POLL: Is ethanol (gasahol, E85, gas/alcohol mix) available near you?

[yurbud]

I'm curious how many people have access to this since you can run it in your car without modification, and the percentage of fuel that's alcohol would be a savings in oil.


If yes, say what part of the country you are in.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[mattclearing]

1. Gasahol. Reminds me of that Simpsons ep. (One for me, one for you.)

:D

[dcfirefighter]

2. Hydrogen is avaliable on Benning Rd NE.

E85 is available at the city pumps on montana ave, ne, and, I assume, elsewhere.

[mattclearing]

3. I had no idea. If only they sold the cars. n/t

[yurbud]

5. you can put ethanol in without doing anything to your car

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[Conservativesux]

24. But you lose power/milage when you do. Less BTU's=Less power per gallon.

Cant have something for nothing.

[mattclearing]

32. My response was in regard to hydrogen. n/t

[silverweb]

4. Yes.

In my part of San Diego, there's a Ford dealership just up the street that has an "alternative fuels station" -- with E85, biodiesel, hydrogen, and natural gas available, as well as the usual selections of gasoline.

[TwilightZone]

6. Yes,

I'm in Nebraska, and it's available pretty much anywhere in the upper Midwest - ND, SD, MN, IA, NE, KS, etc.

It's huge in SD, for one, because there are several big ethanol processing plants.

[bperci108]

7. If you are really concerned about oil use...

You will not use Ethanol.

Why?

Because it actually uses more oil to make ethanol than it saves burning it instead of oil in your car's tank.

About a month ago the Ethanol/Corn Lobby (read here: Big Agribusiness) was apoplectic over a study released by UC Berkley and another university that confirmed this. They denounced it as ridiculous, even though this study's methodology was far more all-encompassing than the Corn Lobby's and used far more realistic production estimates.

The Corn Lobby has always promoted ethanol religiously and uses an equation to show it's benefit that excluded all oil input costs to produce the corn and ethanol in the first place, (i.e. petroleum inputs from fertilizer, diesel fuel used in the tractor and combine, diesel used to transport the raw corn and the finished ethanol, energy used to process the corn into ethanol, etc.)

In the end, it's a boondoggle than uses more energy than it saves. The only real beneficiaries of Ethanol are the big agribusiness corporations. :mad:

I would recommend James Kunstler's "The Long Emergency" for yet another POV on so-called bio-fuels.

He calls the promotion of them as proof positive of our deep denial over the fast approaching end of cheap oil and the economy that depends on it like a junkie. :-(

[yurbud]

8. compare cost input of oil: military spending, lives, centuries of hatred

for stealing.

The cost of processing petroleum isn't all borne by the oil industry--we pay for their access and overthrowing leaders that try to drive a hard bargain, we pay to protect the sealanes, we pay to fight the terrorists bred by our support of dictators who do business with the oil companies.

I have seen that analysis you mention, and one of my students who is a farmer said the numbers they used were seriously inflated.

The Corn Lobby has always promoted ethanol religiously and uses an equation to show it's benefit that excluded all oil input costs to produce the corn and ethanol in the first place, (i.e. petroleum inputs from fertilizer, diesel fuel used in the tractor and combine, diesel used to transport the raw corn and the finished ethanol, energy used to process the corn into ethanol, etc.)

Your comment below doesn't make any sense. Why would considering alternatives to petroleum show DENIAL of the problem?

I would not say it's the solution, but a partial stop gap at best to buy us more time to get our technological and political shit together.

He calls the promotion of them as proof positive of our deep denial over the fast approaching end of cheap oil and the economy that depends on it like a junkie.

[bperci108]

12. Well....

I would agree and disagree.

"The cost of processing petroleum isn't all borne by the oil industry--we pay for their access and overthrowing leaders that try to drive a hard bargain, we pay to protect the sealanes, we pay to fight the terrorists bred by our support of dictators who do business with the oil companies."

Most certainly.

Much of the political hate and discontent of the past 100 years has been caused (directly and indirectly) by petroleum and the wealth it creates, and the lust for that wealth.

"I have seen that analysis you mention, and one of my students who is a farmer said the numbers they used were seriously inflated."

That's the position of BigAg, too.

I don't farm, but much of my family and many of my friends do, and the consensus here is just the opposite. So, YMMV.

"Your comment below doesn't make any sense. Why would considering alternatives to petroleum show DENIAL of the problem?"

Because, there are no real alternatives to petroleum; not yet. Bio-fuels can't even make a dent in the amount of shortfalls, wind, solar, etc. aren't even close to viable yet, and nearly all still need some petroleum input of some sort. Behemoth vehicles are still the preferred norm and poorly designed (from an energy standpoint, that is) housing is practically all that is being built.


My point is that it's going to take a complete paradigm shift in the thinking of all of us; and we aren't ready to do that yet. Not really.

"I would not say it's the solution, but a partial stop gap at best to buy us more time to get our technological and political shit together.'

You could be right, but most people are in complete denial of the situation and are expecting to be delivered from their own shortsightedness by the gods of technology.

It ain't gonna happen, IMHO.

Time to grab a shovel........

[yurbud]

19. It will take a shock to get real change, but we're getting there.

The problem with wind and solar (photovoltaics and thermal) is that they are not used on a scale large enough to make a difference which is a political not technological problem.


The only petroleum input you need with those is backup for off peak hours, after dark for solar or dead air for wind. Coal could be the back up as well as oil.

You are assuming that this is an either/or question--either we get all our energy from oil or we get all our energy from something else. The reality is, no one thing can do it by itself, just as no one thing does it NOW.

The real paradigm shift should be away from waiting for a big utility or corporation to fix the problem and toward making your own.

We need to think of energy generation like the PC, and the grid like the internet instead of mainframe with enough teats for us all to suckle on.

As corporations try to screw us more and more on energy, people will move to this model for survival.

wind, solar, etc. aren't even close to viable yet, and nearly all still need some petroleum input of some sort. Behemoth vehicles are still the preferred norm and poorly designed (from an energy standpoint, that is) housing is practically all that is being built.

[bperci108]

21. I agree.

"You are assuming that this is an either/or question--either we get all our energy from oil or we get all our energy from something else. The reality is, no one thing can do it by itself, just as no one thing does it NOW."

I didn't mean to give that impression.

A better way to make the point would be to say that we have had 150 years to construct a society that is almost totally dependant on petroleum. But we're going to have to deconstruct it and find a "third way" in about 30 years (perhaps less).

It's going to be painful, economically and societally speaking, but I think we can do it.

It might actually be good for our national character in the long run...plus it will be the end of the multinational corporations.

It'll be hard to be a "worldwide" conglomerate in a pastoral, regional economy.


:evilgrin:

[yurbud]

40. they are going to try corporate, mega-solution like nuclear power

and even the wind things they do have been massive, but with most renewables, the window for jerking people around with electricity rates is relatively narrow before people realize they can get a better deal with solar cells or a windmill in their backyard.


In Daniel Yergin's the Prize, the Pulitzer Prize winning history of oil, he talked about the comparable shift from whale oil to kerosene, kerosene to electricity, and horses to cars. In all those cases the bulk of the shift was done in a decade or two.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[silverweb]

9. That's a flawed analysis.

EVEN IF what you say is true, the situation doesn't have to be that way. Nearly all of the petroleum used to produce ethanol could be eliminated fairly easily. Diesel fuel can be replaced by biodiesel in all diesel vehicles and machines; petroleum-based fertilizer can be replaced by manure, compost, and other organic fertilizers; processing plants can be powered at least in part by wind, solar, and biodiesel. Also, sugar cane has been shown to be a much more efficient crop for ethanol production, so corn isn't the only source.

Finally, even if it takes a while to substitute renewable energy sources for producing ethanol (which does not have to be the case), producing ethanol and is better than fighting wars for oil.

I'm so sick of naysayers when it comes to developing alternative energy sources!!! :grr:

[bperci108]

14. Boy, I kicked the hornets' nest with this one...

"Nearly all of the petroleum used to produce ethanol could be eliminated fairly easily."

Really?

How?

Please don't be offended, but that is pure fantasy. Out here in the hustings, the picture looks a little different.

"Diesel fuel can be replaced by biodiesel in all diesel vehicles and machines"

Sorry, but physically impossible.

Do you have any idea how many MILLIONS of gallons of diesel are used daily? There is no way on God's green earth to make even a tiny fraction of what is needed.

"petroleum-based fertilizer can be replaced by manure, compost, and other organic fertilizers;"


BINGO!!!

That is absolutely correct.

But here's where the paradigm shift comes into play. BigAg cannot and will not be able to do this. Industrial agriculture and bio-intensive organic methods really don't mix. That's going to be the job growth in the next century, IMHO: the cottage farmer.

"processing plants can be powered at least in part by wind, solar, and biodiesel."

Still takes huge petroleum inputs to build the physical plant and the technology, which doesn't solve the problem, it only prolongs the inevitable death of the cheap oil economy. I'm sorry to say, the condition is terminal. Why drag it out?


"Finally, even if it takes a while to substitute renewable energy sources for producing ethanol (which does not have to be the case), producing ethanol and is better than fighting wars for oil."

On that I agree.

Philosophically you are absolutely correct.

But, in reality, there isn't enough ethanol produced, nor can there be, to make the slightest bit of difference.

The resources and time could be better spent on eliminating the need for petroleum in the first place, instead of just finding a new foodstuff for the PetroBeast.

"I'm so sick of naysayers when it comes to developing alternative energy sources!!! :grr:"

Channel that anger into something productive, instead of just being pissed at the bearer of unpopular news. See my sig for an appropriate comment on precisely that from 'ol Henry.

[silverweb]

22. We're running out of options.

Philosophically you agree with me, but practically speaking you don't see it happening because Big Ag and Big Oil and Big Gov won't do it. Lots of other people agree with you.

Well, if we "little people" don't kick up enough shit and channel our anger and frustration into forcing the Bigs into helping us do what's needed, we're all going to be choking out our last gasping breaths from methane and carbon dioxide-filled lungs. With a combination of all the technologies we now have, we could solve our problems. The fact that it will require some adjustments in lifestyle makes some shake their heads immediately and that strikes me as just purely stupid.

I'm not pissed at you for being the bearer of unpopular news, so Henry's quote does not exactly apply. I'm pissed at the people who can't or won't see that our very survival means changing the way we live in big and small ways. I'm pissed at the "business as usual" Bigs who laugh it all off because they don't give a shit about anything or anyone else but their own lifestyle during their own limited lifetime. I'm pissed because we -- humanity -- are pissing everything away, including each other.

People in this thread are talking about space elevators and wall-sized computer screens -- which won't do anyone a damn bit of good when there's no breathable air or drinkable water or arable land.

[bperci108]

26. I think we're on the same page.

But the Bigs have no interest in "helping" us, except helping us become part of their Plantation Nation. :puke:

Most of us who see the writing on the wall will be somewhat prepared for the chaos, but many in the US, especially the suburban yuppie crowd will be at their wit's end.

Using some of the alternatives we discussed above as a way to buy more time may not be such a bad idea, as long as the science and economics behind them is uncontaminated by greed and spin.

That may be a lot to hope for...:yoiks:


I think my ire on the subject is influenced by some of the discussions I've had with some GOP friends.

They think all is well and technology will always save us. Perhaps I projected a little....shame on me.

:spank:

[silverweb]

30. Yes, I think we are on the same page.

I realize the Bigs want to keep the status quo going and tighten their noose on the Plantation Nation.

However, despite the fact that all is definitely not well, a combination of advanced technologies together with cutting back on our lifestyle in a number of areas could well be what saves us. Buying time is necessary to figure things out better and to implement actions.

I'm just a little homebody nobody, but I'm not stupid and I think about these things a lot. I hear a lot of "that won't work" and I'm left to wonder why business as usual is better than trying something new. At the rate we're going, we don't have a lot of time for implementing any new ideas.

Yes, you may have projected a little, but I'm used to it. :) I just want to leave a world for my children that still has some hope for a future.

[Conservativesux]

25. How do you spread manure over millions of acres of cropland

like the huge farming operation do with liquid petroleum fertilizer, often sprayed by airplanes or helicopters?

Not knocking your post, as I am all for alternatives for oil too, just a simple question here.

[bperci108]

27. Short answer: You don't.

This is one of the reasons that I believe the small (and I mean small) farm will become the norm and Industrial Agriculture will disappear.

A whole LOT more people will become involved in the production of food and livestock and the american diet is going to change significantly.

For the better, I might add... ;-)

[Conservativesux]

28. So many people have left the farmlands for the city, bought out by BigAg..

You have to wonder if any of them or thier children would be willing to move back into the farmlands.

I suppose at some point there will be no choice.

[bperci108]

34. When that time comes...

The big cash grain farmers will be looking to unload as much of their land as possible to keep from being foreclosed upon and the Corporate farms will be history; casualties of the end of cheap oil, IMHO.

No family can operate 1, 2, or 3000+ acres without huge equipment requiring vast amounts of fuels, lubes and chemical fertilizers, all of which are going to be prohibitively expensive.

But a small, bio-intensive, organic diverse operation (like the average farm in the 19th century) can be viable.

But getting to that point in the future is going to be one chaotic ride. :wow:

[Strelnikov_]

10. This Report Appears To Be An Outlier

Most studies indicate an EPR of 1.3 to 1.8 for corn ethanol. Most of the feed value of the grain remains after processing. Cellulosic ethanol, if if pans out, would be even better in that perennial crops grown on marginal agricultural land could be utilized.

The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update / AER-813
United States Department of Agriculture - July 2002

http://www.usda.gov/oce/oepnu/aer-813.pdf

The above publication indicates that the EROEI (EPR) of corn ethanol is 1.34 to 1.85 dependant on how the value of coproducts (DDGS, germ, etc.) is accounted for. What I found interesting was Table 6 that indicates 2/3's of the energy consumed is in the conversion process. This indicates opportunities for utilizing co-generation or renewables (wind) for some of this process energy.

Thus, corn ethanol appears to have a future role, at a minimum, as an energy carrier. Considering current hydrogen generation has an EROEI of 0.20, corn ethanol at and EROEI of 1.3 looks pretty good.

Just east of Ames, IA an ethanol processing plant is being built. In the brief for the project they advertised how the new plant will use the same coal supply delivered to the Ames, IA municipal electric plant 4 mi. to the west, thus resulting in savings. With co-generation, this plant could have been located such that waste heat from the coal fired electric plant could have been utilized by the ethanol process. In addition, the Ames power plant burns local garbage, therefore waste material from the ethanol process could be burned (resource recovered, as they call it).

The following report indicates that 1 b Ton/yr of biomass would be required to replace 30% of current petroleum consumption.

Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply, April 2005:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/final_billionton_vision_report2.pdf

The purpose of this report is to determine whether the land resources of the United States are capable of producing a sustainable supply of biomass sufficient to displace 30 percent or more of the country’s present petroleum consumption – the goal set by the Advisory Committee in their vision for biomass technologies. Accomplishing this goal would require approximately 1 billion dry tons of biomass feedstock per year.

The short answer to the question of whether that much biomass feedstock can be produced is yes. Looking at just forestland and agricultural land, the two largest potential biomass sources, this study found over 1.3 billion dry tons per year of biomass potential — enough to produce biofuels to meet more than one-third of the current demand for transportation fuels. The full resource potential could be available roughly around mid-21st century when large-scale bioenergy and biorefinery industries are likely to exist. This annual potential is based on a more than seven-fold increase in production from the amount of biomass currently consumed for bioenergy and biobased products. About 368 million dry tons of sustainably removable biomass could be produced on forestlands, and about 998 million dry tons could come from agricultural lands.

The problem is, there is no way biomass/renewables will replace the Quads of liquid fuel energy we currently consume. This does not have to mean the end of personal transport. But it does mean the end of the age of 6000 lb. 4 wheel living rooms flying down the highway at 75 mph. If cars today averaged 100 mpg, we would reduce petroleum consumption by 34%. Replace an additional 30% with biomass sources per the report, we start to make a real dent in our petroleum 'habit'. And all with todays technology.

[bperci108]

15. The gist of the report that I get....

...is that no one seems to want to face up to the fact that the way corn is grown, and will have to be grown, isn't sustainable.

BigAg doesn't, the industial farmer with 3000 acres under cultivation and heavily irrigated doesn't.

I would believe little to nothing from the USDA, given the corporate ownership of almost every governmental agency under BushCo.

And here's the $60,000 question:

Has anyone factored in climate change and how it will affect corn production and how further burning of HC fuels will, at the very least, continue to exacerbate the problem?


Hmmmm........

[Strelnikov_]

16. My Grandfather Grew Corn, Sustainably

Again, I see corn ethanol more as an energy carrier than an energy source.

This is my conclusion regarding corn ethanol, backed by the peer-reviewed studies.

[bperci108]

18. I have no doubt he did.

Pre-industrial agriculture's methods were sustainable; they had to be.
No doubt he used their methods in some way or another.

Now with the no-till, chemical soak farming of corn, what's "good for business" is usually bad for the environment.


As for your "peer-reviewed studies", they may be cold comfort when the bubble goes pop. IMHO, the USDA has a serious credibility problem.

I guess time will tell whether husbandry and it's worldview or BigAg and their pseudo-science will be the correct path.

I'm betting the farm on the former. ;-)

[buddysmellgood]

29. 1.1 units of energy for every unit put in. That's at best, when everything

is working at its best. Ethanol is a government subsidy for big ag.

[WMliberal]

43. was this just corn based ethanol? or did they also study sugar based

ethanol?

That's the other thing the corn lobby spends millions fighting against. It's really big in Brazil.

[Strelnikov_]

11. Ames, IA E85, B5 (Along w/ Standard E10) Available

Through a local farm coop.

To the best of my knowledge, E85 can only be used in an E85 capable car. My understanding is a sensor is required, along with the necessary code in the ECU program to adjust mixture. The cost of the components is supposed to be trivial (<$120) if incorporated by the manufacturer. I would like to see Honda and Toyota offer flex fuel in their hybrids.

My understanding is that older carborated cars can be adjusted (jets, float, timing) to burn E85 and even 180 proof. Of course, fuel switching would not be possible (E85->100% dino) like is possible in an E85 capable car.

I currently drive a VW TDI and would like to burn up to 20% bean. Problem is, finding it.

[prairierose]

13. Rapid City, SD

is it true you can run it in your car without any modification? I have a 15 year old car.

[ironflange]

17. Hey, I was in Rapid City about a month ago

It was during that nasty heat wave, you know, 105 degrees and all. I filled up with mid-grade at Exxon, and didn't notice it was gasohol until I was done. The truck ran fine, but Mrs. Ironflange was a bit pissed, she's very particular about what goes into "her" truck.

[prairierose]

20. I always use the 10% blend....

in my car but now they have the 85% blend & I just was curious. The sticker on the pump say you MUST have a flex fuel car. The lady at the gas station had no idea about it. She said.."your car could just stop". She kept saying, ...this is like jet fuel." When I mentioned that during WWII they used ethanol in cars, she responded, 'but this is CORN fuel", as is there is something miraculous about corn fuel.

So I was curious about whether an old car like mine can handle it.

The heat wave is gone BTW. It's beautifully cool now.
Hope you had a good time on your visit.

[ironflange]

37. We had a great time

Our trip started in Yellowstone, then we went to Custer by way of Casper. In that heat wave. Yeesh, our truck's thermometer read 107 degrees just south of Newcastle.

We camped Custer, but made it to RC twice. We've been there before, and always thought it was a nice town, and still do, despite the presence of that gimongous Wally World now. We hadn't planned the second visit, but had to go to return a wonky digital camera battery charger (we had left ours at home). There's a whole lot more to that story, but it's best to leave it at that, I'm getting a little off topic.

[Maru Kitteh]

36. Yes, anybody can use it

no modification needed.

[Conservativesux]

23. All California gasoline is about 10% ethanol by law, replacing ....

...that poison that we had as an additive before, MTBE.

Lots of water wells are unusable because of that garbage.

[Liberal In Texas]

38. Really? I did not know that. We prefer poison here in Texas, apparently.

[Roxy66]

31. It's not available yet......building site

[Viking12]

33. E10 in all gas sold here.

Nearest e85 is 20 miles away.

[yurbud]

42. what state?

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[Maru Kitteh]

35. It's manufactured less than 15 miles from me

Available at every pump in the area I believe.

Kearney, Nebraska. Plenty of corn here.

[CatholicEdHead]

39. Yes it is

It is also at $2.299 where regular gas was $2.639 today.

[WLKjr]

41. E85 will be soon, new plant going up in Lima OH