T-shirts are all sold out! 6

Comments View as Threaded

1. 

   Payton Chung Posted 9:45 am
   08 Feb 2006

   AddendumJim Mateja, an auto columnist for the Chicago Tribune, sheds a bit more light on the ethanol equation in Illinois.
   
   
   
   Dave Sykuta, executive director of the Illinois Petroleum Council, knows all too well the shortcomings of E85. He bought a Ford Explorer SportTrac that burns E85.
   
   "The window sticker says the mileage rating is 15 m.p.g. city/20 m.p.g. highway with regular gas, but in tiny print it says with E85 the average is 11 m.p.g. city and 14 m.p.g. highway. But I'm getting 9 m.p.g."
   
   Alan Weverstad, executive director-environment and energy for GM, explained that a gallon of E85 simply produces less energy than gas.
   
   "So it takes more fuel to run a mile. Some might say 30 percent more, we're saying the mileage loss is 20 to 25 percent. But while you burn more fuel, you burn less petroleum," he said...
   
   Jim Givens of the Farmtown store in Bloomington, Ill., sells E85 for 20 cents less than regular unleaded but says there's little demand. "Unless you want to support farmers, I don't know why you'd buy it because you get less mileage," he said.
   
   
   
   E85 currently runs about $2.50 in Illinois, more expensive than today's average of $2.36 in Chicago -- even after 51c in federal subsidy and 25c in foregone state/local sales taxes per gallon.

   Permalink

2. 

   evansgnash Posted 7:05 am
   27 Mar 2006

   The whole story is not being told by promotersI agree with your comments. Flex-fuel vehicles will run on E85 and the price of ethanol has been around the price of unleaded gasoline. The promoters of ethanol leave out some of the most important parts of the story. Flex-fuel vehicles get about 30% less mpg as you have pointed out. This means one has to buy 40-50% more E85 in order to go the same distance as gasoline. This adjusts the effective cost per gallon from $2.50 up to $3.75. This is just plain sticker shock. If most people realized that they were going to pay 50% more, I don't think they would support it. This is after a 51 cent federal subsidy to producers on each sale of a gallon of ethanol. The problem with ethanol is that it has about 70% of the btu content that gasoline has. The vehicles have larger tanks but it means the owner will spend more fuel carrying around 50% more fuel as well as the weight of the larger tank. Ethanol also weighs more than gasoline.
   California has only four E85 stations in spite of the fact that it is one of the most "green" states in the country. It must have 500,000 (est) flex-fuel vehicles. There are no E5 stations in LA or within 100 miles thereof. One should be very concerned if California isn't supporting ethanol. I think this is due the effective high cost. Many other states are the same way. Most of the stations are in the corn-belt areas where there are political and subsidy issues.
   Vendors that input infrastructure to support E85 may end up finding that no one wants to buy their fuel. They may take a terrific beating. Tax payers may also take a beating if the government decides to pay for 50% of the cost of ethanol. You could end up paying a lot more in income taxes. A country that uses more expensive fuel will only provide that fuel at a cheaper price to other countries that likely will consume it with higher polution effects increasing the green house effect. It is not easy to successfully subvert the economics.
   The emmisions department of Colorado recently provided an article to the local paper. The state wants to go to 20% ethanol. The article says that the state will exceed its ozone requirements under federal laws and it would be a bad idea. 10% ethanol is currently required in Denver. For non-flex-fuel vehicles the effective cost per gallon of the 10% portion of ethanol is about $5.00 per gallon. Unfortunately, almost nobody realizes it because the loss in mpg appear to be fairly small. This additional cost is because these vehicle are not designed to burn ethanol as efficiently as flex-fuel vehicles.
   Often the comments made about emmisions completely ignores all of the processing and distribution. Ethanol requires the consumption of more energy than it provides when generated from corn. The only practical fuels are oil, gas, and coal. If we use oil, we might actually increase our oil dependence. Gas is too expensive. Coal is notorius for polution. Sugar beats take only about half of the btus and could be a better choice. Sugar cane would be great but I don't think there is any in the US. Sugar cane requires a lot less fuel to process it. We must remember that there are reaping costs for other sources like switch-grass.
   Ethanol is actually alcohol (white lightning, vodka, etc). If a marketing failure occurs, these distilleries might be converted to providing cheap whiskey. This is not something we need considering the problems that are occuring at our colleges today.
   Personally, I think we need to look at biodiesel or to a new crop that can produce some type of oil that can be used in a newly designed engine if it can be found.

   Permalink

3. 

   Roger D Posted 8:52 am
   31 Mar 2006

   The Myths of EthanolI feel I need to inject some common sense and a little clarification into the ethanol brew.
   First of all, the 51 cents per gal "subsidy" or "road tax" is the tax on gasoline. It's waived for ethanol. That's it. And that's as it should be.
   Second, what is the cost to taxpayers to secure, and  I mean SECURE our oil interests all around the world? Can you say TRILLIONS?? As in dollars. I knew you could. And yet no president in his right (or left) mind would have the guts to add that cost to the price of gasoline.
   Third, California probably uses more ethanol than all other states combined...OK, maybe that's a stretch...but since the State mandated ethanol to replace MTBE, millions of gas tanks in California contain up to 10% ethanol. And most of it shipped from the midwest, I presume.
   
   Unfortunately, as you mentioned, it ain't available as E85...yet.
   The good news is that ethanol burns soooo much cleaner than petrol. Ever see alcohol burn? You can't see the flame. A lot less carbon to burn. The bad news is that it does contribute to ground-level ozone, AKA, smog. What I'm not clear about is if it is only the evaporative emissions or the actual combustion of ethanol as well that promotes smog. If it's merely the former, I think that could be fixed. After all, would you want your ethanol disappearing into thick air?
   Finally, when gasoline hits $5 a gallon in a few years, all of a sudden  you negative ninnies are going to be whistling a very different tune.

   Permalink

4. 

   Payton Chung Posted 4:30 pm
   10 Apr 2006

   Hardly a supporter of gasoline, eitherI don't drive at all, and I have no stake in gasoline. However, my article wasn't about gas vs. ethanol -- it was about GM's cynical use of ethanol to greenwash its monstrous SUVs, at a time when American consumers are fleeing from its gas/E85 guzzlers.
   Ethanol sales SHOULD incur road taxes, as E85 vehicles put just as much wear and tear on the roads as gas powered vehicles do. My bicycle, on the other hand, hardly imparts any wear or tear, which is why I should not have to pay said taxes.
   In any case, I never received my "Go Yellow" t-shirt :(
   
   .pc

   Permalink

5. 

   Payton Chung Posted 5:16 am
   29 Oct 2006

   Finally got my t-shirtearlier this month. Man, it's the ugliest thing ever, too, with a poor quality puke-green print of, well, something.

   Permalink

6. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 3:37 pm
   17 Aug 2007

   "The Good News is"The good news is that ethanol burns soooo much cleaner than petrol.
   Says who?
   http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol2
   
   http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol3
   
   http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol5
   
   http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol9

   Permalink