DON'T look now the Goverment is upping ETHANOL Content.

[Kyle2k]

If ethanol wasn't produced from corn, or "corrosive", or blah blah blah, no one would be complaining or claiming people are trying to push it on us. Sometimes I think people just bitch to bitch. Who is filling everyone's head with anger over such trivial BS things? ....Oh, I know...

Be happy we are getting cheap as dirt race fuel.

[98_Camaro]

Originally Posted by Lauryn200

Sounds like they are trying to push people into those *hybrd* cars.....

..or not.
2012 Camaro V6 is supposed to be E85 compatible.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Lauryn200

Sounds like they are trying to push people into those *hybrd* cars.....

?

Using a non-oil based fuel is a great way to reduce fossil fuel usage without having to drive a hybrid.

[truth411]

This sucks for those with cars prior to 2001, and I am not convince this does not have negative long term affects for cars made in 2001-2007 either.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by One Mean Chevy

So, are you saying that Non-Corn base Ethanol is not corrosive?

Nope, I'm not. Ethanol is ethanol no matter where it comes from. And it will always be corrosive to rubbers and plastics over time. But Flex-fuel vehicles and dedicated E85 vehicles (I can dream....) are designed with the proper components to eliminate or greatly reduce corrosion.

Originally Posted by 80Zedder

Noooooooooo, he is saying that corn based ethanol will drive up food prices "proven fact".

No, I'm not saying that, either. Ethanol from corn does have an effect on food prices, though...just not NEARLY as big of an effect as certain establishments would like you to believe.

I simply meant that ethanol from corn is one of the least efficient ways to produce the fuel. And nobody likes to hear "corn" anymore...so best to please both camps, imo, and switch to cellulosic-materials (including recycled waste products).

Originally Posted by Number 3

There is so much negative posting around this topic. As mentioned, Brasil made it a point many years ago to be less dependant on oil. They have acted on this with a great amount of success. Google it and read up on it. It's quite a success story.

Yes, Brasil has had much success with ethanol from sugar...there's one pretty huge hiccup, though. They are chopping down their rain forests to plant sugarcane at a very dangerous rate...and even as a car nut, that's frightening.

Originally Posted by Number 3

At some point we have to transition away from Jed Clampett oil and to more renewable and self sufficient energy sources. Problem is those are all more expensive than the cheap stuff and no one is willing to go there.

Say it with me, "we're not hooked on oil, we're hooked on cheap oil"

Many producers of cellulosic-based ethanol say that if they were able to produce the fuel on scales comparable to gasoline production, it would be very cost-competitive, if not cheaper than gasoline from oil (depending on the source). Coskata, a partner with GM, is one of them. I agree with your assessment of our situation...and I think expensive gasoline's best side-effect will be the creation of an environment where ethanol companies can flourish and scale up their production, resulting in a lower priced alternative that will compete in the market and serve to drive down prices across the board.

Originally Posted by truth411

This sucks for those with cars prior to 2001, and I am not convince this does not have negative long term affects for cars made in 2001-2007 either.

If the manufacturers are worried about it, so am I.

[8cd03gro]

Well, I'm in the middle of an e85 build, already have the fuel system prepped. It should be done by mid February, so I'll let you guys know how it works out and keep you updated on any problems I have down the road. . .

[mickss]

Forget corn and sugar cane for Ethanol production. The best and probably the most cost efficient form of producing Ethanol is from growing switch grass. It yields more ethanol per ton, requires little to none agricultural maintenance, actually replenishes the soil with nutrients, removes carbon dioxide (CO2 ) from the air, isn`t prone to droughts, insects or blight.

Whats the down side to switch grass? Well if you`re a farmer you probably don`t get those fat Government subsidy checks for growing corn.

http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/switgrs.html

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by truth411

This sucks for those with cars prior to 2001, and I am not convince this does not have negative long term affects for cars made in 2001-2007 either.

There will most likely be a release made in the not too distant future about E15 being safe in cars from 199X-2001.

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by mickss

Forget corn and sugar cane for Ethanol production. The best and probably the most cost efficient form of producing Ethanol is from growing switch grass. It yields more ethanol per ton, requires little to none agricultural maintenance, actually replenishes the soil with nutrients, removes carbon dioxide (CO2 ) from the air, isn`t prone to droughts, insects or blight.

Whats the down side to switch grass? Well if you`re a farmer you probably don`t get those fat Government subsidy checks for growing corn.

http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/switgrs.html

Not to be a dick, but it's kind of funny that you would say it takes CO2 out of the atmosphere. It's a plant. They all do that.

[Xanthos]

Originally Posted by mickss

Forget corn and sugar cane for Ethanol production. The best and probably the most cost efficient form of producing Ethanol is from growing switch grass. It yields more ethanol per ton, requires little to none agricultural maintenance, actually replenishes the soil with nutrients, removes carbon dioxide (CO2 ) from the air, isn`t prone to droughts, insects or blight.

Whats the down side to switch grass? Well if you`re a farmer you probably don`t get those fat Government subsidy checks for growing corn.

http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/switgrs.html

Ethanol from switchgrass is a type of Cellulosic ethanol, as Dragoneye mentioned earlier.
- X

[fielderLS3]

If we want to partially replace oil with bio-fuels, why not biodiesel instead of ethanol. Biodiesel is not corrosive, can be used using our existing energy infrastructure and vehicles, and won't shorten the lives of our cars. Plus, diesel is in tighter supply than gasoline, so it would make for sense to supplement diesel, not gasoline, with biofuels for that reason alone.

Originally Posted by Silver ice SS

Are there any gas stations around where you can still buy "real" gasoline without ethanol added?

http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov

Originally Posted by Kyle2k

If ethanol wasn't produced from corn, or "corrosive", or blah blah blah, no one would be complaining or claiming people are trying to push it on us. Sometimes I think people just bitch to bitch. Who is filling everyone's head with anger over such trivial BS things? ....Oh, I know...

Be happy we are getting cheap as dirt race fuel.

Since I don't drive a race car, I would prefer cheap regular fuel, and ethanol is not cheap.

Friday's close:

Gasoline: $2.463 wholesale
Ethanol: $2.328 wholesale

5.5% less per gallon for 30% less energy. Add to that the study that showed the US taxpayer is subsidizing ethanol to the tune of $1.70+ per gallon, and suddenly the actual cost is $1.60 more per gallon for 30% less energy. Then add to that the fact that we risk a HUGE dependency upon foreign food for a small decrease in foreign oil dependency. (Using all of our agricultural land to grow corn ethanol would replace just 12% of our transportation fuel).

[Xanthos]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

Friday's close:

Gasoline: $2.463 wholesale
Ethanol: $2.328 wholesale

5.5% less per gallon for 30% less energy. Already a bad deal without considering the record high for food prices.

Those prices are only correct using today's infrastructure.

Ethanol production is vastly limited compared to gasoline production. The more we produce, the cheaper it is to produce.
- X

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by Xanthos

Those prices are only correct using today's infrastructure.

Ethanol production is vastly limited compared to gasoline production. The more we produce, the cheaper it is to produce.
- X

And what will happen to the price if the government mandates more of it than there is capacity to produce it?

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Xanthos

Those prices are only correct using today's infrastructure.

Ethanol production is vastly limited compared to gasoline production. The more we produce, the cheaper it is to produce.
- X

So, just ignore the point of government subsidizing alternative fuels? Assuming the study is correct and ethanol should be costing $3.92, then you have:

Ethanol - $3.92
Gas - $2.46

Of course, all other things be constant for this to be true; you would have to take out government interference in the oil market to reveal its actual market price as well. (Let's just say that gas would be drastically lower than what it is now.)

Your last statement is true, but the question is rather or not it is economically viable.