I don't believe any business deserves a hand-out regardless of the product it produces.

That aside, lets compare methanol to ethanol:

1. Methanol costs less.
2. Its easier to produce.
3. It can be made from a wider variety of things, from corn and corn stalks to coal and natural gas.
4. Its safer than gas and ethanol because it is less flamable.
5. Both are biodegradable, important in case of spillage.
6. Methanol is more corrosive, but that is not a problem in flex-fuel vehicles.
7. Methanol can be produced from waste materials, such as house-hold garbage.
8. Both burn cleaner than gasolene.
9. It does not require buying mid-western votes to be viable.
10. Methanol is usuable in a diesel.
11. Methanol can be produced from the greenhouse gas CO2.
12. Currently methanol is sold for about $1/gallon. New technologies (like those of Dr. Olah) can get it even lower.
13. Methanol can be put into wide scale use and production faster and cheaper than ethanol, without the land-use impacts of ethanol.
14. Due to the lower energy content vehicles running M85 can expect to see a 10-20% reducing in mpg... however, the fuel costs (not including taxes) would be $1/gallon or less.

I ask the farmers here who support ethanol so much... why aren't you pushing for methanol if you really care about the solutions to America's energy problems? The silence speaks volumes.

 

Not so. Brazil is now in the process of building a multi-billion dollar oil refinery. They are running out of land mass for ethanol production. Sugar cane, switchgrass and sugar beets, while more efficient, do not live up to the potential of methanol.

If methanol were a goal we could be energy independent faster and cheaper, without using all available land mass.

Currently the USA consumes:

529 million gallons of gasoline per day or 193 billion gallons per year. The current total annual production of ethanol fuel is about 4 billion gallons. Even if we doubled the efficiency of ethanol production with something other than corn we would need to farm 4800% more acreage than we do now on fuel production alone.

Please show me numbers to back up your position. I doubt you can.

I'm not surprised of your support for subsidies.

We have an import tax on ethanol, quite simply, because it protects the financial interests of US farmers -- they lobbied for it, and won.

Again, further proof that the system is set up to buy mid-western votes.

 

Your argument for methanol does not conflict with my views.

Let me just change my use of "ethanol" to alcohol fuel, whatever form works best. My motivation is to produce our own renewable fuel and stop supporting the OPEC nations.

I have written to a friend who is a chemist, phd, for his comments on what types and why.

 

Brazil is building the oil refinery because they have newly discovered oil resources. Not because they are not energy independent.

And I am not surprised at your opposition to subsidies. But taxes and subsidies are the way that governments change the direction and the habits of citizens and businesses. We have a crisis and we need to respond. With oil companies making the largest profits in history, they are certainly not going to recognize that we have a crisis, they are going to milk it for all it is worth. Companies are amoral, they do what makes the most money and avoid anything that increases their costs. We all understand that. So if there is an environmental problem or other negative unintended consequence impacting human life and well being, it is a legitimate government function to step in and protect the people and our national interests.

 

I said nothing about their energy independence. Quite simply, the biomass to produce their fuel isn't available. The oil is.

What if the government decides they don't like your web browsing habits? How will you feel if they step in and tax your online behavior in order to change it? I do not believe this is the function of government, nor can I find anywhere in the constitution any mention of using the force of government to dictate behavior. It it the antithesis of liberty and free markets.

The higher the market driven price of fuel the more financial incentive to private enterprise there is to produce the solution. It is the government which is standing in the way... government is not the solution. Get rid of import taxes. Get rid of subsidies. Stay out of the markets. Get rid of regulations favor oil companies and stand in the way of open competition on the market.

If the government wants to get involved it should fund production research of all viable alternatives rather than giving us "feel good" fake solutions like ethanol. Fund pipelines which can transport methanol (a major drawback at this time is that it can't be transported using current pipelines). Allow drilling in Alaska and off-shore as stop-gaps.

 

We have a fundamental disagreement about the function of government. I believe that the government has the duty to protect the national interests. If oil companies stand in the way of the national interests then subsidizing alternative fuel start-ups is a good thing. If the oil companies want to get into alternative fuels, so be it. But the fact is our dependence on foreign oil is NOT in the best interest of our nation.

Your position of ''government out of everything'' is admirable, but it is out of step with the reality we live in. Our government is into everything whether we like it or not and I don't. The best we can do, short of revolution, is to try to direct the government constructively.

 

Your position is precisely why government is into everything.

 

Vote Ron Paul!

 

Negative. This topic is barely hanging on, but...
The principle you speak of is called "laissez faire" which is French meaning "to allow to do". It was the economic approach used prior and during the Great Depression. The current method is something called "priming the pump". I think it was better explained by the quote explaining that government's economic mantra is, "... if an industry grows, tax it. If an industry slow subsidize it." The details are vague on that one. But current economic policy uses various methods like subsidies, tariffs, excise taxes, etc to encourage certain industries. But we're not here to debate current economic policy. Unless you're insinuating that buying E85 is akin to voting for more of our current government/economic policy.

Please don't forget farming is protected because it is and was always important that farms produce plenty of food to discourage and limit the need for food imports. The subsidies have the effect of bloating the food market to keep prices low and supply high.

If the greenies hadn't been so adamant about oil drilling perhaps we wouldn't be discussing this issue just yet. But ethanol is better for the environment than straight gasoline (carbon emissions are lowered by 18%-28%), okay for nation energy independence but we don't have enough farmland for corn based ethanol, and the economics are a bit sketchy. Some reports have said corn based ethanol can be priced at $3 a gallon making the GGE break even price $4.28 per gallon (est 70%MPG with ethanol) market price. With this $0.51 subsidie on ethanol we could theoretically expect E85 to be $2.12+15% gasoline or w/e they include with E85. I'd be willing to pay 1/3 more per mile for E85 if I had an income and the benefits were better quantified. Obviously there is no point in investing money into a fuel with so much controvery and so many clone copies of data besides snubbing your nose and wallet at people. That could be fun though.

I found a website where a couple of greenies or treehuggers, I'm not sure which/what or who, but they were arguing about the detrimental effects of ethanol. They were going on about how it was increasing the price of meat, milk, and eggs. I thought to myself, they're probably vegans(because they discussed abuse of cattle destined for the slaughter) yet they're still getting worked up over this. Somehow it was either ironic or just plain strange.

But your prior response seems to be too far off topic. If you would, please continue to discuss the truths of ethanol before we move onto the truth about methanol.

Plus here is some Ethanol specific information:
Fuel economy for 2007 FFV Chevy Tahoe(Sorry) E85 vs Gasoline
http://www.edmunds.com/advice/altern...3/article.html
26% less(!) 36 gallons to go 667 miles vs 50 gallons to go 674 miles. The small price difference of 9% made gasoline a much better deal. Obviously E85 would have to reach 26% less than gasoline in this case before price per GGE of E85 would be equal.

Fuel economy @ 35mph for 2007 FFV Chevy Silverado(I'm seeing a pattern)
http://www.wqad.com/Global/story.asp?S=3972760
28 MPG(!) after burning 2 gallons of gasoline vs 25 MPG(!?) after burning 2 gallons of E85

For mention of Wood to Ethanol plant in North-East which could expand range of ethanol.
http://www.ethanolacrossamerica.net/CFDC_EconImpact.pdf
It's mostly about economic impact of an ethanol plant.

Study on usage and effects of distiller's feed:
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/IBC26.pdf
Each bushel of corn produces 2.65 gallons (18lbs) of ethanol and 17lbs of air dry pounds of distiller's grain. But where did the rest of the bushel (34lbs worth) go?

An engineer designed a process that he believes can turn distiller's grain into methane to provide 89% of the power requirements of ethanol plants:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/app...701280324/1029
This is a year old but the idea does show potential. It won't produce sugar cane like efficiency but it could be a method to moderate the price of ethanol.

And for the final part, my new personal favorite E85 vehicle related page:
http://media.ford.com/newsroom/featu...?release=22424
Boo-ya. I need one of those Escape hybrid engines but in a Ranger and with a manual tranny, first gear for the electric motor the rest for the ethanol motor. Alternatively you could "insert your desired fuel here" but maybe we should save that for a seperate topic too.

 

Well I was just reading this forum an I am a little bit upset about what I have read. I live in nebraska an ethanol is a big thing in this state an has helped the economy here tremendously. No question about it. Being a farmer myself Its really been a boon the local area economy as we have quite a few ethanol plants across Nebraska. From the people that work there to the farmers that sell grain there. An has helped corn prices a bunch.

I agree that no business deserves goverment help but agriculture has been subsidized sinc the drought an great depression off the thirites. In that era lots off people lost there farms an went bankrupt due to the ongoing drought that plagued this area for most off the 1930s as well as the depression which made farm goods pratically worthless. So FDR stepped in with his new deal progarm to stimulate the economy an create jobs which were few an far between in those years. So in most cases your ancestors probably recieved help fom the goverment in those trying years. I am to young an did not live through them years. But the country was literally bankrupt.

Hence since that time farmers have recieved goverment aid ever since. Do I like it No. Is it fair an balanced for all individuals No off course it isnt. There has been a lot off controversy an anger over the programs because some indivduals collect tons off money while others are shortchanged.

Yes I am guilty off taking subsidies. Do I like it no. I like to be self sufficient like everybody else. The goverment has been paying tremendous subsidies for many years because crop prices fell below the loan rate which is the price guaranteed to producers. But in the last 2 years the goverment has saved billion off dollars in subsidies due to higher crop priced because off ethanol. So another benefit.

Is ethnol the answer to our fuel sutuaion. I dont know probably the best thing we got going right now. I have use E 10 in my truck since day 1. Its a 96 F 150. It currently has 130,000 miles an runs as good today as it di 12 years ago when I bought it. I have done nothing with the motor. It gets 16-17 MPG most all the time. No fuel pumps injectors or spark plugs. All original. Is e 10 the reason why I dont know. Maybe. But I am a firm believer in use off that. E85 is that the answer. I dont have vehicle that runs on it so cant say really.

Farmers are the back bone off the country. We have been blessed with an abundance off food. We go in the grocery store an expect the shelves to be full an they are. Thanks to the farmers.

Yes I have a finacial stake in all this so maybe Im baised a bit but to give farmers a black eye is not fair. You just dont manufacture food you have to grow it raise it. Ethanol is not perfect an has its downfalls but petroleum products do too. I think for all the subsidies that the govermant has spent on everything agriculture has provided the most bang for the buck so to say.

 

Undeniable that E85 gets less mpg than gasoline as measured in the flex fuel vehicles. And it is a serious difference in the links (post #54) but I do wonder what the difference would be in a vehicle optimized (including compression ratio,) for running on ethanol. I'm certain the difference would be considerably less, but I have not seen good numbers on that.

 

I doubt that even an e85 dedicated vehicle could get the same mileage as a gas vehicle. It is simple chemistry and thermodynamics. There are fewer BTUs in a gallon of e85 than a gallon of regular gas. That means there is less energy available to move the vehicle. So, you need more e85 to move the vehicle the same distance.

 

No dispute on that. I was interested in the actual numbers because it is relevant to the overall debate. A dedicated alcohol engine could run a much higher compression ratio, and with the right cam/ignition timing be more efficient. A flex fuel vehicle cannot have the compression ratio necessary to take advantage of the alcohol's higher octane. Point being, with an engine set up for alcohol, be it methanol or ethanol or butanol, it would be far more competitive.

Butanol actually claims better gas milage: http://www.butanol.com/

 

an E85 only engine would be optimal with a around a 15 to 16:1 compression. with a low duration and moderate lift roller cam would make for a efficient engine. that would get it too around the same mpg as a gas engine (1-2 mpg difference).
As far as farming welfare as its been refered too is bogus as well. According too time mag. in nov 2007 that the percentage of farmers that recieve subsideys is 39%. and of that 39% the average payout is $700. only the top ten percent got $35,000 or more. Thats usually going to a farm thought that takes up thousands of acres. Now thats acording to time magazine.

 

<!--StartFragment -->It is not bogus. A hand-out is a hand-out. Doesn't matter if its $500 or $5 million. Its still a hand out. No one gave me a hand out to keep my businesses afloat. Sorry, farmers are not the backbone of America. Small business owners provide the majority of job growth in this country -- they are the backbone of America. No matter how you look at it, transfering money from a tax-payer's pocket to someone else who didn't earn that money is welfare. Its robbing Peter to pay Paul. The price tag is over $16 billion per year.

Maybe Time left some things out of that article. For instance, the bulk of the subsidies are going to corn growers. Not fruit growers, rice growers, wheat or other things which put food on the table, but corn growers. Furthermore, the information you presented actually presents a case again subsi

Your "evidence" does nothing to further your position. As a mater of fact, if the average farmer is not benefiting from the subsidies, and only the top farms benefit... then why have them at all?

Do small store owners get a subsidy? Why not? Aren't they struggling?

Do small business owners get a subsidy? Why not? Aren't they the back-bone?

Look at the money trail.... generally those who post in favor of the corn subsidies are people who live in areas which benefit from the government robbing the rest of the country. Yeah, I'm sure it helps your area... how about I get the government to come and take the farm money off your table to help my area instead? Fair? Of course those in areas who benefit are going to staunchly defend them... its just like the Chris Rock skit where he talks about welfare mothers shaking in their shoes every time welfare reform is brought up.