Ethanol on the Ropes?

[Lt CHEG]

Like I said earlier. I would like to see subsidies to get e85 pumps all across the country. If the pumps are there then more car mfgs would be making cars to burn it.

I had an E85 capable vehicle and to be honest I even tried burning E85 a couple of times. The difference in price wasn't enough to account for the decreased fuel economy for just about the entire time that I drove it. I got about 20% less fuel economy with the E85 and even then I only used it on the highway. I believe that city use would have yielded even lower fuel economy. So except for a brief period where E85 was about 25% to 28% cheaper than gasoline (very short period of time, like maybe 2 weeks around here) E85 was nothing better than a break even proposition. I'd rather just use gasoline if I'm not saving money and not worry about E85's greater propensity to attract water, etc. Also I should note that E85 was only priced as low as it was due to government subsidies.

E85 and ethanol in general just wasn't ready for prime time in this country and I personally wouldn't support any further government spending on it. Sugar beats yield the best ethanol conversion, far greater than corn, yet the use of sugar beats, sugar cane, etc. was never considered for ethanol production in this country. I honestly wish that much of the efforts spent on ethanol over the last decade was spent on better batteries and plug in hybrids instead. Regular hybrids are not much of an answer as far as I'm concerned but plug in hybrids that could run completely on electricity for the average commuter show real promise. We could then generate the electricity to power the batteries with our abundant coal reserves and also bring more nuclear plants online. I think in the case of ethanol perfect was the enemy of good enough and a lot of money was spent on a solution that would have been "much better" in terms of environmental causes and reducing our dependence on foreign energy, as opposed to spending money implementing other strategies which would have been a more incremental improvement over our current setup but would have netted more positive results.

 

[Ken45101]

We could then generate the electricity to power the batteries with our abundant coal reserves and also bring more nuclear plants online.

Let's see, the biggest interest in electric cars is in areas where they produce electric from.....(drumroll)......OIL!

Furthermore, the environmental and permitting processes are such that we are not building many coal plants and no nukes. We are not even keeping up with retiring obsolete plants.

 

[crazyal]

Gore has already admitted that ethanol was a lie. Why should we spend even more billions of dollars to finance that lie even further?

Oh, he said that corn ethanol was a bad idea, but now his latest project is worthwhile. Of course he lied before, but now he's telling the truth?

You think there's any possibility that he (again) has an ulterior motive that has nothing to do with the good of our country? Oh, I'm sure "Honest Al" would never do that....(again).

Ethanol from food is a bad idea. I think other forms have a future. But since we are stuck with a mandate that means we need to use something like 7 billion gallons this year then we need to find ways that give people a choice.

 

[crazyal]

I had an E85 capable vehicle and to be honest I even tried burning E85 a couple of times. The difference in price wasn't enough to account for the decreased fuel economy for just about the entire time that I drove it. I got about 20% less fuel economy with the E85 and even then I only used it on the highway. I believe that city use would have yielded even lower fuel economy. So except for a brief period where E85 was about 25% to 28% cheaper than gasoline (very short period of time, like maybe 2 weeks around here) E85 was nothing better than a break even proposition. I'd rather just use gasoline if I'm not saving money and not worry about E85's greater propensity to attract water, etc. Also I should note that E85 was only priced as low as it was due to government subsidies.

E85 and ethanol in general just wasn't ready for prime time in this country and I personally wouldn't support any further government spending on it. Sugar beats yield the best ethanol conversion, far greater than corn, yet the use of sugar beats, sugar cane, etc. was never considered for ethanol production in this country. I honestly wish that much of the efforts spent on ethanol over the last decade was spent on better batteries and plug in hybrids instead. Regular hybrids are not much of an answer as far as I'm concerned but plug in hybrids that could run completely on electricity for the average commuter show real promise. We could then generate the electricity to power the batteries with our abundant coal reserves and also bring more nuclear plants online. I think in the case of ethanol perfect was the enemy of good enough and a lot of money was spent on a solution that would have been "much better" in terms of environmental causes and reducing our dependence on foreign energy, as opposed to spending money implementing other strategies which would have been a more incremental improvement over our current setup but would have netted more positive results.

I'm not going to disagree but I would like the people who feel that burning it over gas have the choice (mandate and all). It'll never be ready for prime time if we don't have enough pumps around the country to give people the choice. If even after all of that it still doesn't become viable, in say 5 years, then it and the mandate should go by the wayside (actually I think the mandate should go away now).

 

[Gale Hawkins]

As with most forms of perpetual motion when tested the output is just a little less than the input.

 

[mmurphy]

Ethanol from food is a bad idea.


I love this one. Corn price was so low just 5 years back, that farmers couldn't sell for 1.50 a bushel. It was litteraly given to other countries. Farmers were helped by in programs to help them make it in to 2.50 a bushel. It was almost useless untill more and more plants were built. Then it was we are starving people. Really?? Some one reminds me that land actualy grows tobacco. I hope no one still is smoking that stuff, or do people eat that too??

The one good thing for me would be is, if ethanol shut down, I could start heating my house cheap again. Make my own still and run off 140 proof alcohol. (70% alcohol 30% water) So I guess maybe I should jump to your guys side and say pull the plug on it and everything else. 0 dollars allocated for business, industry, oil (especially now I know they are making record profits) just everything across the board. Then we will see the real economy.

 

[Skyco]

Furthermore, the environmental and permitting processes are such that we are not building many coal plants and no nukes.

Actually there is 1 nuclear power reactor under construction in the USA and 9 more planned. Many more are in the "proposed" category.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html

 

[czechsonofagun]

Actually there is 1 nuclear power reactor under construction in the USA and 9 more planned. Many more are in the "proposed" category.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html

There is no other way but nuclear.

 

[crazyal]

Ethanol from food is a bad idea.


I love this one. Corn price was so low just 5 years back, that farmers couldn't sell for 1.50 a bushel. It was litteraly given to other countries. Farmers were helped by in programs to help them make it in to 2.50 a bushel. It was almost useless untill more and more plants were built. Then it was we are starving people. Really?? Some one reminds me that land actualy grows tobacco. I hope no one still is smoking that stuff, or do people eat that too??

The one good thing for me would be is, if ethanol shut down, I could start heating my house cheap again. Make my own still and run off 140 proof alcohol. (70% alcohol 30% water) So I guess maybe I should jump to your guys side and say pull the plug on it and everything else. 0 dollars allocated for business, industry, oil (especially now I know they are making record profits) just everything across the board. Then we will see the real economy.

So your defense to using corn to make Ethanol is that the price was low before we started doing so? Maybe in a farmer's eyes that makes sense but in the eyes of people that can't pay for the higher cost of food, people that raise cattle, people who own cars that get 10% less fuel economy with Ethanol, the list goes on and on. And how is it better to jack the price up on corn by forcing people to burn it in their cars better than paying farmers to produce corn so we can help feed starving people around the world? Wow.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I've always seen corn ethanol as more of a farm subsidy than an environmental program. I've yet to be convinced that's necessarily a bad thing though. What bothers me about the agricultural subsidy regimes around the world, not just in North America, is that they benefit large corporations instead of small farmers.

I think that's the part that needs to change. If it did, I think the cost of subsidies would drop pretty quickly and you'd have a lot more rural people making decent living.