# E85 Question



## Cinder (Sep 2, 2003)

I have not studied it closely but is E85 going up as fast as regular gas? If E85 is only 15% gasoline should it go up as fast? I think the price of corn is about the same or lower than usual right now and corn is supposed to comprise 85% of e85l. I don't know what the subsidy is for gasahol but the E85 is about 45 to 75 cents lower than regular gas and I am guessing that is probably close to the subsidy the ethanol plants receive. If these assumptions are true maybe the people that say it takes more to energy to produce ethanol than it saves might be correct.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Can you say demand???

Simply put, when E-85 is that much cheaper than gas, they get what they can produce sold. As prices go up, I would think the gap would actually close up, because any difference looks like a big differnence when the budget is tight.

Any of the prospectus's I have seen for Ethanol plants show the subsidies are only a big deal when prices are low, and they are not a big deal. Right now those subsidies could go off and they would still be making money hand over fist. Wish I had written a checka few years ago. It would have really paid off this year. At current Natural Gas and corn prices I think it costs about $1.25 a gallon to produce ethanol, so you do the math on how these companies are doing.

Way to go farmers!!!

Tom


----------



## The Dak (Nov 23, 2003)

The net gain of energy by ethanol is a tough topic because of conflicting results. In my mind, it's no better, unless you want the entire state to look like SW MN (aka biological desert).

I've talked to some people, and they say that using E85 was actually MORE EXPENSIVE for them to use because of decreased fuel efficiency. For example, on regular unleaded, they could drive 400 miles. On E85, they only made it 300 miles. My guess is that this mostly applies to larger vehicles given lower energy/fuel unit of E85.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

While you may save on the cost going into the tank, the added expense for maintenance goes up!

I have an E/85 vehicle, in the manual it states that unless synthetic oil is used and oil change at 3000 miles engine damage can occur! With double the cost on an oil change you eat up a portion of your savings on the cost per gallon. Now add a drop in my vehicle by and average of 4 mpg and it becomes a net wash at best!

C/span recently broadcast a debate on ethanol sponsored by the Corn Growers. Both sides where represented, and the reality is that no fossil fuels are saved nor is the net affect in overall pollution reduced in producing ethanol and using it!

It is a better fuel to be burned in high population area's for the air quality because it does not contain MTB's contaminates, however the total amount of toxins released into overall atmosphere remained the same just different!

The Corn Growers stated that our supplies of on hand corn where at all time highs, but the Ag dept reported that 97% of the corn produced was used! Also 60% of all corn gets used as feed. So if we start cutting down on the amount of feed available other products will need to be used to replace it. Thus costs of production for meat goes up, along with increased costs to the end consumer!

The reality of our current problems lies in two parts, one being a rising demand for fossil fuel energy across the board. Second no solid plan to meet those needs nor efforts to curb the rise in demand. All of us are guilty of this. We chose to excess over conservation.

Hunting and gear to hunt are a example, but so is multiple TV's and DVDs also. Excessively large homes, like a 6000 square ft place with 6 slot garage for two people! This goes beyond affording it or earning it, it goes back to the excess and our overall society and our lack of conservative approach to energy consumption.


----------



## Cinder (Sep 2, 2003)

Tsodak . . . excellent point. Your points make sense to me, but they also raise a couple of questions. In South Carolina the Govenor issued a warning recently on price gouging -- wouldn't this be considered price gouging especially in a subsidized business. If E85 is just going to mirror gas price --- why does the country need it much less subsidize it?


----------



## Boy (Jan 24, 2005)

I guess I am confused.

So you don't save any money by using e-85? If it is a wash and the only benefit is cleaner air, why not use the ethanol in hopes of the farmers making more money instead of the oil companies getting more money? I would bet there are more farmers in North Dakota than oil companies.


----------



## curty (Sep 18, 2003)

I have to agree with boy. Even if its a wash, lets let our farmers grow it.To h$ll with iraq oil lets produce as much alternative and renewable fuels as we can right here in Nokak Country.

I already depend on farmers for my heating fuel. Last year I burned corn and heated my house with it. At a total cost of roughly $150.00 For the whole season. :beer: Although I feel for the people that are going to have a tough time this heating season.Im ready for it.


----------



## tmonster (Jan 27, 2005)

E85, here i go again. Did you know that a lot of racecar drivers are starting to use it? why? because it's 105 octane just like racing fuel, only half the price. They just adjust the carbs because of the different fuel/air ratio that is needed, that's why our vehicles such so bad with it, because the computers that run the fuel systems aren't programmed right for the different stoichiometric ratio. Ever had a bad O2 sensor and saw how crap gas milage you get? Same thing. So if the auto makers would tune it for this gas, then we'd be set. Also, given equal all around price, i'd easily take the e85 and support farmers.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

I have said before I have no issue with ethanol being used and made from surplus corn! I do however have issues with ethanol being pushed as a product that will reduce our oil needs, touted as new energy and as being a better environmental product!

First falsehood! It is cleaner for the environment! The amount of pollution generated to raise the grain, make the chemicals such as weed and pest spray, fertilizer, plastics to ship the chemicals etc generate as a many carbons as burning gas! Some of the bi products of these processes generate worse toxins than refining oil!

Second falsehood is new generated energy unless sunlight is added into the equation there is a net loss of energy required to grow,ship and process corn into ethanol, at the most efficient plants they are barely at a one to one energy consumption to energy production level adding in the sunlight BTU's!!!!

Third is the cost! Without government support ethanol is more expensive to create! Even with the increase in oil costs, as NG and the transportation costs go up equally for this product as crude increases. Much of the reason we see this rise with crude pricing and gas prices!

The other real issue with ethanol is the increased pressure on our wetlands this product is going to have! Farmers are even now opting to not re-enroll CRP acres for higher dollar returns on the land from soybean and corn farmers! This has a double edged cut. One being in lost wetlands and filtration for the aquifers, and the other on air quality! Grass lands consume more carbons from the air than corn and soybeans, put increased soil erosion, fuel burned to work those acres and our air quality drops. CRP is one of the biggest factors in improved air quality across the nation. This will drop as those acres are now tilled again!

So before anyone says I am anti farmer, they need to stop and look at the big picture. I could and would support ethanol if no new acres from wetlands could be covered under disaster and Federal Crop programs. This would discourage ditching and tiling of current wetlands! This needs to extend to existing grasslands not in CRP. SD even with CRP has had a net loss in total grassland acres as Roundup ready soybeans and GMO corn are being developed! Acres that once raised cattle,and ducks and pheasants and deer and other non game songbirds are being converted to farmland to chase the soybean markets!

Next would be a push to make ethanol from annual grasses like switch grass which give the same air cleaning and water filtering qualities that other grasses do instead of corn and other grains! The science is their but the money to fund this programs is going into grain programs instead. Our politicians are not concerned about conservation efforts, but are campaigning to the farmers and farm states with subsidized grain ethanol plants!

Biomass production is really the only real way that ethanol can be a viable option, but few of our farmers are willing to raise it because there is no current market for it! Plus the Bi products can be used in a host of products reducing even more a lot of synthetic products made from oil!


----------



## Cinder (Sep 2, 2003)

Ron . . . I appreciate your comments. I tend to shoot from the hip, but you take the time to make clear and concise arguments. I have made a couple of posts now and each time you have helped me understand the situation better. I appreciate all the comments but I do look forward to your insights.


----------



## scissorbill (Sep 14, 2003)

Ron,You got it right. All of you touting this will be singing a differnt tune when north dakota becomes all nice neat rows of corn and soybeans akin to SW Minnesota-- A biological desert, goodbye ducks and other wildlife dependent on natural landscapes.


----------



## Kiwi98j (Sep 6, 2005)

Here are some facts about ethanol and corn based on current agriculture production techniques and the current state of the fuel ethanol industry. By the way, any starch can be fermented to produce ethanol as well as most grains including corn, milo, wheat, wheat gluten, sugar cane and sugar beet byproduct, molasses, sugar, most grasses and food garbage as well as many others.

Modern fuel ethanol plants consume 35,000 BTUs per to produce a gallon of ethanol that contains 76,700 BTUs of energy. Ethanol's energy balance is clearly positive. The amount of energy derived from the sun has no bearing on the energy efficiency of the corn to ethanol cycle. Energy from the sun is not going to change whether ethanol is produced or not.

At current planted acres, the American farmer produces more than enough corn to supply ethanol plants and meet the export market demand. Over the past few years, yield per acre has increased some 40% resulting in surpluses that resulted in low corn prices and an increase in CRP acres. Additional ethanol production will not cause an increase in planted acres, except locally near a new plant, until the surplus is used up; nor will energy consumed and pollutants produced from transport for the same reason. Actually, fuel ethanol reduces transport related costs/energy/pollutants compared to cross country transport to export facilities. The local increase in soybean acreage in Minnesota and South Dakota is due to new soybean plants that replaced plant shutdowns in the South and Midwest. There has been no net increase of soybean production over the past 5 years.

Over the past 20 years, fundamental developments in the ethanol industry has almost doubled the corn to ethanol conversion rate, from 1.5 to 2.9 gal/bus, due to improved enzymes and processing techniques. New processing equipment and controls has reduced energy use by over 45%. New markets have been developed for spent distiller's grains as animal feeders have formulated this co-product into their feed rations. Earlier studies based on data from 1979 are no longer valid considering today's efficiencies in agriculture in corn yield, corn hybrids, reduced use of pesticides and insecticides, fuel inputs per acre, as well as greatly improved efficiencies in ethanol production and the use of distillers grains as a feed ingredient.

Ethanol blends has helped dampen fuel price volatility due to speculation and offshore petroleum demand over the past few years. Raw material costs for ethanol production varies with grain price and is relatively stable compared to petroleum - witness the volatility in per world oil barrel price over the past few months.

Ethanol creates jobs, increases farm income and reduces farm support payments and has a positive impact on local economies. Local people are employed, local grain is purchased to make ethanol and local tax bases are expanded. This is especially true for rural communities. An average-sized ethanol plant employs 40 people with well paying; high-skill jobs and provides spin-off jobs through local providers of goods and services for the plant. The creation of local jobs is essential if we are to stop the hemorrhage of people from small town America.

Ethanol does receive an incentive in the form of a partial exemption from the federal excise tax on gasoline. This 5.1-cent partial exemption is passed directly on to the consumer - unlike other "subsidies" - and allows ethanol blended fuel to be sold for less at the gas pump.

Most ethanol plants are classified as "minor source" emitters by the U.S EPA meaning they emit less than 100 tons of pollutants per year and are under the threshold for toxic pollutants. Contrast this with an equivalent sized petroleum oil refinery, which emits more than 1,200 tons per year with 15% (180 tons) being toxic. All US petroleum oil refineries are classified as "major source" emitters and for this reason, very few have been built over the pass 15 years. Petroleum oil refineries are in the top 5 polluters of any type industrial plant, right up there with coal fired power plants, steel, paper and chemicals. Most personal cars/trucks emit about six tons of pollutants in a year, which means that the emissions from an ethanol plant are less than the emissions from the vehicles in your neighborhood.

All fuel ethanol is transported in bulk, 70% by rail and 4% by barge with the remainder by truck including the delivery from storage/blending to the gas station. Early, small scale alcohol plants shipped in barrels and totes when the primary use for ethanol was medical, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, jelled (Sterno), cleaners, solvents, thinners, thermometers, cosmetics, and for blending whiskey.

All cars and most pickup trucks manufactured after 1996 use the OBDII engine control protocol that will detect the fuel being used and will auto adjust to burn blended gasoline up to 20% ethanol and are equipped with the correct seals, gaskets and such. Before 1996, most manufacturers did not use ethanol compatible materials for gaskets and seals and the engine controls could not "see" ethanol and make the necessary engine adjustments. For vehicles after 1996, a 10% blend of ethanol gets an average of about 5-6% less than 87 octane gasolines.

To take advantage of E85, your Flexible Fuel Vehicle (FFV) vehicle will have the correct engine controller for the 85% ethanol / 15% gasoline blend. Expect miles per gallon to be close to 20-22% less than with 87 octane.

Here's something to ponder! 
Would you rather drink the ethanol in beer and wine or liquor or a shot of gasoline??


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Kiwi not a bad post but very misleading. Since the word used 98 percent of the corn grown last year, where will the surplus be to supply the plants without new acres?

You tout the low emissions of the plant but do not compare the products overall in pollution. No net savings!

You talk of the efficiency of the new plants, but avoid the fact that no new energy is produced when all is said and done!

Reality is we cannot grow our way out of the energy crunch we are in. In fact it will add a burden to that crunch if truth would be told by the proponents.

I am not anti farmer, but it is time we spend our tax dollars getting real results and research for alternative energy and conservation. measures instead of more pork barrel spending for politicians to get elected over and over!

I give our elected officials at the state level a lot of credit for not financing this lie. MN and SD have wet themselves in building plants that will once again shut down leaving local investors and farmers and tax payers with losses. Only to have the companies like ADM as an example step in and buy them at price levels that allow some profits to be made!

No longer can we use the line it is good for the farmer as a reason to do this. As a concerned person about energy I want tax dollars going to real fixes not a myth that the promoters claim defies the laws of physics!

You know the theory of perpetual motion! No plant built or any waiting to be built can produce enough energy to sustain itself and have product left over to sell! Only way they make any money is by using a cheaper energy source to create a different energy source they can sell at a profit!!!!!!!!!!!


----------

