yeah this could get ot real quick, but e-85 is a joke and a bad idea. It might even be the downfall of the US economy.

 

yea, but I just want to use it because it is not as harmful as gasoline. Something like it does not exert 40% as much emissions as gasoline

 

it would benefit the US economy because we would not be depending on other nations, since we would produce the ethanol here in the US.

 

After only one year of starting to sell e-85, has it thrown corn prices up 38%. As everyone knows corn is an important part of our food industry in everything.

Corn feed for cattle, pigs, and most farm animals for food, ingredient in most foods. This product is essential for most of our food industry.

Politians in congress have set a future goal of having the ability to produce some high amount ( somewhere in the billions of barrels) of corn for e-85 in a couple of years to meet demand. Lack of land and farming to make more corn(cornfields) to meet this demand is somewhere around t 30% of our already limited amount of land for farming. If you add that 30% draw from corn to our food industry to making fuels, this will force corn prices through the roof, along with all other foods associated with corn.

California itself has had a 13% increase in costs in food products and in the food industry in the last 6 months- guess why

and it will only go up from there and around the country, rising prices on everything else.

 

yea, but isn't that the price we should pay to slow down the greenhouse effect?

 

I agree that things should be done to limit pollution and foreign oil, but everything needs a balance or slow transition otherwise something else suffers.

"The U.S. Department of Agriculture's long-range projections indicate that large increases in ethanol production will drive corn prices up in the United States, while the expansion of biodiesel use in the European Union and Asia will raise global demand for vegetable oils. According to the USDA, corn prices will continue to advance through 2010. Corn prices are projected to ease after 2010 but will remain historically high."

So we pay more for food then gas instead. At least food is a necessity.

 

If you consider the energy required to turn corn into ethanol, the greenhouse effect in about the same.

 

From Technologyreview.com


"The recent rise in corn prices--almost 70 percent in the past six months--caused by the increased demand for ethanol biofuel has come much sooner than many agriculture economists had expected.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture, this year the country is going to use 18 to 20 percent of its total corn crop for the production of ethanol, and by next year that will jump to 25 percent. And that increase, says Marshall Martin, an agriculture economist at Purdue University, "is the main driver behind the price increase for corn."

The jump in corn prices is already affecting the cost of food. The most notable example: in Mexico, which gets much of its corn from the United States, the price of corn tortillas has doubled in the past year, according to press reports, setting off large protest marches in Mexico City. It's almost certain that most of the rise in corn prices is due to the U.S. ethanol policy, says David Victor, director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford University.

The rising food costs fueled by ethanol demand are also affecting U.S. consumers. "All things that use corn are going to have higher prices and higher cost, to some extent, that will be passed on to consumers," says Wally Tyner, professor of agriculture economics at Purdue University. The impact of this is being felt first in animal feed, particularly poultry and pork. Poultry feed is about two-thirds corn; as a result, the cost to produce poultry--both meat and eggs--has already risen about 15 percent due to corn prices, says Tyner. Also expect corn syrup--used in soft drinks--to get more expensive, he says.

The situation will only get worse, says David Pimentel, a professor in the department of entomology at Cornell University. "We have over a hundred different ethanol plants under construction now, so the situation is going to get desperate," he says. Adding to the worries about corn-related food prices is President Bush's ambitious goal, announced in his last State of the Union address, that the United States will produce 35 billion gallons of ethanol by 2017.

Still, some suggest that the overheated ethanol market could soon cool down. "Politicians will see that, first of all, it is not helping our oil independence," says Pimentel. "It is increasing the price of food for people in the U.S., it is costing an enormous sum of money for everyone, and it is contributing to environmental problems. But I can imagine it is going to take another year or more before politicians realize they have a major disaster on their hands."

 

didn't really say anything about what I asked. With the recent news cnn and other news organizations released about antartica being completly full with C02, which they did not expect to see for another 100 yrs, they really need to do somthing with fuel, but i dunno what

but now since u stated that, yea i think ur right. food > fuel

 

Nevermind increased run off of soil and fertilzer, corn is a bitch on the environment go grow.

 

This is a great thread, thanks to all who have joined in the discussion.

At the risk of being accused of hijacking this and turning it into a debate about the sustainability (or lack thereof) of our (now global) economy, here I go.

Price increases in food products are a result of higher fuel prices too. Most of the food we eat is transported large distances to arrive on our grocery shelves. So we enjoy lots of variety but we pay a high price--deferred, of course, to future generations. For the deep thinkers out there, check out the book "Omnivore's Dilemma" that explains how bizarre the food industry has become in the US, (and in many other parts of the world). You might not want to eat so much corn after you read this book.

Ethanol has its own problems, especially corn-based. Not only is corn pretty hard on the land (soil erosion, heavy fertilizer and chemical use etc) but it requires a lot of water. And manufacturing ethanol from corn takes something like 3 times as much water as you produce in ethanol.

You think we got problems with food vs fuel prices--wait until the water wars erupt throughout the western US including Texas. We now know that we ain't seen nothing yet as far as drought is concerned, and with population centers much bigger than they were during the dustbowl and the drought of the '50s, there are very dry times ahead.

The real challenge is that we humans, who have lived high on the hog for the last several generations, need to discipline ourselves to use fewer natural resources per capita so that we do not destroy the very life support systems here on planet Earth that have allowed our species to survive this long.

All of us Fit owners have reduced our consumption of fossil fuels by purchasing a gas-efficient vehicle. But when a truly independent and thorough analysis of ethanol (including the feedstock production and ethanol manufacture) is finally done, I would wager that it will reveal a whole new set of problems that we had not even considered.

Folks, we just need to drive less, walk more, and eat locally produced food.

 

Look Up a Vehicle | Green Vehicle Guide | US EPA

I feel good about driving my Fit (and hubby drives a new Civic) because we are doing something positive. We also changed 18 incandescent bulbs in our house We are definately making changes.

As far as an alternative fuel:

The drum-beat of alarm over global warming has set businesses clamoring for a piece of the sugar-cane action. There are plenty of other ways to make ethanol, of course, and scientists the world over are busy tinkering with everything from switchgrass to sweet potatoes. U.S. farmers make it from corn, but with the scarcity of arable land there’s just so much they can plant without crowding out other premium crops, like soy beans. (Meantime, the combination of limited land and surging demand have sent corn prices through the roof). So far nothing beats sugarcane—which grows in the tropics—for an abundant, cheap source of energy. Unlike beets or corn, which are confined to temperate zones and must be transformed into carbohydrates before they can be converted into sugar and finally alcohol, sugarcane is already halfway there. (from The Race to Make Fuel From Sugar - Leadership and the Environment - MSNBC.com)

Isn't sugarcane an option?

I agree with ifitfitz that we need to "drive less, walk more, and eat locally produced food" and we need to understand and realize how our individual actions affect the whole world.

Great thread....keep it going!

 

It takes as much, or more, petroleum to turn corn into ethanol to fuel your car as it takes petroleum to fuel your car.

Don't forget, petroleum is used to plow the corn fields, plant the corn seeds, harvest the corn, and truck the final ethanol product to it's final destination. That all incurs losses. It's probably more efficient to burn the petroleum yourself than to have someone else burn it four times to make the product you end up burning

The same is true with hydrogen. Hydrogen is usually produced by running an electric current though water. That electricity is often produced through burning fossil fuels. It would simply be more efficient to burn the fossil fuel yourself. But what about solar or wind power used to generate the hydrogen? In that case, it would STILL be more efficient to simply use that energy to solar or wind power the CAR. Anytime you convert one form of enery to another, there will be some loss due to inefficiencies in the process.

Again, the same is true with hybrid vehicles. You might be burning less petroleum youself, but what petroleum is being used in the manufacturing process to create the batteries to run a hybrid, and what happens to those batteries at the end of their lives?

Not that I'm pro-oil, or anti-green, but you need to consider the whole process, not just what you're putting into your car.

 

I don't think ethanol truly produces less emissions than gasoline. The manufacturing of ehtanol from corn emits CO2. I'm referring to the chemcial plants and such. so that's why you can't just measure the CO2 emissoins out of the tailpipe. It's a bigger picture.

ethanol has tons of other problems. 1) it has less energy per volume, so this means if cars's tansk don't get bigger, u get less distance per fillup. 2) it makes consumable corn expensive 3) infastructure needs to change. right now for CA, there are around only two stations.

ethanol is only good for one thing: F1 racing. ethanol is to petroleum like petroleum is to diesel: less mileage per volume, but more horsepower.

BTW I'm referring to US ethanol. In brazil it's more feasible because sugar cane is a much better crop to make alcohol, and is more economic with sugar cane too.

 

How are politicians getting away w/ pitching this BS...?
The downside to E85 (i.e. the things that are not in the newspapers) outweigh the upside. We will never be able to grow enough corn (or BS switch-grass) to meet our demands.
OK... so let's listen to our corrupt politicians (who are bought and paid for by massive corporations) and switch to E85. We will drive up the price for so many things that you would rather be paying $10 gallon for gasoline.
Grow corn, lots of corn... Feed costs (chickens, pigs and cattle) go up... meat costs go up. Corn, wheat, beans, etc. go up because it will be more profitable to grow corn, so less of everything else will be grown (meaning less grains and vegatables = higher prices).
E85 is being pushed (hard) by politicians. Do you think there's some money to be made here by corporations? Why else would they be pushing so hard. Don't say it's for the enviroment or to help our local economies. It's about $$$, it's ALWAYS about the $$$.
Why, when there are innovative ideas from our Universities, our Gov't. doesn't jump in w/ both feet I don't know?
Why can't we develop technology,.. battery, H2, solar, etc. to help solve these prolems?
Not to offend the hard working farm families who may see a sort term benefit from the new cash crop, but E85 will not help this country. Why are oil companies allowed to monopolize the supply chain and dictate prices? Why are they allowed to jack prices any time there is a refinery issue or a need to go to different "blends"? Why are they allowed to rape the consumer w/ huge price jumps & extraordinary profits and not pay their fair share of taxes. These windfall profits should be taxed at a higher rate (like my bonus checks - 40-45%) and the additional funds should be directed to the universities to work on alternate approaches.
Do some research. Look @ the big picture. Burning fuels to power our vehicles is not sustainable. Wait till the Chinese and Indian populations all start driving cars...
1 planet. 1 atmosphere.
Sorry for the rant, but I'm sick of hearing about the wonders of E85.
If we are pushed to E85, we will see a recession w/i a few years.
People (most) can find ways to not drive.
People (all) can not find a way to not eat.

 

It's not the oil companies, its OPEC, who controls the supply, and thus the price, of crude oil.

 

Don't fool yourself.
Yes, OPEC is a Cartel which sets output, thus influencing pricing. For years the US has allowed this to continue.
The reason,.. it doesn't matter what they charge per/bbl. The oil comapnies still refine and set the price @ the pump. if the price per bbl goes up by 20%, be sure the oil companies will increase the price by @ least that much. The point is, burning fuels is not sustainable. Changing to E85 will be WORSE than gasoline.
WE all need to think beyond what we are TOLD by government and their corporate sponsors.
As Forest Gump said, "That's all I have to say about that"
Now, back to talking about the awesome Fit.

 

I believe that it's all still the oil guys. Basically it's a case of "You want green fuel? I'll show you green fuel!" If they make the concept look bad, they'll be able to say "yeah, but remember how ethanol turned out" to any new suggestions. GM had the EV1, a great first generation production electric car, but not for big oil. Instead GM now makes Gems, so that the soundbite can be "Would you give up your SUV for a golf cart?" I think that their counting on an uprising against E85, so that they can argue that oil is better than all of the alternatives. And that argument will work with the uninformed, which seems to be about 90% of our population. It may be pure BS, but what do they care, if the majority believes something, they're in the clear. It's all about the $$$$$, and those in charge are on the big $$$ side of things. The money has to come from somewhere, it might as well come from the little people.

Eric

 

But crude oil prices are $9 less per barrel than this time last year, and gasoline prices are up 30%. Hmmmm. But let's not dwell on this, I think that some same-sex people want to get married, that's much more important.

 

Measrue refinery output, the amount of outtages, and the LACK of new US refinery construction/expansion. There are a few things of interest if you follow this, especially the nuts and bolts of outtages and situations such as the BP-Texas City disaster. Why do PM if you can continue to produce and not re-invest in the physical plant, and if you have an outtage, the profits go up to offset the volume of lost revenue.