The Inconvenient Truth About Ethanol



  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    You´d be surprised at how boring and uninteresting my life is.

    I believe you. Watching Sugar cane grow has to be boring. I prefer growing and selling flowers and vegetables. To each his own. And good luck with those E100 only cars.
  • kipkkipk Member Posts: 1,576
    >"Brazil does not get any money from the US, and actually LENT money to the Federal Treasury, you must be talking about Israel. " :)

    Seems there is some controversy concerning just how or if the US is loaning Brazil the money to develop its off shore oil fields.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    Steer away from the personal stuff please.

    Thank you.

    And now back to the nonsense at hand :P

    We took a trip on Friday into an area where I found myself filling up the tank at a station where the gas did not contain ethanol. On the trip down to the area (virtually all highway driving both ways) my Versa got 32 mpg. Filling up a tank that was down to about 1/4 of a tank with non-ethanol blend and my mileage on the return trip was 35 MPG over the 270 miles of the trip.

    THAT's why the idea that ethanol somehow cuts down on our use of oil is pretty much nonsense to me.
  • eliaselias Member Posts: 2,209
    Just for the record, for those who primarily consider vehicles with stickshift,
    there's one 2010 E85-capable vehicle available with stickshift.
    Chevy HHR.
    Might be interesting to compare one of those with another alternative-fuel wagon, VW TDI.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    edited August 2010
    St. Bernard Parish authorities have reported a large fish kill at the mouth of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, but state wildlife officials say it does not appear to be directly related to oil from the BP leak.

    Randy Pausina, head fisheries biologist for the state, said Department of Wildlife and Fisheries workers are investigating the fish kill and that the initial conclusion is that it was caused by low levels of oxygen in the water.

    Pausina said extreme heat can cause areas of low oxygen, especially when coupled with *nutrient-rich water coming from the Mississippi River. The state opened several river diversion structures to help keep oil from penetrating the state's wetlands.

    *Nutrient-rich as a result of heavy fertilizer use growing corn for Ethanol.

    Looks like the "dead zone" will expand even further with the warmer weather in some areas.
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    A little off topic, but part of the "corn industries" plight.

    The makers of high fructose corn syrup want to sweeten up its image with a new name: corn sugar.

    The bid to rename the sweetener by the Corn Refiners Association comes as Americans' concerns about health and obesity have sent consumption of high fructose corn syrup, used in soft drinks but also in bread, cereal and other foods, to a 20-year low.

    The group applied Tuesday to the Food and Drug Administration to get the "corn sugar" name approved for use on food labels. They hope a new name will ease confusion about about the sweetener. Some people think it is more harmful or more likely to make them obese than sugar, perceptions for which there is little scientific evidence.

    Read more: tsweeternamecornsugar.html#ixzz0zW73hhmn
    Watch sports videos you won't find anywhere else
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    You can look on most processed foods in the store and the first several ingredients are corn based. Just another attempt to make it look like a good alternative to cane sugar. I'm not buying into it.

    There is a difference in the way the body handles, Fructose, Glucose and Sucrose. Here is a simple explanation. the-difference.htm
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    Thanks Gary, this is good information.

    Forgive me for getting off topic, but why should we put the same bad stuff in our bodies that we have to put in our cars. Well, unless it's sipping whiskey, one of the few good things to come from corn.
  • eliaselias Member Posts: 2,209
    EPA Approves Use of More Ethanol in Gasoline


    WASHINGTON – The Environmental Protection Agency has approved blending higher concentrations of ethanol into gasoline for newer vehicles, allowing mixtures with up to 15 percent of the corn-based fuel at the pump.

    The current maximum blend is 10 percent. The EPA announced Wednesday that the higher blend will be approved for vehicles manufactured since 2007.

    The move is politically popular in rural farm areas. But ethanol faces strong opposition from the auto industry, environmentalists, cattle ranchers, food companies and a broad coalition of other groups.

    The EPA has said a congressional mandate for increased ethanol use can't be achieved without allowing higher blends. Congress has required refiners to blend 36 billion gallons of biofuels, mostly ethanol, into auto fuel by 2022.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,299
    edited October 2010
    I was initially concerned about this, but I'm not now. It is a very limited approval, for 2007 and later cars, to be dispensed out of separate pumps clearly labeled E-15. Very, very few gas stations will go to the trouble of installing extra pump(s) (and, I assume, an underground tank) to sell E-15 gas to a small fraction of its customers.
  • skywatcher1973skywatcher1973 Member Posts: 15
    I am new to all of this stuff. I have only read a few things. So can someone explain this to me a little more? I also come across this website. m
    From what I have seen this adding of the ethanol up to 15% is going to mess up some cars & cause us to get lower mpgs. Anyone want to share what they think?
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    edited October 2010
    The current E10 cuts my mileage by about 10-15%. So I imagine it will drop more with more ethanol. Though my understanding is they will have to have a separate pump and only newer cars will run without damage. I don't want the junk in my vehicles. I would like US to go back to real gas again.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    Ask some boat or tractor owners about how ethanol sludged up their engines. Same for lawnmowers. Don't expect this 15% issue to back off because regardless of party the politicians are just as owned by companies like ADM and big corporate farmers and agricultural firms. Everyone uses the arguments about energy independence and clean air to justify this rip-off, but the only cleaning up is the fattening of the politicians wallets and the only independence is what they are looking forward to with their lobbyist contributions. Personally, I'm sick of having this ethanol crap shoved down my throat with no other options. If they are going to mandate fuels, then mandate that the gas stations must carry ethanol and non-ethanol alternatives so that the market can decide which is the better deal.
  • eliaselias Member Posts: 2,209
    one consideration for me for engine-type is which type of fuel is required to be more adulterated.

    so for a commuter/high-mpg vehicle, a diesel vehicle with or without "adblue" additive is looking preferable to a gas-powered vehicle.

    diesel fuel has actually been improved (ULSD) by US federal regulations, while gasoline is getting crappier and crappier.

    (for a performance vehicle, higher % of ethanol can increase power, but it increases cost-per-gallon and cost-per-mile.)
  • galongagalonga Member Posts: 50
    It is just too bad if the US chose to produce ethanol from corn, which is by far the worst solution when compared to all others (sugarcane, cellulose, etc)

    Even worse if it chose to continue depending on the arabs to supply it with oil and for that created a surcharge on the much cheaper ethanol from Brazil.

    Ethanol btw which is being used there in a proportion of 5% since 1941 and now is up to 24% and no car was ever hurt. So there´s plenty of HISTORY to prove it works.

    And the same ethanol which allowed the country not to import oil anymore, and is now more consumed than gasoline.

    And the same ethanol which is used reguarly in Sweden as well with no food, environmental, motor, etc problems the so called "experts" love to claim.

    The fact of the matter is that claiming that ALL ethanol is bad is like saying that ALL knifes are bad because some people use to kill others.

    ONLY AMERICAN ethanol is bad: let´s be clear on that!

    And to those who still disagree TRAVEL A LITTLE and see it working. Get off your lazy asses from that couch, visit and study how other countries did it and learn from them!
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    You have presented some interesting facts. You left out the most important fact in my opinion. The MPG difference between E85, E100, E10 and Regular Unleaded Gas.

    According to the US EPA Fuel Economy tests, a new Toyota Sequoia will get 12 MPG on the highway with E85 and 17 MPG with RUG. That is a 29% reduction in mileage.

    I just paid $2.95 per gallon for RUG. The closest station with E85 is selling at $3 per gallon. A round trip to San Francisco about 1000 miles will cost me $77 more in fuel with E85 vs RUG. Plus an extra stop to refuel. As Elias pointed out a diesel makes a lot more sense. The same 1000 mile trip in a diesel SUV will cost $147 less than E85.

    I am glad you pointed out how foolish making ethanol from corn is. Also the 53 cent tariff on Brazilian sugar ethanol is idiocy put on US in the late 1970s, to protect the corn farmers and ethanol producers.

    Until we stop the corporate welfare on ethanol it will continue to be a huge waste of tax dollars and will not save US a single gallon of Saudi oil.

    Maybe we will start buying some of your surplus oil and make diesel. Still the best use of oil I can think of for motor vehicles.
  • kipkkipk Member Posts: 1,576
    edited October 2010
    Just spend some time looking through this thread and you will find claims of 8%-15+% worse fuel mileage with 10% ethanol , vs straight Dino fuels. Ethanol contains less energy per volume than Dino gas.

    Lets use 10% for the sake of argument.

    If you get 10% less mileage with E10 fuel, then you will need to purchase 10% more fuel to go the same distance.

    Say your car averages 20 mpg on Dino and you drive 200 miles. You will consume 10 gallons of fuel. But it will take 10% more E10 to drive that 200 miles. Therefore you use 11 gallons. Of that 11 gallons, 9.9 gallons is Dino and 1.1 gal is Ethanol

    So for all practical purposes you used the same amount of Dino + a gallon of Ethanol. So you bought the Dino and a gallon of Ethanol. I don't understand how saving 1/10 gallon of Dino is going to help us become independent of foreign oil.

    However the feds levy taxes on every gallon of fuel purchased. So now they can tax 11 gallons instead of 10 gallons.

    Now figure the fuel it takes to plant the crops, fertilize the crops, irrigate the crops, harvest the crops, Transport the crops, convert the crops to ethanol ( with sugar that under went similar expense to produce), transporting the ethanol and/or the dino and more energy to blend the two before it is ready for fuel. No telling how many gallons of fuel that took.

    Some will say,"Well it takes energy to produce dino!" Yes it does, but we are using the same amount of Dino PLUS the ethanol.

    Some person or persons in Washington are living large on uh...Donations, I expect.

  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 26,748
    The recent posts have nailed the problem.

    The decision to support ethanol from corn was a political decision rather than one made by the scientists knowledgeable in the field. It was made by politicians based on their contributors and supporters.

    Those same politicians made the decision to support the US car industry but keep the UAW high cost workers. That has doomed the increased building of plants in the US by US car makers once the government is out of the ownership and control of the companies.

    We see the same song being played about healthcare control.

    The same technique has been used on education.

    The only change will come when your congress person knows they will be voted out of office if they don't start making wise decisions.

    Ethanol from corn has been foolish and has been costly and destructive to the economy.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    edited October 2010
    The only change will come when your congress person knows they will be voted out of office if they don't start making wise decisions.

    Wise decisions that are good for the constituency and not their re-election war chest.

    Ethanol from corn has been foolish and has been costly and destructive to the economy.

    And most of all to the environment. Think about the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Probably more damage to the environment and fishery than the recent catastrophic oil spill.

    An area the size of the State of Massachusetts is currently located in the Gulf of Mexico, called the “dead zone,” which is a vast marine wasteland where fish and other marine life can’t survive. The fertilizer and nutrient-rich sentiment wash off from area farmlands, causing massive algae blooms that deprive the dead zone of oxygen.

    The dead zone is about 17-21 percent larger today, compared to the first measurement taken in 1985. Since 2001, five large record-breaking Gulf dead zones have been detected, with the largest measuring a massive 8,894 square miles.
  • galongagalonga Member Posts: 50
    The lower mileage ethanol produces ONLY happens in FLEX FUEL cars.

    Brazil developed ethanol only cars that had GREAT mileage and performance.

    However, just like diesel engines, ethanol engines cannot run on gasoline.

    If the US sold those cars even the mileage problem you so well point out would be solved.

    So, again, it is NOT a problem of ethanol in general, ONLY US ETHANOL.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    So, again, it is NOT a problem of ethanol in general, ONLY US ETHANOL.

    Time for a reality check. If the US were to adopt ethanol only cars as you say are in Brazil, we would be in worse shape. We cannot produce enough ethanol to keep up with the 3% mandate currently in place. If we took off the tariff and bought all of your ethanol it would not be enough to power 5% of our vehicles. Then you would have all those ethanol only cars and no ethanol. You should be happy we are not buying much of your ethanol.

    There will NEVER be ethanol only cars sold in the USA. We don't want the mess you had following the last time ethanol was all the rage in the 1970s. We have had flex fuel vehicles sold in the USA for well over 20 years. And there are about a dozen stations in the whole state of CA that sell E85. Only ONE in San Diego County where I live. And it cost more than gas.

    Another thing you leave out in your exuberance for ethanol is transportation. You cannot just stick it in a pipeline and get it to market. It all has to be shipped by expensive tanker trucks.

    Plus the USA already produces nearly twice as much ethanol as Brazil. And that is not enough to meet our current mandate.

    For the USA Ethanol is a GIANT SCAM.
  • galongagalonga Member Posts: 50
    Time for a reading check.

    Brazil uses only 1,2% of its land for ethanol production, and it produces it from sugarcane, which yields 9 TIMES more energy than american corn.

    So you can be sure there would be PLENTY of ethanol for america.

    And there was no "mess" in the 1970 as you claim.

    Time for a READING and LEARNING check.

    And sorry if you consider it "exuberance". It is just HARD FACTS. Deal.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    edited October 2010
    Brazil uses only 1,2% of its land for ethanol production, and it produces it from sugarcane, which yields 9 TIMES more energy than american corn.

    So you can be sure there would be PLENTY of ethanol for america.

    You would have to plant 37% of all the land in Brazil in sugar cane to produce enough for the vehicles in the USA. Of course we are not going to convert 244 million vehicles to run on ethanol so that is a moot point. I am not sure where you come up with 9 times more energy. A gallon of ethanol produces 76,100 btu/gal whether produced with sugar cane or corn or trees. gasoline is 114,000 btu/gal and diesel #2 produces 129,500 btu/gal. That means to get the same energy out of ethanol as gasoline you have to burn 1.5 gallons. I know you like the stuff and that is fine. I don't believe you have looked at the reality of ethanol as used in the USA. It is a political football. It is purely paybacks from our government to companies like ADM and the mega corn farmers. If the Federal Government really believed it would help our dependence from countries like Saudi Arabia, they would drop the tariff and buy all Brazil could produce. We still produce way more ethanol than Brazil even though it is NOT close to cost effective.

    The clearing of the rain forest and burning to prepare for growing crops is also environmentally BAD. It will take close to 100 years to mitigate the GHG produced during the clearing of the land for crop use.
  • morin2morin2 Member Posts: 399
    The lower mileage ethanol produces ONLY happens in FLEX FUEL cars.

    That is just not true. Several of us have done the calculated MPG with E10 and pure gas and found the ethanol penalty in fuel economy is very real.
  • galongagalonga Member Posts: 50
    Sorry, but again you are talking without a proper knowledge of the facts

    The rainforest regions in Brazil harbour a fungus called Mycovellosiella koepkei which inhibits growth: so it´s just pointless to even try to grow sugar cane in the amazon, as you get poor results.

    Just like there´s another called "vassoura de bruxa" which affects cocoa plantations and only lived in Ecuador.

    And on the 9 energy thing it´s a WIDELY known fact: google a little.

    And let me remind you that FLEX ENGINES ARE NOT ETHANOL ENGINES. I DO NOT SUPPORT FLEX ENGINES for the energy reasons you point out.

    I firmly believe that ethanol is a PROVEN solution and if instead of talking about mileage and other nonsense, if PROPERLY adopted (and not the way it is done) it will SAVE american lives.

    And I say save because we all know those poor troopers went to Iraq to get more oil.
  • galongagalonga Member Posts: 50
    No, you have NOT.

    Ethanol requires an ENTIRELY different engine with specs you do NOT have.

    You just compared it with the same compression ratio and spark timing, and of course got WRONG results.

    Again: ethanol engines are NOT flex fuel engines.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    edited October 2010
    Again: ethanol engines are NOT flex fuel engines.

    You are flat out wrong on the subject. The Cars sold in Brazil ARE Flex Fuel.

    Even Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has gotten behind the flex-fuel concept, here driving GM's first factory-produced car that runs on gasoline, alcohol or natural gas.

    SAO PAULO, Brazil — If it wasn’t for the TotalFlex logo on the new Gol subcompacts leaving a sprawling Volkswagen plant, the shiny cars would be indistinguishable from millions already on the road across Latin America.

    But these Gols and other models produced by Fiat SpA and General Motors Corp. have modified engines that, given the rising price of oil, are making Brazilians smile at the gas pumps. They run on gasoline, alcohol or any combination of the two and now represent nearly 20 percent of the new cars sold in Brazil.

    With alcohol — also called ethanol — cleaner and selling at half the price of gas in South America’s largest country, Brazilians who have bought 200,000 “flex-fuel” cars since their launch last year say deciding which fuel to use is a no-brainer.

    March 8, 2010 in Ethanol

    10 million FLEX FUEL cars sold in Brazil.

    Almost all vehicles sold in Brazil are flex-fuel capable (up to 85% ethanol blends, E85) and some are even compatible with 100% ethanol (E100). Every gas station in the country sells E85 and almost all sell E100. This has all been accomplished without government subsidies. As the Brazilian sugarcane organization, UNICA, likes to boast, the industry is completely self sustaining at this point. I’ve written about all this in the past, but as a recap, Brazil’s ethanol success is documented in these statistics:

    90% of all new automobiles sold are flex-fuel automobiles
    100% of GM vehicles produced in Brazil are flex-fuel - he-road/

    If you have any data that refutes the claim that Brazilian cars are Flex Fuel, feel free to post. So far all you have offered is your opinion. Which is fine as long as you can back it up with facts.
  • galongagalonga Member Posts: 50
    As usual you are confusing things by throwing WRONG or UNRELATED data (like this case).

    Brazil stopped selling PURE ethanol cars in 2007: 86% of the cars being sold today are FLEX and 0% are ethanol.

    And that´s a HUGE mistake for the reasons I pointed out twice already.

    That has NOTHING TO DO with ethanol engines being different and BETTER than the flex fuel crap that is available in Brazil and in the US today.

    READ MORE: so far you´ve been beaten in all issued you raised
  • galongagalonga Member Posts: 50
    Since it is obvious you have no idea the difference between a flex fuel and an ethanol ONLY car I will have to explain it, so you stop sending wrong or unrelated data.

    Ethanol only cars CANNOT RUN ON GASOLINE. Their compression ratios are way too high for gasoline (14 to 1).

    That ratio takes advantage of ethanol´s huge octane number (104), in order to give MORE POWER.

    On the other hand, flex fuel cars CAN run on gasoline because their compression ratios respect gasoline (9 to 1)

    You CANNOT purchase an ethanol car in the US: they do not exist

    In Brazil they were made until 2007 and now only flex fuels are made instead: a huge mistake, as flex fuel cars are nowhere near as efficient as ethanol only.

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Brazil stopped selling PURE ethanol cars in 2007: 86% of the cars being sold today are FLEX and 0% are ethanol.

    That is what I posted. You were trying to claim that ethanol ONLY vehicles were being sold in Brazil. That went away a long time ago. Due to the volatile sugar cane market. Flex fuel vehicles offer the consumer an alternative if the price of ethanol becomes too expensive. When Brazil brings that huge oil field off shore on line gas may become cheaper than ethanol.

    What you continue to try and avoid is answering the simple questions. How many Miles per gallon will the cars currently sold in Brazil get on the various fuels sold in Brazil. I would say if you pay $1 per gallon for E100 and $2 per gallon for gasoline, ethanol is a good choice. There is no free lunch. Ethanol does not pack the energy that regular gasoline does. And Gasoline does not have as much energy as diesel or biodiesel.

    A vehicle designed to run on pure alcohol should be more efficient than a flex fuel vehicle. Just not as enticing to the people that could not get ethanol back in the late 1980s for their ethanol only vehicles. A fact you seem to want to avoid.

    From 1979 to 2005 more than 5.6 million ethanol-only automobiles and light trucks were manufactured. The success of this first ethanol push was halted in the late 80s and early 90s, when sugar prices increased sharply in the international market, causing a reduction on local ethanol production which resulted in a severe shortage of ethanol supply in the country, forcing the government to import ethanol. As consumers queued at service stations, they lost confidence in the ethanol vehicles, and car makers cut their production, thus the industry declined.
  • morin2morin2 Member Posts: 399
    galonga is an obvious shill of the ethanol industry - which survives only by massive infusion of our tax dollars while damaging our environment and our small engines, boats, and shortening the life of our automotive components.

    I suggest that we stop feeding this troll. He seems to have inhaled too much of something - maybe ethanol.

    The best way to handle such trolls is to ignore them.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I guess you are right. It is tough educating people that think they know it all. The title of the thread should include "USA" as that is where it is a political SCAM. We don't have millions & Millions of acres of land suitable for growing Sugar Cane. We never will unless we conquer some country that does. That's an idea. :blush:
  • newdavidqnewdavidq Member Posts: 146
    At the risk of inciting golonga to more inane invective I must say that Petrobras is quite happy taking a $2 billion loan to drill offshore, using US technology, for the hated petroleum products which are responsible for the world wide prosperity enjoyed by billions of humans today. And where is the $2 billion coming from?
    Regards, and Adios, DQ
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    It IS possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Let's drop the personal edge to this now, please.
  • eliaselias Member Posts: 2,209
    edited November 2010
    galonga you are INCORRECT regarding the basics of the various combustion/calories/BTUs/energy-contents. And your arguments are hereby BEATEN LIKE A RENTED MULE:

    you are INCORRECT when you state that mixing ethanol with gas lowers mpg only in certain vehicles.
    These laws of physics/combustion/energy-content are hard facts. They apply to all vehicles, regardlesss of their national origin or design or fuel type.

    Next it seems like YOU are SO VERY WRONGLY alleging that USA ethanol is somehow chemically different than BRAZILIAN ethanol! That seems unlikely, but hey, bust out the chemical formulae and knock our socks off, galonganator man. Give us some real facts instead of pseudoscientific hogwash.

    Next you are talking about ethanol-only vehicles. I think we do enjoy ethanol-only cars here in USA , I think they are called race cars! (?) Galonga, as an esteemed co-member and a gentleman, you are proposing ethanol-only cars for the street in USA now? Please let's first confirm the abject unequivocal defeat of your arguments on the first few subjects before we try to move forward to your next round of misinformation sir?
  • newdavidqnewdavidq Member Posts: 146
    The purpose of these fora as I understand it is a free and open airing of ones personal views regarding the title of the forum. I assume that these discussions primarily relate to subjects in the world of automobiles in America. One of the posters attempted to introduce
    some international flavor by touting another countries' approach to the use of ethanol. The title of one of his posts was "Too bad if the US chose a lousy solution'. I felt this was a bit edgy in that it attacks our use of gasoline (a remarkable substance). Ethanol / Brazil is quite different from ethanol /US. If the subject of his post had referred to ethanol instead of gasoline he would have been right on, IMHO.
    I think this forum has completely exposed the folly of our approach to the use of ethanol as a motor fuel; I don't know what more can be said.

    Regards, DQ
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    Disageeing about something is fine. We just have to avoid the comments that get aimed at each other on a personal level.

    I'm sure we can ALL get in the spirit of things and avoid the personal barbs going forward, right?

    Thanks for your participation and cooperation!
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    edited November 2010
    Everyone reacts to alcohol differently. ;-)
  • newdavidqnewdavidq Member Posts: 146
    Roger WilCo.

    Regards, DQ
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    History repeats itself. The demise of the E100 vehicles came about with a shortage of sugar. Looks like it may happen again. Good luck finding E100 if that is all your car will burn.

    Sweet could get expensive. Raw sugar prices may rise to the highest level in more than 30 years by March, if dry weather hits the Brazilian sugar crop, broker Newedge USA told Bloomberg News.

    Sugar prices have more than doubled since May on concern about output in Brazil, Russia, China and Pakistan.

    "If there's less rain than normal in Brazil until March, you could potentially see a reduction in the cane harvest, and then you have a potentially big problem," Michael McDougall, a senior vice president at Newedge, told Bloomberg News.

    Also, India may curb its sugar exports as it tries to rebuild its reserves, pushing prices higher. The reserves are currently less than half its preferred level of 10 million metric tons.

    "Current prices show that the market needs Indian sugar," McDougall told Bloomberg News. rs-broker-says/19699065/
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Al Gore: Votes, not science, led me to back corn ethanol

    Report: Al Gore Reverses View on Ethanol, Blames Politics for Previous Support

    Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore reportedly has had a change of heart on ethanol, telling a conference on green energy in Europe that he only supported tax breaks for the alternative fuel to pander to farmers in his home state of Tennessee and the first-in-the-nation caucuses state of Iowa.

    Speaking at a green energy business conference in Athens sponsored by Marfin Popular Bank, Gore said the lobbyists have wrongly kept alive the program he once touted.

    "It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first-generation ethanol," Reuters quoted Gore saying of the U.S. policy that is about to come up for congressional review. "First-generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small.

    "One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president," the wire service reported Gore saying.

    Credits for corn ethanol subsidies expire at the end of the year unless Congress
    moves to renew the $7.7 billion annual program. Opponents of the corn subsidies say that it removes valuable food products from the table because the U.S. ethanol industry drives up the price of corn.

    Reuters reported that Gore attributed a variety of factors to the food pricing crisis that has emerged, but that biofuels
    definitely have had an effect.

    "The size, the percentage of corn particularly, which is now being (used for) first-generation ethanol definitely has an impact on food prices," he said. "The competition with food prices is real."
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    I keep channeling Capt. Renault from the movie Casablanca more and more...

    I'm shocked, shocked to find that politics is going on around :shades: ethanol
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Funny thing is. He did not win his home state of TN, in his presidential bid.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    More Pork for big Ag.

    Republicans in Congress have taken giant steps forward to restore American economic vitality but, as the current tax legislation, up for a cloture vote in the Senate on Monday proves the GOP has yet to prove that they are serious about cutting spending. Nestled within the legislation that extends the Bush tax cuts for another two years is a 45 cents per gallon subsidy for ethanol, as well as a retroactive $1 per gallon credit for bio-diesel fuel. Continuing these subsidies costs taxpayers approximately $5 billion a year.

    Budget-busting subsidies and bailouts of failing industries have been a mainstay of the Democrats in Congress over the last two years, but the tax legislation reveals that there are GOP senators who are not immune from the temptations of pork.

    Folks familiar with Iowan Senator Charles Grassley are aware of his characterization as a deficit hawk, tough on waste, fraud and abuse, and yet, he’s the last hold-out on ethanol subsidies, an enormous source of government waste.

    Even Al Gore has faced the inconvenient truth that ethanol “is not a good policy.” Corn-based ethanol is expensive and has dubious environmental benefits. Moreover, huge subsidies for corn-based ethanol drive up the cost of food as large amounts of U.S. farm production is diverted to make expensive fuel. Americans are then forced to buy a product that they do not want, because of government mandates for ethanol inclusion in gasoline blends. At the same time, protectionist measures prevent the importation of cheaper forms of ethanol made in Brazil, from sugar cane. These decisions, that enrich the Iowa corn industry, cost taxpayers dearly.

    The good news is that the ethanol subsidy and the bio-diesel subsidy were due to expire at the end of this year. But, sadly, Grassley has placed parochial politics above the good of the GOP and the good of the country, and insisted that the extension be tagged on to the tax-cut legislation. So, there goes another 5 billion.

    Ethanol waste
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    Turning food into fuel isn't a good idea. Turning ANYTHING into a less efficient fuel and still believing it somehow saves ANYTHING is downright silly
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
  • eliaselias Member Posts: 2,209
    edited January 2011
    EPA Grants E15 Fuel Waiver for Model Years 2001 - 2006 Cars and Light Trucks/Agency continues review of public comments for an E15 pump label to help ensure consumers use the correct fuel

    Release date: 01/21/2011

    Contact Information: Cathy Milbourn [email protected] 202-564-7849 202-564-4355

    WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today waived a limitation on selling gasoline that contains more than 10 percent ethanol for model year (MY) 2001 through 2006 passenger vehicles, including cars, SUVs, and light pickup trucks. The waiver applies to fuel that contains up to 15 percent ethanol – known as E15. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson made the decision after a review of the Department of Energy’s thorough testing and other available data on E15’s effect on emissions from MY 2001 through 2006 cars and light trucks.

    “Recently completed testing and data analysis show that E15 does not harm emissions control equipment in newer cars and light trucks,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “Wherever sound science and the law support steps to allow more home-grown fuels in America’s vehicles, this administration takes those steps.”

    On October 13, 2010, EPA approved a waiver allowing the use of E15 for MY 2007 and newer cars and light trucks. At that time, EPA denied a request to allow the use of E15 for MY 2000 and older vehicles and postponed its decision on the use of E15 in MY 2001 to 2006 cars and light trucks until DOE completed additional testing for those model years.

    The Agency also announced that no waiver is being granted this year for E15 use in any motorcycles, heavy-duty vehicles, or non-road engines because current testing data does not support such a waiver.

    These waivers represent one of a number of actions that are needed from federal, state and industry to commercialize E15 gasoline blends. Also, EPA is developing requirements to ensure that E15 is properly labeled at the gas pump. The label will be designed to prevent refueling into vehicles, engines, and equipment not currently approved for the higher ethanol blend.

    Ethanol is an alcohol that can be mixed with gasoline to result in a cleaner-burning fuel. E15 is a blend of 15 percent ethanol and 85 percent gasoline. The primary source of ethanol is corn, but other grains or biomass sources may be used such as corn cobs, cornstalks, and switchgrass.

    The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 mandated an increase in the overall volume of renewable fuels into the marketplace, reaching a 36 billion gallon total in 2022. Ethanol is considered a renewable fuel because it is produced from plant products or wastes and not from fossil fuels. Ethanol is blended with gasoline for use in most areas across the country.

    EPA granted the waiver after considering the E15 petition submitted by Growth Energy and 54 ethanol manufacturers in March 2009. In April 2009, EPA sought public comment on the petition and received about 78,000 comments.

    The petition was submitted under a Clean Air Act provision that allows EPA to waive the act’s prohibition against the sale of a significantly altered fuel if the petitioner shows that the new fuel will not cause or contribute to the failure of engine and other emission-related parts that ensure compliance with emission standards.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Heavily subsidized Georgia ethanol plant closes

    12:26 pm February 8, 2011, by Kyle Wingfield

    A Georgia biofuels company has drawn the attention of noted corporate-welfare critic Timothy Carney in the Washington Examiner:

    To turn wood chips into ethanol fuel, George W. Bush’s Department of Energy in February 2007 announced a $76 million grant to Range Fuels for a cutting-edge refinery. A few months later, the refinery opened in the piney woods of Treutlen County, Ga., as the taxpayers of Georgia piled on another $6 million. In 2008, the ethanol plant was the first beneficiary of the Biorefinery Assistance Program, pocketing a loan for $80 million guaranteed by the U.S. taxpayers.

    Last month, the refinery closed down, having failed to squeeze even a drop of ethanol out of its pine chips.

    The Soperton, Ga., ethanol plant is another blemish on ethanol’s already tarnished image, but more broadly, it is cautionary tale about the elusive nature of “green jobs” and the folly of the government’s efforts at “investing” — as President Obama puts it — in new technologies.

    $162 million down the toilet on biomass ethanol
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,299
    Ugh, but I'm not surprised.

    I hope folks are patient for 'algae ethanol'. And I'm still waiting on all the 'cellulosic ethanol'...
  • newdavidqnewdavidq Member Posts: 146
Sign In or Register to comment.