10% Ethanol, Heads Up!

[keegs]

A few simple ideas:
1) Trade out V8 gas for diesel V6 in trucks and SUVs pulling less than 10,000lb
2) Trade in 4 and 6 cylinder diesel or DI gas/turbo for whatever else is in passenger cars these days
3) Crank up the gas tax to encourage more efficient engines and to pay down the deficit (tied to some sort of cap on spending). Works in Europe. I know this is getting political but I'd gladly pay more taxes if it meant conserving fuel so we don't send our treasure and troops overseas to keep us moving.

How is it that our European forebearers seem to be able to travel and do business with about half the fuel per mile we do? Whatever that combo is would be a good target even if we don't cut our use by quite as much.

I just bought a new SUV that averages about 19mpg. That sucks. I'd have gladly traded a couple of seconds in 0-60 for a 25mpg average but didn't have the choice. I was disappointed that the only way I could have purchased a diesel SUV was by forking over $50-60+K to Mercedes, VW BMW or Audi. I'm not that stupid having already suffered for twelve years with my last MB SUV. The Jetta diesel is great but not quite big enough for my purposes. Why can't we get fuel efficient diesels in non luxury vehicles made outside Germany? The Germans only charge an extra grand or two or three for a modern diesel. I'd pay that no question to get 25mpg from an SUV. I would have been happy to pay a premium to buy GM or Ford or any Japanese or Korean brand if they sold one with a modern diesel.

I'm on the fence with the diesels. They get better mileage but fuel costs are typically higher and I'm not sure whether there's that much benefit when you consider how much can be derived from a barrel of imported oil.

You implied a higher fuel economy standard. I agree with that and we're in fact heading for 34.1 by 2016. I just sold my Toyota Echo, it averaged 41-45 mpg. I'm now driving a new Cobalt XFE. It's averaging 40.1 mpg right now. There are and have been plenty of good quality, relatively inexpensive, fuel efficient options out there. Getting people in them has been the issue IMO.

I'm also on the fence with an additional tax on fuel. I wouldn't mind paying it myself but in rural areas gas prices are already higher, incomes are typically much lower and distances traveled much greater. The 34.1 mpg CAFE standard by 2016 seems more equitable idea.

 

[IslandTractor]

I'm also on the fence with an additional tax on fuel. I wouldn't mind paying it myself but in rural areas gas prices are already higher, incomes are typically much lower and distances traveled much greater. The 34.1 mpg CAFE standard by 2016 seems more equitable idea.

I agree there needs to be some protection for those in rural areas or with long commutes but I imagine there are ways to refund or make some sort of tax credit available in such situations. A little creativity is called for.

 

[MossRoad]

I read an interesting article a couple years ago that mentioned how inefficient it is to produce automobile fuel from corn. It takes too much energy to convert it to ethanol to make it cost effective. The article concluded it would be much more cost effective and energy efficient to switch our cars to natural gas and burn corn to heat our homes. Corn, when burnt, is a very efficient fuel. When converted to alcohol, not so efficient. Ponder that one for a while.

 

[Duffster]

I read an interesting article a couple years ago that mentioned how inefficient it is to produce automobile fuel from corn. It takes too much energy to convert it to ethanol to make it cost effective. The article concluded it would be much more cost effective and energy efficient to switch our cars to natural gas and burn corn to heat our homes. Corn, when burnt, is a very efficient fuel. When converted to alcohol, not so efficient. Ponder that one for a while.

This has been prove wrong by pretty legitimate studies. Several of them in fact.

 

[tallyho8]

Americans are too spoiled to drive small fuel efficient vehicles. In the 1960s cars outsold trucks by 4 to 1. As cars started getting smaller more people simply started buying trucks and the manufacturers started gearing trucks for personal use, such as making 3 door then 4 door pickup trucks.

Just a couple of years ago trucks finally outsold cars for the first time in history.

If the gov't mandates higher mpg ratings on small trucks we will soon see buses and semis parked in people's driveways.

 

[beppington]

This has been prove wrong by pretty legitimate studies. Several of them in fact.

Link(s)?

 

[dmccarty]

Dan...If you couldn't sell your house because it got in your well water would you blame the government?

Keegs not really sure what you are getting at....

Are you saying if my house fell into the well I should blame the government?

Later,
Dan

 

[mmurphy]

I'm on the fence with the diesels. They get better mileage but fuel costs are typically higher and I'm not sure whether there's that much benefit when you consider how much can be derived from a barrel of imported oil.

You implied a higher fuel economy standard. I agree with that and we're in fact heading for 34.1 by 2016. I just sold my Toyota Echo, it averaged 41-45 mpg. I'm now driving a new Cobalt XFE. It's averaging 40.1 mpg right now. There are and have been plenty of good quality, relatively inexpensive, fuel efficient options out there. Getting people in them has been the issue IMO.

I'm also on the fence with an additional tax on fuel. I wouldn't mind paying it myself but in rural areas gas prices are already higher, incomes are typically much lower and distances traveled much greater. The 34.1 mpg CAFE standard by 2016 seems more equitable idea.

The one thing on fuel economy that people do not understand with alcohol is, if a car was to run on nothing but alcohol, you can get as much mileage and power as gasoline. Reason being is timing with engines on gasoline is not set to fire at the proper time or you get detonation. Gasoline engines run at a lower compression or you get detonation. Now if we were to use studies as an example I heard less then 5% actually is used for transporting the person in the vehicle. I myself once again think that is a crock. Diesel gets better economy because it does not have the same issues.
If we did not have the government involved in controlling manufacturing of alcohol, the cost of making it to run an engine straight would be much cheaper. You can run a engine as low as 70% with 30% still being tied up in water content.(140 proof) That would save lots of energy getting that 30 % water content off. Alcohol can only be dried now naturaly to 94%, the rest is ran through a mechanical drying system that requires lots of heat. By mixing with gas, any portion of water left behind, well you have problems, cause we all know water and gas does not mix. Straight alcohol would evenly absorb the water and no problem.
Google David Blume if any one is interested in "Alcohol Can Be a Gas."

 

[beppington]

Keegs not really sure what you are getting at....

Are you saying if my house fell into the well I should blame the government?

:laughing:

 

[keegs]

Keegs not really sure what you are getting at....

Are you saying if my house fell into the well I should blame the government?

Later,
Dan

Your house fell in a well Dan??? How'd you manage that? :laughing:

 

[Duffster]

Link(s)?

I will see what I can come up with. I read so much of this in oassing that it is hard to bookmark all of it.

 

[MossRoad]

This has been prove wrong by pretty legitimate studies. Several of them in fact.

What has been proven wrong?

The fact that it takes more energy to get ethanol from corn than it is worth or the fact that corn burns cleaner than natural gas and is carbon neutral since its not a hydrocarbon?

 

[dmccarty]

Your house fell in a well Dan??? How'd you manage that? :laughing:

If my house falls down the well that will be something since the G'ment requires my house to be 100 feet from the well.



That will be ONE BIG HOLE.



In the case I mentioned about the people finding MTBE in their wells, the G'ment did put in water to their houses. Can't remember if the people had to pay or not. It should have been a not.

Finding MTBE in the water was the lesser concern since they also had gas in the water. The last I read the EPA has not set a standard for an acceptable level for MTBe in the water. Though I would not want to drink MTBE in any case. I KNOW I don't want to drink gasoline.

I *** THINK *** NC passed a law a few years ago requiring a fund to be set up for fixing leaks at gas stations. I know there was talk of a fund/tax/bond.

Later,
Dan

 

[Duffster]

What has been proven wrong?

The fact that it takes more energy to get ethanol from corn than it is worth

That part.

 

[mmurphy]

What has been proven wrong?

The fact that it takes more energy to get ethanol from corn than it is worth or the fact that corn burns cleaner than natural gas and is carbon neutral since its not a hydrocarbon?

We get back to what side you are on. BOTH have proven facts.
CNN vs. FOX. Both sides demonstrate more worthless proven crap.
Global warming, both sides have proven facts.
Al Gore is saving are planet as we read this!!! His light bill in 1 month they posted acouple years back was as much as I use in a year.:confused2:
Is it true about Al? Who knows, can not believe very much of what you hear anymore.
I will agree with burning corn for heat. I am going to start mine up again this year.(but now I truly will be burning food!)
BTW, corn as it grows is said to store carbon in the ground. That is only one side of the camp!!

 

[keegs]

In the case I mentioned about the people finding MTBE in their wells, the G'ment did put in water to their houses. Can't remember if the people had to pay or not. It should have been a not.

Dan,

I'm pretty sure that in most cases where MTBE contamination impacts a water supply managed by a government entity, that that entity would seek redress in court on behalf of the taxpayers.

 

[MossRoad]

That part.

Show me a study that refutes it.

 

[Duffster]

Show me a study that refutes it.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer721/AER721.PDF

Production of ethanol is energy efficient, in that it yields nearly 25 percent more energy than is used in growing
the corn, harvesting it, and distilling it into ethanol

This study is 15 years old. It has improved to 50%-65%+ now.

Now show me a study that proves it.

 

[timswi]

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer721/AER721.PDF




This study is 15 years old. It has improved to 50%-65%+ now.

Now show me a study that proves it.

I really don't want in this fight, but ethanol is burning part of our food supply, not good.

I also have seen studies, not media comments, that say that ethanol costs more to produce than it supplies. In fact gas mileage goes down around 10% when using it. This does need to be figured into the equation.

This I see in PA when it begins showing up in the spring at all service stations, my mileage drops somewhat due to the alcohol content.

I have never had an engine problem because of it though.

My Chevelle may feel differently some day though.

 

[dave1949]

Lets you and him fight :laughing:

mmurphy's posts about cows utilizing 70% of the byproduct of ethanol production was news to me. That doesn't sound so bad. One problem a while back was so much land was used for corn, the price of wheat flour skyrocketed. Maybe the production side of the market self-corrected for that by now. I haven't heard much about it recently.
Dave.