E15 Gasoline

[Wingnutty]

Ethanol is a farce. Always has been but then again when did the US government ever enact policies grounded in common sense. If federal subsidies ended tomorrow so would ethanol.

I mean absolutely no disrespect to farmers, ag business and hard work people involved with the corn/ethanol industry! Hell, I wouldn’t be against profiting from it myself (who says I don’t, lol).

I’m glad ethanol provides jobs and economic benefits to the Midwest that’s all good but we might as well be honest and say that ethanol isn’t really environmentally friendly or sustainable from an ecological perspective - its subsidized to provide economic benefits to the Midwest voting population, period.

 

[MattB]

What part of @amassi's statement was based on fact? Poet biorefining is not owned by the state or federal government. It is owned by private investors. The folks working at the ethanol plant are not state or federal employees, and their paychecks are not distributed by a government entitlement program.

I think at least some of the Iowan's on here would say you disrespected their family members that work in any part of agribusiness, as according to you and @amassi since they work in ag they're all working "welfare jobs subsidized by other hard working taxpayers". Don't you think these folks pay the same taxes you do? Hell, that's not limited to Iowa either. Ya'll are dissrespecting every person on here and their family members that work at a co-op, feed mill, fertilizer plant, seed dealer, custom spraying company, and other ag sector jobs. All those people work for or with farmers, so I guess they're all working welfare jobs subsidized by other people?

The ethanol industry only exists because of government subsidies. Because there is a middleman in terms of who signs over taxpayer dollars has no implication. That is no disrespect to people who work in the industry, but to their employers whose existence is predicated on access to a government teat.

The U.S. Subsidy That Empowers Putin

Ending America’s foolish subsidies for ethanol could aid Ukraine.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[z987k]

What part of @amassi's statement was based on fact? Poet biorefining is not owned by the state or federal government. It is owned by private investors. The folks working at the ethanol plant are not state or federal employees, and their paychecks are not distributed by a government entitlement program.

I think at least some of the Iowan's on here would say you disrespected their family members that work in any part of agribusiness, as according to you and @amassi since they work in ag they're all working "welfare jobs subsidized by other hard working taxpayers". Don't you think these folks pay the same taxes you do? Hell, that's not limited to Iowa either. Ya'll are dissrespecting every person on here and their family members that work at a co-op, feed mill, fertilizer plant, seed dealer, custom spraying company, and other ag sector jobs. All those people work for or with farmers, so I guess they're all working welfare jobs subsidized by other people?

He was referring to the good folks at the ethanol plant near you. Not all Ag. Their job only exists because of government subsidy. That some people can't figure out that just because the government check doesn't go directly to the worker that it isn't a subsidy is rather dense, or disingenuous. Honestly I'd rather the government just pay those workers their salary to stay home and not make ethanol. It'd be cheaper, and wildly better for our domestic energy production, fuel economy, the environment and our engines.

1 gallon of ethanol contains 77,000BTU of energy. 1 gallon of ethanol requires 133,000BTU of energy(using corn) to make. So for every gallon of ethanol, we have to use more gasoline than if we just used the gasoline directly in the car in the first place. Which means every gallon of ethanol produced for fuel makes us less energy independent. Every gallon of ethanol produced means more gasoline has to be refined to make up for the net loss. So no, it doesn't matter how much we increase domestic oil production, the ethanol is always a drain on that.


If there were no subsidies for ethanol, E10 would cost about 20% more than E0. That's how massive the subsidy is. No one would ever buy E10. It would not exist. Those jobs(ethanol fuel production) would not exist. And they should not exist. It is a very bad social welfare program that harms the environment, hurts American energy independence, while also raising food prices.

Wheat prices are going to skyrocket with 1/3 of the world's wheat not being planted this spring/embargoed this fall. Plant that. At least you're actually feeding people that way.

 

[Chucklehead]

The ethanol industry only exists because of government subsidies. Because there is a middleman in terms of who signs over taxpayer dollars has no implication. That is no disrespect to people who work in the industry, but to their employers whose existence is predicated on access to a government teat.

The U.S. Subsidy That Empowers Putin

Ending America’s foolish subsidies for ethanol could aid Ukraine.

www.theatlantic.com

Probably wouldn't go to ANY news agency if you want to know how the ag industry operates. Especially an article written by a Washington insider.

"You know, farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil, and you're a thousand miles from the corn field." Dwight D. Eisenhower

I can't say this loud enough: Corn doesn't disappear when it is processed for ethanol. And many "articles" are written using this assumption. And it is 100% false.
Its not a food or fuel proposition.
When they make ethanol they are removing the starch from the corn. The leftover is called "distillers grain".
This product is hauled to feedlots or other barns for livestock feed. It is usually mixed with some type of Stover. (usually corn stalks that have been baled up.)

The author can't even get the very basic concepts right, and yet he is writing articles like he is a subject matter expert.

Am I all for subsidies? Not really. I wish the industry would stand on its own. And it probably could. It would just be way less profitable than it is now. (Which isn't saying much)

For the farmer, is the only man in our economy who has to buy everything he buys at retail - sell everything he sells at wholesale - and pay the freight both ways. JFK

 

[5MilesBack]

If it's 30 years old, is it speed density, and does it have closed loop only or does it do open loop?
If yes and the former, that's why.

You're speaking a foreign language......sorry. A competent mechanic I am not.......except for the regular mechanical type parts.

 

[Chucklehead]

He was referring to the good folks at the ethanol plant near you. Not all Ag. Their job only exists because of government subsidy. That some people can't figure out that just because the government check doesn't go directly to the worker that it isn't a subsidy is rather dense, or disingenuous. Honestly I'd rather the government just pay those workers their salary to stay home and not make ethanol. It'd be cheaper, and wildly better for our domestic energy production, fuel economy, the environment and our engines.

There is no government check. The subsidy is in the form of tax credit. You have to produce something of benefit to qualify. If you end the subsidy there would be no production to collect tax on.
And yep pay people to stay home. Brilliant idea because it worked so well in 2020-2021.

1 gallon of ethanol contains 77,000BTU of energy. 1 gallon of ethanol requires 133,000BTU of energy(using corn) to make. So for every gallon of ethanol, we have to use more gasoline than if we just used the gasoline directly in the car in the first place. Which means every gallon of ethanol produced for fuel makes us less energy independent. Every gallon of ethanol produced means more gasoline has to be refined to make up for the net loss. So no, it doesn't matter how much we increase domestic oil production, the ethanol is always a drain on that.

I'd start looking for some alternative data. It is a huge calculation that is not nearly that simple. All depends on who you ask:
https://alternativeenergy.procon.or...-energy-than-the-amount-needed-to-produce-it/
Most that cite numbers like yours are using a highly flawed Cornell study. That does not take in all factors, makes a lot of assumptions and takes a lot of liberties when making calculations.
That is usually the major flaw of any "author" or youtuber making anything about ethanol. They never have the full picture or all the data.

If there were no subsidies for ethanol, E10 would cost about 20% more than E0. That's how massive the subsidy is. No one would ever buy E10. It would not exist. Those jobs(ethanol fuel production) would not exist. And they should not exist. It is a very bad social welfare program that harms the environment, hurts American energy independence, while also raising food prices.

Care to share your sources for that claim? I'd be interested to see them.
And how much subsidy does big oil get? Do the same calculation for straight gas and get back to me.

Wheat prices are going to skyrocket with 1/3 of the world's wheat not being planted this spring/embargoed this fall. Plant that. At least you're actually feeding people that way.

Tell me where to sell it and I'll grow it.

 

[z987k]

Am I all for subsidies? Not really. I wish the industry would stand on its own. And it probably could. It would just be way less profitable than it is now. (Which isn't saying much)

Would you buy E10 if it was 20% more at the pump than E0? No? Then it not only would not be profitable, but would quickly not exist as there's not really a market for gasoline more expensive that gets slightly less fuel economy and ruins small engines.
The only reason anyone buys E10 is because it is shoved down their throat and they rarely have a choice.

 

[MallardSX2]

I wont run it in any of my vehicles.....its terrible fuel. I certainly would never run it in anything with a carb. I only run ethanol free in my carb engines.

 

[z987k]

There is no government check. The subsidy is in the form of tax credit. You have to produce something of benefit to qualify. If you end the subsidy there would be no production to collect tax on.
And yep pay people to stay home. Brilliant idea because it worked so well in 2020-2021.

I'd start looking for some alternative data. It is a huge calculation that is not nearly that simple. All depends on who you ask:
https://alternativeenergy.procon.or...-energy-than-the-amount-needed-to-produce-it/
Most that cite numbers like yours are using a highly flawed Cornell study. That does not take in all factors, makes a lot of assumptions and takes a lot of liberties when making calculations.
That is usually the major flaw of any "author" or youtuber making anything about ethanol. They never have the full picture or all the data.

Care to share your sources for that claim? I'd be interested to see them.
And how much subsidy does big oil get? Do the same calculation for straight gas and get back to me.

Tell me where to sell it and I'll grow it.

I don't want to pay people to stay home, but if we badly need a jobs program, I can think of a lot of things, to include paying people to stay home that is cheaper to the government than subsidizing ethanol, that otherwise would not exist, to be employed.

Yes oil is subsidized. And yes we should end that to. But we should certainly end a subsidy that requires us to produce even more oil to make up for it.

As far as price, that's based on the net energy loss and additional cost of energy required to make the ethanol. No study claims it's not a net energy loss. There is so little energy in ethanol, and growing corn is energy intensive, distilling alcohol is very energy intensive.

 

[z987k]

I wont run it in any of my vehicles.....its terrible fuel. I certainly would never run it in anything with a carb. I only run ethanol free in my carb engines.

To be fair, you can set up a carb to run it. You can set up a carb to run on 100% ethanol. It's just that no one does, and nothing comes that way, to include seals that are resistant to it.
If you set up an engine to run on nothing but ethanol, or close to it, you can make up some of the energy loss through higher compression ratios or boost, higher thermodynamic efficiency of the engine.

 

[MallardSX2]

^^^ Ya, ok.

 

[Govinator3]

To be fair, you can set up a carb to run it. You can set up a carb to run on 100% ethanol. It's just that no one does, and nothing comes that way, to include seals that are resistant to it.
If you set up an engine to run on nothing but ethanol, or close to it, you can make up some of the energy loss through higher compression ratios or boost, higher thermodynamic efficiency of the engine.

That is what I'm about. I often wonder with all these vehicles moving to small displacement turbocharged engines why dont we utilize the higher octane of high content ethanol fuel. I'm very close to converting my WRX to flex fuel so I can get more power (higher boost and more advanced ign timing) with cheaper fuel. The only drawback I can see is losing 20% of my range per tank. When you have to run 93 regardless, the cost of E85 is mighty tempting.

Also I see a lot of people on here claiming the ethanol requires more energy to produce than it yields. I can find you just as many papers that claim otherwise I particularly like the 2015 USDA energy balance for Corn ethanol paper. It claims 9,007 btu/gal ethanol that is a far cry from the 133,000 claimed above. I suppose it all depends on your study's assumptions.

I will say the conversion of "virgin" land to farm land with the start of the ethanol mandates was not something I had considered. That was an interesting point in the Engineering Explained video.

 

[Schism]

I particularly like the 2015 USDA energy balance for Corn ethanol paper.

I'm old enough to remember the food pyramid put out by the USDA. I'm not sold on corn ethanol for a variety of reasons but I sure won't be going to the USDA looking for unbiased information.

 

[Govinator3]

I'm old enough to remember the food pyramid put out by the USDA. I'm not sold on corn ethanol for a variety of reasons but I sure won't be going to the USDA looking for unbiased information.

If you aren't eating 5 servings of grain a day you aren't healthy, everyone knows that