Help Ford STOP the Corn Lobby push for E15 ethanol
12/20/10, 12:27 PM
#1
Post *****
Thread Starter
Join Date: December 14, 2007
Location: State of Jefferson Mountains USA
Posts: 20,005
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Help Ford STOP the Corn Lobby push for E15 ethanol
Food for fuel is stupid!
A product that requires more energy than what it provides is stupid - and does NOT "reduce our need for foreign oil"!
STOP THE CORN LOBBY LIARS!
A product that requires more energy than what it provides is stupid - and does NOT "reduce our need for foreign oil"!
STOP THE CORN LOBBY LIARS!
Dec. 20, 2010, 2:11 p.m. EST
Ford, GM join legal fight against E15
Blend of 15% ethanol may cause problems, group warns
By Steve Gelsi and Jeffry Bartash, MarketWatch
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — A trade group that includes automotive giants Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Co. has joined forces with other vehicle and engine makers to sound a warning against the government’s move to allow more ethanol to be blended with gasoline.
The so-called blending wall for fuel sold at the pump — 10% ethanol, 90% gasoline — hasn’t changed in many years, but the Environmental Protection Agency in October raised to 15% the proportion of ethanol deemed permissible for newer cars and trucks.
The newly formed Engine Products Group has come out fighting the EPA’s 15% waiver, claiming the federal ruling could confuse consumers and cause more damage to older engines not designed for a heavier ethanol blend.
The group includes the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers as well as the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers; the National Marine Manufacturers Association and the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute. They’re facing off against another powerful lobby: corn and soybean growers, and ethanol makers.
The EPA would require service stations to clearly label their pumps to prevent consumers from buying the wrong fuel.
Engine makers, however, say that the EPA ruling goes beyond what’s allowed under the Clean Air Act and that allowing greater amounts of ethanol could end up harming consumers.
The industry group on Monday filed a petition with a U.S. appellate court in Washington challenging the EPA’s waiver for the sale of gasoline containing 15% ethanol — marketed as E15 — for 2007 model year and newer passenger cars and light trucks.
In coming months, the EPA may extend its waiver to include cars and truck made after 2001.
Opponents argue that current off-road equipment “is not designed, built or warranted for mid-level blends and consumers could encounter performance irregularities, increased heat and exhaust temperatures,” if they use E15.
The group also complained that the EPA has failed to “put into place an effective, practical or enforceable mechanism to bifurcate the fuels market.”
For their part, ethanol supporters, including the Renewable Fuels Association, said the EPA should have done more to support the rollout of E15.
“The only way to meet the nation’s energy, economic and environmental goals as put forth in the Renewable Fuels Standard is to increase ethanol consumption,” the group said.
Another trade group called Growth Energy said scientific evidence demonstrates that E15 is safe not just for some but for all passenger cars on the road.
“Concerns about misfueling are premature, as EPA is drafting a robust labeling rule and will conduct a vigorous public-education campaign, and we are confident that the process will be successful,” said Tom Buis, chief executive of Growth Energy. “We don’t need a cartel of engine manufacturers who are looking to profit by mandating limits on what rights Americans have to choose their fuel.”
The controversy over E15 marks the latest twist in a saga involving gasoline additives.
In recent years, the EPA required refiners to add MTBE to gasoline, only to ban it after it was found to have fouled drinking water.
And in the 1970s, U.S. policy supported wider use of ethanol through a product commonly known as gasohol. Demand for the product evaporated after a shift in policy, however.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/for...nol-2010-12-20
Ford, GM join legal fight against E15
Blend of 15% ethanol may cause problems, group warns
By Steve Gelsi and Jeffry Bartash, MarketWatch
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — A trade group that includes automotive giants Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Co. has joined forces with other vehicle and engine makers to sound a warning against the government’s move to allow more ethanol to be blended with gasoline.
The so-called blending wall for fuel sold at the pump — 10% ethanol, 90% gasoline — hasn’t changed in many years, but the Environmental Protection Agency in October raised to 15% the proportion of ethanol deemed permissible for newer cars and trucks.
The newly formed Engine Products Group has come out fighting the EPA’s 15% waiver, claiming the federal ruling could confuse consumers and cause more damage to older engines not designed for a heavier ethanol blend.
The group includes the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers as well as the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers; the National Marine Manufacturers Association and the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute. They’re facing off against another powerful lobby: corn and soybean growers, and ethanol makers.
The EPA would require service stations to clearly label their pumps to prevent consumers from buying the wrong fuel.
Engine makers, however, say that the EPA ruling goes beyond what’s allowed under the Clean Air Act and that allowing greater amounts of ethanol could end up harming consumers.
The industry group on Monday filed a petition with a U.S. appellate court in Washington challenging the EPA’s waiver for the sale of gasoline containing 15% ethanol — marketed as E15 — for 2007 model year and newer passenger cars and light trucks.
In coming months, the EPA may extend its waiver to include cars and truck made after 2001.
Opponents argue that current off-road equipment “is not designed, built or warranted for mid-level blends and consumers could encounter performance irregularities, increased heat and exhaust temperatures,” if they use E15.
The group also complained that the EPA has failed to “put into place an effective, practical or enforceable mechanism to bifurcate the fuels market.”
For their part, ethanol supporters, including the Renewable Fuels Association, said the EPA should have done more to support the rollout of E15.
“The only way to meet the nation’s energy, economic and environmental goals as put forth in the Renewable Fuels Standard is to increase ethanol consumption,” the group said.
Another trade group called Growth Energy said scientific evidence demonstrates that E15 is safe not just for some but for all passenger cars on the road.
“Concerns about misfueling are premature, as EPA is drafting a robust labeling rule and will conduct a vigorous public-education campaign, and we are confident that the process will be successful,” said Tom Buis, chief executive of Growth Energy. “We don’t need a cartel of engine manufacturers who are looking to profit by mandating limits on what rights Americans have to choose their fuel.”
The controversy over E15 marks the latest twist in a saga involving gasoline additives.
In recent years, the EPA required refiners to add MTBE to gasoline, only to ban it after it was found to have fouled drinking water.
And in the 1970s, U.S. policy supported wider use of ethanol through a product commonly known as gasohol. Demand for the product evaporated after a shift in policy, however.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/for...nol-2010-12-20
12/20/10, 01:00 PM
#2
Ethanol Booming, Despite the Drawbacks
Just a couple of years ago American-made corn ethanol was vilified in the media. It was blamed for soaring food prices, and for causing food riots in Mexico. The UN even accused the U.S. of depriving the world of food.
What a difference a couple of years makes!
Today food production is soaring, especially corn. In fact, it's up so much that farmers now worry about a price crash. And all this happened despite the fact that ethanol production is booming.
Back in 2007 when criticism of ethanol started to reach a fever pitch, the U.S. produced 5.5 billion gallons of ethanol at 110 refineries. This year the U.S. is on track to produce 13 billion gallons from 187 refineries located in 26 states. In other words, ethanol production more than doubled at the same time that food prices declined. Too bad the media doesn't follow up on these things
Just a couple of years ago American-made corn ethanol was vilified in the media. It was blamed for soaring food prices, and for causing food riots in Mexico. The UN even accused the U.S. of depriving the world of food.
What a difference a couple of years makes!
Today food production is soaring, especially corn. In fact, it's up so much that farmers now worry about a price crash. And all this happened despite the fact that ethanol production is booming.
Back in 2007 when criticism of ethanol started to reach a fever pitch, the U.S. produced 5.5 billion gallons of ethanol at 110 refineries. This year the U.S. is on track to produce 13 billion gallons from 187 refineries located in 26 states. In other words, ethanol production more than doubled at the same time that food prices declined. Too bad the media doesn't follow up on these things
I know prices rose to $6.04 today before settling to around $6.00 as of this text as prices have risen about $1.80 since over the past 6 months or so . . .
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...ncentives.html
IOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — Ethanol supporters in the Dakotas are praising tax cuts passed last week in Washington for extending alternative fuel incentives.
The $858-billion package includes a one-year extension on a tax credit that pays 45 cents per gallon for ethanol blended into gasoline, a move that's estimated to cost about $6 billion. Congress also extended a tariff on foreign-made ethanol.
Industry officials say the credits help ethanol stay competitive with oil and preserve jobs tied to ethanol plants.
"We still need to have incentives for oil companies and gas stations to buy ethanol," said Ron Lamberty of the Sioux Falls-based American Coalition for Ethanol. "We're in a situation where we can make more than 10 percent of the fuel that goes into cars."
Several senators tried to strip down ethanol subsidies in the final package, but were unsuccessful.
The $858-billion package includes a one-year extension on a tax credit that pays 45 cents per gallon for ethanol blended into gasoline, a move that's estimated to cost about $6 billion. Congress also extended a tariff on foreign-made ethanol.
Industry officials say the credits help ethanol stay competitive with oil and preserve jobs tied to ethanol plants.
"We still need to have incentives for oil companies and gas stations to buy ethanol," said Ron Lamberty of the Sioux Falls-based American Coalition for Ethanol. "We're in a situation where we can make more than 10 percent of the fuel that goes into cars."
Several senators tried to strip down ethanol subsidies in the final package, but were unsuccessful.
12/20/10, 03:01 PM
#3
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
More info
12/20/10, 04:07 PM
#4
Post *****
Thread Starter
Join Date: December 14, 2007
Location: State of Jefferson Mountains USA
Posts: 20,005
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
In other words, ethanol production more than doubled at the same time that food prices declined. Too bad the media doesn't follow up on these things.
The spike in food prices was due to many factors, and the domino effect it had on other food stuffs remains. Corn production is up because the price went up - which means less acreage for other foodstuffs.
When corn became too high because of the ethanol surge, farmers shifted to alfalfa for dairies and feedlots. That sent alf and even grass hay DOUBLING, and even though fuel prices dropped and hay fell somewhat, it has still not returned to pre 08 levels. And at the grocery store, canned corn has just now - after 30 months - dropped to 2 cans for a buck.
"We still need to have incentives for oil companies and gas stations to buy ethanol," said Ron Lamberty of the Sioux Falls-based American Coalition for Ethanol. "We're in a situation where we can make more than 10 percent of the fuel that goes into cars."
The product is a sham. It takes more energy to produce a gallon than the energy it puts out. It takes more to run your engine, therefore is actually reducing mileage. I've noticed a drop in my mileage since Oregon mandated E10.
And if it was so good, why did the majors file banko when prices remain high at $3/gal and so many states now mandate E10??
Even with tax subsidies they still can't make it - because of the energy it takes to produce.
Last edited by cdynaco; 12/20/10 at 04:08 PM.
12/20/10, 04:55 PM
#5
Shelby GT350 Member
That I can agree with. If it can be made efficiently. And if the corn ethanol were really about reducing dependence on foreign oil, then they would remove the tariff against Brazilian sugar cane ethanol - and push it here, rather than pushing corn fuel.
The product is a sham. It takes more energy to produce a gallon than the energy it puts out. It takes more to run your engine, therefore is actually reducing mileage. I've noticed a drop in my mileage since Oregon mandated E10.
And if it was so good, why did the majors file banko when prices remain high at $3/gal and so many states now mandate E10??
Even with tax subsidies they still can't make it - because of the energy it takes to produce.
The product is a sham. It takes more energy to produce a gallon than the energy it puts out. It takes more to run your engine, therefore is actually reducing mileage. I've noticed a drop in my mileage since Oregon mandated E10.
And if it was so good, why did the majors file banko when prices remain high at $3/gal and so many states now mandate E10??
Even with tax subsidies they still can't make it - because of the energy it takes to produce.
I never understood this either. Maybe we should go the multi fuel source route like Brasil. At this point most commuters wouldn't know or care about the difference. But there is a lot of misunderstood information afloat. Same way with diesel in Europe just something else the US is having a hard time warming up to.
I also never understood the thrust toward corn or food driven ethanol. You're right, it takes so much more energy to make the fuel and make the fuel work properly (octane) that it's an utterly ridiculous. I am not against ethanol but the goals and means have to be realistic. Much like that of the electric car. Are we that stupid to think that we can just plug in our car and stop paying for the resources it takes to make that EV car go?
Last edited by Automagically; 12/20/10 at 04:57 PM.
12/20/10, 06:29 PM
#6
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
I always got the feeling this was the government's convoluted approach to reducing farm subsidies.
It sounded like it might be good in the beginning and then devolved into another useless government program.
It sounded like it might be good in the beginning and then devolved into another useless government program.
12/20/10, 08:40 PM
#7
On every practical level ethanol is the one fuel source that actually could supplant gasoline in the near future and isn't simply an eco-weenie pipe dream. That said, the greenies ignore it because it wont kill the ICE, large portions of the corporate community ignore it because it is the one serious threat to the established fuel of choice and hence threatens their dominant corporate status, and worst of all the corn lobby hijacked it and now whenever most anybody in the US thinks about ethanol....they think about corn. Why is that unfortunate? Because corn is far and away the most impractical of the 'accepted' sources for ethanol and, with it's seemingly indelible link to ethanol in the US, is effectively sabotaging what is otherwise a very worthwhile concept.
That said, no matter what the source of the ethanol, gas-ethanol blends are a terrible idea. Rather than combine the best aspects of the two fuel sources blends just seem to emphasize the worst.
That said, no matter what the source of the ethanol, gas-ethanol blends are a terrible idea. Rather than combine the best aspects of the two fuel sources blends just seem to emphasize the worst.
Last edited by jsaylor; 12/20/10 at 08:44 PM.
12/21/10, 04:42 AM
#8
You're right, it takes so much more energy to make the fuel and make the fuel work properly (octane) that it's an utterly ridiculous.
. . . You sure about that? http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html
12/21/10, 10:26 AM
#9
Shelby GT350 Member
This link also sites the fact that Corn isn't the best way to get our Ethanol but it is the way that we do things here. I'm not saying I know all but one report will conflict another we just have to take into consideration all usage, not just the at hand cost of production.
But I do think Ethanol is viable and usable. We'd have to get used to ungodly dismal fuel mileage but it truly is an alternative. Over time it will get better. I wish I knew more about how it's usage in Brasil is working for or against them. What's been good or bad.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-e...uestion707.htm
http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm
12/21/10, 10:46 AM
#10
Legacy TMS Member Pr
12/21/10, 11:18 AM
#11
Post *****
Thread Starter
Join Date: December 14, 2007
Location: State of Jefferson Mountains USA
Posts: 20,005
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
A) that is farm land - something would be growing there, utilizing the "free solar" energy and processing/absorbing CO2 like other living plants. Therefore that claim is irrelevant.
B) the real equation involves fuel to plant, fertilize, harvest, and transport the raw crop.
C) next is the amount of fuel - direct or indirect for heat and/or electricity production to the processing plants.
Jibberish about factoring in "free solar" energy is... jibberish. As they say, "figures lie and liars figure".
As I wrote in my hay example when it doubled from $100/t to $200/t in 2008, at least half of that spike was $5 diesel to run farm equipment and to deliver to my horse ranch. (The other half as dairies & cattleman couldn't afford corn and switched to alfalfa which screwed up the supply/demand factor and alf & grass hay soared.) Corn farmers paid that $5 diesel too - regardless of the "free solar" energy quotient.
Abundant, cheap nuclear energy is the only way we will ever have real alternative fuels for our vehicles, such as natural gas and maybe hydrogen someday. Nuclear power plants will allow for the first time widespread use of electric cars that can be charged inexpensively at night. The use of electricity generated in fossil fuel power plants to charge electric cars is just plain stupid. It creates more greenhouse gas than just burning the fossil fuel directly in the cars. And we are now burning fossil fuels in our power plants to produce ethanol with large government subsidies. That is equally stupid.
Bio-fuels cost more
One day, we Americans will get serious about energy conservation. One day. If you listen to KGO radio in the San Francisco Bay Area, you've probably heard Dr. Bill Wattenburg rant about ethanol. It isn't efficient, says the good doctor. According to a recent study, posted on Wattenburg's site, "It takes 29 percent more fossil energy to turn corn into ethanol than the amount of fuel the process produces." Yet, despite repeated concerns about bio-fuels, the government continues to fund bio-fuels.
We've now spent billions.
The cost of bio-fuels:
Corn — 29 percent more fossil energy
Switch grass — 45 percent more
Wood — 57 percent more
Soybeans — 27 percent more
We'd all like to put something else in our tank — hydrogen, corn, switch, cooking grease, electricity, etc. — but the fact remains that fossil energy is used to produce these fuels. If we ain't saving, we ain't conserving. The bumper stickers ought to read: This car powered by alternative energy, which is produced with the same fossil fuels you put in your tank.
Read more: http://blogcritics.org/politics/arti...#ixzz18ltAKz1x
One day, we Americans will get serious about energy conservation. One day. If you listen to KGO radio in the San Francisco Bay Area, you've probably heard Dr. Bill Wattenburg rant about ethanol. It isn't efficient, says the good doctor. According to a recent study, posted on Wattenburg's site, "It takes 29 percent more fossil energy to turn corn into ethanol than the amount of fuel the process produces." Yet, despite repeated concerns about bio-fuels, the government continues to fund bio-fuels.
We've now spent billions.
The cost of bio-fuels:
Corn — 29 percent more fossil energy
Switch grass — 45 percent more
Wood — 57 percent more
Soybeans — 27 percent more
We'd all like to put something else in our tank — hydrogen, corn, switch, cooking grease, electricity, etc. — but the fact remains that fossil energy is used to produce these fuels. If we ain't saving, we ain't conserving. The bumper stickers ought to read: This car powered by alternative energy, which is produced with the same fossil fuels you put in your tank.
Read more: http://blogcritics.org/politics/arti...#ixzz18ltAKz1x
E10 (gasohol)
E10 (also called “gasohol”) is a blend of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline sold in many parts of the country. All auto manufacturers approve the use of blends of 10% ethanol or less in their gasoline vehicles. However, vehicles will typically go 3–4% fewer miles per gallon on E10 than on straight gasoline.1
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ethanol.shtml#sources
E10 (also called “gasohol”) is a blend of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline sold in many parts of the country. All auto manufacturers approve the use of blends of 10% ethanol or less in their gasoline vehicles. However, vehicles will typically go 3–4% fewer miles per gallon on E10 than on straight gasoline.1
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ethanol.shtml#sources
IMO, any biofuels should be made from waste products only - NOT FOOD - and the electricity needed to convert the resource into fuel should only be provided by nuclear energy.
Below is a chart of the California Energy Commission's estimate of the cost of electrical energy.
Cost of Electricity Generation
Technology
Current Cost of Electricity
(2003 data, cents/kWh)
Hydroelectric 0.25 to 2.7
Nuclear 1.4 to 1.9
Coal 1.8 to 2.0
Natural Gas 5.2 to 15.9
Solar 13.5 to 42.7
Wind 4.6
Cost of Electricity Generation
Technology
Current Cost of Electricity
(2003 data, cents/kWh)
Hydroelectric 0.25 to 2.7
Nuclear 1.4 to 1.9
Coal 1.8 to 2.0
Natural Gas 5.2 to 15.9
Solar 13.5 to 42.7
Wind 4.6
Last edited by cdynaco; 12/21/10 at 11:32 AM.
12/21/10, 11:32 AM
#12
That's why you live in your World and I live in mine. I was merely providing a rebuttal to your quote that
How you choose to view the numbers and statistics is your business. I'll will choose to keep an open mind about it and the opportunities it can present to our County (you choose to have faith and trust in your sources). I never stated that the fuel was the savior to the United States as I too have reservations, but to attack it from such a one sided perspective is something I had to question (again, from the simplicity of your quote) . . . . to which you responded and now we will move forward. 
With visions of Mad Max/Road Warrior running in my head!!
It takes more energy to produce a gallon than the energy it puts out.
With visions of Mad Max/Road Warrior running in my head!!
12/21/10, 11:46 AM
#13
Post *****
Thread Starter
Join Date: December 14, 2007
Location: State of Jefferson Mountains USA
Posts: 20,005
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
That's why you live in your World and I live in mine. I was merely providing a rebuttal to your quote that How you choose to view the numbers and statistics is your business. I'll will choose to keep an open mind about it and the opportunities it can present to our County (you choose to have faith and trust in your sources). I never stated that the fuel was the savior to the United States as I too have reservations, but to attack it from such a one sided perspective is something I had to question (again, from the simplicity of your quote) . . . . to which you responded and now we will move forward.
With visions of Mad Max/Road Warrior running in my head!!
With visions of Mad Max/Road Warrior running in my head!!
But I hate wasting time, energy & resources, and precious taxpayer funds because of bribe politics. And the corn lobby is/has been doing just that for years over ethanol.
Plus I don't like a government agency falsifying reality to push some agenda. Factoring in "free solar" is like factoring in "free heat, pressure, dead dino's" to make oil look less expensive than it actually is to discover, drill, pump/ship, process into gasoline, to your tank. The free dead dino's don't matter for the equation, just like "free solar" doesn't matter to growing corn when it comes to finding/creating liquid fuel and getting it into our Mustang fuel tanks.
What we want and need is a viable source of affordable liquid fuel. Not a charade. And there are viable alternatives available with today's science - rather than continuing the failed experiment of corn based food-for-fuel ethanol.
And apparently Ford (& GM) and I are in agreement based on the op.
12/21/10, 11:53 AM
#14
I'm not attacking you... I'm just rebutting the articles put forth. And I too have an open mind.
But I hate wasting time, energy & resources, and precious taxpayer funds because of bribe politics. And the corn lobby is/has been doing just that for years over ethanol.
Plus I don't like a government agency falsifying reality to push some agenda. Factoring in "free solar" is like factoring in "free heat, pressure, dead dino's" to make oil look less expensive than it actually is to discover, drill, pump/ship, process into gasoline, to your tank. The free dead dino's don't matter for the equation, just like "free solar" doesn't matter to growing corn when it comes to finding/creating liquid fuel and getting it into our Mustang fuel tanks.
What we want and need is a viable source of affordable liquid fuel. Not a charade. And there are viable alternatives available with today's science - rather than continuing the failed experiment of corn based food-for-fuel ethanol.
And apparently Ford (& GM) and I are in agreement based on the op.
But I hate wasting time, energy & resources, and precious taxpayer funds because of bribe politics. And the corn lobby is/has been doing just that for years over ethanol.
Plus I don't like a government agency falsifying reality to push some agenda. Factoring in "free solar" is like factoring in "free heat, pressure, dead dino's" to make oil look less expensive than it actually is to discover, drill, pump/ship, process into gasoline, to your tank. The free dead dino's don't matter for the equation, just like "free solar" doesn't matter to growing corn when it comes to finding/creating liquid fuel and getting it into our Mustang fuel tanks.
What we want and need is a viable source of affordable liquid fuel. Not a charade. And there are viable alternatives available with today's science - rather than continuing the failed experiment of corn based food-for-fuel ethanol.
And apparently Ford (& GM) and I are in agreement based on the op.
)
12/22/10, 01:59 PM
#16
Originally Posted by Automagically
This link also sites the fact that Corn isn't the best way to get our Ethanol
Originally Posted by Automagically
We'd have to get used to ungodly dismal fuel mileage but it truly is an alternative. Over time it will get better.
An analogy I like is imagine what would happen if they tried to take the basic parameters of a gasoline engine and then tweaked that mill just enough to run on diesel.......it would be awful. Yet, do the same with ethanol and somehow it becomes definitive. Just some food for thought.
Last edited by jsaylor; 12/22/10 at 02:02 PM.
12/22/10, 08:32 PM
#17
Legacy TMS Member
12/24/10, 09:15 AM
#19
Legacy TMS Member Pr
Found this article w google: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...anol-than-corn
12/24/10, 04:27 PM
#20
Shelby GT350 Member
This is absolutely not true unless you hamstring the ethanol side of the argument by dictating one of the less efficient sources for the fuel. And even when people don't short the ethanol argument via the above method they almost always use potential energy for both sources rather than energy realized during combustion. Gasoline is actually a very difficult medium to actually extract energy from, and as such a lot of the energy in gasoline is wasted. Ethanol doesn;t share that same problem to the same extent.
That might be the understatement of the century. There are viable sources for ethanol that are at least 15 times more energy efficient than corn and which are fully practical right now.
Again, this isn't actually true. The problem here is that while an ethanol-fueled piston engine is going to be functionally similar to a typical gasoline fueled piston engine many of the specifications and the tuning are going to be completely different. For example ethanol needs an ungodly high compression ratio relative to what a gasoline engine wants to run on to realize anything like it's full potential.....but it typically gets used in engines which have compression ratios that are suited to gasoline. Ethanol engines can and should be smaller than their gasoline counterparts because an ethanol fuel engine will be much more powerful liter for liter....but again we find ourselves running ethanol in engines designed to run on gas and then wonder why they aren't very good. Ethanol engines loves forced induction due to the cooler temps found with that fuel.....I could literally go on and on.
An analogy I like is imagine what would happen if they tried to take the basic parameters of a gasoline engine and then tweaked that mill just enough to run on diesel.......it would be awful. Yet, do the same with ethanol and somehow it becomes definitive. Just some food for thought.
That might be the understatement of the century. There are viable sources for ethanol that are at least 15 times more energy efficient than corn and which are fully practical right now.
Again, this isn't actually true. The problem here is that while an ethanol-fueled piston engine is going to be functionally similar to a typical gasoline fueled piston engine many of the specifications and the tuning are going to be completely different. For example ethanol needs an ungodly high compression ratio relative to what a gasoline engine wants to run on to realize anything like it's full potential.....but it typically gets used in engines which have compression ratios that are suited to gasoline. Ethanol engines can and should be smaller than their gasoline counterparts because an ethanol fuel engine will be much more powerful liter for liter....but again we find ourselves running ethanol in engines designed to run on gas and then wonder why they aren't very good. Ethanol engines loves forced induction due to the cooler temps found with that fuel.....I could literally go on and on.
An analogy I like is imagine what would happen if they tried to take the basic parameters of a gasoline engine and then tweaked that mill just enough to run on diesel.......it would be awful. Yet, do the same with ethanol and somehow it becomes definitive. Just some food for thought.
I certainly see your point, thanks for setting me straight. Some of the figures I quoted were a bit ridiculous but it was kind of my point to show that not all research is the same and so the truth needs revelation. Like the point you made about the compression. Most of the public would have never thought of it.
Last edited by Automagically; 12/24/10 at 04:28 PM.