Comments on: Ethanol mandate fails economically and environmentally

By: Jonathan_Duhamel

Jonathan_Duhamel — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:58:00 +0000

Gasoline can be made from coal and the U.S. has vast reserves that by some esitmates could last 600 years.

By: FoxtrotAlpha81

FoxtrotAlpha81 — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:49:00 +0000

Oil (gasoline) is the perfect fuel. We will never find a replacement for it that is as cheap, but cheap accessible oil is going to run out, whether it be 30, 50, or 100 years from now. I am willing to bet that once it gets too expensive to produce oil, The U.S. is going to make a lot more, way, way more ethanol. I also think that Americans will buy it. Vehicles can be relatively easily converted to run on ethanol just as efficiently as gasoline by properly tuning the engine. The problem with today’s vehicles is that they are optimized to run on gasoline.

By: Abe Lincoln

Abe Lincoln — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:25:00 +0000

I noticed the article fails to mention that 1 gallon of ethanol “contains” about HALF the usable energy of 1 gallon of diesel. So, right out of the starting gate at t=0 you have to produce 2X the volume of fuel just to break even. That calculation was known long before anyone started to sqwauk about alcohol.

By: captainplanet

captainplanet — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 20:22:00 +0000

Ethanol no longer has subsidies. It does still have the RFS mandate. I would argue that the RFS is not necessary either. The subsidies were necessary at first to encourage infrastructure development for blending.

Keep in mind that the petroleum business also receives subsidies in the form of tax breaks, not to mention the billions of dollars spent on military protection of our oil interests.

There is a reasonable debate to be had on the value of ethanol, but the author here used shoddy research and old information, which does not add to that discussion.

By: tunkashila

tunkashila — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:52:00 +0000

Actually, the author was quoting a study from Michigan State University that said ethanol is more expensive to make than gas, so your issue lies with the author of that study. If ethanol is, in fact, cheaper to manufacture than gasoline, then why are subsidies necessary? Please clarify.

By: captainplanet

captainplanet — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:42:00 +0000

The author said ethanol is more expensive to make than gasoline, which is not true. You are of course correct that there is an energy differential. There is also an octane differential, which right now is allowing refiners to use cheaper additives to the fuel mix because ethanol allows them to meet the necessary octane specs.

The notion that ethanol must be sold at a loss is just wrong. It’s keeping fuel prices lower.

By: tunkashila

tunkashila — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:25:00 +0000

Fuels with higher blends of ethanol are cheaper on the surface due to being subsidized by tax dollars, but since they produce 1/3 less energy than the equivalent amount of gasoline, they are indeed more expensive than gas by volume. This is a failure of comprehension, not journalism.

By: captainplanet

captainplanet — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:59:00 +0000

Nice to see all the old ethanol myths thrown together in one place. If ethanol is more expensive than gasoline, why are fuels with higher blends of ethanol cheaper? You mention the food issue, but don’t mention distiller’s grains. You cite old statistics on water that are blatantly false.

This is just poor journalism.