i dunno mayb i am just being stubborn on it.
i know something needs to be done to help with the gas issues we have, but is this really the answer?
using foods to make gas will only make food prices rise. will take more E85 to get places than regular gas.

Monty

musthavemuzk;211080 wrote:
while you sure said something there....it did not change my mind on ethanol or E85 at all.
so a car that can run on gas or E85 needs no changes to go between the fuels? i think you are wrong there. i have heard more than one person say they need to change some parts to do this.
but whatever.
you are still using fossil fuels to make E85. so where is the gain? same goes for transporting E85.

Monty

It takes fossil fuels to refine other fossil fuels also. The end result is you use less fossil fuels to produce/run E85 than you do to run regular gasoline.

The only thing I can think of needing to change to E85 would maybe be bigger injectors (~30% more fuel needs to be injected for the same BTU results)

Monty

SPANISH-RICE;205198 wrote:
my E85 game will end you

game...set...match.

95+% would go to the cheaper one.

IMO, going E10 nationwide would do more good for the country(corn prices go up, dependance on forgien oil goes down) then having E85 available. My step dad makes his living off of corn and all that and used E85 for a month and never touched it after that.

musthavemuzk;204618 wrote:
same goes for E85. there is no proof that it is better. in fact there is more proof that it is not better then regular gas. as in it takes more of it as compared to regular gas. as well as it really does not cost less and is not as environmentally friendly as once was led to believe. Monty

serisously? have you not read my earlier posts?? ethanol is FAR more environmentally freindly than regular gas. they even have used it in AGG stuff for a number of different things other than fuel becuase its water soluble.

musthavemuzk;204618 wrote:
mpg's go down compared to regular gas. yes it is renewable. but at the expense of what? use the corn and there is a chance food prices go up.Monty

and once again the only reason it gets such poor mileage is becuase all the motors that currently run it are set up to run both pure gasoline or E85. this mean the motor cant have a higher compression ratio needed to use the benefits of a higher octane fuel, because when they switch back to gas it'll denate to beat hell. switch to a different motor design and ethanol will produce plenty of power and get good mileage.

and around here why would you ever bitch about the cost of corn going up? that means good economy for the farmers around here. if you would rather spend $.10 less on a ear of corn than have a renewable fuel source for years to come i think your priorities may need a readjustment.

musthavemuzk;204618 wrote:
typically you have to change some items in the car to run it.Monty

no you do not need to change things on your car to run it unless you run aluminum fuel lines(not typical). anything else will only stay cleaner from the alcohol, even rubber lines. gm themselves have done numerous tests where they run just one of their normal cars reflashed to run E85 and had no problems. in fact the fuel pump and rubber hoses were in MUCH better condition from the E85. the 15% gasoline lubricates the lines so they WILL NOT CRACK.

musthavemuzk;204618 wrote:
how about the coal or other fossil fuels needed at the ethanol plants needed to make the E85? and the fossil fuels needed to transport the E85? how is this really better?Monty

how can this be a good argument when the same money would just be spent to produce and transport any other fuel? your complaing about costs of transporting the fuel and producing it. both are things that money is ALREADY spent on, either way SOMETHING HAS to be moved why dont you just move the funds to a different truck or plant for a renewable fuel.
the only difference is when corn is grown it uses CO2 to grow and produces clean o2, and when manufactured it produces feed for livestock, ethanol, and biomass to burn for energy and other things.

musthavemuzk;204618 wrote:
now for E10. if this is such a good thing then why are the car companies not jumping on it and saying yes it is a good thing?Monty

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23033773/ they are

musthavemuzk;204618 wrote:
why are gas prices not going down?
if MN is required to run it and ND is not then why is gas prices the same on both sides of the river?

the difference is the octane rating. the 10% ethanol both helps in cold weather and increases the octance FOR THE SAME PRICE.

the benefit of a e10 is that your using 10% less fossil fuel. its RENEWABLE. thats the point of it. not to poduce the new cure all for a a fuel. they are trying to find an efficient way to cut down on fossil fuels. supply and demand, the less we demand fossil fuels the more surplus they will have and prices will eventually go down.

also that 10% acts as "heet" for your motor so the fuel doesnt freeze up. you ever seen the price of heet that some people dump in every tank of gas? its like spending money on adding another 2 gallons of gas for 10 oz of ETHANOL, thats what heet is, alcohol.

musthavemuzk;204618 wrote:
i know there are alot of cars that convert to E85 for the added power. but what about soccer mom barb. does she really care about that power? no she wants good mpg as she has to run johnny and suzy all over for practices and school events. she also needs to get to work and not worry about breaking down on the commute daily. she needs reliabilty and good mpg. and with noone saying ethanol is good for cars over the long haul why force it upon us? if it really does not cost less then why force it upon us?

WHY WOULD IT BREAK DOWN OR BE LESS RELIABLE? you need to understad that ethanol does not hurt anything on your vehicle. its BETTER in most cases. and as far as mileage goes i refer to what i said about why ethanol doesnt get the same kind of mileage earlier. No one is saying its bad for cars other than the people that refuse to believe that its good, they do their own weak tests on it and dont take everything into consideration. ever seen an article from an actual car manufacturer doing actual R&D that says its bad? if it was BAD for cars they wouldnt have flex fuel vehicles and gm wouldnt be busting balls to convert.

same goes for E85. there is no proof that it is better. in fact there is more proof that it is not better then regular gas. as in it takes more of it as compared to regular gas. as well as it really does not cost less and is not as environmentally friendly as once was led to believe. mpg's go down compared to regular gas. typically you have to change some items in the car to run it. yes it is renewable. but at the expense of what? use the corn and there is a chance food prices go up. how about the coal or other fossil fuels needed at the ethanol plants needed to make the E85? and the fossil fuels needed to transport the E85? how is this really better?
now for E10. if this is such a good thing then why are the car companies not jumping on it and saying yes it is a good thing?
why are gas prices not going down?
if MN is required to run it and ND is not then why is gas prices the same on both sides of the river? why in IA was the gas prices the same when i was there over christmas?
yes it is cool that you get the octane bump, but really where is the benefit?

i know there are alot of cars that convert to E85 for the added power. but what about soccer mom barb. does she really care about that power? no she wants good mpg as she has to run johnny and suzy all over for practices and school events. she also needs to get to work and not worry about breaking down on the commute daily. she needs reliabilty and good mpg. and with noone saying ethanol is good for cars over the long haul why force it upon us? if it really does not cost less then why force it upon us?

here is the linkage to the non-oxy info i found.
how bout these guys. do they want to run E10?

http://www.msra.com/NonOxygenatedFuel/Non-OxyFuel.htm

http://www.msra.com/NonOxygenatedFuel/Non%20Oxygenated%20Fuel%2012.07.pdf

on way to fargo saturday we went through GF. stopped at the truck stop by the settle inn. think this is off demers or gateway. this was on the ND side and they had 10% ethanol added on all the pumps on all grades of gas.

Monty

i forget which forum i found it on, but there was linkage from MSRA about stations that sell non-oxy gas in MN for the street rod crowd. MSRA(minnesota street rod association)
will see if i can find that link.

Monty

i know things change. i remember when i dads 68 camaro ran leaded gas and unleaded was taking its place. there was alot of concern about how cars would run and power and so on.

Monty

SmitEvo;200352 wrote:
So your telling me they wont come up with something better? Lol....I guarantee there will be vehicles that are not oil dependent. The demand for corn will not be as high and farmers will switch to the next cash crop.
im not saying that they wont come up with something better... but your not going to see it in yoru lifetime... and neither will your childeren.... ethanol is here to stay... they just got the goahead to build another plant around the hawley/ulen area.... might even pop up in moorhead...

DaveH;200373 wrote:
Brazil uses sugar cane to make their ethanol, from what I've read that is a lot more efficient way to make ethanol than corn is. I don't think there is any way we can get corn based ethanol to really help our dependency on oil. Time to plant sugar cane around here.
you bring up a good point... but thats were corn hybrids come into play... and from what i have been told they are developing ways to use whole corn plans instead of just corn seed..

In 2006, the feds paid ethanol blenders $2.5 billion and ethanol corn farmers $0.9 billion. We paid an extra $3.6 billion at the pump. Total was $2.21 extra per gallon of gasoline replaced. Of all that, $5.4 billion went for windfall profits, creating what USDA's chief economist called "ethanol euphoria."

How many billions in tax breaks did we give big oil again last year and how much money did they lose? Oh I forgot we gave them tax breaks AND they posted record profits. Makes perfect sense- and somehow on the new energy bill their tax breaks are STILL THERE. You can't expect an industry to start up overnight and be super efficient. Mainstream ethanol has only gained popularity in the last 3-5 years, although it has been around as a fuel subsititute since the 1880s.

tjamz;200342 wrote:
Brazil uses ethanol in ALL of their cars and is completely energy independent.

Brazil uses sugar cane to make their ethanol, from what I've read that is a lot more efficient way to make ethanol than corn is. I don't think there is any way we can get corn based ethanol to really help our dependency on oil. Time to plant sugar cane around here.

tjamz;200363 wrote:
From your source:

...which scientists do not agree on and they did not include solar energy needed to produce. I agree it has gotten cheaper.

http://zfacts.com/p/60.html

I like this section

In 2006, the feds paid ethanol blenders $2.5 billion and ethanol corn farmers $0.9 billion. We paid an extra $3.6 billion at the pump. Total was $2.21 extra per gallon of gasoline replaced. Of all that, $5.4 billion went for windfall profits, creating what USDA's chief economist called "ethanol euphoria."