| Author | Message | ||
     Just_ziptab |
No more 89 octane gas here.Gas is all 87 octane ..either with or with out ethanol. The clear(non ethanol) gas is now 25 CENTS a gallon MORE than the ethanol blend at the same octane rating! The midwest pipe line is shipping only premium and 84 octane unleaded base stock.Premium is blended at the terminal with the 84 octane to get the clear 87 octane. Ethanol is blended with 84 octane to get 87 octane ethanol . The straight premium unleaded is only available at selected stations and is as much as 65 cents a gallon MORE. People are sheep and simply by price,will buy the cheaper gas. Even with the new gouge,buying the 25 cent higher priced gas(non ethanol).........will (dust to dust) cost me 1 cent a mile less to use in my S-10. If you completely shut down ethanol,like it never existed....we would use less fossil fuel. | ||
| Daddio |
Just Ziptab-- Check and see that Iowa doesn't subsidize Ethanol via tax policy. Something else that I find interesting is that in corn-producing states (i.e. Iowa, Nebraska, and, where I live, So. Dakota) purchase of ethanol blends is an option by the consumer, whereas other places (i.e. the front Range area of Colorado, where I used to live) ethanol blends are mandatory. Ethanol was foisted upon the Front Range by the EPA as a pollution-easing solution, but, if you use more fuel per mile, aren't you polluting as much as before? | ||
| Just_ziptab |
The subsidies were changed a lot since 2008....40 to 52 cents .... a GALLON!!! It's all tied into the farm bill by proxy and cost us something like 6 billion dollars in 2011, just for the ethanol part! “Ethanol is a total waste,” said T.J. Rogers, chairman of SunPower Corp. “The bottom line is that it takes between one and 1.3 gallons of gasoline equivalent energy to produce one gallon of ethanol.” I've been trying to get that across to ethanol lovers for years! | ||
| Davetooch |
i use a cap full of startron fuel treatment (blue bottle stuff) in the tank before i fill up to help the gas. 00'm2 cyclone in northern nj area. tho i work in ny by palisades (Message edited by davetooch on November 12, 2013) | ||
| Scottorious |
Generalizing that all ethanol is bad and that all corn is food is slightly inaccurate. Ethanol created by simple distilling comes out as Hydrous ethanol which may contain around 5% water. This product needs more research as to how could it be used as fuel alone or blended with gasoline. Anhydrous ethanol has virtually no water in it but this is the product that everyone complains about that takes too much energy to create. Somewhere around 20% of the entire energy requirement to create ethanol might be in the removal of the last 5% of water. Brazil has been running cars on ethanol for quite a while and Honda offers the CG 150 Titan. A flex fuel motorcycle. | ||
| Reindog |
http://news.yahoo.com/secret-dirty-cost-obamas-gre en-power-push-051337237.html | ||
| Scottorious |
Now the "burning food" issue. All corn isn't exactly food. It requires quite a bit of processing to be turned into anything edible. Most of it gets fed to livestock anyway, somewhere around 80%. I don't want to eat field corn and we can't exactly just ship it to other countries and expect them to be able to process it into anything edible. | ||
| Sifo |
Now the "burning food" issue. All corn isn't exactly food. It requires quite a bit of processing to be turned into anything edible. Most of it gets fed to livestock anyway, somewhere around 80%. I don't want to eat field corn and we can't exactly just ship it to other countries and expect them to be able to process it into anything edible. Food for humans. Food for livestock. It's still food. Livestock must still be fed. It really doesn't matter though. The important part is that the corn being grown (call it food or not) is grown in fields that would normally be used to grow food. Growing non-feed corn instead of food, simply because the government mandates it is insanity. | ||
| Two_seasons |
To produce 1 gallon of ethanol consumes 100 gallons of water. Bottom line. Our tyrannical gov't isn't at all interested in what we the people want. It's what THEY want. When we the people visit the pump more frequently, state treasuries and fed treasuries fill up faster. Just another tax! | ||
| Scottorious |
This potentially could turn into a very long post. I apologize in advance. Starting from the end of Sifo's post. 1. Farmers are not mandated to grow corn. 2. "The important part is that the corn being grown (call it food or not) is grown in fields that would normally be used to grow food."-This statement is not really accurate. If growing spinach was going to bring in more money than corn the farmer would grow spinach. | ||
| Sifo |
This potentially could turn into a very long post. I apologize in advance. Starting from the end of Sifo's post. 1. Farmers are not mandated to grow corn. 2. "The important part is that the corn being grown (call it food or not) is grown in fields that would normally be used to grow food."-This statement is not really accurate. If growing spinach was going to bring in more money than corn the farmer would grow spinach. True enough that farmers aren't "mandated" to grow corn. They grow corn because the government has mandated the demand for it, raising the price enough that they don't grow spinach. | ||
| Sifo |
BTW, that also raises the price of spinach! | ||
| Scottorious |
to produce 7 pounds of beef(a gallon of ethanol weighs 7 pounds) it takes 14,000 gallons of water. I don't know why random facts about ethanol are supposed to make anyone feel bad about it. If this was a water issue then why are we eating beef at the levels we are? Or shitting in toilets of potable water. I don't even like ethanol (in anhydrous form) but some of these arguments are not based in fact but just opinion. | ||
| Scottorious |
It's so easy to shift the blame on someone else. Sadly the american consumer demands products at almost stupid cheap levels. The result of that requires our economy to be based on fuels of some sort. It really isn't any one persons fault. It's everyone's fault. | ||
| Sifo |
to produce 7 pounds of beef(a gallon of ethanol weighs 7 pounds) it takes 14,000 gallons of water. I don't know why random facts about ethanol are supposed to make anyone feel bad about it. If this was a water issue then why are we eating beef at the levels we are? Or shitting in toilets of potable water. I don't even like ethanol (in anhydrous form) but some of these arguments are not based in fact but just opinion. Random facts like... Brazil has been running cars on ethanol for quite a while and Honda offers the CG 150 Titan. The bottom line is that what works for Brazil will not work for us. In many areas the water use for ethanol production just won't work either. Brazil doesn't generally use corn to produce ethanol. They use sugar cane, another food product. That just won't work in our climate though. I really don't know if it makes sense for Brazil either, but I don't have to live under their government. | ||
| Sifo |
It's so easy to shift the blame on someone else. Sadly the american consumer demands products at almost stupid cheap levels. The result of that requires our economy to be based on fuels of some sort. It really isn't any one persons fault. It's everyone's fault. I don't understand where you are going with this. Are you saying that energy demand is driving ethanol production? If so, that's completely false. Depending on who you talk to, it takes as much if not more energy to produce ethanol than you get out of it. I've been told by an engineer in the ethanol business that it's a net loss of energy. As an energy policy it's insanity. | ||
| Scottorious |
one of my previous posts touched on the net loss of ethanol. Hydrous ethanol would be a net gain in energy. Anhydrous ethanol is the product we know as the net loss ethanol. Yes that is insane. I totally agree! More research on how to use HYDROUS ethanol could provide good things. Possibly as we advance our engine technology we could use the burn characteristics of ethanol to achieve higher efficiency. | ||
| Hootowl |
Energy in : out ratio for cane is 1:8. For corn it's as near as makes no difference 1:1 And no, the government doesn't make anyone plant corn, and they stopped the subsidy. However, by mandating its use, they create an artificial market for it, which is really the same thing. This ensures that farmers who grow corn will be able to sell their corn. The mandate distorts the market. It reduces the growing of other food crops in favor of corn for fuel. The skyrocketing cost of food throughout the world as a result of our foolhardy foray into burning food instead of eating it is proof enough of that. | ||
| Hootowl |
It does make sense for Brazil  Eight to one makes it worthwhile. | ||
| Sifo |
It might make sense for Brazil. I really don't know. It's a bit more complicated than a simple formula of energy in vs. energy out, but that is part of it. For a country like for example, Saudi Arabia, cane ethanol would be insanity. It might work for Brazil though. | ||
| Aesquire |
I disagree with the current corn based policy, since it doesn't seem to do the intended job. It does do other things, ( rant ) but it fails at "stretching the energy supply". If it's not a gain in burning sunlight from harvested crops, as opposed to burning older sunlight in fossil fuels, then we need different harvested crops. However/also.... There is a real problem with displacing food farming with fuel farming. I prefer to harvest garbage and human organic waste for fuel,("Beyond Thunderdome") but if there's a mutant Kudzu that lives in areas not suitable for food production...... it could be great. Or a horrible idea.. ( headline reads "Forest Fire Reclamation Miracle Plant catches fire and Destroys California" ) | ||
| Aesquire |
Anyway, Don't use E-15 in your Buell. I run Premium, and it works. E-10 on the road, and fill with booze free when possible, and when winterizing..... which I got caught on. I'll have to make a run next thaw to tank up. | ||
| Aesquire |
The result of that requires our economy to be based on fuels of some sort. True. But you are confusing cause and effect. We've ALWAYS needed fuel of some sort. If you want to ride a bicycle to work and hand pump your water, you need fuel to do so. You want to heat up your food, or house? Fuel. Could be bread, cow patties, or nuclear fission. Meat will always take more crops that grain. Duh. If you want light at night, you have to burn something. etc. etc. You all make some good points, but I think you guys are misarguing with each other. ( same thing different language ) | ||
| Sifo |
Seems like a timely article... Prairies vanish in the US push for green energy
| ||
| Scottorious |
That's a good article and I agree that ripping up virgin ground is a bad idea but if you look at how much farmland we lose ever year it almost balances out if it isn't a net loss in farmland. Between 1982 and 2007 we lost 23 million acres of farm land. Nearly a million acres a year. | ||
| Scottorious |
I will say that I'm shocked to hear that ethanol production trumped livestock feed for a while. | ||
| Scottorious |
We should also consider China when we talk about how the demand for corn has gone up. China is importing more corn now than they used to. So the increased demand which in turn is enticing farmers to farm more ground is not only because of Ethanol. | ||
| Sifo |
I know a couple of years back the Mexicans were bitching about US policy because the price of corn tortillas were going sky high. Also keep in mind that as we go from E10 to E15, it may only be a 5% jump as a percentage of the gas, but it's a 50% increase in Ethanol. That's a huge jump in demand for what ever stock you are making it from, pretty much all corn in the US. | ||
| Just_ziptab |
Also keep in mind that as we go from E10 to E15, it may only be a 5% jump as a percentage of the gas, but it's a 50% increase in Ethanol. That's a huge jump in demand for what ever stock you are making it from, pretty much all corn in the US. Wouldn't we all like a mandate that gives our business an instant 50% boost in sales! What has been said over and over? "Follow the money"  | ||
| Pwnzor |
All I can say about this is, no mechanic can get my check engine light to stay off for more than a few hours. I've spent almost $4000 over the last 3 years on this problem, and my van runs perfect... but that damn light won't go away. ECM reports lean condition in both banks but no negative effects found by anybody who has looked at it. I get 17mpg in a 9600 pound gvwr van... I guess I'll just have to live with it. |
