Date:         Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:03:25 -0400
Reply-To:     Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Subject:      Re: OT E85 in our future?
In-Reply-To:  <vanagon%2007061121270266@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

This is a classic second look at ethanol, very idealistic, but not very
practical. Especially for folks like me that don't have any disposable
income.  So predictable how we've landed on either side of this argument..
the vendor that sells e85 ready engine conversions, and one that doesn't. So
there's the disclaimer, but here's my 2 cents:

It is true that ethanol isn't a long term viable solution in its current
state.  Cellulosic and other rendering methods are required for it to be a
truly net benefit.

Sure there may also be a subsidy to the oil companies, and it may not be
right. However, it isn't right now, and a new BS subsidy isn't going to make
it "more wrong" than things already are. If I can save money from my own
wallet by using ethanol, I will. It came from my tax money so you say, so
some savings is mine too. I can either take it now, while it's possible, or
stay tight to gasoline, say the whole thing is wrong and let someone else
take the money and run.  If I could pay $1.99 a gallon for it here in MA,
you can bet I'd do it. Do you believe that because the oil companies don't
get money for an ethanol subsidy that everything will get better and they'll
stop the type of tactics that they've employed throughout their histories to
move vast amounts of wealth? No, it won't stop... however, if in the course
of e85 propagation, even if it just raises awareness.. and nobody has a
notion of understanding of the problems you raise, I argue that it is STILL
a step in the right direction. People have to be prodded and pulled into
change, and while the change may be slow and even painful.. and perhaps
undertaken for some of the wrong reasons, if the direction is good, then the
outcome will be better than not having the option in the first place.

  Besides, I can run e85 right now without lifting a finger... if it cost me
more money to do it, I certainly wouldn't but I already can. I can see why
it serves little utility if you have to invest additional money to see a
benefit, and I would definitely agree that it wouldn't be worth it. But when
it comes right down to it, I can save money doing it, and redistribute
slightly less of what I make. As far as my tax money going into it, that's
an even better reason to take some back, as my tax money(and yours) is going
to it anyhow.  We'll be running e85 next year whenever possible, it would
have saved us over $300 in fuel costs alone this last trip to SDM07 and it
was only half the way. Not to mention, we'd get a nice bump in our hill
climbing ability.  It is easy to argue that there is a great conspiracy and
that by burning e85 you are supporting some evil empire... but you already
are, keep some of your money for your own sake, and if you have a strong
enough ethical dilemma, that money would be much better suited raising
awareness of the real long term solutions that can be achieved with a
variety of methods, than if you just paid it to the oil companies. I'm not
even sure if everything you said is true, especially regarding worse
pollution overall... but even if I take it all to be, I'd still rather have
the option than not. And it's coming to a pump near you... if you have the
ability to run it, it's absolutely worth considering.  Right now there is an
arbitrage opportunity for drivers, whether they want to take advantage based
on their beliefs vs the cash in their wallets, they can decide. Some have
the ability to use it now, and help our own bottom lines... so unless you
can offer an immediate alternative and lobby for the subsidies to end(not a
bad idea, but good luck) it makes no sense to argue the virtues of gasoline
over ethanol. There are few in either... but ethanol is still the better
fuel from an engine/thermodynamic standpoint and better for my wallet. If
development weren't underway on other rendering methods to make it a viable
solution, and if I had a checkbox option to control the portion of money on
my taxes that go to what energy initiatives, then you'd be right and I'd
agree with you.. but they are, and I can't.

Fire when ready; flamesuit on,


Jim Akiba




-----Original Message-----
From: John Reddick [mailto:SVYOLO@YAHOO.COM]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:27 PM
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject: Re: OT E85 in our future?

In the US, the way ethanol is synthesized is very energy negative.
More fossil fuels are burned making it than are released by using it.  Why
is it cheaper?  There is a 50 cent per gallon subsidy by the government -
from your tax dollars.
    Sounds great, we subsidize farmers .50.  Sorry, that is not the case.
We subsidize the companies that use it in their gasoline mix.  Who is
that, you ask?  Exxon, BP, etc.  Yeah, that is right.  The .50 cent
subsidy is going to the oil companies.
    Some countries have invested heavily to make ethanol energy positive -
Brazil being the best example, but it took them a couple of decades of
government subsidies to do so.
    If you are currently using E85 in the US you are increasing the damage
to the environment, never mind that your van is putting out less emissions.
    Someday ethanol will be a clean, cost effective, efficient fuel in the
US.  That day is not today, or any day in the near future.
    I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but these are actually the facts
as they exist today. Want to reduce your emissions' effect on the
environment: biodiesel/veggie oil is probably the best bet, and gasoline,
I hate to admit it, is a very close second.

    John