Ethanol & Cents Per Mile

I have run two tanks of E0 or E10 through Cornholio now.

Which one do you think I find cheaper in terms of cents per mile?


I'll let you all vote & discuss and then I will pick this up again.

Corn Ethanol Facts

I'm not even going to comment on this piece. Just go there and read it, because after you're done you'll have a lot of facts at your disposal the next time your state government tries to shove through an irresponsible ethanol mandate.

As an incentive to go read the piece at the link, I'm going to leave you with the author's parting words:

Are we just one drought away from $10 corn or are we just one drought away from famine?

And all this in exchange for an insignificant amount of petroleum and subject to the fickleness of Mother Nature!

The more I learn about ethanol, the more I believe that our current government policies are leading us down the path of disaster.

Perspective on Corn Ethanol

Ever wonder how much corn we grow for fuel, not food? A lot.

The pending global food crisis is due, in part, to a rich twist of irony: One of the factors driving up the price of T-bone steak, a dozen eggs and a carton of milk is a perfectly edible vegetable, a staple of many diets - corn.

To add to the irony, we're growing more corn than ever before. We're just not eating it.

"The U.S. is now using more corn for production of ethanol than our entire crop in Canada," says Kurt Klein, a professor of agricultural economics at the University of Lethbridge. "It's huge."

And it is going to get bigger. In 2000, world production of ethanol totalled 20 billion litres. In 2007, world production climbed to 60 billion litres. In the month of January alone, six billion new litres of ethanol were produced in the U.S., Mr. Klein says.

God help us all if we have a sustained drought here in the corn belt.

(Cross posted at Jiblog)

The Latest Ethanol Mandate

Cross-posted at THEB.

We blogged about yet another attempt by clueless legislators to ram an ethanol mandate down the throats of Wisconsin residents as a sop to the well-heeled and well-financed campaign contributors from the ethanol industry.

The latest pair of boobs (apologies to real pairs of boobs) are state Sen. Pat Kreitlow and state Rep. Scott Suder.

Kreitlow is the guy who said earlier this week that if it weren’t for Charlie Sykes and Mark Belling, Wisconsin would already have had a statewide mandate for ethanol. Actually, he’s only partially right. It isn’t talk radio and bloggers that has stopped repeated attempts from the ethanol whores to impose their will on the people of Wisconsin.

It’s people like you who contacted their senators and representatives and told them not just “No!” but “Hell No!”

It’s time now to contact Sen. Kreitlow and Rep. Suder and give them that not-so-subtle message again. Here’s how to get in touch with them:

Sen. Pat Kreitlow (Democrat)
Room 10 South
State Capitol
P.O. Box 7882
Madison, Wis. 53707
Telephone: (608) 266-7511 Or (888) 437-9436
Fax: 608-267-6794
Email: Sen.Kreitlow@legis.wisconsin.gov

Rep. Scott Suder (Republican)
Madison Office
Room 324 East
State Capitol
P.O. Box 8953
Madison, Wis. 53708
Telephone: (608) 267-0280 Or (888) 534-0069
Fax: (608) 282-3669
Email: Rep.Suder@legis.wisconsin.gov

Contact them and ask them: “What part of ‘No!’ don’t you understand?” and remind them they work for the people of the state of Wisconsin, not the fat cat lobbyists walking through the state Capitol handing out $100 bills in plain brown wrappers.

Ethanol Boosts Greenhouse Gases

Jo Egelhoff brought this link to our attention in the comments to a previous post on ethanol. Given our elected representatives' continued insistence on forcing ethanol upon us all with AB 682, I think a few excerpts from the New York Times article are appropriate.

Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these “green” fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.

The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months, as scientists took a closer look at the global environmental cost of their production. These latest studies, published in the prestigious journal Science, are likely to add to the controversy.

Wonder why ethanol interests want to shove this through? Perhaps it has something to do with that increased scrutiny.

Together the two studies offer sweeping conclusions: It does not matter if it is rain forest or scrubland that is cleared, the greenhouse gas contribution is significant. More important, they discovered that, taken globally, the production of almost all biofuels resulted, directly or indirectly, intentionally or not, in new lands being cleared, either for food or fuel.

“When you take this into account, most of the biofuel that people are using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse gasses substantially,” said Timothy Searchinger, lead author of one of the studies and a researcher in environment and economics at Princeton University. “Previously there’s been an accounting error: land use change has been left out of prior analysis.”

These plant-based fuels were originally billed as better than fossil fuels because the carbon released when they were burned was balanced by the carbon absorbed when the plants grew. But even that equation proved overly simplistic because the process of turning plants into fuels causes its own emissions — for refining and transport, for example.

I'm a doubter of man made global warming, but a lot of you out there are not, and if you think I'm wrong for doubting, then this should really upset you. And still, your representatives, Republican and Democrat alike, want to force more ethanol use and production on you. These mandates will not allow you to make your own economic or green decisions on the matter.

But, you ask, how does a little extra corn grown in Wisconsin make any difference? Well, here's how:

Likewise, Dr. Fargione said that the dedication of so much cropland in the United States to growing corn for bioethanol had caused indirect land use changes far away. Previously, Midwestern farmers had alternated corn with soy in their fields, one year to the next. Now many grow only corn, meaning that soy has to be grown elsewhere.

Increasingly, that elsewhere, Dr. Fargione said, is Brazil, on land that was previously forest or savanna. “Brazilian farmers are planting more of the world’s soybeans — and they’re deforesting the Amazon to do it,” he said.

This would seem to be a prime example of the slogan "Think Globally, Act Locally," don't you think? Opposing ethanol mandates, while not necessarily opposing ethanol completely, would seem to be one, maybe the only, common cause between environmentalists on the left and some of us on the right who are concerned about other effects of a mandate.

Re: Ethanol & Competitve Disadvantage

Marcus, I had the pleasure of attending a speech by a gentleman from the Heartland Institute last year. His talk was largely on ethanol, and it was an enlightening session. If my memory serves me, he saw the future of ethanol production being cellulosic in nature. One of the highlights of, say, switch grass was that it could be grown in soils in the southeast that he said were salty and not capable of producing many food crops. Also, a crop like switch grass can create much more stock per acre in a year than corn can. He also discussed the use of crop residue to make cellulosic ethanol in agricultural regions like Wisconsin, but that opportunity is more limited because crop residue can act as a top soil erosion inhibitor. He also discussed the possibilities of genetically engineering some crops so they can be successfully grown in more arid regions out west, but I found that part of the discussion a little fanciful at worst and a long way off at best.

One additional advantage of cellulosic ethanol production is that the process could actually create a byproduct that could in turn be used as an energy source in the production process. That would reduce energy costs for those plants and increase the amount of energy ethanol gives over what it takes to produce.

Having said all of that, I still don't see ethanol as a silver bullet for our energy problems. I doubt that under any scenario we can produce enough of it. Additionally, it will never be significantly more environmentally sound than oil when all factors are considered. I am willing to consider it as a component of our energy policy as long as government stays the hell out of the way allow the best processes to succeed. I am concerned about Federal and state governments are propping up a type of ethanol (corn) that has way too many disadvantages, and once more advantageous forms of production come online that they'll continue to prop it up out of political expediency.

Corn Ethanol at a Long Term Competitive Disadvantage

The science and the processes behind cellulosic ethanol are still being worked out, but once that brand of ethanol production gets its feet, the corn based ethanol made in places like Wisconsin and Minnesota is going to be hard pressed to compete. To wit:

A new cellulosic ethanol plant that promises to produce renewable biofuel for less than $1 a gallon has a new partner.

ICM, a Kansas-based ethanol plant design, engineering and support firm, has a new agreement with Illinois-based Coskata, which made headlines when it announced it could produce next-generation ethanol made from waste, plant materials or other biomass, rather than corn, at a fraction of the cost, and with a fraction of the pollution and political fallout.

The southeast could stand to become this country's major ethanol producer. It offers a good climate for fast growing ethanol stocks like switch grass, and it likely has the land capacity to farm those stocks without seriously hampering food production. If we in the Midwest choose to prop up the production of corn ethanol legislatively now, we will likely continue to do so in the future and assure ourselves of higher fuel prices than other areas of the nation where cellulosic ethanol production may proliferate.

Corn Squeezin's

Seeing the topic of ethanol is mentioned on at least two or three Wisconsin blogs thought I'ld give details on my study.

Since I have started keeping detailed documentation of my mileage with corn squeezin's here is what I report.

905 miles driven by burning 81.42 gallons of E85. This translate into 11.1 miles per gallon and 20.89 cents per mile (calculated based on three datapoints starting on Dec 22). A couple of notes, first this is winter driving and most of the miles are short trips and a fair amount of them in 4x4 or auto four wheel. This vehicle is a 1500 '04 LT Suburban with around 85 kmiles. One trip was to & from Marshfield originating in Appleton.

Before I started with the detailed documentation I seem to recall getting around 15-17 mpg on regular gasoline.

My incomplete but educated judgment is given identical driving patterns you may pay less at the pump for corn squeezin's but you visit the pump more.

Drumbeat

Corn is for eatin' and wipin' yer backside.

Smithsonian researchers highlight a new study that factors in environmental costs of biofuel production. Corn, soy and sugarcane come up short.

My Mileage Tracking Methodology

Aaron notes:

Make sure you start you log from an empty tank, then run on the same gas for a few fill-ups in a row.

If the numbers don't work out the way you want, make something up. That's what "they" do.

Source: See the original blog & read his comment for the source.

First off, my motivation for tracking is to see which fuel is the most frugal. So, I am not going to manipulate the results to come to my favorite answer (which is? The one that results in the lower cents per mile!), so don't worry no manipulation or data massaging to come to a particular answer.

Now, back in April I started tracking the mileage on our primary (and it was our only vehicle until a little more than one month ago) vehicle and got a very good handle on our gasoline expenditures and mileage. I think I have a good system down.

I fill up my tank, I take the receipt and write down the reading from my trip-meter and reset that. In addition, I write down the numbers from my trip computer (e.g. average MPH, average MPG, gallons used etc) for comparison. When I get home I plunk the numbers into a spreadsheet I built for just such purpose and get the answers.

I work on one assumption, the gas I pour in is the gas I burned to drive the mileage on the trip-meter. I am rethinking that assumption due to the nature of the experiment with different fuel classes (E85, E20, E10, and straight gasoline). I still believe my assumption to be valid.

Some years ago I did something similar to discern any savings by using high-test grades of gasoline. Since, high octane is universally available I drove exclusively one grade of gas for a a number of tankfuls. However, now I am not guaranteed E85 will be available at fill up time. BTW, I do not recall high-test making a significant difference just in cost. I am thinking about revisiting this one too.

The calculations I use are straight-forward from a seventh-graders math book. Take the miles driven, divide by the gallons of gas consumed, take the price paid multiply by 100 and divide by miles driven (cents per mile). In addition, I do some totaling and averaging (monthly & annual).

I take the gas down to about 1/16-1/8 of a tank and then I gas up (sometimes sooner, sometimes later I was getting low on fumes tonight).

Two interesting side-effects. First, you can detect problems before they become serious. A previous vehicle showed the first symptoms of transmission problems by decreased mileage and you begin to see how your approach to driving affects your mileage.

Corn Squeezin's Economics

The Empress and myself just purchased a new vehicle. It is a flex-fuel vehicle and I am learning about corn squeezings aka E85.

Of course, it is not widely available. I also tell you 60-70 cents per gallon under regular fuel really gets your attention. However, I also notice a significant drop in mileage when running on corn squeezings. With the new years I am going to track the mileage very closely to determine the cents per mile. My guess the cents per mile will be close to a wash with perhaps a slight edge to corn squeezings.

Being that corn squeezings are not widely available another phenomena I see is wide variance in the price. For example, at the Corner of HWY 10 & South Oneida in Appleton (or is that Menasha there?) just across from Waverly Beach is a Kwik Trip (used to be a Shell Station) that sells corn squeezings. Then we have a Renew Station on Wisconsin Avenue on the West side of town (near Indian Darbar restaurant), the Renew Station sells E85, E20, and E10 corn squeezings.

The difference in price between the Renew and the Kwik Trip is significant, I don't know what it is now, but I remember seeing a 30 cent difference once.

E85 is new, the sources are few. This means knowledge of the marketplace is much more limited. I am driving to Menasha from Manitowoc there is no way I am going to know about the cheap E85 at the Renew station. Even for people who live in the area there is a good chance they will not know the large difference in price.

Enough Already!

I'm all in favor of my car getting better mileage.

Just stop telling me that I need to shove my lunch in the gas tank.