I thought about preceding the title of this thread with OT, but this subject affects all of us and our T's.
The below article was in today's paper, The Lakeland Ledger, about the unforeseen catastrophic effects ethanol production has had on the environment in Iowa and corn producing states. (in case you want to read it for yourself, go to www.theledger.com and type "ethanol" in the search box). One official said "They're raping the land...". It would be nice if politicians could admit when a policy has been totally unsuccessful in every possible way and terminate it, but they are just too stubborn and hard headed. From the harmful effects it has on engines to the destabilization of corn prices, to this, this policy has been an utter debacle and I'll be glad when it goes the way of Prohibition if we ever get anyone with any common sense in Washington. Jim Patrick
This is another Bush disaster, merely continued under Obama, but that's not what the article implies. Oil was $28/bbl at the end of 2000, and it peaked at $147 in 2008. It was about 2004 when this fiasco started, due to rapidly rising price of oil caused by some turmoil in Iraq. Yes, Obama is partially to blame today, for continuing to support it.
Monsanto and the other chemical warfare companies grease the palms of CONgress to assure this program will never die.
I'll take the Archie Bunker approach and say we should press the rabid environmentalists into pellets for our wood stoves and our environmental problems would be solved.
Thank's for what?? If the railroad industry get's a subsidy quiet. Boeing get's vast somes of money quiet.A farmer who grows corn has a expanded market-Bitch!! Burning Corn as i speak!! Bud.bud
Worse is Monsanto sells all the corn seed so everyone as far as I know grows the same corn. No crop diversity.
There are still a few smaller dealers of seed. My family buys from everybody we can, except Monsanto. When a dealer goes out of business, or gets bought by Monsanto, we find a new dealer. Monsanto is easily one of the worst parts of agriculture in America today.
The sooner it gets killed the sooner our food costs and fuel costs will go down. It's been a complete disaster financially and ecologically, no way any honest person can justify it.
Take that to the ChiComs, Jay. They have to shut down whole cities due to air pollution. Their foods, especially seafoods they export, are poisonous.
Here's the part I just don't understand.
Its widely accepted that E90 with 10% ethanol gives you about 10% less gas mileage. My own experiments show this to be approximately correct.
If so, why not just use 10% less real gasoline ..... you'll go just as far.
Could there be a profit motive behind all this ? Hmmmmmmmmm .........
You might want to look a little deeper than ethanol. I live in Iowa. I don't know what "virgin soil" is. It seems to imply, prairie that had never been plowed. That is not true. It is farm programs that guarantee prices, crop insurance that is subsidized by the taxpayer at a rate of 60%, and others. If a farmer can plow it and plant it, he is guaranteed, by the government, to make money on it. Think about it, if you were an oil company, would you want to sell someone else's ethanol or your oil? Look a little farther than the headlines, guys...
Michael,Sorry to hear it.That sounds so dumb it had to come from rush windbag! Bud. Sure is nice burning a 50/50 corn wood pellet mix.I wonder if there have been any of our fighting men/women killed fighting over corn?Bud.
The problem is, anytime the government gets involved, it gets all screwed up. Just look at Obamacare-- the UNaffordable Care Act....we're starting to hear every day in the news of people having their ins. costs go UP with less benefits in order to comply with this new law...and just learned my wife's (separate policy from mine) just went UP a whopping $175 a MONTH with less benefits...oh, except she'll be covered if she gets pregnant. She's past that stage, so if she does, maybe then we'll get rich!!
My health insurance went up from $473 a month for me and my wife to $715 a month thanks to Obama, with reduced coverage and increased deductable. It had been the same price for the previous five years.
However we do now have free abortion care.
I'd say it's just a liiiitle off topic now. In Iowa, our real gasoline was just 10 cents higher 6 months ago, then it went to 20. then a quarter. This morning, its now 36 cents higher. Nothing short of forcing the people towards 10% water, I mean ethanol. I get great mileage with straight gasoline, however it is above the aforementioned 10%, closer to 17% for me.
I refuse to buy ethanol, it is a 100% political with 10% ethanol blend.
It is sickening.
Better stick to the topic.
The software for the F-35 fighter is 8 years behind schedule, and the price has gone from $80 Million each to $160 Million, each, and counting. What chance does an Obamacare website have?
We're at the mercy of the Military Industrial Security Complex partnered with Wall Street and other huge businesses that own Washington.
I just had to rebuild an older Tecumseh carburetor to use my roto-tiller, as gas was pouring out all over the top.
The carb is a smaller version of the Holley NH, only with the needle valve in the bottom.
The fuel cut-off needle valve is solid, but there is a very small donut that it fits into, which is easily removed with a metal screw.
The repair kit only cost a few dollars, but it had a note on it that if the engine used gas with more than 10 % ethanol, the warrantee was void.
Actually that ethanol was what caused the valve to fail!
“Putting things in perspective: March 21st 2010 to October 1 2013 is 3 years, 6 months, 10 days. December 7, 1941 to May 8, 1945 is 3 years, 5 months, 1 day. What this means is that in the time we were attacked at Pearl Harbor to the day Germany surrendered is not enough time for this progressive federal government to build a working webpage. Mobilization of millions, building tens of thousands of tanks, planes, jeeps, subs, cruisers, destroyers, torpedoes, millions upon millions of guns, bombs, ammo, etc. Turning the tide in North Africa, Invading Italy, D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, Race to Berlin – all while we were also fighting the Japanese in the Pacific!! And in that same amount of time – this administration can’t build a working website.”
posted on the net
Three boys put together a working web site for health care in their spare evenings and a week end. It is called Health Sherpa.com and works. There are still people out there who measure up to 1940s standards, but sadly, none of the people in the government, elected or salaried measure up.
Back to the OT topic...
It's about time, I've had to wait almost a decade for this to make it to the surface.
Don't kid yourselves, the biggest proponents of Ethanol fuel have been Big Oil. They just suckered the environmentalists in on this one. Every gallon of ethanol takes more than a gallon of fossil fuel to produce and process. Net gain for Big Oil. Guaranteed prices and volume sales for CorpAG. And best of all, when everyone figures out what a bad idea this has been, they'll blame the environmentalists (see some of the posts in this thread), and if anyone develops a real practical alternative to oil fuel, they'll get to denigrate the new concept as "just another ethanol debacle waiting to happen". It's brilliant on so many levels.
As the US became the world's largest producer of ethanol fuel in 2005, I could see the writing on the wall. Over fertilization for ethanol fuel was killing off the Gulf, long before, and more effectively than the BP drilling disaster. Big Oil and CorpAG were laughing their way to the bank. For about a year, this was my "go to" party topic. I figured that it would take about 5 years for the wheels to come off and the corporate scam to be exposed. That was supposed to be around 2010. I guess that we're all a little slower than I gave us credit for. But the Corporate Circus Ringmasters have kept the masses distracted with endless "crisis and drama" of no real consequence (see some of the posts in this thread). The well intentioned have been unwittingly enrolled in promoting the distractions (see some of the posts in this thread), but realistically, what chance do we have as individuals to resist the billions spent on manipulating our opinions?
So rail against anyone that disagrees with you. Make sure that you think of this as "us vs. them" in spite of the fact that we're all on the same team. As long as we're bickering amongst ourselves, the real movers and shakers will have Carte Blanche to screw us all. It's really all according to plan.
With all that said, I need to swap out the front oil lamp brackets on the '14 and start thinking about pulling the body off the '16. These are things that I can actually do something about.
Right on, Eric.
Back then I looked at the yield from an acre of corn, and it wasn't much. And you get only one crop a year. Meanwhile, large populations in other countries were hit with rising food prices due to corn imported from the US. They couldn't afford it, and that destabilized countries like Egypt.
Blaming the destabilization of counties like Egypt on corn prices is like blaming spoons for fat people. That particular destabilization might have more to do with the religion of peace and tolerance than the price of corn.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not for corn subsidies or ethanol but they shouldn't be sited for mid-east destabilization.
Before corn was used as fuel to propel our cars, it was used to feed the famine plagued countries of the world. Those countries, like ours, are, no doubt worse off as a result of this misguided policy... only they are starving and dying in droves as a result of it...
Well since we're complaining about government... I'm unsure if I can legally post my opinion on this thread. Thanks Dodd-Frank.
After being a Physics Major and a theoretical biologist (whatever that is...) for about 30 years, the one thing that kept coming up was that "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch". Whatever we try to do, be it electric cars or ethanol, there is ALWAYS an environmental cost. You just trade one cost for another.
It brings to mind Mark Twain's remark about "common sense" -- "It ain't all that common!".
There is yet another issue about ethanol that most people aren't aware of, and sitting here even I can't remember the exact quantity, but I do remember reading a while back that the production of ethanol uses VASTLY HUGE quantities of water, and even the producers were worried about that impact, what with over 40% of the country still mired in an extreme drought condition. Of course, they were only worried about their wallet and stock shares, not the fact that they are consuming water that could be used for crop irrigation and supplying homes. It's always about the money.
Pesticides are less common now than in the past. Due to EPA standards and regulation (there's that government again), less harmful to people and the environment than ever before. Also, conversion of grain to ethanol consumes as little as 30-33 percent of the grain, leaving up to seventy percent available for livestock feed. Just as importantly, the grains used for ethanol production are almost entirely used as livestock feed, with very little of this grain used for human consumption (you get a lot of corn flakes from a few bushels of corn).
I'm not sure why the idea that all energy has a cost (environmentally) should be a factor in this argument. If someone is suggesting all types of energy production creates an equal amount of pollution (per unit of energy produced), that is completely off base and doesn't deserve serious consideration, in my opinion.
Not that most on this thread care to hear another side of this story.
Now, back to:
"Post for the good of the hobby"?
Speaking of ethanol, how do you all winterize you T fuel system? PK
In Southern California, I "winterize" by driving the cars from time to time to keep the fuel burning and fresh! I drove down to the bank yesterday. We also have tours and parades all year around here.
Hi From Iowa: I live in Iowa and I am a Farmer that grows corn and sell on the open market in Iowa to the highest bidder - and yes some probably goes in to ethanol. I have collected and driven model Ts since I was 9 years old (now 68)! I do not use ethanol in the old cars and tractors that were not built to use it, but I find nothing wrong with using it in the newer ones!! You do have a choice as to what you do use in your vehicle, but do not disparage we farmers who are finally making enough profit on our farms to be able to pursue our antique car hobbies in these times! All the farmers I know are good stewards of our land and are very careful of our fertilizer use and use good conservation on any HEL (highly erodible land) that we farm!! Just my opinion from a old timer that is glad we have found a renewable replacement for part of the oil that is not renewable! I do have a reason to like the stuff and do not complain that some of you have had the opportunity to make more money in your jobs than was possible for most of us on the land? Have a Good Day and give thanks that we live in a country like ours (I personally can think of places I would not like to live in)!!! John
I winterize my T the same way in Oregon, drive it as often as possible.
John as some one whose "in the thick of it" I totally agree with your statements. You offer a product that's being legally sold in an expanding market and it allows you to live your life with a little joy on the side. This subject only pops up here now and then because of how it affects the older collector type cars and their future use. It's here and it isn't leaving. The question here is what's tomorrow hold for the T world fuel-wise.
Thanks for the post. We had some of the best crops ever (although I'm not sure why considering how dry we were). I hope your harvest has gone well (and is over). One ethanol (er, I mean corn) producer to another,
And if you want to read the other side of the story. Video at the end says it all. If you the same question ten different ways, you're bound to be able to piece together what you want to hear.
Thanks. Now, if someone will read it....
While I respect farmers in the same way I respect our frontline soldiers and applaud the fact they are able to make a living wage from growing corn for ethanol production, the fact remains that the majority of informed Americans despise the ethanol program which has been an abysmal failure in so many ways and just another example of the long list of Government intrusions, mismanagement, massive expense and ineptitude, that has had many harmful unforeseen consequences and has come nowhere near to fulfilling the many promises it held at the beginning. Quite the contrary it has been an utter disaster to everyone but the farmer, which is the only bright spot this program offers, but while I hate to see our farmers suffer with the cancellation of one of the few enterprises that offers them a decent and ceaseless source of income for their hard work, I believe the country, as a whole, would benefit by the cessation of this program along with most all of the programs big brother government has a hand in. Jim Patrick
I understand you have your opinion (and believe everything you wrote is absolute fact). However, that is not necessarily "the majority of informed American's" opinion, and certainly not mine, nor the opinion of several others on this forum. I find it offensive and arrogant when someone says their opinion is 'fact" and held by "the majority of informed American's" (implying by the nature of the statement that other opinions are uninformed or untrue). It's your opinion, that's all. You may have read a number of convincing articles, hold beliefs, or have other methods of developing opinions, however that does not mean your opinions are more "informed" than mine, or anyone else.
I'm respect your right to have and express an opinion. I expect you will respect my right to have and express one equally. This isn't directed at you so much as toward the whole "I know, you don't" attitude that seems prevalent on the forum.
That's why I think this should be left for other places (forums).
Corn is for eating.Corn squeezen's are for drinking.
Gas is for running our cars.
It aint rocket science.
I guess that says it all.......
Wait til the next presidential election Hillary vs Sara Palin. and see where our country is heading???????????
What began as an interesting thread on ethanol has become a political bashfest. At least we haven't stooped as low as Democrat v. Republican, but still. I'm not a fan of the government either, but there's no reason to discuss it here. It seems to be a general consensus that nobody here likes ethanol. Let's just leave it like that. Can we get back to the subjects of motoring in and wrenching on Model Ts?
why dont we talk about income tax and what loop holes do to the country. abolish income tax we pay tax on everything anyway and help everyone rich poor and middle class. bernie
next year they are going to put a bicycle tax to help pay for the bicycle lanes they been putting in the last few years here in NYS
Anything government attempts that is not part of what the founders of our country envisioned is going to fail. There should be no government interference or legislation to siphon profit from the consumer to pay for agribusiness corporate windfalls.
What we have here is the many (private citizens) paying a lot of money through complex government schemes to big corporate entities who in turn pay off politicians. It is an utter disgrace.
Your Model T will run on kerosene. You just need to start it on gas until it has warmed up and then switch to kerosene.
Most of us already run on 10% ethanol. Will a Model T run on 20% ethanol? and how well will it run?
We all know that some day we will run out of oil. That fracking is not good for the environment. That Nebraska does not want the Keystone pipeline running through Nebraska. That ethanol might be looking better because it is a renewable resource.
If you want to eat field corn, be my guest. I will take the sweet corn. I do not have the information in front of me, but you cannot live on corn. It is lacking essential proteins and other nutrients that humans need, and can only be used as a supplemental food source.
I will defer to what John and Rob can tell us since they live in the corn states and know more about the use of corn for feed and alcohol than most of us.
I don't have any problem if private companies want to make corn ethanol. Just get your grubby hands out of my pockets, and go do what ever you want. Not one thing should be subsidized by our government. Let free enterprise pay for what ever the consumer wishes to buy.
Personally, I don't like ethanol.
One thing that hasn't been addressed here is: because of ethanol a lot more land is being farmed. When I first bought my farm, I had no interest in farming it. I rented the land out to area farmers. They farmed it, but couldn't make any money. They told me they couldn't afford to do it anymore. I knew if they weren't farming it I would have to keep it cut. I then told them they could use the land at no charge. After one year they still weren't making any money on it and decided not to farm it anymore. It sat empty for sixteen years, so I kept the fields cut for all those years.
About five years ago, a farmer contacted me about renting my land. Now my land is planted every year, with either corn or soy. A lot of farm land in our area that has sat idle for many years is now being farmed.
This is a good plus, but I still don't like ethanol
Dan???? Where is your farm?
In Central New York
Well we finnished corn today!The Farmers i truck for use the scales at a pickel station and corn storage for another large farm 12,000 acres!Since i saw most of their semis in i asked a office worker if they were done? She said they had 20 acers to do friday.Confused i asked why friday? She said some young cancer patient through The Make A Wish Foundation had asked to ride in a combine!! Farmers are people to so maby some could think through their BS! After 12 hours in a semi done. Bud.
Between the time Pearl Harbor was attacked on Dec 7th 1941 and the official end of World War II spanned a period of 3 years and 8 months (approx).
During that time, the US put in and maintained an infrastructure to hire and train approximately 16 million men and women who served in the US military. We built hundreds of thousands of tanks, planes and automobiles for the war effort. We manufactured millions of rounds of ammunition, nillions of tons of bombs and artillery rounds. Logistically handled wars on several fronts simultaneously. Kept millions of soldiers and their support fed and clothed and supplied on a daily basis.
We went on to help our allies rid the earth of an evil scourge.
We did all that in 3 years and 8 months.
The so-called "intelligentsia" in Washington, the "elite", the (haha) "cream of the crop" can't build a functioning web site in the same amount of time.
Obamacare was passed into law 3 years and about 9 months ago.
That's all I have to say about that.
And as for ethonal, after 5 years into his presidency, this is ALL Obama baby. You guys need to let Bush go. It's time. You can do it.
More idle farm land has been put into production than the total acres of Yellowstone, Yosemite and the Grand Canyon all combined. Unfortunate some of this was grass and cover for wildlife, some on hills and slopes where erosion was a problem and of course some was all the fence rows of old family farms that many of us grew up on.
I've read about the increase in fertilizer runoff that is a concern in the Midwest rivers. You wouldn't think it should be such a problem with the new technology of the GPS/computer driven methods of farming. They now know exactly where and how much every square foot needs and have the equipment to do that.
I've heard some that believe the farm prices of high corn rated acres is approaching that of the recent RE housing crash as prices top that of $10,000. per acre. This year looks to be a record production one which will drive prices down for many.
Glad to be a SoCal Iowa corn boy.
Well,uh,we aint the only 1's that eat corn as far as living critters.That big ol steak some of ye git to eat on friday night,more than likely was out of a cow that ate Corn.
There was something in the news a while back about ethanol being made from switch grass?
Ethanol should be with no tax money involved.Let the open market decide.
It is getting common now to find local stations selling non alcohol fuel.Cost a little more than the other but gives better gas mileage.
its amazing how everbody talks the big talk and complains about our government and what they do.But they don't do the walk. Just a bunch of whiners! So instead of siting on your ass's on these issues do something.. go complain and protest to your politians in your district.
A local farm family is into switchgrass in a big way.
I like ethanol, but in a glass before dinner NOT in my car!
Ethanol in our gasoline increases the fuel supply by 10% (a little less due to mileage), but it means that 10% less (a little less due to mileage) of the money we pay for it is being sent to OPEC countries.
Instead, the money is used to buy corn which helps farmers which helps their equipment suppliers as well as their equipment suppliers' employees and their families.
Let me phrase it this way. How well off would USA workers have been if Ford had decided to manufacture the Model T exclusively in Mexico, hiring only Mexican citizens, then shipped the finished cars back to the U.S. for sale?
As long as your answer is thought through, I'm open to discussion.
Before knee-jerk responding, look up "Fiat" as it applies to currency, as well as the histories of the governments that have issued/sanctioned it. If you're still interested, find a documentary called "How Money Became Worthless".
Watching it, as well as accepting the fact that "water seeks it's own level" may help you form a response.
What you have posted is the story that was used to sell this crock of poo to the American consumer. It sounded great at the time, which is why it became law easily.
Unfortunately everything you typed turned out to not be true. Making ethanol from Corn costs more than it makes - it actually increases the amount of oil imported, because it increases the oil consumption overall. Ethanol production pollutes the air and the water more than would be the case if it were not being done.
The one thing that is missing from this discussion is the role of ethanol in raising the octane number of gasoline. If you want a higher octane number for your gasoline, you have to use more feedstock in the refining process. Hence, premium 92 octane non-ethanol costs more than regular 87 octane non-ethanol gasoline. What blending ethanol (regardless of its source) does for poorer grades of gasoline is raise the octane number. While ethanol has less of a BTU yield than most gasoline, it does have a higher octane number because it burns slower. What I have never seen published is a total comparison is the amount of crude that is saved in the refining process by blending ethanol into fuels as opposed to obtaining the desired octane number through the refining process. That would provide more accurate information for comparison purposes.
Royce, your wrong. Flat out wrong.
However, that has not mattered before, and won't in the future.
I don't think either side is totally wrong.
It does supply some jobs on local levels.
But until the tractors and combines run on either solar power or political hot air and the trucks hauling it run on battery's,the ethanol is simply not doing anything but going in a circle.Not to forget the fertilizer.
You burn fuel to make fuel to burn fuel.
It is said a little more money stays here,at least we are led to believe.Who really owns the oil company s and reaps the profits?
I know someone will say stock holders.Well,are all the stock holders Us Citizens? Hum. So maby the money aint staying here either.
Ok,now if you were to find that wheat straw or corn stalks or something could be used to make ethanol,you might be on to something.Because 1, you aint taking food from the cows that people eat.2,It is something otherwise wasted and the only cost is gather and process.Same as oil.
The cost,being money or fuel,to plant and maintain the ethanol corn makes it unfeasible in the long term.In other words,we aint having to plant and maintain the oil until it matures.
I aint the brightest bulb in the 4 pack but I do have some education.And I can see that production of ethanol at this time is just not the best bet.
I do have a question I think for Rob.Does your farm use the biodiesel?
Strangely when that stuff came along,a lot of the farmers around here flat refused to use it.
Craig Cox is senior vice president for Agriculture and Natural Resources at Environmental Working Group (EWG). Mr. Cox began his career in conservation by joining the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources in 1977 as a field biologist. Since then, he has worked for the National Academy of Sciences, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, the USDA, and as executive director of the Soil and Water Conservation Society. He joined EWG as Midwest vice president in 2008 and directs the organization’s research and advocacy work in agriculture, renewable energy, and climate change. He has degrees in Wildlife Ecology and Agricultural Economics from the University of Minnesota.
Quote from Craig Cox -
"Contrary to the industry’s claims, a recent EPA draft report to Congress concluded that corn ethanol production is more likely to harm the environment than improve it. Iowa’s countryside provides ample evidence of the toll that fence row-to-fence row crop production is taking on our biodiversity, water, air and soil. Skyrocketing crop prices, fueled by ethanol subsidies that exceed the spending on all farm conservation programs combined, encourage farmers to plow environmentally sensitive land. Ethanol policy is undercutting the progress conservation-minded farmers have made in protecting our natural resources."
Again, quoting Craig Cox:
Food versus Fuel
"The Food and Agriculture Organization’s food price index is at a record high, in part because we use 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop to make ethanol. If you’re lucky enough to be born in America and are not one of the 43 million people dependent on food stamps, corn ethanol’s effect on your food bill might be trivial. But if you’re among the millions worldwide spending 55 percent of your $2 daily take-home pay on food, even a small jump in food prices puts your family at risk.
Winners and Losers
So who benefits if Grassley prevails? Only 14 percent of ethanol comes from locally owned plants. Valero, an oil company, now owns the second greatest number of U.S. ethanol plants. Ethanol increases price volatility for crops and farm supplies – intensifying the risks for everyone. And farmers acquire yet another layer of government dependency through subsidies at a time when Grassley and others want to cut government spending and “interference” in the economy.
The facts don’t lie. Our ethanol policy costs $5.8 billion each year but barely dents our dependence on fossil fuels. The corn ethanol tax credit and mandates also lead to serious damage to the environment and push the world closer to an unprecedented food crisis if bad weather hits. The policy needs to end."
When their income and family's financial well being is tied to a crop, I can understand the farmer's reluctance to admit what we, who do not depend on ethanol for our living, can see from studies, experiments, what we read, what we hear and from our personal experience. That ethanol has been and is a trainwreck, just like another government funded disaster, Obamacare, is proving to be. It was a well meaning program meant to help, but like virtually everything the Government sticks its' grimiy fingers into, it has proven to be just the opposite. An expensive hinderance that has created far more problems than it has solved.
I do not expect the farmers who depend on ethanol for a living to agree with those of us that despise it, but the evidence is out there for all to see if they would only look... in the form of destroyed engines, expert testimony, as provided by Royce, and ravaged lands, but there are none so blind as he who refuses to see. Jim Patrick
PS. I disagree that this is an OT subject that does not belong on this forum. Our Model T's run on fuel and a fuel that is detrimental to our Model T's such as the harmful effect ethanol has on the original shellac coated floats in our carburetors bears discussing.
The easy way to avoid having ethanol blended fuels eating the shellac on the floats (then eating the float itself) is to lightly sand them and re-coat a couple of times with fuel-proof airplane dope. Works great! Antique outboard folks have been doing this for years with success.
Kevin. I know there are preventive steps that we can take to prevent ethanol fuel from harming our shellac coated floats but what about those who like their original shellac coated floats? The fact that ethanol laced fuel is detrimental to certain components in antique AND modern engines is an expensive problem in itself, not to mention the tremendous expense of replacing fuel that has absorbed water, or gone bad after just 90 days. Our fuel should not do that and we should not have to take steps to prevent it from causing harm. We should be confident that the fuel we use to power our engines will not, at the very least, harm or shorten the service life of our engines and at the very worst, destroy them altogether. Those of you who disagree or say it is not a problem have no argument against those of us who have experienced these scenarios firsthand. Jim Patrick
Jim, one thing you can use is Stabil Marine formula. It does work well with water and corrosion issues. Or, try to find non-alcohol regular. Can't see any sense in running premium in a T. I suppose if a local airport is close AV gas is available. Not sure if you run into road tax issues with it though. Never had a problem running ethanol blends in modern engines of any sort (including snowmobiles and marine engines) if it is used in a reasonable amount of time. The problem may be more related to leaving fuel in your engines over extended periods. But some of those issues will happen with non-ethanol fuels as well. My routine is that if the engine isn't going to be run in three days, shut off the petcock, or pull the hose and run the fuel out of the carb. For injection, use Stabil Marine formula. We all might not like ethanol blends, but I don't see them going away any time soon. Particularly if they do develop other sources besides using corn.
Yes, we use biodiesel. Initially there was concern about use in winter. As with any diesel use, winter requires a different blend or additive to keep from "gelling". Some studies have shown better lubrication properties using biodiesel.
I would need to do serious research to give an unbiased answer about biodiesel, and haven't, so just my opinions. I wouldn't have entered this thread except there were so many negative opinions I felt the need to throw my two cents worth in (in favor of bio fuels). In addition to less pollution (definite plus) the other thing that is difficult to measure is (as mentioned above) how much would fossil fuel cost with out the various forms of alternative fuels we now use?
I know Henry Ford was strongly in favor of ethanol. Of course, he didn't use waterpump s on his best selling car either, so what did he know?
If only common sense could prevail.
Crop subsidies began in the 1930s, because the demand was stable, while the supply was not, due to weather, etc. That meant high prices in a year of poor crops, and dirt cheap prices with bumper crops. Farmers could not survive that for long. Mechanization made farming more efficient, to where President Eisenhower started the Soil Bank program, where farmers are paid not to grow crops. That was probably a good thing, too.
CONgressmen in farm states were re-elected more often, giving them extra power, and they ran committees that helped themselves and those who helped them get re-elected, which is now big Ag. Thus, the farm bill has been distorted to where the big guys get lots, and the family farmer gets a pittance.
Oil prices have remained fairly stable for the last four years, and if the balance were right, ethanol would take up the extra corn in bumper crop years, and not so much from bad yields. Tying corn prices to oil prices might be a good thing in the long run, or not. It would be worth a study to see what would happen if subsidies were taken away from crops - and oil.
BTW, with oil at $100/bbl, the US is now the world's leading producer of oil. Most of our production will cease when it drops to $50/bbl, for example, and we go back to importing more.
Royce, what are the dates of your quotes from Cox? Context makes all the difference.
For whatever reason, Henry Ford was a longtime proponent of ethanol. As early as 1906 he claimed getting more horsepower from ethanol than gasoline using a dynometer.
I bet he didn't get 60hp without increasing the compression ratio a lot.
In 1906 the internal compression engine was so new they were still experimenting to determine what the best fuel was for it. The fact the industry settled on gasoline from then until now say a lot about what they found out about ethanol, or it would have been adopted for use instead of gasoline...
If history tells that gasoline was a waste product from makeing kerosene at the time would you belive it? Why do we see the same rant over and over? Bud.
I wonder (have no idea) if low octane/quality issues with gasoline made ethanol a viable alternative fuel in 1906-1920?
Octane was certainly not an issue for the use of ethanol, it has a higher octane than gasoline. The issue in non - computer controlled engines with low energy ignition is that you can't start the damn thing on alcohol. It is a very impractical fuel for any engine not designed specifically for it.
There's nothing particularly hard to solve for today's technology - alcohol could be a great fuel. The issue here is that if you want to use alcohol as a fuel you need to pay for what it costs to manufacture.
The US government cannot continue giving money to crooks to supply fuel at less than cost.
So....no more subsidies to big oil? Great, we agree on something......
As I said above, I vote no subsidies for anything, particularly not to farmers, stock markets, car manufacturers, or any entity of any kind. Get your grubby hands out of my pockets!
I want a government that protects my borders, builds some roads, and delivers mail. Anything else is what private industry should do.
Royce,Are you the only person that pay's taxes? Bud.
it all comes down to income tax and loop holes and gov. they think they control the people bernie ps iam a farmer to
Some days it seems that way!
Looks like Royce wants every child to be home schooled, no Medicare, and no airports. Wouldn't that put him out of a job?
"Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree!" - Russell B. Long, U.S. Senator from Louisiana
No licensing of aircraft mechanics, either. That would make A&P with Inspection Authorization license worthless.
No judicial system, no Bill of Rights to be protected. The web is tangled.
Apparently, back in 1906, a professor agreed that ethanol was a viable alternative to gasoline. Some things don't change:
Isn't the reference in those articles more like the straight alcohol used in Indy type race cars rather than a little ethanol mixed with gas?
Again proving you can find a newspaper quote to support anything, no matter how ridiculous, untrue, or far fetched.
The "professor" is hyping some magic fuel not available to us. How the claim can be made that Alcohol can provide 15% more power when it only has about 2/3 the BTU of gasoline tells me the "professor" is poor at math.
His speed to power equation is off as well. Increasing power by 15% will not increase speed by 10.
BTU per gallon of ethanol = 76,000
BTU per gallon of ethanol = 116,000
Should have read
BTU Ethanol = 76,000
BTU Gasoline = 116,000
Good thing you don't need references to support a position. That would make things much more convenient.
It's true, pure alcohol can produce more power than gasoline, even though it has only 2/3 the BTUs. The reason is that the fuel/air ratio for best power on alcohol (1 pound of alcohol for 4 pounds of air) is much richer than gasoline (1 pound of gasoline for 12.5 pounds of air). Engines optimized for alcohol also run much higher compression ratios than engines optimized for gasoline. Those two effects more than compensate for the lower BTU content of alcohol.
For more information about alcohol and other fuels, check out
Oops, my post got cut off in mid sentence, here is the final sentence:
For more information about alcohol and other fuels, check out the book, "High Performance Automotive Fuels and Fluids", written by Jeff Hartman, published in 1996 by Motorbooks International.
The book has sections on gasoline, alcohols, propane, diesel, nitromethane, oils, coolants, octane boosters, and more.
The article didn't mention anything about modifying the engine for higher compression. It states use of the two fuels interchangibly in 1906. With no mods the engine will not run as well on ethanol as on gasoline.
Running on alcohol will require 3 gallons as compared to 1 on gasoline with that mixture. Not cost efficient.
Agreed, I was just making sure that folks know how it would be possible to make more power with alcohol than gasoline. Not cost efficient, but possible.
Exactly. It's not efficient for me to show Rob point by point that a news article is untrue. Where do you start? What's the point? What the "Professor" (elementary school, kindergarten, botanical professor perhaps) said didn't happen because he was utterly clueless and mistaken.
I know the local dirt track racers, and I think the Indianapolis 500 run on 100% alcohol/ethanol. Wonder why they would choose that when, according to all of the expert testimony delivered here, on this post, they should be using gasoline! I wonder if they know about gasoline?
Be totally honest. To all those defending ethanol. Were it not for the fact that you depend on ethanol for a living, would you be for a fuel that:
1. Destroys plastic lines and gaskets in expensive lawn equipment motors such as lawn mowers, weed eaters, chainsaws, edgers, etc., resulting in hundreds of dollars in extra expense for the average man to repair or replace this equipment.
2. Is harmful to older, pre-ethanol engines also resulting in extra expense for the average man.
3. Deteriorates in just 3 months, again resulting in extra expense in wasted discarded fuel.
4. Absorbs water from the atmosphere that rusts gas tanks and is detrimental to the fuel...
5. Is less efficient than gasoline...
6. More expensive...
7. Cost more to manufacture and transport...
8. Is harmful to the environment.
9. Takes up farmland that could be used for crops that could feed the world.
10. Wastes taxpayer money to give subsidies that could be of more use to benefit the many instead of the few.
11. etc. etc. etc.
Michael, I believe that was a political decision back in 2004-5. Running ethanol was the patriotic thing to do, instead of giving more money to Iraq. Oh, we had already destroyed Iraq's oil infrastructure. Don't let facts get in the way of a chance to wave the flag.
Now that the US is the leading oil producer in the world, burning gasoline is patriotic. At least it will be until fracking destroys enough ground water to cause panic.
Quoting the book "Design and Development of the Indy Car", written by Roger Huntington and published by HP Books in 1981:
"The first extensive experiments with alcohol fuels at Indianapolis are usually credited to Leon Duray, around 1927."
Indy cars switch from Methanol to Ethanol for the 2007 season. A quote at the time from Evan Bayh, senator from Indiana:
"This shows average Americans what they can do to help meet the energy challenge our country faces, and it makes the point in a way a politician never could," Bayh said in a telephone interview yesterday. "If a racecar going 220 miles an hour can be powered by 100 percent ethanol, the family car can be, too."
Don't surmise from the above post that I am an advocate of ethanol, I have no strong opinion either way.
I'm merely presenting historical facts as best as I can determine them from research to give folks some perspective on why things are as they are, good or bad.
Be totally honest it's six days and back to the same old rant!! Get a life! Bud.
Isn't one of our long standing assumptions that gasoline back in the teens was very poor quality compared to today's fuel? If that is the case, doesn't that mean the vintage comparisons of alcohol and gasoline are based on different quality fuels than we now have available?
My reading of Henry Ford's interview in 1916 (see http://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/118802/154268.html for a PDF copy of the interview) about use of alcohol as a motor fuel was largely based on the coming Prohibition (which started in 1918 in Michigan) and the certain loss of major markets for farm products to breweries and distilleries? Not to mention the waste of capital in the to be idle plants.
Why do we use corn to make alcohol when Jerusalem artichokes are supposed to produce more alcohol per acre per year than corn? Look at http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/repositoryfiles/ca3509p4-61784.pdf.
Hey, I like to eat artichokes! If they start getting used to make ethanol, the price of artichokes will skyrocket and I won't be able to afford them anymore ;>)
Reminds me of the Nova episode where the tappet brothers invented a car that ran on pasta:
Jim's question sounds like a reasonable one to ask...
Good point (as a are Jim's). Let's take a look at Jim's points. (these are just my opinions). I don't wish to "pick" on Jim. He has the courage, and conviction to put his views and opinions forward in a well thought out post, and I'll put my two cents worth up following his points.
From Jim's post:
"Be totally honest. To all those defending ethanol. Were it not for the fact that you depend on ethanol for a living, would you be for a fuel that: "
"1. Destroys plastic lines and gaskets in expensive lawn equipment motors such as lawn mowers, weed eaters, chainsaws, edgers, etc., resulting in hundreds of dollars in extra expense for the average man to repair or replace this equipment."
Some material won't work with ethanol. If ethanol use continues, manufacturers must not use 'non ethanol compatible materials in fuel system.
"2. Is harmful to older, pre-ethanol engines also resulting in extra expense for the average man. "
Same as above
"3. Deteriorates in just 3 months, again resulting in extra expense in wasted discarded fuel. "
If you mean fuel degradation, I'm not aware of it. I've stored ethanol as well as gasoline for some time with no issues.
"4. Absorbs water from the atmosphere that rusts gas tanks and is detrimental to the fuel... "
I believe ethanol actually absorbs moisture that would be in fuel systems regardless, due to condensation, etc. Ethanol actually absorbs some moisture (to a point) if I understand it correctly.
"5. Is less efficient than gasoline... "
Seems to be. However, (as mentioned above) I've often wondered why many high performance racers use ethanol (alcohol).
"6. More expensive... "
To a point. When does a diminishing resource (fossils fuel) become more expensive than renewable energy? I'm not sure, and don't want to be in a position where we don't have alternatives when that occurs.
"7. Cost more to manufacture and transport... "
Again, I'm not so sure. Ethanol may be produced and transported from anywhere in the U.S. (wherever produced). A significant portion of fossil fuels used in the U.S. must be imported. Even if the U.S. becomes/is the biggest fossil fuel manufacturer, it will not meet our domestic needs. We (U.S.) will still be a net fossil fuel importer.
"8. Is harmful to the environment. "
No. Ethanol is definitely more environmentally friendly.
"9. Takes up farmland that could be used for crops that could feed the world. "
Modern ethanol production only loses about a third of grain used. In other words, (when referring to corn based ethanol) about a third of bushels used for ethanol production are lost in the process. And, this commodity is used primarily to feed animals. What this means is the corn lost in ethanol production must be further "adjusted" in the food pipeline because only a small portion of corn is factored into the price of beef you pay at the supermarket. In other words, the corn we produce on our farm is used primarily to feed livestock (cattle and hogs). If a portion is lost, a bit of that expense will be eventually passed along to the livestock producer (this is a very "elastic" economic situation, when my (corn) prices rise or fall, the cost to the cattle/hog feeder are not passed along immediately, markets cause a major "disconnect" in this equation.
Regardless, my farmland does not produce "food" used by people (as with most U.S. crop ground). I produce a commodity that then feeds livestock, that then finds it's way to U.S. supermarkets, and is consumed by those with disposable income to choose more expensive food (meats). Most of the struggling third world is not able to buy meats, and certainly not food produced in the U.S..
"10. Wastes taxpayer money to give subsidies that could be of more use to benefit the many instead of the few. "
I don't know of many government subsidies that benefit everyone (directly).
The ethanol subsidy is meant to build and stimulate an alternative fuel industry, not to "pay rich farmers". Farmers make up less than 5% of the U.S. population, and by and of themselves are not a lobbying force capable of gaining large subsidies due to their economic power.
By their nature, subsidies benefit select groups or industries to stimulate a particular event, hopefully benefiting the entire nation. You could say the same about Medicare, benefiting the aging population directly, and benefiting all of us indirectly.
"11. etc. etc. etc. "
No answer for this.........
My farm income is very small as is my farm so i'm not getting rich at others expense.Some of my stuff sit's for long peroids of time espc my chainsaw,rototiller,two wheeled weed whacker,mower,garden tractor,and power washer. When we went to Alaska we were gone for 3 Months and everything along with the Buick,Model A and Model T started easily!! I have never had any dammage to bad gas in 25 years!!Do we need to starve our farmers to feed the world first?? What is really behind the bad rap for ethonal?? Bud.
Thanks Rob, I appreciate your thoughtful responses to Jim's post. Still, I'm unconvinced the nebulous (IMO) benefits of ethanol outweigh the clear (IMO) disadvantages.
Aren't there just four crops: corn, wheat, rice and cotton that are subsidized? Could subsidies be part of the reason corn is popular as ethanol base?
Farm states have always had extra influence in CONgress, as the seats were more secure than in other states. Improved gerrymandering has assured that now almost all CONgressional seats are for life, or until the critter wants to get even richer lobbying.
Free market forces consumers to make educated choices. Free market forces businesses to make the right choices. Free market is fair to everyone. It makes efficient use of available resources, and rewards those who innovate.
By any measure the ethanol subsidy program has failed miserably. Government intervention siphons off money to pay for beaurocracy. Congress incentivises greed.
Farmers plant crops to make the most money, causing worldwide hunger because fewer of them are competing to sell grain for food. Farmers would prefer subsidies to plant nothing of course, but planting something and getting paid a subsidy too is just grand to these folks.
One might argue the "farm states" have a representation in the Senate. However, there aren't many "farm states" out there. For example, the population of the state is about 1.85 million.
Of this number, only about one tenth of the population are employed in the agriculture. As a result, the number two beef producer and usually number three corn producing state really doesn't have much political clout with it's statewide elected officials (such as U.S. Senators). To counter this, I'm sure the lobby dollars are significant from the Ag industry (in farm states), but again, the raw population numbers aren't there (to sway elections).
As for the House, gerrymandering doesn't make much difference, we only have three House Representatives since that is determined by population.
I'm not necessarily an advocate of an ethanol subsidy, and definitely not into perpetuity. However, I am for cleaner energy and alternative renewable fuels.
You are ignoring the pecking order in CONgress, Rob. John Boner decides what bills are even considered, and committee bosses determine what he gets to consider, while Jr. critters have no power at all. Tenure determines power.
It used to be that farm states and the deep south were all one party rule, and the CONgress critters were in there for life. Gerrymandering in the rest of the states now assures 90% re-election of incumbents. The CONgress we have now is what we will see for the rest of our lives, turnover only happening by death or the revolving door into lobbying for big business. The farm states will lose their grip gradually, as the likes of Reed, McConnell and Grassley are replaced.
That said, the lobbyists threaten their critters with primary challengers if they don't vote the lobbyists' way. What we're seeing is Fascism, the merging of private industry with government. Serfdom is on the horizon.
I too am all for cleaner fuels, but they have to be sustained by their own merits and make sense. Just like a car that may need a push to get started, if it doesn't want to stay running on its own, it should be fixed before you try again. Ethanol does have a place in this mix, but the problem is how it is being made.
Corn is, IMHO, not the way to go. The fact that it is a one time crop is the biggest drawback. It has been proven to be neutral to negative in its carbon footprint due to the amount of effort that is needed to prep and plant and maintain for weed control and fertilizer. I do not count the effort for harvest as the same would have to be done with most other crops.
My question is, why are the powers that be not encouraging other plantings that do not require so much up front effort and once planted will continue to grow such as switchgrass. Instead, they mandate that a certain percentage of an inefficient product such as corn must be used for ethanol. I feel the big gripe is somebody big had to push for this action, because it would not hold water on its own.
I do not find fault with the farmers as they are just supplying the market with what they know they can make money with.
It is right to say that the farmer has very little leverage when it comes to lobbying. I feel the big push is from the Ag suppliers of the seed, fertilizers, weed control and pesticides.
They are small in numbers, but the ones that do the supplying are big and they have the big money in the game. They are the lobbying effort. Growing their business requires them to push for the single crop, because there isn't much money for them to be made on a crop that grows all by itself.
So, going forward it would be wise for all to find a more efficient way to promote ethanol without forcing its way of production and use.
Again, politics aside, how can ANYONE justify mixing 10% alcohol with gasoline when you get 10% poorer gas mileage !!!
Using only 9 gallons of pure gasoline gets you the same amount of travel as 10 gallons of gasohol. Iran be damned - we're not saving anything with gasohol.
You may as well add 10% of an inert chemical with 0 BTU's. It would be comparable to adding 10% alcohol.
NULLUM GRATUITUM PRANDIUM
I know actual farmers are few in number but if you read the last 2 lines of Royces last post it makes me wonder how Royce can speak of all farmers?? Get it out in the open,or what causes this type of interest?? The other day when the tornados were causing such dammage we were lucky to only have 70mph winds.It was the only time i have ever seen the Wind turbines self shut down because of high speed winds.On a plus note the day before the high winds arrived i started and ran both genneraters.I did not tell them they were using a ethonal blend of fuel and both ran well!Rob is right about the small number of farmers untill you count the armchair expert farmer's! Bud.
Bud, where did you get that info about 10% poorer gas mileage with only 10% alcohol mix?
I respectfully doubt the validity.
I have my own experience of mixing 20-30% of E85 into the gas in my daily driver for the last 5 years, about 12 k miles per year. No difference in mileage from driving with straight gas and no noticeable damage yet, but the horsepower is likely down a bit - doesn't matter much when you've got more than hundred to begin with, would be more critical in a T
The reason I mix is to save a few $$ (Ok, crowns) No subsidies from the state here - but there is less taxation on ethanol than on gas.
We have to buy the ethanol we can't produce ourselves from Brazil where they make it out of sugar cane. No long term export contracts were possible from the US, likely since ethanol production is seen as a strategic measure to reduce the dependance of foreign oil.
The extra transportation and logistics costs, which must be passed on to the consumer are a result of the extra step of having to transport the refined gasoline to the location where the ethanol and gasoline are mixed together, then on to the distributor. With the high cost of trucking, this cost is almost certainly in the millions, nationwide. Without this step I can see a reduction in fuel costs to below $2.00 per gal. Jim Patrick
Oil hit its all time record high of $147 in May, 2008. It had fallen to $42 by the time Obama took office 8 months later, thanks to the bankster crisis.
That's when the banksters began buying oil and storing it in tankers around the world until the price recovered. It cost them up to $1/bb/mo to store it. The price recovered faster than that, and they reaped great profits - from us consumers who bailed them out.
Oil was $28/bbl when Bu$h took office.
Oil hit its all time record high of $147 in May, 2008. Thanks to the bankster crisis, it had fallen to $42 by the time Obama took office 8 months later.
That's when the banksters began buying oil and storing it in tankers around the world until the price recovered. It cost them up to $1/bb/mo to store it. The price recovered faster than that, and they reaped great profits - from us consumers who bailed them out.
Some of my data on E10 fuel mileage is from very careful records I've kept on 3 different cars I've owned going back over 10 years. The results have tended to average about 10% worse than when I fill the tank with pure gasoline (which you can still do here ... but is getting harder and harder to find). I do actual measurements (miles divided by gallons) but my trip computers indicate about the same.
If you do a search on the net for "E10 gas mileage" you will find many references to poorer gas mileage, some with worse results than mine. The fact that gas mileage is poorer seems to be universally acknowledged .... exactly how much may be open to question.
I have read, although I don't have the data to back it up, that if used in an engine with a very high compression ratio (on the order of 13:1) and with advanced timing, it is possible to get equal or better gas mileage with gasohol, than with pure gasoline. Can't find anyone who's done it though.
The Corps of Engineers plowed the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers for over a hundred years with Guvment subsidy to provide cheap products for sale. The Guvment provided subsidies and incentives to private Railroad companies in the 1860's to provide cheap products for sale. The Guvment provides subsidies for airline safety as no one carrier can boot the cost and the airline industry has shrunk over the years.
By fiat, we as Americans add to the subsidy of the oil companies with the subsidy of out children fighting to protect a losing resource.
As for feeding the world, I was told in school it was always a matter of distribution and the top dogs skimming the best food. I also remember pictures of piles of wheat sitting by full grain bins open to the elements and not going to the hungry in American or any part of the world. Propaganda to show the Russians we could produce it and waste at our bidding. As for cost of making Ethanol, well America didn't blink an eye launching a new Aircraft carrier.
I wish all that grain had been turned into fuel and not left to rot.
Now, I'm going to take a little of that environmentally bad Ethanol put it with some branch water and wonder why we're falling behind.