What is Digg?125 Comments
- ricree, on 10/12/2007, -1/+41Interesting article, but I'm not quite convinced. Even neglecting the cost of the ethanol ingredients, using 15% ethanol with $3.00 gas would still be $2.55. At that price, it would take over 3000 gallons of gas to get back the cost of the the still.
Of course, this is still neglecting the costs of actually producing the ethanol. Overall, this doesn't seem like such a great deal to me. - 1010011010, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29
The cost of producing ethanol varies with the cost of the feedstock used and the scale of production. Approximately 85 percent of ethanol production capacity in the United States relies on corn feedstock. The cost of producing ethanol from corn is estimated to be about $1.10 per gallon. Although there is currently no commercial production of ethanol from cellulosic feedstocks such as agricultural wastes, grasses and wood, the estimated production cost using these feedstocks is $1.15 to $1.43 per gallon.
Because a gallon of ethanol contains less energy than a gallon of gasoline, the production cost of ethanol must be multiplied by a factor of 1.5 to make an energy-cost comparison with gasoline. This means that if ethanol costs $1.10 per gallon to produce, then the effective cost per gallon to equal the energy contained in a gallon of gasoline is $1.65. In contrast, the current wholesale price of gasoline is about 90 cents per gallon.
The federal motor fuel excise tax on gasohol, a blended fuel of 10-percent ethanol and 90-percent gasoline, is 5.4 cents less per gallon than the tax on straight gasoline. In other words, the federal subsidy is 54 cents per gallon of ethanol when the ethanol is blended with gasoline. The subsidy makes ethanol-blended fuel competitive in the marketplace and stimulates the growth of an ethanol production and distribution infrastructure.
from: http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/Biomass/Cost.shtml - ilquan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23@Doak - Good moonshine goes for ten to twenty dollars a quart 'round these parts.
- 1010011010, on 10/12/2007, -10/+32Take away the subsidy, and Ethanol is bad both in terms of energy and price. As it is, it's "subsidized food burning", to borrow a phrase used by Cornell's David Pimentel.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/01/8.23.01/Pimentel-ethanol.html
CU scientist terms corn-based ethanol 'subsidized food burning'
By Roger Segelken
Neither increases in government subsidies to corn-based ethanol fuel nor hikes in the price of petroleum can overcome what one Cornell agricultural scientist calls a fundamental input-yield problem: It takes more energy to make ethanol from grain than the combustion of ethanol produces.
At a time when ethanol-gasoline mixtures (gasohol) are touted as the American answer to fossil fuel shortages by corn producers, food processors and some lawmakers, Cornell's David Pimentel takes a longer range view.
"Abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuel amounts to unsustainable, subsidized food burning," said the Cornell professor in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Pimentel, who chaired a U.S. Department of Energy panel that investigated the energetics, economics and environmental aspects of ethanol production several years ago, subsequently conducted a detailed analysis of the corn-to-car fuel process. His findings will be published next month in the forthcoming Encyclopedia of Physical Sciences and Technology.
Among his findings:
* An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre, according to Pimentel's analysis. Thus, even before corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock costs $1.05 per gallon of ethanol.
* The energy economics get worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented. As many as three distillation steps are needed to separate the 8 percent ethanol from the 92 percent water. Additional treatment and energy are required to produce the 99.8 percent pure ethanol for mixing with gasoline.
* Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 Btu are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 Btu. "Put another way," Pimentel said, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 Btu."
* Ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline. "That helps explain why fossil fuels -- not ethanol -- are used to produce ethanol," Pimentel said. "The growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn't afford it either, if it weren't for government subsidies to artificially lower the price."
* Most economic analyses of corn-to-ethanol production overlook the costs of environmental damages, which Pimentel says should add another 23 cents per gallon. "Corn production in the U.S. erodes soil about 12 times faster than the soil can be reformed, and irrigating corn mines groundwater 25 percent faster than the natural recharge rate of ground water. The environmental system in which corn is being produced is being rapidly degraded. Corn should not be considered a renewable resource for ethanol energy production, especially when human food is being converted into ethanol," Pimentel said.
* The approximately $1 billion a year in current federal and state subsidies (mainly to large corporations) for ethanol production are not the only costs to consumers, the Cornell scientist observes. Subsidized corn results in higher prices for meat, milk and eggs because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the United States. Increasing ethanol production would further inflate corn prices, Pimentel said, noting: "In addition to paying tax dollars for ethanol subsidies, consumers would be paying significantly higher food prices in the marketplace."
Nickels and dimes aside, some drivers still would rather see their cars fueled by farms in the Midwest than by oil wells in the Middle East, Pimentel acknowledges, so he calculated the amount of corn needed to power an automobile:
* The average U.S. automobile, traveling 10,000 miles a year on pure ethanol (not a gasoline-ethanol mix), would need about 852 gallons of the corn-based fuel. This would take 11 acres to grow, based on net ethanol production. This is the same amount of cropland required to feed seven Americans.
* If all the automobiles in the United States were fueled with 100 percent ethanol, a total of about 97 percent of U.S. land area would be needed to grow the corn feedstock. Corn would cover nearly the total land area of the United States. - DataPath, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20It's not big business - one of the alleged reasons for the big hike in gas prices is a shortage of ethanol as an admixture for gasoline to replace MTBE. So most gasoline around the country should have ethanol in it now.
Additionally, unless you have a flex-fuel vehicle you probably shouldn't use more than 15% ethanol, because it is corrosive and it burns differently, messing with the fuel injection. Flex-fuel vehicles take up to 85% ethanol. There must also be a special sensor in the fuel line to analyze the fuel mixture and control the fuel injection and timing to adjust for different fuel compositions. - analdisco, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22@webcrumb: Yes, quite a few of us DO realize that $3.00 USD a gallon is still fairly cheap, but we NEED cheap gas in the US. Pull out a map and look at the size of the country. If you've ever been on the roads here, you'll see how much of our economy relies on 18-wheelers driving back and forth across the country, and you'll understand why $3.00/gallon is still a lot for us.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13 Oh, I'm sure you could make your money back in no time.
I'm even willing to bet that some folks would pay you up to $10.00 a gallon for it. - krached, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I agree. I think it is about time for the unborn children to pay for the upkeep on the roads and others services so that I can drive my SUV 100 miles a day. It just isn't fair that these children are not pulling their weight.
- JJorsett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Ethanol IS blended with gasoline, whether you "see it" or not. It's replacing an earlier oxygenate, MTBE, that turned out to be an environmental hazard (and, when it was introduced, the source of many car fires as it deteriorated seals that weren't designed to withstand it). As for "big business" being somehow responsible, I'd suggest looking more at government. The US imposes large tariffs on ethanol imports, making them uncompetitive with domestic ethanol producers (Congress' gift to Archer Daniels Midland). Who, by the way, are presently struggling to keep up with the demand for ethanol, further exacerbating the gasoline price situation.
- vuzman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+101 gallon = 3.79 liters.
In Denmark a gallon is 6.8 USD ($1.8/L). Stop whining. - klang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+81 liter of gas costs about 10,50 dkr, which is $1.76
1 US gallon = 3.7854118 liters
1.76 * 3.7854118 = 6.66232477
that's $6.66 per gallon .. yes, that's evil pricing we have here in Denmark - colol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@1010011010
"Take away the subsidy, and Ethanol is bad both in terms of energy and price. As it is, it's "subsidized food burning"."
Except that's already been repeatedly debunked. The author of that "study" makes several assumptions and statements to arrive at his desired conclusion, in addition to the sin of playing for an emotional response with the words "subsidized food burning."
1: We already grow corn. Ethanol can be -- and is -- made from the portions of the crop that are just getting thrown out anyway.
2: Corn is hardly the only source for ethanol. In countries where its use is widespread, like Brazil, sugar cane is the preferred crop as it is high-yield and inexpensive to grow.
3: You can also make ethanol from garbage. At a time when we in the U.S. are struggling to find new landfill sites as established ones have been closed or are nearing closure, would not a faster method of disposal (not waiting decades for decomposition) that also has tangible end products be ideal?
4: On the whole, the agriculture industry in this country is "subsidized food burning" anyway, which David Pimentel conveniently fails to mention. Having grown up on a farm, I'm well aware of it. Farmers are well aware of it. The general public, on the other hand, tends to be wholly unaware of it, which is exactly why he can get away with his specious claim among casual observers.
None of this is to say ethanol is the most perfect fuel source on the face of the planet, nor that there are cost differences depending on the stock used to produce it, but that it is *renewable* and *easily produced*, two things that certainly can't be said for gasoline. - misfit410, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Ethanol is ok in very small amounts, but if your car is not specifically designed to run it, it will do damage over time..
- RedLibertyX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Ethanol has been used for quite some time by many companies (Including the former Unocal 76, now part of Conoco-Phillips) as an additive to replace MTBE use.
The additive used to make ethanol "undrinkable" is methanol, a close cousin to ethanol. Ah, the things you learn in a college chemistry course. - Gruesome, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Here in Michigan a lot of our gas is already mixed with ethanol. I think it's like 10%. And the bast*rds STILL charge $2.85 per gallon!
- Jibberish, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7One for the car...
One for the driver...
One for the car...
Two for the driver... - chrisrad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7what's a gallon?
it's about $1.50 per litre here in Australia (a few years ago it was about 50c!)
and what's gasoline equivalent to? we have unleaded petrol :p (94-98 octane) - shaund, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8The 7-11 down the street from me uses 10% ethanol... Thats the only place that i have seen it though
- otatop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Before you go thinking Australia has better gas than us, their octane rating is only the RON, where the US almost always shows the (RON+MON)/2. So it's the same range, really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating#Measurement_methods - cazbar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It would be nice if our oil companies would spend some money on refineries instead of giving their executives 400 million dollar retirement packages.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c420ca78-2c36-4e78-9806-d8be9c57c627&k=48132 - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I actually bought gas for about $3.05 in PA at a Lukoil. I noticed a sticker that said "This gas mixed with 15% Ethanol". First time I noticed that...
- nowisee, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14I don't really see what you Americans are crying about.. The price of 1 gallon of gasoline is about $7 in Norway..
- dupswapdrop, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I just distill my grass clippings into ethanol and add some acetone to each tank.
Cuts my gas use about in half. - jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Try $3.35 today in Los Angeles.
- helfire, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6it makes ethanol outa sugar cane. Ethanol can be made out of any sugar/starch biomass
- andywirtanen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Go here to see if your vehicle is E85 compatible:
http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/flexfuelvehicles.php
If your vehicle is listed, that means you can go to an E85 gas station and fill up for much less. If you're in the northeast though, you're screwed for now.
Don't put ethanol in your tank otherwise. "Pure ethanol reacts with or dissolves certain rubber and plastic materials and must not be used in unmodified engines." (Wikipedia) - steve693, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5All gas in Illinois is already mixed with up to 10% ethanol
- strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@harlowsmonkeys:
But ethanol yields less energy than gasoline, roughly 71% - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6 [h0dg3s]
"Sounds like a good way to destroy an engine"
No, it won't harm the engine in the least bit. As a matter of fact, ethanol burns off carbon deposits..
"Gas stations are only allowed to have a percentage of ethanol in their mix for a reason."
The reason being that if you mix more than 10 to 15 percent ethanol to gasoline it screws up the octane rating, making your car run like *****, unless you re-jet the carburetor, or reprogram the fuel spray ratio in fuel injected cars.
Another reason is that some older cars have cheap neoprene components in the fuel delivery system that ethanol can deteriorate over time, that wouldn't destroy an engine though.
BTW, are you an office worker?
Stick to shuffling papers, as you don't know ***** about automobiles. - dekkerd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5For those that have a flex fuel vehicle, filling 85% of your tank changes the equation a bit...
- TheRepublic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Hmmm Brazil uses sugarcanes as its substitute.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If you bought it, a truck brought it!
Yeah, my mom is dating a trucker and has that T-shirt. Needless to say, we'd be screwed without the truckers. - wqwert, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@gahal -- I'd happily pay a per unit price of $20 dollars, if the unit was 10 gallons of gas. But according to your logic, that would be even more psychologically painful.
- error401, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Sell all your giant SUVs and pickups to reduce demand = lower gas prices. This SUV craze is really driving me nuts with its wastefulness.
- Doggpound, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Most gas stations here in Wisconsin anyway put in 10% ethanol
- Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Once again someone misunderstand fuel cell technology. Fuel Cell, just like hydrogen, is an energy carrier and not an energy source. The fuel that goes into your fuel cell has to come from SOMEWHERE.
Ethanol is a fuel SOURCE. It could be loaded into a fuel cell and used to provide power to a vehicle.
Why is the distinction between fuel source and fuel carrier so difficult for people to understand?
You did all that blathering about E85, Skid Pads, and sustainable economic models but fail to understand the basic issue of what you are talking about.
Quit trying to sound smart and actually think about what you're saying. - DiggerTheDog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4In Minnesota we have mandated ethanol in our gasoline too. Yes, it is heavily subsidized and, yes, it supposedly not economically smart. Most Minnesotans view our ethanol mandates as nothing more than farm subsidies. It is, however, making the air a little cleaner.
I have always felt that ethanol is a band aid approach, just like hybrids are. All these resources, I feel that are being squandered, could be much better spent on a more efficient, permanent solution such as fuel cells.
E85 is simply a bigger susidized program and makes even less economical sense. Cleaner, you say? Yes, it is but keep in mind we also need a sustainable economic model. That is something that E85 is not.
A little side note: Although MTBE isn't as clean many people try to use it as often as possible because it is less detrimental to internal combustion reciprocating piston engines. The bad side of it is it's getting into the groundwater. Because of that it is being phased out and will soon not be allowed as a fuel additive.
Can't wait for a capable fuel celled vehicle. Something that can do 100 mph and hit 1.0 g's on a skid pad. - Bonobo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Here in Connecticutt we are in the top 5 for the most expensive gas prices toppnig a bit over $3.10!
- gleem, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Actually.... the mixture of ethanol with gasoline can be bad for cars with fiberglass gas tanks. The ethanol will eat a hole right through these tanks....
- skunkman62, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7digg has gotten so lame
- webcrumb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"Norway is a lot smaller then the United States so you have to do a lot less driving to get to where you need to go"
Ah ha! ha ha ha! Good one. Oh wait, you weren't joking. Population density. Cities have a high population density, therefore less driving is necessary. Rural areas have a low population density, therefore more driving is required. That is the same in any country. Idiot. - Monoboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It was $3.199 here in northern Washington state yesterday. I haven't checked today.
I wouldn't mind the gas price being so high here in the US if that cost was actually going to something like improving roads and public transportation, but that giant increase in price seems to be just filling people's pockets with money. That largest oil companies here in the US are reporting giant profits.
I've also heard that some of our gas has been moved down to Mexico to help create a shortage here in the US, but I don't have an article or any credible resource on this, so I feel a bit skeptical. - TWiThead, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8@webcrumb: If, as in other countries, the United States had a decent public transportation system (such as a nationwide network of high-speed electric trains), perhaps $3 per gallon of gasoline wouldn't seem like very much. We don't, so it does.
- screensnot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Monoboy, I got to give you credit for throwing in the 9/10 of a cent in there. But I would have just said $3.20 instead.
Marketing ploys are a pet peeve of mine, and it pisses me off that the general public falls for them. Most people would have just looked at that $3.199 gas price and said $3.19. The small nine at the end gets ignored by most people.
It's worse when someone sees a price of $21.97 and says "Buy this, it's $21." Usually they looked peeved when I correct them by saying that it's $22, and they say something like "OK, whatever. $22." I just want to smack them and say "Not whatever! You are letting the marketing guys sucker you!"
If we could just get everyone to see a $21.97 price tag as $22, then those ***** would stop trying to play us as chumps. They would eventually realize that if everybody sees the price as $22, then they are just losing out on $0.03 by putting that stupid $21.97 price tag on it.
Unfortunately most of the people in this world are suckers. So I will just have to live with marketing that seems to be trying to insult my intelligence. Sigh.
Next time you are driving around with someone, ask them what the price of gas is at the station you are passing. If they don't round that little 9 up to the next penny, give them a smack for me. - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -3/+61010011010 said: "Take away the subsidy, and Ethanol is bad both in terms of energy and price. As it is, it's "subsidized food burning"."
But when gas is $5.00 a gallon, Ethanol will be cheaper. We can always grow more corn and build more nuclear power plants to offset the energy usage, but we can't magically make more oil when our reserves run dry.
Well... We can do what Germany did in WWII and make it from coal, but that take way more energy than ethanol production.
Many people don't know that in Brazil, 75% of fuel used is locally produced ethanol. Its feasible and it is pretty much our only alternative other than Hydrogen. Although, Hydrogen is a far better and an almost virtually unlimited fuel source, we can't convert our cars to run on it overnight like we could ethanol.
Any other suggestions are always welcome. Our economy is too attached to oil and we are going to have to find alternatives. That or put up with $5.00 a gallon prices. - LowGan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3i got my go-ped all ready to go in the garage when gas gets too expensive...with 100mpg you can't go wrong....of course it goes 25mph but it's cool right?
- dustinhoffman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Well, putting a 15% ethanol mix is probably a bad idea anyway. Most vehichles Specifically state no more than 10% ethanol or other alternative alcohol-based fuels. Coming from the midwest, I haven't seen a gas station around here that doesn't have 10% ethanol pumps. I guess this doesn't apply to me.. already have it.
- eaasness, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The "Stick" = better mileage argument is not as true as it used to be.
Driving a car with a manual transmission is a lost skill in the US, in my opinion. I would say over half my friends don't even know how to drive "stick". This has forced auto makers to design better automatic transmissions that are more fuel efficient. Adding to that, I would say that most people in the US that do drive a stick shifts don't get the mileage they are capable of.
Just so you understand I am PRO STICK. I believe everyone should be forced to learn to drive stick. It pisses me off every time I'm on a hill some A-hole gets right up on my bumper. I do believe manual transmission are capable of better gas mileage than an automatic, just not with most drivers. I drive a 2000 civic LX manual and still get 30 MPG on the highway in Los Angeles.(FYI That is damn good milage in LA) - radu79, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That thing is kind of expensive, and I wouldn't pay 1.5K USD for it.
We had one in the country we used to make alcohol for our consumption, and it was a very non high tech device. I estimate the cost to be around 200 USD, at most.
It's basically two containers, one where you put a mixture of fermented fruits or corn or wheat or grapes, after you've made wine with them.
Then you connect that container, through a pipe, with another container which sits in cold water. That's pretty much it. - UltravioletMars, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Can you site an example of this? I hear much the same thing too often but nobody gives any actual facts. Not trying to be a smart ass, just curious.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 124 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is