Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

The Inconvenient Truth About Ethanol

1…34689…21

Comments

  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    Is oil consumption down?
  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,384
    image
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    fezo,
    What the hell is that? I see a yellow circle with it's mouth going up and down. Is it trying to eat corn? I hope that's what it's trying to do. Regardless, it better have a lot of money.
  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,384
    He's laughing but eating corn works for the discussion as well...
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,384
    Would this one work better for a laugh? - image
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/07/29/dead.zone.ap/index.html
    Is this only going to get worse with the ethanol craze?

    NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (AP) -- The oxygen-poor "dead zone" off the Louisiana and Texas coasts isn't quite as big as predicted this year, but it is still the third-largest ever mapped, a scientist said Saturday.
    Crabs, eels and other creatures usually found on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico are swimming in crowds on the surface because there is too little oxygen in their usual habitat, said Nancy Rabalais, chief scientist for northern Gulf hypoxia studies.
    "We very often see swarms of crabs, mostly blue crabs and their close relatives, swimming at the surface when the oxygen is low," she wrote in an e-mail from a research ship as it returned to Cocodrie from its annual measurement trip.
    Eels, which live in sediments 60 to 70 feet below the water surface, are an even less common sight, she said.
    The 7,900-square-mile area with almost no oxygen, a condition called hypoxia, is about the size of Connecticut and Delaware together. The Louisiana-Texas dead zone is the world's second-largest hypoxic area, she said.
    This year's is about 7.5 percent smaller than what Eugene Turner, Rabalais' husband and a professor of oceanography and coastal sciences at Louisiana State University, had predicted, judging by nitrogen content in the Mississippi River watershed.
    He had predicted it would be about 8,540 square miles, which would have made it the largest measured in at least 22 years. More storms than normal may have reduced hypoxia by keeping the waters roiled, Rabalais said.
    Hypoxia occurs when fresh water pouring in from the Mississippi River floats above the heavier salt water in the Gulf. Algae die and fall to the bottom, where their decay uses oxygen faster than it is brought down from the surface. Eventually, the lower layer holds too little oxygen for fish and other aquatic life.
    Nitrogen, from sources including fertilizer, erosion and sewage, speeds up the process by feeding algae.
    The dead zone was larger in 2002 and 2001, when it covered 8,500 and 8,006 square miles respectively, and was almost as big in 1999. Scientists want to reduce the zone to about 2,500 square miles.
  • jae5jae5 Member Posts: 1,206
    Is there anyone on the board that has an ethanol-capable vehicle, have used only ethanol for fuel over a long time period and record fuel usage & mileage? It seems that I either see a lot of praise for ethanol (mostly from Bush, politicians, GM and the like) or negatives from those on the other side of the coin or kernal. And I don't mean just from those on this board but other forums / blogs / persons as well. But I haven't really read / heard from people that have lived with ethanol for awhile, reported on vehicle mileage, usage, availability, vehicle performance, issues/problems.

    If there is no one on this board, are there other links that may have this information?

    Just curious... :confuse:
  • nascar57nascar57 Member Posts: 47
    I do post on here frequently, I am usually on the pro-ethanol side of the debate, but I DO own a flex-fuel vehicle. It is a 2007 Chevy Silverado, with the 5.3 liter Flex Fuel Motor in it. My father also owns a 2004 Flex Fuel Silverado. To start off with there is a definate decrease in mileage when you consistently burn ethanol. On my dad's 04 it seems to take the computer at least 1.5-2 tanks of ethanol to be at optimum economy for ethanol. While on my 07 it seems to get to the optimum E85 economy relatively fast. On my pickup driving the North Dakota highways for work and driving gravel roads around my farm, I average 14.5 with straigh E85. That is rarely over 70 mph for speeds also. My dads 04 is slightly worse on mileage, the best he has ever got with E85 is 14. With my pickup cruising the same speed, same conditions with gasoline I average 17.5. The new engine helps a little since it will switch to 4 cyclinders on flat level cruise driving conditions. But currently here in ND E85 is selling for $2.52/gallon while gasoline is at $2.99, with that spread it is essentially a wash on cost per mile. I like to see at least a $.50 spread to burn E85 and make it pay. But earlier this year up here when gas shot to $3.30, ethanol stayed at $2.20, it was really fun running then! But yes, Im not gunna say that there is no economy loss. But the one thing that you can feel from driving on ethanol is that there is a performance increase when burning E85. When you stomp on the vehicle you can definately tell that there is something else burning in there. The problem outside the Midwest is availability and hopefully that can get much better. Most small towns here in North Dakota even carry ethanol now. Minnesota still has the best availability, but there just needs to be an infrastructure upgrade. I just really like the option of burning something else when gas spikes and ethanol stays relatively flat. Just my 2 cents, hope that helps you out a little.
  • jae5jae5 Member Posts: 1,206
    Thanks, that helps a lot. Again, it is definitely two sides on the fence, either for or against. It is nice to have some real-world feedback on actual mileage, performance gains/losses and availability in other parts of the country to gauge if it's worth it or not.

    You wouldn't like the station around me that sells E85. It's usually only 20 ~ 30 cents cheaper than regular unleaded at that station. But since its gasoline is higher priced than the other stations around, the E85 is only about a dime or so other stations' 87 octane. This station is on my commute to/from work so it would be bad for me to stop there, but my vehicle is not compatible anyway...
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Well you won me over. I sold my 2005 GMC Sierra Hybrid and bought a 1999 Ford Ranger PU with FLEX FUEL. It has a big green leaf on the tailgate. The only problem is that there is only one station 35 miles from me that sells E85. Last I checked it was 30 cents a gallon more than unleaded.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Round trip is 70 miles, so you'll burn about 4 gallons of E85 just to fill up.

    Unless you were going that way anyway. :D
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    You are right. Unless E85 is 25% less in price and convenient, it is not a reasonable alternative. It is cool having a vehicle with a big green leaf on the tailgate. This is my beater truck. What I should have bought when I bought the 2005 GMC Hybrid. I just got caught up in the hype, like so many others. The GMC hybrid did hold its value well. I only lost $4 grand after owning it for 25 months and 12,911 miles.
  • grumpsgrumps Member Posts: 2
    Ethanol also isn't that ethical - read this and see if you agree: http://editor.cardevotion.com/
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Welcome to the Forum.

    I agree that corn is food first. If there is any left over for fuel fine. I think that Congress got it backward. Make all the fuel you can out of corn. Let the people eat switchgrass seems to be the mentality paid for in Congress by the likes of ADM.
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    I want to thank you for the link. It sheds a new light on just how devastating the overall effects of corn to fuel can be.
    Drink the alcohol, eat the corn and use bio-diesel for fuel. Disclaimer: Don’t drink and drive or drive under the influence of corn.
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    We just shifted a grain ship out of the grain dock in Tacoma because they have run out of corn and the next load via rail is several days away. It has about 1/4 load and now has to wait for the next ship to load out a dfferent product before going back in.
    It is pathetic that we can't keep enough corn in the supply chain to loan a ship.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    It's funny that most people tend to focus on supply, hence the push for ethanol as an alternative.

    We should be looking at ways to reduce demand.
  • nascar57nascar57 Member Posts: 47
    Sorry to burst your bubble but there is NOT a shortage of corn right now. I work in the ag industry and all you have to do is look at our carry out right now. We have plenty of corn in this country at the current moment. This year American farmers planted 92 MILLION acres of corn, am all time high and the latest USDA report that came out last friday pegged the national yield at 152 bu/acre. So the reason that your ship was changed was probably a logistic problem. Rail shipping is overwhelmed in the central US now with harvest in full throttle. Which would slow down the shipping times to the coasts to load the ships. I also agree with the last poster, lets try and lessen demand and find an alternative at the same time. Maybe a hybrid with a flex fuel engine????? Not a bad sounding idea to me. Or the new Chevy Volt, the best solution yet. But its not gunna be easy changing people's ways.
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    In my 33 years of working on the water front in Puget Sound I have never seen grain ships forced from the dock to anchor because of no product.
    This is the fourth time this year that I am aware of and in every case the “no product” has been corn.
    Anyone would be very hard pressed to call any of this a “coincidence”.
    I will admit that I have seen ships forced to stop loading for 6 to 24 hours because of train delays, but they knew the product was in route and they never kicked them out of the dock.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,700
    Hadn't thought of this angle, but if you're wanting to reduce CO2, seems like biofuels isn't the way to go: EU study pans biofuels
  • daysailerdaysailer Member Posts: 720
    Interesting. So if we actually have excess corn production capacity, we would be better served to return the land to forest, that is, if trees will grow in soil exhausted by decades of mono-culture farming.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    A good example of that is IOWA the number one CORN growing state. It was one huge hardwood forest before the farmers started clearing for crops. It is now over 95% cleared crop land. One small example of the nature of farming for fuel. It is not just the USA. Brazil has cleared millions of acres of rain forest to grow sugar for ethanol. It is a better crop than corn. Still not environmentally good. The burn-off every two years at harvest is a real pollution problem for Brazil.

    Surprisingly it is the USA that is planting new hardwood forest in Brazil. We are installing a hardwood that is eco-friendly, LYPTUS. Great new hybrid that is twice as hard as the hardest Maple.
  • zachinmizachinmi Member Posts: 228
    FYI - US farming practices don't "exhaust the soil" like you're describing. Yields wouldn't stay high if they did. That's why fertilizer of all kinds is huge business in North America. And anyway, trees will generally grow in poorer soil than most crops will.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I'm not sure of your point. Yes they can grow crops year after year without rotation, if given enough fertilizer. The fertilizer of choice for corn is made from fossil fuel. That somewhat negates the eco-friendly aspects of corn ethanol. If trees will grow in poor soil they should and have done great in rich soil. Without the need to pollute the land with fertilizers. We need crops for food. So far they have not made a good case for ethanol from corn. Other than making the mega farmers, Verasun & ADM filthy rich.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,700
    And the fertilizer runoff is the primary cause of the Gulf of Mexico 'dead zone', a region of depleted oxygen near the mouth of the Mississippi.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    That has been my major complaint from the outset of ethanol hysteria.
  • nascar57nascar57 Member Posts: 47
    The farming practices in the United States are not anywhere near as bad as you say. Just in the last 10 years we have seen a major shift to a more no-till type operation. If you have that happening it greatly reduces the runoff and the soil erosion that carries the fertilizers away. The main source of fertlizer for corn right now is urea which is derived from natural gas. Its not that farmers are pushing more fertlizer to the crops, its the fact that the new corn varieties are getting so much better. In 5 years there will be corn that sets nodules on its roots. You may ask what that is, it is the same thing that a soybean plant does, as the plant is growing it actually puts nitrogen INTO the soil, which really lowers the fertlizer need the following year. And this ethanol deal is NOT just making the ADM's and Verisuns rich, go talk to every farmer in this country and the higher prices we are receiving for all commodities are a result of biofuels. It is about time the American farmer starts to get a little bit more for his product. It is just like asking you big city folks if you would work today for the exact same wage that you got in 1990??? I think alot of you would be pretty tick'd about that.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    I live in farming country and practices have certainly changed over the years. I'm working on a blog entry about ethanol and farming and cars and all that, just gathering some interesting factoids before I write it up for the Alternate Route :shades:
  • jd10013jd10013 Member Posts: 779
    one thing people tend to forget is, the aquifer (Ogallala) that the mid west farmers draw water from (about a trillion gallons per year) is estimated to be 60-80% depleted. in most areas, the rate of extraction is 100x the rate of replenisment. When the farmers finally crack it, one dry year (which isn't uncommon in the midwest) and we've got another 30's style dust bowl.

    any report on US farming should include the potential loss of that vital water source. currently, the feds do not regulate its use at all, and it took the glaciers that also created the great lakes to create it.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I am curious. How will the heavy rains and flooding in the upper MidWest affect that aquifer? Does the flooding run off too quickly to be of much benefit?
  • jd10013jd10013 Member Posts: 779
    From what I understand, and I haven't reasearched it extensivly but I do know a little about it, is yes, the heavy rains will mostly run off. they'll end up in the misori and mississippi rivers, then the gulf. The aquifer does get replenished some through rains and so on, but the problem is that the water is being drawn from it (totaly unregulated) at rates vastly in excess of the rate at which rains and such can replenish it. As I said before, it took the melting of the last glaciers to create it. well, to fill it. the ground structure to hold it was created when the rockies formed; if I remeber correctly.

    But, the point remains, the farmers are draining it at alarming rates. because of this, it is monitored. even if its not regulated. on average, the water table is dropping at a rate of about 5ft per year.
  • daysailerdaysailer Member Posts: 720
    Nay, nay, Industrial farming does indeed exhaust the soil! That is WHY it requires the constant addition of synthetic fertilizer in order to grow anything. The soil becomes merely a medium in which to process foreign materials to produce a crop, which itself is artificially "engineered" and foreign to its environment. Such crops, lacking natural resistance to the risks of their environment also require the use of pesticide, fungicide and herbicide which along, with the fertilizer, wash for thousands of miles leaving a trail of devastation in their wake. (rant off).
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    Trying to sort through all the noise on this issue is making my head spin :confuse: , so I contacted a friend of mine who's a professor of agronomy and is much better informed than I about the facts and figures.
    His reply to my questions makes for interesting reading. Check it out on today's entry on my blog, the Alternate Route
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,700
    His reply is OK, but still a bit self-serving. Equating the economic impact of a 50% increase in corn prices and lesser impacts to other grains to the effect on a box of corn flakes is nonsense. Grains are present in a huge portion of our economy, sometimes in ways that are hard to see.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    I'll definitely follow up with him on this stuff for a future blog entry.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I might add the economics could be much worse for all the other crops that corn will displace. My last trip through the Imperial Valley was amazing. I have never seen them growing corn until this summer. Many fields that are usually lettuce, tomatoes or cotton, were in corn.

    You are right about corn in everything. Pick up any processed food from Coke to Cookies and that nasty "High Fructose Corn Syrup" is usually number one on the list of ingredients.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,700
    I hadn't thought about the non-grain impact. Take a look at this month's Scientific American. It's all about nutrition, and more to the point, how fat the world is becoming. One proposal is to lessen, rather than increase, the subsidies all grains receive, and replace them with subsidies for vegetables and fruits, to encourage healthy diets. The high costs of vegetables and fruits creates a built in incentive to eat poorly. Ethanol and its consequences are making things worse if vegetable and fruit farm land is now being planted in grains.
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    Good information and interesting read, but while he down played the effects of ethanol production on the increase in food prices (meats, chicken, etc.) my wallet is telling me a different story every time we go to the grocery store and Costco.
    Thank you for seeking and sharing this information. BTW, Mr. O’Dell never called me.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Not to mention the cutting down of Agave fields in Mexico to grow corn. They can no longer afford our high priced corn for tortillas. So we lose our source of good tequila. NOW THAT IS INCONVENIENT!
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,700
    And think about all those margarita machine manufacturers...
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    The far reaching ramifications of our ethanol boondoggle, boggles the mind.... :sick:

    What will life be like without tacos and margaritas? People will be sniffing their exhaust to get a buzz....
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Now that's where I draw the line... :D
  • nascar57nascar57 Member Posts: 47
    Did you people ever think that the increased energy prices might have more of an effect on your grocery bill than higher corn prices. Most shippers have upped their rates due to high fuel costs, that has a larger impact on the price of groceries than the increase in corn prices. Corn really isnt that high anymore. Alot of people just cannot look at it from the side of an ag person. And the fact about slashing subsidies on grains, if that were to happen I sure hope you will have fun eating food that is grown in China and like the rest of the chinese stuff, it will probably kill you. Dont EVER wish for our food supply to be outsourced, DONT EVER!
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    There is a much better chance of us being forced to eat food from other countries if all our own cropland is in fuel crops such as corn. The price of eggs has almost doubled this year. That is not from higher fuel prices as they are lower now than last year this time. That is because CORN is the main ingredient in chicken feed. Chicken prices are also much higher this year. So you get your wish.

    Don't expect anyone here to feel sorry for the mega-farmers that have run most of the little guys out of business. I for one, owning a small farm know this whole ethanol business is designed to help BIG business, not the little farmer.
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    I will not disagree that fuel prices have played a part in cost increases for all items, but corn prices have also played a part for food price increases.
    A few pennies for Shell and a few pennies for ADM equal a nickel from my pocket.
    The prices of corn and gasoline have both gone down, yet my grocery bill remains the same.
  • nascar57nascar57 Member Posts: 47
    Gagrice just because you went broke farming doesnt mean that other small farmers all disappeared. Im from North Dakota, and there are no big mega-farms in this state. The state average size of a farm is 1500-2000 acres. EVERY farmer is benefitting from the higher commodity prices this year brought on by BIO FUELS, What you believe out there in California is totally wrong, come on up to the heartland. Both North Dakota and Minnesota have anti corporate farming laws, so these mega farms arent around my neck of the woods. That professor said it so well, hard to argue with anything he said.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Hard to argue with the article when so much of the equation is left out. He only mentions the positive aspects for those that are benefitting, yourself included. I fully understand your being in favor of this government giveaway.

    Your idea of a family farm and mine are miles apart. The average farm in my part of Minnesota was about 1/10th your average farm. A big dairy farmer would be planting a section (640 acres). Most were the size of mine 200 acres. Whether you believe it or not there was a time that a family could be supported quite well on 200 acres. With all your mega farmers undercutting the working farmer, it is no wonder so many have gone broke. At least I kept my land and the crops pay the taxes. I am fine with that. It was a good place to raise my kids in the 1970s.

    I don't think people in CA think much about it at all. They don't even realize their mileage has suffered as a result of the ethanol that is added to the gasoline. They just race around like before. Still buying big SUVs and lifted PU trucks.

    One plus, I got a discount on my little 1999 Ranger PU truck because it is Flex Fuel Vehicle. Saved me a few bucks on my insurance. I am thinking of filling it with some HIGH priced E85 ($3.29) before I go for the smog check.... :) It will be worth the 66 cents per gallon hit to see if it is any cleaner with your home brew fuel.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    You being one of the few advocates for corn ethanol on this board, could enhance your position by posting data on this new corn seed. If some company has come up with a hybrid corn that does not need fossil fertilizer, it would go a long ways to making it a positive instead of a negative source of ethanol.

    So far I have not found any links from Google.
  • nascar57nascar57 Member Posts: 47
    Now I never said anything about corn not needing any fertlizer. They are developing varieties that require LESS fertlizer than the current ones and are able to attain the same yield. Pioneer is just one of the companies working on projects like these. Nitrogen efficiency and high ethanol yield are just two things that will increase the efficiency of this. http://www.pioneer.com/web/site/portal/menuitem.8e36377986a91418bc0c0a03d10093a0- /

    This is a quick overview of what Pioneer has coming, Monsanto and Syngenta have similar things in the pipeline.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I just assumed it was something that was being used presently. Don't you think they kind of got the cart before the horse in the whole ethanol program? We know that ethanol from material such as switchgrass is possible. We know that it is a totally different process than using corn. We know that corn is an inefficient source of ethanol. WHY then are we building all these ethanol plants for corn, with tax payers money, when we know they will be obsolete in a few years? If corn ethanol is a good product, companies like ADM and Verasun should be investing their own dollars in the plants. You see we did this in the 1970s and all we have to show is about 100 outdated production facilities rusting in the Midwest. Looks to me like we are making the same mistake again.

    As far as the seed corn, 10 years is a long time off, we should have a better solution than using corn for ethanol by then.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles