Jean B. wrote:

>
> Maybe someone here can figure this out.... If the addition of ethanol
> to our fuel tanks means our vehicles get fewer MPG, and we need to
> refill more frequently, what are we gaining? It seems to me that the
> numbers are not what we are led to believe. And that doesn't even get
> into the corn being used for something other than food and the
> ramifications of that.
>
Its pretty simple. Think back to the not too distant past when it seemed
most everyone needed to drive a fluffed up truck. As fuel prices rose
people started to scream about the cost and that the government should
"do something". Instead of fostering ways to improve efficiency and use
less fuel the politicians with the help of the corn lobby (follow the
money) seized on the idea of giving out huge subsidies to make ethanol
from corn as an "alternative fuel" so everyone could keep driving their
trucks as usual.

Some of the problems:

Since this vastly accelerated use was unplanned and it takes time to
prepare fields and grow crops the price of corn soared.

It is much more expensive to make ethanol than the cost of gasoline. So
the government needs to reach into our pockets to subsidize construction
and operation of the plants. Also they exempt it from road use taxes to
further artificially suppress the price so money for highway
construction is lost.

It is energy inefficient to make ethanol. The process sometimes has a
close to or net energy loss.

Ethanol is corrosive. So it can't be shipped via a normal pipeline.
Locally they truck it in from 200 miles away and then blend it when the
transport trucks are loaded.


Fuel economy is less as you noted.