An unintended consequence of my almost anal attentiveness to tracking my gas mileage has lead me to discover that ethanol costs me money in the form of reduced gas mileage. When I have the opportunity to use 100% petrol (an increasingly rare event), I see an increase of approximately 10% in fuel economy. Last may when vacationing in Yellowstone Park was my last opportunity to fill-up with pure petrol. Even driving around the park, versus the highway driving at a constant 75 from Boise to Idaho Falls, I got better gas mileage from straight petrol than from the ethanol blend I filled up on in Boise. Coming back from Yellowstone I got over 10% better gas mileage on pure petrol driving the exact same route in reverse that I drove using an ethanol blend going there. People who dispute that ethanol blends significantly hurt gas mileage, fall under the category of “who do you believe, me or your lieing eyes?”. I will never accept that an engine designed to run on petrol will operate as efficiently on an ethanol blend. To make efficient use of ethanol, you need to operate at much higher pressures than are used for petrol engines.

Wde are lucky to have such a wealthy government.

A)People actually have to buy food. It’s not a want, it’s a need.
B)The domestics’ share last month was 47-48%.

Because a) people actually want to buy food, as opposed to domestic automobiles and b) the marketing of farm subsidies is ironclad (”Don’t hurt the American Farmer!”), while the auto bailout’s marketing has been terrible.

Unlike the automotive bailout, I don’t hear people complain at the grocery store that they’ve already paid for the food.

A lot of energy falls on all those corn fields.
Do the calcs.

The 10% increase in motor fuel is absolute, the number of interest would be net increase. Of course, at this point there appears to be no objective sources out there – you’re either highly in favor of ethanol (nice weather this winter in the Midwest?) or completely against, with both groups arguing that they are the objective source.

Forget trying to figure out who is right. Look at it this way: even if the most optimistic estimate is right, ethanol nets about 30% of the energy required to produce it. As in: you put 1 gal in and you get 1.3 gal (equivalent) out. So, under the most optimistic estimate, the net benefit from ethanol is 2.3% (=0.3/1.3 x 10). Which means @4.00/gal (those were they days) ethanol potentially saves 9.2 c/gal.

Now, let’s play with some (more) numbers: in 2007 there were about 139.3 million filers (you know who you are). The total tax receipts were a staggering $2.4 trillion, out of which ethanol sucked fully 0.125%! The price of freedom? If only…

(Of course, the budgeted spending was slightly higher, at $2.8 trillion. And if you think your elected officitutes restricted themselves to spend only that much… well, you just don’t understand the urgency of the needs out there…)

The average filer therefore payed $17,230 in all forms of federal taxes, out of which $21.46 went directly to ethanol. At 9.2 c/gal, you need to purchase 233 gal to break even.

Let me repeat: that’s the optimistic estimate. I’ll leave the realistic estimate for homework, provided you have some alcohol and NO sharp objects on hand…

If the goal is to squeeze efficiency from fuel, it must be done within the vehicle using the fuel, not by adding a flammable version of Hamburger Helper (known to be one-third less efficient) and then asking the consumer to pay for the privilege of receiving it.

That the study originated in a state known for its corn crop doesn’t lend any credibility either.