-June 2024 Special Lease Deals-
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
Options
Comments
The real problem as I see for any of the major automakers outside of the Big 3 building flex fuel vehicles is engine design. Most use aluminum and that does not do well with ethanol in high concentrations. I do not think you can use plastic gas tanks either.
I do hope you are right and companies like ADM do not rape the small towns they have built in. There are about 90 such places with shut down ethanol plants across the Midwest, from the last go around.
Well then let's do away with this subsidy. If the ethanol industry can really survive on its own feet then I'm all for it. If it can't then it's a form of welfare. I have no doubt that the farmers in the heartland are buzzing with excitement. If the government came up with a program that paid surfers for how many waves they caught I suspect that the beachcombers in So. CA and Hawaii would be buzzing with excitement about this. It doesn't mean it makes sense.
Your thankful that GM offers you a choice to buy these flex-fuel vehicles. It's time for a reality check. Why exactly do you think that GM builds these vehicles? Is it to offer consumers like yourself a choice or is it to exploit a CAFE loophole? GM is a huge global corporation that could give no more a rat's [non-permissible content removed] about the farmers in the heartland than Toyota or Honda. They have, however, painted themselves into a corner where the only way they can make a profit is to sell trucks and SUVs. Manufacturing these flex-fuel inefficient vehicles is motivated out of self preservation. Let me ask you this. Can you go out and buy a flex-fuel Chevy Cobalt? Why not when this is such a cheap modification for the manufacturer to make?
It's not like I'm unsympathetic to the farmer. If someone's willing to work hard and expects to make a decent living then I can appreciate that sentiment. Unfortunately the government is creating a future bailout. I work in the tech sector of our economy. I don't remember a bailout following the dot.com crash. Why do farmers deserve a different status?
I agree. And if you can't make a living selling something that is essential then that's utter incompetence. Farmers were producing enough food to feed this country long before government subsidies existed. I'm sure that would still be the case. The only difference is that without these subsidies only the most efficient farms would stay in business. As it is now some utterly incompetent farmers can squeak by and the efficient farms/farmers have their profits further padded at the expense of the taxpayers.
Did you know that for a cow to utilize corn as feed they are injected with antibiotics? Corn is not all it is cracked up to be. I look at every label and refuse to buy any product with HFCS in the contents. If you were to do the same you would be healthier and pass by 90% of the products on the shelf.
Ever wonder why corn is the preferred grain
That is a simple one. For every seed corn planted you get 150 kernals in harvest. With wheat it is 1 to 50. Corn is a high yield crop.
Do you know how much anhydrous ammonia is needed to push the bushels per acre that are currently being produced? Do you know where the bulk of the Natural Gas used to produce that anhydrous ammonia comes from? Did you know the price of this fertilizer has gone up by 50%.
anhydrous ammonia
Now do you know what happens to the excess fertilizer used to produce these bumper crops of corn?
The dead zone is created by spring runoff, which carries fertilizer and other nutrients into the Gulf. Phytoplankton blooms around river mouths spread. When the creatures die and sink to the bottom, their decomposition strips oxygen from the water, creating inhospitable conditions for other marine life.
fertilizer run-off
I would rather have fresh shrimp than ethanol.
Each year a swath of the Gulf of Mexico becomes so devoid of shrimp, fish, and other marine life that it is known as the dead zone.
Scientists have identified agricultural fertilizers as a primary culprit behind the phenomenon. Researchers are now focusing on shrinking the zone.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0525_050525_deadzone.html
I admit I left farming in 1979 as it was a disaster. I also understand your side of things. I would not be here making this fuss if ethanol was done in a reasonable fashion. Using the excess corn crop for fuel is fine. When it is mandated to be used it becomes an issue for more than just the locales that are involved. I have to pay more for gas because it is mandated that ALL gas will be mixed with ethanol. The logistics are horrible for transporting ethanol. It has to be trucked from the processor to the refiner and mixed just prior to delivery. Using it as an oxygenator is a total waste according to the EPA. Modern engines do not need oxygenated fuel to burn clean.
What good are FFVs when there is only one station in CA that sells E85? If using E85 works for those in the Midwest I think it is great. Just don't force it on the whole country.
Nitrogen fertilization is essential for profitable
corn production. It also is a major
cost of production and can contribute to
degradation of the environment. The economic and
environmental costs of N fertilization are more
important than in the past, and they are likely to
become even more important in the future.
Table 1. Rates of N usually needed if all N is applied
preplant or before crop emergence (option for inseason
application of N not exercised).
Crop category N rate (lb. N/acre)
Corn on recently manured soils 0-90
Corn after established alfalfa 0-30
2nd-year corn after alfalfa 0-60
Other corn after corn 150-200
Corn after soybean (no manure) 100-150
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/PM1714.pdf
Let's drop the personal edge to this now. If anyone can't do that and continues what has obviously become a personal matter, they will be risking their access to the discussions.
Chances are that you're going to see things posted that you disagree with. That's life on the message boards. That's not an excuse to start name calling. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.
I'm going to remove the posts where you're going at each other and any future postings along those lines are going to be removed without any further explanation.
Get back to discussing the subject and stop discussing each other please.
It appears to me that he was right on, at least with regard to ethanol-as-fuel. His Aggie-education is ancient just like others who left farming in 1979, but he runs a huge grain company currently.
To try to end on an especially CHEERS note:
my favorite ethanol-product lately is called STELLA ARTOIS. WOW IS IT GOOD !
Try it and ruminate, but not as a ruminant.
Can't run a car on it, and you probably shouldn't run the car while you're on it, but it's my personal fave TGIF.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews
While the agreement is pretty much universal to go with biofuels, there ARE disagreements on WHICH type of biofuels to use, and upsides and downsides to each path.
Personally, I think we should license Brazil's technology as step 1, and work towards building efficient, clean biodiesel engines for long term. Others think switchgrass is the best idea.
Farmers, of course, like the corn idea. Who can blame them, if they'll get rich off of it, you know?
When you say "go green" are you referring to the environment or dollars?
It's interesting that people that are opposed to our current ethanol policies are labelled as being anti-environment or not caring about our dependence on oil. In most cases that couldn't be further from the truth. In my case I try to look at this ethanol approach very objectively. How much are we going to invest and how much do we stand to gain. When I talk about investment I'm not only referring to government subsidies but higher prices paid for food. When I talk about what we stand to gain I'm referring to what kind of long term reduction in oil consumption can be expected. My feeling is that we will invest an enormous amount of money and realize minimal, if any, oil savings. So if the goal is to reduce oil consumption does this approach provide the most bang for the buck? I think the answer is absolutely no.
Now on the other side it seems to me the strongest proponents of ethanol are not totally objective. There typically seems to be a self-serving financial incentive for supporting these policies.
As far as GM's offering flex-fuel vehicles almost everyone believes this has actually led to an increase in oil consumption. The reason being is that very few of these vehicles ever see E85 in their gas tanks yet GM is now allowed to sell more of these inefficient vehicles. So again, when we are talking about going green are we referring to the environment or dollars?
The reality is that people take money in their wallet very personally. The contentious nature of this thread should make that obvious. So that's what this ethanol issue has become. The environment and oil dependence have become secondary considerations.
The title of the thread does carry negative connotations with regard to ethanol. This energy bill has gotten me to read a lot more than I really wanted to about ethanol. I may share your feelings completely if I was still trying to make a living on my farm in MN. I am very curious how the farmers close to my farm are viewing this whole ethanol phenomenon. People outside of the Midwest are less optimistic than you are. Most of us see one government boondoggle following another. Our water supplies in many parts of So California are still contaminated by the last forced additive, MTBE. I just think more studies are needed before it is mandated for everyone as ethanol is. I hope the Dakotas have bumper crops this year.
?????????????
First off, I'm not supporting one side or the other--not just yet.
It is a controversial issue, and both pros or cons in the US have come forth with what appear to be good arguments to support either case.
Depending on whose opinion, research paper, or learned experiences we see, either side can appear to be be quite convincing.
Here's what I think.
Right now the US is addicted to oil, and being held victim of the whims of oil producing countries. This isn't going away folks!
There really aren't any long term alternate energy solutions up and running just yet--lots of ideas and research being done, some apparently viable ones---but it's going to be a few years before they come on line.
That said, what are the alternatives right now?
I see ethanol as a workable short term fix--it provides an immediate dependancy reduction on foreign oil of 10 percent. Not something to dismiss out of hand.
In the long term, it bides us a little time to have better and more viable alternatives developed and come on line.
I know a fair amount about ethanol, having been a producer, and I still maintain strong contacts in the business.
Whether you support it or not, it offers some upsides and some downsides.
Personally, I see the argument as a wash.
The technology is improving quickly. Higher yields and much better operating efficiencies are happening, thus energy use to make it is decreasing.
Adding moderate percentages with gasoline need not be harmful to existing engine and fuel handling components.
There is an improvement in emissions over those of straight gasoline fuels.
It uses corn--yes, a valuable food commodity for both people and livestock--but corn is renewable and available within our borders.
Corn and other grain prices are going to rise--but so is the price of fossil fuel, so where's the argument there?
Manufacture of ethanol isn't rocket science.
Distilling alcohol is centuries old technology.
Grind corn (or other biomass), cook it with water to gelatinize the grain, add yeast and other enszimes to convert starch to sugars, allow the mash to ferment to about 10% alcohol over a couple of days, run the mash up a distillation column to get % alcohol to around 96%, then dehydrate the last of the water using a process involving benzine--lo and behold--pure ethyl alcohol--you can mix it with water and drink it, or mix it with gasoline and run it in your car.
(Personally I like mixing it with soda--as in scotch and soda!)
Even though the technology is old, there have been remarkable innovations in getting higher yields--up to 14% in fermentations, and much faster turnover in fermentation times.
Distillation energy use is really improving too.
Techniques like vapor recompression heating sytems have dramatically reduced the need for energy.
Most, if not all distillation currently uses steam to drive the process.
Efficiencies are being gained by generating steam with turbines (aka jet engines), running steam throgh electrical generators before sending it to process--hence you get more bang for the buck be going on the grid with the electricity produced.
More later--this is getting entirely too long.
This is a fair point. Using ethanol will drive food prices up. NOT using it will drive pump prices up...and considering that fuel is also required to grow stuff, food prices will go up anyway.
Still not convinced that corn is the best option though. What we NEED is a crop that produces more energy than it takes to grow it, basically. That's the crux of the problem. If it takes just as much gas to make ethanol gas, it IS a wash.
Since we can't devote enough acreage to can sugar, I find myself wondering about sugar beets...the key is to grow something with high sugar content, so it can be distilled into ethanol, right?
I think that's what they are pursuing in Minnesota.
A previous post mentioned how if ethanol reduced our oil consumption by 10% then that would be worthwhile. I agree. It is definitely possible for us to replace 10% of our gasoline with ethanol. Since ethanol has a lower energy content it would actually have to make up about 12-13 percent to account for a 10 percent reduction in gasoline. Anyway, still possible. The question then becomes, how much extra oil did we have to use to create this amount of ethanol. When we are talking about using corn for ethanol it was probably a wash. So it becomes a dog chasing its tail situation.
I talked earlier about combined cycle ethanol plants. (Our host deleted it??)
These are operations which integrate cogen electrical power, ethanol production, animal feed from byproduct, cattle feed lots, methane collection to fuel boilers or turbines---in other words highly efficient operations from start to finish.
There are a few of these types of integrated operations(one in fact, in our area)which are quite impressive in how they work--and they do work, believe it or not.
So there are innovative ways to make the stuff.
Downsides, upsides---depends on who you talk to.
Like I said, we need something right now to reduce our dependency on foreign oil.
We also have to send the OPEC and Kyoto crowd a message--we're serious about alternative fuels.
For the moment, ethanol beats what's in second place.
A long term commitment?? I can't say--yet.
The same applies to all the pro/con advocates.
Nascar57
Your sugar beet alternative sounds good to me--a viable alternative maybe in the future--too bad we stopped producing much of it 35 or 40 years ago. Cheap imports killed it.
From my perspective "highly efficient" shouldn't require any subsidies.
Here's my question. Do you live in a region that receives funding for ethanol production? If the answer is yes then my second question is, "why is this funding necessary when ethanol production is so efficient"?
Corn producers here also do--they always have (at least for the past 30 years) received subsidies to help them survive when prices were low, which was most of the time.
Corn prices in the past have been really poor as you may know. One of the reasons for ethanol subsidies was to create a bigger market for corn.
The ethanol plant here was subsidized--two ways. The first was a direct inflow of cash to build it. The second was a relief from federal excise taxes applied way back when only beverage alcohol was the norm. Every proof gallon of distilled spirits was (and still is) taxed federally--the ethanol guys are now relieved of this tax because their alcohol is being used industrially.
As regards your question about "efficiency". Efficiency is relative in this instance.
Cost to make a gallon of ethanol is still higher than a gallon of gasoline, even though a given plant may be "highly efficient".
Ethanol producers are doing everything they can to bring the cost of production down to compare with gasoline--the improvements I mentioned are some techniques in the works today. They're getting closer all the time.
Additionally, the OPEC gang is helping to solve the cost differential--unfortunately for us just now!
The good news is that if the cost of oil keeps rising, the cost of ethanol may ultimately be lower than gasoline--all things being equal.
"Why is funding necessary?" Well, you'll have to ask the legislators that question to get a complete answer--there is more than one reason I'm sure.
I can only provide some. I already mentioned a few reasons. A few more might be as follows.
Corn producers have been lobbying for subsidy increases for years. Ethanol sort of relieved the Govt. of having to do so--for obvious reasons.
The oil dependency issue may have added some impetus to the subsidy decision--we needed an answer fast, because it'll be some time before alternative energy sources are developed.
Hope the foregoing answers some of your questions.
PS. Will somebody inform Gagrice that I really do know a little about this subject??
Off the subject--a question. Somewhere you said you live in California or Hawaii (I think).
What time do you get up in the morning--it's still awful early there right now?
I live in San Diego and never get up later than 5 AM. I do most of my computer playing while my wife sleeps then we have 5 acres of tropical plants and citrus trees to maintain. I work harder being retired than I did working in Prudhoe.
Our place in Hawaii is an anthurium farm. It is rented out to the people that sell the flowers. My farm in MN is leased out also.
Why do you think that is? Is it possible that these misguided government programs have resulted in over production? So now the government is in the position that they need to manipulate the market in an effort to offset the effects of their previous manipulations.
There's an article at the above site that our friends might find useful. This is supposed to be better than corn.
The essence of my post was about ethanol, as opposed corn prices affected by ethanol.
Government subsidies and their causes/effects is a whole 'nuther topic--and one which is worth being concerned about. However, this is an automotive forum.
Suffice to say that government too often tries to solve a problem with politically advantagious solutions, and invariably creates several more problems as a result.
Is it a question of hopeless attemps at problem solving, or an exercise in job security?
http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/19/news/economy/commodity_prices/index.htm?postversion=2007061915
There probably are people in congress that are starting to realize that the creation of these pro-ethanol policies have led to some unexpected and unwanted consequences. And have they produced any positive results? Unfortunately congress is a lot better at creating boondoggles than they are at eliminating them.
I have to question your percentages. I do remember when I was farming in the late 1970s that fuel oil for my tractor and heating oil went up to $1.56 per gallon. What would that be in todays dollars? I was only getting 90 bushels to the acre in a good year. I do worry about the little farmers that are being gobbled up by big ag corporations.
I also have no sympathy for the mega farmers with thousands of acres that get subsidized when corn prices are low. I think that is the camp you are in, so this conversation has little to do with fairness to the farmers.
We also got spoiled by extremely low gasoline prices that were available during certain periods in the last 20 years. We quickly assumed that they were here to stay and went out and bought big trucks/SUVs and adopted lifestyles that involved driving 20k miles per year. Oops, turned out not to be such a bright idea.
Also, when you cite a 300% increase you are comparing a valley to a peak. Fuel prices have become volatile in the last 8 years and if you choose the right period you can come up with some pretty impressive inflation/deflation numbers. In 2007 dollars fuel prices went down about 65% from 1981 to 2001.
Here's a historical chart of CA gasoline prices adjusted for inflation. I don't see anything all that alarming about the price we are currently paying. Also, when you take into consideration we have far more efficient vehicles than we did 40 years ago gasoline's impact on our budget becomes even less of a factor. Maybe this is why $3/gallon gasoline hasn't really caused us to cut back much on driving because the reality is that it's just not that expensive.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/nytimes_gasoline_price.jpg
BTW, when is this increased ethanol production going to start impacting how much oil we import, or even slow the growth?
Maybe it is just fun with math.. :surprise:
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
"the calcium bonds to hydrocarbons within the fuel causing a more efficient burn of the fuel" Since when was calcium a part of combustion?
"Usually only about half of the hydrocarbons in fuel are burned in an internal combustion engine." :surprise: If this doesn't set off your BS detector, I don't know what will!
If ethanol is going to be so good for the farmers then they will no longer need government subsidies and the tax payers can use the tax savings to help buy food.
Well texases, maybe our cars will have stronger bones :P
Again, I'm removing posts where comments are directed at other users. This stops now.
A better place to discuss additives would be over on the Automotive News & Views board in a discussion like What will you do when gas price rises above $4 a gallon?