Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:11:39 -0600, "Leon"
wrote:

"dpb" wrote in message ...
Leon wrote:
"todd" wrote in message
...
"Leon" wrote in message
. net...
So all those cars burning E85 should be getting, what, 4 mpg? Give it
up.

I don't know, that is a number you pulled out of your hat. I can assure
that alcohol does not improve nor maintain gas mileage.

I do know that those lighter weight E85 vehivles that I test drove with
smaller engines had EPA gas mileage estimates that were 10 to 15% less
than the vehivle that I bought with 25-30% more hp.

That sounds reasonable for 20% or so reduction compared to gasoline for
ethanol -- 85% * 0.8 + 15% * 1 == 0.83.

--
Perhaps if the gasohol was 20% cheaper although more often than not it is
more expensive in Houston.

And that's not the real cost. Take away the subsidies (your paying
for them with your taxes) add in the 20% spike in food products that
rely on field corn for food stock (Beef,pork) in the last year, apply
all at a weighted average in your life and you get the real cost of
E85.

Account for the equivalent in subsidies and tax treatment to
petroleum-based production then, too, in order for it to be a more
nearly level playing field.

As noted before, the increase in food costs is made much of and ascribed
in the popular press as owing to ethanol production but it is not so
nearly a direct correlation as that. Much is owing simply to production
costs are higher owing to (gasp, hold on now, revelation coming!) higher
petroleum costs -- fuel, fertilizer, chemical, irrigation costs are all
petroleum based and have skyrocketed if you haven't noticed. As a
simple example, it now takes almost $500 of fuel to fill the tractor
which lasts only one day during planting season. It also was a lower
yield year owing to weather through much of corn belt and wheat
production was down drastically in all the major wheat-producing regions
worldwide so stocks are down irrespective of demand.

--