I know 2006 Chevy 3.5L Impala can use it. Anyone believe there is no future with E85? If so, why? I hear it isn't cost efficient to make. The ratio of energy used to make it is higher than output of what is made. How can you find a place it's sold?
E85 despite its issues has some future -- it is mandated to have one by the US Government.
That' "don't make it right" -- it does however make it law.
Remember we did have prohibition for a time too.
Remember all the "dumb" acts of Congress over the past 200 years.
At this moment, E85 costs somewhat more than gasoline and goes about 70% as far per gallon (also it is being subsidized which will increase its price per gallon once the subsidy expires.)
It is perhaps renewable if you imagine taking 71% of our total farmland and so designate it "corn for fuel" rather than "a variety of actual growing things for food."
E85 cannot be pumped throughout our existing petro distribution system -- so it, for the time being, has to be put in trucks and taken to the filling stations (and in a fairly large population state, like Ohio, there are currently only 9 or 10 stations where one can buy E85 at more per gallon than regular or E10 regular dino gas and literally go 30% fewer miles per tankful.)
It [ethanol] has everything going against it, except that the US government mandates its adoption.
It is an alternative though, of that there is little doubt.
It seems, however, like it wasn't fully thought out. :confuse:
"It seems, however, like it wasn't fully thought out."
On the contrary, it was very well thought out. It's just the real purpose is not to help our energy problem. The real purpose to put money in the pockets of Big-Ag and to buy votes of midwestern farm states. Also politicians can say they are doing something to reduce energy costs and increase supply when they are doing nothing of the sort.
I don't know about that. If a politician's primary objective was to serve the public interest then they are absolutely incompetent. If their primary objective is to remain in office then they are actually fairly competent. The fact that the two aren't one and the same represents a fundamental flaw that has always existed in our form of democracy.
So then I'm led to believe that E85 is a farce and we should look some where else to solve our ebbing fuel problem. Too bad. I could' ve seen myself driving my family in a large sedan like the Chevy Impala and not having to worry about high fuel prices instead of squeezing my family into a compact sedan and pinching my pennies to fill the tank. :mad: :sick: :lemon:
I could've seen myself driving my family in a large sedan like the Chevy Impala and not having to worry about high fuel prices
I don't think that was ever considered an option in the push for ethanol. For starters if gas is $3 per gallon E85 will have to be $2 for you to break even. It gets that much worse mileage. So far MN is the only state that is even close to that price difference. They are sacrificing road tax to push ethanol. How stupid is that?
I don't think you can get an Impala FFV except as a fleet vehicle. One of the posters here tried to order one and was told it was not available. Only PU trucks and large SUVs with the 5.3L V8. So far no one has posted mileage for a car that runs on E85. I don't think many have been sold to the public. Only government vehicles. You know they can afford to waste money. It is after all other people's money they are flushing down the ethanol toilet.
GM and Ford have the lowest fleet average of auto manufacturers in the US. They are also the two companies that are most aggressively marketing FFVs. On the other hand Toyota and Honda seem reluctant to jump on this ethanol bandwagon even though they have a "greener" reputation. Seems almost like a contradiction. Now look at the FFVs that GM and Ford are offering. All low mpg. The picture starts getting a little clearer. Ford and GM push FFVs because it allows them to avoid CAFE penalties and continue selling their biggest, most inefficient vehicles, which is what their business model is based on.
Those commercials featuring Bill Ford talking about what his company is doing to help with our oil dependence are laughable. Has their been a less innovative company than Ford in the last 30 years?
The discussion of high mileage cars (30MPG or more) is juxtaposed with a discussion about 250,000 FF vehicles -- the conclusion is that FFV's are part of the high mileage fleet and "aren't we lucky Ford is paving the way to high mileage autos?"
I have no issue with marketing of FFV's per se.
I have no issue with marketing "our cars allow choice of E0, E10 or E85 fuel" (I don't even care if they "omit" the mileage penalty that creeps into the equation as one goes from E0 to E85 -- they don't HAVE to tell me the mileage is poorer and the costs per tankful will be higher; they just should not give the appearance of saying just the opposite.)
But the borderline "untruthfulness" continues.
Based on a technicality in the law, a car company can claim higher MPG's with E85 based ONLY on the 15% of the fuel that is dino-gasoline. The facts are this:
IF the miles per tankful (in your spanky new FFV) equal 300 with dino-gasoline and you run a tankful of E85 blend in the car, the mileage on that tankful will equal 210. Typically, too, the cost for the gallon of E85 will be either the same or slightly more than regular dino-gasoline.
And, at the moment, the E85 is subsidized by YOUR taxes at $.51 per gallon, too boot.
However, if you buy an FFV you will receive a tax credit and the thanks of a grateful government. :confuse:
And, at the moment, the E85 is subsidized by YOUR taxes at $.51 per gallon, too boot.
Remember that is just the up front to the producers incentive. The corn growers get a sizable subsidy on a per bushel basis. Or guaranteed price is the way it is implemented. I have noticed the price difference keeps getting closer even in the Midwest. 3 cents difference is not going to cut it.
From: Ross E85 Price: 2.99 Station Name: Shell Station City: Lansing Unleaded Price: 3.02 Date: Monday, July 31, 2006
The good news is that more people are realizing this. IMO, there are very few ethanol skeptics that are suddenly becoming pro-ethanol converts. On the other hand there are a significant number of people, myself included, that initially entertained the idea that ethanol had promise but on further scrutiny have re-evaulated their position. Hopefully these people vote and the legislators will take heed.
at the point we start outbidding people for their dinner in order to satisfy our insatiable desire to burn fuel, IMO, that is not quite as morally acceptable
Then again, maybe it is a blessing in disquise. Most of the processed food we eat is made from corn. I don't think that all the deep fried chicken nuggets or soda pop priced out of our diet is such a bad thing.
It's called an alternative fuel, not the solution to our oil problem. It's there, who cares, freedom of choice.
We would not care if that was true. It is MANDATED by congress to go in our gas. It is subsidized by congress to make it viable as an alternative. The only choice we have is to vote out of office the ones getting favors, to pass such ignorant laws.
dude: some of us care because the subsidies are a waste of our hard-earned income/tax dollar. Some of us would rather see the government use those subsidies to get more bang for the buck, like biodiesel, or solar panels, or.......
It would be a better us of our dollars to simply allow all diesels to be used on passenger cars, and then spend the tax money on cleaning up bigger sources of pollution
Thats why the governer of Iowa, Illinois, Minn., Indiana, Wisconsin to name a few all agree with this fuel
I would think they would be for it. That is money found for their states. It is the rest of us footing the bill so they can get rid of the corn they grow. Ask the governors on both Coasts what they think of it. The sad part is the corn growers are not making anymore money. They are just pumping more expensive chemicals into the ground to get more bushels for ADM, Cargill & Versun to make the real money. The worst case of dribble down economics I have seen. I won't be growing any of that fossil fuel produced corn on my Minnesota farm, I can tell you that for sure.
I am pretty sure that I am more of a "conservationist/preservationist" than anyone here, and I am not a fan of the E-fuels. There are better environmental uses of government funds, plain and simple.
I guess if you assume that government has unlimited funds, then, sure, might as well throw a jillion dollars at the large ag interests. Why not? It's only my money.
Tell me, how much "less clean" is diesel than unleaded? If we added a nickel tax to every gallon of diesel, do you think we could use that money to purchase air pollution improvements on other sources of pollution, that would result in a net improvement to air quality?
I'd rather do that than give $$ to Ag interests.
I guess if a person thinks that the most important issue is "energy independence," then that skews the analysis. I am for energy independence, but NOT "at any cost."
People think every conservationist has to be pro-energy independence. That is sloppy thinking. You want energy independence, then you better be willing to open coastal California, and the ANWR, and the huge oil shale projects, etc. etc. I'd rather give money to the Saudis than sacrifice the coast of California. I'd rather pay an extra nickel/gallon than sacrifice the coast of California.
My Congresswoman is a republican -- she sent this long letter explaining how cool E85 will be and although most of the facts she noted were accurate, the entire impression the letter sent was false.
The policital party MAY have something to do with this -- but right now there are pols all over the spectrum who seem to be in favor of MANDATING Ethanol, SUBSIDIZNG Ethanol and not telling the whole story.
My Congresswoman did not exactly say that E85 gets 70% of the MPG of E10 (pretty much the "standard" gas for sale here in Ohio.) She tip toed around the MPG issue with information that appeared to lead you to believe ethanol would be less expensive on a per gallon basis.
No mention, in her letter, of the $.51 subsidy either.
Plenty of mention of the 100+ jobs that will be created in tiny, rural Cadiz, Ohio where the new Corn Fed ethanol plant is being built. No mention of the cost of those jobs, the energy required to make a gallon of ethanol, the fact that it cannot be pumped into an existing infrastructure/distribution system and. . .oh heck, it just makes me weary to think about the number of holes in her argument.
When I wrote to her, she replied "I'd rather send the money to Iowa than Iran." Where do I begin to have a reasoned and reasonable discussion with someone who argues long and loud FOR ethanol, apparently is unaware of the uphill battle it will face when folks discover the lower MPG, the not lower price per gallon and note that it is subsidized and otherwise impractical?
Members of our own EPA and the Diesel Technology Forum and apparently some very bright battery scientists (who argue in favor of a more efficient conversion of coal into electricity) believe clean diesel fuel running in clean efficient current generation cars, bio diesel and/or diesel/battery hybrids (diesel/electric hybrids to be precise) can offer us a reduction in our need for foreign oil (technically eliminating entirely our importation of Middle Easter Oil) and a reduction of greenhouse gasses.
All this is known and is readily available to anyone who will take some time to find it out (ummm, you would think a member of Congress would have staff members and advisors to vet this kind of thing) -- yet we come to an entirely different conclusion based not on doing what's right for both the near and the long term, but based on doing what King Corn wants, apparently.
I could just spit.
Ptoooie!
Hello Congresswoman -- is this thing on? Hello????
On the other hand, we do need to attempt to offer alternatives and E85 does pretty much qualify.
I coulda really got behind B0 to B100 bio-diesel.
And the cool thing is that a diesel powered car at a similar price point to a gas powered version goes at least 20% further on a gallon of fuel that generally costs less than Premium or Mid grade and the accelerative capabilities of the diesel vehicle will exceed the gas powered version.
Hmm:
1. higher MPG's 2. lowering or eliminating our need for imports 3. can be grown from soybeans and after the removal of the diesel, the soybeans can still be used for other "food" purposes 4. lower greenhouse gas 5. lower cost than ethanol and usually lower costs than Premium dino-gas 6. no pipeline/transportation issues 7. cars so equipped would be quieter, cleaner, quicker, no less fast and more durable 8. cars so equipped would be close in price to gasoline or FFV's MSRP's 9. using 71% of our total farmland is NOT required 10. Willie Nelson supports.
The wacky outright lies and fear-mongering along with the worshiping of Arab and South American dictators would lead you to believe that the hate-mongers on this forum are direct followers of ***CENSORED***. These nay-sayers are a dime a dozen, always espousing some -ism or another while they wait for their government checks. They only push their negative agendas and their hatred of all parts of the United States system, they NEVER contribute anything positive to the United States.
I also thought it was an interesting article that California has taken NO action to slow down the growth of oil imports or using renewable fuels.
Evidently Biodiesel production has to capture all runoff or it kills wildlife and destroys fisheries as has been found. Diesel cars are POS as they always have been, without even being popular/wanted in Europe. Europe would willingly throw out their terrible diesels if they could ship them all to Russia...nobody in Europe really wants a lousy diesel.
I don't think that was ever considered an option in the push for ethanol. For starters if gas is $3 per gallon E85 will have to be $2 for you to break even. It gets that much worse mileage. So far MN is the only state that is even close to that price difference. They are sacrificing road tax to push ethanol. How stupid is that?
I don't think you can get an Impala FFV except as a fleet vehicle. One of the posters here tried to order one and was told it was not available. Only PU trucks and large SUVs with the 5.3L V8. So far no one has posted mileage for a car that runs on E85. I don't think many have been sold to the public. Only government vehicles. You know they can afford to waste money. It is after all other people's money they are flushing down the ethanol toilet.
More outright lies from the far left! Gagrice, you are a good representative of the oil cartel...you sund more like TM every day!...get a life!
These diesel engines were "not ready for prime time" and even if I were to recite chapter and verse the reasons and vet them fully and explain them to death, the spirit of what you might conclude would remain -- these diesel's were plainly "not ready for Mr and Ms John and Jane Q Public and all the Ships at Sea." Further information is easily Googled and, to repeat simply would put an end to the why question that may be here, today, on this matter.
These diesels -- were you to find a perfect one -- in the land yachts they were often placed into, were "not bad." Upon starting, they were a little noisy, the exhaust had a hint of soot in it (but not black belching 'moke, by any means) and inside the cars there was little in the way of evidence you were driving a compression engine.
The Olds 98, my boss had, was fully loaded with all lux goodies and due to the extra torque of the diesel, seemed imperceptibly different in terms of "starting from a full stop." On the highway, you'd never know anything at all except you could drive and drive and drive between fill ups, compared to the anti-pollution device laden gasoline V8's of the day.
What a lie..GM was so desperate to solve the problems they tried every trick in the book. There was a huge cottage industry that replaced the GM diesel engines with gasoline burning ones. People were so mad at GM, there were a tremendous amount of lawsuits and GM paid for partially for the gasoline replacements...a silent warranty..similar to the Hyundai when they came out with their POS.
I find it interesting that you always end up labeling and name calling those who disagree with you. Those that haven't jumped on the E-85 bandwagon are not worshippers of Arab and South American dictators, nor are we anti-American. We simple looked at the issues at hand and we see that it doesn't make much sense.
Facts that you either will not or cannot address are things such as:
Reduced mileage in using E-85 makes it far more expensive to use than regular gas.
The very nature of E-85 means that it cannot be transported through regular pipelines and therefor has to be trucked in.
We cannot produce enough ethanol right now to support E-10 let alone large quantities of E-85.
We who question ethanol have looked into this and see that it simply isn't feesable. right now.
Let me ask you this, how is it anti American to say that my tax dollars shouldn't subsidize ethanol production that makes ADM exec's rich?
How is it anti American to say "hey this doesn't work, lets find something that does work"?
nobody in Europe really wants a lousy diesel.
Well they must want good diesels since they do sell a lot of them over there.
they NEVER contribute anything positive to the United States
And what have you done to contribute anything positive? And no bashing those who disagree with you doesn't count. Nor does promoting ethanol because it doesn't count (since your posts are full of outright lies and hatred (look at your post I am responding to).
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Illinois Senator Barack Obama warns citizens at his 50th Town Hall meeting about gas guzzling, WPSD-TV reports.
It was among many points made to the standing room only audience at the Metropolis Community Center. Obama spoke on everything from DC politics to global warming.
He says part of the blame for the world's higher temperatures rests on gas guzzling vehicles. Obama says consumers can make the difference by switching to higher mileage hybrids.
Today the Senator said, "It would save more energy, do more for the environment and create better world security than all the drilling we could do in Alaska."
"After the meeting... Obama left in a GMC Envoy after admitting to favoring SUV's himself," claimed local News Channel 6.
Tommy Vietor, Senator Obama's press secretary, explains: "What Senator Obama has long advocated is the use of vehicles that are more fuel efficient, including but not exclusively hybrids.
"The vehicle senator obama travels in while in illinois is a Flexible Fuel Vehicle (FFV), which can run on e85, a blended fuel made of 85 percent ethanol.
"So he in fact was practicing what he preached at the town hall meeting in Metropolis yesterday when he said we must drive fewer gas-guzzling vehicles."
But it does not appear that GMC's Envoy is E85 ready.
According to the EPA no GMC Envoy FFV exists. Maybe his aids told him a lie about ethanol.
hmmmmm Just one of many lies the government would have us believe about ETHANOL!!!
I'm glad that gagrice attacked Obama for this, because it clarifies for the rest of us that gagrice is not exactly the unbiased commentator that he always claim to be
(nor are any of us, but not all of us claim to be pure as the driven snow)
who cares what vehicle Obama drives?
I think it's funny that people criticize a guy for not practicing what he preaches more than they criticize a guy who doesn't preach, at all, but practices the same wasteful ways
at least Obama is spreading the good word which is more than I can say for most SUV drivers
I, for one, don't require the messenger to be consistent with the message. The message matters more to me than the messenger. Let me give a simple example: If a guy says "Killing is bad"
then that guy goes and kills people
does that mean that YOU no longer believe the message "Killing is bad"???
To convince 200 million to conserve gasoline it might take a guy getting on airplanes, etc. etc. That doesn't mean we shouldn't conserve gas, does it?
because he is an elected official who is telling us we need to do one thing but does something else. You know do as I say not as I do. What happened to leadership by example?
I think it's funny that people criticize a guy for not practicing what he preaches more than they criticize a guy who doesn't preach, at all, but practices the same wasteful ways
I don't think so, the one who doesn't practice what he preaches is a hypocrite, the one who doesn't preach at all but is still as wasteful isn't a hypocrite.
In other words, I don't mind you driving around in a 9 MPG SUV, but I do mind you driving a 9 MPG SUV while saying everyone else should be driving high mileage economy cars to save gas.
I, for one, don't require the messenger to be consistent with the message.
I do require it, for if the messenger doesn't believe in his own message why should I?
Its like if we had this conversation:
Me: Oh you just have to have this dish it is the best thing you will ever eat.
You: Well why aren't you eating it?
Me: Oh I wouldn't feed that crap to my dog.
Would you eat what I was saying you should get?
If you say yes please contact me as I have this wonderful deal for you.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Here are a few facts: Lots of folks like to drive SUVs & PU trucks. The ones I know including myself do not tell others they need to buy a little car so the net affect will be a savings in fossil fuel.
Here is another one. The fertilizer being dumped on the land to get higher yeilds of corn is killing a big area of the Gulf.
And how about the fact that we have ethanol as a result of well placed money in our government by lobbyists.
And the last fact. I would be willing to drive a smaller PU truck that got an honest 30-35 MPG running on diesel. Too many politicians trying to decide which constituency they want to shmooze for the opcoming election. They usually go for the gullible voters.
Here are a few facts: Lots of folks like to drive SUVs & PU trucks. The ones I know including myself do not tell others they need to buy a little car so the net affect will be a savings in fossil fuel.
Here is another one. The fertilizer being dumped on the land to get higher yeilds of corn is killing a big area of the Gulf.
And how about the fact that we have ethanol as a result of well placed money in our government by lobbyists.
And the last fact. I would be willing to drive a smaller PU truck that got an honest 30-35 MPG running on diesel. Too many politicians trying to decide which constituency they want to shmooze for the opcoming election. They usually go for the gullible voters
and THOSE are all FACTS that are worth discussing
and I won't judge the validity of those facts based on whether you drive an SUV or a UFO
I am not arguing that it is immoral and fattening to drive an SUV
I am arguing that the facts are what matter, not whether the guy whose mouth forms and utters the words is a ninny
I think we get distracted by BS like "Obama drove away in an SUV" when we should be asking ourselves, "hmm...our SUVs a good idea? Can the earth sustain this level of carbon dioxide generation? Can the earth handle all the chemicals being flushed into our rivers? What can we do to help our youth learn to read better? What's a good way to teach my daughter how to drive?"
I know it's entertaining to bash a politician. And I agree the hypocrisy is apparent, and is an easy target. but it's not as important as the message, itself. And I think it is wrongheaded to get distracted by it.
That is, if you care, at all, about global warming. Even if you disagree that it's happening or that man plays a negative role, you should still care about the debate. I guess if you've made up your mind, then you might as well bash a guy who is just trying to put the idea in people's minds that they can do a good thing, instead of a bad thing.
though I'm not sure that pushing FFVs is a good thing
pushing non-SUVs is a good thing - hard to see that as being "bad" for our society. It's not like he's trying to convince us to go home and bite the heads of our budgies.
I'm sorry if gagrice disagrees with how domestic policy is made. I can't change Washington. No one can or has. I suggest donating money to organizations who champion your case. I am sure there is a pro-diesel pickup lobbying group out there. Maybe you need to make inroads into an environmental group and help establish policies there. There are a lot of pro-diesel people IN enviro. groups, and they agree with you on the corn issue. It's not like every NRDC member loves ADM, after all.
It's OK that you and your truck-driving friends don't tell other folks what to drive. No one is criticizing you for the messages that you are not stating. I think if your message was "Don't conserve. Even if you don't need an SUV, you should go buy one" - well, I'd say your message would be ridiculous, regardless of what you drive. The message is what matters. Judge the message.
I don't know if our representatives subscribe to a newsletter service or if they write their own. I kind of hope they all write their own, just to keep up the illusion.
My Congresswoman (and in this case she literally lives about a mile from where I live) has been sending Ethanol newsletters to her constiuents for several months now. These newsletters have been touting the work being done in Congress to address and hopefully "cure" our addiction to oil (of note, of course, from the State of the Union address in 2006.)
Fine, I am for "alternatives" -- I am even for Ethanol. Or, at least I would be and/or may become an Ethanol (E85) advocate were their an economic case that could make me believe it can succeed.
At present, I can see no possible way for E85 to be successful in the next several years. We have seen written here, including many citations of sources, the "facts." We have seen the lower MPG's that are associated with E85 vs E10 or E0. We have seen the subsidy that, if and when it goes away, will merely serve to strengthen the case AGAINST Ethanol.
Now, here comes a predicted "erosion" of the price of a bbl of oil. The market mavens, the oil bulls and bears have been predicting events -- pocketbook events -- for some time now. Mostly they have been right.
The case FOR $80bbl oil was made. The results were as predicted, as oil went into the $70's we saw the price per gallon of gasoline shoot up. The oil companies, the Congress, the news media all with their various perspectives told us "we have plenty of oil, this is NOT a supply and demand situation at this time, there are no fundamental reasons for oil to be priced as it is." Oil has been priced as it is, of course, because of, hmmm, fear? terror? political issues (aka stability)? all of the above?
Well friends and neighbors. . .are you now ready for some cheap gas?
Recent Analysis Excerpts:
Fear and uncertainty in global energy markets have encouraged increased speculative activity and have forced oil prices higher.
Speculative pressures could easily unwind, sending oil prices down in a fairly rapid manner.
Rising fears of a downturn in global demand could serve as the catalyst that unwinds these pressures.
It has been argued before about the increased role that many believe speculative forces are playing in driving oil prices. Over the past two years oil prices have increasingly been divorced from fundamentals and buffeted by forces of fear and uncertainty. In all, many believe speculative forces have pushed oil prices up by between $15 and $20 per barrel. While these forces have thus far focused on the bullish side, driving oil prices up relentlessly, the odds of the tide turning are increasing by the day. It is too soon to tell for sure, but the increasing concern about moderating global demand for oil in the past week, especially in the wake of the thwarted terrorist plot against airlines in the U.K., could be the catalyst for the market.
Translation, "a" translation: lower pump prices.
Meanwhile my Congresswoman is blowing her and Congress' horn about what a great job they've been doing in promoting E85.
My Congresswoman was on the front page of the local newpaper here in Cincinnati -- the picture was of her standing next to the fuel filler door on her brand new FFV Tahoe.
Note: Ohio has 9 E85 stations, number 10 is coming to Cincinnati next month.
Her political opponent says she is insincere -- and claims she will ride a bike if she is elected. She claims her political opponent (they are both women by the way) is insincere because she bought a Tahoe that costs north of $37,000 and that most people cannot afford them so she is "out of touch."
Politics aside, I do not think my Congresswoman is in any way insincere. I think she may be "ignorant" of some of the facts and I told her so.
She first responded, "E85 is a way to stop sending money to the Persian Gulf." Maybe. My next "how can that be?" email was greeted with, "I'd rather send money to Iowa than Iran." Then, when I hit reply and said, "people will not willingly and knowingly work against their own economic interests and even if they do, they won't for long." She said, "E85 is an Alternative, I am for Alternatives, Mark!"
Hard to argue with that.
My reply to the Congresswoman follows in the next post.
I am so in agreement with you. I would love to stop sending our $ to the Persian Gulf area, do not think I think otherwise.
Yet, ethanol TODAY will cost the consumer ~ 16.5 cents per mile in their vehicles, where in a similar vehicle, dino gasoline would cost ~ 10 cents per mile (these figures are based on average miles per gallon, of course -- some vehicles will cost more for both fuels, some will cost less and these figures assume the phase out of the $.51 per gallon subsidy.)
Diesel -- CLEAN Dino-Diesel -- NOT EVEN BIODIESEL, that is, if adopted by 30% of the driving population would eliminate our need for Middle Eastern oil based on February 2006 studies made by the EPA. Business Week Feb 20th, 2006.
Diesel has more energy in it that gasoline -- a gas fueled vehicle that can go ~25 miles per gallon on E10, if equipped with a similarly powered diesel engine would travel ~35 miles per gallon (~40%+.) That same car if equipped with a Flexible Fuel Engine (such as your new Tahoe) will go ~17 miles on a gallon of E85.
Today, a gallon of E10, E85 and Dino (not bio) Diesel all cost about $3.00 (but the E85 is subsidized $.51 per gallon).
If the vehicle using E10 can go 25 miles on a gallon this means it will cost $3.00 to drive 25 miles.
If this same vehicle can use E85, it can go but 17 miles on a gallon, this means it will cost $3.90 to drive 25 miles.
If this same vehicle were offered with a similarly powerful diesel, it can go 35 miles on a gallon this means it will cost $2.14 to drive 25 miles.
Any vehicle that can run on the currently coming on line US Clean Diesel can also run on Bio-diesel, i.e., anything from B20 to B100 (B100 is 100% bio-diesel.)
Bio-diesel, when manufactured using soybeans allows the soybeans to be used for fuel and for food.
Ethanol, when manufactured using corn does not allow the corn to be used for fuel and food -- only fuel.
Diesel and Bio-diesel can be transported in the currently in-place pipeline infrastructure.
Ethanol (E85) cannot be transported in the currently in-place pipeline infrastructure, it must, at this point, be entirely sent via truck at a higher cost -- and using a truck to transport the E85 in bulk actually means that the net energy put into making AND delivering ethanol to the consumer is GREATER than the net energy output when ethanol is finally used in a Flexible Fuel Vehicle. There is a net loss of BTU's that is.
Buying an FFV Tahoe -- even if it is entirely for symbolic reasons -- is not a bad, or evil or "insincere" (as your opponent claims) act. I believe you purchased the vehicle for the right reasons, probably both personally and politically. And, you could purchase the biggest gas hog on the planet earth and drive it for all I care -- it is, after all, still a free country.
However, buying (or leasing) a currently available or soon to be available diesel vehicle (even if it were an SUV as big as a Tahoe) would actually have made not only a symbolic statement, but it would have actually reduced our need for foreign oil, improved your mileage (and lowered your personal out of pocket costs) and actually reduced the emissions of greenhouse gasses slightly.
As FFV's hit the market, even if we could count on ample fueling locations, the huge increase in operating costs will come to the fore -- Mr and Ms America, middle class, lower class and upper class (democrats, independents and republicans) alike will become aware of the more frequent fueling stops and the associated higher costs (perhaps as high as 65% higher.)
You certainly couldn't be happy with your opponents characterization of you as "rich" and "out of touch" with your constituents any more than you represent -- by buying the Tahoe -- "insincerity." It is my considered opinion, that you would -- as the "cost-to-drive using E85 data" becomes fodder for even the likes of Matt Laurer on the Today Show -- gain more in every aspect/respect were you to ditch the Tahoe FFV in favor of a diesel powered vehicle.
Here is another thought: with only 10 E85 fueling stations (one in "your neck of the woods") in Ohio, you had better not be video taped filling up with anything BUT E85 or there will be "hell to pay" in the media.
The best solution "in the pipeline" today would seem to be a diesel-electric hybrid, fueled with Bio-Willie (at least B20 that is.)
Too bad it is almost impossible today, to buy such a vehicle. I do believe there will be several to buy, however, within the next 2 years.
Meantime, clean diesel gets us Americans a real Alternative to getting off of Middle Eastern Oil, improving our miles per gallon, lowering our personal costs for fuel and even being a bit friendlier to the Earth's atmosphere.
Thanks for your time."
My question to the forum: don't Congresspeople have research assistants, folks who would check facts and do all they can to make sure their bosses don't do the "wrong things for the right reasons?"
So do I but that doesn't change the fact that Obama is being hypocritical when it comes to energy conservation. I expect more from a U.S. Senator (yes I know I get disappointed a lot).
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
1/5 of all the petroleum used in the United States is consumed by the food industry—more than we burn with our cars or in any other industry
I guess it takes oil to make fuel for our cars. Even if you make it from corn.
Or does it take more coal to make ethanol. Just what we need more coal fired ethanol plants.
NRG is considering building an ethanol plant that would use steam from an existing power plant or from a new coal-fired boiler, Bob Henry, NRG senior vice president of operations, told Dow Jones Newswires in an interview
Blue Flint Ethanol, a producer based in Underwood, N.D., is one of only a few U.S. companies pursuing a similar ethanol plant that uses steam produced from a coal-fired boiler. The company is building an ethanol plant near Underwood with an annual capacity of 50 million gallons that will use steam generated by Great River Energy's Coal Creek power plant. The plant is scheduled to start operating in March.
These plants have much lower fuel costs than other ethanol plants
Why not make fuel from coal to start with? Cut out the corn production that is polluting our rivers, streams and ocean. Plant Iowa into pasture grass and give us beef, pork and chicken that is healthy.
Because of the tecgnical problems of building, maintain8ng and repairing diesels in Europe a recent poll be Der Spiegel stated that 73% of europeans would abandon the diesel engine in favor of gasoline driven engines...hmmmm! They have no choice but to being forced to buy inferior autos with inferior diesel engines. Remember, Biodiesel is very harmful to our rnvironment and must be kept away from any aquifer, or river or stream. An example of diesel costs is contained in the Diesel foru where it has been stated that a failure in the Turbo for a diesel (smalll) engine will cost $2,800 to $3,000...more expensive to maintain than a hybrid. I guess that is why one of the proponents of diesel engines sold his car after one year...talk about buyer's remorse!
Because of the tecgnical problems of building, maintain8ng and repairing diesels in Europe a recent poll be Der Spiegel stated that 73% of europeans would abandon the diesel engine in favor of gasoline driven engines...hmmmm!
Yet they still continue to drive diesel engines even though there are gas powered alternatives...hmmmm looks like I need to get my boots on.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Seemed kind of cheap to me also. I do see $2.73 in the Anna area. I guess you just cannot trust any of the information on the E85 websites. I agree on the personal attacks. I guess if you do not have any facts to back up your viewpoint you just attack those that do.
Comments
That' "don't make it right" -- it does however make it law.
Remember we did have prohibition for a time too.
Remember all the "dumb" acts of Congress over the past 200 years.
At this moment, E85 costs somewhat more than gasoline and goes about 70% as far per gallon (also it is being subsidized which will increase its price per gallon once the subsidy expires.)
It is perhaps renewable if you imagine taking 71% of our total farmland and so designate it "corn for fuel" rather than "a variety of actual growing things for food."
E85 cannot be pumped throughout our existing petro distribution system -- so it, for the time being, has to be put in trucks and taken to the filling stations (and in a fairly large population state, like Ohio, there are currently only 9 or 10 stations where one can buy E85 at more per gallon than regular or E10 regular dino gas and literally go 30% fewer miles per tankful.)
It [ethanol] has everything going against it, except that the US government mandates its adoption.
It is an alternative though, of that there is little doubt.
It seems, however, like it wasn't fully thought out. :confuse:
On the contrary, it was very well thought out. It's just the real purpose is not to help our energy problem. The real purpose to put money in the pockets of Big-Ag and to buy votes of midwestern farm states. Also politicians can say they are doing something to reduce energy costs and increase supply when they are doing nothing of the sort.
politicians may be incompetent, but lobbyists are not. These things are very well thought out.
and in case you missed it, there are very few lobbyists working on your and my behalf (directly)
I don't know about that. If a politician's primary objective was to serve the public interest then they are absolutely incompetent. If their primary objective is to remain in office then they are actually fairly competent. The fact that the two aren't one and the same represents a fundamental flaw that has always existed in our form of democracy.
I don't think that was ever considered an option in the push for ethanol. For starters if gas is $3 per gallon E85 will have to be $2 for you to break even. It gets that much worse mileage. So far MN is the only state that is even close to that price difference. They are sacrificing road tax to push ethanol. How stupid is that?
I don't think you can get an Impala FFV except as a fleet vehicle. One of the posters here tried to order one and was told it was not available. Only PU trucks and large SUVs with the 5.3L V8. So far no one has posted mileage for a car that runs on E85. I don't think many have been sold to the public. Only government vehicles. You know they can afford to waste money. It is after all other people's money they are flushing down the ethanol toilet.
That's correct.
GM and Ford have the lowest fleet average of auto manufacturers in the US. They are also the two companies that are most aggressively marketing FFVs. On the other hand Toyota and Honda seem reluctant to jump on this ethanol bandwagon even though they have a "greener" reputation. Seems almost like a contradiction. Now look at the FFVs that GM and Ford are offering. All low mpg. The picture starts getting a little clearer. Ford and GM push FFVs because it allows them to avoid CAFE penalties and continue selling their biggest, most inefficient vehicles, which is what their business model is based on.
Those commercials featuring Bill Ford talking about what his company is doing to help with our oil dependence are laughable. Has their been a less innovative company than Ford in the last 30 years?
The discussion of high mileage cars (30MPG or more) is juxtaposed with a discussion about 250,000 FF vehicles -- the conclusion is that FFV's are part of the high mileage fleet and "aren't we lucky Ford is paving the way to high mileage autos?"
I have no issue with marketing of FFV's per se.
I have no issue with marketing "our cars allow choice of E0, E10 or E85 fuel" (I don't even care if they "omit" the mileage penalty that creeps into the equation as one goes from E0 to E85 -- they don't HAVE to tell me the mileage is poorer and the costs per tankful will be higher; they just should not give the appearance of saying just the opposite.)
But the borderline "untruthfulness" continues.
Based on a technicality in the law, a car company can claim higher MPG's with E85 based ONLY on the 15% of the fuel that is dino-gasoline. The facts are this:
IF the miles per tankful (in your spanky new FFV) equal 300 with dino-gasoline and you run a tankful of E85 blend in the car, the mileage on that tankful will equal 210. Typically, too, the cost for the gallon of E85 will be either the same or slightly more than regular dino-gasoline.
And, at the moment, the E85 is subsidized by YOUR taxes at $.51 per gallon, too boot.
However, if you buy an FFV you will receive a tax credit and the thanks of a grateful government. :confuse:
Remember that is just the up front to the producers incentive. The corn growers get a sizable subsidy on a per bushel basis. Or guaranteed price is the way it is implemented. I have noticed the price difference keeps getting closer even in the Midwest. 3 cents difference is not going to cut it.
From: Ross
E85 Price: 2.99
Station Name: Shell
Station City: Lansing
Unleaded Price: 3.02
Date: Monday, July 31, 2006
Even if at first it seems to be a good idea.
But when they have to stop at the gas station for a fill up a heck of a lot more often, they will soon get the message.
E85 is, as it stands today (not as it might stand sometime in the future) is a "rip off."
It hurts us all, it rips us all off (the exception being King Corn, of course.)
In the vernacular -- rip off that is. :surprise:
Then again, maybe it is a blessing in disquise. Most of the processed food we eat is made from corn. I don't think that all the deep fried chicken nuggets or soda pop priced out of our diet is such a bad thing.
We would not care if that was true. It is MANDATED by congress to go in our gas. It is subsidized by congress to make it viable as an alternative. The only choice we have is to vote out of office the ones getting favors, to pass such ignorant laws.
It would be a better us of our dollars to simply allow all diesels to be used on passenger cars, and then spend the tax money on cleaning up bigger sources of pollution
I dunno - just an idea
The governer of Iowa is a democrat too.
1. Diesal still burns less clean.
2. It balances out that it is subsidized because you get wholesome tax credits.
I would think they would be for it. That is money found for their states. It is the rest of us footing the bill so they can get rid of the corn they grow. Ask the governors on both Coasts what they think of it. The sad part is the corn growers are not making anymore money. They are just pumping more expensive chemicals into the ground to get more bushels for ADM, Cargill & Versun to make the real money. The worst case of dribble down economics I have seen. I won't be growing any of that fossil fuel produced corn on my Minnesota farm, I can tell you that for sure.
It's all pork barrel for those Governors.
I am pretty sure that I am more of a "conservationist/preservationist" than anyone here, and I am not a fan of the E-fuels. There are better environmental uses of government funds, plain and simple.
I guess if you assume that government has unlimited funds, then, sure, might as well throw a jillion dollars at the large ag interests. Why not? It's only my money.
Tell me, how much "less clean" is diesel than unleaded? If we added a nickel tax to every gallon of diesel, do you think we could use that money to purchase air pollution improvements on other sources of pollution, that would result in a net improvement to air quality?
I'd rather do that than give $$ to Ag interests.
I guess if a person thinks that the most important issue is "energy independence," then that skews the analysis. I am for energy independence, but NOT "at any cost."
People think every conservationist has to be pro-energy independence. That is sloppy thinking. You want energy independence, then you better be willing to open coastal California, and the ANWR, and the huge oil shale projects, etc. etc. I'd rather give money to the Saudis than sacrifice the coast of California. I'd rather pay an extra nickel/gallon than sacrifice the coast of California.
and it's not that simple
My Congresswoman is a republican -- she sent this long letter explaining how cool E85 will be and although most of the facts she noted were accurate, the entire impression the letter sent was false.
The policital party MAY have something to do with this -- but right now there are pols all over the spectrum who seem to be in favor of MANDATING Ethanol, SUBSIDIZNG Ethanol and not telling the whole story.
My Congresswoman did not exactly say that E85 gets 70% of the MPG of E10 (pretty much the "standard" gas for sale here in Ohio.) She tip toed around the MPG issue with information that appeared to lead you to believe ethanol would be less expensive on a per gallon basis.
No mention, in her letter, of the $.51 subsidy either.
Plenty of mention of the 100+ jobs that will be created in tiny, rural Cadiz, Ohio where the new Corn Fed ethanol plant is being built. No mention of the cost of those jobs, the energy required to make a gallon of ethanol, the fact that it cannot be pumped into an existing infrastructure/distribution system and. . .oh heck, it just makes me weary to think about the number of holes in her argument.
When I wrote to her, she replied "I'd rather send the money to Iowa than Iran." Where do I begin to have a reasoned and reasonable discussion with someone who argues long and loud FOR ethanol, apparently is unaware of the uphill battle it will face when folks discover the lower MPG, the not lower price per gallon and note that it is subsidized and otherwise impractical?
Members of our own EPA and the Diesel Technology Forum and apparently some very bright battery scientists (who argue in favor of a more efficient conversion of coal into electricity) believe clean diesel fuel running in clean efficient current generation cars, bio diesel and/or diesel/battery hybrids (diesel/electric hybrids to be precise) can offer us a reduction in our need for foreign oil (technically eliminating entirely our importation of Middle Easter Oil) and a reduction of greenhouse gasses.
All this is known and is readily available to anyone who will take some time to find it out (ummm, you would think a member of Congress would have staff members and advisors to vet this kind of thing) -- yet we come to an entirely different conclusion based not on doing what's right for both the near and the long term, but based on doing what King Corn wants, apparently.
I could just spit.
Ptoooie!
Hello Congresswoman -- is this thing on? Hello????
On the other hand, we do need to attempt to offer alternatives and E85 does pretty much qualify.
I coulda really got behind B0 to B100 bio-diesel.
And the cool thing is that a diesel powered car at a similar price point to a gas powered version goes at least 20% further on a gallon of fuel that generally costs less than Premium or Mid grade and the accelerative capabilities of the diesel vehicle will exceed the gas powered version.
Hmm:
1. higher MPG's
2. lowering or eliminating our need for imports
3. can be grown from soybeans and after the removal of the diesel, the soybeans can still be used for other "food" purposes
4. lower greenhouse gas
5. lower cost than ethanol and usually lower costs than Premium dino-gas
6. no pipeline/transportation issues
7. cars so equipped would be quieter, cleaner, quicker, no less fast and more durable
8. cars so equipped would be close in price to gasoline or FFV's MSRP's
9. using 71% of our total farmland is NOT required
10. Willie Nelson supports.
I also thought it was an interesting article that California has taken NO action to slow down the growth of oil imports or using renewable fuels.
Evidently Biodiesel production has to capture all runoff or it kills wildlife and destroys fisheries as has been found. Diesel cars are POS as they always have been, without even being popular/wanted in Europe. Europe would willingly throw out their terrible diesels if they could ship them all to Russia...nobody in Europe really wants a lousy diesel.
I don't think you can get an Impala FFV except as a fleet vehicle. One of the posters here tried to order one and was told it was not available. Only PU trucks and large SUVs with the 5.3L V8. So far no one has posted mileage for a car that runs on E85. I don't think many have been sold to the public. Only government vehicles. You know they can afford to waste money. It is after all other people's money they are flushing down the ethanol toilet.
More outright lies from the far left! Gagrice, you are a good representative of the oil cartel...you sund more like TM every day!...get a life!
These diesels -- were you to find a perfect one -- in the land yachts they were often placed into, were "not bad." Upon starting, they were a little noisy, the exhaust had a hint of soot in it (but not black belching 'moke, by any means) and inside the cars there was little in the way of evidence you were driving a compression engine.
The Olds 98, my boss had, was fully loaded with all lux goodies and due to the extra torque of the diesel, seemed imperceptibly different in terms of "starting from a full stop." On the highway, you'd never know anything at all except you could drive and drive and drive between fill ups, compared to the anti-pollution device laden gasoline V8's of the day.
What a lie..GM was so desperate to solve the problems they tried every trick in the book. There was a huge cottage industry that replaced the GM diesel engines with gasoline burning ones. People were so mad at GM, there were a tremendous amount of lawsuits and GM paid for partially for the gasoline replacements...a silent warranty..similar to the Hyundai when they came out with their POS.
Facts that you either will not or cannot address are things such as:
Reduced mileage in using E-85 makes it far more expensive to use than regular gas.
The very nature of E-85 means that it cannot be transported through regular pipelines and therefor has to be trucked in.
We cannot produce enough ethanol right now to support E-10 let alone large quantities of E-85.
We who question ethanol have looked into this and see that it simply isn't feesable. right now.
Let me ask you this, how is it anti American to say that my tax dollars shouldn't subsidize ethanol production that makes ADM exec's rich?
How is it anti American to say "hey this doesn't work, lets find something that does work"?
nobody in Europe really wants a lousy diesel.
Well they must want good diesels since they do sell a lot of them over there.
they NEVER contribute anything positive to the United States
And what have you done to contribute anything positive? And no bashing those who disagree with you doesn't count. Nor does promoting ethanol because it doesn't count (since your posts are full of outright lies and hatred (look at your post I am responding to).
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
What lie was in that post? Seems to me like everything he said was either factual or just his opinion.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
It was among many points made to the standing room only audience at the Metropolis Community Center. Obama spoke on everything from DC politics to global warming.
He says part of the blame for the world's higher temperatures rests on gas guzzling vehicles. Obama says consumers can make the difference by switching to higher mileage hybrids.
Today the Senator said, "It would save more energy, do more for the environment and create better world security than all the drilling we could do in Alaska."
"After the meeting... Obama left in a GMC Envoy after admitting to favoring SUV's himself," claimed local News Channel 6.
Tommy Vietor, Senator Obama's press secretary, explains: "What Senator Obama has long advocated is the use of vehicles that are more fuel efficient, including but not exclusively hybrids.
"The vehicle senator obama travels in while in illinois is a Flexible Fuel Vehicle (FFV), which can run on e85, a blended fuel made of 85 percent ethanol.
"So he in fact was practicing what he preached at the town hall meeting in Metropolis yesterday when he said we must drive fewer gas-guzzling vehicles."
But it does not appear that GMC's Envoy is E85 ready.
According to the EPA no GMC Envoy FFV exists. Maybe his aids told him a lie about ethanol.
hmmmmm Just one of many lies the government would have us believe about ETHANOL!!!
(nor are any of us, but not all of us claim to be pure as the driven snow)
who cares what vehicle Obama drives?
I think it's funny that people criticize a guy for not practicing what he preaches more than they criticize a guy who doesn't preach, at all, but practices the same wasteful ways
at least Obama is spreading the good word which is more than I can say for most SUV drivers
I, for one, don't require the messenger to be consistent with the message. The message matters more to me than the messenger.
Let me give a simple example: If a guy says "Killing is bad"
then that guy goes and kills people
does that mean that YOU no longer believe the message "Killing is bad"???
To convince 200 million to conserve gasoline it might take a guy getting on airplanes, etc. etc. That doesn't mean we shouldn't conserve gas, does it?
because he is an elected official who is telling us we need to do one thing but does something else. You know do as I say not as I do. What happened to leadership by example?
I think it's funny that people criticize a guy for not practicing what he preaches more than they criticize a guy who doesn't preach, at all, but practices the same wasteful ways
I don't think so, the one who doesn't practice what he preaches is a hypocrite, the one who doesn't preach at all but is still as wasteful isn't a hypocrite.
In other words, I don't mind you driving around in a 9 MPG SUV, but I do mind you driving a 9 MPG SUV while saying everyone else should be driving high mileage economy cars to save gas.
I, for one, don't require the messenger to be consistent with the message.
I do require it, for if the messenger doesn't believe in his own message why should I?
Its like if we had this conversation:
Me: Oh you just have to have this dish it is the best thing you will ever eat.
You: Well why aren't you eating it?
Me: Oh I wouldn't feed that crap to my dog.
Would you eat what I was saying you should get?
If you say yes please contact me as I have this wonderful deal for you.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I've removed a couple of posts that made comments about other users.
Back to the topic please. If you feel thatyou need to include a dig at another user in your post, please don't.
But I live my life based on FACTS, not parables.
I can make up my own mind based on facts. It's a shame most people don't have that ability and have to live their lives through little sayings.
Here are a few facts:
Lots of folks like to drive SUVs & PU trucks. The ones I know including myself do not tell others they need to buy a little car so the net affect will be a savings in fossil fuel.
Here is another one. The fertilizer being dumped on the land to get higher yeilds of corn is killing a big area of the Gulf.
And how about the fact that we have ethanol as a result of well placed money in our government by lobbyists.
And the last fact. I would be willing to drive a smaller PU truck that got an honest 30-35 MPG running on diesel. Too many politicians trying to decide which constituency they want to shmooze for the opcoming election. They usually go for the gullible voters.
Lots of folks like to drive SUVs & PU trucks. The ones I know including myself do not tell others they need to buy a little car so the net affect will be a savings in fossil fuel.
Here is another one. The fertilizer being dumped on the land to get higher yeilds of corn is killing a big area of the Gulf.
And how about the fact that we have ethanol as a result of well placed money in our government by lobbyists.
And the last fact. I would be willing to drive a smaller PU truck that got an honest 30-35 MPG running on diesel. Too many politicians trying to decide which constituency they want to shmooze for the opcoming election. They usually go for the gullible voters
and THOSE are all FACTS that are worth discussing
and I won't judge the validity of those facts based on whether you drive an SUV or a UFO
I am not arguing that it is immoral and fattening to drive an SUV
I am arguing that the facts are what matter, not whether the guy whose mouth forms and utters the words is a ninny
I think we get distracted by BS like "Obama drove away in an SUV" when we should be asking ourselves, "hmm...our SUVs a good idea? Can the earth sustain this level of carbon dioxide generation? Can the earth handle all the chemicals being flushed into our rivers? What can we do to help our youth learn to read better? What's a good way to teach my daughter how to drive?"
I know it's entertaining to bash a politician. And I agree the hypocrisy is apparent, and is an easy target. but it's not as important as the message, itself. And I think it is wrongheaded to get distracted by it.
That is, if you care, at all, about global warming. Even if you disagree that it's happening or that man plays a negative role, you should still care about the debate. I guess if you've made up your mind, then you might as well bash a guy who is just trying to put the idea in people's minds that they can do a good thing, instead of a bad thing.
though I'm not sure that pushing FFVs is a good thing
pushing non-SUVs is a good thing - hard to see that as being "bad" for our society. It's not like he's trying to convince us to go home and bite the heads of our budgies.
I'm sorry if gagrice disagrees with how domestic policy is made. I can't change Washington. No one can or has. I suggest donating money to organizations who champion your case. I am sure there is a pro-diesel pickup lobbying group out there. Maybe you need to make inroads into an environmental group and help establish policies there. There are a lot of pro-diesel people IN enviro. groups, and they agree with you on the corn issue. It's not like every NRDC member loves ADM, after all.
It's OK that you and your truck-driving friends don't tell other folks what to drive. No one is criticizing you for the messages that you are not stating. I think if your message was "Don't conserve. Even if you don't need an SUV, you should go buy one" - well, I'd say your message would be ridiculous, regardless of what you drive. The message is what matters. Judge the message.
My Congresswoman (and in this case she literally lives about a mile from where I live) has been sending Ethanol newsletters to her constiuents for several months now. These newsletters have been touting the work being done in Congress to address and hopefully "cure" our addiction to oil (of note, of course, from the State of the Union address in 2006.)
Fine, I am for "alternatives" -- I am even for Ethanol. Or, at least I would be and/or may become an Ethanol (E85) advocate were their an economic case that could make me believe it can succeed.
At present, I can see no possible way for E85 to be successful in the next several years. We have seen written here, including many citations of sources, the "facts." We have seen the lower MPG's that are associated with E85 vs E10 or E0. We have seen the subsidy that, if and when it goes away, will merely serve to strengthen the case AGAINST Ethanol.
Now, here comes a predicted "erosion" of the price of a bbl of oil. The market mavens, the oil bulls and bears have been predicting events -- pocketbook events -- for some time now. Mostly they have been right.
The case FOR $80bbl oil was made. The results were as predicted, as oil went into the $70's we saw the price per gallon of gasoline shoot up. The oil companies, the Congress, the news media all with their various perspectives told us "we have plenty of oil, this is NOT a supply and demand situation at this time, there are no fundamental reasons for oil to be priced as it is." Oil has been priced as it is, of course, because of, hmmm, fear? terror? political issues (aka stability)? all of the above?
Well friends and neighbors. . .are you now ready for some cheap gas?
Recent Analysis Excerpts:
Fear and uncertainty in global energy markets have encouraged increased speculative activity and have forced oil prices higher.
Speculative pressures could easily unwind, sending oil prices down in a fairly rapid manner.
Rising fears of a downturn in global demand could serve as the catalyst that unwinds these pressures.
It has been argued before about the increased role that many believe speculative forces are playing in driving oil prices. Over the past two years oil prices have increasingly been divorced from fundamentals and buffeted by forces of fear and uncertainty. In all, many believe speculative forces have pushed oil prices up by between $15 and $20 per barrel. While these forces have thus far focused on the bullish side, driving oil prices up relentlessly, the odds of the tide turning are increasing by the day. It is too soon to tell for sure, but the increasing concern about moderating global demand for oil in the past week, especially in the wake of the thwarted terrorist plot against airlines in the U.K., could be the catalyst for the market.
Translation, "a" translation: lower pump prices.
Meanwhile my Congresswoman is blowing her and Congress' horn about what a great job they've been doing in promoting E85.
My Congresswoman was on the front page of the local newpaper here in Cincinnati -- the picture was of her standing next to the fuel filler door on her brand new FFV Tahoe.
Note: Ohio has 9 E85 stations, number 10 is coming to Cincinnati next month.
Her political opponent says she is insincere -- and claims she will ride a bike if she is elected. She claims her political opponent (they are both women by the way) is insincere because she bought a Tahoe that costs north of $37,000 and that most people cannot afford them so she is "out of touch."
Politics aside, I do not think my Congresswoman is in any way insincere. I think she may be "ignorant" of some of the facts and I told her so.
She first responded, "E85 is a way to stop sending money to the Persian Gulf." Maybe. My next "how can that be?" email was greeted with, "I'd rather send money to Iowa than Iran." Then, when I hit reply and said, "people will not willingly and knowingly work against their own economic interests and even if they do, they won't for long." She said, "E85 is an Alternative, I am for Alternatives, Mark!"
Hard to argue with that.
My reply to the Congresswoman follows in the next post.
:shades:
As am I.
I am so in agreement with you. I would love to stop sending our $ to the Persian Gulf area, do not think I think otherwise.
Yet, ethanol TODAY will cost the consumer ~ 16.5 cents per mile in their vehicles, where in a similar vehicle, dino gasoline would cost ~ 10 cents per mile (these figures are based on average miles per gallon, of course -- some vehicles will cost more for both fuels, some will cost less and these figures assume the phase out of the $.51 per gallon subsidy.)
Diesel -- CLEAN Dino-Diesel -- NOT EVEN BIODIESEL, that is, if adopted by 30% of the driving population would eliminate our need for Middle Eastern oil based on February 2006 studies made by the EPA. Business Week Feb 20th, 2006.
Diesel has more energy in it that gasoline -- a gas fueled vehicle that can go ~25 miles per gallon on E10, if equipped with a similarly powered diesel engine would travel ~35 miles per gallon (~40%+.) That same car if equipped with a Flexible Fuel Engine (such as your new Tahoe) will go ~17 miles on a gallon of E85.
Today, a gallon of E10, E85 and Dino (not bio) Diesel all cost about $3.00 (but the E85 is subsidized $.51 per gallon).
If the vehicle using E10 can go 25 miles on a gallon this means it will cost $3.00 to drive 25 miles.
If this same vehicle can use E85, it can go but 17 miles on a gallon, this means it will cost $3.90 to drive 25 miles.
If this same vehicle were offered with a similarly powerful diesel, it can go 35 miles on a gallon this means it will cost $2.14 to drive 25 miles.
Any vehicle that can run on the currently coming on line US Clean Diesel can also run on Bio-diesel, i.e., anything from B20 to B100 (B100 is 100% bio-diesel.)
Bio-diesel, when manufactured using soybeans allows the soybeans to be used for fuel and for food.
Ethanol, when manufactured using corn does not allow the corn to be used for fuel and food -- only fuel.
Diesel and Bio-diesel can be transported in the currently in-place pipeline infrastructure.
Ethanol (E85) cannot be transported in the currently in-place pipeline infrastructure, it must, at this point, be entirely sent via truck at a higher cost -- and using a truck to transport the E85 in bulk actually means that the net energy put into making AND delivering ethanol to the consumer is GREATER than the net energy output when ethanol is finally used in a Flexible Fuel Vehicle. There is a net loss of BTU's that is.
Buying an FFV Tahoe -- even if it is entirely for symbolic reasons -- is not a bad, or evil or "insincere" (as your opponent claims) act. I believe you purchased the vehicle for the right reasons, probably both personally and politically. And, you could purchase the biggest gas hog on the planet earth and drive it for all I care -- it is, after all, still a free country.
However, buying (or leasing) a currently available or soon to be available diesel vehicle (even if it were an SUV as big as a Tahoe) would actually have made not only a symbolic statement, but it would have actually reduced our need for foreign oil, improved your mileage (and lowered your personal out of pocket costs) and actually reduced the emissions of greenhouse gasses slightly.
As FFV's hit the market, even if we could count on ample fueling locations, the huge increase in operating costs will come to the fore -- Mr and Ms America, middle class, lower class and upper class (democrats, independents and republicans) alike will become aware of the more frequent fueling stops and the associated higher costs (perhaps as high as 65% higher.)
You certainly couldn't be happy with your opponents characterization of you as "rich" and "out of touch" with your constituents any more than you represent -- by buying the Tahoe -- "insincerity." It is my considered opinion, that you would -- as the "cost-to-drive using E85 data" becomes fodder for even the likes of Matt Laurer on the Today Show -- gain more in every aspect/respect were you to ditch the Tahoe FFV in favor of a diesel powered vehicle.
Here is another thought: with only 10 E85 fueling stations (one in "your neck of the woods") in Ohio, you had better not be video taped filling up with anything BUT E85 or there will be "hell to pay" in the media.
The best solution "in the pipeline" today would seem to be a diesel-electric hybrid, fueled with Bio-Willie (at least B20 that is.)
Too bad it is almost impossible today, to buy such a vehicle. I do believe there will be several to buy, however, within the next 2 years.
Meantime, clean diesel gets us Americans a real Alternative to getting off of Middle Eastern Oil, improving our miles per gallon, lowering our personal costs for fuel and even being a bit friendlier to the Earth's atmosphere.
Thanks for your time."
My question to the forum: don't Congresspeople have research assistants, folks who would check facts and do all they can to make sure their bosses don't do the "wrong things for the right reasons?"
:confuse:
So do I but that doesn't change the fact that Obama is being hypocritical when it comes to energy conservation. I expect more from a U.S. Senator (yes I know I get disappointed a lot).
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
It's also time to stop the personal comments. Any further postings with comments about other users will be deleted.
I guess it takes oil to make fuel for our cars. Even if you make it from corn.
Or does it take more coal to make ethanol. Just what we need more coal fired ethanol plants.
NRG is considering building an ethanol plant that would use steam from an existing power plant or from a new coal-fired boiler, Bob Henry, NRG senior vice president of operations, told Dow Jones Newswires in an interview
Blue Flint Ethanol, a producer based in Underwood, N.D., is one of only a few U.S. companies pursuing a similar ethanol plant that uses steam produced from a coal-fired boiler. The company is building an ethanol plant near Underwood with an annual capacity of 50 million gallons that will use steam generated by Great River Energy's Coal Creek power plant. The plant is scheduled to start operating in March.
These plants have much lower fuel costs than other ethanol plants
Why not make fuel from coal to start with? Cut out the corn production that is polluting our rivers, streams and ocean. Plant Iowa into pasture grass and give us beef, pork and chicken that is healthy.
From: Saluki
E85 Price: 2.96
Station Name: Gas City
Station City: Warrenville, IL
Unleaded Price: 2.26
Date: Sunday, August 20, 2006
---------------------
From: costs2muchhere
E85 Price: 4.109
Station Name: West Street Citgo
Station City: Annapolis
Unleaded Price: 3.049
Date: Sunday, August 20, 2006
--------------------
From: Paul
E85 Price: 2.799
Station Name: Marathon Mach 1
Station City: Urbana, IL
Unleaded Price: 2.969
Date: Sunday, August 20, 2006
Disclaimer: Seems that some ethanol advocates are trying to twist what the American Lung Association says about ethanol.
(The American Lung Association of the Upper Midwest is not responsible for misinformation reported on the E85 Price Forum. )
Gerald E Smith
Providence Rhode Island
Yet they still continue to drive diesel engines even though there are gas powered alternatives...hmmmm looks like I need to get my boots on.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Seemed kind of cheap to me also. I do see $2.73 in the Anna area. I guess you just cannot trust any of the information on the E85 websites. I agree on the personal attacks. I guess if you do not have any facts to back up your viewpoint you just attack those that do.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D