EvansBlue

ax7221, BP may be British Petrol, but they use mostlyAmoco fuels in America. I know thats kinda irrelevant, but Amoco is the company developing the Butanol.[/align]

ax7221

fromdodge2chevy, the reason its a bad idea *currently* is because 1.) the cost of it in places farther from the source (re: anywhere they have to ship it) is greater than the price ofpump gasAND it gets worse mileage. and for americans, if you give them 2 options, 1 is bad for the environment, and 1 is better, but costs more and does lesstheyre not going to choose the one that is better for the environment, especially considering the state of the economy, it maybe not be the right thing to do, but its reality. Ethanol can be made from non food crops (switch grass, trees, wood chips etc) but the process is harder and costs more initially, but produces more product therefore lowering costs. I don't know why they haven't done this, but they haven't.

ax7221

Euro, they maybe using amoco fuels in america (which most are phasing out to BP with invigorate or whatever, except for the highest octane), but the butanol research was a co-op done by Dupont and BP done in Germany. I don't know if that makes a difference either, although standards might vary, but I dont really wanna research it. Is amoco still around? the first think google comes up with is Bp's website, I couldn't get amoco's site to load on my comp.

IAfarmer

The infastructure is not yet available for non food source ethanol. Besides, corn is cheap and plentiful, so there really was no reason to move to other sources until recently.

I just updated my fuel log for the past year and a half:

E85 12.9 MPG over a 1 year period
87 Octane: 15.1 MPG over 1 year period. Keep in mind, I only generally only use 87 on the interstate when E10 or E85 are not available.

That is only 8% difference in mileage. The cost is $1.00 less than regular gasoline here in Iowa.

ax7221

The infrastructure for producing ethanol from sugar beets (while that is a food crop, no one really eats it compared to corn) is the exact same as for corn. Break down the biomass into a fermentable substance, ferment, filter, etc etc (obviously alot of steps are missing, but its the same general process.) The non food crops take more equipment to break down the celluse biomass fibers than with food crops, but that could be changed easily, especially when designing new ethanol producing factories.

Once the ethanol gets set up mainstream to run on corn and (if) it replaces crude from the middle east, the corn industry is going to do the exact same thing the oil companies do, jack up the price of the main ingredient until they reach their price ceiling. Because after all, they are a for-profit business.

Also, check your math 12.9-15.1= -2.2/15.1 = -14.5% economy or 14.5% loss. And again, ethanol will be cheaper were corn is grown, but you'd probably (and this is a guess) would see a sharp drop of in price differences the further out from IA you go. So for Iowans, taking a 14.5% drop in economy for a 25% in price makes sense, but for others, probably not.

IAfarmer

How can those who sell their product on trade board jack up the price? The farmers are taking it in the shorts, as input prices are near triple levels!!!!

ax7221

I'll be completly honest here, I have no idea what the economics behind selling (or dealing for that matter) corn are. But, I know that if ethanol becomes as widely used as oil is, demand will be much greater than it is right now, and once dependent on corn for fuel, the corn industry (assuming their supply is great enough to sustain, or a little less) can set the price of their product and not sell it for less. Knowing full well that Americans can hold out for only so long without fuel for transportation. It's simple supply and demand in macroeconomics. The corn industry as a whole would almost hold a monopoly on the fuel industry, while each individual grower would be like a gas station. 1.) they wouldn't sell their product cheaper because other competitors will drop their price to stay competitive, and they won't raise their prices unless everyone else does, so they stay competitive. To give a little math into this. WhenBush came into office, oil was ~$80/barrel, now its $135-140. People think this is crazy thats its gone up so much, but consider this, compared to when Bush came into the office, our dollar is now 60% of what it was. Meaning that something that cost $1 back then, is now costing $1.27 (that 40% loss is 67% of our now 60% lower dollar's worth) so, at $80/barrel (back then)now is worth $133.67 (current money). Which means the price of oil hasn't changedtoo much, however gas has gone up over 100%, meaning it's price is driven by the sellers of gas, namely the station owners and gas companies's greed for profts. Same thing could happen with ethanol. That is what I'm saying. Supply and demand works perfectly in equilibrium, unless the supply is held by a monopoly and the demand is for a commodity in high demand.

bhenderson10

I think the problem with ethenol is the yeild of ethenol per bushel of corn. Its too low. the farming and transporting of the corn and ethenol will use nearly as much fuel as it replaces. Then the high demand of the corn for ethenol will leave a shortage for feed crops for livestock driving up the costs of our food. then the farmers will start growing what ever crop is getting the best buck$. Its a problem but in my area in northern PA they are drilling new oil wells all over.