The E85 industry is tanking. Despite federal mandates designed to foist the fuel on a suspecting public, and Transportation Secretary Chu’s determination to make all new vehicles Flex-Fuel capable (EPA credits for everyone!), the E85 industry is on the brink of extinction. Consumer demand (such as it wasn’t) is plummeting. Meanwhile, environmentalists threaten to expose the corn-for-fuel process as, gasp, carbon-positive. Evidence of pumps with ten-foot pole marks comes to us from Minnesota, the state with the highest number of E85 outlets in the land. Here’s the Star Tribune’s report, which can’t resist using the boosterrific term “clean burning” whilst charting the corn-based fuel’s demise:
In February, sales of E85, a cleaner-burning fuel consisting of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, hit their lowest mark since 2006, according to a new report by the Minnesota Department of Commerce. Sales, which bottomed out around 1 million gallons per month, started to rebound this spring but are still lagging last year’s numbers.
In May, about 1.5 million gallons of E85 were sold — almost 1 million gallons less than in May 2008.
Subtract various initiatives forcing government workers to use corn juice, lose the numerous “promotions” used to fuel demand (which account for this picture), drop the subsidies and tax credits (God forbid) and the full extent of E85’s retreat is clear. In fact, it’s looking more and more like a rout.
Corn-for-fuel’s last stand is buried in the Climate Change Bill, as the New York Times reports, whilst kvetching about compromise.
Democratic leaders should nevertheless resist calls to weaken the targets on emissions reductions. The House bill is itself a compromise, and a weaker Senate bill could be worse than no bill at all.
The Senate should also remove the House version’s more glaring defects. Among these is a provision — inserted at the insistence of the farm lobby — that would postpone a systematic accounting of the carbon emissions from biofuels like corn ethanol. The farm lobby and its allies on the Agriculture Committee are clearly nervous that the accounting would cast corn ethanol in an unfavorable light.
As in reveal the truth. Can’t have that, now can we? Given that Archer Daniels Midland was a big supporter of our current president’s presidential aspirations (flew him around on their jet), look for this boondoggle to die another day. Unless and until the feds force motorists to fill-up on E85, or E15, it’s a dead blend slouching towards Bethlehem.
Why not have the option if oil prices go crazy?
From what I hear the Flexfuel option is not that expensive. Here is a alternative view.
Busting the Ethanol Myths: http://www.permaculture.com/node/490
re: ethanol myths
1) A few thousand tons of bunker is what it takes to deliver tens of thousands of tons of oil.
2) If oil extraction was energy negative, it wouldn’t happen. Bankruptcy would.
3) Direct injection of water/ethanol is an interesting idea to boost efficiency. I’m in favor, bring it on, but the amount required would disappoint ADM.
4) between $3 and $6 in tax receipts are generated for every dollar of ethanol subsidy — please see Frederick Bastiat on the parable of the broken window for a refutation that antedates cars entirely. Rent seeking at its best – or worst.
Sigh. Our elected prostitutians work so hard to serve their lobbyists constituents, and this is the thanks they get.
In an unrelated story: isn’t it odd how Mr. Obama’s promises about open government is getting more… opaque by the day?
Does anyone have info on where to buy completely ethanol-free fuel in your neighborhood? Been looking for one!
LOL “10-foot pole marks!” I usually use my 30-footer!
«Does anyone have info on where to buy completely ethanol-free fuel in your neighborhood? Been looking for one!»
There were press reports of stations hundreds of miles away from Miami, FL, where I live. In town, marinas only.
I think a pure-dino gas station around here would make a decent business.
I had been having problems with my check engine light coming on randomly with the code coming back as catalyst efficiency low 1 of 2 and 2 of 2 (there is a oxygen sensor in front of and behind the catalytic converter). Under warranty they:
1. replaced the oxygen sensors
2. flashed some roms
3. shrugged their shoulders
I think they tried a few other things but the codes continued.
Recently (about a month or so back) I saw a gas station with a 100% gasoline sign in by the road so I got some. I probably wouldn’t have bothered to go there if I hadn’t read Menno talking about 100% gas in his Prius.
I didn’t get a code that entire tank full so I went back for more 100% gasoline. Again no engine codes. In fact I haven’t seen that code since I switched to 100% gasoline.
Now I’m no engineer but it seems to me that ethanol might have been disliked by my oxygen sensors or by the engine computer.
It sure makes me want to pay the extra 1 or 2 cents a gallon to buy at the place selling 100% gasoline.
It’s amazing the price difference is so small and yet its better fuel.
disclaimer: I haven’t had the fuel analyzed. For all I know the two major chains I was buying from had water in the fuel or some other quality issue unrelated to ethanol. All I know is switching to a different vendor with an ethanol free fuel seems to have made an issue disappear.
@retroman Is there any scientific evidence to back up any of those absurd claims on your ethanol producer sponsored site?
Fact: it requires more fossil fuels to produce an acre of bio ethanol than said acre yields.
Fact: Corn is a horrible source for making ethanol
Fact: The ethanol industry would not exist if not for massive government subsidies
Fact: food prices skyrocketed the past several years due to the artificially high prices for corn due to the government ethanol subsidy programs
Fact: when using Ethanol, your mpg will drop significantly
Again, I ask why not have the option with a flexfuel vehicle? We may then have some hope of competition on fuel prices. I think the use of ethanol will continue to happen because it requires the fewest changes to the automobile.
Why Alcohol Fuel:
http://www.alcoholcanbeagas.com/node/518
http://www.ethanol.org/index.php?id=1
How much of the problem is that in North America we’re talking about corn-based ethanol (and all the delicious subsidies that go with it)? I have read (although I don’t know the reliability of the source) that sugar cane ethanol actually does produce more energy than is put in.
From:http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/francis/archive/2008/04/04/obama-energy-policy-is-best-of-three.aspx
“A new book, called “Energy Victory”, debunks these myths and makes the scientific case in favor of ethanol. It s written by scientist/engineer Dr. Robert Zubrin, a NASA consultant and researcher in Colorado. The book analyzes the energy input myth, citing the most recent and authoritative study, in Science Vol. 311 in January 2006: ethanol production requires one-tenth the amount of energy inputs as does gasoline production. (Sugar cane is a more efficient feedstock than corn used in North America, but corn is still dramatically more beneficial than crude-oil fuels.)
Likewise, he maintains the subsidies are also mythology by lobbyists.
Last year, for instance, he said the U.S. produced eight billion gallons of ethanol and the 50-cent subsidy cost taxpayers US$4 billion. But the eight billion gallons replaced the need to import US$20 billion worth of crude oil. By including all figures, the subsidy becomes an investment in saving billions.”
@retroman
I realize you are getting paid by the ethanol industry to astroturf the internet with their propaganda. Hey, if that is what puts bread on the table…so be it; there are far worse things you could be doing.
…ethanol production requires one-tenth the amount of energy inputs as does gasoline production.
Half-truth: Sure, if you conveniently leave out all the other things which come out of a barrel of oil during refining.
Sugar cane is a more efficient feedstock than corn used in North America
truth: yes, sugar cane is more efficient (too bad it does not grown in the midwest).
Opinion: …but corn is still dramatically more beneficial than crude-oil fuels.)
Lie: Likewise, he maintains the subsidies are also mythology by lobbyists.
Ethanol is heavily subsidized
meaningless statement: Last year, for instance, he said the U.S. produced eight billion gallons of ethanol and the 50-cent subsidy cost taxpayers US$4 billion. But the eight billion gallons replaced the need to import US$20 billion worth of crude oil. By including all figures, the subsidy becomes an investment in saving billions.
How are taxpayer subsidies for ethanol related to the value of imported oil?