You have to ask yourself who is advising the people who work inside the DC beltway. Perhaps they failed to read the Orange Juice post dated Oct 26th that can be found in our archives in which we pointed out the drawbacks of ethanol fuels.
Oct 26, 2006 post FLASH! Don’t believe Prop 87 YES ad’s
We have been seeing former President Bill Clinton on the tube promoting a 33 percent saving by switching to E85 ethanol fuel. I just received a call from an automotive industry executive that you need to be aware of before you accept the Yes on Prop 87 spin.
Yes, we now have flexible fuel vehicles, FFV’s, on the road. However if you were to check you will only find one refueling station offering E 85 ethanol within 100 miles of San Clemente. In addition the price per gallon was quoted at $3.29 while regular fuel is selling, at the same location, for $2.29. It’s called competition. Would the average driver pay one dollar more per gallon and drive up to 100 miles to fill up on this alleged cheaper fuel.
However, there is a more serious issue. If you were to fill up our present fleet of vehicles, that are not designed to accept the E85 fuel, you will damage your engine. The 85 percent ethanol lacks necessary lubrication oil as found in traditional petroleum based fuels.A call to a station in Kansas indicates the cost saving over regular fuel to be only six cents per gallon, surely not 33 percent as advertised in the Yes on Prop 87 ads. Be careful before buying into high profile spinners statements.
Larry
This entry was posted by Larry Gilbert, on Thursday, October 26, 2006. You can leave your response.
5 responses! Don’t believe Prop 87 YES ad’s
SAC Says:
10/26/2006 11:40 PM Â If tons of foreign oil can be imported into the USA to make $2 or $3 or $4 a gallon gas, why is there an embargo on the importation of ethanol for 70 cents a gallon E-85?
Why does the E-85 the US oil companies provide to consumers in the states cost 3 dollars a gallon retail? The very same stuff in Brazil cost less that one US dollar per gallon.
And the autos that use that fuel, the same make and models that are sold here in the states by Ford and all the other car companies.
Larry Gilbert Says:
10/27/2006 2:05 PM Â SAC
I presented your questions to the auto executive and received the following response:
Your point #1. Embargo. “Who says there is an embargo? We make the stuff in the USA and Kansas farmers grow the crops to make ethanol and it is still not cheaper than fossil fuels after the manufacturing process?
As to your comment on cost. “He should be asking this question to the oil companies. Supply and demand seem to rule the day in a free economy, which Brazil does not have.”
And your final point relating to our autos. “Most manufacturers have cars that run on E85 but where is the incentive to buy it? It is not in the cost savings but in the breaking away from dependance on foreign oil. Should the government force the oil companies to provide it at a competitive rate?”
Along with his response he added the following comment on diesel fuel for all of our readers.
“Diesel technology is also dependant on the available fuel. We have a great new diesel we will be selling in 46 states. California emission requirements can’t be met until we have the low sulfur fuel available. Diesel gas with high sulfur content will plug up current technology catalytic converters. With low sulfur fuel we can meet the requirements. This will not happen for another two years. The state of CA wants the cars to meet emissions and alternate fuel requirements but why aren’t they holding the fuel suppliers accountable and not just the vehicle manufacturers?
Great question. Perhaps someone from our state government or a representative of the oil industry will weigh in with a response.
Larry Gilbert
SAC Says:
10/28/2006 2:29 PM Larry, Those are 3 good answers.
There are US trade barriers, no free market after all.
us news quote (embargo answer)
“The U.S., potentially the largest market for the Brazilian ethanol, currently imposes trade restrictions on the product in order to encourage domestic production of corn ethanol, which is, however, much less efficient than its sugarcane counterpart.
Quote from COHA.org (Cost answer)
“With access to cheap farm labor and sugar’s high alcohol yield, production costs for Brazil’s ethanol are about 30% less than the U.S. corn-based product.”
(E-85 car answer)
You dont need to buy an E-85 car. Most likely you already own one.
VIN decoder (most cars made after 2000 are flex fuel)(mostly unknown in USA)
http://www.ve85.com/FlexibleFuelVehicles/FFVIdentification/
The unsaid question:
If E-85 is so great and cheap, why hasnÂt anyone jumped on the band wagon and started supplying it in mass qualities?
I dont know
(But I blame the oil companies myself)
Larry Gilbert Says:
10/30/2006 2:38 PM UPDATE:
I just received the following information from my auto industry executive on E-85 fuel.
“Larry…Ford has 4 FFV vehicles but none available in Cal. Cal only wants hybrids. Ford nor DCX has certified the F85 (85% ethanol) vehicles in Cal because there is no demand…the government won’t even allow them in their bids. That is why there is no F85 Fuel available in California. Why do we need prop 87 to collect money to find more fuel alternatives when we are not using what we have in ethanol?
Note the fact from Ford’s website…”20-30% less fuel economy from ethanol.” If it costs less then it makes sense…but more?
In 2005 there were 45 FFV model vehicles produced….NONE of them could be sold in California.”
Perhaps someone will forward this update to the “talking heads” who we see on the tube promoting Prop 87.
Any additional questions?
Larry
cook Says:
10/30/2006 9:16 PM Â Sounds like the reason there are not E85 auto’s and fuel is because of government interference.
Jan 26, 2007 LG Note: If we reduce demand by 20 percent and get “20 to 30 percent less fuel economy” than the president’s “dream sheet” is a wash.
PS: Cutting Edge-a talk show producers Ron and Anna Winship and myself recently interviewed author and retired EPA employee Evaggelos Vallianatos on the controversial topic of genetically modified/engineered foods. Toward the end of that program I asked his thoughts about using land to grow GM corn for ethanol fuel rather than using that same land to grow crops to feed the hungry. You might check out the show entitled “Food for Thought.”
Update: Supporting Juice blog comments on the shortcomings of ethanol appeared in the Jan 27th Wall Street Journal.
Headline “Very, Very Big Corn–Ethanol and its consequences.”
It appears that the Journal agrees with our Oct post on this topic. In assessing the president’s promotion of ethanol to reduce our dependence on imported oil the second paragraph reads as follows:
“A bit of sobriety would go a long way in discussing this moonshine of the energy world, however. Cellulosic ethanol (proposed by DuPont) which is derived from plants like switchgrass–will require a big technological breakthrough to have any impact on the fuel supply. That leaves corn and sugar based ethanol, which have been around long enough to understand their significant limitations. What we have here is a classic political stampede rooted more in hope and self interest than science or logic.”
It appears that the president just toured a DuPont facility and proposes a $2 billion loan to promote this new moonshine.
Later in the article they confirm our Oct statement on reduced efficiency.
“And because corn-based ethanol is less efficient than ordinary gasoline, using it to fuel cars means you need more gas to drive the same number of miles. This is not exactly a route to ‘independence’ from Mideast, Venezuelan or any other tainted source of oil.”
One final point in their story.
As an oxygenate, ethanol increases the level of nitrous oxides in the atmosphere and thus causes smog.”
Winging it came come back to bite you!
E-mail response to this post from a third party auto buff.
“Good article on Ethanol. Individuals have been experimenting with ethanol fuels for at least 25 years and have mostly meet up with the federal goverments brew laws. We used to modify carburators for ethanol but had to carry your own supply or just use the vehicle locally. Fuel Injection and computer operated fuel supply curves which can be simply customized for any fuel are now the norm in vehicles.
It’s true that the domestic corn-ethanol distillers have a reputation for being high priced but they need some latitude and tax support to “start small” … of course Brazil has been running ethanol for a while now and we should learn from what appears to be sucessful operation.
Larry did some good background investigation which shows not only
technical issues but also the attitudes around the industry.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1704554/posts
NO on Prop. 87 (An ethanol support)
Clean Air Performance Professionals
Charlie Peters President
(510) 537-1796
cappcharlie@earthlink.net
Federal ethanol policy increases Government motors oil use and Big oil profit.
It is reported that today California is using Brazil sugar cane ethanol at $0.16 per gal increase over using GMO corn fuel ethanol. In this game the cars and trucks get to pay and Big oil profits are the result that may be ready for change.
We do NOT support AB 523 or SB 1396 unless the ethanol mandate is changed to voluntary ethanol in our gas.
Folks that pay more at the pump for less from Cars, trucks, food, water & air need better, it is time.
The car tax of AB 118 Nunez is just a simple Big oil welfare program, AAA questioned the policy and some folks still agree.
AB 523 & SB 1326 are just a short put (waiver) from better results.
You’re a bit late to the game here. Previous comment was January 2007.