Here's your chance to fight ethanol in gasoline

[jnormanh]

I think I would dispute this statement -- as being somewhere between unproven and incorrect. It will probably remain unproven because Congress had prohibited the EPA from investigating whether ethanol in gasoline: (1) improves air quality, and/or (2) is a good idea, on a cost-vs-benefit basis. Adding ethanol to gas reduces gas mileage, and probably reduces exhaust emissions -- but does the increased petroleum consumption outweigh the improvement in air quality? We don't know.

And if the cost in dollars and petroleum usage of producing and shipping the corn and ethanol are included, does it actually reduce oil imports overall? We don't know. Corn is a very water- and fertilizer-intensive crop, and fertilizer is made from petroleum. Ethanol must be distilled, which requires a lot of oil. And it must be shipped, which requires a lot of oil. Would the land now dedicated to growing corn be used to grow something else that requires just as much petroleum? We don't know. Or would those now engaged in the corn and ethanol industries otherwise be on welfare? We don't know.

A truly objective study would be complicated and would be contentious, so as Dick Steinkamp said, the lobbyists will certainly get involved and the one with the most money will probably win.

You make a valid point.

Surely adding ethanol to gasoline slightly reduces our use of gasoline, but...

If we consider the petroleum used in the production of corn - fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, diesel fuel for plowing, planting, harvesting, and transporting and the energy used for fermenting and distilling off the ethanol, then transporting it again, it certainly could be that we do not reduce petroleum imports at all.

The best information I can find is that about 40% of our corn crop goes to ethanol production, thereby driving up the price of corn, corn-based products, and meat from corn-fed animals.

One thing we can be certain of is that ethanol in gasoline is a boon to corn growers.

An acre of farmland in a prime corn-producing area like Iowa will bring $10,000. There must be good profits in growing corn.

Please disregard my statement that ethanol reduces petro imports. That may not be true at all.

Thanks for the insight.

[bumpkinvilledano]

It helps our farmers but I do not think it benefits car drivers. you need to check your milage with straight gas verses ethanol. My experience has been you use just as much gas per mile with 10% alcohol as if you were using all gasoline. It seems not to be effective to put it mildly.

I have the same issue with biodiesel. My mileage decreases slightly, 10.5 mpg down to 10.0. This is the soy based bio, not the reclaimed vegetable oil. I only find the bio in the normal mid west farming states, not around the south or the east coast. I notice also that the truck starts a little more reluctantly and has a different "aroma" from the exhaust.

[Skip Lackie]

Skip to answer part of you question, us corn growing farmers were not on welfare before ethanol and will not be if it is not produced. To me all the talk about ethanol is mute for any easy and cheap fix is to add a little atf oil to you gas tank on about every 2nd or 3rd fill up.

Tom-
Did not intend to disparage corn farmers, who I'm sure would find something else to grow if the ethanol mandate was reduced. Farmers are, if nothing else, resilient. The comment was really aimed at Congress and the ethanol industry, which grew up from almost nothing after MTBE was banned and ethanol became the oxygenate of choice. Defenders of ethanol-laced fuel often defend it as producing many positive side effects, one of which is the thousands of new jobs in the ethanol industry. My view is that the government should only take actions that are intended to achieve a stated objective, and not engage in the hypocrisy of calling a political payoff and hidden subsidy a pollution-reduction program. If we want to create jobs, there are plenty of bridges that need to be repaired.

[jclary]

What an entertaining thread! What began as a simple PSA, (public service announcement), true to our Studebaker personalities...we pair off and begin to square dance on the head of a pin!

Oppose or endorse...we continually hear claims of "free market" virtues, while backing up to accept "subsidies" for our pet projects. I think the ethanol experiment has been a noble exercise. As with any worthwhile enterprise, there comes a time to let it "sink or swim," on its merits. I know of some folks who think corn is for eating, and others for drinking. (There is a successful "fake" reality show dedicated to drinkable corn.)

I've noticed, recently, the finance/investment pundits, were predicting a huge increase in fuel prices to comply with seasonal "Blend" requirements. As if to talk-up, promote, and prepare the public to accept artificial price hikes. However, I'm noticing, like a lot of other trends, seems the public (and the market) are in an uncooperative mood, and price hikes are not gaining traction, or being sustained.

So far, I have experienced a bunch of little hiccups I blame on ethanol, but if, or when, it goes away, I'll just find something else to blame. One thing I miss about "leaded" gas, is that when it was the norm, you could always tell if your engine was properly tuned by the grayish exhaust deposit...as a sign of a well tuned engine!

[Dick LeRoux]

If it takes more than a gallon of oil to produce a gallon of ethanol, ethanol loses. If you add ethanol to gasoline and the mileage of the vehicle decreases, ethanol loses. The vehicle that uses an ethanol blend that now gets less mileage, produces more pollutants per mile because of the decrease in mileage. Where is the benefit, except to growers & Archer, Daniels, Midland, to the public that purchases a fuel that gets less mileage & produces more pollution per mile? I didn't think I'd ever see the repeal of the 55 speed limit because of the revenue it generated for the states through enforcement, however the public demanded repeal. There is hope. After all WA state finally got out of running the liquor business, MN repealed the ban on selling alcohol on Sundays, and the sun still rises in the east & sets in the west. Armeggdon was avoided.

[bumpkinvilledano]

I have the same issue with biodiesel. My mileage decreases slightly, 10.5 mpg down to 10.0. This is the soy based bio, not the reclaimed vegetable oil. I only find the bio in the normal mid west farming states, not around the south or the east coast. I notice also that the truck starts a little more reluctantly and has a different "aroma" from the exhaust.

I should clarify; This is a blend of bio and regular diesel. I don't recall off the top of my head the percentage of bio, but I believe it's about the same as the gasohol; 10-15%

[Milaca]

The only benefit of ethanol that I am aware of is its ability to raise the octane level of gasoline without the use of hazardous chemicals. With that said, I believe that engines with direct-fuel injection can operate on lower octane gas and therefor not need the added octane. The direct fuel injection prevents pre-ignition (knocking) just as it does for a diesel engine.

It is my understanding that food prices increased when the demand of corn-for-ethanol production increased. Why grow oats, wheat, barley, etc. when corn is the most profitable to grow? The only way to keep farmers producing an adequate supply of oats, wheat, barley, etc. was to increase the prices paid for these crops, which lead to higher food prices at the grocery store. I'm not bashing any farmers, it is just business and I would do the same thing if I was a crop farmer.

As for lowering our dependence on foreign oil, we currently have an abundance of oil being pumped from wells right here in the United States. Last year, 3 million barrels of refined oil was exported from our country every single day! Here is a link to the article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...s-exports-boom

Another benefit of oil is that it can be pumped through pipelines directly to the refineries, whereas ethanol is transported by railroad tankers. Just this week, a train pulling 101 tanker cars of ethanol derailed in Iowa and caught fire. Three of those tanker cars are currently in an Iowa creek waiting to be pulled out. Luckily, it didn't derail in a city. Here is a link to the article: http://www.omaha.com/news/iowa/three...20c6a3426.html

[Warren Webb]

One thing is certain- ethanol in gas gives worst fuel economy than without so increasing it to 15% will increase the amount of fuel used, gas tax revenue will increase as will sales taxes on those states that add that onto the top end too (as in California). As far as the foreign oil dependency that remains to be seen as now it has been said that the U.S. reserves are only second to Saudi Arabia. As the fleet is becoming more & more fuel efficient there is now oil available to export if laws will permit.

I have 2 riding mowers & a gas powered weed eater that the fuel mandated us to use have become lawn ornaments. I've also given up replacing fuel hose once a year & now use hose made for fuel injected cars that's 4-5 times as expensive. Those who deny that this alcohol fuel doesn't harm their engines need to see for themselves with a proper tear down.

[karterfred88]

The basic truth is, OXYGENATES are not needed at all. Properly formulated GASOLINE, properly distributed and ignited will burn more completely, has more BTUS and will deliver higher MPG. There was a time when they were thought to be needed to get more complete combustion, and help cars meet EPA air quality rules. As carburetors and distributors disappeared and fuel injection improved the causes of incomplete combustion have all but disappeared. Unfortunately the rule to add oxygenates should have been a temporary measure, but as with most laws, making them is a lot easier than getting rid of them. Now ETHANOL is a big agribusiness. The damage or lack of same to older carbureted cars isn't the fuel, it's the materials used at the time, which didn't need to be corrosion proof and fend off water and electrolysis in the fuel systems. Ethanol, by itself, doesn't hurt much except certain types of rubber. Pull in H2O and then the acids start forming from mixing with the gasoline itself. Making alcohols uses a huge amount of water, better left for humans to drink. You can run on pure ethanol, even on our old cars, just figure about 50% more fuel to get you to the same place. By the time the government gets around to reacting to the science, they will be trying to figure out how to collect taxes on the electricity used for cars instead of gasoline, as that revenue source disappears and the roads crumble, but there won't be a "carbon footprint". About that time an asteroid will strike earth causing "global freezing".
.