Study Suggests Ethanol Mandates Aren’t Justified
- Posted on February 14, 2012 at 1:29pm by
Becket Adams
- Print »
- Email »
Although some consumers are willing to pay a premium for ethanol, there are not enough to justify the government mandate for the corn-based fuel, Soren Anderson, a Michigan State University economist, says.
Anderson bases his conclusion on a study of the current demand for ethanol, or E85, in the United States. His report found that when ethanol prices rose 10 cents per gallon, demand for ethanol fell only 12 percent to 16 percent on average.
“I was a bit surprised,” said Anderson. “I was looking for this sharp decline in ethanol sales the moment the price got higher than the price of gas.”
However, although the decline is not as strong as one would expect with a price increase, one must take into account the fact that ethanol is primarily purchased by consumers who are willing to pay a premium. Which is to say, the people who are buying ethanol will continue despite increases in price.
Anderson’s research, scheduled to appear in the March issue of the “Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,” is the first to examine consumer demand for ethanol.
“Federal law requires increasing volumes of renewable fuels to be blended with the nation’s fuel supply,” reports UPI.com. “This year, the requirement includes the use of more than 13 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol nationwide.”
What are some of the obvious setbacks involved in investing in ethanol?
Ethanol is more expensive to make than gasoline and must therefore be sold at a loss or subsidized unless, of course, consumers are willing to make up the difference, Anderson said.
According to his study, the majority of consumers willing to pay the ethanol premium are those who are interested in “protecting the environment.” As the theory goes, ethanol is a clean-burning fuel that reduces “harmful auto emissions” and decreases the amount of dependency on crude oil to fulfill the nation’s energy requirements, according to the American Coalition for Ethanol.
“But from an economic perspective, mandating ethanol doesn’t appear to be the best option,” Anderson said. “Not only is it expensive, but the amount of emissions it reduces might not be that large.”
Well, that sort of negates the entire purpose, doesn’t it?
“If our goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, this is quite a costly way to go about doing it,” Anderson said. “There are lots of other things we could do before switching over to ethanol.”
In his mind, there are easier and more cost-effective methods for achieving the supposed ends of ethanol mandates: give consumers options and/or incentives for driving less or incentivize the purchase of cars that are more efficient.
Wait. What? He believes government should direct and dictate consumer demand for “clean energy” technology?
First of all, offering options that would encourage people to “drive less” would almost certainly involve an incredibly expensive expansion of already existing public transportation systems.
Who would have to pay for that?
Secondly, as in the case of the Chevy Volt, the government has already tried to encourage consumers to purchase “eco-friendly” vehicles. Based on the Volt’s abysmal sales numbers, this doesn’t seem to work.
Nevertheless, as reported yesterday by the Daily Caller, the feds are loading the Volt with even more purchasing incentives.
Via the Daily Caller:
The White House intends to boost government subsidies for wealthy buyers of the Chevy Volt and other new-technology vehicles — to $10,000 per buyer.
That mammoth subsidy would cost taxpayers $100 million each year if it is approved by Congress, presuming only 10,000 new-technology autos are sold each year.
But the administration wants to get 1 million new-tech autos on the road by 2015. The subsidy cost of that goal could reach $10 billion.
Considering the growing number of “green energy” subsidies that have failed, and the ones that look like they’re about to fail, it might not be unreasonable to assume that a continuation of similar policies will be met with similar results.
Perhaps government shouldn’t be in the business of encouraging people to “drive less,“ buy ”eco-friendly” cars, or “go green.” Isn’t there already a system in place for that sort of thing?
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 586 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 413 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 375 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 370 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 413 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 370 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (68)
Iowa Farmer
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:37amIf you include the billions in defense costs in the middle east in the cost of petroleum ethanol wins .The current “board” price for gasoline is $3.00 and ethanol is $2.21. Would you rather send your $ to Venezuela or Suadi Arabia?
I haven’t heard any comments about the oil “subsidies” which don’t even get debated in congress. They don’t even require renewal, they just continue forever unless congress votes against them.
. Ethanol is a “value added product”. For years we grew corn as a “raw material” exporting it out of our state without increasing it’s value. Ethanol production has created jobs here at home, brought livestock production back to Iowa (because the DDGS are of higher feed value than the corn itself) and used up corn that used to be a surplus commodity. Those are all good things the way I see it.
Report Post »Anamah
Posted on February 16, 2012 at 1:22amWe need to have the Canadian pipeline, open the drill for energy everywhere in the US and stop inventing the wheel. Ethanol has a hidden fertility cost, we put our expensive biocenosis (basically the result of soil bacterias activities ) to be burned in our tanks. It will be fine if it would be based on sub product or crops residues transformation…but not in place of food production.
Report Post »Iowa Farmer
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 9:26amEthanol is not the answer to our energy policy, but is a viable piece of the puzzle.There are some things you have not taken into consideration .
Report Post »The savings at the pump, in 2010 the average consumer saved 89 cents/gallon for gas, any type of gasoline. That’s because the 12 billion gallons of ethanol produced in this country have increased the fuel supply and the ethanol plants are the only “refineries” built in this country for 35 years.
Ethanol is no longer “subsidized” unless you consider the RFS a “subsidy”.. The Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) requires its use as an additive to replace MTBE which showed up in the groundwater. Without the RFS oil companies would not include ethanol in their gasoline. Would Burger King sell 1 Big Mack with ervery 9 Whoppers they sell?
Food vs. Fuel—one bushel of corn produces 2.8 gallons of ethanol, and 17# of DDGS which is used to feed livestock, it is actually higher in feed value than the corn was.
Water use–to include all the water used to grow the corn in the total required to produce ethanol would be like including every gallon of water in the ocaen used to keep a super tanker afloat on its voyage to the U.S. Producing ethanol requires less water than producing gasoline-by a 3-1 margin.
Every barrel of ethanol replaces 1.2 barrels of imported crude oil.
We haven’t had to dispatch the 5th fleet to guard any Iowa corn fields yet. My son could have stayed home instead of spending 2 tours in Iraq.
M24
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 8:10amWhy Not Tell the Government To Stop The Hand Outs For Shitz that Dont Work Start Drilling For Oil and Gas we Have Plenty Of and turn over alternate Fuels to the private sector and let the best Win. The Government and Lobbyists are the reason We are in the shape Were in .. Environmentalists Are No More Than Common Terrorists, And Government is no more than Common Thieves!! Until the Money Stops Flowing From Lobbyists To Politicans NOTHING IS EVER GOING TO CHANGE !!! So What Now People???
Report Post »Iowa Farmer
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 10:09amI too am for an “all of the above” energy policy in this country. What‘s really got me frustrated is that our military is guarding the strait of Hormus to allow oil tankers to freely travel through it at the same time our glorious leader won’t allow a pipeline built to get oil from a “friendly” neighbor.
Report Post »energyengineer
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 12:59amI am currently working on a PhD in biofuels for farmers. There are several facts that most people, including our politicians do not know about Ethanol.
#1 It can take over 860 gallons of water to make 1 gallon of corn sourced ethanol (this depends on where the corn is grown and input requirements, (Argonne National Lab,Consumptive Water Use in the Production of Ethanol and Petroleum Gasoline, 2009)
#2 Ethanol has 33% less energy per volume than gasoline does
#3 When you combust ethanol in an engine you produce formaldehyde- at 10% ethanol in your fuel tank it produces about 70 ppm. The top 3 emissions, post catalytic converter, are unburned ethanol, methane and formaldehyde’s.
Emissions tests for cars only look at 5 basic gases, so Formaldehyde is not regulated. I would much prefer some CO2 in the air instead of Formaldehyde.
I am actually running for senate in my state because of so many misconceptions by our policy makers who believe that they are being “green” and are actually destroying out environment.
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 1:59amWhat is your opinion of bio-methanol from methane producd through anerobic digestion?
Report Post »energyengineer
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 2:41pmBio methanol is better for water consumption but we still have no way to treat the formaldehyde emissions. I have been watching for any research on this topic and there is none because there are no regulations on it. The alcohol based fuels burn at higher temperatures and less completely, leaving more buildup in the engines, leaving excess buildup on the injectors, and burning out the catalytic converter at a faster rate. The alcohol fuels also break down rubber and plastics at an accelerated rate, reducing the life of the car.
Report Post »BruceHenry
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 11:46pmOne acre of corn yields 30 barrels of fuel, one acre of dandelion weed yields 300! Difference? The corn guys gotta lobby in congress. Nothing will take the place of the internal combustion engine and we should concentrate on making it the most efficient and clean burning machine. Diesel engines are the most versatile with some producing upwards of 60 plus miles per gallon in close to midsize cars.
santino33
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 6:51pmHas anyone noticed how many large poultry slaughter plants have closed in the past 7 years? This corn they are using is meant to feed these chickens so they can end up on our dinner plate. The price of corn has caused a major problem for these companies. When you see food prices skyrocketing you can thank the ethanol ******** for it…Research some of the poultry farms that have closed up, you will think twice about how great ethanol is for America.
Report Post »tmplarnite
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 6:32pmEthanol is a TOTAL BUST in every arena! Get Government out of the private sector as bureaucrats are Bonafide total blithering idiots!
Report Post »Stoic one
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 9:09pmCORN ethanol is a loser – yes. there are non-food ethanol sources switch grass is most abundant ; it grows well in unproductive food land.
Report Post »OH ! there are no lobbyists like for corn..
GreenSicko
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 6:02pmIt take twice the amount of alcohol to run a interal combustion engine then gasoline. So we are getting ripoff on the gas mileage. I would never use Ethanol if I had the choice. Goverment burns our food in cars while making the fuel less productive likethey are
Report Post »Stoic one
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 9:27pmI have an e85 2000 chevy S10…. I keep a gas mileage/cost/ gallon log, have been doing this for 30 yrs.
My finding tank for tank reg to e85 – it was a wash .
retail cost of e85 was 10% lower in cost and the mpg was also 10% less.
Therefore the retail cost per gallon was the same.
Knowing that cost of production is heavily subsidized, I knew the true cost of ethanol (at this time) is much higher than gasoline.
Report Post »I discontinued using it back around oh 2004.
2theADDLED
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 11:00pmEthonol is also deadly to the internal combustion engines as alcohol dissolves the much needed oil for lubrication therefore leaving the engine with increased friction and wear to the components creating more heat thus breaking down the lubricant even further.
Report Post »MarsBarsTru7
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 4:47pmWrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!
The government should be out of the business of mandating what fuels are used and how, and they shouldn’t be allowed to divert tax funds to directing the economy. The regulations and favoritism of our government IS WHY WE ARE SO RELIANT ON OIL!
Ethanol is the cheapest and safest alternative to gasoline for auto fuel that exists. It can be made and stored by anyone with almost no risk to the environment. The comparisons between ethanol and oil favor ethanol so much, that the idea of using oil for auto fuel is mind-bogglingly stupid.
People – There is one reason that gasoline is the primary fuel of automobiles in America and throughout the world. The people at the top have exclusive control over it. We can’t pump it, we can’t refine it, and we can’t regulate it. We can’t afford to. In contrast, ethanol can be created by anyone. Long ago our government and the wealthiest among us made a pact with the auto companies to keep automobiles relying on gasoline. Look where this has brought us!
Stop being stupid. Gasoline is replaceable by a number of other fuels. Gasoline is not a moral issue on the side of conservatism. If anything, it represents the exact opposition!
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 8:38pmWhy are you so gung-ho about ethanol instead of methanol? Methanol can be made much more cheaply, is no more toxic than gasoline, etc. Have you ever even considered the advantages of methanol?
Report Post »hallkbrdz
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 11:40pm“Ethanol is the cheapest and safest alternative to gasoline for auto fuel that exists”
No, that would be methanol. It IS cheaper than ethanol – without any tax subsidies – and can be made from abundant natural gas (methane). Ethanol is neither cheaper or safer.
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on February 15, 2012 at 2:04am@ Hallkbrdz
Report Post »Thanks for your comment. Amazing how Marsbarstru7 can say “Stop being stupid” in support of ethanol when totally UNSUBSIDIZED methanol’s price is $1.34 per gallon!
NOTYERHUCKLEBERRY
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 4:41pmUsing a food source for fuel is insane. Especially one that has such a short hydro-carbon chain. If it’s clean you want, why not use coal gasification(sp)? The technology has been around for years. You can build any hydro carbon you want with little to no pollutants, like those found in gasoline and diesel. The U.S.of A. is the Saudi Arabia of coal and it doesn’t matter how clean or dirty the coal is.
Report Post »Lee_in_PA
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 4:20pmHow is using food to replace gas economically sound thinking?
Report Post »MarsBarsTru7
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 4:54pmIt’s replenishable! It can be made by anyone! Our country currently produces a surplus of food and that is while our government pays famers all over the country not to plant because of how much of a surplus we have.
This irrational railing against “using food for fuel” is stupid and counterproductive to the conservative cause! Come on people. Where do you think the alchohol that is drunk in bars comes from??? Where do you think rubbing alchohol comes from??? Food is refined into all sorts of chemicals all over the world. “Using food for fuel” isn’t what this is about at all! This is about breaking the chains of control!
Don’t you get it? ANYONE CAN MAKE ETHANOL! ONLY THE RICH CAN MAKE GASOLINE!
Report Post »Br33tt
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 5:33pmAt Marsbar. Did you notice the price of corn after fuel/ethanol was mandated? I was reading about home still use, gallon per gallon I can NOT manufacture ethanol under the market of a quart of booze in the store. That’s not counting startup cost of fabing a still. At around about five bucks a liter. To do any better you need free sugar, corn, fuel for processes and labor. Then you need to address taxation. If you can can make clean ethanol at ninty percent plus for under, all costs involved, say twenty bucks a gallon, email me.
Report Post »Telcoman
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 4:03pmI have no choice but to buy the mix of ethanol and gas. If I did have a choice I would go for just the gas!
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 4:09pmHell I pay extra for just gas, there are idiots that are willing to pay more for e85 and get worse mpg, damage their engines, and have less pickup, insane.
Report Post »MarsBarsTru7
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 5:01pmVehicles can be idealized for ethanol in the same way that they’ve been idealized for gasoline. There is NO performance value in gasoline that can not be achieved with ethanol. Every single factor favors ethanol except for the regulations, laws, and colaboration of oil companies, the auto industry, and our government. Oil is useful for tons of things that has nothing to do with fuel. The use of oil for fuel instead of ethanol has to do with one thing – CONTROL.
In the early 1900s there were tons of vehicles that ran on both ethanol and gasoline. One thing changed – the rules.
If vehicles are produced that idealize ethanol for fuel it completely changes the game. It creates MORE competition for oil companies, driving down gas prices, and allows you and me and anyone else that just up and decides to do it to make our own fuel.
Do you guys not get that? Everyone can make their own fuel if ethanol was a legitimized primary fuel source. And storage is soooo much cheaper and safer. Anyone can create their own ethanol station with very very little startup. It’s an entrepreneurs dream!
Report Post »Br33tt
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 5:06pmI agree. I as a consumer was never given the choice.
Report Post »ROB RAGE
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 3:48pmThe Emissions I‘m concerned about is the Verbal Flatulence coming from Al Gore’s mouth…The leader of the Global Warming movement..lives in Mansions , flies in private Jets, rides in Limo’s and has the unmitigated gaul to tell people who use 100th of the energy..and emitts a hundreth of the CO2 as he does… to cut back….He should get the Hypocrite of the Year award…and return the purely Leftist Political Nobel prize…that has the value of the prize in a box of Crackerjax…!
Report Post »GrumpyCat
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 3:38pmEthanol is not a renewable fuel else ethanol would be produced with only renewable energy. Primary ingredients currently are 1) diesel to power tractors and trucks hauling seed and fertilizer to the field and crop to market, 2) petroleum to make fertilizer, and 3) natural gas to fire the distillery. These other energy inputs consume 80% of the energy produced as ethanol.
Renewable: FAIL
Report Post »Pork: PASS
JP4JOY
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 3:53pmSee my post below about converting your F-250
Report Post »Stoic one
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 9:44pmGRUMPYCAT
Report Post »A home owner can make ethanol at home if they have access to enough organic matter. The challenge is to get the purity above 80%.
That said my wife and I have been in a protracted discussion about building an ethanol still, to run our yard equipment.
This would require COMPLETELY removing all traces of gasoline from the engine before adding 80% ethanol.
VA_DUDE
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 3:32pmInsanity, pure and simple. It’s been known for years how bad ethanol is for gasoline engines, not to mention the waste and cost of production. Will common sense and the Constitution ever return to Washington DC ? I won’t hold my breath.
Report Post »Stoic one
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 9:48pmhe problem is :
ethanol & water mix
gasoline & ethanol mix
gasoline & water form a gel
a pure ethanol with water impurities engine will work. the long term challenge— rust caused by water.
Report Post »pap pap
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 2:37pmAny politician that believes in man made global warming is way too stupid to get my vote. That goes the same for any idiot that thinks this green technology BS is the wave of the future.
The gov’t should not be investing in anything. They should get the f out of the way for industry to create new things if they feel like it would be a good investment and not using tax payer dollars.
Report Post »1TrueOne55
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 3:24pmThere is a great pent up demand for alternative energy and you can see this on YouTube. There are many who are creating a new industry if the Government would just get out of the way. Hydrogen is the energy of the future and it is readily available in a non-volatile form, it is called water. There are many “inventors” on YouTube creating the same method as some Oil Company R&D labs but for a far less costlier method.
This could lead to a lowering of the so called “Man-Made” greenhouse gases by increasing fuel economy for the price of some wires, plastic and metal fasteners, along with some computerized controllers. These methods would not take food off the table or even water out of the equation.
This fuel source has been know for many years. I even found an article in a major magazine in the ’70s during the Oil Crisis that showed how hydrogen could be the answer to foreign oil.
Report Post »Athinkerinaseaoflibs
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 4:06pm@1TRUEONE55
Report Post »There are many things concerning the energy cycle that need to be pointed out. When Hydrogen is in the form of water, it has no available energy to us. It has previously combined with Oxygen to form water. During that process of combining with the Oxygen it liberated all its available energy. To make it available to the end user it will require a great deal of energy to free it from the Oxygen. Typically electricity is used to separate the Hydrogen from the Oxygen. We can also get Hydrogen from Natural gas. In both case the amount of energy that went it to extract the Hydrogen is more than what we end up with. That Darn Entropy!
When all is said and done, we are stuck with using some form of fossil fuel or nuclear energy to create the energy in the first place. By the way, more to the point of this article, it takes more than a gallon of Diesel Fuel to make a gallon of Ethanol. Even if we can get it to 1 gallon of Diesel to get 1 gallon of Ethanol, we would still be losing ground as Diesel Fuel has more energy per gallon.
ShyLow
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 2:22pmStop protecting big-alcohol and stop the prohibition on moonshine…and then stop subsidizing big-ethenol
Report Post »IMCHRISTIAN
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 2:18pmWe already knew the subsidies was a waste of money now he thinks using taxpayers money to sell cars is a good idea. No wonder he can’t do a good budget.
Report Post »Itsjusttim
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 2:30pmAnd now they have many farmer used to making big money from ethanol production, and what kind of motivation will they have when they stop making that big money? Doing the right thing? I think not.
Report Post »Itsjusttim
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 2:34pmThings are going to get so ugly, it’ll make your skin crawl.
Report Post »UBETHECHANGE
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 2:10pmWho loves ethanol subsidies? Newt loves ethanol subsidies! ABN 2012! ABO 2012!
Report Post »Itsjusttim
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 2:25pmIsn’t it sad the way people love money more than they do people or doing the right thing? When they stop ethanol oil/gas is going to climb through the roof, and in addition to inflation it will be compounded because food production prices will climb if for only the reason of increased fuel prices. Prices will go up 10 fold, and do you think you will get by? The time of reckoning is at hand.
Report Post »Itsjusttim
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 2:26pmAnd that above I mentioned will happen even if we don’t bomb Iran.
Report Post »progressiveslayer
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 2:04pmEthanol sucks,your fuel economy is a lot worse with ethanol as compared to gas.Government just get out of the energy business altogether,you’re just making our energy cost more than it should.
Report Post »JP4JOY
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 1:50pmFrom a technological standpoint CNG (compressed natural gas) would be a much easier conversion and much cleaner. If you use CNG you can change your oil 3 times LESS often. You get about the same energy equivalent as ethanol (80%). It comes to most homes already and with a small compressor and storage tank you could fuel at home for city driving. The installed system can switch over if you are on a trip to your regular gasoline system. T Boone Pickens had it right when he was advocating for trucking to switchover. It could save 15% of the imported fuels we use on a daily basis. It could be done relatively cheaply and could be done in less than a year’s time.
Report Post »SgtB
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 2:17pmDid you know that the US produced TOO MUCH natural gas over the last six months causing stocks to drop at companies like Chesapeake (America’s largest producer of natural gas) and that they are having to cut production to keep the price high?
Report Post »GrumpyCat
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 3:34pmI’d be tickled to convert my 2008 diesel F-250 to CNG but there has to be enough fueling stations and/or range for 1200 mile trips.
Report Post »JP4JOY
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 3:44pmYes I did and if we made the switch to CNG for our cars and trucks gas prices would come down too! I’m working on switching to CNG in my Jeep for city driving. In my research looks like my fuel cost should be reduced by about 30%. I drive about 12k miles per year around town which is about 850 gallons of gas @~$3.60 per gal. That means I could save about $1,000 per year on fuel. Right now the best conversion kit and refueling set up cost in the $3-5k range, still a little high but if I convert both of our cars I only need 1 refueling setup so that would bring the price down somewhat. Best I can get now is a 3-5 year payback but if gasoline goes up so would my savings.
Report Post »JP4JOY
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 3:51pm@GRUMPY
Report Post »Do you always drive that far? For diesels the CNG conversion feeds the gas into the airstream and reduces your fuel consumption by about 40% or so. From what I’ve read the conversion on a diesel is very simple and straightforward. If you use your CNG supply your engine would just go back to using its’ normal fuel consumption rate. The CNG replaces some of the diesel fuel when present providing the same power output.
Razorhunters
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 4:03pmSwitched my trucks to “propane and propane accessories”many years ago…
makes it easy to hook up a flamethrower or bbq grill…
better mileage, cheaper fuel…
Report Post »J.C. McGlynn
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 1:45pmTo those who think ethanol saves the environment, think again. The alcohol in gasoline lowers the octane level increasing the amount of fuel necessary to travel the same distance as with straight gasoline. My own car travels 225 miles on gas and 185 miles on gasahol. I know of what I speak because of 30 years in the auto/light/medium/heavey duty truck industry as a mechanic.
Report Post »progressiveslayer
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 2:10pmI average 10 mpg with E-85 and 16mpg with gas in my escalade,when I first got it I used E 85 and wouldn’t run worth a damn,switched to regular gas no problems.The government needs to get out of the energy business altogether,they screw up everything they inflict themselves on.
Report Post »JBaer
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 1:38pmAnd here we are burning our food for fuel. How idiotic. These gov’t mandates gotta stop!
Report Post »Itsjusttim
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 1:46pmYes but now as they pull their fangs out, it will make prices go up. Good for people invested in oil though right? And since certain groups control food production anyways, the whole burning our food thing doesn’t really matter, because they will burn it another way with regulation.
Report Post »Itsjusttim
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 1:48pmIt’s too bad so many Americans have dwelled on neighborly jealousy, and sports instead of guarding like a cat, because you just can’t put your paw on it.
Report Post »Itsjusttim
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 1:50pmAnd your kids are going to be flat out slaves, but then if Americans really cared, they would have been watchful.
Report Post »Itsjusttim
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 1:53pmYou see, Tribulation has been here for quite some time now, but it isn’t meant for hardly that many people to go through it. The battle hardened experience cats are the ones who go through it, because they were away from the kill a long time ago, and therefore they are tentative and quite aware of the movement.
Report Post »Itsjusttim
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 2:01pmTribulation started when all the falsies started raining down on Americans, that somehow this life-style is normal and sustainable or that money grows on trees. Then the Sorrows for the people in “The know” started when America went completely to Fiat, and the total illusion took over, and now we are well on our way to the Rapture.
Report Post »dmforman
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 1:35pmDoes anyone know what a gallon of ethanol would cost without government subsidies?
Report Post »USPATRIOT101
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 1:38pmHave you baught any bacon lately? Ethenol is such a wonderful idea…
Report Post »SgtB
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 2:15pmIt used to cost ~ $2 a gallon when bought in a 55 galon drum from sunoco race fuels. But that was back in the late 90‘s to early 2000’s. It sure as hell beat the $4 gallon purple fuel sold at the drag strip. Of course, that was before they mandated that it be blended into the nation’s gasoline supply. While the subsidy does decrease the pump price of straight ethanol at the expense of the taxpayer, the gov’t regulation driving the market for it has done far more to raise the price.
Report Post »MarsBarsTru7
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 5:06pmA gallon of ethanol costs less than gasoline! It’s practically free if you keep your food garbage. You can make it yourself and not pay anyone, just by planting some crops or keeping your grass clippings.
Vegetation is all that is needed to create ethanol. Crops like corn are more ideal for the creation of alchohol, but the vast majority of plantlife on this planet can be used. And ethanol is waaay safer to store.
Ethanol is only a problem for conservatives if we let our government seize control of its production and regulation of its production.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 1:35pmGet the Government OUT of Business and our Lifes!
Report Post »