Media done a good job bashing E85.....

I cannot belive the things that i am hearing from some of you guys... It dosent take a gallon of diesel or gas to get a gallon of alcohol! Currently they can get around 2 gals for every one gal oil. You are right we need to use a better source for alcohol but we have billions of extra bushels of corn. hell i rember when they would pile it on the ground in huge mounds. You got to understand that when there done getting alcohol they are left with a high qualty feed. It is not the long term answer but i bet if we cut are oil demand down by 20% in just a year they price of oil will plumit.Right now would be a IDEAL time to do that as demand is already lower. The fact is, that if there was no alcohol out the for fuel we would be paying around 70-90 cents more per gallon for gas. Another great source of energy that i would love to see in wide spread use for cars is nat gas. Right now the cost for nat gas for cars with tax added is 1.29 a gallon equalivant. I was at the gas station by an air port and saw the meter the taxi guys use. a few years back when gas was 1.69 it was .77 for nat gas. I am not gonna send any more money to them towel heads (who want us dead)then i have too. And as far as E10 hurting ANY engine or its fuel system, I have not seen it and i have ran alot of old tractors and mowers weed wips and what not on it and NEVER a fuel related problume. I guess i will just have to keep filling my car up with 1.85 e85 and the rest of you can fill your cars up with the e10 for 2.69 I cannot belive how much damage the media has done to ethonals image. Most of what was said on here is simply NOT TRUE. Do what you must, I just cant see why we would want to sent trillions of dollars to people who want to kill us.

Well said jonnny.

I also have been burning 10% since 1974 and have had not a single problem from E10.

It takes 1 gallon of gas to get .8 gallons of gas delievered to the customer. Yep that is point 8.

You are right on ethanol being for every gallon burnt we get 1.8 gallons of ethanol back.

Gary

I agree on the E-10. Been using it in everything I own since it first became available. That includes chainsaws, weedeaters, 2 stroke dirt bikes, old tractors, and cars and trucks. I have never had a problem that was fuel related.

We have been using the blend stuff for over 25yrs. Why did the largest refinery in NA buy the miss managed plants. They like to read some outdated info from someone who wouldnt know a cornfield from a brush pile. Newer plants get 3pluss gal from a bushel of corn. How can we make it from sugar cane when our gov limits the sugar process. Its good stuff i have been using it for 25yrs no problems.

johnny,

Alcohol doesn't have the same energy gallon-for-gallon as diesel.

Diesel has 139000 BTU per gallon.
Ethanol has 76000 BTU per gallon.

At 1.8 gallons of ethanol per gallon of diesel, you're getting 136800 BTUs out for every 139000 BTUs you put in.

You LOSE 2200 BTUs.

Even if we're generous and say 2 gallons, we only gain 13000 BTUs.

...and that's just to get the ethanol to the storage tank at the ethanol plant! I sincerely doubt that figure includes trucking the finished product to fuel depots, and then on to gas stations.

...and that's using modern fuel-efficient equipment! An old 1066 can't possibly hold a candle to a new Magnum as far as acres covered per gallon of fuel.

If we just ate the corn and burned the energy wasted turning it into ethanol in our cars, we wouldn't even notice the difference in our dependency on foreign oil. Heck some of these oil nations are deserts and can't produce their own food. How about we sell them some of the corn we don't eat? Of course that won't work because our government, rightys and leftys alike, have allowed other countries to impose huge tariffs on our exports, while letting them send their stuff over here tax-free. Leftys because they're afraid of making someone mad. Rightys because they're making big money on the deal.

Corn ethanol is not economically feasible. You just can't get enough out to justify what you put in. Maybe if this biomass or switchgrass ethanol thing ever works out... They say you can get 3 to 5 times as much out as you put in.

No matter how you look at it, you are just burning topsoil.

Hi Mkirsch: I tend to agree. Your last comment about switchgrass is good. I'd like to see the 35 million acres of tax money paid toward marginal land owners NOT paid but used for switchgrass. A double benifit... below is one link.. (of many)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-better-ethanol-than-corn
Switch 2 Switchgrass

The EPA's own study determined that ethanol decreases gas mileage. At the same time the gov't is demanding auto makers produce higher mileage cars - while demanding we burn more ethanol % fuel. Any wonder why we're in the state we're in. And reducing our dependance on foreign oil is a catch phrase. These higher mileage cars need to be light - ie made out of plastic - which is an oil based product. Dont get me wrong - i'm all for the farmer being able to sell corn and actually make money, but the whole politics behind it is a load of manure.

it still costs less to get alcohol the reason for it is Brazil is import free from oil now that it goes with alcohol burning autos. I don't want to burn it but I don't want the Arabs dictating my future either.

Not proper to compare ethanol BTU's to diesel BTU's. they do not burn in the same engines.
Compare Ethanol to Gas.

> I"d like to see the 35 million acres of tax money...

So would I. That would be about $14 trillion if it was all ones. Real money even by Congressional standards.

You know we have had 10% ethanol since the 1980s here in Missouri,at least since then,maybe the 1970s I dont remember.That means it worked in carburetor cars all the way to modern smog control smothered fuel injected turbo engines and what problems there were with it have been mostly fixed.Thats in everything that runs on gas.If you watch tractor pulls or drag races there are straight alcohol motors that put out lots of horsepower and have been since way back probably the 40s and 50s.
We did at one time have so much corn we gave it away before.I think they even dumped some in the ocean because it got old before it was used and they needed to make room for the new crop.Who gives a d@mn if they can make alcohol out of something that was being wasted anyway?The secret is nobody wanted you to know it was being wasted.Now its more valuable since ethanol is being made out of it.It still wont save farming.Now think about that.Farming as we always knew it is dead.Its not coming back either.You will be starving if something doesnt save it.Food does not,nor did it ever come from a store.It came from lots of hard work by families who are beat to death in some cases.By getting on here bad mouthing their way of life even more you are causing the end to come sooner.When big corporations get control of all the land and water your ability to buy food will start to get lots harder.Actually food is a very,very fragile system and even the ability of big companies to produce it is threatened by the stupidity of the way the markets are run by educated idiots and greedy politicians that have no idea of the damage they are causing.If its not profitable corporations will quit doing it here,then you will pay lots more for some other country to produce enough to feed you.You wont eat much meat,you wont eat much of anything except what you can get.Where do you think food comes from?We grow lots here now,but its harder all the time and Im not going to waste my time explaining it any better.By following along with the idiot reasons for not making ethanol you would cut people out of jobs,lower the value of a cash crop,and make your own life worse.Thats the truth,now Im sure the spinning will begin about how you all were taught in some communist school that beating farmers to death is good for the economy.Sometimes even if you are right,you are still wrong.

E10 troubles? OK, some early motorcycles and small engines don"t run right after using E10 because of gasket materials or carberator parts are eaten by the alcohal. Small engines get "gelled" floats, etcfrom ethanol. 1970s Carter carb engines dad accelerator pump diaphrams eaten by ethanol and had cars die inmiddle of intersections- these were AMC 6 cylinders, Chrysler slant 6, the small Ford 6. service bulletins issued. 198-82 Nissan fuel injectors leaking- Ethanol ate holes in casting that had zinc and magnesium in the aluminum for ease in final machining. Potential lawsuit and government recall- courts ruled not manufacturers fault as the casting was designed for US market with EPA specified fuel at the time of manufacture. My Honda goldwing fuel pump affected by ethanol mix- had to replace when carbs cleaned and no rubber orings , gaskets replaced- now running no Ethanol unleaded from the few station in Wisconsin that have it- Citgo premium is in many of their stations no ethanol. Small engine shops getting weedeaters with fouled carbs from ethanol mix- manufactures operating instructions specified unleaded only, customer filled with ethanol pump gas and had problems after about 4 fills, engine stop/wouldn"t start after 8/10 fills. Tree service in my area has only newest chainsaws able to run E10 mix without starting and running problems- most are getting straight unleaded for earlier than 2005 models to run right. Local munincipal vehicles filling at same unleaded only pumps I use because of starting problems on even newest models except flex fuelers and increasee mileage. BMW rally and HOG rally had service bulletins and warnings for which year models have potential carb or injector problems reported. Ford engine fires in mid 70s to early 1980s V8 351 and 400s with motorcraft carb as well as AMC Jeeps with same carb fuel leakage from casting- partial blame on ethanol mixes aggravating minor casting defects or casting mixture- zinc mixes no longer used because of ethanol spiked fuels.
Now for cynical conspiracy theory: Government and industry knows of problem on early engines but want them destroyed so they can sell newer, more expensive replacement vehicles. It should be noted Mexico with its cheapest no lead and higher octane no lead, no ethanol premium has less reported problems for same vehicles. Media publicity is pushing high ethanol for advertising revenue for the replacement vehicles after old classics destroyed. I told you It was a cynical view- but it isn"t far from thruth. RN

Hello John: The 35M acres was mention half way through the link... ( Marginal land is what they are talking about. 35 million times lets say $100acre equals $3+ Billion not Trillion. Add two zero.. A billion isn't amything anymore? ) The link --> (The use of native prairie grasses is meant to avoid some of the other risks associated with biofuels such as reduced diversity of local animal life and displacing food crops with fuel crops. "This is an energy crop that can be grown on marginal land," Vogel argues, such as the more than 35 million acres (14.2 million hectares) of marginal land that farmers are currently paid not to plant under the terms of USDA's Conservation Reserve Program.)

> 35 million times lets say $100acre equals $3+
> Billion not Trillion. Add two zero..

I was attempting to make a joke. The sentence I quoted said "35 million acres in tax money" so I calculated the number of $1 bills required to cover 35 million acres.

> A billion isn"t amything anymore?

Senator Dirkson: "A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you"re talking real money."

I"ll never use alcohol gas ever again, tried some back in the 80"s in my 69 Coupe Deville. It ate the varnish off the inside of the tank, clogging the filter 50 miles from nowhere. Tried it after that in a fuel injected motor, what a loss in power and mileage, could"nt hardly pull my trailer up the local pass from Laramie. Hemp on the other hand produces more Diesel per acre than any other crop. Rudolph Diesel ran his 1st motors on Hemp just for that reason. What did the first Gutenberg bible, Christopher Columbus’ ropes and sails, the Declaration of Independence and the first American flag have in common? All were made from hemp. Indeed, many of America’s forefathers, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, earned a living at one point in their lives growing and selling hemp, which was used to make everything from Fuel to paper to rope to sails to clothing. During World War II the crop was of such strategic importance for making clothing that the U.S. government provided farmers with subsidies to convert other types of fields over to hemp cultivation.

Hemp is a renewable and easy-to-grow crop that is tough enough to substitute for paper or wood and malleable enough to be made into clothing and even a biodegradable form of plastic. Meanwhile, hemp oil is all the rage among natural foods gourmands, who enjoy its nutty flavor and its healthy amounts of protein and omega fatty acids. Hemp is also a popular ingredient in many new hand and body lotions.

Environmentalists and farmers alike appreciate hemp as an alternative to cotton for clothes and trees for paper. Unlike cotton, hemp does not require large doses of pesticides and herbicides as it is naturally resistant to pests and grows fast, crowding out weeds. To make paper, trees must grow for many years, while a field of hemp can be harvested in a few months and make four times the paper over a few decades. Also, the making paper from hemp uses only a fraction of the chemicals required to turn trees into paper.
With their American competition out of the running, Canadian farmers have been reaping hemp’s financial rewards, especially following a ruling by a U.S. federal court that hemp-made products could be imported into the U.S. In 2005, the Canadian hemp industry tripled the amount of acreage dedicated to the crop to meet rising demand, according to the Canadian Hemp Trade Alliance.

I've read these debates with great interest.I always find it curious that people label certain things as "facts" without any documentation. I will be the first to admit that I dont understand the macro-economics of the situation. I do however, understand my own micro-economics. On our personal vehicles, both fuel mileage and power go down and fuel cost per mile goes up when burning E-85. Even if the cost per mile was even, the loss of power makes burning E-85 a net loss for me. It has also been my observation that gas goes bad a lot quicker than it did years ago. I'm of a mind that its the ethanol content causing that, but certainly would be open to other opinions. I would love to see an open-minded, fair, unbiased discussion that is based on facts of this topic on this board, but I'm not holding my breath for it. With all the different agenda's, its nearly impossible.

2. Replace the gas in your fuel tank at least every 2-3 weeks.
The shelf life of E-10 gas is only 3 months (90-100 days) under ideal environmental conditions.

http://www.fuel-testers.com/ethanol_engine_precautions.html