SacramentoE85’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  B--thank you for updating your blog with more anecdotes, but again since you don't understand many aspects of plants, corn, ethanol, and economics and go to the extremes it will not be helpful to anyone and again just makes it extreme.  E85 doesn't reduce mpg's by 27%.  As the EIA states, there is on average 74% ethanol in E85.  That alone brings the BTU's down to a 22% decrease, not 27%.  However, FFV's make better use of the aspects of ethanol, and THOSE WHO HAVE EXPERIENCE driving FFV's on E85 will tell you, mostly, that they average 15% lower mpg's on E85 (some more, some less).  You just fill this blog with your opinions and opinions of others, looking for extremes.  It makes your cause less likely to be followed by anyone that knows that even one of your opinions is an extreme.

  Also, if Americans bought another 2% of gasoline in 2008 at 15% lower price, we came out far ahead by $Billions.  I'm keeping with the 15%.  You may say the mathematics and economics are too simple to be trusted, but that's your opinion.  My opinion is that is what makes them wonderful; anyone can understand it and they're more likely to be accurate.

  Again, expenses to put ethanol in place are made because the alternative (sticking with oil) is more expensive.  Sometimes making money involves saving money--just ask any business struggling in today's economy (they make a profit by cutting a lot of costs).  Petroleum costs us too much, and ethanol is (relatively) cheap in comparison.  Now you can post another opinion with a link to one of your blog opinions and referencing others' opinions.  Please go ask the Bolivians for their lithium.

  On Yet again, Vilsack bows to ethanol gods posted 4 months, 2 weeks ago 82 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  B--I think that's why your arguments against corn ethanol are like many others'--you just don't understand agriculture and plant biology.  In the photosynthetic cycle that plants conduct to make sugars, they pull in CO2 naturally available in the atmosphere and lock them in as starches and sugars.  The CO2 released during ethanol production recycles that CO2 in the air to be available to growing plants again.  This is what E85Prices is trying to get across to you; there is so much in your blog that seems correct to people that lack the knowledge of how plants work, and what corn production entails.  Going to the extremities of corn production and land use doesn't make a good argument, it just makes one extreme.  Please go about convincing the Bolivians to mine their lithium.

  On Yet again, Vilsack bows to ethanol gods posted 4 months, 2 weeks ago 82 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  You can type the name of the study into Google and it will pop right up for you.  Google is available at www.google.com.  Type in June 2008 Global Energy Weekly Merrill Lynch.

  Of course it is impossible to prove the number--so much of research data is based upon known theories any more, without tangible proof available.  World food prices are studied using similar variables.  Though they believe this to be true from best known science, and I challenge you to disprove it as much as you challenge them to prove it.  Sometimes using some simple tools to arrive at a number like this is a good idea--fewer variables to be challenged and misconstrued.

  On Yet again, Vilsack bows to ethanol gods posted 4 months, 3 weeks ago 82 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Russ, I read through your blog page where you have linked to various studies.  To calm your nerves, there was nothing new there to me.  Every study that you reference can be offset by 1 or 2 studies that say the opposite.  *You need to be aware, many of the environmental groups actually have oil, food, and automobile companies on their boards.  Additionally, they receive $Millions in funding from 501(c)3 organizations that are given $Millions from oil companies, food companies, etc.*  You are a very wise person in your specific field, and I hope you explore this problematic source of funding for many of the studies.  You can find a lot now on documented sources of funding on the internet.  Even an oil company economist will occasionally slip up and mention that we have lower fuel prices due to ethanol.

  On Yet again, Vilsack bows to ethanol gods posted 4 months, 3 weeks ago 82 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Here is a quote from Biodiversitist/Russ:

  "OK, here you go. His name is Blanch, now working for Bank of America. That 15% comes not from a study, but from a single off the cuff remark in one article. When asked where he got that number he said it is based on a simple three variable equation. I bust this myth in detail here. I suspected that you never bother to follow or read links, but anyone following this debate might and your boast might give them the incentive to do so." -Biodiversitist/Russ

  **Russ, I checked into this fact of Francisco Blanch, Commodity Strategist for Merrill Lynch, stating that ethanol keeps fuel prices 15% lower than they would be with out.  I remembered it being much more than an off-the-cuff remark in an article.  In fact, it was published in Merrill Lynch's June 2008 "Global Energy Weekly."  The study was not friendly to ethanol.  However, one important finding of their in-depth research (not a remark) was that oil prices at the time were $21 per barrel less expensive (15%).  This is a 14-page energy research journal published by Merrill Lynch, again not an off-cuff-remark in an article.

  On Yet again, Vilsack bows to ethanol gods posted 4 months, 3 weeks ago 82 Responses