Ethanol: The wrong mix
I want to point out several inaccuracies in the letter “Ethanol's benefits” by John Risser.
First off, alcohol has 30 percent less energy (BTUs) per gallon than gasoline. Hence, you use more to go the same distance, negating any “lower cost” of travel.
Second, the corn industry is being subsidized by the federal government, so the commodity price of alcohol is artificial and causes higher food prices, due to feed/grain price increases because of demand.
Third, ethanol uses more energy in its manufacture than it produces (and generates more emissions).
Late-model engines designed to run on E85 have fuel systems designed to run on ethanol and will not run correctly on gasoline (detonation or “pinging” due to gasoline's lower octane). Alcohol is very corrosive and has an affinity for water, and it cannot be transported through existing pipelines, so it must be shipped by rail or truck (more emissions and cost). Alcohol burns hotter than gasoline, it produces more nitrogen oxides (alleged pollutants) and it burns pistons and exhaust valves.
There is no proof of any E85 engines keeping their internals cleaner than a well-maintained “gasser.”
Leave the ethanol in the moonshine still, “drill, baby, drill” here in the U.S., and leave the environmentalist talking points about the benefits of E85 where they belong: at the bottom of a bird cage.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Positive & healthy ...
- Russia, not Rice
- Fitz draws ire
- Thanks for the coverage
- Goodell’s ‘pick-six’
- Ferguson & contradictions
- Sticker shock