But you do live in a part of the country where you can do E85 easily.

How would ethanol look in Nebraska without subsidies? If those went away, or corn prices continue to move up, would this still be a good call?

If the budget allows for it, I'd just get something that is highly efficient and can handle the roads/weather where you are. While gas may be bad, and more expensive, if you use less of it, it's a wash.

its nice to have an option especially if fuel scarcity happens.

I had a ford ranger flex fuel, same engine as my friend had in his Mazda, he got 30 MPG I got 17 if I was lucky so cheap only goes so far.... half price and twice as much used.

Any fuel which is cleaner than regular stuff gets a thumbs-up in my book.

Also, you've burned e-10 since the '70s, huh? Interesting stuff indeed. How did it work on older models, btw?

As I pointed out yesterday, clearing out land for biofuel production releases sinked carbon from the soil and inhibits the earth's carbon sinking potential long-term. Any reduction in fuel emissions takes decades to centuries to reach carbon neutrality.

In this case, E85 as a fuel (instead of gasoline) takes 17 years to reach carbon neutrality, if there is an equivalent swap. But since since E85 is probably less efficient in a ICE it takes more fuel (hence more land to be cleared out).

That Edmunds "test" (not study) was somewhat interesting to think about. Basically, the efficiency was so bad that virtually the same amount of carbon was released. Instead of a theoretical 20% drop with pure ethanol that is used by Fargione, they experienced a .5% drop in emissions. So this casts a big shadow on neutrality by 17 years, and likely pushes that back to centuries.

In 1976 there were only TWO stations in the Omaha area that offered E-10. One was close to us, so it worked out great. We never had a single problem with a car that pointed to E-10 as the problem.

70 LTD wagon.

71 Vega

77 Vega

68 Ford 1/2 ton Pick Up

A couple of Caprice wagons

57 Chevy (early 70's 350)

(86?) Celebrity wagon

71 Malibu wagon

70 Bel Air

91 Caprice

97 Intrepid

06 Altima

09 Cobalt

09 Equinox

IF I remember any others, I'll post them too.

Electric, E-85, etc. If you choose to compute their carbon debt from production, than a used vehicle often wins hands down.

It's another kind of impact on the environment

I avoid any ethanol blended fuels with a passion.

High protein mash is good for the cattle and us.

We are looking at ordering a 2013 Equinox. It is the same v-6 that is in the Camero and the Caddies. It is larger than the v-6 in the 2012 Equinox.

Last edited Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:46 AM - Edit history (1)

The difference in "net greenness" from one passenger vehicle to the next really isn't enough to matter to the planet any more. If we're going to hell in a handcart (and we are), shouldn't it at least be an enjoyable ride?

Seriously, we're way too far gone for car choices like this to make any difference - except to your own ecological ego.

That's the way I see it.

The corn which produces ethanol requires a significant amount of nitrogen fertilizers and water.

Essentially, we are using a fuel (natural gas) to produce a chemical fertilizer (ammonia) to produce a foodstock (corn) to convert to another fuel (ethanol). I think the term "renewable" is a misnomer in the case of corn-based ethanol.

In the future, cellulosic ethanol produced from algae or switchgrass (or somesuch) may be truly "renewable".

I think you'd be better off with a hybrid. My dad's Prius is averaging about 56 mpg.