E-mail Story
Print Story
There are 58 comments - Display All Comments
dimpleche
eks
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 3:20:59 PM
This message brought to you by Exxon/mobil.
Drill on.
johnsonj
Sioux Falls, SD
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 3:49:01 PM
E 15 would displace 900,000 barrels of oil per day. Is that a big enough dent? E 15 would also offset more than 40 million tons of CO2 per year or the greenhouse gas emissions equivalent removing 10.5 million cars from the road. Moving from E 10 to E 15 would create more than 136,000 jobs and inject 24.4 billion doallars into the United State economy annually. Now to me it sounds like additional ethanol could solve a lot of problems that our country is facing right now.As far as vehicles go, people in Brazil drive all the makes and models that we do here in America and use E 25 in their tanks with no probelm at all. So besideds typing on your keyboard, what evidence do you have that moving from E 10 to E 15 will cause our vehicles to break down? Most importantly, ethanol is great for America. Ethanol produces a better Enviornment, Economy and lessens our dependance on foreign oil. What exactly is the problem with that?
Dano
PineIsland, MN
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 11:35:28 PM
The problem is, your air to fuel mixture has to change. The more alcohol in the fuel, the more fuel is needed. In short you will just lose gas mileage.
It’s amazing that so many people know so little about what they trust to get them back and forth to work every day.
LoveRoche
ster
des moines, Io
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 11:04:18 AM
I’m disappointed in the Post-Bulletin. Can you be anymore obvious in your attempt to steer readers to vote NO? Come ON! This is bad even for an opinion piece. You have completely deleted the validity of your survey. Will you post this disclaimer with your results?
Plantguy
Shenandoah, IA
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 11:22:32 AM
It seems to me that the author of this article didn’t do his homework at all before throwing his opinion out onto the media. The post previous to mine states that we will lose fuel efficiency, is that loss in efficiency greater or less than 15%, if it is less then we are still in a net gain position. Also food prices and corn prices especially the burst in upward corn prices last year were shown to largely have no affect on food prices, so please quit blaming ethanol for that. General Mills reported record profits from its cereal sales, which tells me that they are price gouging and consumers are losing out because of their corporate greed. Ethanol is in its baby stages and more support for it now will lead to further funding into the renewable fuels research. If we thwart it now it will never get more efficient. If you don’t believe that its the future of energy check into the oil companies’ lists of investments. Almost all of the major oil companies have put their money into renewable fuels, even they know that its good for the world!
Rongstad
Pine Island, MN
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 11:37:15 AM
Plantguy said:
“Almost all of the major oil companies have put their money into renewable fuels, even they know that its good for the world!"
No, they know what is good for the bottom line. They know what our sorry excuses for leaders are doing. The big companies know where the subsidies and the mandates are leading. They are just hopping aboard another government subsidy train.As always, the little guy (the taxpayer and consumers) will pay the fare and never get to enjoy the ride.
EthanolYe
s
Derby, Ka
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 12:04:19 PM
I drive a 2003 Toyota Sienna which is not a Flex Fuel vehicle and peridically use E20 with no loss in mileage or any symptoms of problems. I believe I can move into the future with renewable fuel which supports the US economy and farmer, or continue to support Opec and the Middle East. I vote USA.
Atilla
Rochester, Mn
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 12:26:25 PM
How about we get rid of ethanol subsidies?
How much is ethanol subsidized PER GALLON by the federal Government?
Isn’t it around 50 cents?
There’s a difference between a cost effective “energy strategy” and a “subsidy” to help the rural economy/ethanol producers/SPECIAL INTERESTS and the two are not the same.
Is the goal of ethanol merely to help farmers, - another social program, only this one is for people who wear flannel?
There’s very little evidence to support the contention that somehow ethanol is saving the environment OR the average working stiff money.
The fact that we continually head down this special interest road and STILL can’t agree on what the point of ethanol is, suggests REALLY really poor public policy.
E85Prices
St Cloud, Mn
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 12:30:02 PM
Interesting that the Professor didn’t have even one fact correct.
1. The EPA is NOT “requiring” E15.. E15 would be an option for those States and Stations that wanted to carry e15. A very elementary fact the Professor cant seem to get a handle on.
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/2009/May/Day-20/a11785.htm
2. There is no “upgrading” of any vehicle needed. Every Vehicle part is already ethanol compatible for low blends like E15. Has been since the early 1980s after “gasohol” was introduced in the 1970s.
The only time any part like the fuel injectors would need upgrading would be for higher blend ethanol like E85 (855 ethanol / 15% gasoline.)
3.Corn ethanol does NOT raise food prices. Proof?
Corn is at $3.79 a bushel (56lbs) think about that folks you can buy 56lbs of corn for $3.79 !
We made a billion more Gallons of corn ethanol this year than we did last year when corn jumped to nearly $8 a bushel.
There is literally just pennies worth of “corn” in your cereal, poultry and beef. 99% of th cost of food is due to manufacturing, processing , transport , wages and profits.
Lastly we find that the Good Professor is simply a hack for the Oil Companies
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjMyNjBkOWUyYjhkYmZkYWE1ZWZmZThjYjU2OTc4YTY=&w;=MA==
We Import 68% of the Oil we use and most of that is for transportation fuels. 165 of the Oil we import comes directly for the Middle east and Countries that despise us. Lets be frank it doesn’t just come here , we spend hundreds of billion as importing it. Funding those that hate us and subsidizing it with the blood of our Troops .
Ethanol already displaces 8% (early 11 billion gallons a year now) of the Oil we need and you never even know it when driving..you could be driving on e15 and you would never now the difference) But if you did now it..wouldn’t that at least give you “some satisfaction that you are you are lowering your personal reliance on OPEC?as well as helping to keep Americans employed. That is tens of billions going to local communities. Employing Americans instead of OPEC
Atilla
Rochester, Mn
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 12:36:52 PM
Check out this website:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/progs/cost_anal.php?0/E85/
You can punch in your type of flex fuel vehicle and state and see what your operating costs difference is between E85 and straight gasoline.
You’ll see that most cars get between 25% and 30% LESS gas mileage with E85.
The difference in cost of gasoline per gallon isn’t much, but the cost difference IS significant.
For an F-150 truck, the gas mileage drops from 14.86 miles per gallon to 11.16 miles per gallon.
Yes, you actually put out less CO2, but you also used less gas, AND you also took a hit in the pocketbook for doing so.
alcohol10
1
visalia, ca
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 12:42:23 PM
Once again a column of onesided views in an aarea of changing teh energy needs of our contry. Once upon a time ethylene was sold at the gas pump. Let’s see ethanol ethylene sounds very similar. Before oil became teh main source of our fuel our cars used ethanol. Did the engines run the same. NO they had to be modified to run on gasoline. I am sure teh country griped about that change as well. i did not read anything about the how clean ethanol burns compared to gasoline in this article. The infation of our country and greed makes it a bigger change over but mayber we should ask the Brazilians how well their ecomony is doing without the intake of huge amounts of oil. America needs to wake up to teh fact that with money any body can be persuaded to change a view point. Big oil is pumping a large amount of maney to get any bad publicity out on ethanol. So teh ethanol has a big lobby. I can assure you it is minute compared to big oil lobbies. It is time to big our greed behind us and do what we need to gain enegy independence. We need to invest in ethanol a step at a time and do teh research to take brunt of its production off of corn. But articles like this are published with only part of teh story being told. The problematic engines were not and arre not set up to run ethanol. Do you put diesel in a gas burner. I don’t think so. Same difference here. Flex fuel vehicles are here just as hybrid vehicles are here. Teh big oil companies are still making profets hand over fist and we pay for it at the pump. So yes I am very pro ethanol and always will be. I will stive to continue in researching better ways to make ethanol out of other feed stuffs beside grain.
E85Prices
St Cloud, Mn
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 12:54:47 PM
The Professors rant ignores the Fact that E20 isn’t a big deal let alone E15, that ere in Minnesota we have a Mandate (yes a actual requirement) that all Gasoline contain 20% ethanol by 2013.
“On May 10th, Minnesota’s Governor signed a bill into law that could result in a requirement that the state’s gasoline supplies contain 20 percent ethanol (E-20). If the rules go into effect, it would double the current 10 percent ethanol blends that are now standard throughout the state.
Under the legislation, a new E-20 mandate would take effect in 2013 unless ethanol has already replaced 20 percent of the state’s motor vehicle fuel by 2010. The rule would expire at the end of 2010 if Minnesota is not granted federal approval to use E-20 gasoline blends.
Professor Bruce Jones, Minnesota Center for Automotive Research at Minnesota State University, Mankato, reported on a study the university conducted on 15 vehicles comparing the burning of E-10 gasoline to E-30 (a higher ethanol level than proposed). No driveability or material compatible problems were experienced during the study, and all emissions were low and well below federal standards.
Minnesota has North America’s largest network of E-85 (85% ethanol blend) gas stations with approximately 130 stations now available to consumers. Minnesota was the first state to require the use of ethanol in gasoline. Other states are beginning to follow suit. Last year Hawaii enacted a measure similar to Minnesota’s mandate. The Governor of Montana signed their new E-10 requirement into law this past Friday.
The ethanol industry provides jobs for more than 5,300 Minnesotans and pumps $1.3 billion dollars into Minnesota’s economy. There are 14 ethanol plants in Minnesota that produce more than 450 million gallons of ethanol every year, with two more plants currently under construction. Minnesota ranks 4th in the nation in production of fuel-grade ethanol, after Iowa, Illinois and Nebraska. Minnesota corn growers send approximately 15% of their crop to ethanol plants.”
http://www.newrules.org/energy/news/minnesota-passes-20-percent-ethanol-mandate
Upto at least 20% there are no issues. Brazil’s “base” fuel is 22% ethanol.
For even higher blends ten you want to start looking at owning a Flex fuel vehicle that can run any blend of ethanol up-to 85% (E85)(added cost ? less than $150.
That’s right it is such a “ non big deal” that the cost for the Auto Industry is less than $150 to convert any non FFV to a FFV.. they change the Fuel Mapping (software /coding ) cars computer and sometimes use a different fuel injector.
By 2015 80% of ALL vehicles coming off the Assembly line will be FFVs capable of running any blend of gas and ethanol upo 85% ethanol(for the outrageous sum of $150 per vehicle) there are already nearly 8 million FFVs on the road. In Minnesota it isn’t a big deal …we all see flex fuel vehicles everyday.
The Professor can spread the nonsense but it wont fly here in Minnesota because we ALL already drive on at least 10% ethanol and know your car doesn’t blow up and and of the other fear mongering nonsense .
E15 ? Big deal? Bring it on..let’s continue to lower our dependence on foreign oil while at the same time creating more American jobs
USEconomy
Buff
Dell Rapids, SD
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 1:08:26 PM
E85Prices pointed out a huge error in your OPINION peice. The EPA is considering ALLOWING, not RECQUIRING, consumers to choose UP TO 15%. The current mandates recquire our fuel to be 90% gasoline in non-flex fuel vehicles. Lets have a little bit of a free market and let the consumer decide.
Shouldn’t this be an easy decision for a professor of law and business? Stopping ethanol growth now will completely kill any cellulosic development (If it is made, what we would do with it? We are at the 10% blend wall, there is no market for cellulosic!)
It is hard for me to believe that someone in your position can advocate an economic plan that sends hundreds of billions of dollars overseas that can stay here and circulate throughout our economy.
You mentioned “the politically powerful ethanol lobby and farm state senators”. I don’t think anyone believes that they can hold a candle to the political power and lobbying money oil has had the chance to lay out for the last 60 years.
The decision is very clear: OPEC oil for fuel or American ingenuity for fuel?
mikeetay
Georgetown, TX
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 1:27:11 PM
The article is full of silly concepts. Just a quote that corn-based ethanol is a terrible transportation fuel - but why, where does this come from and for who (refiners?). It is completely unsubstantiated comment that starts the subject of the ‘piece’ (which is an opinion piece not worth the electronic paper).
Switching to higher ethanol blends has been much easier to deploy in Brazil where we (US) are well behind the curve. Note that any change to the fuel is only a risk to auto-makers, so of course they will hedge their bets and state that they’d like to get out of their warranty commitments. When MTBE/reformulated gasoline came out this additive was also going to destroy engines and dissolve gaskets. It didn’t, ethanol doesn’t. Acidity is managed as a specification on ethanol production - so this is not a widely varying component - it is a product specification. It is measured and managed on every batch. The myth on ethanol/water separation and octane variation on blends is also an old wives tale that doesn’t reflect current gasoline tank design and conditions. If you are driving a ‘57 Chevy, when this alarm/scare was first published you may have a problem. Anyone else - ignore this one also. How often does your mechanic need to drain the water puddle in the bottom of your gasoline tank (oh that is never).
Pixelsmit
h
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 3:28:20 PM
ethanol can not be delivered via a pipe line. you need to use trucks and lots of trains to haul it. more trains means more vehicles sitting with engines running waiting for the train to pass or waiting for the trucks to stop at every train crossing.
ethanol sounds good on paper, thats it.
MikeGreen
Toronto, ON
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 3:37:19 PM
This column shouldn’t be called Both Sides - One Sided would be more appropriate. Professor, every major automaker in the world sells cars in Brazil, where all gasoline contains 25% ethanol by law - not since a year ago, but since the mid-70s. There has never been a case where an automaker has backed out of anything related to a car warranty in Brazil because of ethanol content in the gasoline. This is not something that needs further study - every major automaker has data from more than 30 years’ experience in real life, on the road, with their own vehicles in Brazil, often the same cars driven in America. What you’re doing in this article is strictly scaremongering. Knock ethanol for other reasons, not for damaging cars or anything else. Strangely, there are no problems reported with boats, lawnmowers, trimmers or other small engines in Brazil either - it takes very little to ensure that no engines of any type are affected by ethanol, and it’s just not worth all the whining that doesn’t take the benefits into consideration.
johnsonj
Sioux Falls, SD
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 4:01:07 PM
Ethanol can be piplined and it wouldn’t surprise me to see one in the near future.
Atilla
Rochester, Mn
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 4:10:07 PM
The “special interests” are out in full force....I see they’ve been rocking the vote like ACORN too.
flightlin
e
Rochester, mn
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 4:15:14 PM
The first thing that can be done to lower taxes, is drop any subsidies for Corn Ethanol. I guess that shows which side I am on.
I do a lot of highway driving along and either side of I-90, and I will always fill up with non-Ethanol gasoline in Iowa if at all possible. If there were no subsidies for Ethanol, those plants would be just weeds and rusty iron.
If folks want to see how much Ethanol it takes to corrode a fuel system, in a car not made for excessive concentrations, let them do it with their cars. Just watch the clueless dolts filling up with E85 in non-flex fuel cars too.
USEconomy
Buff
Dell Rapids, SD
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 4:21:43 PM
To Pixelsmith:
“ethanol can not be delivered via a pipe line”
Who told you that? Was it Mr. Morriss? You might want to check the facts before beleiving OPINIONS.
We are piping ethanol in the US:
http://tampabay.bizjournals.com/tampabay/stories/2008/11/03/story2.html
They are doing it in Brazil:
http://ethablog.blogspot.com/2006/10/brazils-petrobras-to-build-ethanol.html
Since you brought up transportation, how about discussing the movement of the raw material? Corn usually has less than 20 miles to get to a biorefinery. Crude oil shipped from the Persian gulf to a refinery? Not even a comparison. And a trailer of corn doesn’t need a billion dollar military escort:
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/26194
The indirect effects of oil are astounding. What is it about oil that is so appealing to you? Please keep in mind that oil campanies are fully aware of the threat ethanol is presenting to their profits, so let the facts influence your stand instead of “opinions” that are without truth. Mr. Morris might be a little bias, type his name in a search engine and see where his ties are.
E85Prices
St Cloud, Mn
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 4:47:57 PM
Enough of subsidizing Oil , OPEC and the Middle East.(Blood as well as Money)
We send hundreds of billions each year OUT of the United States subsidizing oil.
Keep that Money here in the US Providing Jobs and Security for the United States.
Act like an American for a change and start demanding more domestic fuels like Ethanol ..and yes even domestic oil.(No you cant drill off the shore of Florida’s Tourist beaches, National Parks etc.. where the did common sense ever go ?)
We import 68% of the Oil we need.
As Nation , for our own National Security we have to stop importing Oil or one day we will be held hostage to the whims of every Country that supplies us. We Already have seen Bush and Cheney kissing the Saudis hand and begging for relief as well as seeing Obama bow to the Saudi Kings.
It is a National Disgrace that we are kissing and bowing to anyone ..
We are subservient ..we are Slaves ..it is embarrassing as well as dangerous.
To GW Bush’s as well as Obama’s credit both have pursued Ethanol .. so this isn’t a right or left issue it is a National Security issue.
Plenty of lefty/righty issue to debate . But ethnaol is not debateable..it is the right thing to do for our Country to lower our dependence on others , provide a a energy National Independence as well as providing hundreds of thousands of Jobs here in the States.
I would like everyone to 4minutes and see the next generation ethnaol ..that can be made out of ANYTHING.. including wood chips , garbage, industrial waste and even tires ! Corn whether you like it or not is just the foundation to get us to these next generation of ethanol.
Check out the Video
http://coskata.com/
OnlyTheTr
uth
MN, MN
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 6:32:28 PM
Yes, you can pip ethanol, but not in existing pipes.
It would have to be a new pipeline for its own use.
That does not exist today, except within a plant.
On the flipside:
Others who talk about burning gas by waiting at a grade crossing for an ethanol train to pass, needs counseling.
What a lame issue.
BillyK
Butler, Pa
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 6:56:30 PM
This story is one sided and reflects poorly on those that are in the “Media”. Various State and Federal Governmental groups continue to produce studies indicating all is ok with intermediate ethanol blends.
Dano
PineIsland, MN
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 7:49:15 PM
Lets have a reality check for a moment.
First, Ideal air-fuel mixture in any gasoline combustion engine is 14.7:1.
A non flex vehicle is capable of changes in temperature, altitude, throttle position, barometric pressure etc etc. With that being said your engine is constantly hunting for the best mixture of air-fuel.
One thing any non flex fuel car cannot sense is the alcohol content in the fuel. As I stated before, the more alcohol in the fuel, more fuel is needed to perfect the mixture.
One poster says, “yea I ran E20 in my vehicle with no change in mileage.”
I truly wonder why this is? I will tell all of you that haven’t figured it out yet. The vehicle he is driving has no clue he is putting in more alcohol in the fuel. This creates a condition called a “lean burn”. How does the engine compensate for this? Well if it is severe enough, the engine will knock or “ping”. You will never hear it because todays engines have a knock sensor in the engine block that retards the engine ignition timing to “save” your engine from complete meltdown. Retarding the engine timing does one for you, lose horsepower.
The reality of the situation is, until vehicles can sense the fuel they are using “flex fuel cars can” there is no advantage what so ever to up the alcohol content.
PeaceLady
Fountain, MN
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 7:59:02 PM
By the way, I wonder how much gasoline is used in our war “efforts” Half the federal taxes go for military uses… Maybe that’s a leak we should fix. Or is that what our current conflict is about? Somebodies are just too happy with theirprofits from our addiction to the automobile.
Dano
PineIsland, MN
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 8:00:40 PM
If anyone doesn’t believe me, pour about 10 bottles of Isopropal “Heat” in your gas tank and see what happens.
goldenerg
y
Semmes, AL
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 8:09:06 PM
This is a completely fear based column. Higher ethanol content will not require modifications to existing cars. In fact, I know plenty of people who run ethanol up to E50 in non flex fuel cars and get better mpg plus increased power/performance.
Ethanol provides the extra oxygen needed for gasoline to burn more completely & efficiently. E30 to E50 is the optimal blend for regular gas...the EPA should be open to increasing to these levels in the near future. With baseline gasoline blended with higher concentrations of ethanol will allow us to use engines with high compression ratios (ethanol has an octane rating of over 113) and allow for highly efficient & powerful 4 to 6 cylinder engines.
JonnyEner
gy
Chicago, Il
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 9:19:01 PM
After this obvious pro-oil article it is obvious that the American people are sick of being dependant on foreign oil and would rather support our own. It is nice to see that the big oil money machine is starting to lose its grip. A 2-1 margin for E15 so far. Why don’t the supports think about going all the way and buy a flex fuel to E85 or convert their vehicles to flex. Many excellent kits out there ie White Lightning kits. Keep the fight up and support a cleaner, superior, American made product. -JonnyEnergy E85 Kits
usaforeve
r
Albert Lea, MN
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 9:36:29 PM
It amazes me that all you “negative opinion” people are so close minded! Open your mind to the POSITIVES
sunshines
c
Lake City, Mn
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 9:40:03 PM
Good job presenting the facts! One more point- the ethanol producers do not get the 50 cent per gallon tax credit, that goes to the oil companies for every gallon of ethanol that is blended with gasoline. Anyone interested in the lifecycle GHG debate should read Ken Cassman’s study from the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, which clearly shows a huge advantage to adding more ethanol to our gasoline supply. We have been using a 40/60 blend of ethanol/gasoline in our 2001 suburban (non FFV) for over 2 years, with no adverse effects and an increase in MPG. Several studies have shown similar results.
sciguy
Cambridge, MN
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 11:14:29 PM
Been using 30-40% ethanol blended into gasoline for many months now in a non-FFV 2006 Impala. No problems. Acceleration is great, and fuel economy has decreased barely, but it’s lower priced than the mpg loss. This article presents several biases and near-falsehoods, exaggerations, etc. Most people don’t realize that Ford’s Model T was made to run on ethanol, and that decades ago they phased out any components that weren’t ethanol compliant from modern vehicles. Biggest difference between an FFV and non-FFV is the computer program to adjust for octane. Please stop spreading the myths that play to dependence on imported petroleum, war, and exporting $Billions.
Patriot
Mazeppa, MN
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 12:06:21 AM
From Wikipedia:
Fuel economy
In theory, all fuel-driven vehicles have a fuel economy (measured as miles per US gallon, or liters per 100 km) that is directly proportional to the fuel’s energy content.[40] In reality, there are many other variables that come in to play that affect the performance of a particular fuel in a particular engine. Ethanol contains approx. 34% less energy per unit volume than gasoline, and therefore in theory, burning pure ethanol in a vehicle will result in a 34% reduction in miles per US gallon, given the same fuel economy, compared to burning pure gasoline. Since ethanol has a higher octane rating, the engine can be made more efficient by raising its compression ratio. In fact using a variable turbocharger, the compression ratio can be optimized for the fuel being used, making fuel economy almost constant for any blend. .[18][19] For E10 (10% ethanol and 90% gasoline), the effect is small (~3%) when compared to conventional gasoline,[41] and even smaller (1-2%) when compared to oxygenated and reformulated blends.[42] However, for E85 (85% ethanol), . Actual performance may vary depending on the vehicle. Based on EPA tests for all 2006 E85 models, the average fuel economy for E85 vehicles resulted 25.56% lower than unleaded gasoline.[43] The EPA-rated mileage of current USA flex-fuel vehicles[44] should be considered when making price comparisons, but it must be noted that E85 is a high performance fuel, with an octane rating of about 104, and should be compared to premium. In one estimate[45] the US retail price for E85 ethanol is 2.62 US dollar per gallon or 3.71 dollar corrected for energy equivalency compared to a gallon of gasoline priced at 3.03 dollar. Brazilian cane ethanol (100%) is priced at 3.88 dollar against 4.91 dollar for E25 (as July 2007).
flightlin
e
Rochester, mn
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 10:17:24 AM
The 2010 GM Flex Fuel engine uses different valves, valve seats, and unique stainless injectors. Those using the E85 long term in non flex fuel engines keep us informed, how long the valves, seats, fuel lines, pump , fuel rail and injectors hold out in your engines. As I understand it, the effects will not be immediate but will in fact happen.
1outlaw
Wautoma, WI
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 11:14:47 AM
I have been using E20 in my 1996 Silverado since 2004. I started when it had 100,000 miles on it and continue using it today with 230,000 miles. At times I had the % up to E60. The fuel system is all factory original. To the guy that says that non-flex fuel vehicles cannot sense alcohol content and thus run lean- this is not the case it closed loop operation since the O2 sensor readings cause the ECU to meet the A/F requirements. The open loop operation is corrected in most vehicles via the learn function so that even at near WOT the needs are met. I also run my 2004 turbo Saab and my 2000 Yukon on E20. All are unmodified and with my full function scan tool I have monitored and recorded live run data- all are operating well within normal engine requirements. By using E20 in the Saab I avoid buying 93 octane and since my MPG’s are 31.8 for E0 premium, E20, and E27.5 I use higher alcohol levels for best performance AND lowest cost per mile. As far as the corrosion issues- all USA fuel grade ethanol contains corrosion inhibitors and as such in today’s closed fuel systems it is a non-issue. As far as seals and hoses go- google Cole Palmer and once there type in ethyl alcohol and then gasoline to compare. You will find that gasoline is a much harder compound to satisfy than any of the alcohols. Furthermore- the chrt will show you that the components that meet gasoline’s needs are also ok for ethanol.
Pixelsmit
h
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 12:40:03 PM
would any of you supporters like to buy a house across the street and down wind from an ethanol plant?
OnlyTheTr
uth
MN, MN
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 12:49:56 PM
Pixelsmith- How many Ethanol plants are built in a neighborhood? Mmmmm? The Eyota proposal was outside of town. Correct?
As for smell, you are way behind the times. Years ago, they got sued for releasing VOCs (volatile organic compounds) and have since installed scrubbers to get rid of the smell.
Your logic would mean no power plants, no manufacturing, no refineries, no industry, no animal farms, no incinerators, no nothing.
You’d make a good candidate to live in a valley that have only cave people. Oh wait, you’d be complaining about the smoke coming from camp fires.
USEconomy
Buff
Dell Rapids, SD
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 1:18:36 PM
What happened to the poll? Last I checked, the vote was in favor of increasing the blend by more than 2 to 1.
USEconomy
Buff
Dell Rapids, SD
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 1:21:15 PM
And to Pixelsmith… you would prefer living next to an oil refinery?
raquintal
Dallas, TX
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 1:47:19 PM
I would voice my solid, 100% support for Ethanol in our fuel. I have had no issues with blending as high as 30% ethanol in my fuel. I routinely run my 95’ Chevy Tahoe, 01’ Toyota Camry and Mazda CX-9 on gasoline blended with ethanol. Folks ethanol is a home grown solution that creates jobs for America, increases our national security by limiting foriegn oil importance and will burn in your vehicles and lawn mowers just fine. Their are a lot scientific studies that prove that point. Go green, Go America and Go Ethanol.
Ripper
SE, MN
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 2:03:40 PM
There alot of other issues you have not thought of. Can you imagine all the crop land being planted in corn? That in itself has a major problem. You have to rotate crops, otherwise the land gets used up. The nutrients must be replaced, and you can’t do that if you plant corn in the same field year after year. Now a second thought. There would be only one reason to plant that much corn. It has to sustain an ethanol plant. Now you have more land being used, which means more chemicals, because we all know that you aren’t going to cultivate those fields, that means more chemical runoff into streams and lakes, or maybe someones well that they have for drinking water. Now we have all this, and now the farmer is planting to make more money by selling as much corn as he can. Did I leave anyone out? Oh ya, I forgot the livestock that depends on the corn, to make them ready for market. Now as the farmer has to go buy the corn, which is 3 times more than it was a year ago, he has to get more for his product. So who gets screwed? The consumer, and just who is that? Its us humans that need to eat. So in a nutshell, the big farmer puts the little farmer out of business because of his greed for money.
Like it or not, Ethanol is bad for engines. Non oxy is the way to go. It may cost a little bit more, but its worth it. Today I was trying to get all the ethanol out of my motorcycle, and strapped a 1 gallon tank to the bike and off I took to the streets just hoping to run out. I finally did. I pulled over and filled up the tank with what I had of non oxy. What a world of difference it made. My motorcycle mechanic told me to do this, with any engine. I guess he was right about the ethanol.If the the car manufactures are against the E15, there must be something behind it. I suppose they have to reinvent the engine just to make it burn that nasty stuff. Rochester has 3 places that sell the non oxy, and hopefully this will catch on more and more stations will handle it. Maybe if enough phone calls are made to these stations, they may think about handleing it. Not every engine can burn this crap, so for those of us that have older cars from the 70’s and later, I don’t think we want to wreck an engine just to save a few pennys.
Ripper
SE, MN
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 2:13:01 PM
As someone else said. Lets get rid of the government subsidies and see how many investors are ready to take on building one. Its a cash cow for them and they know it. Take away the prize and see if they stay in business long. You see those plants going belly up every year, and the farmer gets screwed because he had a contract to sell his corn. Well if the price of corn hits the bottom and he has a contract for a certain amount of money to be paid to him for his corn, the ethanol plant can’t make a profit so they fold, and the farmer gets nothing.
Ripper
SE, MN
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 2:19:01 PM
If you want to see what damage they do, here is a link, but I think just doing a search on ethanol itself will give you a better idea of the problems associated with them.
http://homepage.mac.com/oscura/ctd/incidents.html
Ripper
SE, MN
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 2:24:55 PM
This is funny. Did anyone hear that the US could import Ethanol from Brazil? What a joke. Now your still being dependant on foreign Ethanol.It takes all kinds. Ha,ha.
sciguy
Cambridge, MN
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 10:09:14 PM
Ripper, you don’t have an agricultural background. Corn is grown now often 2 years in a row, then rotated 1 year with soybeans. Our agricultural acreage actually IS DECREASING over time, especially as we have been INCREASING ethanol production. We do this because we keep on yielding more bushels per acre, and due to urban sprawl. Seriously, check out the NASS and USDA facts before spouting off myths. Only 1/3 of the corn kernel becomes ethanol—the other 2/3 become coproducts that can be sold. Much of that is LIVESTOCK FEED in the form of high protein distillers grains. The starch portion that is used for ethanol is not digested well by cows, and often causes more methane gas release (methane actually is a serious greenhouse gas). Seriously Rip, get a GRip.
sciguy
Cambridge, MN
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 10:13:33 PM
Rip, more subsidies are given for petroleum production than for biofuels. However, that is only a small part of the story. A hidden subsidy is the necessity for our military to protect oil fields and shipping routes so that we can import foreign petroleum. That may amount to $Hundreds of Billions annually!! The taxpayer does not see the full price at the pump—it would be at least $10 per gallon of gasoline were we to pay for the military protection at the pump; rather than in our withholding taxes out of our paychecks. Now numerous studies are being published about the health consequences of burning gasoline in ICE vehicles—more $Hundreds of Billions of hidden costs for imported petroleum! What a Rip!
Ripper
SE, MN
Posted on 11/7/2009 at 8:02:51 AM
sciguy—-I did read a report about the military as you said, but they are looking for fuel based NOT on any food crop such as corn. Here is the link.
http://www.examiner.com/x-8178-Phoenix-Green-Business-Examiner~y2009m11d5-Biofuels-key-to-rid-US-foreign-oil-dependence
Also your idea that I don’t have a farming background is not true. I grew up on a farm, and one crop you left out is alfalfa. That is a crop that help replenish the ground and add nutrients back in. You still don’t address the question of weed killers that are sprayed on the ground that leach into streams and rivers, depriving them of oxygen to sustain life.
As for your distillers grain used as feed, there are studies being done from the Kansas State University that suggest that ecoli in beef is far more prevalent in livestock that is fed this vs not feeding it, so there must be something to this.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/06/06/distillers_2008/
You say “Our agricultural acreage actually IS DECREASING over time, especially as we have been INCREASING ethanol production. We do this because we keep on yielding more bushels per acre, and due to urban sprawl” but from what will happen if more plants are being erected, that farmers will be planting wall to wall corn, thus using up all the land that is set aside for CRP, by draining it and planting it. I have seen many fields the past 10 years grow the same thing on it and that being corn. Just how can this land sustain these crops? What is being done to regenerate the soil? We know that atrazine is being used, and that runoff from fields is adding to the pollution. I don’t think I want to be drinking water that has even a trace of that in there. As for spouting off myths, as you say, I can read, search, or whatever to find out what is going on in the world. I am not too old yet that I can’t comprehend what is happening here.
http://www.pheasantcountry.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080130/TONYDEAN/80130001
OnlyTheTr
uth
MN, MN
Posted on 11/7/2009 at 8:16:04 AM
Like I thought I mentioned earlier, the USA can NOT produce enough Ethanol for a nationwide 10% blend.
So, how on earth can someone think of raising the mandate to 15, 20, whatever percent?
This is all poppycock.
JenL
Wichita, KS
Posted on 11/9/2009 at 9:37:48 AM
I think this author could use a remedial course in thorough reporting. I won’t reiterate the myriad arguments against his viewpoint except to say this..
One thing worth comment that I don’t see mentioned here is DDGs created by the ethanol process. One user commented that farmers are having to buy corn that is higher in price now (the user makes the incorrect assumption that this is due solely to ethanol).
However, farmers located near any ethanol plant will tell you that a great portion of their feed has been replaced by Dried Distiller’s Grains (DDGs) and they use much less corn. Livestock love DDGs. In fact cattle have been known to turn their nose up at corn feed after trying DDG. And DDG is a perfectly safe, easily digestible form of corn that has a high nutritive value and ethanol plants practically give it away because it is an un-used byproduct of the ethanol process.
DDG is essentially corn after the starch is removed to feed the ethanol process. The fat, fiber, protein and nutrients left afterward make for a very cost-effective way for farmers to give their livestock a high-quality feed at an affordable price. This is not a new practice, breweries were doing this long before ethanol came around.
There are many many facets to the ethanol argument. It is unfortunate that the author chose to buy into the anti-ethanol hype rather than engage in some useful research and thoughtful reporting.
Ripper
SE, MN
Posted on 11/9/2009 at 10:43:14 AM
The point being, that the farmer will plant wall to wall corn just to satisfy the ethanol plant. You know they are going to do it, and once it starts, its hard not to look at that cash cow in the face. I have heard that the distillers corn cannot stay on the property for more than 3 days as it starts to spoil. That should smell good right next to town. So if all the corn is being used to make ethanol, where does that leave the general populist? Higher prices at the grocery store. Maybe they think that humans can eat that stuff. Too many unknowns here.
CleanFuel
s
San Jose, CA
Posted on 11/10/2009 at 12:08:30 AM
Just put in 8 gallons (E50) of ethanol from a Microfueler by EFUEL into my 1995 Mazda truck (103,000 miles on it) and drove it 30 miles today with no problems. The ethanol was made from discarded wine! I’ll keep increasing the ethanol percentage and report back. I can make my own fuel, seems like a great solution to me; local waste, abundant, US made, cleaner, and cheaper than gas.
Ripper
SE, MN
Posted on 11/10/2009 at 2:43:51 AM
I went to their webpage, to find out what it will cost. Nothing there, unless you want them to contact you. I was hoping to see a price, or something there. I don’t know if local laws would allow this, but that is something that would have to be looked into. So what did 8 gallons of that stuff cost? Made from wine? I think it would have to be cheap wine at that, and I mean cheap. Whats the mileage on it? What conversions do you have to make to the engine? Theres got to be more to this than that. Its funny how people cab find this newspaper to comment on it, that are from other states. Do you have a dog in this fight?
CleanFuel
s
San Jose, CA
Posted on 11/10/2009 at 11:37:58 AM
rip, my only dog in this hunt is to get off of oil, especially foreign oil. No conversion kit, no nothing needed, just put in the nozzle and filled up just like a regular gas pump. I think there is a big myth out there that all these upgrades/conversion are needed to run ethanol. As someone stated earlier, Henry Ford started using ethanol in the early 1900’s. Then came prohibition (backed by none other than John Rockefeller, yeap Standard Oil. many stories out there on the net about this)ethanol couldn’t be produced anymore, so big oil was able to take off after 13 years of prohibition.
The cost of the Microfueler is on their website, listed at $10,000. There is also, I believe, of $5,000 federal tax incentive because this falls under a renewable energy tax credit, Still investigating. EFUEL states that the Microfueler can make 280 gallons of ethanol a week. Here in the Bay Area gas prices are still over $3/gal. If I get buy the ethanol at $2/gal this starts making sense real fast especially for a fleet owner, municipality and even for a resident that has to commute long distances.
So this seems like a winner to me; cleaner, lower cost, renewable, distributive, use of local waste, keeps money and jobs in the US. As long as the sun keeps shining, organic material (feedstock) will keep growing.
SteveVG
Wichita, KS
Posted on 11/10/2009 at 12:18:14 PM
The problem is, your air to fuel mixture has to change. The more alcohol in the fuel, the more fuel is needed. In short you will just lose gas mileage.
Dano, you are just as ignorant as this reporter. Efficiency today is all about octane. I just spent 3 days at a SAE conference and every spark ignition report refers to the knock limit of the fuel. Timing strategy is so critical to efficiency. If you want to learn, look up SAE paper 2009-01-1907 from MIT or SAE 2009-01-0140 from SWI. Ethanol provides the best efficiency and reaches that beyond diesel. Most vehicles today have knock sensors that effect timing.
E85 was not picked by the ethanol industry, it was picked by OEM’s so they could sell more SUV’s. If we approached this from efficiency, cars today would be optimized from E0 to E30 with less than $100 cost. Cars of tomorrow like Ford’s Ecoboost or GM’s Ecotech which are turbo-charged would be optimize for all blends up to around E60. Then by volume, ethanol would equal gasoline and do it with 30 percent less energy, and that’s an additional 30 percent reduction in carbon.
Grow Baby Grow
larsdunnj
r
Nevada, IA
Posted on 11/11/2009 at 12:34:19 AM
Give me a break—a lawyer talking about the scientific aspects of ethanol use. Who could be less qualified? The lack of this person’s qualifications are indicated by his completely erroneous comments—did he make it all up? For example, automobile engines can use well over 30% ethanol blends as is, no changes, and actually get better gas mileage than on straight gas. Why wouldn’t anyone want to do that? Damage to your car that’s not going to happen, because it’s already been tested and found not to happen? Typical scare tactics by someone who doesn’t want change. Because you own stock in oil companies maybe? Wanting the status quo, no changes, with big profits for certain parties in total control—sounds like healthcare, doesn’t it? Let’s not rush, we might make a mistake, even though we’ve already put off changing for over 30 years (see the corp. gas mileage ratings for American car companies).
So many bad things will happen if we use more ethanol: higher food prices (false), higher fuel prices (false), environmental damage (false), damage to your car (false). What about lower fuel prices (true), less pollution (true), less dependence on foreign oil (true), lower profits for oil companies (true).
Your choice—let the government study it for ten more years, arrive at the wrong conclusion because of lobbying by oil companies, cause more damage to the environment and pay billions of more money to oil companies and foreign countries or start making the change. The science is already in, has been for decades. Keep the lawyers out of it, or nothing will happen except for the rich getting richer.
Ripper
SE, MN
Posted on 11/11/2009 at 8:13:12 AM
So your take on it is the heck with the environment. Your probably one of those big corn operators just waiting to rake in the money from planting wall to wall corn. What about the pollution these plants emit? Smells that will trigger an asthma attack. If you have never had one, count yourself lucky. What about ground water, streams, lakes and rivers? More corn, more herbicides and insecticides being used. That equates to more chemical runoff. My brother in law when he grinds feed uses all the kernel of corn, when he grinds it for his cattle, cows, hogs, chickens etc. He is against it, so are alot of small farmers, so you can see where this will benefit farmers that run thousands of acres, you know the type that uses all the chemicals to squeeze out the most of their land yield, and forget about the people that live down stream. What is that popular bumper sticker going around about 10 years ago? “We all can’t live upsteam”
Our planet is trying to recover from pollution, and in my opinion, these are great polluters.
Instead of thinking about yourself and how much your going to make a profit, maybe you should think about your neighbors and town people and their feelings.
Why would we want to drain the wetlands, and take CRP land out of the program that has sustained wildlife, and turn it to the plow? Only one reason I can see, and that is greed. They say, that they can’t grow enough corn to sustain 15 percent nationwide, so I guess we will just import the ethanol from Brazil? Last time I checked that was a foreign country. I don’t hold any stock in eith ethanol or the oil companies, and sure don’t want to end up trying to fund a superfund for a waste dump after the ethanol plant has a leak or cars of it derail. Just think what it would do to the groundwater. Once you start polluting, its tough to go back the other way and get it all cleaned up to the way it was. Take the Mississippi. How many years has it taken for it to come back, and it still has a quota of fish meals you can eat out of that river for a month. Now take a pristine water supply and have this happen to it. Cities and towns relie on this water for their drinking water.It would be a shame if the water the town and city uses is polluted because of an ethanol plant. For California, it is a supply and demand thing. Look what the price of fuel is in Wyoming?
gasbuddy.com
Ripper
SE, MN
Posted on 11/11/2009 at 8:29:05 AM
http://www.eenews.net/public/eenewspm/2009/03/18/3
Worth taking a look at.
Ripper
SE, MN
Posted on 11/11/2009 at 8:30:50 AM
http://www.minnesotagasprices.com/Price_By_County.aspx?state=MN&c;=usa
reader008
Chatfield, Mn
Posted on 11/11/2009 at 2:21:43 PM
want to know where your gas tax dollars are going:
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28
