In a first, EPA cuts ethanol standard

[Indy_Guy_77]

Yep, they have been subsidizing the hell out of ethanol.

And INGO's heads would spin if they realized how much traditional fuels were subsidized...

 

[reno]

Ok, yes producing corn for fuel does and will take corn away from the food production cycle particularly if subsidized by the government. And let's not forget driving the cost of the animal based products up at the same time since so much corn is diverted to ethanol and not animal feed.

But there is also another issue that no one ever talks about. That is the fact that ethanol is approixmately 20% less efficient in engines than petroleum products.

Hence, Yes thats right, Using ethanol will make you consume 20% more oil for fuels. Now who would have ever thought that.

 

[CarmelHP]

Source? I could swear i remember hearing it takes 2-3 gallons of Diesel to make 1 gallon of ethanol. While it may have a higher octane value (i've never heard that before) don't cars get less efficiency out of it? Not to mention the effects ethanol has on the car itself.

Used to, currently, the federal estimate is that 1.1 units of fossil fuels are consumed in the production of each unit of ethanol.

 

[Bunnykid68]

And INGO's heads would spin if they realized how much traditional fuels were subsidized...

Yes, yes they would

 

[ghuns]

I don't like it for the following reasons....bad for engines, bad for fuel economy, lower power.

While I hate ethanol for what it represents from a Big .gov interfering with the free market standpoint, it ain't bad for power.

800HP on E85

 

[Bigtanker]

Source? I could swear i remember hearing it takes 2-3 gallons of Diesel to make 1 gallon of ethanol. While it may have a higher octane value (i've never heard that before) don't cars get less efficiency out of it? Not to mention the effects ethanol has on the car itself.

Big oil doesnt need reasons to jack up costs. Hell half of the gas we use was drilled here, which was supposed to lower costs but hasnt. Some of this gas was drilled on public land but we dont see any money from that either. I doubt we would see a noticable change in costs to our gas if ethanol was outright removed. If there was an increase in cost it would probobly be offset by better gas mileage and lack of damage to the vehicle

I work in this field. I'm at one of three different Ethanol plants in Indiana every day when I'm working. I have gotten to know several people at these plants. They As far as the efficiency part, your vehicle will get fewer miles per gallon the more ethanol that is in your tank. As far as the octane rating, just Google it for yourself. I was a little high. It's 113 not 117.

Alcohol in a normal passenger vehicle engine will eat fuel lines, ruin seals, and eventually cause catastrophic failure, if it doesn't spring a fuel leak and catch fire first. The E85 capable vehicle are specially fitted to deal with the corrosive effects.

NHRA and IHRA Alcohol burning motors are purpose built, ultra high performance engines that get completely torn down and rebuilt after every run at considerable cost (between $2000 and $4500 depending on the wear of hard parts such as clutches, superchargers, pistons, cylinder sleeves, cranks, rods, etc)

They do the same thing with the gasoline and nitromethene powered cars too. I'm not arguing the bad effects ethanol has on the motors. I was simply stating that ethanol/alcohol is a more powerful fuel than gasoline. Yes you will loose mileage when you use it. But when run 87 vs E85 on a dyno, the E85 will produce more power.


I'm not disagreeing with you guys on the effects of ethanol, loss of mileage, etc. Just throwing in a few facts.

 

[kiddchaos]

I like the Biofuels from waste route. [Waste to Energy -- An Overview - YouTube]
Also, Here's a guy who made his car dual fuel gas/CNG for 1,000. [www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYP2ZRwq9EE]
Yeah, there's only a few CNG places in town, but the going rate is 96 cents per gge.

 

[SecondhandSnake]

Lower power? It increases power. Why do you think drag cars and race cars run on alcohol? It has an octane rating of 117.

Another effect taking ethanol out of gasoline is the cost will go UP!

Ethanol is more that $1 cheaper per gallon that gas. It also has a very high octane rating. The majority of pure gasoline for regular unleaded is 84 octane. 10% ethanol brings it up to 87. So if the ethanol goes away, your gas price will go up quite a bit, because now the refineries have to make pure 87 octane which costs more and the ethanol discount goes away. Another reason for big oil to jack up the prices. And they will.

There's a big difference between E85 and E10.

E10 kind of sucks. Let's face it. You're throwing in that extra amount of ethanol for the government mandate, so you have to use a little more fuel per mile than if it were straight gasoline. All that ethanol has to be made for very little gain.

E85 you can have plenty of fun with, in the right application. E85 is wonderful when you're running high compression ratios and tons of boost. Of course you then also need to have a massive fuel system and fuel tank as well, due to the fact you have to flow substantially more of it. I like E85, and if it were available in more places, well I'd be running it in my weekend car, sporting a much, much bigger fuel pump and set of injectors of course.

 

[jamil]

Yes, yes they would

If the little blue smiley face had bunny ears, it probably wouldn't spin like that.

 

[jon5212]

As others have said... E85 most vehicles can be retro fitted quite easily to run it... LOTS of people do... not just guys running high compression and/or high boost motors. It's 30% or so less efficient as a gallon of Alcohol only has 80,000 or so BTU's where a gallon of gas contains approx 110,000 or so BTU's. So you have to burn approx 30% more E85 to maintain stoich... of course you can run a little leaner due to the octane and resistance to detonation as well as burning cooler.

 

[remauto1187]

I work in this field. I'm at one of three different Ethanol plants in Indiana every day when I'm working. I have gotten to know several people at these plants. They As far as the efficiency part, your vehicle will get fewer miles per gallon the more ethanol that is in your tank. As far as the octane rating, just Google it for yourself. I was a little high. It's 113 not 117.



They do the same thing with the gasoline and nitromethene powered cars too. I'm not arguing the bad effects ethanol has on the motors. I was simply stating that ethanol/alcohol is a more powerful fuel than gasoline. Yes you will loose mileage when you use it. But when run 87 vs E85 on a dyno, the E85 will produce more power.


I'm not disagreeing with you guys on the effects of ethanol, loss of mileage, etc. Just throwing in a few facts.

Huh? Your "facts" are incorrect. It is scientifically impossible for ethanol to release as much energy as an equivalent volume of gasoline. Google BTU output of the 2 and see for yourself. That is why you have to have MORE E85 to drive the same amount of distance as you would using gasoline. Octane rating has absolutely nothing to do with power and/or HP. Its the resistance to detonation/spark knock. The 800hp engines are PURPOSELY built to run on e85 with very high compression and are not cheap or even logically streetable as every day drivers. A engine can be purposely built to run on just about any fuel source with right amount of $$$ backing it up. But everyone here is talking about their work vehicle, soccer mom van, grocery getter..... of which it actually costs more $$$ per mile to drive using E85 vs Gasoline. THAT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT!

 

[CarmelHP]

Octane rating has absolutely nothing to do with power and/or HP. Its the resistance to detonation/spark knock.

Good point. Higher octane indicates more resistance to ignition, not energy content. Tetraethyllead was once added to gasoline as cheap octane booster in order to damper knocking and pinging and prevent wear. The energy content of a unit of ethanol is only 70% that of a unit of gasoline.

 

[wagyu52]

You do know how free markets work, right? If the highest economic use of corn is for food, the market will drive corn to food production. If the highest economic use is for fuel then the market will drive corn there. If the government interferes to mandate or incentivize one of the other then will get artificially high prices on one and artificially low prices on the other. This is not rocket science.

Yes, I understand how a free market works. With all do respect, do you understand agricultural commodities? Corn for food is hardly the highest use for corn. Americas Farmers ~ U.S. Corn Facts
This is just a few days ago Brazil likely to lose briefly held top corn export title in 2014 | Reuters As I stated corn exports will go up, mainly because corn prices have plummeted and production is at an almost record high. Corn for food production has never really exceeded 10-15% it has only increased with the level of production.

 

[jamil]

Yes, I understand how a free market works. With all do respect, do you understand agricultural commodities? Corn for food is hardly the highest use for corn. Americas Farmers ~ U.S. Corn Facts
This is just a few days ago Brazil likely to lose briefly held top corn export title in 2014 | Reuters As I stated corn exports will go up, mainly because corn prices have plummeted and production is at an almost record high. Corn for food production has never really exceeded 10-15% it has only increased with the level of production.

Your own link helps prove against your point. Highest economic use means the highest natural, not artificial, demand vs supply.

If the government were not subsidizing the high cost of processing corn as fuels there would be little natural demand for that use as the price would be well beyond what most people would pay. Without subsidies, corn would be grown mostly to feed hogs, and people.

I suppose if you're a corn farmer you may miss the money taken from other Americans to buy your corn for fuels, but as an American tax payer I'd rather I keep that money.

 

[dirtfarmerz]

Your own link helps prove against your point. Highest economic use means the highest natural, not artificial, demand vs supply.

If the government were not subsidizing the high cost of processing corn as fuels there would be little natural demand for that use as the price would be well beyond what most people would pay. Without subsidies, corn would be grown mostly to feed hogs, and people.

I suppose if you're a corn farmer you may miss the money taken from other Americans to buy your corn for fuels, but as an American tax payer I'd rather I keep that money.

All farm welfare should be stopped. It's just redistribution to the faithful. The big farms get millions of dollars. They buy up the neighbor's property when they can't make it. There would be less corn, especially GMO, and more good grain to feed the masses. Monsanto is a huge benefactor. Small farms would come back. It is my opinion that "they" have been trying to shut down the small farmers. Check out the U.N.'s Agenda 21 and you'll see that the U.S. has been following the program for a long time.

 

[jamil]

All farm welfare should be stopped. It's just redistribution to the faithful. The big farms get millions of dollars. They buy up the neighbor's property when they can't make it. There would be less corn, especially GMO, and more good grain to feed the masses. Monsanto is a huge benefactor. Small farms would come back. It is my opinion that "they" have been trying to shut down the small farmers. Check out the U.N.'s Agenda 21 and you'll see that the U.S. has been following the program for a long time.

I don't know for sure about "they" in concert with the UN agenda 21, but I strongly believe companies like Monsanto, create and operate in crony capitalist markets. The world would be better off if Monsanto's board and cronies were all jailed.

 

[KJQ6945]

There is a website that tracks alcohol free fuel across the country. Ethanol-free gas stations in the U.S. and Canada

There are basically three places to get ethanol free fuel. Airports, marinas, and co-ops.

The farmers and there political allies are the ones promoting this as a good idea. Countrymark is the number one brand of pure gas in indiana. So it's good for us, but bad for airplanes, boats, and FARMERS. This ain't complicated people.

 

[KJQ6945]

On similar note, I bought a new boat in 2012, no special warning stickers. The 2013's have stickers stating that use of E15 voids all factory warranties.

How much ethanol is in your fuel? Any idea?

 

[pwoller]

I'm not sure I understand the hatred for ethanol. while I agree the government needs to stay out of it as far as mandating it be there what's so wrong with it. You want food prices to come down quit exporting a metric crap ton of corn so that there Is a false shortage. also from what I have heard there is the ability to make ethanol from the corn and be left with high quality livestock feed in the form of distillers grain. Not saying that all places do this just that it is possible. I believe ethanol is a viable addition to the renewable energy platform the US needs. Not a sole replacement for gas but a help along the way for sure.

Because ethanol isn't good in any way for our engines. Less mileage shouldn't cost more.

 

[wagyu52]

Your own link helps prove against your point. Highest economic use means the highest natural, not artificial, demand vs supply.

If the government were not subsidizing the high cost of processing corn as fuels there would be little natural demand for that use as the price would be well beyond what most people would pay. Without subsidies, corn would be grown mostly to feed hogs, and people.

I suppose if you're a corn farmer you may miss the money taken from other Americans to buy your corn for fuels, but as an American tax payer I'd rather I keep that money.

You are mixing terminologies, there is a big difference between corn for food and corn for feed. The highest natural demand for corn would be for feed than export, not food. Ethanol production has not taken corn out of food production, food production has not fallen. A byproduct of ethanol is feed, so feed production is relatively the same. Exports, however have been cut almost in half with the rise in ethanol production, but most of the ethanol has been produced from the increase in production over the last 10 yrs.

Farmers are and have been paid subsides to grow or not to grow grain. If you think that will change under current governmental polices your dreaming, it's not grain the Government is paying for, it's the control. United States has and will continue to used the grain market as a foreign policy weapon. Grain embargoes of the 70's and 80's against the Soviets. Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, China, just to name a few, have all been denied access to American grain as American foreign policy to suit national interests. The American tax payer should pay for the Government manipulation of the grain market to suit national interests. If you don't like it than get your Government out of my grain market and make it a real "free market." I would then have no problem with eliminating farm subsidies, until then I think the Government should pay to play.