The Ethanol Myth

That's not just this gas guzzlin' global warming denier talking, those are the words of the respected consumer journal Consumer Reports.

A recent Harris Interactive study of vehicle owners found that more than half were interested in purchasing an FFV, mostly for reduced dependency on petroleum and improved fuel economy.

But after putting a 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe FFV through an array of fuel economy, acceleration, and emissions tests, and interviewing more than 50 experts on ethanol fuel, CR determined that E85 will cost consumers more money than gasoline and that there are concerns about whether the government’s support of FFVs is really helping the U.S. achieve energy independence.

CR goes on to explain how:

- The fuel economy of their test SUV dropped 27% when running on E85 compared with gasoline.
- When gasoline was $2.91 per gallon, the mileage equivalent price per gallon for E85 was $3.99.
- A tankful of gasoline would take the SUV 440 miles; a tankful of E85 goes only 300 miles.
- Most FFVs are large SUVs which use more of whatever fuel you run them on.
- E85 is almost nonexistent anywhere outside of the upper midwest.

And finally, the real reason for the boom in FFV production:

The FFV surge is being motivated by generous fuel-economy credits that auto-makers get for every FFV they build, even if it never runs on E85. This allows them to pump out more gas-guzzling large SUVs and pickups, which is resulting in the consumption of many times more gallons of gasoline than E85 now replaces.

But this isn't all. The Wall Street Journal explained Who Is Hurt By Oil's Fall (paid link) in the January 19, 2007 issue. The lede says it all. "Drillers, Ethanol Makers Lead Pack Of Stocks That Could Be Hit Hardest" This is because the cost of producing ethanol fuel is so high relative to gasoline. Not because the oil economy is subsidized, but because it requires only refinement to become a fuel, not an elaborate and energy intensive fermentation and distillation process.

Still want more? There's a huge debate raging over this issue with claims such as "it cannot contribute to the formation of deposits" coming mostly from domains such as ilcorn.org, mncorn.org, ncga.com (national corn growers assn), and contradictory claims of "increased intake valve deposits by more than 350%" from the addition of just 10% ethanol to gasoline. (This sounds a lot like the global warming debate, with opposing sides making bold claims. I wonder if either of them could be bending the truth a bit?) I suspect the ethanol messiahs are conveniently ignoring the corrosive effects of moisture that is naturally absorbed by anhydrous ethanol.

when AlexC wrote The Dark Side of Ethanol yesterday I wondered, what is the bright side?

Oil and Energy Posted by JohnGalt at January 26, 2007 1:24 AM