The folly of E15 anti-hydrocarbon policie
s
EPA’s E-15 ethanol plan is bad for our pocketbooks, environment and energy policy
Guest post by Paul Driessen
The Obama Administration’s anti-hydrocarbon ideology and “renewable” energy mythology continues to subsidize crony capitalists and the politicians they help keep in office – on the backs of American taxpayers, ratepayers and motorists. The latest chapter in the sorry ethanol saga is a perfect example.
Bowing to pressure from ADM, Cargill, Growth Energy and other Big Ethanol lobbyists, Lisa Jackson’s Environmental Protection Agency has decided to allow ethanol manufacturers to register as suppliers of E15 gasoline. E15 contains 15% ethanol, rather than currently mandated 10% blends.
The next lobbying effort will focus on getting E15 registered as a fuel in individual states and persuading oil companies to offer it at service stations. But according to the Associated Press and Washington Post, Team Obama already plans to provide taxpayer-financed grants, loans and loan guarantees to “help station owners install 10,000 blender pumps over the next five years” and promote the use of biofuels.
Pummeled by Obama policies that have helped send regular gasoline prices skyrocketing from $1.85 a gallon when he took office to $4.00 today – many motorists will welcome any perceived “bargain gas.” E15 will likely reduce their obvious pump pain by several cents a gallon, thus persuading people to fill up their cars, trucks and maybe even boats, lawnmowers and other equipment with the new blends.
That would be a huge mistake.
E15 gasoline will be cheaper because we already paid for it with decades of taxpayer subsidies that the Congressional Budget Office says cost taxpayers $1.78 every time a gallon of ethanol replaced a gallon of gasoline. Ethanol blends get fewer miles per tank than gasoline. More ethanol means even worse mileage. People may save at the pump, but cost per mile will increase, as will car maintenance and repair costs.
Ethanol collects water, which can cause engine stalls. It corrodes plastic, rubber and soft metal parts. Pre-2001 car engines, parts and systems may not be able to handle E15, which could also increase emissions and adversely affect engine, fuel pump and sensor durability. Older cars and motorcycles mistakenly (or for price or convenience) fueled with E15 could conk out on congested highways or in the middle of nowhere, boat engines could die miles from land or in the face of a thunderstorm, and snowmobiles could sputter to a stop in a frigid wilderness.
Homeowners and yard care professionals have voiced concerns that E15’s corrosive qualities could damage their gasoline-powered equipment. Because it burns hotter than gasoline, high ethanol gasoline engines could burn users or cause lawnmowers, chainsaws, trimmers, blowers and other outdoor power equipment to start inadvertently or catch fire, they worry.
As several trade associations have noted in a lawsuit, the Clean Air Act says EPA may grant a waiver for a new fuel additive or fuel blend only if it has demonstrated that the new fuel will not damage the emissions control devices of “any” engine in the existing inventory. E15 has not yet met this requirement. EPA should not have moved forward on E15 and should not have ignored studies that indicate serious potential problems with this high-ethanol fuel blend.
Largely because of corn-based ethanol, US corn prices shot up from an annual average of $1.96 per bushel in 2005 to $6.01 in 2011. This year we will make ethanol from 5 billion bushels of corn grown on an area the size of Iowa. E15 fuels will worsen the problem, especially if corn crops fall below expectations.
Ethanol mandates mean more revenues and profits for corn growers and ethanol makers. However, skyrocketing corn prices mean beef, pork, poultry, egg and fish producers pay more for corn-based feed; grocery manufacturers pay more for corn, meat, fish and corn syrup; and families see prices soar for almost everything on their dinner table.
Farmers like pork producer Jim A were hammered hard. Over a 20-year period, Jim became a part owner in a Texas operation and planned to buy out the other shareholders. But when corn and ethanol subsidies went into effect, the cost of feed corn shot from $2.80 per bushel in 2005 to “over $7.00” a bushel in 2008. “We went from treading water and making payments, to losing $100,000 a month,” he told me.
His farm was threatened with foreclosure and the ominous prospect of having to make up the difference in a short sale. After “never missing a single payment to anybody” in his life, he almost lost everything. Fortunately, at the eleventh hour, a large pork producer leased the property, the bank refinanced his loans and Jim arranged a five-year lease. But thanks to ethanol he almost lost everything he’d ever worked for.
Even worse, the price of tortillas and tamales also skyrocketed, leaving countless poor Latin American families even more destitute. Soaring corn and wheat prices have also made it far harder for the USAID and World Food Organization to feed the world’s malnourished, destitute children.
Simply put, corn ethanol is wasteful and immoral. And yet E15 advocates want to go even further.
“For 40 years we have been addicted to foreign oil,” says Growth Energy CEO Tom Buis. “Our nation needs E15 to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, keep gas prices down at the pump, and end the extreme fluctuations in gas prices caused by our reliance on fuel from unstable parts of the world.”
That’s nonsense. America is blessed with centuries of untapped petroleum resources that antediluvian Deep Ecologists, ideology-driven politicians and EPA officials, and subsidy-obsessed renewable energy lobbyists seem intent on keeping locked up, regardless of the negative consequences.
These oil and gas deposits cannot be developed overnight. However, 40 years is not overnight. Yet that’s how long America has kept Alaska’s ANWR coastal plain, most of our Outer Continental Shelf, and most of our western states’ public lands and resources off limits to leasing, exploration and drilling.
If we had started the process twenty, ten or even five years ago, we’d have enough oil flowing to slash imports and cut world crude and US pump prices significantly. If President Obama had approved the Keystone XL pipeline, within two years over 800,000 barrels of Canadian, Montana and North Dakota crude would be flowing daily to Texas refineries – with similar effects on imports and prices.
Developing these resources would also generate hundreds of thousands of jobs – and billions of dollars in lease bonuses and rents, production royalties, and corporate and personal taxes.
America’s surging natural gas production has already driven that fuel’s price from $8 to barely $2.00 per thousand cubic feet (or million Btus). That alone will persuade auto makers to build nat-gas-powered cars and trucks (and consumers to buy them), without massive new subsidy programs as advocated by T. Boone Pickens and assorted politicians. Natural gas can even be converted into ethanol (and diesel).
It will happen, unless Congress interferes – or EPA tries to regulate horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) into oblivion, and send natural gas prices back into the stratosphere.
Right now, we are burning our own – and the world’s – food, to fuel cars and trucks. And to grow corn, convert it into 14 billion gallons of ethanol, and ship it by truck or train, we are consuming one-third of America’s entire corn crop – and using millions of pounds of insecticides, billions of pounds of fertilizer, vast amounts of energy (all petroleum-based), and trillions of gallons of water.
Just imagine how those numbers will soar, if E15 is adopted nationwide – or if Big Ethanol’s big dream becomes reality, and motorists begin to burn “cheap” corn-based E85 in flex-fuel vehicles.
Will President Obama, Democrats and extreme environmentalists ever end their hatred of hydrocarbons, and their obsession with biofuels – and start embracing reliable, affordable energy that actually works?
__________
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.cfact.org) and Congress of Racial Equality, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.
Related articles
- U.S. approves 20 firms to make ethanol for E15 (reuters.com)
- EPA moves closer to approval of 15 pct ethanol gas (kansascity.com)
- EPA gives E15 go-ahead despite objections, approves production applications (green.autoblog.com)
Pat Moffitt says:
April 26, 2012 at 5:00 am
Gail Combs says:
April 26, 2012 at 4:31 am
Thanks for the heads up on that crap. Time to plant more white clover, hop clover and Lespedeza.
That might not fly as clover fixes large amounts of nitrogen.
_________________________________________________
That is the main idea because those plants fix the nitrogen in the ground where it is available to other plants (the grass in my pasture) With fertilizer you get clumps and run off because it is applied to the top or to tilled into loose soil. Run off is especially a problem here in the south.
Second cropping with clover or other cool weather legumes to prevent run off in crop fields and reduce the need for chemical fertilizer is a recommended Best Farming Practices: Profit from Change However it is more work.
In a pasture clovers are competitive with grasses only as long as the soil is nitrogen “poor” once there is enough nitrogen the grass will take over from the clover. If you leave well enough alone you end up with a nice equilibrium of grass/clover mix. It does not produce as much dry matter but you do not risk founder or slobbers in equines.
@roger Sowell We have managed for decades without the Keystone Pipeline and will likely do so in the future.
With such attitude we would not have built the Trans Alaska Pipeline, we would not have drilled for oil in deep water, we would not have drilled in shallow water, we would not have drill Drakes well in Pennsylvania and we’d be lamenting the extinction of all whales.
Have you ever heard the saying, “Dig your well before you get thirsty.” ?
We cannot afford the luxury of waiting until we NEED an energy resource before developing it. You cannot wait until your are hungry before planting your fields. Any given field might be brought on fairly quickly, but significantly expanding a country’s production takes much longer.
If there is an oil embargo and we decide we need a bigger share of oil from within our own borders, there are at least three limiting requirements:
1. we only have so many rigs,
2. we only have so many people that can run and manage the rigs
3. we only have so many fracking systems and the people who run them.
This assumes that drill steel, casing steel, cement, pipeline steel, welders are also not tight resources. True, we can increase the supply of 1, 2, and 3, but it takes time. Roughnecks can be added pretty quickly, but Petroleum Engineers take a while to grow.
There is another saying… Calling it a “Crash Program” does not mean that nine women can make a baby in a month.
A. Scott says:
April 26, 2012 at 12:04 pm
Poptech says:
April 25, 2012 at 4:42 pm
The Ethanol mandate still needs to be abolished so I am free to choose the fuel I wish to use in my car.
Nothing prevents a filling station from installing a 100% gasoline pump … in fact some in my area have exactly that for the many boaters in the area.
That most stations do not answers your question – there is little demand for it.
____________________________________
That is an interesting take. My station can not keep the 100% gasoline in stock We now call first to check before we drive over to fill up.
Roberts (2008) is the most comprehensive study on this issue as it cites Larry’s Bonnema et al, (1999) study and many others,
I have fully supported the legitimate use of BTU adjustments for E85 pricing,
Yes you have stated this already and provide ZERO evidence to support it, until you do I will label it a conspiracy theory.
I am well aware my post has the wrong thing but the intent was clear as the title of the link was “2012 Fuel Economy Guide” not 2011.
You can manipulate the numbers however you want to make yourself feel better about losing money using E85 but I’ll take the $200 a year in my pocket.
My current calculations using national average prices from AAA show a $463 loss using E85 annually,
$3.830 – Gas (4-26-2012)
$3.296 – E85 (4-26-2012)
Annual Fuel Cost Gas: $3400
Annual Fuel Cost E85: $3863
Again, you are free to lose money using E85 and reduce the driving range of your vehicle by 23% in the process just don’t expect others to follow.
A. Scott says:
April 26, 2012 at 5:33 pm
And even if we stay “as is” corn based ethanol is supplying 10% of our domestic fuel use now. And at same time we are meeting all domestic and export “food” demand for corn, and adding some to reserves every year.
And even IF corn prices are increased slightly because of ethanol – which is no remotely proven – I for one am happy to pay 5 cents more for a box of corn flakes and a few cents more for a nice steak if it buys us even a little benefit for the future….
__________________________________
I really really want to see something besides corn for ethanol manufacture. Sooner or later the land will become worthless for growing anything as my farm did. (A 1940 soil survey showed my land had over 2 feet of topsoil. It is all gone now.)
I hate to break it to you but the plan is to have “Our working land” provide 25% of our energy needs by 2025, that is 12 years from now. (Congresional resolution 25X25) Why the heck do you think Soros has been buying up all the US farmland he can get his hands on.
Being Like Soros in Buying Farmland Reaps Annual Gains of 16% I sure as heck would like to know how Soros is doing that when other farmers have been going bankrupt.
Sounds like Soros knows something we don’t. Perhaps another scam in the making but this time the target is our food supply.
“When we are faced with rampant hunger because of the regulatory, financial, trade and foreign policies of the past 100 or so years, those of us who have been crying from the roof tops for people to take an interest in what really sustains them may be very well justified in saying, “Let them eat grass.” ~ 2010 Doreen Hannes USA
SLEEPWALK TO STARVATION a story of the future by Huw Rowlands UK (09/08) I hope is not prophetic.
Just as it in no way do it proves Kim & Dale correct. It does show Patzek and Pimental to be more thorough in their analysis.
The paper does a decent job presenting both arguments so why are you ignoring Pimentel’s criticism of Schmer and Shapouri?
Schmer,
Shapouri,
This is nonsense as Pimentel and Patzek are simply more thorough by with their Energy Costs by including; Agricultural Machinery, Electricity and Lime. Pesticides/Herbicides and Seeds.
Here in Northern WI we can get 93 no ethanol gas thanks to the EAA. I will not put ethanol in my chainsaws, outboards, snowmobiles or other 2 stroke motors. IN the 4 strokes like the generator I will run it if I have to, but I run Stabil and try to run the tank out when I am done with it.
My main issues with ethanol are mileage loss, water in the gas, 2-stroke issues, and fuel system parts corrosion.
As far as mileage loss, my daily driver truck sees a drop from 14-16mpg to 10-12 mpg going from no-E 93 to E-10 89. This isn’t something that I made up, I’ve studied it for 3 years. The no-E premium is a better value for that truck.
Water is the gas is an ongoing problem with ethanol. The stuff loves water and will readily absorb it from the air. No matter how sealed your fuel system is, there will always be some. The EAA & FAA advise against ethanol gas because the water separates out of the gas as the plane gains altitude and the fuel cools. The phase separation leaves a tank with a bunch of water in the bottom. That is probably a bad thing in an ultra-light airplane, mkay? The same thing happens in your car when it gets really cold out. Your ethanol gas drops a bunch of water in the tank and you get all sorts of gas line freeze. I’ve seen it many times.
In a 2-stroke engine a big gulp of water isn’t much different than throwing a big handful of sand down the carb. It deprives the engine of lubrication and smokes it. This is common in outboards, jetskis, and snowmobiles. At the same time, ethanol works and a pretty decent solvent. That is the last thing that I want to introduce into my 2-stroke engine that relies on oil in the fuel mixture to lubricate it. Bad things happen fast at 10-13K RPM under load, and I just say no to the solvent and water issues that go with ethanol in my 2-strokes.
The fuel system parts corrosion is one of the crown jewels of ethanol failure. Rubber and composite fuel lines say that they are ethanol resistant. Resistant is the key word here. I have cleaned millions of rubber bits out of carbs from alcohol erosion of rubber and resistant lines.
Steel gas lines are even better. I had an early 90s car that needed injector cleaning, and pretty soon it was a regular affair. It ended up that the steel gas line between the filter and fuel rail was rusting from the inside out, and spitting rust into the fuel rail and injectors. The ethanol provided both the moisture and O2, and made rust inside the steel line in what was once an anaerobic environment. Likewise I have seen many small engine float bowls rust from the inside out and start leaking. It is very common nowadays, and it didn’t used to be pre-ethanol.
There might be a place for ethanol in an 1100hp mud buggy, but personally I would not put the stuff in my cars or equipment if I can at all help it. After two and a half decades as a professional mechanic I have seen what incredible damage that it can do. If you want to burn it, go ahead, it’s good for business.
Here is an FAA link..
http://www.eaa.org/autofuel/saibs/110_27_06%20-%20CE-07-06.pdf
Jonanna …. please read my posts. I advocate and support using our fossil fuel resources. I simply commented that leaving oil in the ground is a form of “reserve” – one that makes it harder to exploit by being less “portable” …
Another option would seem to be to drill wells into known reserves but then cap them for future strategic reserve use. Then they’re ready to be started producing with nominal effort and time. It has always seemed outright stupid to me to spend huge sums to drill wells, produce the crude, ship it across the country and then pump it back underground.
As to your comments on the Strategic Reserve I did some research … results below … according to the EIA data here:
US Oil Production and Consumption
2011……………………………………………………………2007……2011vs2007…1985…2011vs1985
18.835 million bbl/day US Oil Consumption……20.68…… -8.9%….15.726……19.77%
7.841 million bbl/day US Oil production…………..6.847….. 14.5%….10.636…..-26.28%
2.924 million bbl/day US Oil exports………………..1.433… 104.0%……0.781….274.39%
8.921 million bbl/day US Crude Oil import……..10.031…. -11.1%….3.201….178.69%
0.954 million bbl/day US ethanol production……0.431… 121.3%…..0.05….1808.00%
8.736 million bbl/day US gasoline usage…………9.286……-5.9%…..6.831……27.89%
Strategic Reserve = 695 million bbls US strategic oil reserve
36.90 days at current total daily usage
63.22 days incl existing daily production (no exports)
157.95 days at max 4.4 million bbl/day extraction rate
18.835 million bbl/day US Oil Consumption
-7.841 million bbl/day US Oil production
-4.4 million bbl/day max from strategic reserves
6.594 million bbl/day shortage at existing use
64.99% of current use can be supplied from exist prod and strategic reserves
… for 158 days before exhausting strategic reserves
The current 695 million bbls in the Strategic Reserve is appx 30 million bbls less than the full capacity. In theory that is 37 days supply at our current use not including ANY current production or imports.
Factor current production (ignoring ethanol and other renewable’s) and we could go 63 days at current oil usage.
But the maximum extraction rate is 4.4 million bbls per day – so in reality, including max daily reserves extraction, plus current production (with no exports and no imports) we could provide appx 65% of our current daily consumption for 157 days until the reserve was dry.
Our current daily production would then supply appx. 42% of our current consumption again assuming no exports or imports.
In reality though two friendly sources provide 37.1% of our crude oil imports – Canada at 2.207 and Mexico at 1.100 million BBL/day respectively. We are unlikely to lose those imports. If we include them the picture changes:
18.835 million bbl/day US Oil Consumption
-7.841 million bbl/day US Crude Oil production
-4.4 million bbl/day max from strategic reserves
-3.31 million bbl/day US Crude Imports from Mexico and Canada (37.1% of all imports)
3.284 million bbl/day shortage at existing use
82.56% of current use can be supplied from exist prod and strategic reserves
for 158 days before exhausting strategic reserves
We could lose ALL other imports including OPEC and still supply all but 17% of our existing use from existing production, Mexico and Canada Imports and Strategic Reserve for 158 days.- over 5 months … after which we can still supply 60% of current production.
Ethanol and renewables can supply another appx. .954 million bbl/day …
In 1985 our US domestic crude oil production was 10.636 million bbl/day … 2.795 million bbl/day higher … if we simply increased US Crude production back to the level we saw in 1985, when added to Mexico and Canada’s exports to us, and adding in ethanol’s contribution we could cover almost 80% of current energy consumption – without touching the strategic reserve.
And at least regarding a horizontal frac well the answer is appx 3 – 4 months from start to production:
…. and that looked so perfect in the preview window 😉
Hehe … this is fun … I am no longer using MY numbers – I used the numbers YOU provided… where you used the EPA fuel economy numbers for a Tahoe and calculated using my local gas and E85 prices. Let me repeat you used the EPA fuel economy – MPG – numbers and my local gas prices. It is not “my” numbers for MPG.
And here si what you came up with:
My comments above stand:
According to the calculation you provided, which uses the 2012 EPA MPG numbers and the local gas and E85 prices for my area … I pay $ 0.007 per mile – 7/10ths or 1 thin penny – extra when I use E85.
My commute is 22 miles round trip …. I did the math – and now I’m definitely going to switch to gas … why after a mere 62 days commuting I’ll save enough to buy $10 of lottery tickets … I’ll be rich I tell you … and in another 31 days of commuting I can buy me a shiny fresh new pack of cigarettes and get 26 cents change back, at least if I buy generics.
:rollseyes:
John from CA says:
April 25, 2012 at 4:50 pm
John, all the government has to show in any eminent domain case is that the taking is for a “public use.” As Smokey has already pointed out, the Kelo case makes the definition of “public use” all too fluid and manipulable. There is no “just cause” standard. Trust me, I’m a former municipal lawyer, I know this stuff cold. Ha, funny – I just said “trust me, I’m a lawyer.” Lol! But it is true.
A. Scoty points out to Poptech yet again what the EPA themselves say on their very own fuel economy website:
… this is fun – can we go again Daddy?
:mean ‘ol A. Scott:
All of the nonsense from A. Scott and Hotrod Larry does not change the fundamental fact (as admitted by Hotrod Larry) – use of ethanol blends results in loss of mileage. There is considerable evidence for this. Unlike these guys, I actually have a hybrid, which will not run on anything higher than E10. I get far better mileage with the hybrid than I have ever gotten with any other car, and I will not accept a fuel that will decrease that mileage and make the fuel efficiency in any other car worse. So go take your high performance cars and shove them, because the rest of us don’t build our own cars, and the rest of us have already paid for performance and don’t want to pay any more for fuel than we already have to. The corn is better off being exported for food around the world, which is what America used to be known for and still can be.
Poptech says:
April 26, 2012 at 9:27 pm
….The paper does a decent job presenting both arguments so why are you ignoring Pimentel’s criticism of Schmer and Shapouri?
Shapouri,
Curiously Pimental and Patzek want to add all sorts of additional energy inputs to the ethanol side yet when it comes to co-products they want to cook the books.
This is nonsense as Pimentel and Patzek are simply more thorough with their Energy Costs by including; Agricultural Machinery, Electricity and Lime. Pesticides/Herbicides and Seeds.
____________________________________
Thank you Poptech. That is exactly what I thought. The comparison has so many factors it is easy to “Cook the Books” based on assumptions and what you leave out or put in.
Put a Chicken in Your Tank: Chicken Manure Fuel makes a bit more sense since methane is the by product of composting. Think of all those city sewage treatment plants….
However you are still stuck with machinery and transport costs.
Ray B says:
April 27, 2012 at 1:44 am
…..There might be a place for ethanol in an 1100hp mud buggy, but personally I would not put the stuff in my cars or equipment if I can at all help it. After two and a half decades as a professional mechanic I have seen what incredible damage that it can do. If you want to burn it, go ahead, it’s good for business….
___________________________________
SLAM -DUNK
I agree we just bought a really nice ($5,000) riding lawn mower for $200 because the guy could not keep it running. Hubby did a rebuild and now it runs fine as long as we stay away from the darn ethanol.
Ethanol forms an azeotrope with water at concentrations of 95.6 percent ethanol and 4.4 percent water An azeotrope means a simple distillation cannot remove any of the remaining water. However you are correct ethanol really LIKES water.
Seems truck fleets are concerned enough with water in gasanol that Wilks has come up with a portable test kit.
Wasn’t Dry Gas METHANOL or isopropyl alcohol not Ethanol? http://www.cartalk.com/content/i-have-question-about-dry-gas-i-know-some
Roger Sowell says: April 26, 2012 at 7:10 pm
Thank you Roger for your comments. Natural gas to liquids conversion may be even more attractive (than coal to liquids) at today’s North American natural gas prices, even though the process is rather inefficient.
In 1996-97 we revitalized the moribund Canadian oilsands industry by simply changing the fiscal terms (government royalties and taxes) to allow the investor to recover his money before government took its share. There was no need for direct government subsidies or mandates at this time (unlike the heavily subsidized and mandated wind, solar and corn ethanol industries).
This change process took about a decade to achieve. I proposed the tax changes in March 1985 and the royalty changes in December 1988, and both were accepted by senior management and immediately acted upon. More details on my website (above), if you are interested.
There was earlier direct investment by governments in the Syncrude project circa 1975 to start this project. I am unaware of a government role in the Suncor project (formerly GCOS), which started up circa 1967.
Best, Allan
The video of EPA administrator Al Armendariz that I posted above Dave Wendt says:
April 25, 2012 at 9:24 pm has been removed by YouTube after a copyright claim by the “citizen media activist” who posted the video from which the clip came. Concern for “transparency” is evidently contingent on who is peeking in who’s windows. The video is still available here.
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/epa-official-al-armendariz-crucify-oil-companies
Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says:
April 25, 2012 at 5:55 pm
“source “Handbook for Handling, Storing, and Dispensing E85″ page 18
Fire Safety Considerations
Fuel ethanol fires, like all fires, should be taken
seriously. An E85 fire should be handled like a
gasoline fire. Use a CO2, halon, or dry chemical
extinguisher that is marked B, C, BC, or ABC. An
alcohol-type or alcohol-resistant (ARF) foam may be
used to effectively combat fuel ethanol fires. Never use
water to control a fire involving high-concentration
fuel ethanol such as E85.”
Although it has been a couple years since I looked into the matter I recall at the time that only a small minority of fire departments actually had ARF capability. I would hope that situation has rectified, but I’m not sure that hope is justified
http://tinyurl.com/793sz6v
There is plenty stopping them,
1. Ten states have mandated the use of E10:
Hawaii
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
Oregon
Washington
Florida
2. Twelve states have retail pump incentives to sell ethanol (E10, E85 or both):
Alaska (E10)
Idaho (both)
Illinois (both)
Iowa (both)
Kansas (E85)
Maine (both)
Minnesota (E85)
Oklahoma (both)
South Dakota (both)
Hawaii (both)
South Carolina (E85)
Alabama (E10)
3. Twenty-two states have incentives for ethanol producers:
Arkansas
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New York
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Virginia
Wyoming
4. Federal biofuel usage mandates for the gasoline Industry:
Energy Policy Act (2005) [Mandates: 7.5 Billion Gallons of Biofuels used by 2012]
Energy Independence and Security Act (2007) [Mandates: 35 Billion Gallons of Biofuels used by 2022]
All Ethanol supports who claim how superior their fuel is should call for the immediate repeal of ALL of these welfare measures for the Ethanol Lobby,
I calculated the annual costs using current EPA fuel economy numbers and current national averages fuel prices. Then for fun I also calculated them using only your unverified fuel costs (I was being generous as it is possible to look these up online). Based on the low E85 pricing you provided, it is very clear you are in or right next to a corn producing state – this is important for people to understand as it may not reflect what they would pay for E85. I will not accept your MPG numbers because these are impossible to verify. Amazingly the manufacturers of the vehicles are not disputing the EPA laboratory tested MPG numbers but you hysterically continue to.
Again to clarify, when I referred to “your numbers” it was only in relation to fuel prices.
Yes you have repeatedly stated your do not care about losing $100-$200 annually. We are well aware of this. However, I do care about losing money on fuel and so do others here. Please feel free to continue to lose hundreds of dollars a year on fuel and reduce the driving range of your vehicle by 23%.
Amazingly they point out the obvious – that fuel economy can deviate based on driving behavior! That is called being responsible, it does not invalidate their numbers or prevent them from being used as the most comprehensive numbers available. Event he auto-makers are not disputing them.
I have found a use for E85 – ripping off rental car companies!
The One Time It Makes Clear Sense to Buy E85 (Popular Mechanics, October 6, 2011)
So maybe it is not so worthless after all, heh.
The whole point of an EROI analysis is to determine if the energy you are putting into making Ethanol equals the energy you are getting out in “Ethanol”. DDG is not Ethanol fuel that is produced, it is a co-product that Ethanol supporters are desperately clinging to in hopes of making the EROI numbers positive. (Pimentel 2005) still generously gives an energy credit for DDG, while noting,
I agree with (Patzek 2004),
This makes more sense since the existence of DDG after the refining process does not reduce the energy used to make Ethanol and should have nothing to do with it’s EROI.
It is only ridiculous if you can demonstrate that the farm equipment runs on crude oil. Your argument is the equivalent of someone saying that you should not factor in the energy needed to turn corn into Ethanol because you can run the farm equipment on corn.