The Inconvenient Truth About Ethanol

gagrice · June 2007

I can assure you that I am all for the farmers making a decent living. Having tried it in the late 1970s I know it is an uphill battle to make a living. In fact the Carter administration dashed my hopes of making a living at farming. I still have the land and lease it to someone that farms and pastures on it. It does cover the property taxes and that is about all. What makes you feel that the high price of corn will not kill the ethanol market before it gets going? What makes you think the trading price of ethanol at $1.91 is a profitable price?

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.

tpe · June 2007

Gagrice, do the math, the ethanol industry could easily survive without that subsidy right now

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?

tpe · June 2007

Farmers produce FOOD, which is an essential need of humans.

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.

gagrice · June 2007

Did you know that recovered product is 28 percent protein--currently used wet or dry as a cattle feed supplement

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

gagrice · June 2007

Maybe in your part of the country they are only getting 150 bushel corn. Iowa farmers are pushing close to 200 bushels. Mainly due to increased fertilizer use.

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.

gagrice · June 2007

Here is the fertilizer problem as I see it. Ethanol has increased the corn after corn planting. That more than doubles the required nitrogen to get a good crop.

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

fezo · June 2007

Thanks for killing a good topic.

PF_Flyer · June 2007

Why does this have to turn personal? :mad:

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.

elias · June 2007

Years ago an aggie pal of mine predicted much of the current badness due to ethanol-as-fuel. He also included biodiesel-as-fuel as part of the problem, thusly tweeking my TDI-ophile nose. He claimed these renewable fuels would each consume farmland that would otherwise be used for growing food, and that food prices would increase, and low-income people would thusly be harmed.
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.

Kirstie_H · June 2007

my favorite ethanol-product lately is called STELLA ARTOIS.

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.

bpizzuti · June 2007

Oh come on, be nice.

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?

texases · June 2007

Sugarcane's certainly more efficient, but no need to license - we just don't have the raw material supply.

tpe · June 2007

LIVE YELLOW,GO GREEN,GO ETHANOL.

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?

tpe · June 2007

Why does this have to turn personal?

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.

gagrice · June 2007

I seriously doubt there is any bias toward me. I get hacked out all the time for going off topic etc.

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.

oldguy70 · June 2007

larsb · June 2007

Your take is:

?????????????

oldguy70 · June 2007

Sorry, in my haste I inadvertently hit the wrong key.
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.

bpizzuti · June 2007

Corn and other grain prices are going to rise--but so is the price of fossil fuel, so where's the argument there?

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?

tpe · June 2007

I find myself wondering about sugar beets

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.

nascar57 · June 2007

Sugarbeets are a decent crop to look at for getting ethanol. They do yield considerably higher gal/ac. than corn does currently. The major drawback is that sugar beets are basically raised in 3 localized parts of the US, they are not grown all over this country like corn, so that really limits the number of plants that could be built. Add to the fact that sugar beet growers receive a fairly high price for their sugar currently, It would be interesting for me to see how the cost situation would be. Sugar beets are also a very input intensive crop to raise and require specialized harvesting equipment, that it would take grower commitments to get a plant built and would require alot of acres in those commitments. But yes, this would be quite more efficient. The major goal is cellulosic, if they can get the enzymes needed at a feasible price we could see gains from currently 450-500 gallons/acre jump up to 1500-1750 gallons per acre. Now that would be something cool, to produce that much right here in the US.

oldguy70 · June 2007

More on the subject.
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.

tpe · June 2007

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.

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"?

oldguy70 · June 2007

No, the region I live in doesn't receive funding for ethanol. The plant did though.
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??

gagrice · June 2007

I read all the posts. And found this one very balanced.

oldguy70 · June 2007

Thanks. I sincerely hope you won't take it so personally if I challenge any of your posts in the future.
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?

gagrice · June 2007

I'm not easily offended after all these years on Edmund's. I really try not to offend anyone. I do have strong feelings on some things. My opinions are subject to change.

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.

tpe · June 2007

Corn prices in the past have been really poor as you may know.

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.

easym1 · June 2007

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/05/02/tech-sorghum.html

There's an article at the above site that our friends might find useful. This is supposed to be better than corn.

tpe · June 2007

If these new, improved feedstocks for ethanol production are best grown in non-traditional farming regions it will be interesting to see how this impacts the view of the current corn based ethanol advocates. If you're in favor of ethanol production as a way to reduce oil dependency then how can you not be more in favor of a more efficient method of ethanol production? I can think of one reason.

oldguy70 · June 2007

I am fully aware why corn prices have been poor in the past.
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?

tpe · June 2007

Hmmm..., apparently our government feels that driving up the price of food is a more effective way of reducing our oil consumption. However, since we do have a problem with obesity in this country this might not be such a bad idea.

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.

gagrice · June 2007

I listened to a Wisconsin Farmer on talk radio this morning. He felt that the mandate on ethanol that was driving the price of corn toward $5 per bushel was not good for the country. He has cut back on other crops to grow more corn like most of his neighbors. His point was the ethanol push is causing shortages in Soybeans, wheat and other crops. Not only is it pushing the price of food up. It is opening the door for more food to come in from other countries. His parting statement: "Would you rather buy your food or your fuel from other countries"? With the current pet food problem from Chinese food products, it makes me wonder what we are in for. I would rather put foreign produced fuel in my gas tank than questionable foreign food in my stomach.

nascar57 · June 2007

My lord, do you think $4 milk is as bad as $3 gas??? How many gallons of milk a week does a family go through. Id say 2 maybe 3, that increase is probably $4-6 extra. HOLY, I would say that the increase is gas is alot more hurtful to us than a 5-10% rise in food prices. Rewind your minds to 2001, we have experienced a 300% RISE in gas prices. Thats where the problem is, the high prices of corn and other crops have been brought about by us finally realizing that we need an alternative. This is not all time highs for corn, go back to 1996, corn topped around $5.50, factor in inflation, we should be close to $7. This isnt the end of the world, the extra money you spend on food this year is going straight back to the American farmer, whereas in the past the massive rise in gas prices have sent your money to our oil masters in Saudi Arabia. It just makes me laugh at crap like this, the oil companies will do anything to put a damper on an alternative to their overpriced petro. Its about time that food prices actually rise, we have gotten too spoiled, but remember a 10% rise or 300% THINK ABOUT IT!

gagrice · June 2007

What happens when we do not raise enough soybeans to satisfy the US market? We buy from another country that may use human waste as fertilizer. I do not think you are looking at the whole picture. There is a shortage of ethanol to meet the mandate of 2.9% in every gallon of gas. I know that is good for the farmer as he can charge more for the corn and it is passed to the consumer. What happens if all the land is in corn and it does not satisfy the mandate? This is a Congressional mandate with no hope of being met. I know you will try to sell enough seed to meet the demand. We do not have enough land to grow enough corn to make a difference in the big fuel picture. It is only going to cause disruptions in food and gas. I am not worried about the price of corn going to $7 as much as not having the crops we need to feed our country. You seem to be saying we can raise enough corn, wheat and soybeans to satisfy our hunger for food and enough ethanol to meet the mandate. I think you are wrong. I have not read one study that would back up that thinking.

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.

nascar57 · June 2007

nascar57 · June 2007

You are so off the point here. I come from a 4000 acre farm. Here in my state we have rules against corporate farming. I am not for that one bit. I can tell you from personal experience this year as an AG loan officer that EVERY farmer, no matter the size, is benefitting from this biofuels boom. Currently no, we do not have enough capacity to put a major dent in our oil consumption, but my laying the ground work, the technology is being developed to greatly enhance the chance of us making a dent in the consumption. What you remember in the 1970's was the russian grain embargo, which like I have said before was a supply disruption. I have read that the historical high in 1981 for gasoline is equivalent to $3.29 today with inflation. Wow, we are pretty much there. I can remember up until 2001, the diesel fuel we were running our tractors off of was $.91/gallon (Red Diesel), today that same red diesel sells for $2.65 per gallon. Today's tractors hold 250-300 gallons, come on, tell me we dont need to get more for our commodities. And the comment that farmers charge for their commodities, I WISH, I would be making a killing if that were the case, a farmer is a price taker, the market determines price and it is up to farmer to manage that to his advantage. The mega farms you hear about are the ones in the southern US, up here in North and South Dakota, there isnt an mega corporate farms, we are states full of family run farms that ALL benefit directly from this revolution. Trust me Gagrice, I have seen first hand what the seed companies have coming in the future for high ethanol yield corn and corn that can survive and grow with half as much water, also corn that puts nitrogen into the ground as it is growing. I have seen this and there are even wilder things being developed to help commodities be both food and fuel.

gagrice · June 2007

I hope you are right.

nascar57 · June 2007

Hey Guys, this is not in the debate on biofuels, but there is a new fuel additive that is causing alot of excitement here in the heartland. This product is made in Minnesota and it is called CA40G. It is a fuel additive that works with any fuel(Gas, Diesel, E85) It has been consistently delivering a 10-15% increase in fuel economoy instantly. There is a web site to visit if you would like to learn more www.ca40g. com I have friends that have run this in their pickups and have instantly gone from 17 mpg to 18.5-19 mpg by simply adding this. My gallon is on order and on the way, but this would be pretty cool if we could instantly achieve even 10% better economy right now. Take a look, its very interesting.

tpe · June 2007

Its about time that food prices actually rise, we have gotten too spoiled, but remember a 10% rise or 300% THINK ABOUT IT!

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?

kyfdx · June 2007

Maybe you put the whole gallon of additive in, but don't add it to the number of gallons?

Maybe it is just fun with math.. :surprise:

texases · June 2007

Some great quotes from the web site:

"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!

tpe · June 2007

It's right to be skeptical about these claims for higher mileage but I have come across one that really seems legit. Unfortunately it only works for people that are currently using E85. The additive is widely available, it's called gasoline.

jkinzel · June 2007

I have very serious doubts about anyone telling me the virtue of something that is taking the money out of my pocket. There is really nothing you can tell me that is going convince me that lower mileage and higher food prices are a good thing for Americans.
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.

jkinzel · June 2007

"the calcium bonds to hydrocarbons within the fuel causing a more efficient burn of the fuel" Since when was calcium a part of combustion?

Well texases, maybe our cars will have stronger bones :P

PF_Flyer · June 2007

If you can't disagree without trying to insult each other, we'll have to pursue other options to stop this behavior.

Again, I'm removing posts where comments are directed at other users. This stops now.

nascar57 · June 2007

Come on guys, give it a chance. This stuff really does work. Various radio stations and tv channels have had specials about this all over the tri-state region up here. I just used it in my 07 Silverado today. I made the same trip I did yesterday to Grand Forks, ND. Yesterday without the CA40, I averaged 18.1, today WITH the additive I averaged 20.1. Alot of farmers up here have started using it in their tractors and multiple truck stops and gas stations are now selling this product. Its backed with a 2 million dollar insurance policy. The developers have stated on radio and tv that they will NOT be selling out to any oil companies. Apparently a few have already approached about acquiring this. Im sure it would never see the light of day again. But lets not just disregard something that currently WORKS to increase fuel economy.

PF_Flyer · June 2007

The subject here is ethanol, not fuel additives.

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?

texases · June 2007

or "fuel and oil additives" in the maintenance section...

nascar57 · June 2007

Alright, the only reason I brought it up is because it works with ETHANOL. It makes it more efficient by simply adding this to it. Wont speak of it anymore

The Inconvenient Truth About Ethanol

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles