• bridgeburner@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    4$ per gallon? Thats like a bit over 1$ per litre. Which is still ridiculously cheap. In comparison: In germany I pay like 2,20€ per litre for Super…

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    Robbing Peter to pay Paul. Just makes everything else corn based more expensive. From plastics to animal feed.

    This administration is running just like trump runs his businesses into bankruptcy. From taking money from medical services to buy bombs to shuffling corn products around to cheapen fuel it’s all the shallow economics of someone who never pays anything back. All that’s left is for trump to try to borrow money from Russia.

  • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    If i remember correctly, from way back in college chemistry, i learned E85 is already partially oxidized. So you are getting less energy out of the fuel. It’s a step backward, and definitely isn’t going to make anything better.

    • XeroxCool@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      I don’t know the specific reasons, but yes, ethanol is less energy dense. The communities talking about this factually see that the loss in MPGs is pretty close to the average price difference, making it a net zero benefit.

  • HubertManne@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    from what I understand there are only a few ways to make ethanol that is decently net positive. This was why it was huge in brazil because it works well with sugarcane but that is because the fiber is burnt to provide the energy for the distinllation and such. using corn or sugarbeets is anemic and you use the waste product as animal feed to up its anemic returns. I remember swtich grass being a thing but looking into it it seems like they have not really solved the problems of breakdown.

  • nosuchanon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    If you drive an old car that’s not designed for ethanol it’s gonna fuck up all the seals in the motor.

    • anomnom@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      And you still make less power per gallon, and so don’t really save anything. The only think it improves is pre-detonation, which only matters in super high compression or turbo cars (for whom gas money isn’t the problem anyway).

    • AngryDeuce@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      Even if you drive a new car everything ive heard from actual mechanics is that it causes much more buildup and bullshit in the engine and you end up spending far more in maintenance due to using E85 then you save paying less per gallon for the fuel.

      Personally in my step father’s flex fuel truck the MPG dropped by like 20% on E85 thus evaporating even more of these “savings”.

      Ethanol is a trash substitute. We should be going full electric and putting all our money into that, but of course that dont prop up the corn and soybean farmers to keep them voting Republican.

      • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        For the record: ethanol burns with no carbon residue. All you want get is CO2 and water. Some countries run on E100 ethanol. Ethanol is used in drag and indycar racing, look it up.

        Ethanol burns with 1/3 less energy vs gas, but much higher octane rating.

        So while you will get 25% less fuel economy with E85, it costs less than half as much. But pickup drivers never math good.

  • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    This is the argument they made over 20y ago. It’s proven to be completely stupid. We already know that a fraction of the land used for corn could instead be used for solar, and it would power the entire country. Using today’s solar technology.

      • AngryDeuce@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        Thats a part of it, but I think the biggest thing is they know that once work from home gets normalized, commercial real estate is going to tank and make what happened in 08 with subprime mortgages look quaint by comparison.

        The big time real estate developers dont care about residential property, and more and more Space For Lease signs are showing up everywhere. If work from home becomes the norm they stand to lose a fortune and they will do anything in their power to prevent that.

        • Ghostie@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 days ago

          I also believe there is some tax incentives for businesses getting butts in the seats at their brick and mortar workplaces too. Like on-site facility deductions and such.

          • AngryDeuce@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 days ago

            Oh im sure…empty office buildings slowly decomposing isnt a good look for an areas local economy.

            If we weren’t run by monied interests wed be offering tax incentives the other way to get more people off the road but that doesnt keep us all dependent on fossil fuels so that’s right out the window.

          • Restaldt@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 days ago

            Also cities provide tax incentives to corps to get bodies in downtown areas supporting the restaurants and shops

      • Stern@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        I’m sure there’s a few C level guys who wish they could have owned plantations but will settle for cubicles.