have been using it for over 100 years. Unfortunately when you don't control your supply, you are dependent on other which is why we have $3.20 gas right now. And why we are struggling to figure out what direction to go as far as fuel efficiency. I think ethanol makes our politicians feel good because it helps middle America. Also our domestic car manufacturers already have this technology and they get CAFE credits even though these vehicles are "gas guzzlers".
I'm glad we are trying some new things but I think there are better courses then E85.
Now, you wouldn't. However, IF we are on the verge of a breakthrough (biomass ethanol for less than $1/gal), then the lesser gas mileage is offset by the cost of the fuel plus the control of supply issue is lessened, if not eradicated. Even if we don't go E85, but some combination of ethanol, coal based gasoline, home grown crude, and hybrid vehicles, we wouldn't be beholden to hostile countries for our fuel supply.
The national avererage price is 15% cheaper with some States over 20% cheaper. http://www.e85prices.com
The mpg loss is 5-20% not 25-33%. Even my OEM FFV F150 4x4 doesn't lose that much mpg! I lose about 2 mpg.
And that is occuring right now in states like Colorado. Iowa, Illinois.
http://www.e85prices.com
It's just a matter of time as more stations open up, for the price to come down even more. 6 months to 1 year from now, it'll be a different story. There's like 80 Plants under construction now that will provide 6 billion gallons of ethanol by 2009.
I have my reasons for choosing ethanol. I've been reading all the negative reports and I still choose ethanol. I just can't bring myself to buy that crap gasoline anymore. And, my friend with the 1998 Taurus we converted absolutely feels the same way. She notices the difference in performance, if she has to buy conventional gasoline. She plans on keeping the 147,000 mile Taurus now, because it has a new lease on life.
Oh, and last I checked, both the 3.0 and 5.4 3V have aluminum heads...
Why not put your support to bio diesel that creates a net gain in mpg.
Other than politics and greed, I don’t understand this obsession with ethanol. It is NOT the brass ring.
Economy
The growing ethanol industry provides a significant contribution to the American economy, creating new high-paying jobs., increasing market opportunities for farmers, generating additional household income and tax revenues, and stimulating capital investment.
FACT: In 2006, the ethanol industry supported the creation of more than 160,231 jobs in all sectors of the U.S. economy, boosting U.S. household income by $6.7 billion.
Ethanol industry operations and spending for new construction added $2.7 billion of tax revenue for the Federal government and $2.3 billion for state and local governments. And the combination of spending for annual plant operations and capital spending for new plants under construction added more than $41.1 billion to gross output in the U.S. economy.
Source: Contribution of the U.S. Ethanol Industry to the Economy of the United States
FACT: By increasing the demand for corn, and thus raising corn prices, ethanol helps to lower federal farm program costs.
In a January 2007 statement, the USDA Chief Economist stated that farm program payments were expected to be reduced by some $6 billion due to the higher value of a bushel of corn.
FACT: Ethanol refineries serve as local economic power houses.
An average 100 million gallon per year ethanol biorefinergy will generate $406 million in gross output for the local economy, add $223 billion to gross state output, support nearly 1,600 jobs, and increase household income by more than $50 million. Click here for information on how a 50 and 100 million gallon ethanol refinery can benefit your community.
FACT: If ethanol were removed from the market, a shortfall would have to be made up from expensive imports.
Gasoline prices would increase 14.6% in the short term (36.5 cpg if gas is $2.50/gal). Prices would increase 3.7% in the long term (9.25 cpg if gas is $2.50/gal) even after refiners built new capacity or secured additional sources of supply.
Source: LECG, LLC, May 2004
FACT: The federal ethanol program generates revenue for the U.S. Treasury.
The federal ethanol incentive, which is available to gasoline marketers and oil companies (not ethanol producers) as an incentive to blend their gasoline with clean, domestic, renewable ethanol, is a cost-effective program. It actually returns more revenue to the U.S. Treasury than it costs, due to increased wages and taxes and reduced unemployment benefits and farm program payments, while at the same time holding down the price of gasoline and helping the American farmer.
According to agricultural economist John Urbanchuk, the U.S. spent $2.5 billion in the form of tax credits available to gasoline refiners who choose to blend ethanol. The growth in the ethanol industry as a result of the increased demand for ethanol returned some $2.7 billion back to the federal government in the form of tax revenue. Moreover, farm program payments are expected to be reduced by some $6 billion due to the higher value of a bushel of corn. Taken together, the $2.5 billion investment by the federal government has yielded nearly $9 billion in new tax revenue and budget savings. Including the estimated $2.3 billion in state and local tax revenues, the new revenue and budget savings greatly exceed $10 billion.
The federal ethanol program was established following the OPEC oil embargoes of the 1970s, which exposed our dangerous dependence on imported oil. As an alternative to petroleum, ethanol directly displaces imported oil and reduces tailpipe emissions while helping to bolster the domestic economy. Yet today we import more petroleum than ever before. With rising crude oil prices and increasing international instability, incentives for production and use of domestic ethanol are critical.
We have subsidized the oil industry substantially since the early 1900s, and continue to do so. In fact, according to the General Accounting Office in an October 2000 report, the oil industry has received over $130 billion in tax incentives just in the past 30 years - dwarfing the roughly $11 billion provided for renewable fuels. During this time, U.S. oil production has fallen while annual U.S. ethanol production has grown dramatically.(GAO/RCED-00-301R)
"The United States Department of Agriculture has released updated marketing year average price estimates. USDA showed the value of all U.S. field crops in 2007 at $132.410 billion. That's compared to the 2006 total of $93.694 billion and the 2005 figure of $78.730 billion."
So, farmers made $53.7 BILLION more (a 68 percent increase) in 2007 than in 2005. Most coming from grains, of course, and all coming out of the rest of our pockets.
An average 100 million gallon per year ethanol biorefinergy will generate $406 million in gross output for the local economy, add $223 billion to gross state output, support nearly 1,600 jobs, and increase household income by more than $50 million. Click here for information on how a 50 and 100 million gallon ethanol refinery can benefit your community.
I fear something is missing in your figures. This is fuzzy math at its very finest. IF the production of ethanol was 6 billion gallons in 2007. The average selling price was $2.51 per gallon for E85. That is $2.13 per gallon of ethanol gross. That comes out to only $12,780,000,000 or about $210 billion short of your posted gross state output. In other words someone in the government is lying about the potential of ethanol. When you sell 100 million gallons for $2.13 per gallon how does it generate $406 million? I will tell you how it is done. WE the tax payers kicked in the other $2 per gallon in farm subsidies and the new ethanol subsidies. We also guaranteed the loans on all those ethanol plants that will be obsolete as soon as they come up with another scam.
I am sure you have convinced yourself there is something good about ethanol. And that is fine. I just would like it to go away in CA. All it does is make my gas guzzler get worse mileage. With NO performance gain. You may like filling your tank 25% more than the other guy. I don't. My Sequoia gets 17 MPG on cheap AZ ARCO gas. Best I can get on Shell or Costco E10 gas in CA is 15 mpg.
Plus the price of tortillas and bread have gone through the ceiling with the higher prices on grain. We have NOT cut back on oil imports by a single barrel. In fact with all those tractors plowing all those new fields to grow more corn we are using more fossil fuel. And a tractor will not run on corn squeezin's.
Worst of all the Mexicans are plowing up their Agave plants to grow corn for tortillas. That will bring the price of Tequila out of reach for most of the country.
I hope you are happy with your temporary windfall. I know ADM and VeraSun have to be rolling in our dough. Money well spent on lobbying Congress.
Note the conversation he had with a gentleman while refilling with E85.
the E85fuel website sites the same numbers but doesn't show evidence of any type of testing. They make statements but never show any evidence of how they got these numbers. As for the e85prices, they compare the average gas price with the LOWEST E85 fuel prices to support their numbers. I guess you can do anything to support your cause.
Like I said before, i am all for fuel independence but I don't think E85 fuel is the answer. We are already seeing higher food cost associated with with its production. Considering we are teetering on a recession and low to no job growth, I think there are better solutions.
BTW, how much would it cost to convert a regular car to Flex fuel? None of the websites had numbers for a conversion (surprise surprise). Although the one did admit it would be a difficult process.
Not sure what websites you are looking at but it's less than $500 for 8 cyl. More for 10 & 12 cyl, less for 6, 4 and 2 cyl. And, the company I am referring to is Fuel Flex International. http://www.fuelflexint.com
As opposed to the $110 BILLION that ONLY Exxon/Mobil made last year??? Whose pocket did THAT come out of??? The Saudis??? Hugo Chavez??? Oh yeah that's right, I just paid $3.11 a gal for gas, not them.
http://www.fuelflexint.com/pages/comments.htm
It's a better fuel, hands down. You may or may not lose a lot of MPG, but people are saying the trade off is better power. In some cases, the lower fuel costs out wiegh the mpg loss. I don't understand why that is so hard to understand. If you lose 10% in mpg but it's 14% cheaper, how is that bad?
And the e85 prices on that site come from people who fill up thier tanks, like me. So, I don't get the lowest price comment somebody mentioned. These are real world prices based on the stations we use.
Seems to correlate to dtownfb. May be different in your neck of woods, and others for that matter, but not here.
That would be great. It just needs to make sense economically, and not result in food price runups or land use problems. It's probably better if big oil sticks to oil, there's plenty of other smart people out there to come up with workable, rational alternative fuels ideas.
Better than what? If it takes a gallon of fossil fuel to make a gallon of ethanol plus 4 gallons of water. Where is the gain? Even the most optimistic analysis claims are getting 1.2 gallons of ethanol for each gallon equivalent of fossil fuel. Many of the new production facilities are being powered by coal. That is a nice clean energy.
How do you justify the "Dead Zone" in the Gulf of Mexico? It is a direct result of using more fertilizer to grow more corn per acre. A little research will show that the environmental groups are coming to the same conclusion many here have. Ethanol is only good for a few big companies in the Midwest. It is causing more pollution than it was first thought. It is just a bad bunch of legislation that has caused this whole ethanol boondoggle. We did it in the 1970s and we are doing it again. The results will be the same. A lot of towns in the Midwest left with production facilities that are outdated and worthless in just a few years. The jobs will be gone. Our tax dollars in the pockets of a few mega ag corporations. And you will be back using regular gas.
sirlena: read this report esp. the evaluation at the bottom: http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/taurus.pdf
Please remember not everyone lives in the midwest where E85 is more available and you see cheaper prices. Also remember there are only 1500 station that sell E85. That is not a lot stretched across 50 states and 300 million people. Please also read what others are saying regarding costs of producing this fuel. Please do an online search on E85 emissions. Recent studies are showing this fuel is not as clean burning as you believe. Look for sites that do independent testing not the sites generated by people who benefit from selling this fuel. We all want a solution to the high energy costs but right now you are supporting a fuel that costs more and will further drain American wallets both at the fuel tank and the grocery stores.
And I have looked at this objectively. Over a year ago, I thought this was the way to go until I educated myself. Lots of reading and talking to folks. Folks like gagrice and texas are dead on. This is a knee jerk reaction that benefits the farmers and politicians.
Not true.
Magellan Midstream Partners and Buckeye Partners Assessing $3B Dedicated Ethanol Pipeline System
20 February 2008
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/02/magellan-midstr.html#more
You are right, we spend way too much money on oil...in the past 30 years, subsidies for oil $130 billion vs. $11 billion for renewable fuels (not just ethanol).
And in response to your import concern (out of the oil refiner's own mouths):
Ethanol boom may stifle U.S. gasoline demand (Feb 14, 2008)
Gasoline demand ... on an underlying basis, is looking pretty weak in terms of growth," said Adam Robinson, an energy analyst at Lehman Brothers. "And on the other hand, you've got ethanol which is substituting for gasoline in the existing pool."
The ethanol boom comes on top of the weak U.S. economy, which has also trimmed gasoline use.
And petroleum demand growth is shifting to Asia, where car fleets are growing in rapidly developing countries like China and India, said Jerry Morehart, commercial development manager at Marathon Oil Corp (MRO.N: Quote, Profile, Research).
"Some of the foreign gasoline that's currently being imported into the U.S. will have a more logical home to go to those growth markets in other countries," he said.
Bill Day, a spokesman for Valero Energy Corp (VLO.N: Quote, Profile, Research), the largest U.S. oil refiner, said his company foresees ethanol growth "offsetting gasoline imports to the U.S."
http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSN1349602720080214?pageNumber=3&vi- - rtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true
What exactly does this mean? The "logical" place for foreign gasoline to go is anywhere a willing and able buyer can be found .We import about 66 million gallons of gasoline per day out of our total average consumption of about 380 millon per day meaning we refine the rest in the US.
It semes to me that the ethanol issue is like a class action lawsuit turned on its head. In such a lawsuit, a lot of money is taken from a few and a little money is given to the many. With ethanol, a little money is taken from the many and given to a few. In both cases the enabler (read lawyers in the first case and ADM , farmers.et al in the second) makes big money. The unhappy fact is that the consumer/taxpayer is the one who benefits least from the whole scenario.The corporations who pay the lawsuits eventually collect it from consumers, and it's even worse in the ethanol scenario where the consumer and the taxpayer are largely one in the same : The MotoringPublic.
If there is a poster out there who is not part of the ethanol/corn farmer "cabal" and who thinks ethanol is a good deal, I must have missed that post.
Regards, DQ
DQ
We refine it here, but don't we IMPORT the vast majority of the crude that we refine into gasoline?? (remember, your figures tout gallons of gasoline, not barrels of oil)
http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html
Out of a 55 gal barrel of oil we can get a maximum of 19 1/2 gal of gasoline and we are at near capacity. Incidentally now that we are refining Ultra Low Sulfur diesel, we are now exporting a fair amount of diesel to Europe which helps to explain why diesel is now more expensive than gasoline. Go figure.
DQ
EIA Oil Info
p.s. - an oil barrel (unlike every other barrel) has 42 gallons, not 55.
Eliminate the political and greed factor, not a valid reason. It can’t be because it makes a big dent in the amount of oil we import, because it does not.
It is not beneficial to the earth, in fact it is detrimental.
Is it because you get better MPG? Nope. I believe with E85 you loose about 25% MPG.
Is bio diesel better? Not really, it still suffers from a degree of damaging the planet and will not make a huge dent in oil imports, BUT it does have some benefits.
It can be made from some industrial waste that will not work for ethanol and diesel provides a 35% increase in MPG over regular unleaded gas.
Using a car that gets 20 MPG
Bench mark Regular unleaded gas 20mpg
E85 15mpg
Diesel/bio diesel 27mpg
Why are we striving for 15mpg and not 27mpg? :confuse:
That is just wrong.
So, again I ask: Why ethanol?
They also have a Fact Sheet for a Dodge Caravan and they don't list any differences between the FFV or Non-FFV vehicle. http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/fleettest/pdfs/caravan.pdf
So your point is?
I mean, I'm talking about the conversion of a 1998 Taurus with 147,000 miles on it. The car loves it! It drives great on E85 and like crapt on conventional gas. Who cares about that 1998 MY fact sheet, based on 15 year old technology, when PD made the decisions to release the vehicle that way. I don't. If this taurus is gonna die, it's gonna die with a new lease on performance.
But hey, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory has a cool website. So thanks again for that Fact Sheet info.
*********************************************************************
Here's some interesting info from them...
Ethanol from Corn Kernels: Is It an Effective Use of the Resource?
Critics of corn-based ethanol often say that it takes more energy to produce the ethanol than we get from the resulting fuel. But official studies demonstrate just the opposite. The efficiency of both corn farming and ethanol production has dramatically increased over the years. The latest U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) study calculates a net energy balance of 1.67 for ethanol production; that is, for every unit of energy that went into growing the corn and turning it into ethanol in 2001, we got back about two-thirds more energy in the form of automotive fuel and animal feed.
Even if that net energy balance were less than one, On the basis of liquid fuels alone, the USDA calculated a net balance of 6.34. It is important to note that the energy in ethanol totally replaces gasoline energy, and
It is true that modern corn farming and ethanol production are both energy-intensive, and that the “net energy” gain of some early ethanol plants was relatively modest. But allegations about a negative net energy balance seem to be based either on using old data or failing to take into account the considerable value of the animal feed co-products of ethanol production.
Animal feed co-products are a critical part of any effectiveness analysis because they are a major part of the economics of ethanol production.
Corn, the largest U.S. crop, is used primarily for high-starch animal feed. Ethanol production uses up most of the starch from the kernels, but leaves the protein and fiber, so ethanol co-products are very high in protein and therefore are high-value animal feeds.
http://www.nrel.gov/research_review/pdfs/2005/38668a.pdf
*********************************************************************
And yeah, that sucks about the pollution, but could that possibly be from old technology farming pratices like the NREL mentions? How do you know they aren't working on a remedy for that issue too?
You can always find a negative in anything humans are doing.
My point is that the industry is obviously evolving quickly. Seems to me that some people don't want to even consider seeing that.
Oh, and by the way, I have nothing to do with the farm industry. Don't even know a farmer. I live in Motown, born and bred. Average citizen who likes cars -- fixes them and teaches how to fix them. I don't give a &^%$ about ADM or the politics. I only care that this old vehicle runs better and all the testimonials I have read from people who have converted, are largely positive (I read 1 negative). If there was a prevelence of negative experiences, I think I'd see them posted all around the internet in overwhelming proportion, because bad news always travels more widely and very fast. Good news is way more harder to proliferate and negative much easier, as evidenced by the existance of this forum.
Ethanol from Corn Kernels: Is It an Effective Use of the Resource?
Critics of corn-based ethanol often say that it takes more energy to produce the ethanol than we get from the resulting fuel. But official studies demonstrate just the opposite. The efficiency of both corn farming and ethanol production has dramatically increased over the years. The latest U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) study calculates
a net energy balance of 1.67 for ethanol production; that is, for every unit of energy that went into growing the corn and turning it into ethanol in 2001, we got back about two-thirds more energy in the form of automotive fuel and animal feed.
Even if that net energy balance were less than one, ethanol production
and use still displaces oil imports with domestic nonpetroleum energy, which is a major plus in terms of reducing our dependence on imported fuel. On the basis of liquid fuels alone, the USDA calculated
a net balance of 6.34. It is important to note that the energy in ethanol totally replaces gasoline energy, and relatively little petroleum
product is used to produce it.It is true that modern corn farming and ethanol production are both energy-intensive, and that the “net energy” gain of some early ethanol
plants was relatively modest. But allegations about a negative net energy balance seem to be based either on using old data or failing
to take into account the considerable value of the animal feed co-products of ethanol production.
Animal feed co-products are a critical part of any effectiveness analysis
because they are a major part of the economics of ethanol production.
Corn, the largest U.S. crop, is used primarily for high-starch animal feed. Ethanol production uses up most of the starch from the kernels, but leaves the protein and fiber, so ethanol co-products are very high in protein and therefore are high-value animal feeds.
Environmental Defense report soft on ethanol problems
November 4, 2007 in education, environment, health, science, sustainability
Tags: corn ethanol, ethanol, NRC, problems with ethanol fuel, UN, water quality, water use
The Environmental Defense organization released a report, discussed on its web pages and in a related web article written by one of the report’s co-authors, about the potential negative effects of ethanol production on the environment.
The report, a downloadable PDF, Potential Impacts of Biofuels Expansion on Natural Resources [PDF], discusses the damage that ethanol production could do to the Ogallala Aquifer, the center of the famous 1930’s Dust bowl and
“one of the world’s largest aquifers and an important water source for the eight Great Plains states it lies beneath: Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming.”
The report, as summarized on the Environmental Defense website, warned of the following:
” Making ethanol requires substantial resources. For example, between three and six gallons of water are needed to produce one gallon of ethanol. Our study shows how plans to expand the production of ethanol, primarily with corn-based feedstock, will further strain the region’s resources. Topping the list of potential issues are:
* increased use of water in places where supplies are already dwindling,
* retired croplands reverting to working lands, and
* the loss of important grasslands to crop production.”
However, this warning is mild compared to more recent conclusions and studies, including one study from the National Research Council and one from the United Nations,. I have discussed these reports before.
Water shortages are ONE consequence of ethanol production, and the ED is correct to point this out. However, the conversion of corn to ethanol carries with it a much higher environmental burden and actual cost: the increased runoff of fertilizer alone threatens rivers, streams and other bodies of water, including the Gulf of Mexico. This harmful process is also heavily subsidized by Federal and State tax dollars in the US.
Until we can implement biomass to ethanol conversion commercially, the UN has called for a halt to biofuel use. The current methods compete too much with food and cause too much environmental damage. Jane Goodall has stated that biofuels, while helpful in principle, damage the rain forests if made without proper foresight and methods. I agree with the UN and with Jane Goodall.
We also need to explore and solve apparent health issues from ethanol-based fuel, as found by sampling the air quality of Brazil, where many cars have been running on 100% ethanol for decades. The health issues are directly related to high amounts of ozone and formaldehyde in Brazilian air- these are substances associated with serious respiratory problems and, in the case of formaldehyde, with causing cancer in lab mice.
It seems to me that we could eliminate the harmful emissions with proper catalytic converter design or other adjustments to the combustion engineering of cars, but (a) I’m just speculating and (b) somebody has to work on it.
http://greenchemistry.wordpress.com/2007/11/04/edf-report-soft-on-ethanol-proble- ms/
increasing biofuel production is a “total disaster” for starving people — Jean Ziegler, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food
By Stephen Leahy
Oct 20 (IPS) - A raft of new studies reveal European and American multibillion dollar support for biofuels is unsustainable, environmentally destructive and much more about subsidising agri-business corporations than combating global warming.
Not only do most forms of biofuel production do little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, growing biofuel crops uses up precious water resources, increasing the size and extent of dead zones in the oceans, boosting use of toxic pesticides and deforestation in tropical countries, such studies say.
And biofuel, powered by billions of dollars in government subsidies, will drive food prices 20-40 percent higher between now and 2020, predicts the Washington-based International Food Policy Research Institute.
“Fuel made from food is a dumb idea to put it succinctly,” says Ronald Steenblik, research director at the International Institute for Sustainable Development’s Global Subsidies Initiative (GSI) in Geneva, Switzerland.
Biofuel production in the U.S. and Europe is just another way of subsidising big agri-business corporations, Steenblik told IPS.
“It’s (biofuel) also a distraction from dealing with the real problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” he asserts.
Making fuel out of corn, soy, oilseeds and sugar crops is also incredibly expensive, Steenblik and his co-authors document in two new reports on the U.S. and the European Union that are part of a series titled ‘Biofuels at What Cost? Government Support for Ethanol and Biodiesel’.
Their analysis shows that by 2006 government support for biofuels had reached 11 billion dollars a year for Organisation of Economic Development and Co-operation (OECD) countries. More than 90 percent of those subsidies came from the European Union and the U.S.
These subsidies will likely climb to 13-15 billion dollars this year the report estimates.
“More subsidies are coming as the biofuel industry expands,” says Steenblik.
In fact, countries will have to spend more than 100 billion dollars a year to get biofuel production levels high enough to supply 25 or 30 percent of transport fuel demands.
And those levels of annual subsidies will have to continue because the industry is dependent on them, he says.
It might be worth it if biofuels resulted in significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) but Steenblik calculates the amount of subsidies that goes into making enough ethanol to reduce emissions equivalent of a tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) is between 2,100 to 4,400 euros (2,980 to 6,240 dollars) depending on the support programmes.
However, the European carbon trading markets sells a similar saved or sequestered tonne of CO2 for less than 25 euros (35 dollars) through various projects like planting trees or installing solar panels.
Various analysis that take the full environmental costs of growing, shipping and processing maize into ethanol show there is only a small reduction in GHG emissions over burning fossil fuels. Newer research shows some biofuels could even be far worse.
Rapeseed biodiesel and maize ethanol may produce up to 70 percent and 50 percent more GHG emissions respectively than fossil fuels, according to work published in September by Nobel prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen and University of Edinburgh colleague Keith Smith.
They found that growing biofuel crops releases around twice the amount of the potent greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N2O) than previously thought. The N2O results from using nitrogen fertilisers.
About 80 percent of Europe’s biodiesel comes from rapeseed and in America the vast majority is maize ethanol.
“What we are saying is that growing biofuels is probably of no benefit and in fact is actually making the climate issue worse,” Smith has said in media reports.
Last January, U.S. President George W. Bush set a biofuel target of 35 billion gallons per year by 2017, more than five times the current production of less than 7 billion gallons.
However that target would leave some U.S. waterways polluted and some regions with severe water shortages the National Research Council (NRC) said in a report released this month. The NRC is the research arm of the US National Academy of Sciences.
If the Energy bills passed in 2005 & 2007 had spent $13 billion on new battery technology research and nuclear power plants we would be much further ahead in the field of alternative energy. Ethanol takes us back 100 years when cars were powered by moonshine. Ethanol producers are the modern day moonshiners being subsidized by the Feds. Now that is a switch.
EVs are the only way to substantially cut GHG and reduce imported oil.
Ethanol is such a feel good, smoke and mirrors line of BS.
This statement is part of the answer (ref: post 413 & 414) as to why the Fed is promoting ethanol.
Who is the biggest looser if we use fuel efficient cars?
Hint: It’s not the oil companies.
I don't think the industry has the big money behind it. I don't believe the oil companies want us to have diesel cars. A few reasons: you get more miles out of a gallon and the amount of diesel in a barrel of crude oil. ULSD is more difficult to refine. Diesel can be made from many more sources than gasoline. Natural gas, coal, waste products, algae etc If the natural gas people get up to speed on GTL it will give us a good supply of ultra clean diesel. Zero sulfur! All we need are the vehicles that run on diesel. They are being blocked by the environmentalists that are going off of old data to push their agenda.
Biodiesel is more of a grass roots product. I think that is better than getting the government involved. It would probably just end up in the same boondoggle that we have with ethanol.
The promise of ethanol as a transportation fuel substitute continues to dim. State legislatures continue to embrace it apparently without noticing the growing list of serious problems. The agricultural and engineering problems are large and expanding.
The forces at work promoting ethanol are in attack mode against critics, instead of presenting us all with the needed cost, engineering, and performance data. We are left to find this out ourselves.
One point to emphasize is that a gallon of ethanol contains only 2/3 the energy of a gallon of gasoline. This means that a tank filled with ethanol will get only 2/3 of the miles per gallon as with pure gasoline. Of course 85 percent ethanol (E85) or 10 percent ethanol (E10) will do better than the pure ethanol tank, but will always get less miles per gallon than the gasoline. Specifically, E10 mix will get about 3.4 percent less and the E85 mix will get 29 percent less. In summary it is more costly to get from point A to point B with ethanol.
Another point is that corn requires lots of fertilizers. Were it not for such fertilizer requirements corn production would drop by a factor of 3 or more. A great deal of fossil fuel, namely natural gas is required to manufacture the fertilizers.
Corn also requires a large amount of pesticides as well, more than most agricultural crops. These, too, are derived from petroleum products.
A huge amount of energy is also needed in plowing or tilling the fields, planting the seed corn, harvesting, and transporting the corn from the fields, and requires additional fossil fuels, largely diesel. After these energy intensive activities, drying of the corn is done with more fossil fuels, such as natural gas. All of this is adds up to being very energy intensive. Someone described American agriculture quite nicely as “The use of land to convert oil into food.”
And all of this energy is expended before the ethanol fermentation and distillation processes begin, which themselves require much more energy. All in all it makes little energy sense to make ethanol from corn for fuel when it consumes so much fossil fuel in its making. Given all of the fossil energy needed in the production of ethanol, it makes little environmental sense either for its widespread use.
Food writer Michael Pollan of the New York Times says that is doesn’t make economic sense either to make ethanol in this way. The federal government provides a huge tax credit to the manufacturers of ethanol to the tune of 54 cents/gallon of ethanol. It’s also no coincidence that the federal government has also erected a 54 cent import tariff on imported ethanol. This helps explain the mindless enthusiasm for ethanol production, not that it is energy efficient or makes economic or environmental sense.
Corporate giants, electric utilities, and other ethanol producers are ecstatic with the prospects of huge tax breaks.
I've done some more research on that 1998 Taurus FFV you are referring to and the reason it has many of those differences is because Ford offered 2 types of flex fuel vehicles. Methanol and Ethanol.
Methanol, as you know, is extremely corrosive. Auto manufatures specifically point that out in your owner guide -- that the use of methanol causes corrosion to metal and damage to plastic and rubber, that would not be covered by warranty.
Ford launched the M85 Taurus back in 1995 and did not carry 2 different engines. The one engine had to be capable of running either fuel. That is why they had the unique engine block material, etc. Many of the same parts were probably shared with the ethanol vehicle, except of course, the PCM strategy.
Blarney
Ethanol accounts for some of the rise in the prices of other crops and foods too. Partly this is because maize is fed to animals, which are now more expensive to rear. Partly it is because America's farmers, eager to take advantage of the biofuels bonanza, went all out to produce maize this year, planting it on land previously devoted to wheat and soyabeans. This year America's maize harvest will be a jaw-dropping 335m tonnes, beating last year's by more than a quarter. The increase has been achieved partly at the expense of other food crops.
America's ethanol programme is a product of government subsidies. There are more than 200 different kinds, as well as a 54 cents-a-gallon tariff on imported ethanol. That keeps out greener Brazilian ethanol, which is made from sugar rather than maize. Federal subsidies alone cost $7 billion a year (equal to around $1.90 a gallon).
But overall, enormous numbers of the poor—both urban and landless labourers—are net buyers of food, not net sellers. They have already been hard hit: witness the riots that took place in Mexico over tortilla prices earlier this year. According to IFPRI, the expansion of ethanol and other biofuels could reduce calorie intake by another 4-8% in Africa and 2-5% in Asia by 2020. For some countries, such as Afghanistan and Nigeria, which are only just above subsistence levels, such a fall in living standards could be catastrophic.
So it is no good saying “let them eat cake”:
That is what companies like ADM and VeraSun will tell the poor.
E85 is only 1% of total ethanol production and should be reviewed as such.
and it's been proven that if we take out the "ethanol as an additive", reg gasoline prices will go up 15%...so, take your pick.
Proven by what or whom? I saw the price of gas jump as soon as the ethanol lacing mandate went into affect here in CA. When you have to ship ethanol 2000 miles it costs money. It does not get put in the pipeline with the gas. It has to be mixed at the point of delivery. What do you suppose it costs to ship a gallon or 7lbs of ethanol from Iowa to CA by special truck or rail car?
You need to face the facts. If the subsidy that is somewhere between $1 and $2 per gallon was removed ethanol would go away. Maybe we could get some wheat planted for our daily bread. This frenzy to plant corn is driving the price of feed and food up. If ethanol is viable the Feds should remove the 54 cent tariff from Brazilian ethanol and let the market work. Instead of paying back ADM for all those free dinners and campaign contributions.