Print 77 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Oct 10 at 11:56 PM

Verleger said that oil prices would be $15 to $40 a barrel higher than they are today without ethanol added in

A new analysis shows that American consumers are saving anywhere from millions to even trillions of dollars annually at the pump thanks to ethanol blends.
According to the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) -- which presented information from former Ford and Carter administration energy advisor Philip Verleger -- American consumers are paying between 50 cents and $1.50 per gallon less for gasoline due to the addition of ethanol blends (such as E15, which is 15 percent ethanol and 85 percent gasoline). 

The analysis further said that consumers are saving from $700 billion to about $2.6 trillion annually on gas because of ethanol. 

Verleger said that oil prices would be $15 to $40 a barrel higher than they are today without ethanol added in. 
“Had Congress not raised the renewable fuels requirement, commercial crude oil inventories at the end of August would have dropped to 5.2 million barrels, a level two hundred million barrels lower than at any time since 1990,” said Verleger. “The lower stocks would almost certainly have pushed prices higher. Crude oil today might easily sell at prices as high as or higher than in 2008. Preliminary econometric tests suggest the price at the end of August would have been $150 per barrel.” 

AAA said the national average is about $3.50 a gallon and the cost per barrel is around $100-$110.

E15 in particular has been a hot topic this year. In August, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) froze a planned bump in ethanol levels that was set for next year. The freeze came after state efforts to ban E15, and House debates on whether to cut the blending requirements entirely.

In 2012, only 4.55 billion bushels of corn was used to produce ethanol, which was down from 5 billion bushels in 2011.  About 13.33 billion gallons of ethanol was produced last year, missing the goal of 15.2 billion gallons.

Ethanol opponents say the use of ethanol blends takes away from the nation's corn crops, and livestock farmers saw the cost of feed inflated by having to compete with ethanol. In addition, environmentalists say corn ethanol produces more emissions over its life cycle than oil.

Furthermore, ethanol can damage many old vehicles (and even some new) on American's roads because parts in the engines made of rubber, plastic, metal, and other materials aren't made for high ethanol blends. 

Later in August of this year, big oil firms filed a request to cut the ethanol target for 2014. The EPA announced that refiners must blend in 18.15 billion gallons during 2014 under The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007's (EISA) Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) terms. The oil industry, however, wants that target to be slashed 3.35 billion gallons to a total of 14.8 billion gallons. 

Source: Ethanol Producer

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Doesn't Make Sense.
By Flunk on 9/25/2013 3:41:21 PM , Rating: 5
This fails to account for the cost of the Ethanol Subsidy, or the usage or diesel to farm the corn.

The sources are pretty spurious too, there isn't a peer-reviewed publication to be seen. Not only that the source is the lobby for corn ethanol and their interests are pretty clear.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By Motoman on 9/25/2013 3:43:17 PM , Rating: 4
It also fails to account for increased costs elsewhere, like for beef or anything else that would have been dependent on something other than fuel having been grown on those acres.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By superstition on 9/25/2013 4:00:08 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget soil degradation, water pollution, and so on.

They don't seem to understand the law of conservation of matter. Making ethanol requires taking matter from soils and burning it. It doesn't go back to the soil.

Water pollution is a big problem for people living in agricultural areas.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By MozeeToby on 9/25/2013 4:26:24 PM , Rating: 5
Making ethanol requires taking matter from soils and burning it. It doesn't go back to the soil.
Fun fact, the vast, vast majority of matter that makes up plants comes out of the air. Only trace minerals and water are taken up through the roots. Else every farmed field would be a sunken pit 20 feet deep after a few decades.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By Solandri on 9/26/2013 12:16:59 AM , Rating: 4
Just to expand on this. Plants:

* Take in CO2 from the air + H2O from the ground and air.
* Release O2 and convert the remaining CH2O into sugar; the energy to do this comes from sunlight.

They combine two short sugars (glucose and fructose) to form table sugar (sucrose).
Longer chains of sugar form starches / carbohydrates.
Longer chains of starches form cellulose, aka wood.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By Monkey's Uncle on 9/26/2013 7:13:56 AM , Rating: 2
Here's another fun fact.

Plants take most of the matter that they use to grow from the soil. The fact you don't see 20 foot craters after a few decades is that farmers must dump hundreds of tons of fertilizers on their fields every year. Plants don't eat dirt any more than we do. They eat the fertilizers. But they need a LOT of those 'trace minerals'. Without fertilizing a field would be pretty much dead after as little as 2 seasons.

The fertilizers they take in through their roots is used by the plant cells for the miracle of reproduction & growth - aka life. Water is mostly transported by the roots as well though a small amount comes from the air.

Pollution is from the additional crap mixed in with the fertilizers (i.e. plants do not use everything in manure) and pesticides used on the farmer's fields leeching into the water table. Fields do not cause air pollution - in fact they do the opposite by scrubbing the CO2 out of the air and returning oxygen. IMHO a pretty big plus right there.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By Monkey's Uncle on 9/26/2013 7:20:18 AM , Rating: 2
Further expansion:

As mentioned by Solandri carbon from the C02 is used to create sugars.

However in themselves sugars are fuel. Cell growth requires energy (fuel). The biochemical process combines that energy with the minerals taken in to create new cells (cellulose/wood is made up of cells - you can see them using any microscope). Cells cannot be created by sugars alone. They also need these minerals taken from the fertilizers. The process is not all that different from any living organism on the planet.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By Solandri on 9/26/2013 4:38:21 PM , Rating: 2
Cellulose is (C6 H10 O5)n. It's the hard load-bearing structure (analogous to our bones) between the cells of a plant, not the cells themselves.

The interior of a plant is actually dead (only cellulose remaining). The living part with cells is just the outside layer. Like coral, they lay down a new cylindrical layer of cellulose as they grow around the outside.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By Monkey's Uncle on 9/26/2013 7:02:53 PM , Rating: 2
You are looking only at the surface. All carbon-based life on this planet is made of cells. From the smallest single-cell bacteria to the tallest tree to the largest white whale. Even coral is formed from cells. Your bones are too. And yes, even wood is made of cells that are fed by the plant's circulatory system. There are no exceptions.

Our bones are made up of cells as well:

Your trees and plants are also made up of cells. They look different than animal cells, but they are cells nonetheless. Your wood is nothing more than mummified remains of tree stem cells.

Here's a link regarding the lifecycle of a tree stem taken from a biology text book.

Gives you a lovely animation on how the process actually works and how wood is made.

It really does not matter what the chemical composition of the cellulose in wood or plants is. The fact remains that these minerals don't just magically appear there. They are put there by the plant's cells and circulatory system.

I learned all of this stuff in high school biology.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By Monkey's Uncle on 9/26/2013 7:10:12 PM , Rating: 2
Damn, this is getting way off topic. Nobody really cares about plant biology.

... moving on :D

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By FITCamaro on 9/26/2013 8:47:44 AM , Rating: 3
You can grow crops without fertilizers. They did it for thousands of years. Even the Bible teaches farmers to use crop rotation in order to allow fields to recover and not become worthless.

We use fertilizers today to help improve yields, not because without them fields wouldn't be able to produce year after year.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By Monkey's Uncle on 9/26/13, Rating: 0
RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By superstition on 9/26/2013 4:54:13 PM , Rating: 2
It's typical for this site to hide a post like that. Let's just all pretend that people aren't going to use fertilizers to increase yields to meet the demand created by ethanol subsidies, food waste, and expanding population (with increased consumption).

As for fertilizers...

...some plant foods such as potatoes, rice, sunflower seeds, spinach, and other leafy greens can also take in significant amounts of the metal from the environment, due in large part to the use of cadmium-containing phosphate fertilizers, according to Bruce A. Fowler, a researcher at the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By Mint on 9/26/2013 5:41:38 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but those improvements are huge. We'd need a lot more farmland and irrigation water to feed 300+ million people without fertilizers.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By drlumen on 9/25/2013 4:45:31 PM , Rating: 2
It should also be mentioned that water has to be used to grow the corn - which in itself is becoming a scarce resource. In the midwest, where most of the corn is grown, the Ogallala Aquifer has already been lowered to dangerous levels in some places.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By morgan12x on 9/25/2013 8:16:30 PM , Rating: 2
I live in the Texas Panhandle where corn is a staple crop and the water conservation district here is predicting that aquifer sources will be exhausted in just a few years. The aquifers don't recharge here due to a layer of clay soil above them so once it's gone, it's gone.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By mellomonk on 9/25/2013 6:46:17 PM , Rating: 1
They don't seem to understand the law of conservation of matter. Making ethanol requires taking matter from soils and burning it. It doesn't go back to the soil

Well actually, it does. In a way. Plants, like people are built primarily of Carbon. That carbon comes from the intake of CO2. (see Calvin Cycle, Photosynthesis) When fuel is burned the byproducts produced (besides heat energy) is oxides of Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide. Guess where the majority of the Co2 is going to end up? Plants. So it isn't ultimately returned as soil, though soil is also partially plant based, but as plants. Guess what ethanol is made from?

Though optimally plant based fuel should be made from non-food crops, but compared to burning ancient stored carbon (fossil fuel)the primarily carbon neutral nature of plant based fuels is hugely advantageous.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By mindless1 on 10/10/2013 11:42:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah it was pretty insane to state matter coming from the soil doesn't find its way back to the soil... one way or another.

The only way that would be possible in the long term is if we shot it into outer space.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By Monkey's Uncle on 9/26/2013 7:27:18 AM , Rating: 2
All life on this planet requires food (fuel and matter).

Soil degradation is offset by providing fertilizers. Any farmer knows this.

Water pollution is caused by pesticides. Farmers know that too and are actively working to combat this with pesticides that do not pollute the water table.

The matter taken from soil is not the dirt itself. It is the tons of fertilizer that farmers put on their fields. Drive by any farm just after the farmer has laid down his fertilizer and you will quickly discover that the source of ethanol is ultimately... manure.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By superstition on 9/26/2013 4:49:58 PM , Rating: 2
Shellfish and organ meats such as liver can be high in cadmium, and some plant foods such as potatoes, rice, sunflower seeds, spinach, and other leafy greens can also take in significant amounts of the metal from the environment, due in large part to the use of cadmium-containing phosphate fertilizers , according to Bruce A. Fowler, a researcher at the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By dnoonie on 9/25/2013 3:47:45 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. I agree completely

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By ritualm on 9/25/2013 3:54:01 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah, because incurring thousands of dollars in additional maintenance costs over time in order to save $1.50 per gallon at the pump is a good thing.

Note to RFA: take your bullsh!t elsewhere.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By CZroe on 9/25/2013 10:28:43 PM , Rating: 2
Not just higher maintenance cost: Higher food cost. Subsidies and blending mandates encourage them to dedicate more land/resources to corn and the cost of other crops grow inverse to their lower supply.

Also, it takes water and fertilizer and pesticides to grow corn so there is a huge environmental cost as well.

Even if raised organically, corn isn't natural: It doesn't even exist in nature except for humans. Even the least hybridized ancient maize from millennia ago are man-made self-pollinating hybrid of grasses that can't germinate without human agriculture. None of the contributing natural grasses produced anything like corn on their own.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By LoneTree on 9/25/2013 5:04:46 PM , Rating: 1
The ethanol subsidy expired at the end of 2011.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By CZroe on 9/26/2013 12:11:12 AM , Rating: 2
That's not the only way corn is subsidized. By creating quotas for cane/beet sugar, corn sugar is the only choice. We pay more for non-corn sugar products AND we pay more for all the goods that would have been produced in higher volume instead of the extra corn.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By LoneTree on 9/26/2013 12:41:23 AM , Rating: 2
Then you have to factor in oil production subsidies for gasoline as well.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By CZroe on 9/27/2013 8:55:11 AM , Rating: 2
Not the same. Less demand for alternatives like solar and lowers their price too. It's when a limited resource, like land or agricultural production capacity forces supply of something else to fall below the market's demand.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By PaFromFL on 9/25/2013 5:15:49 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure they took into account that the theoretical 3% miles per gallon reduction is actually more like 10% in some vehicles (possibly because engine controller optimizations or water and other crap mixed in with the ethanol).

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By rcarroll05 on 9/25/2013 11:10:54 PM , Rating: 3
Don't you also get better fuel economy on straight unleaded without the ethanol in it? So if you get better gas mileage wouldn't we use less gasoline to offset a higher price (if it were true the price per barrel is higher?)

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By StormyKnight on 9/25/2013 11:20:31 PM , Rating: 3
Yes. I'm on my 4th tank of ethanol free gasoline in my '13 Malibu. Where I was getting anywhere from 29-31mpg combined before, I've got solid combined fuel economy of 35mpg, 34.7mpg and 35.9mpg the last three tank fulls. Now to be clear, 80%-85% of my driving is highway and I normally drive 55mph-60mph. After this last fill, I'm going to crunch some numbers. The fuel I'm using is midgrade 90 octane from Marathon. The price has not fluctuated like the regular unleaded brands and stays at $4.499/gl.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By freedom4556 on 9/26/2013 3:23:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote: the regular unleaded brands and stays at $4.499/gl.
Yikes. I just paid $3.40 / gal in the midsouth for premium.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By StormyKnight on 9/26/2013 11:31:42 PM , Rating: 2
Ethanol free premium?

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By FITCamaro on 9/26/2013 8:51:18 AM , Rating: 2
Before I sold my Chevy Cruze Eco I tried a tank of ethanol free premium (always ran premium in it) and saw 0 mileage difference. The weather was largely the same between the two tankfuls so it wasn't like one I was running the AC a lot and the other not. If anything I tried to conserve fuel more when running the ethanol free gas.

I'm not saying this is the case with all vehicles though.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By Monkey's Uncle on 9/26/2013 9:44:12 AM , Rating: 2
Did you normally use the 10% ethanol stuff in it?

I doubt there would be a mileage difference with that as well. E85 though has 85% ethanol which you need to run a little richer (don't have the exact ratios needed offhand, but the ECU handles the ratios automagically). You won't get as much mileage out of E85.

Could the Cruze Eco handle E85?

Kinda curious though: Why run premium on your Cruze? It certainly doesn't need the octane and unless you are getting the ethanol-free stuff you really aren't getting away from ethanol.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By Brandon Hill on 9/26/2013 10:43:32 AM , Rating: 2
Why would you put premium in a Cruze Eco? It takes regular unleaded and putting anything above spec is a waste of money.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By Mint on 9/27/2013 9:20:39 AM , Rating: 2
All these people claiming 10% mileage loss either don't know how to run a controlled experiment or are fudging their numbers.

The only way you can get 10% reduced MPG is if the ethanol has ZERO energy. Unless your engine is running really rich for no reason, there's no reason for this to happen.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By rountad on 9/27/2013 9:54:16 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think that's the only way.

I'm not saying that their numbers are accurate, but consider a case where one of the combustion properties had to be changed across the board to deal with the ethanol additive.

E.g. running a 12:1 Air Fuel ratio instead of a 14:1 ratio

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By Mint on 9/28/2013 2:47:00 PM , Rating: 2
That why I said, "unless your engine is running really rich for no reason". 12:1 is rich.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By splenet on 9/28/2013 5:53:54 PM , Rating: 2
You see, I'm not sure that you have understood the word rich. The border between rich and weak is stoichiometric, and, excepting faults, petrol engines will be running at stoichiometric for a lot of the time (there are conditions like deccel fuel cut-off where this doesn't apply, but that isn't relevant to the point, here).

But stoichiometric isn't a constant ratio, as it depends on the nature of the fuel. In particular, the amount of oxygen in the fuel makes a big difference to the amount of external oxygen you need for complete combustion.

As you are trying to completely burn the fuel, you might re-act 'Well d'oh' to this information that having oxygen inherent in the fuel reduces the need for oxygen from another source, but it is a big factor).

So, the theoretical air requirements, in kg/kg units (basically mass per mass in any consistent mass units) are:
'Regular Gas' 14.8
Premium Gas 14.7
Ethanol 9
Methanol 6.4

(Those regular and premium numbers are for pre-alcohol mandate fuels, although there is probably a little alcohol in that 'premium' fuel. And none of these numbers are exact - the alcohols tend not to be pure, depending on production method, and the 'Gas' numbers are for blends, but none of this makes a difference to the big picture.)

Now, given that 'rich' are 'weak' are relative to that number (or, more exactly, the number for the mixture of hydrocarbons that you are using, which won't be just one hydrocarbon) you can't just say that 12:1 is rich: it would be for fuel without any alcohol, but put a substantial percentage of alcohol (and I do mean substantial) in it, and suddenly it is weak.

RE: Doesn't Make Sense.
By exeedorbit on 9/26/2013 9:46:38 AM , Rating: 2
What did you expect, it's Tifanny Kaiser. She uses a source that claims that it "saves" people between 700 MILLION to 2.6 TRILLION. I don't know about you guys, but it seems like somewhat of a large gap to me.

By Motoman on 9/25/2013 3:35:31 PM , Rating: 5
RFA Says Ethanol Production Saves Up to $1.50 Per Gallon at the Pump

Motoman says the RFA is a lying sack of degenerate retards.

RE: uh-huh
By Reclaimer77 on 9/25/2013 3:41:22 PM , Rating: 3
Lol yeah, I love this one:

The analysis further said that consumers are saving from $700 million to about $2.6 trillion annually on gas because of ethanol.

Hmmm could they possibly narrow down this margin a bit? From millions to over two trillion!!?? Reaaaal believable. What kind of "analysis" is that!

RE: uh-huh
By arazok on 9/25/2013 4:20:54 PM , Rating: 3
Even saying 2.6 trillion as a top estimate completely destroys your credibility.

The US GDP is 16 trillion. Your telling me that diluting 15% of your gas with ethanol is going to save the economy 15% of GDP per year? That’s $8,000 for every man, woman, and child.

People would notice that sort of massive change.

RE: uh-huh
By ClownPuncher on 9/26/2013 1:22:33 PM , Rating: 2
Progressives wouldn't lie in an attempt to try and control your life. Right?

RE: uh-huh
By Just Tom on 9/25/2013 5:47:29 PM , Rating: 2
Looking at the article I am pretty sure the trillion is a typo; the quoted savings is from .50 to 1.50 per gallon, savings of 700 million to 2.6 billion would be reasonable.

RE: uh-huh
By Just Tom on 9/25/2013 5:50:56 PM , Rating: 2
Edit, it was a typo except in the other direction. The claimed savings are between 700B and 2.4T.

RE: uh-huh
By Shig on 9/25/2013 8:16:30 PM , Rating: 2
The corn lobby has a lot of money and our political system is a joke, that about sum this up?

These "studies" show only what you want your view point to be.

By overlandpark4me on 9/25/2013 10:11:34 PM , Rating: 2
It's worse on your car's motor, it's worse for your MPG, and YOU DON'T RAID YOUR FOOD SUPPLY FOR FUEL, PERIOD. You want to lower prices? You start with production at home, and force the current tard in chief from catering to Saudi interests. The problem is, he doesn't want prices lower.

RE: propaganda.
By MadMan007 on 9/25/2013 11:40:38 PM , Rating: 1
Catering to Saudis? I think you have the current president confused with his predecessor. Also, domestic oil and natural gas production is higher now than it's ever been...not that we should give any president *direct* credit for that, the industry has innovated a lot, but the current president isn't doing anything draconian to stop it either.

RE: propaganda.
By freedom4556 on 9/26/2013 3:07:28 AM , Rating: 3
Actually, it's directly in spite of Obama. He is interfering with drilling and fracking on federal lands.

RE: propaganda.
By MadMan007 on 9/26/2013 7:28:50 PM , Rating: 2
Did you actually mean to post this graph, or did you just cherry-pick the wrong graph? Look at 2000-2004.

RE: propaganda.
By FITCamaro on 9/26/2013 8:54:13 AM , Rating: 2
Please Obama is just as interested in catering to the Saudis as Bush was.

But as the other commenter said, domestic oil and gas production is higher in spite of Obama right now. All those leases were signed before Obama took office. And they're trying to get more regulations on fracking and trying to stop more drilling from happening.

RE: propaganda.
By Monkey's Uncle on 9/26/2013 9:50:04 AM , Rating: 2
Hey bud. Fossil fuels are non-replenishable and are running out.

You don't like using land space for growing fuel crops, please provide an alternative that can be used TODAY. C'mon bud.

Let's hear you proposal. The world is waiting upon your genius to spring forth the solutions for the world's energy problems.

Unless you have a real solution, stop whining like a little puppy.

RE: propaganda.
By ClownPuncher on 9/26/2013 1:25:49 PM , Rating: 2
...petroleum until we can cut the red tape to roll out Thorium reactors near every major city.

RE: propaganda.
By mindless1 on 10/10/2013 11:56:12 PM , Rating: 2
Then why delay the inevitable? Let's go ahead and use the petroleum until there's only enough for manufacturing, not enough for fuel, THEN make a unified switch to ethanol by which point we will have likely converted a large portion of the world's vehicles to electric.

Further there exists a possibility that chemistry may provide us with a way to produce ethanol from sunlight that leaves out the corn entirely, allowing for a controlled and more automated process that uses less energy.

Then again, I think it'd be kinda cool if we all went back to riding horses, but then we have to grow crops to feed them instead.

Fuel Mileage Loss
By btc909 on 9/25/2013 11:42:23 PM , Rating: 2
When I run the AC I get 290-310 miles per tank of E10. The average is a 10% loss with Ethanol. Lets say 10% loss on 310 miles I should be getting 335 on pure gasoline. When I don't run the AC I get 350-355 so I should be getting 385 based on 350 miles to a tank with E10.

Plus I have to dump in a fuel system cleaner twice a year.

I thought drilling our own oil was suppose to bring gas prices down?

I don't have any nearby access to E0 gas in Southern Kalifornia.

RE: Fuel Mileage Loss
By freedom4556 on 9/26/2013 3:11:09 AM , Rating: 2
I don't have any nearby access to E0 gas in Southern Kalifornia.
That's because your state is run by communists.

RE: Fuel Mileage Loss
By Monkey's Uncle on 9/26/2013 10:01:19 AM , Rating: 2
So, where are you getting the 10% mileage loss from? Are you thinking perhaps that the 10% ethanol in your tank is not in itself fuel? Ethanol burns, though in near-pure form you would need to run it at a lower fuel-air ratio. At 10% it works just fine at the standard gasoline air-fuel ratios. Your car's EPU only needs to lower A/F ratios if you are hitting E30-E85 concentrations and only cars built to handle that level of ethanol can run it.

I've owned several cars for about 4 decades now and we have been using E10 gas in Canada for about 10 years. I have yet to need a fuel system cleaner in any of my cars in all that time.

Drilling your own oil (does the U.S really produce its own crude anymore?) does not change the transport and refining costs of oil. Also it is not where the oil comes from that drives costs to you. It is supply & demand on the commodities market that does.

RE: Fuel Mileage Loss
By The Von Matrices on 9/26/2013 6:25:15 PM , Rating: 2
I still think that ethanol blending was one of the worst ideas imaginable. There should never have been a blended ethanol standard. E100 (or maybe slightly lower to add lubricants and denature it) should have been the only form of fuel ethanol available. Then you could build cars that have high compression ratio engines, run on only ethanol, and get spectacular fuel economy. Once you get 15% of the cars on the road running on pure ethanol, and then you have the same reduction in oil usage, maybe even more due to the increased fuel economy, with none of the blending related mechanical issues.

RE: Fuel Mileage Loss
By Monkey's Uncle on 9/26/2013 7:08:40 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that there are a lot of cars on the road that can't tolerate any more than 10% ethanol. 15% is really pushing it.

Car manufacturers are not ready with cars that can run on pure ethanol, nor are there gas stations that can supply it.

The only transitional solution to reduce stretch our oil reserves is to provide a blended fuel that can be consumed by any production car that required gasoline.

it is not the best solution, but it is one that everyone can live with and buys us time to come up with something better.

By DocScience on 9/26/2013 1:55:56 PM , Rating: 2
Oil refineries use oil and gas for energy.
But not one ethanol refinery uses ethanol for energy.

If ethanol is so cheap, cheaper than oil, why don't they use ethanol to produce the energy for distillation?

RE: paradox
By The Von Matrices on 9/26/2013 6:17:35 PM , Rating: 2
Oil refineries use undesirable, low-value byproducts (e.g. coke) for their energy requirements. But there are no low-value, undesirable byproducts from ethanol production. There's no reason you shouldn't use a cheaper fuel source for your plant when you can.

If you want to argue as to why they produce ethanol using natural gas as a heat source, you should consider that making ethanol is a way of converting energy between forms. You can't use natural gas in a conventional car, so you might as well use it to produce a product that can be used in a conventional car. Granted, GTL exists, but as of right now GTL is more expensive than ethanol production.

RE: paradox
By rountad on 9/26/2013 6:26:06 PM , Rating: 2
So, the CNG-fueled vehicles I see around here are just figments of my imagination?

RE: paradox
By The Von Matrices on 9/26/2013 6:28:40 PM , Rating: 2
As I said, conventional cars. It's great to replace the fleet with alternative fueled vehicles, but that doesn't happen quickly. Until then, you need substitute fuels for the older vehicles.

I hope...
By villageidiotintern on 9/25/2013 4:05:49 PM , Rating: 2
...the corn industry chokes on their subsidies and drowns in their ethanol.

RE: I hope...
By Monkey's Uncle on 9/26/2013 10:04:21 AM , Rating: 2
I am afraid I really can't post here what it is you are choking and drowning on.

Cheers, and keep up the good work.

RE: I hope...
By villageidiotintern on 9/27/2013 10:28:03 AM , Rating: 2
Your logic, education and parentage are impeccably beyond reproach.

.50¢- $1.50 Really???
By jp23 on 9/25/2013 6:02:33 PM , Rating: 2
I find it interesting that they say this is how much we are saving.

When I fill up at stations that have E-10 and E-0 the E-0 is usually only 10¢ to 20¢ extra.

RE: .50¢- $1.50 Really???
By Concillian on 9/25/2013 7:47:07 PM , Rating: 3
I think they're talking about what the price difference would be after taking into account supply and demand.

I don't pretend to know the oil and ethanol economies, but in theory the absence of ethanol would require an increased demand for oil to offset the ethanol, which would drive up the price.

These are sure to be highly speculative, since when prices increase, some sources will choose to increase production rate, which would somewhat keep prices in check.

This is what journalism has become
By coburn_c on 9/25/2013 3:39:50 PM , Rating: 2
Why even advertise anymore when you can put out a press release and have all the two-bit news outlets do it for you.

By Monkey's Uncle on 9/26/2013 10:06:05 AM , Rating: 2
Why are you here? to complain about reposted new articles? This is a blog. What were you expecting?

Don't like it? Don't read it.


Saw the title...
By NicodemusMM on 9/26/2013 7:36:31 PM , Rating: 2
I saw the title and didn't even need to read the article to know two things with absolute, unbreachable certainty.

1) It was written by Tiffany
2) The information presented is highly selective at best, and downright propaganda at worst. Actually the latter is pretty typical of Tiffany at this point.

Can someone at DT please put her tripe in an area that doesn't share space with news or legitimate commentary? Even skimming the title is a waste of time.

And yes, I did read the article... just to make sure Nancy Pelosi wasn't contributing to DT. The jury is still out...

RE: Saw the title...
By deathwombat on 9/27/2013 1:29:14 PM , Rating: 2
So you prefer the biased articles of Jason Mick? All DailyTech articles contain information that is highly selective at best, and downright propaganda at worst. The only question is whether you prefer left-wing or right-wing propaganda.

This just in
By chµck on 9/25/2013 3:20:49 PM , Rating: 2
Replacing gas with a cheaper, less energy efficient filler saves money for EVERY GALLON!!

RE: This just in
By palmira_friend on 9/25/13, Rating: 0
By deathwombat on 9/27/2013 1:25:55 PM , Rating: 2
“Had Congress not raised the renewable fuels requirement, commercial crude oil inventories at the end of August would have dropped to 5.2 million barrels, a level two hundred million barrels lower than at any time since 1990,” said Verleger.

No it wouldn't; OPEC would just increase production. The price of oil is manipulated to be whatever price the oil producers think that the world can handle, and whatever the markets are willing to pay. If ethanol was banned, the world's oil producers would happily make up the deficit. There would be no longterm increase in the price of oil because it doesn't sell for what it costs to produce, it sells for what the market will bear.

By KurgSmash on 9/26/2013 12:44:24 PM , Rating: 1
I can make stuff up too.

Uhh, the Iraq war saved US citizens, umm, $3 Googabazillion dollars by preventing a nuclear catastrophe that would have happened had Iraq used a nuclear weapon on, umm... Australia. Yeah.

You are an ignoramus if you believe this self-serving claptrap from these charlatans.

"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki