If you don't have a vehicle optimized to run on Ethanol, then you lose mileage. Most cars running the E-10 blend will do so. Run a Flex-Fuel vehicle that adjusts timing and injection via the fuel composition sensor in the gas line, and you're in better shape. Bump up the compression to make use of 105 octane E-85 (Like I'm doing with my 383 stroker engine in my '53 Chevy pickup) and you'll get the mileage and horsepower back, something we've long since forgotten since we went to 87 octane unleaded gasoline.
I find it incredulous at how people will parrot the whole "Corn Ethanol is starving us" bit. As a farming family member here in the Corn Belt, we're producing more corn than ever, while still meeting our commitments to dairy farmers. Wow, we're actually getting $3.00/bushel again, who would've thunk it? We're also taking government-subsidized PIK acreage (anybody remember that?) and actually doing something productive with it, vs getting paid by Uncle Sam to let it sit fallow. Then there's the fact that the corn protein isn't used in ethanol distillation, it's actually put back into the dairy/beef loop as high-grade feed under the name of distiller's dry grain. Our own black angus herd isn't starving, they're happily munching on silage, corn, distiller's dry grain, and solubles, although to hear otherwise, I'm directly responsible for the price of Mexican (white corn!) tortillas going up, and moo juice hitting an all-time high. Of course, nobody talks about the $100/barrel crude forcing petrodiesel and gasoline prices up, which NEVER get passed on to the end consumer.
Regardless, for those who get their panties in a wad, corn is a short-term ethanol source. All the distilleries in my neck of the woods are gearing up for cellulosic ethanol production, which means there will be another glut of corn, prices will drop, and bank foreclosures on family-owned farms will begin anew. Those not living in the Corn Belt won't know the difference, because they don't get E-85 anyway, although they'll be the first to bitch about it. Go figure.
In the meantime, we continue to stay dependent on the imported oil teat, and vociferously bristle at any alternatives that stray from that entrenched petrodollar industry. It's quite plain if you ask anybody that we all have a God-given right to drive our automobiles to the end of the earth and back, and until we get them outfitted with Mr. Fusion devices, they'll be burning something to go hither and yon. Likewise, if that cute little electric car doesn't have a tailpipe, it's because the exhaust stack has been centralized somewhere else at the other end of the power line.
I concede that corn ethanol is the root cause of global warming, cancer, teenage pregnancy, Islamic Fundamentalist Jihad, the high cost of tea in China, and every thing else that currently ails us. Adding a little food for thought, for those who happily drive along as crude oil prices hover near that $100/barrel mark, refusing to think outside the box or even momentarily entertain alternatives:
Petroleum's True Impact Obscured
-Source: Alamogordo Daily News, by Charles Bensinger, Guest column, July 22, 2007
Petroleum industry czars are likely reveling over the recent relentless attacks on biofuels. A closer look finds biofuel critics unwilling to apply similar standards of environmental, social and political accountability to petroleum acquisition, production and distribution.
What's going on here? All of a sudden, production of corn-based ethanol seems to be the cause of all of society's ills. Not surprisingly, a number of anti-ethanol studies have authors closely associated with the oil industry, which is now moving aggressively to fund biofuels research departments at major universities.
A healthy debate of the pros and cons of something as fundamental as transportation fuels is always necessary, but let's not forget the first law of ecology: there is no free lunch. Generating energy using technological means involves tradeoffs. For example, the manufacture of solar and wind equipment requires significant amounts of water, fossil fuels and toxic chemicals. Renewable energy technologies are not without some environmental impacts.
Corn ethanol and soy-based biodiesel are not perfect fuels. But, to be fair, critics should be comparing biofuels, not to some hypothetical ideal fuel, but rather to their real-world counterparts gasoline and diesel fuels. Lets look beyond the recent negative biofuel press and examine the larger picture.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's comparison of net energy factors in the entire fuel production cycle, corn ethanol gives a 67 percent gain compared to a 25 percent loss during the entire production cycle of gasoline. Thus, corn ethanol provides a significant increase, in alternative to the status quo of petroleum dependence. And soy biodiesel is at least a 200 percent gain over conventional petroleum fuels. Moreover, alternative liquid fuels are now price competitive, cleaner and better for engines than petroleum-only fuels. Ethanol content in gasoline now comprises close to 10 percent of the U.S. gasoline supply, reducing the amount of oil we need to import. A dollar spent on gasoline or diesel can easily be used to finance terrorism while a dollar spent on biofuels stays in the United States, benefiting local economies. This is a good thing. True, biofuels benefit from government subsidies, but receive only one-tenth the subsidies of the oil industry.
Finally, a lobby large enough to compete with the oil industry has managed to convince car makers to build biofuel-compatible vehicles and persuade Congress to provide incentives supportive of a non-petroleum domestic fuel industry. This is also a good thing. Ethanol eliminates the need for fuel suppliers to use MTBE, a highly destructive gasoline additive. These considerable achievements should be lauded by the environmental community.
And there are other important considerations:
Land use: The large-scale production of certain biofuel crops can have serious land use impacts. However, coal mining and oil and gas drilling have often resulted in permanent and irreversible contamination of land and water resources and displacement of indigenous people causing vast amounts of human pain and suffering. By contrast, production of biofuels can be a considerably more benign undertaking.
Corn and soy-based biofuels rely on feedstocks whose production and use may impact natural and food resources deleteriously. However, corn and soybeans can be grown organically and sustainably.
Water use: Petroleum refineries use five to 40 times the amount of water per gallon of fuel production than do corn ethanol refineries.
Affect on food prices: The protein in corn and soybeans is not used to make fuel. Only the starch and oil content is utilized for fuel production. The food value is preserved and fed to livestock for meat and milk production. Corn and soy farmers are finally receiving a fair price for their products while Congress has capped the amount of corn that can be used for ethanol production. Any additional ethanol must come from cellulosic sources such as municipal solid waste (garbage), animal manures, sewage, used tires and other waste products.
High oil prices increase fertilizer and transportation costs, thereby raising food prices for the consumer, while use of less expensive biofuels can help stabilize transportation costs, thus stabilizing food costs.
Oil as a cause of major wars: In the 1940s, the need to capture oil wells in the Dutch East Indies was a key reason for Japan's buildup of its military and subsequent attack on Pearl Harbor. This occurred because the United States had embargoed oil supplies to Japan prior to World War II, thus crippling the Japanese economy. Hitler needed to seize oil from Romania and Russia, as Germany, like Japan, had no domestic oil supply. Many believe the U.S. is engaged in a similar bellicose pattern with its military involvement in the Middle East.
The need for oil has been the root cause of more major international conflicts than we are willing to admit. Because biofuels can be produced and processed almost anywhere, they are not something oil-addicted emperors, dictators and presidents will likely take us to war over. Let's keep this in mind when we next fill up with biofuels or petroleum fuels.
As an aside, I haven't put anything other than E-85 in my truck for over a year now. I'm paying approximately 65 cents/gallon less than 87 octane gasoline, and my miles/dollar are very much worth staying with the corn squeezins. That's less gasoline tax dollars I've had to personally cough up, and maybe some of those remaining E-85 fuel tax dollars (They're still taxed at the pump here at the rate of 32.9 cents/gallon) are part of the subsidizing Uncle Sam gives to invigorate alternative energy start-up processes. Of course, we don't hear so much whining about federally subsidized clean-air electric power plants or EPA costs as we dump tax dollars into them, do we?
