Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[iski]

Corn makes ethanol, but ethanol has its supporters and critics. We can make many more gallons of ethanol annually if that's what the market tells the ethanol industry to do. Regionally ethanol has be very beneficial to rural America. 

Supershooter

Is popular in your area, am no fan of ethanol.  Buy non ethanol whenever I can.  Present federal program regarding ethanol, considering the high cost, etc. is "the perfect federal program."  We have plenty of dino oil in the ground, more cost effective.

[moscooter]

Is popular in your area, am no fan of ethanol.  Buy non ethanol whenever I can.  Present federal program regarding ethanol, considering the high cost, etc. is "the perfect federal program."  We have plenty of dino oil in the ground, more cost effective.

I agree,  I'm no fan of enthanol either.  It has been a nightmare for the marine industry and other sources that use small gasoline engines e.g. chainsaws, leaf blowers, lawn mowers, etc.  It's all a giant subsidy for the corn farmers and damned if they haven't been trying to increase the percentage of the stuff in the fuel supply which would distroy even more engines.

[muddypaws]

Regular $1.83 Tappahonnick , VA

[FLSTFI Dave]

Corn makes ethanol, but ethanol has its supporters and critics. We can make many more gallons of ethanol annually if that's what the market tells the ethanol industry to do. Regionally ethanol has be very beneficial to rural America. 

Supershooter

Ethanol is not cost effective for the consumer.  Sure its great for the farmers.  Its also not good for our food bill, cost of food has gone up due to Ethanol production, it takes corn and drives the cost up, which drives the cost up for feed. 

Is popular in your area, am no fan of ethanol.  Buy non ethanol whenever I can.  Present federal program regarding ethanol, considering the high cost, etc. is "the perfect federal program."  We have plenty of dino oil in the ground, more cost effective.

I hate ethanol.  It is miserable for my boat, and it never goes in my boat.  Its bad for small engines too.  Luckily in my area, non ethanol is readily available as 87 or 93 octane.

I had an E-85 car.  I ran one tank of E-85 in the car, the mpg went from 30 Hwy on gas, to 24 mpg on Ethanol.  Sure not cost effective to run that crap.

[iski]

Ethanol is not cost effective for the consumer.  Sure its great for the farmers.  Its also not good for our food bill, cost of food has gone up due to Ethanol production, it takes corn and drives the cost up, which drives the cost up for feed. 

I hate ethanol.  It is miserable for my boat, and it never goes in my boat.  Its bad for small engines too.  Luckily in my area, non ethanol is readily available as 87 or 93 octane.

I had an E-85 car.  I ran one tank of E-85 in the car, the mpg went from 30 Hwy on gas, to 24 mpg on Ethanol.  Sure not cost effective to run that crap.

To me that is the kicker. It costs more, it has a federal subsidy, it takes land used for food & shifts it to energy (unlike some other potential ethanol crops), and it has increased the cost of feed.  A great deal for those who farm corn, for others, not so much.

Had a lot of small engine fuel issues several years back. Had to buy new stuff in some cases, not worth the repair.  Switched to non ethanol gas for small engines, no problems since.  Already had the happiest day of a boat owner's life - I sold mine - but when I had it I bought marine gas (non ethanol).  Boat before that had to have carbs rebuilt because of it, that's why I switched.

One more  .... is not transported - my understanding - unless by truck/rail because it is so corrosive.  It has decreased our dependence on foreign oil.  But it was done by a "perfect federal program" - subsidize a product that cannot make it on it's own in a free market, and is less efficient and costs more than the product it is supposed to replace.  The stuff of congressional wet dreams.

[Supershooter]

I've experienced issues in small engines with ethanol. It isn't perfect.
But I disagree with the claims of increased food price, after the corn is processed to make ethanol a high percentage of what went in comes back out as human grade food or livestock feed that's cost effective for livestock production.
Fwiw, when corn is $4.00 a bu the is only $0.02 worth of corn in a box of corn flakes. The wholesale product has little to do with food price. The cattle maket lost over 40% of its value in 2016, ground beef in our local grocery stores changed less than 20%.
Ethanol blends in Iowa are typically 10-15% cheaper than Dino fuel... So we figure a decrese in performance by 10% therefore we just do the math and make our choice.
It's an option, the end

Supershooter

[Mikey]

Save the corn for Whiskey!
 Fuel in Oklahoma is under $2.00 and we wish it was much more, we need the money.

[iski]

Yes, corn for whiskey and bourbon is the absolute best use!   

The artificial ethanol market does create a higher price for corn, than the food market or feed markets only would create. Can be argued but ethanol diverts a large amount of corn - which is grown on land that could be utilized to grow corn for the food/feed markets - to the ethanol market.  This has an effect on worldwide corn pricing considering the amount of market share we grow.

As to cost of fuel, decreased mileage and performance is not always a 1:1 ratio as to decrease in price depending on the region.  In many places, there is no option for non ethanol that is easily available.  It is one of the worst federal programs I have seen in my lifetime.

Disclosure:  my family has benefited financially from growing corn used for ethanol production.  As ethanol increased demands for corn years ago, we made more money.  Prior to ethanol, we grew corn more for feed purposes, small amount, and grew other crops for $$.

[Twolanerider]

Wonder if ethanol could make better pie?


I know, wrong site.

[iski]

Research results are affirmative:


Bean pie produces methane.

[iski]

An alternative agricultural energy fuel source, federally legislated, could have bean beans instead of corn.  Farmers would be paid to grow beans, and each person would be required by federal law to consume at least one pound of beans per week.  Congress would name this act: Federal Agriculture Re-energizing of Transportation Systems (FARTS).  A gas collection system would be installed in each residence, business, public building, rest stop, and rest room.  Citizens would be required to make use of the facility - a collection nozzle (attached to each citizen where the sun don't shine) with a large hose attached to a vacuum to collect gas.  Oil companies would be required to collect gas from these collection stations weekly.  Automobile manufacturers would be required to produce a number of vehicles each year - starting at 15% - that would run on methane gas.  Many subsides and tax incentives would be introduced, but would be offset by enormous multi layer taxes on beans, collection stations, volume of gas produced by bean consumers, and collection nozzles.  The price of nozzle lube (syn or dino?) would skyrocket. 

Bean prices would increase dramatically overnight, farmers would make more money.  People would feel good (no not just from passing gas) because they are helping the environment.  Government would collect enormous taxes and increase power by giving out some paltry tax cuts to their favored constituents. Mileage per gallon would decrease, price of fuel would increase to cover costs plus taxes.

Exceptions would be California, Chicago, and several other places that would double/triple methane gas taxes as compared to other places and require only certain types of beans to be consumed by their citizens (called Cafe' blends).  Methane gas in these areas would cost 30 to 50% more than other areas, but their citizens are used to that already.

A darn shame we did not adopt beans the Magic Fruit years ago instead of corn for energy, we might have farted our way to energy independence by now.

[grc]

Ethanol is not cost effective for the consumer.  Sure its great for the farmers.  Its also not good for our food bill, cost of food has gone up due to Ethanol production, it takes corn and drives the cost up, which drives the cost up for feed. 

I hate ethanol.  It is miserable for my boat, and it never goes in my boat.  Its bad for small engines too.  Luckily in my area, non ethanol is readily available as 87 or 93 octane.

I had an E-85 car.  I ran one tank of E-85 in the car, the mpg went from 30 Hwy on gas, to 24 mpg on Ethanol.  Sure not cost effective to run that crap.

EXACTLY!  The only time ethanol was even close to being cost effective was when we the taxpayers were heavily subsidizing the price.  Now that those subsidies have been removed, E85 is priced similar to or higher than regular gasoline but gives much lower mpg.

Even if auto makers were to equip every new vehicle to be fully E85 capable (extra sensors and processors, fuel system corrosion upgrades, injectors, etc.), so that the higher ethanol content wouldn't harm the vehicle, you would still have lower efficiency as the percentage of ethanol was increased.  The biggest problem is all those engines for everything from lawnmowers and chainsaws to boats do not have all the extra sensors and feedback closed loop systems to adjust the mixture.  An engine set up to run properly on straight gasoline, or even E10, will be extremely lean when run on anything with more ethanol in it.

We need to go back to using corn to feed humans and animals.  Sadly all the connected special interest folks with the big ethanol producing facilities are fighting to not only maintain the status quo, but to allow and eventually mandate even higher percentages of ethanol.  E15 is being pushed by their lobbyists right now, and unfortunately our ignorant and ethically challenged representatives are liable to fall for the BS they're peddling.

JMHO - Jerry