Ethanol Fuel NOT What The Government Spin Drs Tell Us !!!

[burnz]

just make shure your car is compatable. (corrosive)
http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/971648
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/artic...rticle_id=5270

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by CAT600

Your shitten me right?

Instead of saying that 6 vs 4 is 50% less (actually sort of correct not allowing for the fact that its really 7 vs 5 as the cars are full at the start) look at it in terms of % increase........... like 7 tanks of E85 instead of 5 tanks of Ultimate 98 means the consumption is around 40% more AND THEN you dont make an **** by going on to say that the fuel would have to be 1/2 price (thats like saying the consumption is 100% more!)

Facts are that based on Stoichiometric fuel ratio, E85 (with its 9.7:1 stoich point vs gasoline 14.7:1) should be theoretically around 40-50% heavier on the km/litre burn rate than Unleaded, but with the engine tuned for lean running that can be brought down to around 30%, and with optimised compression ratios (15:1 on a NA car) making better use of the higher octane levels and reduced Nox levels, the greater thermal efficiency can get the economy within 12-15% of gasoline products.

Daniel

ok MR PRO E 85 racing scientist .

lets put this in laymans terms . aka driving down to the shops , picking up the kids and driving to work and back then going to visit aunty mary in the mountains on the weekend. waaallaaahh !!!! ( the real reason we own cars ) !!!!

MRS DAISY does 400kms per week in her 8 year old family sedan 6cyl. and pays roughly $1.20 per litre of petrol MRS DAISY is using about 60 litres of petrol per week at say $72 pw. over 4 weeks MRS DAISY USES 240 LITRES OF PETROL @ $288.
unfortunately toothless BOB down at the servo makes an ERROR , and fills the tanks with E85.
OVER 4 WEEKS mrs DAISY fills up 6 times to do 1600kms except now she has used 360litres @ $1.20 instead of 240 litres @ $1.20.
the only differance MRS DAISY notices is the cost $432 instead of $288
becuase she went to year 8 in high school before getting pregnant and leaving , she was able to learn enough maths to work out , that she has paid 50% more in her fuel bills this past 4 weeks . she didnt really notice that she adjusted her foot pedal travel off a little to reach her 80 km /hr speed limit , like the wheel spinning young turkey down the road .
MRS DAISY pays toothless BOB a visit and says that if he charged 80c per litre for the E85 . hten she wouldnt have a problem , MRS DAISY doesnt give FLYING JIZZ obout the energy she has consumed ofr the compression inside her engine , she leaves all that crap to the young turkey down the road who 's number one concern in life is getting an extra second off his 400metre times if the weather and track surface is right on friday night .
young turkey cant see that other things might take higher priority than explaining their camm dwells and energy saving technology they have under thier throttle . TOOTHLESS BOB couldnt give RATTS EITHER!! THE RESERVE BANK AND GOVERNMENT ARE OVER THE MOON BECUASE young turkey has everyone convinced about how good the E85 is the police are extatic because young turkeys chances of trying to show his mates may increase a speed camera revenue and taxes are rolling in says the state govt .
its a good thing MRS daisy cant afford a computer to listen to others swaying her year 8 maths knowledge . she actualy knows that her costs have gone up 50% . and she doesnt knw the 1st thing about rocket science
IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION .
NO !!! I'M NOT SHITTING YOU .

[tickford2001]

how about going back and reading what has been written throughout this thread with regard to E85 and its application...

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by CAT600

Go build a 15:1-17:1 NA engine with the right components on E85, and I bet it will make more power and torque, run cleaner, be renewable and emit less harmful human-affecting emissions than a maxed out 12:1 equivalent gasoline engine, all the while using almost the same amount of fuel.

Daniel

Here we go:

Otto cycle efficiency calculated at: http://www.engineering-4e.com/calc3.htm
10:1 = 60%
12:1 = 63%
15:1 = 66%
17:1 = 68%

Now take into account that E85 has only 57% of the energy per litre that petrol has. If we were to compare a 17:1 E85 engine compared to a 10:1 petrol engine we get the following numbers:

Petrol -> 60
E85 -> 68 x 0.57 = 38.8

(60-38.8)/60 x 100 = 35% -> Hence the E85 will use 35% more fuel.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Enjoy poking fun at the fact that your three sources are all from the biofuel industry and are inheritable biased?Enjoy poking fun at the fact that your three sources are all from the biofuel industry and are inheritable biased?

Now what was that about fairy tails?

Originally Posted by xbgs351

How about quoting a source for your fairy tale? It sure isn't Cornell University or the University of California-Berkeley.?

By attempting to take the highground and citing universities you forgot to ask where those universities get their money for their research. You're acting like a fool who has dug a bigger hole for himself. Yep, i'm laughing. At you.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicl....96/Exxon.html

"Exxon program brings Cornell $270,000 check " in 1979...

http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicl....97/Exxon.html
"Exxon foundation brings $310,000 to the university"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-219.ZS.html
Defending Exxon against the damages suit for the Valdez supertanker."The punitive damages award against Exxon was excessive as a matter of maritime common law"

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/...igher_ed08.pdf
2008 Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments
Cornell University 592,216
Departmental Grants Program*
Cornell University 32,500
University of California Berkeley 19,600

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/relea...calteach.shtml
Cal Teach celebrates $2.4 million grant to foster science and math teaching
The award was announced as part of an NMSI effort funded by Exxon Mobil...

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/relea...2/01_ebi.shtml
BP selects UC Berkeley to lead $500 million energy research consortium with partners Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, University of Illinois

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/i...s-Consequences

Front Page News:
Reich Warns of UC-BP Deal’s Consequences
UC Berkeley professor and former cabinet officer Robert Reich must be feeling prophetic today, since the warning he issued about the use of a university’s good name to greenwash an oil industry giant has just cost Stanford $2.5 million.
Reich cited ads run by Exxon Mobil shortly after it signed a 2002 agreement establishing a $100 million, 10-year research accord with the school across the bay.
“One such ad read, ‘Although climate has varied throughout earth’s history from natural causes, today there is a lively debate about the planet’s response to more greenhouse gasses in the future,’” said Reich, drawing gasps from some in the audience.

“If we signed the agreement, can anyone seriously imagine that Berkeley would be in a position to undertake significant research to show the problems with the BP strategy?” Chapela asked. “Can anyone believe that after signing the contract we would be working on alternatives that do not involve patents, immoral profit margins, economies of scale and command-and-control governance?”

A complete video recording of the senate meeting is available online at http://webcast.berkeley.edu/events.php.

[Nikked]

K.o...

[Qwik6]

Just found out E85 is sold at the pump in Adelaide.
Only 99.9c a litre.

[FreddyDUZ747]

Originally Posted by Trav 4.0

Just found out E85 is sold at the pump in Adelaide.
Only 99.9c a litre.

Yep and 100 octane e10 is at about every second United aswell.$1.12c a litre roughly.Popping up everywhere.

[just_pazz]

how would the 100 octane e10 run in an i6 tuned for premium? I'm interested in trying it out..

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by phillyc

Now what was that about fairy tails?



By attempting to take the highground and citing universities you forgot to ask where those universities get their money for their research. You're acting like a fool who has dug a bigger hole for himself. Yep, i'm laughing. At you.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicl....96/Exxon.html

"Exxon program brings Cornell $270,000 check " in 1979...

http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicl....97/Exxon.html
"Exxon foundation brings $310,000 to the university"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-219.ZS.html
Defending Exxon against the damages suit for the Valdez supertanker."The punitive damages award against Exxon was excessive as a matter of maritime common law"

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/...igher_ed08.pdf
2008 Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments
Cornell University 592,216
Departmental Grants Program*
Cornell University 32,500
University of California Berkeley 19,600

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/relea...calteach.shtml
Cal Teach celebrates $2.4 million grant to foster science and math teaching
The award was announced as part of an NMSI effort funded by Exxon Mobil...

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/relea...2/01_ebi.shtml
BP selects UC Berkeley to lead $500 million energy research consortium with partners Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, University of Illinois

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/i...s-Consequences

Front Page News:
Reich Warns of UC-BP Deal’s Consequences
UC Berkeley professor and former cabinet officer Robert Reich must be feeling prophetic today, since the warning he issued about the use of a university’s good name to greenwash an oil industry giant has just cost Stanford $2.5 million.
Reich cited ads run by Exxon Mobil shortly after it signed a 2002 agreement establishing a $100 million, 10-year research accord with the school across the bay.
“One such ad read, ‘Although climate has varied throughout earth’s history from natural causes, today there is a lively debate about the planet’s response to more greenhouse gasses in the future,’” said Reich, drawing gasps from some in the audience.

“If we signed the agreement, can anyone seriously imagine that Berkeley would be in a position to undertake significant research to show the problems with the BP strategy?” Chapela asked. “Can anyone believe that after signing the contract we would be working on alternatives that do not involve patents, immoral profit margins, economies of scale and command-and-control governance?”

A complete video recording of the senate meeting is available online at http://webcast.berkeley.edu/events.php.

Good to see that you have done some homework, but I think you have forgotten one thing. Both Exxon and BP have both invested heavily in the field of ethanol research and production. So basically the findings of Cornell University and the University of California-Berkeley are against the interests of Exxon and BP.

[KPOJ]

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

Yea they said fractured fuel line!!
They didn't say the alternator wasn't charging and they swapped another battery in there and DIDN'T tie it down properly !!!
It hit the filler tube and obviously caught on fire..
Nothing to do with the fuel they used..

Should see inside the boot, its looks like every part of it has been smashed with a sledge hammer for ten minutes, the car is in a bad way.

[CAT600]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Here we go:

Otto cycle efficiency calculated at: http://www.engineering-4e.com/calc3.htm
10:1 = 60%
12:1 = 63%
15:1 = 66%
17:1 = 68%

Now take into account that E85 has only 57% of the energy per litre that petrol has. If we were to compare a 17:1 E85 engine compared to a 10:1 petrol engine we get the following numbers:

Petrol -> 60
E85 -> 68 x 0.57 = 38.8

(60-38.8)/60 x 100 = 35% -> Hence the E85 will use 35% more fuel.

Your calculations are so rudimentary its not even funny. Have you allowed for the changes in power due to additional ignition timing, and the increase of equivalent air fuel ratio stoich in you basic calcs?

First thing we need to get straight is that 35% is a complete crock. The Last EPA test I saw from the states testing E85 FLEX FUEL vehicles showed a 26% worse fuel consumption but remember that E85 can be bought for around $1 per litre vs current unleaded of $1.20 so the difference is SFA. That is on a Flex Fuel car, now go build a high boost or high comp engine and see the difference.

Dont concern yourself with the energy content of Ethanol vs Gasoline..... (its actually 63% not 57%) but you see.... its not Ethanol's fault that petroleum products reject 64% of the chemically converted energy of combustion into the cooling system and exhaust systems combined, leaving just 36% to push the piston down..... that's why gasoline runs so much hotter than ethanol in combustion.... WASTED ENERGY MATE.

You go on about others doing research, how about doing some of your own?

Daniel

[CAT600]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

ok MR PRO E 85 racing scientist .

lets put this in laymans terms . aka driving down to the shops , picking up the kids and driving to work and back then going to visit aunty mary in the mountains on the weekend. waaallaaahh !!!! ( the real reason we own cars ) !!!!

MRS DAISY does 400kms per week in her 8 year old family sedan 6cyl. and pays roughly $1.20 per litre of petrol MRS DAISY is using about 60 litres of petrol per week at say $72 pw. over 4 weeks MRS DAISY USES 240 LITRES OF PETROL @ $288.
unfortunately toothless BOB down at the servo makes an ERROR , and fills the tanks with E85.
OVER 4 WEEKS mrs DAISY fills up 6 times to do 1600kms except now she has used 360litres @ $1.20 instead of 240 litres @ $1.20.
the only differance MRS DAISY notices is the cost $432 instead of $288
becuase she went to year 8 in high school before getting pregnant and leaving , she was able to learn enough maths to work out , that she has paid 50% more in her fuel bills this past 4 weeks . she didnt really notice that she adjusted her foot pedal travel off a little to reach her 80 km /hr speed limit , like the wheel spinning young turkey down the road .
MRS DAISY pays toothless BOB a visit and says that if he charged 80c per litre for the E85 . hten she wouldnt have a problem , MRS DAISY doesnt give FLYING JIZZ obout the energy she has consumed ofr the compression inside her engine , she leaves all that crap to the young turkey down the road who 's number one concern in life is getting an extra second off his 400metre times if the weather and track surface is right on friday night .
young turkey cant see that other things might take higher priority than explaining their camm dwells and energy saving technology they have under thier throttle . TOOTHLESS BOB couldnt give RATTS EITHER!! THE RESERVE BANK AND GOVERNMENT ARE OVER THE MOON BECUASE young turkey has everyone convinced about how good the E85 is the police are extatic because young turkeys chances of trying to show his mates may increase a speed camera revenue and taxes are rolling in says the state govt .
its a good thing MRS daisy cant afford a computer to listen to others swaying her year 8 maths knowledge . she actualy knows that her costs have gone up 50% . and she doesnt knw the 1st thing about rocket science
IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION .
NO !!! I'M NOT SHITTING YOU .

Oh my, I knew you were challenged but this has taken you to a new level.

I'll humour you anyway:

1. "Toothless Bob" cannot sell E85 to "Mrs Daisy" as his bowser is locked up with a chain and padlock and his "redneck" manager/owner is the only one with the key, who needs to be shown some documentation/sign a disclaimer that the car can take E85.

2. The resultant equivalent Air Fuel Ratio would be instantly catastrophic for "Mrs Daisy", who would not even crest the first hill before her engine melted faster than the microwaved pile of pot in a Hippys outdoor shed, the car needs to be retuned to run on the fuel fella.

3. You keep going on about 50%, its NOT 50% fella, at worst it is between 35-40% on a car that has only had additional fuel thrown at it. Increased timing and leaner burn strategy will see that drop even on a engine that was not designed for E85...... there is a lot to be gained from altering the closed loop settings for E85.

4. The fuel IS ACTUALLY CHEAPER! while the gap may not be 40c, I have talked to the servo managers at United Shoalhaven in Sydney on various occasions and the gap has been as close as 17c and as wide as 32c last year

5. Your track record. Honestly mate, you are the laughing stock of this forums sometimes with the crap you come out with. There are those that may think I am on a witchhunt for some on here, but it's really only that the same people keep posting dumb $hite!

Daniel

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by CAT600

Your calculations are so rudimentary its not even funny. Have you allowed for the changes in power due to additional ignition timing, and the increase of equivalent air fuel ratio stoich in you basic calcs?

They don't matter for efficency calulations for the Otto Cycle. The equation is extremely simple and governs the efficiency of the energy of fuel converted into indicated power.

Originally Posted by CAT600

Dont concern yourself with the energy content of Ethanol vs Gasoline..... (its actually 63% not 57%)

Yes I made an error.

[xbgs351]

I now get 12% more fuel for the E85.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by CAT600

Oh my, I knew you were challenged but this has taken you to a new level.

I'll humour you anyway:

1. "Toothless Bob" cannot sell E85 to "Mrs Daisy" as his bowser is locked up with a chain and padlock and his "redneck" manager/owner is the only one with the key, who needs to be shown some documentation/sign a disclaimer that the car can take E85.

2. The resultant equivalent Air Fuel Ratio would be instantly catastrophic for "Mrs Daisy", who would not even crest the first hill before her engine melted faster than the microwaved pile of pot in a Hippys outdoor shed, the car needs to be retuned to run on the fuel fella.

3. You keep going on about 50%, its NOT 50% fella, at worst it is between 35-40% on a car that has only had additional fuel thrown at it. Increased timing and leaner burn strategy will see that drop even on a engine that was not designed for E85...... there is a lot to be gained from altering the closed loop settings for E85.

4. The fuel IS ACTUALLY CHEAPER! while the gap may not be 40c, I have talked to the servo managers at United Shoalhaven in Sydney on various occasions and the gap has been as close as 17c and as wide as 32c last year

5. Your track record. Honestly mate, you are the laughing stock of this forums sometimes with the crap you come out with. There are those that may think I am on a witchhunt for some on here, but it's really only that the same people keep posting dumb $hite!

Daniel

LOL .

[Qwik6]

Originally Posted by gilmore

Yep and 100 octane e10 is at about every second United aswell.$1.12c a litre roughly.Popping up everywhere.

Yeah, been using it for months now. Great stuff.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

I now get 12% more fuel for the E85.

Down to 12% additional fuel is pretty good.

[ebxr8240]

Lol seems a waste to mix good [drinking] alcohol with petrol.. haha

[CAT600]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

They don't matter for efficency calulations for the Otto Cycle. The equation is extremely simple and governs the efficiency of the energy of fuel converted into indicated power.....

That calculator will not (and can not) allow for ignition change gains. Yes it may predict EXACTLY what the calorific value of the fuel is, but how that is specifically converted into useful energy by way of timing efficiency, lean burn and wasted energy via the combustion process (rejecting heat into the jacket water and exhaust system) are all variables that that model will not be able to accurately predict.

The thing is I started out saying that E85 is a specific fuel, that is not for everyone and is not anywhere near as accessible as fossil petroleum, but it can be done and done well. My car for example (with the old engine) could not run without it as the boost was very high. It is the only affordable option for me. The next 5-8 years will be interesting as we see the U.S. come on board with some very specifically designed engines built to run on Ethanol only. Then we will see some mainstream (read: shopping trolley) engines under 3.0L making over 150hp/L in factory form with some boost.

Daniel

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by CAT600

That calculator will not (and can not) allow for ignition change gains. Yes it may predict EXACTLY what the calorific value of the fuel is, but how that is specifically converted into useful energy by way of timing efficiency, lean burn and wasted energy via the combustion process (rejecting heat into the jacket water and exhaust system) are all variables that that model will not be able to accurately predict.
Daniel

What the efficency formula does is compare the efficencies involved in just changing the compression ratio of an ideal otto cycle. All the variables you mentioned apply to both petrol and E85 and hence it best to leave them out. I then just factored in the calorific value of the fuel to see the relative fuel efficency of a 17:1 E85 scenario compared to a 10:1 petrol scenario.

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

Lol seems a waste to mix good [drinking] alcohol with petrol.. haha

Funny you should say that as much of Australia's ethanol is made from fermented and distilled mollases, which is the same process that they use to make rum. So many of the feral utes that have 'rum injected' stickers on them aren't that far from the truth.

[AGRO]

Hi guys.
My 2 cents worth.
E85 is the Super fuel.
For N/A, maybe not as much, but for forced induction, it's the only way to go!!!!!
Yes........ you use more, but you gain more, and when it comes to forced induction, it's fuels like this, that make your ride more enjoyable!!!!!!
HP DOES NOT COME FREE, so E85 will have have it's merits to the select few.
Until you actually use it in the flesh, you just won't understand what it is capable of.
Go do your science calc's, but at the same time, go try it (and tune to optium) and then come back here and let us know what you found.

Regards
AGRO.

[Yellow_Festiva]

Just a question that I was thinking about this arvo.

Why the jump from E10 to E85? I mean, why not an E20, E50 etc?

My rationale is that most cars that run on regular 91 and 95 premium can stretch their boundaries and run E10 at probably 95+% efficiency, but engines that run E85 need to go the whole hog, and need to be specially tuned and set up to use E85.

[CAT600]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

Just a question that I was thinking about this arvo.

Why the jump from E10 to E85? I mean, why not an E20, E50 etc?

My rationale is that most cars that run on regular 91 and 95 premium can stretch their boundaries and run E10 at probably 95+% efficiency, but engines that run E85 need to go the whole hog, and need to be specially tuned and set up to use E85.

Couple of things.

1) E85 is designed to be ETHANOL, with a minor percentage of gasoline to mainly solve a couple of issues: (A)...... Cold start, E100 (E98) straight ethanol is not so good below about 5 degrees celcius so they add some gasoline to increase fuel volatility and atomisation to assist cold starts and (B)...... Fuel stability, Straight Ethanol (E98) really has a hard-on for water, it wants to grab hold of it to basically keep it physically stable. By adding 15% gasoline the fuel no longer wants to absorb water out of the atmosphere which vastly reduces the corrosiveness of the fuel. Methanol is a lot worse and as such can cause very bad corrosion if not maintaned and fuel systems/oil systems kept clean and flushed.

2) E10 is an easy, cheap way for the Government to get this fuel out there for the public to use and accept, and therefore help prop the Ethanol industry and its primary produce in grain/corn/sugar cane etc. As a bonus, the octane rating increase and the substantial knock suppression properties of the fuel add to the appeal of even such a weak ethanol content. The main thing to accept about E10 and why they dont do a "E20" or more, for example, is that any more than 10% of this fuel in a mix of gasoline would cause cars without a change to fuel supply from the injectors to run leaner than they should and therefore may cause serious issues with burnt valves, melted pistons etc. There is a common misconception that Ethanol kills engines...... that could not be further from the truth, its whether the car is recieving enough fuel to NOT run lean that kills the engine. I gave an example somewhere of a car engine that saw 12.8:1 Air fuel ratios at WOT on 91 unleaded, would immediatley see AFR's of 13.3:1 on a tank of E10..... this is beacuse 10% of the fuel mix now burns at 9.0:1 not 14.7:1 and as such the fuel mix approaches stoich at a lower AFR point. 13.3 might not sound that bad but on something like a Focus XR5 turbo, that sees 14.5:1 AFR's (True dat) it would definatley cause issues as the AFR's would be above the EQUIVALENT of 15:1

3) Ethanol can and is mixed in varying ratios. I know of one particular shop over here that has been testing and promoting a "E40" semi-race fuel with exceptional results. A real nice balance between decent power gains and not overloading/overdoing the fuel systems...... Smart guy that tuner I am speaking off..... a real legend

Daniel

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by CAT600

Couple of things.

2) E10 is an easy, cheap way for the Government to get this fuel out there for the public to use and accept, and therefore help prop the Ethanol industry and its primary produce in grain/corn/sugar cane etc. As a bonus, the octane rating increase and the substantial knock suppression properties of the fuel add to the appeal of even such a weak ethanol content. The main thing to accept about E10 and why they dont do a "E20" or more, for example, is that any more than 10% of this fuel in a mix of gasoline would cause cars without a change to fuel supply from the injectors to run leaner than they should and therefore may cause serious issues with burnt valves, melted pistons etc. There is a common misconception that Ethanol kills engines...... that could not be further from the truth, its whether the car is recieving enough fuel to NOT run lean that kills the engine. I gave an example somewhere of a car engine that saw 12.8:1 Air fuel ratios at WOT on 91 unleaded, would immediatley see AFR's of 13.3:1 on a tank of E10..... this is beacuse 10% of the fuel mix now burns at 9.0:1 not 14.7:1 and as such the fuel mix approaches stoich at a lower AFR point. 13.3 might not sound that bad but on something like a Focus XR5 turbo, that sees 14.5:1 AFR's (True dat) it would definatley cause issues as the AFR's would be above the EQUIVALENT of 15:1

Daniel

Not that cheap for the government as the exise on the ethanol component of the fuel is fully refunded to the tune of 38.143 cent per litre.

[ebxr8240]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Not that cheap for the government as the exise on the ethanol component of the fuel is fully refunded to the tune of 38.143 cent per litre.

Yea but the $$$ stays here.. This is one product that isn't cheaper to produce overseas !! YET !!

[burnz]

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

Yea but the $$$ stays here.. This is one product that isn't cheaper to produce overseas !! YET !!

i was reading an artical the other day that brazil runs out of ethanol
because the producers get more money exporting than they do selling local.

sooner or later the price of ethanol with be priced on global demands.

petrol without tax is around 60cpl, ethanol is around $1.25 without subsidy.

[Yellow_Festiva]

Ok Daniel, thanks for the info

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

Yea but the $$$ stays here.. This is one product that isn't cheaper to produce overseas !! YET !!

It also means that the Federal Government has less money for roads, hospitals, schools etc.