We’re going to talk about Elon Musk a little today because he loves making news and we write about news. First, though, we’re going to talk about two more important topics: 1. How ethanol fuel might cause your gas prices to go up, specifically if you live in the Midwest. 2. Skoda. Then we’ll talk about Musk, I guess.
E15 Is Great If You’re A Farmer, Less If You Drive A Lot
I’d wager that most people in the United States reading this are putting E10 gasoline (that’s fuel with 10% ethanol) in their cars, whether they’re aware of it or not. Whether or not E10 is good or bad is not something I’m going to engage with right now.
Technically, the use of E10 violates federal limits on air pollution in the Clean Air Act due to its volatility (you can read about Reid vapor pressure here, which is how they measure volatility). E10 fuel has an ongoing waiver to allow it to be used. Whether this is for environmental or political reasons—Iowa is an important swing and primary state and produces a lot of corn, which is used to make ethanol—is a debate I’m not going to engage with, either. There are only so many hours in the day and I’m very busy lately.
E15 (fuel with 15% ethanol/85% gasoline mix) has no such permanent waiver and the amount sold has to be limited during the summer. E15 did get a temporary waiver from the Biden administration last year when the White House was trying to bring gas prices down. Now, some governors in Corn Belt states (Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wisconsin) are asking for the E10 waiver to be removed.
Wait, what? About 2,800 gas stations sell E15 but way more sell E10 and corn belt states want more E15 fuel being sold and so want to make it a more level playing field. Alternatively, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine this summer just asked for the E15 waiver to be permanent. That seems like the more obvious solution.
The EPA will probably have to do it, eventually, but they can delay it if they want. So where do the high gas prices come in? Here’s a good explanation from a Bloomberg article highlighting the tension between governors, the Biden administration, farmers, and refiners:
Refiners and pipeline operators, including Flint Hills Resources and Magellan Midstream Partners, are lobbying the administration to delay the shift until at least next year, arguing a too-fast pivot threatens short-term fuel supplies and an even higher price spike.
“Because it takes time to move from refinery to retail, refiners are generally reconfiguring and adjusting refinery production in February and March to be able to produce summer gasoline,” said Patrick Kelly, with the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers.
Ethanol supporters insist the oil industry is exaggerating the potential disruption. “These are sophisticated companies that have been operating these systems for decades” or more, said Renewable Fuels Association head Geoff Cooper. “They know how to run multiple products through these systems and how to make changes quickly.”
They go on to explain how this could do to the Midwest what California’s fuel requirements do to that state’s gas prices:
The change also could isolate the Midwest’s fuel supply from the rest of the country, much like what happens in California — historically home to the highest retail prices in the country — because of its boutique grade. That would make the Corn Belt states, which consultancy RBN Energy estimates account for 10% of total U.S. gasoline demand, more dependent on refiners in the region and create a risk of supply disruptions when facilities undergo maintenance or outages.
If I had to put money on it, the EPA will do whatever the Biden Admin thinks will lower gas prices.
Skoda Delivers 731,300 Vehicles In 2022
It’s a tough year for automakers, especially those of the affordable variety. If you’re a company like the Volkswagen Group and you’ve got a handful of chips you’re going to send those chips to Bentley and Porsche where the profits are and not, necessarily, to value automakers like Skoda and Seat. Many of those are re-skinned VWs, but they look great and sell at reasonable prices in their markets.
So, it is with a heavy heart, that I report sales of Skodas worldwide dropped 16.7% from 2022 to 2023. This isn’t the worst drop and there are bright spots (Germany was only down 1.8% and India was up 128%).
If you so desire, you can read the company’s full press release right here, but I’ll take out the key part from their CEO Klaus Zellmer:
“Never before in its recent history has Škoda Auto been confronted with such extensive challenges as in the past year. Despite these difficult times, our company is making steady progress thanks to an attractive and modern model portfolio comprising e-models and ICE cars, as well as our strong, motivated team and the close cooperation with our social partner, KOVO. We’ve demonstrated resilience, a quality that is more important than ever in a fast-changing environment. With the acceleration of our e-offensive, we’re well positioned for the upcoming years and will continue to strengthen the Czech Republic as a key automotive and e-mobility hub. The market situation will remain tense in 2023, but we’re cautiously optimistic that the situation will improve in the coming months. Furthermore, our strategy is already proving successful, and our products are very well received by customers. Thus, we’re building on a very solid foundation to successfully steer Škoda through 2023, when we will introduce the new generation of our Superb and Kodiaq, among other projects.
New Superb, y’all. Get excited! I am legit excited. This isn’t even a bit. I love Skodas.
Tesla V. BYD
If I had my druthers, I’d spend less time talking about Tesla and more time talking about BYD. And I already talk about BYD a lot! We’ve sort of created a dichotomy, as journalists and pundits are wont to do, pitting BYD against Tesla. Is that fair? They do compete, but aren’t they actually two very different companies?
There’s a column I think you should read. Patrick suggested it to me. It’s titled: Not All EVs Are Equal. Look at the Tesla-BYD Rivalry. It’s written by Anjani Trivedi and it challenges some conventional wisdom on the topic, specifically among those who lump all EV-related companies together.
It’s an extremely valid point, even if I’m not sure we do that here very often. She does a good job in this piece of pointing out the reality of the situation: Tesla is decontenting cars and slashing prices in China at the same time BYD is going upmarket with cars that can moonwalk and raising prices.
This, though, I think is the key point:
BYD and Tesla employ distinct strategies largely because they have starkly different business models. It isn’t as simple as which one can churn out more vehicles, faster. BYD started out as a battery company that now also makes and sells cars. It has secured access to heaps of raw materials required to make EVs and their batteries. It has a firm grip on the supply chain and has moved toward a more vertically integrated model while nailing the technology. Despite Elon Musk’s chat about owning lithium mines, Tesla is still reliant on its long and deep network of suppliers in China. It gets powerpacks from the world’s largest maker, Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., and is tapping BYD as well.
The world is complex and accepting that is a good thing.
Elon Musk Might Not Be The Richest Man In The World Ever Again
Elon Musk famously lost $200 billion but, like, as long as he’s still got more than $340,500, does it really matter?
The way he got rich, with SpaceX and a complex compensation package from Tesla, is also the reason why he may never do it again, at least according to this Bloomberg analysis. (Side note: we’re Bloomberg-heavy this morning!)
In buying Twitter, Musk cornered himself and likely can’t play showman to raise the value of those companies in a way that’ll be as beneficial to him.
From the analysis I linked to above:
Musk was given an option on Tesla stock and did everything he could to drive up its value, said Stephen Diamond, a law professor at Santa Clara University who teaches securities law and advises institutional investors on corporate governance. What directors didn’t see coming was their unpredictable CEO cashing in some $40 billion worth of shares, much of which went to overpaying for another company.
“The board has made millions, and he has made billions,” Diamond said of Musk. “But there was always a risk that he would exploit this in the short term and leave the company hanging.”
At this point, the bedrock of Musk’s fortune is his 42% ownership of Space Exploration Technologies Corp., the rocket launch company he founded in 2002, before he got involved at Tesla. The value of the closely held company continues to climb, most recently raising $750 million at a $137 billion valuation.
But, crucially, Musk likely can’t leverage SpaceX, nor his Boring Co. and Neuralink, as aggressively as he can publicly traded Tesla. His margin loans turbocharged his ascent up the wealth rankings by helping him raise cash to fund his other expensive ventures. His initial plan to buy Twitter involved using the debt too, but he restructured the financing package in May after market volatility sent Tesla shares falling.
The irony of the Tesla compensation deal is that it was supposed to keep Musk’s singular “genius” focused on Tesla and instead it helped him get rich enough to buy a distracting toy. It’s the same reason we mostly pay Jason in Subway coupons; that way he doesn’t buy a Tatra and fuck off forever.
The Flush
Ethanol fuel. Lemme have it. What do you think?
-
Even CarMax’s CEO Thinks Used Car Prices Are Too High
-
The Auto Industry Thinks The Future Of Cars Is Everything But Driving
-
The Mazda CX-30 Plug-In Rotary Hybrid Is Coming And The Logo Is Amazing
-
Mercedes To Challenge Tesla’s Supercharger Network
-
Here’s What You Need To Know About Tom Zhu, Tesla’s New ‘Number 2’
Got a hot tip? Send it to us here. Or check out the stories on our homepage.
Photos: Tesla, Hagerty UK, Skoda BYD
What’s more American than letting states with tiny populations dictate how things are going to go for the rest of us?
What’s more American than boiling down an argument to the assumed amount of people with input instead of factual information about the argument itself?
You’ve got me there!
Sounds like another reason to avoid the midwest besides “there’s Oklahoma between here and there” and “feedlot stank.” We need to tell the corn lobby to pound sand, like, yesterday. That garbage gums up fuel lines and cars weren’t made for it. The most wasteful and destructive thing we can do is make existing cars on the road run worse and potentially end up getting junked sooner rather than later.
Cars weren’t designed for Ethanol in the past (20+ years ago) but they became designed for it from that point forward. I’ve racked up 300k+ miles on about 7 different cars (3 cars into the 150k+ miles, 1 of them I put all those miles on and all E10/E15) and never had an issue with any fuel system or engine issues that could even be attributed indirectly to ethanols inclusion.
Two of my three cars are over that 20-year-old mark, though, and they’re fine! Great! Heck, the 944 is even fairly economical since it’s a lightweight, fuel-injected four-banger. I just know better than to gunk the oldest one in particular up with too much ethanol because I want it to keep running. I’ve had to clean that garbage out of the carb already, and it sucks.
Higher ethanol percentages do get worse fuel economy than fuel with less or no ethanol in it, either way, so it’s not something I particularly look forward to in a modern car, either. Components on new cars may be better able to tolerate corn now, but cars were still tuned to work best with non-ethanol fuel as that’s what’s used in federal tests for mileage ratings. (There was a push to change that testing standard from E0 to E10 recently as E10 is so ubiquitous now, but I’m not sure if it went through. The page I last found on it was that it mentioned it was open to comment in 2020: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/vehicle-test-procedure-adjustments-tier-3-certification)
Ethanol is OK but not great at low doses as an anti-pollution additive.
As a primary energy source, it’s awful when derived from corn because it takes so much energy input to produce along the way from seed to tank. Last time I checked it still used more energy to produce than it provides as a fuel.
It’s a political giveaway that needs to end soon, especially now that food prices are sharply rising.
“Last time I checked it still used more energy to produce than it provides as a fuel.”
That must have been a looong time ago. Corn ethanol became energy positive in the 1990s and today depending on who you ask and which facility you are talking about yields somewhere between 2.3x and 4x the energy used to produce it:
https://d35t1syewk4d42.cloudfront.net/file/2214/Ethanol%20Energy%20Balance%20Update%20April%202022.pdf
Thanks for this. I was about to embarrass myself with a similar comment.
You’re not alone. Many critics keep making the same energy negative claim not realizing or caring their data is based on decades old data.
This is very much an error of mine, but corn ethanol is still an awful fuel. I mixed up energy output and actual pollution reduction.
The real problem is that corn ethanol produces more greenhouse gasses to produce and use than simply burning fossil fuels. For reducing carbon emissions, it’s a net negative.
“the carbon intensity of corn ethanol produced under the RFS is no less than gasoline and likely at least 24% higher”
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2101084119
I should have refreshed my memory about what is so awful about it before posting. But there it is.
I am a rural mail carrier that drives a 95 XJ Jeep about 150 miles a day, 6 days a week in kansas. Both my jeep and I hate E10, it makes my poor old cherokee start hard, run rough, and get slightly worse fuel mileage. Only 2 stations in a 20 mile radius sell straight fuel and its usually 1 to 1.25 a gallon more expensive. The slight jump in mileage doesn’t justify the added expense of the better fuel so I’m stuck.
Does everyone realize there are NO motorcycles rated to take anything over E10? That is a big market that if E15 becomes the new norm, will be SOL.
I’m pretty sure their answer to that will be a blanket “anything rated for E10 is now also rated for E15” statement. I think there’s something to that effect on our E15 gas pumps already.
Along the same lines of dex 6 fluid will work for dex 3 transmissions. Ask us aw4 guys how well that works.
I’d love an energy analysis of the whole methane -> ammonia -> corn -> ethanol process.
But then, if corn ethanol were about saving energy and averting CO2 emissions, we’d be putting money into things like thermal depolymerization or generating methanol and butanol from cellulosic waste like corn stover.
Iowa is no longer a swing state. Not even close. I grew up there, and have been feeding my 67 Mustang “gasohol” since the late 70’s. Zero fuel system issues in over 4 decades.
Why you would use stuff that humans could it to make fuel with is simply beyond me.
The majority of inputs into industrial ethanol production are not really a consumable source of energy for humans, unless you are looking to eat platefuls of dent corn and sugar cane. The farm land and their climate zones used to produce corn and soybeans likely won’t yield nearly as well if you just try and plant something else there instead. Look at how much water it takes to grow almonds in California and that’ll show you how it’s as important to focus on what can sustainably as possible be grown for the best resource management possible. The economic value of farmland is only as good as the bounty one can produce from it and sell from it.
Dent corn IS a consumable source of energy when it is fed to animals that themselves make or become food for us. Fermentation only improves the corn as animal feed. As for sugar cane that is absolutely a consumable source of energy for humans, or at least the juice is. Sugarcane is also used as animal feed both fresh and silage.
https://magniva.lallemandanimalnutrition.com/en/global/sugarcane-silage/
(as a Californian I abhor the almond industry and its copious water usage. I do like almonds though)
Oh, goody! Gas hikes courtesy of farm lobbies/Republican state governors? Maybe I should get “I did that!” stickers with Kristi Noam or Kim Reynolds on ’em made up. 😉 I kid…
E10 is dumb, but it’s not dumb enough that I feel particularly motivated about it. Making biofuel on prime farmland from high-input food crops is basically the worst, stupidest possible way to do it. If we were making E10 using agricultural waste, or from low-input crops grown on marginal land, I’d feel differently about it.
As others have pointed out, the only reason we do it this way (or at all) is that Iowa has way more political clout than it rightly should given the number of people who live there. Maybe the Democrats’ anticipated shuffling of their primary calendar due to Iowa’s colossal fuckup in the 2020 primary will blunt the state’s influence a bit. There’s no good reason why Iowa should go first, and given how badly they screwed up last time, they definitely don’t deserve to.
Doesn’t Iowa have a state law that automatically resets their election date based on other states, so that they’re always first no matter what changes anyone else makes?
We need a state to make a similar law making them always right before Iowa. Then we just sit back and enjoy the show.
Yeah, it would just create an endless feedback loop. Personally, I’d love it if states would get together and work out common, regional primary dates so candidates can campaign in one region of the country at a time and move to the next, but that’s never going to happen. Iowa and New Hampshire bring the main reasons why not
I was about to say…with Iowa moving further back in the primary calendar, maybe it’s finally time to stop pandering to their wants over what’s best for the country as a whole.
This article lead me down a fun “why is gas in California more expensive” rabbit hole. There is a pretty good primer about it on the third to fourth page of this 2020 document released by California. California has a very high standard for reducing gasoline volatility (based on Reid Vapor
Pressure) to reduce evaporative emissions causing smog. This prevents them from using cheap components like butane for good parts of the year and then needs to make up for that with more expensive additives. In addition they have multiple regions requiring different mixes based on north south geography with winter fuel switching for summer blend in April for southern San Diego but May or June for some northern and costal areas respectively.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/2020-09_Petroleum_Watch_ADA.pdf
“Alternatively, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine this summer just asked for the E15 waiver to be permanent. That seems like the more obvious solution.”
Hint 1 that this is seriously bad shit and as usual Ohio Nazis are quietly getting shit done without anybody noticing. Hint: Ohio produces 278 million bushels of soybeans and 644 million bushels of corn per year.
“Whether this is for environmental or political reasons—Iowa is an important swing and primary state and produces a lot of corn, which is used to make ethanol—is a debate I’m not going to engage with, either. There are only so many hours in the day and I’m very busy lately.”
Same, so here’s the TL,DR:
Fuck Iowa. Fuck corn based ethanol. Fuck the assholes supporting E10, fuck the assholes supporting E15 even more. E10 and E15 reduce fuel economy, dump millions to billions of tons of avoidable emissions just making corn into this shit, prolonged use absolutely does inflict excess wear on the fuel system, and benefit nobody but a bunch of lobbyists and the megacorporations that own all the farms. (Small farmers benefit exactly zero from this; it’s all giant megacorps that own millions upon millions of acres of corn.)
This shit is bad and should be banned outright.
“BYD started out as a battery company that now also makes and sells cars. It has secured access to heaps of raw materials required to make EVs and their batteries. It has a firm grip on the supply chain and has moved toward a more vertically integrated model while nailing the technology.”
Which is all utterly moot because BYD enjoys an advantage nobody else can or will: the financial, extrajudicial, and political support of the Chinese dictatorship. They could be churning out 1930’s era lead-acid batteries and they’d still be a ‘fast mover’ because of that.
Winnie the Pooh recognizes the strategic and financial importance of battery companies and has been playing the long game for a very long time. Outside investors are utterly meaningless to faux companies like this.
If you want any further proof that rationality doesn’t matter in the least? They’ve spent hundreds of millions of dollars to enter the global rail market… with monorails. Mmhmm.
“Elon Musk Might Not Be The Richest Man In The World Ever Again”
I speak for everyone when we’d much rather this headline read: “Elon Musk Might Not Be In The World Ever Again.”
Fuck that Nazi-loving racist pedophile piece of shit and his Nazi supporters.
“Ethanol fuel. Lemme have it. What do you think?”
See above. Corn and soybean based ethanols must be banned along with all of their cheerleaders, especially the ones who committed scientific fraud to falsely claim there is any benefit. There is none. It damages the environment, it damages cars, and only lines the pockets of robber barons and politicians.
E15 is damaging to many of the older vehicles on the road, especially so on really old classic cars. I do not use E10 unless I absolutely have no choice currently. I do see a benefit of E85 and cars design to run on that solely.
Ethanol does burn cleaner, but also gets fewer miles per gallon unless the engine is optimized for it.
Flex is not adequate IMHO, the compression ratio is not enough in most cases and the drop in fuel economy on E85 backs this up.
And of course I have said from the start make the Ethanol from waste, not food. South America uses sugar cane stocks, we could quite easily use Grass clippings, Hemp or really any other biomass that either grows much faster but also not a food source or is usually waste byproduct.
In 2019 I had to have the fuel pump on my old Ducati replaced because the E10 or E15 or whatever we have around here had fucked it up. Ethanol is a massive problem on older equipment.
This is a good opportunity to share this: https://www.pure-gas.org/
Thank you for posting this!
“Škoda” sounds like a medical term for junk. As in “my Škoda is red, swollen, and tender to the touch.”
The etymology of “Škoda” is proto-Slavic, and it means ‘damage, harm, shame, or loss’ variously.
God knows why you’d name a car that.
It was the last name of a founder of the OG business in the 1800s.
I have wanted to track my fuel economy and comparing it to its ethanol content, but it has been a challenge for several reasons: 1) Ethanol content is not always clearly displayed. 2) There are many other uncontrolled variables that could affect the numbers. 3) I am very lazy and have never gotten around to it.
My theory is the following: Gas cut with ethanol is less expensive than the alternative, but the savings is more than outweighed by using more of it (i.e., getting worse fuel economy). But since most drivers don’t pay close attention to their fuel economy (see above), they’re just happy to see gas that’s 10¢ cheaper.
It’s like a bar that waters down their drinks. Sure, you can get a cheap G&T, but you have to drink two of them to get the same buzz as the place down the block with the stronger more expensive drinks. I’m a cheap date who doesn’t want to get sloppy drunk, and I drive very little compared to most drivers, so in general I’m not too upset about watered down drinks or E10, but I expect stronger opinions to be held by alcoholics and long-haul drivers respectively.
My ex-wife had an E85 capable grand cherokee. Because the difference in efficiency and price going from regular gas to E85 is so drastic it made it a little easier to estimate the advantages. At least at the time (2008-2015ish) it was pretty much a wash in terms $/mile.
It’s about 30% less energy per gallon, so if the price is 30% lower or more, E85 is worth it.
Even here in the Midwest, that’s a pretty uncommon occurrence. It did happen here for a few weeks this fall-winter when E85 prices fell much faster than regular gas and I was able to fill my truck at $1.69-$1.89/gal vs $2.69-$2.99 for regular 87. But recently, E85 is right back up to $2.50 and there’s no advantage anymore.
That 30% is the number I remember and tracked fairly well with the mpg’s change we saw when switching. Since we didn’t have a source nearby, it’s only rarely we had the oppertunity, but there was a station I would pass once a month or so, and sometimes it looked like a good deal sometimes not, but mostly just a wash (keeping in mind my mental calculator is limited to 2 significant digits).
“1) Ethanol content is not always clearly displayed.”
It’s even worse than that – at least around here when they do put the ethanol content on the pump, it’s always “up to X% ethanol”, which in theory means it could have 0% ethanol. Unlikely, sure, but for the purposes of any kind of scientific endeavor it makes those ratings almost useless.
“If I had my druthers, I’d spend more time talking about Tesla and more time talking about BYD.”
“Elon Musk famously lost $200 billion but, like, if you’ve got more than $340,500 does it really matter?”
I think these are both typos?
I spent a long time rereading both of those sentences, partially because my pre-coffee brain read “BYD” as “BVDs” in the first one.
The numbers thrown around in the second one had me wondering if Elon had lost 99.9998% of his fortune or only 0.0059% of it. I’m pretty sure both are incorrect.
“Ethanol supporters insist the oil industry is exaggerating the potential disruption. “These are sophisticated companies that have been operating these systems for decades” or more, said Renewable Fuels Association head Geoff Cooper. “They know how to run multiple products through these systems and how to make changes quickly.””
I love these garbage explanations that amount to “Really? I’m sure it’s not THAT hard.” Guys, its post pandemic, everyone is just barely getting back on their feet after finding out that they kind of suck at sudden shock changes in demand.
Ethanol fuel is fucking stupid. That’s my take on this.
We are overfarming corn instead of other food crops, and we aren’t even using it for food. We’re using it so that farmers can get govt subsidies for fuels that actively damage the best cars around.
Fuck ethanol, all my homies hate ethanol fuels
‘We are overfarming corn instead of other food crops, and we aren’t even using it for food.’
We are. Fermentation converts some of the sugars and starches to ethanol but what’s left – the brewers grains – make excellent animal feed. The farmer I spoke to about it claimed it was healthier for his animals that the original corn. This was in Vermont so I doubt he was a shill for big corn.
If it helps you can look at corn ethanol as a byproduct of animal feed manufacture.
The fermentation of the grain in the ethanol production process makes the byproduct a high-protein, high-fat and high-fiber product that cattle like. It is a clever way to use a previously considered waste byproduct.
This is a major point that is often lost in these discussions. Most corn goes into animal feed anyway, so the question isn’t “should we grow corn for fuel” but rather “should we squeeze the fuel out of this corn before using it to make hamburgers”
Regarding the ethanol waivers, I’ve learned everything is “permanent” until the next presidential administration.
Regarding ethanol in general, well, I think that the corn grown for that purpose would be better used for (in this order) food for human beings, food for livestock to lower meat production costs, or DON’T use the crop land for corn and put in another cash crop. I haven’t done the math, but I have a strong suspicion that ethanol is carbon negative and those resources would be better allocated in ANY other way than a limp-wristed hand job for the corn industry.
A little ethanol (5 to 10 percent) has beneficial effects on combustion chamber physics, so it is much better than zinc and lead additives which were used before in gasoline fuels. The concommitant downside is that evaporative ethanol emissions from your gas tank are probably significant contributors to global warming, and they get worse as the blend percentage goes higher. Corn ethanol was easy to move to production when we started it, but it is a poor choice long term. Cellulosic is better than corn as a feedstock, and algae farming in sea water is the best for the environment, if we are looking for more sustainable ethanol or engineered alternative hydrocarbon fuels.
Ah yes, the logic of government:
“Something must be done.
This is something.
Therefore, we will do it.”
Cellulosic ethanol looks like one of those free lunch things – you take a waste product and get energy from it. However, cellulose ethanol requires GMO organisms to break down the fibers, which makes for a tough sell. The EU, for example, has a ban on such organisms.
~10 years ago, I worked on a cellulosic ethanol project – we had a pilot plant that worked and money from a large O&G company (along with a bunch of government grants) to design then build a production facility. The project final investment approvals kept getting delayed and delayed and we (the project team) eventually figured out that this company wanted to say that they were building a cellulose ethanol facility for marketing/greenwashing purposes but were never actually going to build it, since they could get a higher return on investment doing other things (like sugar cane ethanol or conventional oil). Once the government subsidies ran out, the project ended.
“However, cellulose ethanol requires GMO organisms to break down the fibers, which makes for a tough sell. The EU, for example, has a ban on such organisms.”
Why people have such a hard time accepting GMOs baffles me.
Yeah, the fuel for tractors and combines, fertilizer production and transport certainly aren’t low carbon.
CO2 is a minor concern in the greenhouse gas production of agriculture, the primary gasses of concern are methane and nitrous oxide. When fields are fertilized with nitrogen-rich fertilizers, some of that nitrogen offgasses as oxides of nitrogen, which have a global warming potential of ~273 for a 100 year time horizon.
This is why Slipknot wears masks: because they must be ashamed to be from Iowa.
While I wish every gas-engine car was E85 flex-fuel capable, the Iowa corn shit is stupid, and I hate the ethanol mandate.
Brazil does a good job with their sugar-based ethanol. Maybe Florida and other sugar states can make their own ethanol. Supposedly, sugar gives a higher yield than corn does.
And of course, no ethanol article is complete without the obligatory Simpson gasohol classic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsFzeX-k1_E
My original post is “awaiting moderation” so I’ll just try to be pithy and repost my zinger:
Corn derived ethanol should be in charred oak barrels, not cars.
This is some good pithy right here. It has significant and undeniable zing.
Hear, hear!
Sounds like I’ll be double dosing the mower gas on Sta-Bil if E15 becomes the norm in the corn belt.
I just cashed a check from selling corn and still think that’s a stupid policy decision, much like mandating E10 in the first place. Corn derived ethanol should be in charred oak barrels, not cars.
Finally, somebody else who has seen the light of Balcones.
Gods I wish I could get Baby Blue locally.
https://balconesdistilling.com/spirit/baby-blue/
Balcones FTW! Finally, my college town is known for something other than cults and shiplap.
Thanks for reminding me there’s a St. Arnold’s-casked bottle over with the Porschelump. I need to check up on both of those.
“Gods I wish I could get Baby Blue locally.”
I dunno where you are located but take a look around. Total Wine – at least the one by me -has it. If it’s that good I may pick up a bottle myself.
BevMo does not have it but they have True Blue which I guess is a step up. Wine.com also has Baby Blue, Amazon sells it too (for me they list the local vendor). If they don’t already carry it you can suggest to your local store they start to do so.
Even if you can’t buy it locally you may be able to have it shipped to your door which if the shipping is free is even better than having it local.
E85 makes your engine more explody. (Which is good.) No comment on whether ethanol is actually good for the planet.
Its pretty terrible for old cars, tends to turn to jelly and clog up carburetors and also eat through fuel lines like acid. Not great for small engines and power equipment, either
Having had to rebuild the 411’s carb, I have learned:
1. I hate carbs (I knew this before, but this reiterated it)
2. I REALLY hate ethanol.
Even when the fuel budget spiked way, way above what I expected on the Lemons Rally last year, I was still down to pay a little extra for corn-free fuel whenever I saw it. That gummy crud was still lodged in my mind about as tenaciously as it was in my carb’s parts, and *no ma’am.*
No, E85 is good because it is *less* explody than regular petrol. With E85 you can run higher compression, (or more boost), without it pre-detonating and causing knock.
It’s roughly the equivalent of 105 octane petrol.
That is the issue with flex fuel cars. they are never fully optimized for E85, so they actually perform worse for it, use more fuel per mile.
Notice I said engines more explody not fuel. Forced induction also doesn’t add power. It only makes it so you can burn fuel more efficiently. Nitrous doesn’t add power either. Just helps the air burn better. OK enough pedantry. Lol
Ethanol from corn only exists in this country because Iowa goes first in the presidential primaries and because rural corn growing states punch above their weight in the Senate.
The mandates were a bad idea when they started after 9/11, but were at least understandable when supply disruption from the Middle East was thought to be a serious risk. Now, they are non-sensical in a world where the US exports crude oil as the world’s largest producer. Unfortunately due to the structure of the government laid out above, and the deification of “the hard-working farmer” growing all that corn (note, most likely actually a multi-national corporation), the mandates will never go away. It’s a damn shame.
I would also add that we didn’t necessarily have the full picture of pros and cons at the time, but 20+ years of experience has proven that it was clearly a bad idea. Honestly, it’s one of the few issues that a lot of right wing conservatives and left wing environmentalists often seem to agree on, though for different reasons.
Pissed me off to find that I could buy Ethanol Free gas in Iowa but not back home.
E0 is literally illegal to sell in my county, without exception, even for offroad use or small engines. It’s maddening.
Just about any decently populated area of the country is a non-attainment area for air quality standards, and as part of the “implementation plan” to address that, usually E10 is mandated.
So maybe in Des Moines you can’t buy ethanol free gas.
I often fill up with E-15 88 octane fuel at Thornton’s. It’s cheaper than 87. But if you add more ethanol, you’re lowering the octane, so I believe that they are starting with 89 when they mix up a batch of 88.
I have experienced no difference in fuel economy or engine power when using E-15 88 instead of E-10 87.
Funny story, back in the 70’s my cheap-ass old man used to mix up his own gasohol. He’s buy wood alcohol from this weird gas station and then mix it at about a 60/40 gas/alcohol ratio. No wonder his slant-six Dart threw a rod at 70k.
You have it backwards, ethanol raises the octane rating (E85 is well over 100 octane), but lowers the energy content.