Climate has a big role as well, because the moisture has to come from somewhere.

Meanwhile big oil is creating plants to make gasoline and diesel from natural gas. Why? Because natural gas has become so cheap by comparison they can make perfect fuels that can then in turn be used to blend with.

Well, you’re brave!

The automakers all uniformly warn most stridently that using E85 in a car not made to use it will cause damage and will void any warranty coverage.

As far as mileage: I test drive new cars every week. All makes, all models. Those not optimized to use ethanol (non-”flex fuel”) return, on average, 2-3 MPG less when using E10 than when I fill them with 100 percent regular unleaded (available in my area). A gallon of E10 has less energy content than a gallon of pure gas. For that reason, it takes a greater volume of E10 to drive a given distance. As far as E85: Even EPA has publicly conceded a significant reduction in mileage/range, relative to a car using the same quantity of gasoline. Granted, this would be largely irrelevant if burning a larger volume of ethanol (to make up for it having less energy) could be done at lower cost relative to an energy-equivalent quantity of gasoline. But ethanol is a net-loser, in terms of what it costs to make the stuff vs. what you get out of it.

I work on old stuff – cars and bikes (plus lots of power equipment) and I can attest, from personal experience, that using ethanol-alcohol fuel in these older vehicles accelerates rusting of metal tanks and fuel lines and also attacks rubber parts (diaphragms, gaskets, floats, etc.) not made to handle the more corrosive (and hygroscopic) ethanol-laced “gas.”

So, I see no upside – unless you’re an agribusiness cartel receiving government-enforced revenue from the forced “sale” of your product.

My local station, at last fill-up, sold gas at $3.49, E85 at $3.09, a 40 cent or 11% discount. When gas was approaching $5 last year, E85 was under $4.20, a 16% difference.

David Pimentel’s work on EROEI (energy return on energy invested) is deconstructed by David Blume here http://www.alcoholcanbeagas.com/node/490

There are certainly criticisms to be leveled at the industrial agribusiness model of ethanol production, but let’s not throw out the baby. Ethanol should be integrated into our transportation fuels mix going into and beyond the 21st century. It’s our financial systems that need deconstruction.

Corn ethanol is a loser energy wise because it doesn’t power itself. If we had a free market sugar cane ethanol would drive corn ethanol off the market in short order.

How is the fact that there is less energy in a given quantity of ethanol fuel not relevant?

If I have to burn 1.2 gallons of ethanol to go the same distance a gallon of gas would take me, how is this not a negative? The only way I can see that it wouldn’t be would be if the ethanol cost less – enough to make up for the decrease in operating efficiency. But it does not.

Every study of US (note, not Brazilian or other) ethanol production shows it’s a net loser. More “in” than “out.”

Gasoline is in fact cheaper in real terms today than it was 30 years ago. Its price is higher – but that is almost entirely due to inflation – and taxes.

Marc Rauch “2. The comment about ethanol being negative fuel efficient is predicated upon a study conducted by David Pimentel at Cornell with preposterous information.”

How was it ‘preposterous information’? I am sure it is obvious to you but how about specifics for the rest of us?

Marc Rauch “3. If there was such a free market, gasoline would never, ever be able to compete with ethanol in price or performance. Every study done to show the true cost of gasoline is somewhere between $10 and $15 per gallon.”

‘Every study’? Citations please. BTW just one ‘study’ that shows otherwise would invalidate your claim. Your ‘absolute’ statements betray arrogance of the highest degree.

Marc Rauch “4. Even with the gasoline-industry affected price of E85, E85 is typically more cost effective. A gasoline-powered car using E85 mat get 5-10% less MPG, but the cost savings per gallon is usually 15-30% less per gallon. Therefore there is a net savings.”

Hmmm, so now you are agreeing E85 blend gets less MPG? Where are theses stations tat sell E85 at a 15-30% discount compared to pure gas? I have yet to see one.

Just as an exercise in common sense, track the path of corn ethanol:

1) prepare the field–using fuel
2) plant the seeds–more fuel
3) water the plants–using (copious) water
4) fertilize the plants–more fuel (Haber process to fix nitrogen uses mucho energy)
5) harvest–more fuel
6) transport to fermentation plants–more fuel
7) distill–more fuel

$10-15/gallon real price? Is that derived by attributing the entire military budget as a procurement cost?

I’m willing to listen but you’ll have to back your assertions.

1. Energy content in a gallon of gasoline vs. a gallon of ethanol is completely and totally irrelevant.

2. The comment about ethanol being negative fuel efficient is predicated upon a study conducted by David Pimentel at Cornell with preposterous information. In addition, later studies, such as the one done by UC Berkeley show that not only the Pimentel study (and all other reports issued as a by-product of the Pimentel study) are incorrect.

3. If there was such a free market, gasoline would never, ever be able to compete with ethanol in price or performance. Every study done to show the true cost of gasoline is somewhere between $10 and $15 per gallon. Ethanol is only priced as high as it is because its distribution as a blend at stations is controlled by the gasoline industry.

4. Even with the gasoline-industry affected price of E85, E85 is typically more cost effective. A gasoline-powered car using E85 mat get 5-10% less MPG, but the cost savings per gallon is usually 15-30% less per gallon. Therefore there is a net savings.

You write:

“…even though the gasoline could be said to have higher energy content”

Italics added.

It’s not “could be said.” It’s does. Gas – pure gas – contains more potential energy than the same volume of ethanol or ethanol-laced fuel. Put another way, it takes more ethanol to release an equivalent amount of energy.

Ethanol can only be more efficient/economical than gas as an energy source when it costs less than gas – which makes up for the fact that you need to use more of it to get the same result.

In the US, ethanol (corn-based) is horrendously energy-inefficient. It is a net energy loser (takes more to “input” than you get in “outputs”). It is in the fuel supply for one reason only: The power of the agribusiness lobby. If we had a truly free market – free of cartel capitalism and rent-seeking – ethanol as a fuel would exist only in the niche markets (race fuel and so on).