E15 on the way?

[Ladogaboy]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Many speak of it as if the field corn is being swiped from their plates.

Literally.

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by KY_Canyon

Frequent Questions | Green Vehicle Guide | US EPA

Why is the fuel economy for a flex-fuel vehicle lower when using E85 than when using gasoline?

Ethanol has a lower energy content than gasoline as measured in British Thermal Units per gallon, so you travel fewer miles per gallon when using a fuel that contains ethanol. Compared to gasoline, E85 typically gets about 25-30 percent fewer miles per gallon in ethanol flexible fuel vehicles.

BTU isn't 100% of Fuel economy. It is a large factor but we are talking about two different fuels in an internal combustion engine, not boiling water. The difference between the two fuels is pretty large as far as efficiency goes. The latent heat of evaporation of Ethanol(in higher blends) is enough for a 2% improvement in efficiency alone!

Basically, if you are getting even near the same Energy efficiency on Ethanol as Gasoline, you are not running as efficiently as you could. Plenty of newer FFVs get 15% less MPG, which for nerds like me is a huge 20% increase in energy efficiency!

Maybe in the past BTU was the only difference between the two's MPG but it isn't necessarily true anymore.

Originally Posted by payne171

Frank, I am not sure if you were referring to me directly with "wanna bet," but I made no reference to assuming you would eat the grain that came from "field corn." what I do know is that it has caused the cost of livestock to go up. I eat meat. Even if I stopped, the switch to plant alternatives would cause those prices to go up. Even if we choose to ignore those basic economic principles, that field could be producing edible food if the price of farm products weren't being ARTIFICIALLY driven up by a few upon the majority of the populace that are either against it or don't care.

And Shovel, a free market dictates those uses for corn, so yes, I am in favor of it. If a free market dictated this use, I would favor it as well. Hell, if it even had popular support, I would be fine with it. As I said above, though, most Americans are either indifferent or see it as a waste, yet we get it pushed upon us by a vocal minority and the elected officials that need their votes.

If the Food vs Fuel argument was about the effect of Corn prices on livestock production costs, the argument wouldn't have near the support it does. Meat and cheese are largely luxury items. And even though they've gone up(I think 25% Locally), the cost is still minimal compared to what the average person spends on Gasoline every month. The folly of the Food vs Fuel argument is that they believe Corn prices significantly affect the price of food made from Sweet Corn. It doesn't. A tripling of the Corn price is pennies at the local market.

Energy prices are a much bigger factor than feed prices on livestock and likewise food prices. I believe the doubling of the cost of Diesel was proven to play a much bigger role than Corn prices tripling! Plus the price of Gasoline affects people directly and Ethanol has at least softened the price. Although I believe the mandate isn't doing any favors for the E85 market by jacking up the price and demand for Ethanol and tying it to the price of Gasoline. But that's a different story. Ethanol supporters and Corn Growers have been debating that for years.

In an economy dominated by Gasoline, every alternative fuel/energy supporter is in the minority. So it's pretty ironic that you would say that. As that is the only way things are going to change.

[shovel]

Originally Posted by KY_Canyon

Perhaps the fact that you reside in Iowa gives you reason to support ethanol production. However, it is easy for anyone with the slightest bit of common sense to understand that ethanol use is not cost effective.

I reside in Arizona. My employer seems to think I have common sense. I do not see differences in mpg between e10 and 100% gasoline. I do believe ethanol is very cost effective.

[gone-ot]

...EPA refers to ethanol as a "gasoline-extender", a 30% less energy 'dense' extender, but you don't see any blended gasoline prices being 30% lower than pure gasoline!

...can you say "...boon-dogle...", sure you can!

[shovel]

Originally Posted by payne171

Frank, I am not sure if you were referring to me directly with "wanna bet," but I made no reference to assuming you would eat the grain that came from "field corn." what I do know is that it has caused the cost of livestock to go up. I eat meat. Even if I stopped, the switch to plant alternatives would cause those prices to go up. Even if we choose to ignore those basic economic principles, that field could be producing edible food if the price of farm products weren't being ARTIFICIALLY driven up by a few upon the majority of the populace that are either against it or don't care.
.

After production of ethanol, the distilleries sell a product called DDG (dried distiller's grain) and DDS (dried distiller's solubles) to the livestock industry - which contains from 50 to 90% of the food value by mass of the original whole corn, but only takes up 30% the space & weight (this is important for the cost of delivering and storing the food) - this is a low cost, high nutrition feed that is in every cow-burger you eat and probably saves you more money than you realize, because the "fuel" corn from which it comes only had to be harvested once, the land and equipment only had to be amortized once, and it's sold from one industry as waste to a second industry.
Two acres of corn produce ~150-160 bushels of corn worth of food value in the form of DDS/DDG, in addition to the ~860gal of ethanol also produced. This is compared to ~150-160 bushels of corn per acre at straight crop-food value.

Please, feel free to google it.

According to the Department of Energy and the Department of Agriculture, in this memo: http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmg...tter_61208.pdf
"During the first 4 months of 2008, the all food CPI increased by
4.8 percent, with increased ethanol and biodiesel consumption accounting for only about 4-5 percent of the total increase while other factors accounted for 95-96 percent of the Increase. " ... so what's the other 95+% increase? Looks like food demand, weather, and speculators. Yeah, speculators. Why aren't you complaining about them?

The same agencies claim "We estimate that, if we had not been blending ethanol into gasoline, gasoline prices would be between 20 cents per gallon to 35 cents per gallon higher." - well, what would a 10% increase in fuel cost do to the price of food that has to be shipped to you? Not to mention, how much less would your customers (whatever industry you're in) buy from you if they had to spend 10% more on their fuel?

I really don't know what's made ethanol as controversial as abortion, but for some reason people really get dug into it and this whole "OMG IT'S TAKING FOOD OFF MY PLATE WAAAAAAAHHH!!" thing is tiresome.

It's not taking food off your plate. Speculators are raising prices and breeders are raising demand, get mad at them instead.

Ethanol puts less pollution into the air, and keeps more dollars within our country than gasoline does, and gets us measurably closer to energy independence. Those are good things, stop fighting them.

[shovel]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

...EPA refers to ethanol as a "gasoline-extender", a 30% less energy 'dense' extender, but you don't see any blended gasoline prices being 30% lower than pure gasoline!

...can you say "...boon-dogle...", sure you can!

If 10% of the fuel is 30% less dense, then the net product is 97% as dense.

The Department of Energy has claimed that gasoline prices would be 20-35 cents more per gallon without the presence of ethanol in the market.

At current E10 prices of under $4/gallon in most markets, that represents a product that is 3% less energy dense for at least 5% less money.

Boondogle indeed :

[Ladogaboy]

Thanks, shovel. I learned something new. I didn't realize the ethanol was a derivative, and not the sole product produced. I can see now why some would state that ethanol, by itself, does not produce a high net energy source, but when you consider that it is one of two products produced, it makes sense.

[payne171]

Well I suppose that perhaps the MASSiVE amount of money being printed is driving the price of everything up. I balk at the argument that meat is a luxury however. It is a basic staple the human diet, and while some may choose to avoid it, how many of them look healthy? Well, I suppose a few that spend way more money on the pricier alternatives might.

Anyway, I digress. If we are to accept that the pursuit of biofuel is the best course for the US, is ethanol a better choice than butanol?

[Allch Chcar]

The big advantage to Ethanol is that it is possible to make it cheap from surplus grains. If they can find a cheap source of Butanol and overcome the fact that 0 cars are approved for usage with it. Maybe.

Butanol is also toxic like Methanol, so there's an emissions problem right there.

[Frank Lee]

Great big new butanol plant in MN but they can't sell their product in the state!