branmin

Filled up twice this last week...First time on the vette with Chevron and I noticed a 10% Ethanol sticker on the pump, stating they were now using this.

Went to Sunoco for another car....($4.02 for premium as opposed to $4.18 for Chevron) with the sole purpose of not getting Ethanol as many of you have said you noticed a 2-3mpg decrease using Ethanol.

Also and don't flame me, as I am concerned to a certain extent as the next guy over various aspects of helping the ozone layer and all that, but I don't agree on this Ethanol crap and using vast amounts of acres to make the stuff at the expense of certain foods going sky high.

Has this now been legally mandated in certain areas, are all pumps supposed to have this and if so, if it really does reduce the MPG on vehicles, isn't this really a two edged sword and in defeats the purpose??

BigJoe

All pumps in TX have up to 10% ethanol for a year or more. Soon to be everywhere I guess. Doesn't seem to hurt anything except gas mileage, but who knows in the long term?

Rocketmanwpb

The manual says we can use up to 10% ethanol.

JerriVette

I've actually read that our cars can handle up to 15% ethanol.

We've been running 10% for years so by now I can't even tell any difference.

Ethanol can be produced specifically from waste. ie old tires, wood chips etc.. and not food crops.

Do a search on coskata. Its a company that GM has invested in.

First plant to be built in Madison PA in the third quarter of 2008 and a second much larger plant in Tennessee in 2009.

Its an exciting proposition as it only uses 1 gallon of water to produce 1 gallon of ethanol. The wholesale cost is profitable at $1 a gallon.

Its a very exciting proposition. IMO

Tommy D

On our recent trip to Florida I could only get gasoline with ethanol! Well there was good news and bad news The bad news was my gas mileage dropped ...... the good news was the car had more pep even in the humid Florida heat

Apparently ethanol burns a whole lot cooler so the car does not reduce the timing as it would if we ran only gasoline. Unfortunately, even when I drove more conservatively, I could not match the MPG recorded with just gasoline..... so with regard to defeating the purpose..... it depends upon who has the sword

LMB 4 ME

Ethanol is terrible! Not only does it decrease your MPGs it takes more fuel and electricity (created by fuel) to make the ethanol then simply using petroleum in the first place. Thats not even considering all the water and pesticides used to grow the corn! Think of the environmental impact of just those two factors.
One more thing, burning ethanol is worse for the enviroment then buring refined petroleum. So why the big deal? Big business! Lets not forget the ability for the President to act like hes doing something. Did you know the government subsidizes the farmers for corn with our taxes. We are paying far more for gas then you think. Once to make it then again to use it.

cylon

What's even worse about Ethanol is that is raises the price of food everywhere. Look at what is happening in some countries and cities including North America.

AutoCutter

It is to late to stop the march towards Ethanol, but one wonders how this will all play out with the mandated 35mpg since Ethanol doesn't give the best mileage.

dpigguy

many sources for ethanol besides corn and given what its predicessor (MTBE) did to ground water sources, don't look to see it go away anytime soon. at 10-15%, no real issues with cars as sold today but any higher and costs will escalate for the vehicles as well. its not the great answer but its way ahead of the prior one.

BearZ06

How do you know this? This is what the oil companys want you to believe. There are other opinions. Oil is why food and everything else is higher, not corn, but farmers are always easier to place blame on because generally who cares. America could be hungry some day. You don't know this and probably won't believe it but farmers have been selling at prices at or below the cost of production for many years. Use what you prefer in your cars but please don't blame it all on the farmers!

Jus Cruisin

I agree Bear!
My father-in-law farmed for many years. He received a lot of money from the government to NOT plant corn. There have been 1,000's of acres left fallow in the past that the government doesn't have to subsidize anymore. This price of everything going up because of ethanol is BS.
I haven't noticed any difference in mpg with any of my vehicles since running ethanol. No different than all those "snake oil" additives people use.

z51vett

Its being used for summer blend instead of another chemical that causes cancer. Its safer for that reason, other problems beside cancer.
z51vett

FortMorganAl

Ok, how about the Iowa Corn Association? www.iowacorn.org Are they biased against farmers when they say it takes 2.7 bushels of corn to make a gallon of ethanol? According to the National Corn Grower's Association (not noted as a hotbed of BIG OIL propaganda) http://www.ncga.com/news/releases/2007/news121806.asp the national average is about 150 bushels per acre. The USDA http://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2008/03_31_2008.asp expects 86 million acres to be planted in corn this year. A little simple math says that if the entire corn crop of the US were converted to ethanol production we would get 4.8B gallons of ethanol per year. Production of ethanol in 2006 was 4.8B gallons. In other words, we are already using all of our corn for ethanol. How can this be? Well for each 56 pound bushel of corn used to make ethanol there is a byproduct of about 18 pounds of animal feed. It is surprising that food prices have gone up as little as they have while corn and soy prices have doubled in the past couple of years.

To meet the demands for ethanol, corn production is up 19% since 2006 and soy bean production is down 15%. Maybe that's why even the environmentalists think ethanol is a terrible idea for the US. http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2008/Update69.htm Luckily the US and Brazil produce 88% of the world's ethanol. Then Brazil, noticing that farmers were clearing rain forests at an astounding rate because of their ethanol subsidies, have almost eliminated their government support and the rain forests are no longer being burned. Maybe the US will come to it's senses soon also.

FortMorganAl

US subsidies for not planting acreage has decreased dramatically in the past 20 years. Today the US pays to not plant about 10% of tillable land. A 10% increase in production is not going to make a significant difference in a price that has doubled.

Maybe you didn't notice the difference but it was there because ethanol does not physically have the same energy as gasoline. Ethanol has 75,700 Btu/gallon while gasoline has 125,000 Btu/gallon. i.e. about 40% less energy per gallon means about 4% less mileage for a 10% mix and 34% less mileage if we insist on E85.

BearZ06

Sen. Grassley: Ethanol Wrongly Blamed
5/16/2008


Pro Farmer Editors



To Congressional colleagues yesterday, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Ia.), said ethanol and alternative fuels have helped to lessen our dependency on foreign oil and are being made the scapegoat for a variety of problems. He said a negative campaign by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which sought help of a public relations firm, tried to lay blame on corn-based ethanol to try and rollback the ethanol mandates in the energy bill approved late in 2007. The issue was first alerted in the Washington publication Roll Call. Grassley noted the GMA paid $300,000 to a Washington PR firm to run the effort.

"Some of my colleagues here in the Senate have also gotten involved in this misinformation campaign," said Grassley. "It seems there is a “group-think” mentality when it comes to scapegoating ethanol for everything from high gas prices, global food shortages, global warming and deforestation. But, as was recently reported, this anti-ethanol campaign is not a coincidence. It turns out that a $300,000, six-month retainer of a beltway public relations firm is behind the smear campaign, hired by the Grocery Manufacturers Association."

The National Corn Growers Association joined members of Congress and others Thursday to express extreme disappointment in the revelation that many of the highest profile U.S. food companies may have supported a high-dollar dollar public relations campaign to smear farmers and ethanol fuel rather than acknowledge the truth about the direct link of rising food prices to the cost of foreign oil.

“Rising food and fuel prices have led the biofuels industry to take a beating on Capitol Hill the past few weeks, the Wednesday Roll Call article stated. “But the pummeling hasn’t been by chance — it’s part of a concerted effort spearheaded by the GMA and the Glover Park Group. GMA has been leading an ‘aggressive’ public relations campaign for the past two months in an effort to roll back ethanol mandates that passed in last year’s energy bill.

”Frankly, our farmer-members are shocked and outraged,” said NCGA President Ron Litterer. “It is simply unfathomable that food companies through the Grocery Manufacturers Association chose to smear their farmer-suppliers rather than cooperate with us to meet the growing challenge for America’s fuel needs. Unfortunately, from what we’ve heard this not the only campaign in the works to place the blame on agriculture.”

Following are Sen. Grassley's remarks in full:

Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Mr. President,

For almost thirty years I’ve been leading an effort, with many of my colleagues, to promote policies to grow a domestic renewable fuels industry.

We’ve promoted homegrown renewable fuels as a way to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and improve our air quality. For all these years, we’ve hardly heard anything negative about these policies.

Now, ethanol and alternative fuels are being made the scapegoat for a whole variety of problems. Never before have the virtuous benefits of ethanol and renewable fuels been so questioned and criticized.

The problem is, none of these criticisms are based on sound science, economics or even common sense.

Even Mort Kondracke, an intelligent veteran journalist has fallen prey to some of the same erroneous talking points that we’ve heard over and over the past couple weeks.

Maybe he’s just spent too much time inside the beltway and could use a little real-world explanation from a family farmer from the Midwest.

Some of my colleagues here in the Senate have also gotten involved in this misinformation campaign.

It seems there is a “group-think” mentality when it comes to scapegoating ethanol for everything from high gas prices, global food shortages, global warming and deforestation.

But, as was recently reported, this anti-ethanol campaign is not a coincidence. It turns out that a $300,000, six-month retainer of a beltway public relations firm is behind the smear campaign, hired by the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

They’ve outlined their strategy of using environmental, hunger and food aid groups to demonstrate their contrived “crisis.”

I think it’s important for policy-makers and the American people to know who’s behind this effort.

According to reports, downtown D.C. lobbyists, the Glover Park Group and Dutko Worldwide, are leading the effort to undermine and denigrate the patriotic achievement of America’s farmers to reduce our dependence on foreign oil while also providing safe and affordable food.

The principle leaders behind the Glover Park Group’s 21-page proposal read like a “who’s who” of Democratic operatives.

The effort is led by former President Clinton’s press secretary, Joe Lockhart. Another is 8-year veteran of the Clinton-Gore White House, Michael Feldman.

Other leaders of this misinformation campaign include Carter Eskew, Mike Donilon, Joel Johnson, and Susan Brophy – all of which proudly display their ties to the Clinton/Gore White House and their credentials of helping to elect Democratic candidates.

I think Democrats here in the Senate who claim to support our nation’s drive toward energy independence should be alarmed by this group’s tactics and smear campaign.

I fought President Clinton during his 8 years in office at every turn when he tried to undermine our renewable fuels industry. Now I’m fighting his former staff and staff that worked for the Gore and Kerry presidential campaigns.

I imagine they’re leading this effort because they can’t stand the fact that President Bush has proved to be the best friend the renewable fuels industry has had.

Because their old boss failed miserably at crafting policies to promote ethanol, they’re doing everything they can to tear down the success that President George W. Bush has helped foster.

There are a lot of intelligent people who have been misled by this campaign and are just simply wrong. They’re using a lot of rhetoric.

But, the facts don’t back up their arguments. It’s time to dispel the myths perpetuated by Mr. Kondracke, the Glover Park Group and others.

One myth that pops up again and again is that ethanol takes more energy to produce than it provides.

A 2005 Argonne National Laboratory study concluded that it takes seven-tenths of one unit of fossil energy to make 1 unit of ethanol. That is a positive net energy balance.

In comparison, it takes 1.23 units of fossil energy to make 1 unit of petroleum gasoline. Gasoline requires more than one Btu of energy to deliver one Btu to your car. That’s a negative net energy balance.

A 2004 USDA study concluded that ethanol yields 67 percent more energy than is used to grow and harvest the grain and process it into ethanol. These figures take into account the energy required to plant, grow and harvest the corn—as well as the energy required to manufacture and distribute the ethanol.

Of the 15 peer-reviewed studies conducted on this issue, 12 found that ethanol has a positive net energy balance. Only a single individual from Cornell University, who authored the other three studies, disagrees with this analysis.

The Cornell studies have consistently used old data, some from 1979. In 1979, corn yields averaged 91 bushels per acre. It was at 137 bushels per acre in 2000, and averages about 150-160 today.

The flawed study also relies on 1979 figures for the energy used to manufacture ethanol. This energy consumption was cut in half between 1979 and 2000, and continues efficiency gains every year.

The Cornell conclusions have been refuted by experts from entities as diverse as the USDA, the Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory, Michigan State University, and the Colorado School of Mines.

The fact is, studies using old data overestimate energy use by not taking into account efficiency gains in agriculture, fertilizer production, and ethanol production.

I don’t understand how intelligent people can continue to argue that ethanol has a negative net energy balance.

The net energy balance of ethanol production continues to improve because ethanol production is becoming more efficient. A March 2008 study by the Argonne National Laboratory found significant gains just since 2001.

Ethanol production since 2001 has reduced water use by 27 percent, reduced electricity use by 16 percent, and reduced total energy use by 22 percent.

Another myth being perpetuated by opponents of our renewable fuels efforts and Mr. Kondracke is that ethanol harms the environment and contributes more in greenhouse gasses than petroleum fuels.

This claim is just hogwash.

Science magazine and Time magazine made wildly erroneous claims about corn ethanol that are now being used by detractors.

They claim that ethanol production is the driving force behind rainforest deforestation and grassland conversion to agriculture production.

This is an oversimplification to say the least.

How could intelligent people simply ignore the effects of a growing global population? How can one simply ignore the surging global demand for food from growing populations in China and India?

Wouldn’t urban development and sprawl also be a contributor to the increased demand for arable land?

Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer and Energy Secretary Sam Bodman stated in a letter to Time Magazine that their piece on ethanol, based on the Science magazine article, was “one-sided and scientifically uninformed.”

They further stated that the Science magazine article has been “thoroughly rebutted by leading scientists at the Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory.”

Dr. **** of that Laboratory stated, “There has also been no indication that U.S. corn ethanol production has so far caused indirect land use changes in other countries.”

No claim can be made that U.S. ethanol production leads to the clearing of rainforests.

In fact, since 2002, U.S. corn exports increased by 60 percent. Even with the growth in the ethanol industry, our corn exports have steadily increased, meeting the growing global demand.

While some claim that corn ethanol increases greenhouse gas emissions because of land-use changes around the globe, they should think again.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, today’s corn ethanol produces about 20 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions on a lifecycle basis. Ethanol blended fuels emit cleaner tailpipe emissions and unlike petroleum, ethanol doesn’t harm the environment or groundwater.

In recent weeks, a new argument has come forward about the effect of corn ethanol on domestic and global food prices.

Food prices are going up, and I’m sympathetic to those at home and abroad who are struggling with the higher prices. But to put all the blame at the feet of the U.S. ethanol industry is outrageous and misplaced.

Watching the news and listening to some of my colleagues, I’ve heard the domestic ethanol industry being blamed for price hikes and shortages of apples, broccoli, rice, wheat, lentils, peppers and even bananas.

With regard to wheat, rice and lentils, the global demand for food from a growing middle class in China and India have the most impact.

Weather trends including a drought in Australia and poor growing conditions in Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe have had a much greater impact on the supply of rice and wheat.

Many of these countries also have government production policies that manipulate the production, supply and trading of these commodities.

The fact is, the global demand and price for all commodities has increased. Some of this could be due to speculation.

But, the biggest culprit behind the rising food costs is $125 a barrel oil.

A recent Texas A&M study concluded that the biggest driving force behind the higher food costs is higher energy costs.

Joseph Glauber, Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently testified that rising prices for corn and soybeans have had little or no effect on the high prices for wheat, rice and other food commodities.

He cited the worldwide economic growth, global weather problems, rising marketing costs and the weak U.S. dollar as having a greater role than biofuels.

A U.N. official has recently referred to biofuels as “a crime against humanity.” Mr. Ziegler, from Switzerland, might benefit from a review of European policies that ban or restrict the growth and import of genetically modified crops.

While U.S. farmers are taking great strides to feed the world, Europe is taking a step back.

As a result, African countries are reluctant to grow GMO’s, even though their potential production gains are great, because European countries will restrict their import.

I might suggest Mr. Ziegler focus more of his efforts on opportunities lost due to Europe and GMO’s rather than our biofuels policies.

U.S. farmers responded to the demand and produced a record corn crop in 2007. Over 2.6 billion more bushels of corn were harvested in 2007 over 2006.

The ethanol industry only increased its usage during that time by the equivalent of 600 million bushels. So, there was an additional 2.1 billion bushels of corn available in 2007 for feed, food and export.

And, exports have been growing. USDA estimates that this year’s corn exports will be a record 2.5 billion bushels, up 18 percent over last year.

With these facts, it’s hard for the critics to argue that the domestic ethanol industry is “diverting” corn from feed or food markets.

It’s also important to keep in mind that a tiny fraction of the cost of retail food is a result of farm inputs.

Of a retail dollar, the farm value is around 19 cents. In a $5 box of corn flakes, there is less than 10 cents worth of corn. The value of the corn in a pound of beef or pork is only 20 to 30 cents.

Yet, some have suggested that we should suspend our policies that promote the use of renewable fuel to help drive down food prices.

If all the evidence suggests that biofuels have little if any impact on the rising cost of food, what good can come of lifting our biofuels policies?

I was pleased to be joined by 15 of my Senate colleagues in a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency expressing our opposition to this misguided idea.

I’d ask unanimous consent that the letter be placed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

An investment researcher with UBS recently said that lifting the biofuels mandate won’t ease corn or food prices, because energy costs and commodity speculation are greater factors.

Lifting the renewable fuels mandate won’t drive down the cost of corn or the price of groceries.

But, it will increase our demand for crude oil—dirty burning crude oil. Big Oil wins! A Merrill Lynch analyst recently estimated that oil and gas prices would be 15 percent higher without biofuels.

Iowa State University estimates that ethanol use lowers gas prices by 30 to 40 cents a gallon.

Another economist estimated that gas prices would be $1.40 more a gallon if you removed 50 percent of the ethanol scheduled to be used this year.

It’s clear: reducing the amount of ethanol in our nation’s fuel mix will have little if any impact on food prices and will actually increase prices at the pump for all Americans.

So, to the critics, let me say loud and clear: Ethanol is not the cause of all that ails you.

While it’s easy to blame, it’s intellectually dishonest to make these claims. It’s time for critics to take an independent look at the facts.

They have a responsibility to brush aside this “herd mentality” among the pundits and talking heads who claim that everything about ethanol is bad.

Here’s the truth: Ethanol is reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Ethanol has a significant net energy balance – the same cannot be said for gasoline. Ethanol is reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

Ethanol is not the culprit behind rising food and feed prices here at home or abroad. Ethanol is lowering the price of crude oil and lowering the price of gasoline.

Ethanol is increasing our national security, helping our balance of trade, and reducing our dependence on Middle East oil and the whims of Big Oil.

It’s time we clear the air, look at the facts, and recognize once again that everything about our domestic renewable fuels industry is good, good, good.

Mickbee

FL passed a law in May requiring ALL gas stations to pump Ethanol.

For the garage queens and winter storge: Due to the alcohol content, Ethanol only has a 90 day shelf life due to the absorption of water. Also, you can't mix it with Dri-gas to reduce water...

FloydSummerOf68

I get 32-33 mpg at 65 and have been using 10% ethanol since day one....gas milage is just fine.

If I got 34-35 without ethanol that would be insane!

Road Rage

damn near impossible to get gas in Georgia without 10% ethanol now, and I've noticed my mpg drop a little.

Anomir

Ethanol cost you mpg, it is a fact. That is actually the LEAST of the harm that crap does.
Most of the crap that the "senator" had in his statement was BS. He is pro ethanol and like most people changes stats, studies, questions, to make it look like he is in the right. Ethanol is a nightmare, and the longer we use this snake oil the worse our country will be.

loubob57

Ethanol: A Tragedy in 3 Acts

Great article by Ed Wallace on why ethanol from corn is not a good idea.