E85 Boondoggle of the Day: E20, E30

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

You gotta give those crazy corn-into-fuel kids credit: they don’t give up. Whereas you and I might think, well, if we can’t make a go of this thing with 50 cents a gallon blender’s credit and a federal mandate requiring someone somewhere (especially government-paid someones) to buy billions upon billions of gallons of the stuff, and the legislature of every state that even thinks about farming in our pocket, and the majority of the U.S. Congress and the President of the United States in our corner, then fuck it. Time to move on and get a real job. But no. Ethanol makers who’ve hit the so-called blending wall appear out ot prove themselves wrong (“no one ever died defending a corn field”). First, they’re opening stations with a choice of E10, E20, E30 or E85. it’s the first step on the way to legislating motorists to use E20 or above, obviously. Which will make them no friends amongst motorists whose cars are not so happy on anything ethanol-related. in fact, KOB4 reports that the Albuquerque Police Department’s new, E85-fueled Chevy Tahoes and Crown Victorias are experiencing fuel pump failures. Back to "regular" unleaded for now. Meanwhile and in any case, the ethanol boondoggle continues. [hat tip to HarveyBirdman]

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments
Join the conversation
4 of 26 comments
  • Usta Bee Usta Bee on Jan 27, 2009

    "Robert Farago: (”no one ever died defending a corn field”)." They did at Antietam in the Civil War.

  • Benders Benders on Jan 27, 2009
    menno: You keep hyping butanol but it comes from....fossil fuels and corn. It's not better than anything other alternative fuel. And I hardly think your gas gauge is accurate enough to be drawing conclusions from.
  • Anonymous Anonymous on Jan 27, 2009
    How much ethanol may this “real gasoline” contain in normal pump blends? I would say anything greater than 0.5% would make it just what you called it, a "blend." Less than that, I would have no problem calling it an additive. I take it that you feel you have the intellectual high ground though. Maybe your a corn farmer, I don't know. But, I don't think that anybody I have seen posting on this board has any trouble identifying the difference between "real gasoline" and an ethanol blend. Take it however you want it, but their is no disputing the fact that engines designed to run on gasoline operate much more efficiently running on pure gasoline than they do running on an ethanol blend of any percentage, 5% through 100%. IF it were truly economically feasible to produce ethanol for fuel, then the use of high compression engines designed to take advantage of the stability of ethanol would be a viable replacement for gasoline engines; however, the use of ethanol in gasoline engines is simply foolish and wasteful.
  • Magoo Magoo on Jan 28, 2009

    Lumbergh21 : "I would say anything greater than 0.5% would make it just what you called it, a “blend.” Less than that, I would have no problem calling it an additive. I take it that you feel you have the intellectual high ground though. Maybe your a corn farmer, I don’t know. But, I don’t think that anybody I have seen posting on this board has any trouble identifying the difference between “real gasoline” and an ethanol blend. Take it however you want it, but their is no disputing the fact that engines designed to run on gasoline operate much more efficiently running on pure gasoline than they do running on an ethanol blend of any percentage, 5% through 100%. IF it were truly economically feasible to produce ethanol for fuel, then the use of high compression engines designed to take advantage of the stability of ethanol would be a viable replacement for gasoline engines; however, the use of ethanol in gasoline engines is simply foolish and wasteful." I'm just asking a simple question. This "real gasoline" you speak of: How much ethanol do you suppose it contains?

Next