CAFE only counts the Gasoline not the ethanol.

[Brasileno]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
You are the voice of reason in this thread.
You aren't talking hypothesis based upon known differences in energy content nor are you trying to pursue some theoretical gain in performance potential.
You're simply using the known impact of higher ethanol content fuel in your vehicle as you use it to determine what prices of the various blends available to you yield the lowest fuel cost per mile of operation.
Seems sensible to me.


When I owned a 2000 Ford Ranger with the 3.0, I went from 20MPG to about 16. I tried 3-4 tank fulls before giving up on E85.


Excellently put, but isn't Normal gas E10?

 

[SHOZ]

E10 has been the standard around me in all grades for the last 25 years or more. First showed up in the late 70's.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette

If the govmt wasn't around to push technology, we wouldnt have half of what we do. The technology is there.


Government doesn't 'push' anything. They steal, restrict, meddle, and steal some more. Most of the 'holy cow' advancements of the last 100 years were created by the little guys in their garages, and the markets only support what is actually needed at the time. If enough people want something, government cannot stop its proliferation. On the flipside, if people don't want something, the only way the government can sell it is by eliminating its competition. Politics, politicians, and rich fools with bad tempers have kept more technology from the people than you could ever imagine.

Nikola Tesla is a perfect example of technology being supressed. Many of his ideas are now over 120 years old (alternating current, wireless technologies, radio, lighting up the 1893 Columbian Exposition, etc) and we still do not have some of them available even though the concepts were proven in action during the 1880s-early 1940s. But, he was up against a plagiarist with a bad temper (Edison) who also happened to be backed by big money. Guess which guy our kids get to read about in school? Not the truly intelligent one with novel ideas.

Oh, back on topic. CAFE is bunk, for the same reason most other regulations are. Politicians get paid huge money to create loopholes that only their rich supporters benefit from, while everyday people get subjected to unwarranted regulations that don't actually deliver on the promise they sold you on. "Affordable" Care Act, anyone?

It's stupid to turn food into fuel when there are our brothers and sisters starving in this country.

 

[TiredTrucker]

Originally Posted By: SubieRubyRoo

It's stupid to turn food into fuel when there are our brothers and sisters starving in this country.


That many are "starving" in America is mostly myth propagated by those that have a vested interest in increasing government agency budgets. Actually, studies have shown that children in poorer households actually consume higher percentages of meat and have higher overall protein intake than their more well off counterparts. And the average "poor" child will grow up 1" taller and 20 lb heavier than the average height and weight of the GI's who stormed Normandy Beach in WWII.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/07/What-is-Poverty

Of the entire U.S. corn crop, less than 20% of it is actually needed or used for human consumption, both here and outside the U.S. I Don't see a lack of corn flakes on the store shelves, and I have noticed that Jiffy Corn Muffin mix is one of the most available and cost effective purchases a consumer can make. A very cost effective and readily available product for even the poorest of Americans. And that is just a couple of items from the vast amount of corn products available. It is still the most cost effective thing on a tight family budget.

If making "fuel from food" was such an issue, then corn prices would reflect that, both the grain market and the grocery store prices in relation to other foods. Grain prices, while higher in price than 1995, based on what they should be due to inflation, corn prices are far lower in cost than they were in 1995. There is essentially a glut in the corn market.

And even the corn that does get targeted for fuel production, of every bushel of corn that goes into the ethanol plants, 18 lb of feed products come out the other end. And many other products come from that corn processing. Plastics, spark plug insulators, and the list goes on and on.

But the myths still get thrown around as fact that making fuel from grains is causing people to starve. Goebbels had it right..... tell a lie long enough and dramatic enough, and it becomes fact.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

You missed my point, TT.

But you proved my point in a way as well- government subsidies create false bubbles in an economy which are not supported by the real factors of supply and demand- if ethanol as an valid, worthwhile fuel for every car on the road was really true, there would not be subsidies, and there would not be a corn glut either. Farmers would be planting what everyday people wanted to eat instead of chasing subsidy money.

And as far as propaganda and myths, your "data" perpetuates both- your quote of '1" taller and 20lb heavier' - did they bother to do a control chart and/or student's T-test to make sure there really was a statistical difference between the time periods in question? Or did they cherry-pick data to simply try to make a noise factor appear to be a major indicator simply to say, "poor people really don't have it all that bad"?

I still maintain that the majority of government 'mandates' like CAFE, FDA, etc, would never stand on their own based on unmanipulated market movement. The only reason they are forced into legislation is that somewhere down the line, politicians are getting kickbacks from the formerly-unsustainable industry which has now received a golden ticket from their elected cronies.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: SubieRubyRoo
You missed my point, TT.

But you proved my point in a way as well- government subsidies create false bubbles in an economy which are not supported by the real factors of supply and demand- if ethanol as an valid, worthwhile fuel for every car on the road was really true, there would not be subsidies, and there would not be a corn glut either. Farmers would be planting what everyday people wanted to eat instead of chasing subsidy money.

And as far as propaganda and myths, your "data" perpetuates both- your quote of '1" taller and 20lb heavier' - did they bother to do a control chart and/or student's T-test to make sure there really was a statistical difference between the time periods in question? Or did they cherry-pick data to simply try to make a noise factor appear to be a major indicator simply to say, "poor people really don't have it all that bad"?

I still maintain that the majority of government 'mandates' like CAFE, FDA, etc, would never stand on their own based on unmanipulated market movement. The only reason they are forced into legislation is that somewhere down the line, politicians are getting kickbacks from the formerly-unsustainable industry which has now received a golden ticket from their elected cronies.
Politicians getting kickbacks.....surely you jest.

 

[TiredTrucker]

Subie, Farmers planting what people really want to eat. Ok..... what do they want that they are not already getting from farmers? Is there a shortage of lettuce? How about tomatoes? I know, there is a shortage of sunflower seeds in the munchie isle, right? God forbid that we run out of peanuts or pistachios. And we all know that if you want rice with your Chicken Chow Mein, that will be a $5 premium up charge on your buffet bill at the local Chinese buffet because of the shortage of rice, right?. So farmers should plant less corn then, when it is in the top 3 crops that are in demand worldwide. Before the ethanol thing ever came on the landscape, corn was in the top 3 of market crops. Still is. Nothing has changed except a new use for portions of the corn. I reiterate... portions of the corn. A kernel of corn that goes to ethanol is not wasted to anything else. Food products still come from that same kernel of corn along with spark plug insulators, plastics, etc. Same with soybeans. Again, one of the top crops in demand world wide, but soybean meal is the main food product and the oil must be removed to make that. Now there is an additional market for the oil, biodiesel.

And long before the gooberment started messing with the agriculture of the country, what was in the top 3 crops being raised by farmers? Corn. What did the pilgrims get shown how to raise for food by the local indians in Massachusetts? Corn. What was one of the major products raised by the Aztecs? Corn. And I don't recall that the Aztecs used ethanol for their automobiles. Last I checked, autos weren't around then.

And folks nowadays seem to want more of the fast food types of eats. Burgers, fries, chicken tenders, etc. While the fries come from potatoes, and I don't see a shortage of those either, it takes corn for the rest. And much of the supplements that are fed livestock and poultry come from the very same kernels of corn that go into the ethanol plants. I haul a lot of a product from the Blair biorefinery complex in Blair, NE called "biolys" which is a high protein feed supplement for livestock and poultry made during the production of ethanol to feed operations throughout the midwest. Some of it to one of the largest egg production operations in the country. Iowa, which is the largest corn producer state, is also the largest egg production state in the country. The corn, the ethanol, the chickens, it all goes hand in hand. Only the misinformed can't seem to grasp this.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
The corn, the ethanol, the chickens, it all goes hand in hand. Only the misinformed can't seem to grasp this.


And again, the fatty acid profile, and omega 6/3 ratios indicate that the meat so produced is nothing like as healthful as meat produced by proper agriculture...

again, mass produced, and "hand in hand" doesn't make it the right way to produce/eat the animals.

Growing corn for subsidised fuel, then justifying it as animal feed with worse health outcomes is disingenuous (on the part of indutry), and the ill informed latch onto it as mantra.

 

[TiredTrucker]

Well if you can find a way to raise poultry by letting them free range and forage on their own, supposedly as nature intended, and meet the market demand in a way that is profitable, then by all means, call the poultry folks and let them in on it. They would be eternally grateful. But one still would have to figure out how to deal with Avian Flu and other fowl related illnesses that can be a detriment to consumer. A much greater risk of bird diseases when raised outside of controlled environment. And the volume of birds that are needed to meet market demand, having chickens running around all over would increase human illness issues also on several levels. Myopia has a way of avoiding reality. It is one thing to apply some traditional methods to a local farmer that is providing for himself and a few neighbors, it is quite another to try to apply these ideas to mass consumer market. Of course, we could all go vegetarian. But that would have to be government food control on a level that many would not want.

And what was the average life span of Americans back when we did things the "old way". Maybe 65-70. Modern food production, and the life span of the average American is much higher. Not that food alone is the reason, but if this modern food production thing was such a detriment, even the medical community could not overcome the deleterious effects of a tainted food supply.

 

[Shannow]

again, you always come back with the "follow the money", then when quizzed, the "right thing" is to "follow the money".

It's not like modern food isn't causing the tiniest bit of issue in modern America is it ?

Do you truck cholesterol and diabetes drugs too ?


The figures of "maybe" 65-70 include a heck of a lot of infant mortality which have skewed the older figures way down.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
And what was the average life span of Americans back when we did things the "old way". Maybe 65-70. Modern food production, and the life span of the average American is much higher. Not that food alone is the reason, but if this modern food production thing was such a detriment, even the medical community could not overcome the deleterious effects of a tainted food supply.


Just for giggles...
Average NOW is 69.1, which fits in the used to be 65-70 range...where did you get the "MUCH HIGHER" ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Chile pips you by a little in life expectancy.

As to cheap food....
https://knoema.com/scemlie/how-big-per-capita-food-expenditures-in-your-country
Chileans spend 40% LESS on food than the cheap food in the US.

While spending 80% LESS on pharmaceuticals
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/americans-spend-much-pharmaceuticals/

 

[Shannow]

Back to MY topic, so TT, does a Tahoe REALLY get 90+MPG when that's calculated on the gasoline component only, not what's in a tank ?

 

[TiredTrucker]

Have no clue and really don't care.

On the food expenditure link per country, it doesn't break down much detail. While the average expenditure for food in Chile is less than U.S. what kind of food is it? Probably not processed, homogenized, pasteurized, manipulated, fast food many folks here buy. And what is the average income in Chile. What percentage of their income goes for food compared to U.S. consumer? On a percentage of income that has to go for food, I would be willing to bet we are still in the lowest category. In fact I'll offer a counter link.. Mother Jones. Hardly a bastion of conservative thought.... we hardly spend the percentage of our income for food compared to the rest of the world.

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/01/america-food-spending-less

Another one that shows the percentage of income spent on food....

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/03/daily-chart-5

Pharmaceuticals is a combination of factors. The testing requirements to bring a product to market and get thru all the government hoops is dramatically higher here than in most places in the world. All kinds of things that go into the development of pharmaceuticals are generally higher here also. And there is the insurance thing that causes pricing manipulation. Can't blame ethanol or corn on that one.

And kind of did a little slight of hand picking and choosing on the life expectancy didn't ya? Using just what you provided in that link, you picked only one column in the WHO listing and ignoring the other columns that showed Female average life expectancy of 81 and male of 79. And that was WHO, the UN also has its own tables that show US average of 76 for males and 81 for females. And the GBD study released in 2012 further down the list shows average life expectancy of USA males at almost 76 and females at 80. Even the CIA got in on the act with their study that showed US average life expectancy the almost mirrors the GBD study, 76 for males and 81 for females. There are three full studies in that link besides the one you picked your numbers from done by different unconnected agencies that have almost the same average life expectancy rates for US males and US females. Just from your link.

A mind can be a terrible thing to waste.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Well if you can find a way to raise poultry by letting them free range and forage on their own, supposedly as nature intended, and meet the market demand in a way that is profitable, then by all means, call the poultry folks and let them in on it. They would be eternally grateful. But one still would have to figure out how to deal with Avian Flu and other fowl related illnesses that can be a detriment to consumer. A much greater risk of bird diseases when raised outside of controlled environment. And the volume of birds that are needed to meet market demand, having chickens running around all over would increase human illness issues also on several levels. Myopia has a way of avoiding reality. It is one thing to apply some traditional methods to a local farmer that is providing for himself and a few neighbors, it is quite another to try to apply these ideas to mass consumer market. Of course, we could all go vegetarian. But that would have to be government food control on a level that many would not want.

And what was the average life span of Americans back when we did things the "old way". Maybe 65-70. Modern food production, and the life span of the average American is much higher. Not that food alone is the reason, but if this modern food production thing was such a detriment, even the medical community could not overcome the deleterious effects of a tainted food supply.
http://www.polyfacefarms.com/

More than one way to farm. This guy is making much more money per acre than a conventional farmer/rancher.

 

[TiredTrucker]

Sure, there are anecdotal stories of niche operations that cater to a certain clientele on a local scale. That happens in every business endeavor. Organics have their own niche as well. But while that is interesting and laudable, especially his approach and motivations, it is not a business setup that would lend itself to world markets. I would like to see that type of setup supply, say, China with enough pork to maintain the current 86 lb per capita annual consumption. Or enable supplying the Chinese with the 1.79 billion bushels of soybeans we did for 2015. That is 13 bushels of soybeans for every acre of soybean production in the U.S. And corn, over 47 metric tons of corn (almost 2 billion bushels) exported to over 100 countries in 2015. Or the 4.1 metric tons of poultry we exported in 2013 along with 349 million dozen of eggs exported. I would like to see how Mr. Salatin would pull that one off. And your link did not mention pricing of his products. Would that be like ordering from Omaha Steaks, which is much more expensive than at the local store? Would the less economically advantaged people in other countries even be able to afford what he produces? I seriously doubt he is selling his production at market commodity pricing. Is it any wonder that he makes more per acre.

 

[hatt]

Salatin writes and speaks prolifically. You can find all the info you want on his techniques. It's not going to be something the established industrial food production is going to too interested in.

Of course he's not selling his high quality products for industrial commodity prices. What's a chicken house egg producer make on a dozen eggs? $.01/dz? We know they don't make much raising meat birds.

 

[L_Sludger]

Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Not sure where you got that number, but a quick search netted that there are over 2500 retail outlets that sell E85 nationwide in the U.S.

That was the number in the C&D article. 600, 2500, whatever. It's a heck of a lot more than there are in Canada, even correcting for population; that was my main point. I see a lot of flex fuel vehicles up here, with no way to buy E85.


Well, I would assume it is not as practical. The upper midwest of the U.S. is awash in corn which is the primary feed stock to make ethanol in the country. And transportation costs are minimal. Canada doesn't have the crop output near as great, so any appreciable use of ethanol would mean that it would have to be brought in. The transportation costs negate any real benefit.


Not to worry, the more E85 I use here where it is more practical to do so, the less gas and that helps keep the gas prices lower for others. And since it is only a $100 upgrade to make a E85 version of a vehicle compared to a regular vehicle, it is real practical to make a slew of them and let the customer decide what to fuel it with. Better to have the flex fuel capability and not need it than to not have it and have a situation like mine, where it saves me bucks to fuel with E85.

If that helps the OEM's to get around the CAFE stuff, more power to them! I am for tricking the government up at every turn. I did it with my 2013 semi truck. I ordered the truck without a motor. I then dropped in a pre-emission factory rebuilt motor. All legal and EPA approved. I saved a grip of dollars and a lot in maintenance and operation cost.
Yeah, corn is being diverted from animal feed in order to supply the raw material of the ethanol boondoggle, and beef prices have never ever been higher.

 

[turtlevette]

Yea, let's end this ethanol boondoggle, have no other fuels, because having alternatives is dumb. We'll never have oil companies putting a strangle hold on the country again.

 

[TiredTrucker]

Man, what misconceptions abound. Every bushel of corn that goes into ethanol production also produces 17-18 lb of product at the back end. I haul lots of high protein feed supplements from ethanol plants to feed mixing operations, especially poultry operations. Other products are made from the DDG at the back end as well.

If corn is being diverted in such a way that any other market is starved for the stuff, then why is corn market price so low? When things are adjusted for inflation, corn prices are lower than during the Clinton administration. Cattle prices are not reflective of corn price, else they would be lower. Cattle prices are reflective of market projections on available cattle, both today and months in advance, along with projected demand.

One thing that many fail to recognize is that all the major oil companies are heavily invested in ethanol production as well. It is not going away. Most days, I could care one way or the other if ethanol is in fuel. When we had gas prices bust the $4 mark a few years ago, I used E85 religiously. Got it for $1 to $1.50 a gallon cheaper than gas. And even with lower mpg, it was still cheaper to use on a cost per mile basis by a good margin.

 

[Shannow]

And the fatty acid profile of animals raised on corn is so far out of whack that it's clearly contributing to poor health in the western world over more natural feedstocks.

BUT, as you've stated every time we've been at this point, you state to "follow the money"...I've got no skin in the game, but as you say, you clearly do, and it shows in your defence of it...