Ethanol - is it a benefit or just a new addiction?

[White Lightening]

Greetings Fellow Truck lovers,

Over the last 2 years we've all seen the word "ethanol" being spoken/written/talked about a great deal. Unfortunately not a great deal of the surrounding facts get disclosed with that coverage. The last few months - our local newspaper and other papers have had editorials in them by many about the advantages of ethanol - but they typically don't talk about the economics of it and the real impacts - instead talking about it in more of a "vacuum" effect instead of a total effect.

Today - there appeared an article that had questions and answers in it - many of them good information that doesn't normally appear regarding the issues of ethanol. I've linked that article below in case you have an interest in ethanol issues.

http://www.lacrossetribune.com/artic...1ethanol11.txt

Some other issues not mentioned that are also considerations:

1. The abundance and growth of wood, wood pellet, and corn stoves also effects the supply of corn based product for ethanol use.

2. Corn prices are skyrocketing at present. The price of farm land IS going up as will development land (created from rural farm land) and the cost of raising pigs, sheep, cattle, horses, and chickens/poultry is already starting to rise substantially (corn is now above $4.00 a bushel - a 100% increase in less than 16 months).

3. Federal subsidies on each gallon of ethanol which we are paying are substantial - so ask yourself - if we are going to "pay" in subsidies for ethanol - and "pay again" with higher food costs - and then also have lower gas mileage benefits (20% less with ethanol E-85 than normal gasoline) - then how are we benefited?

4. Think about one issue related to ethanol. It is SO HARSH to metal pipelines - that it can not be transported by pipeline - it must be trucked. Is our environment better served by introducing such another new contaminate ? Flex fuel vehicles - those that can burn E-85 - will their fuel system/engine components last NEARLY as long as normal gasoline engine components - or will vehicles using these be shorter lived instead?

5. To have our Wheaties, have a healthier carbohydrate diet, or eat pizza/burgers/ice cream or drink a beer - will we be importing corn from foreign countries to do it? If so - how are we "less dependent".

I think it is fine that farmers and the rural economy will see more money - what I'm concerned about - is why don't we just REDUCE our consumption instead of just "exchanging" one problem for another ?

[TexasF355F1]

Ethanol is just another "greeny" way to try and force us to their side. All it does is put out slightly less greenhouse gases. However, it doesn't improve gas mileage, it's actually worse.

These enviro nut-jobs are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Too bad it's not possible and they contradict themselves on a regular basis.

[gremlin96]

http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/23/tech...biz2/index.htm


there have been a lot of news on the subject. not all of it good. heck some of the ethanol products there pushing does not have a workable solutions as of yet.

[Yellow Snow]

Here in MN we already use Ethanol. It's not really that bad, and it helps out alot of people in this state. I think more of the purpose of ethanol is to slightly lower our dependance on fossil fuel, by mixing ethanol as a renewable resource.


I'm not saying I want them to require E-85, but the low blends they sell here in MN are not that bad.

[Blue Bowtie]

Here is a "nutshell" variety case study of MY experience using E-85:

http://forums.s-series.org/viewtopic...er=asc&start=0

I maintain a spreadsheet with fuel usage, mileage, and costs. I use it to calculate a running cost differential. Since I started my "experiment" over a year and a half ago, I have used an estimated 9.28% more fuel. However, given the cost differential of the fuel, I have saved just over $263 in fuel costs. While more liquid fuel is used, my cost per mile driven has dropped from 19.6¢ to 15.9¢. Moreover, I have burned 616 gallons of ethanol (that is actual ethanol volume, not including the gasoline which was blended into it) which replaced 563 gallons of gasoline. At current refinery rates, thats equal to about 19 barrels of oil I did not use in just one vehicle, or about one barrel of oil per month.

The "higher food cost" argument may not be valid. With the prices for gasoline and diesel fuel increasing, anyone would have a really difficult time convincing me that all the higher priced fuel used to farm, transport, process, ship, and distribute food isn't going to be reflected in the final food price. If those petroleum-based fuel prices were to decrease, all the farmers, ranchers, shippers, processors, and distributors would not be surcharging for fuel, and the price would reflect that as well.

Go ahead and quote all the statistics, propaganda (both ways), urban legend, and hearsay you like. Until you've documented it yourself, you really won't know.

I've experimented with blends in other vehicles as well. My '96 Lumina, '94 Impala, '00 Astro, and even my '86 TA run with no problems on ethanol up to 35%. My personal experience has indicated (not necessarily proven) to me that almost any vehicle out there should be able to use at least a 20% ethanol blend (like E-22) with no problems. If 20% of our fuel did not originate from petroleum, we might not have some of the political and supposed environmental problems we currently have.

[Blue Bowtie]

Originally Posted by White Lightening

Greetings Fellow Truck lovers,

Over the last 2 years we've all seen the word "ethanol" being spoken/written/talked about a great deal. Unfortunately not a great deal of the surrounding facts get disclosed with that coverage. The last few months - our local newspaper and other papers have had editorials in them by many about the advantages of ethanol - but they typically don't talk about the economics of it and the real impacts - instead talking about it in more of a "vacuum" effect instead of a total effect.

Today - there appeared an article that had questions and answers in it - many of them good information that doesn't normally appear regarding the issues of ethanol. I've linked that article below in case you have an interest in ethanol issues.

http://www.lacrossetribune.com/artic...1ethanol11.txt

Only two years? Try more like 30+ years.

Some other issues not mentioned that are also considerations:

The abundance and growth of wood, wood pellet, and corn stoves also effects the supply of corn based product for ethanol use.

Corn pellet stoves can also use cobs - a part that isn't normally used for either feed or fuel production.

Corn prices are skyrocketing at present. The price of farm land IS going up as will development land (created from rural farm land) and the cost of raising pigs, sheep, cattle, horses, and chickens/poultry is already starting to rise substantially (corn is now above $4.00 a bushel - a 100% increase in less than 16 months).

Historically, the price of corn has been relatively stagnant for almost 20 years. Between federal crop subsidies and set-aside acreage plans (which we have ALL been paying for) attempting to artificially raise the price of corn, farmers are now enjoying a price increase based on actual market forces. Furthermore, corn which was previously not suitable as even feed quality can now be sold in the marketplace as a viable commodity. Even high-moisture corn is valuable, and we don't have to "waste" millions of dollars in energy to dry it while in storage. Compare the price of a corn bushel in 1980 to the current price, then make a similar comparison for gasoline.

Federal subsidies on each gallon of ethanol which we are paying are substantial - so ask yourself - if we are going to "pay" in subsidies for ethanol - and "pay again" with higher food costs - and then also have lower gas mileage benefits (20% less with ethanol E-85 than normal gasoline) - then how are we benefited?

See Above The federal subsidies are only being shifted from crops to fuel, and can actually be viewed as an investment rather than a crutch. If it helps to get us off the petroleum economy to even some degree, all the better.

Think about one issue related to ethanol. It is SO HARSH to metal pipelines - that it can not be transported by pipeline - it must be trucked. Is our environment better served by introducing such another new contaminate ? Flex fuel vehicles - those that can burn E-85 - will their fuel system/engine components last NEARLY as long as normal gasoline engine components - or will vehicles using these be shorter lived instead?

I think you might be generalizing, or confusing methanol with ethanol. Some of the plants around here directly pipe their product to fuel storage depots for final blending. I've been using ethanol blends since 1976. Yes, you read that correctly - When Gerald Ford was President. I have not experienced any of this "shorter-lived" fuel system problem you describe. Then again, I only have vehicles that are 20 years old, so maybe it's only a matter of time.

To have our Wheaties, have a healthier carbohydrate diet, or eat pizza/burgers/ice cream or drink a beer - will we be importing corn from foreign countries to do it? If so - how are we "less dependent".

I think you're mixing apples and oranges, or would that be apples and Wheaties? Current evidence suggests that a high carb diet is not all that healthy. Long term evidence suggests the same thing. Cultures which commonly eat a lower carb, higher protein diet are generally more healthy than that of the U.S.

I think it is fine that farmers and the rural economy will see more money - what I'm concerned about - is why don't we just REDUCE our consumption instead of just "exchanging" one problem for another ?

I agree. Reduction is important. Reality dictates that we will not eliminate motor fuel use, and other developing areas of the globe will easily make up for anything we might "save" through reduction efforts, so the prices are only increasing either way.

I'm actually surprised that that AP story was simply cut, pasted, and printed in LaCrosse. It's full of holes, but then again, it originated in New York. Little wonder that some of the inconvenient facts were omitted. I'm going to have to chat with Mike Huebsch about that. People in Onalaska are a generally little more enlightened than that.

[wrparks]

The problem is mainly that corn/EtOH is being protrayed by the press and politicans as a solution to higher prices. It's not. It is one part of what should be a multi-facited approach to reduce petro consumption. But the cost for the blended gas may go up substantially as corn prices rise.

USDA is projecting record high acreage of corn planted this year. It may be enought. Or, it might be too much and the price collapse, it really depends on yield and how much corn can be used. Personally, I don't know enough to say.

Cattle prices are indeed being affected and an increase in corn costs will likely push many of the very few remaining independent hog producers out of business. In fact, corn is now the source of something like 80% of the carbon we consume, even when it comes from animals (This is proven). Corn is so much more than food though. It is a commodity in the truest sense.

Our best bet if we like ethanol in our fuel and are serious about it is to quit making it from corn. There are better plant materials out there for EtOH production, but they are not readily available as corn is. There is reserch going on at NCSU (my alma mater) and several other universities into using switchgrass. Who knows where it will go, but it is a start.

[Yellow Snow]

Originally Posted by Blue Bowtie

Here is a "nutshell" variety case study of MY experience using E-85:

http://forums.s-series.org/viewtopic...er=asc&start=0

Great job on the experiment.

[Blue Bowtie]

Originally Posted by wrparks

The problem is mainly that corn/EtOH is being protrayed by the press and politicans as a solution to higher prices. It's not. It is one part of what should be a multi-facited approach to reduce petro consumption...

Our best bet if we like ethanol in our fuel and are serious about it is to quit making it from corn. There are better plant materials out there for EtOH production, but they are not readily available as corn is. There is reserch going on at NCSU (my alma mater) and several other universities into using switchgrass. Who knows where it will go, but it is a start.

Excellent analysis, and spot-on about the pricing. Corn just currently happens to be the easiest way to make alcohol in the U.S., and despite the increasing demand, is still readily available. Almost any grain or plant matter will yield some alcohol, be we tend to take the easy, lazy, and most myopic route as a society. Furthermore, alcohol itself may not be the solution. The only certainty is that oil is NOT the solution. We'll still use plenty of oil for other purposes, and currently could not survive without it in those other applications.

The key to the whole ethanol approach (or, "experiment," if you will) is that we can prove to ourselves that we don't need oil as a motor fuel. After that, the sky is the limit for the innovators among us.

[Blue Bowtie]

Originally Posted by Yellow Snow

Great job on the experiment.

It was only a matter of transcribing the facts. The only suspicious occurrence was the failure of one injectors. I have no way of attributing it to ethanol, nor proving that it wasn't due to ethanol. Multecs of that vintage are not known for being very durable. What I do know is that the other three injectors are still running alcohol through them regularly without any problems. I did change the fuel filter again, just because, but that's generally considered to be a good idea for any EFI system regardless of the type of fuel.

It's still plugging along, some 12,000 miles later. I don't really notice any power reduction, because it's a LAME LITTLE FOUR CYLINDER! The word "Power" is not a term normally used in the same sentence with "134ID four cylinder."

I know all the other four-cylinder pilots out there will take exception to that. "But if you add boost" or "My 4 cylinder with a turbo makes lots of power" will probably be aired out, but those drivers have never throttled a twin-turbo 427. Had they, they'd know better.