Why is America stupid???

[30-06man]

A base line Dodge Ram 2500 Cummins Diseal is $35,000 and that's regular cab, towing, block heater, heat/ac, and Am/FM radio. A Ford with Powerstroke and all the same options as the above cost $31,000 and A Chevy with all of the same options cost $33,000. Most people can't afford this and it does not offer everything you need. I would look into used Diesels before new ones and would over look the Powerstrokes made past 2002. So the expense of the truck then the fuel makes this less of an option and it wouldn't pay for its self until it has many miles on it and if diesel goes down.

The Dodge is a 6Cly diesel and the Ford and Chevy are 8Cly and they are in the same 3/4ton class of trucks.

[Graybeard]

I also have to add sulfur to my tank when I fill up which tips the price over $4 a gallon.

Explain please. The only diesel I've ever owned is my John Deere. For it I just go to the gas stations 2.25 miles down the road and buy off road diesel minus the highway taxes and pour it into the tank. I don't add nuttin else and so far haven't seen a need. I've watched a lot of folks filling up their diesel on road vehicles at the highway diesel pump next to it and have yet to see anyone add anything else to their tanks. I don't understand why you need to add sulfur to your tank.

If cost in dollars is the main consideration at least for most folks then buying new is pretty much never cost effective regardless of what you buy these days. You can pick up a used fleet or lease vehicle or even a trade in that is 2-4 years old with under 50,000 miles on it and save enough money on the purchase price to buy all the fuel you'll put in it during the time you drive it with the savings of it over buying the same vehicle new.

Same applies if you have a large vehicle that gets poor mileage if you are going to go out and buy a smaller new one just for the higher gas mileage the added expense of buying that new small vehicle would have put gas in that gas guzzler for the next ten years or more. Where is the savings in that?

While I realize a lot of folks buy and drive only new vehicles and trade them in regularly most of the working class folks and us old retired farts can't really afford to do that and have to hold onto a vehicle a long time before spending the money on another. If you can save $15,000 to $20,000 on the purchase price that will buy one hell of a lot of gas for it.

Discounting any out of state trips I might take which these days doesn't happen very often (two in last 4 years) I average driving about 6000 miles per year and some times even less. I figure the Toyota truck parked at my house will last me the rest of my life without need for replacement. Generally folks claim a well cared for Toyota will last at least 250,000 or more miles and not only will I not drive that many the rest of my life I'm not sure that I'll add up to that many in my entire life all combined. I know several folks in this area with Toyota trucks that are currently running fine with more miles on them than I will ever drive in my entire life if I add up all the miles driven in all the vehicles I've owned.

What makes sense for a low mileage driver like myself might not make sense for someone who puts 50,000+ miles per year on a vehicle but I doubt that the average driver in the country does that.

[Dee]

GB, I am inclined to agree with you. I am 58, bought a 06 Chevy PU with the small V8 new. No power windows or door locks, or carpet. Yes to power steering, auto tranny, and yes am/fm cd player.  It gets about 22mpg, looks good, and will likely last me the rest of my life. It now has about 18,000 miles on it as for a year I worked out of it.
My wife's car is an 07 Chrysler 300 Limited and it is payed for. About 6,000 on it, we bought it new, and it will likely be the last car we ever buy. It gets between 26 and 30 mpg with the high out-put V6. To trade for better mileage at this point seems to make little sense. A scooter for around town however might be looked into.
I am thru with trading.

[30-06man]

I also have to add sulfur to my tank when I fill up which tips the price over $4 a gallon.

Explain please. The only diesel I've ever owned is my John Deere. For it I just go to the gas stations 2.25 miles down the road and buy off road diesel minus the highway taxes and pour it into the tank. I don't add nuttin else and so far haven't seen a need. I've watched a lot of folks filling up their diesel on road vehicles at the highway diesel pump next to it and have yet to see anyone add anything else to their tanks. I don't understand why you need to add sulfur to your tank.

A few years back the government passed a law that states that diesel is to now be sulfur free. Any vehicle prior to 2008 Model years where designed to have sulfur run in the diesel providing more lubrication and now since its gone it can cause failure of fuel pump's which are very expensive and other mechanical failures. Diseal is now more refined than gas. Off Road diesel still has the sulfur though and it is not near as refined and is for off road purposes only though. The die is so that someone who has a diesel truck doesn't go and fill up on the cheaper stuff and the die permanently stains all fuel lines and the tank so that if you get pulled over they can test your tank to see what you are running in your truck. If someone isn't putting the sulfur in then they are gambling or they have a new 2008 truck that doesn't need it. They can also have bought the large container and wait and add it when they arrive home or something in that nature. So you can't run off road diesel on road and you don't need to run sulfur unless they take it out of off road diesel which I would expect to happen due to the environmentalist.

[30-06man]

GB, I am inclined to agree with you. I am 58, bought a 06 Chevy PU with the small V8 new. No power windows or door locks, or carpet. Yes to power steering, auto tranny, and yes am/fm cd player.  It gets about 22mpg, looks good, and will likely last me the rest of my life. It now has about 18,000 miles on it as for a year I worked out of it.
My wife's car is an 07 Chrysler 300 Limited and it is payed for. About 6,000 on it, we bought it new, and it will likely be the last car we ever buy. It gets between 26 and 30 mpg with the high out-put V6. To trade for better mileage at this point seems to make little sense. A scooter for around town however might be looked into.
I am thru with trading.

The diesel is better for me because in the past two years I have put over 20,000 miles a year on it and it should last me to the end of my life. It has 141,000 miles on it as of today.

Also I forgot to say that I quit adding the sulfur additive for about 5 months and I had the primer and the injecting pump fail on my truck and while working on getting it back running the starter went out. Both fuel pumps costed $1.452.56 and I forget how much the starter was.

[no guns here]

If I weren't driving much and my vehicle was paid off then I probably wouldn't worry too much about the rising prices either.  A $500 or more car payment goes a LONG way to buying gas...  For me... like I said before, I'll probably always have a bigger truck sitting in the garage/barn just for when I HAVE to use it.  My guess is it'll be a used 3/4 or 1 ton diesel, probably a Dodge.  I won't buy another one of those for a long time.  For a daily driver I can't see driving a 25-30 mpg car when I can get 50 mpg for the same price.  I just know that as I walk the streets here, diesel cars go by that don't smoke, don't stink, are quiet and get GREAT mileage.  As I drive here, I see the same type car cruising on past me at 100mph or more.  I'm not debating the German penchant for driving fast, just using the speed as an example.  I'm just using a small car pulling a horse trailer or travel trailer (very common here) as a point of debate since my wife and I shake our heads in disbelief every time we see it.  I use it to point out that the small diesels have loads of torque and can do things we wouldn't consider doing without a truck.  That has to do with driving style as well.  Vehicles with trailers are not allowed by law to exceed 100kph/62mph.  They drive slower and are pretty much limited to the right lane with the trucks.
I can't see any reason for Americans to not begin to embrace diesel as a viable option for cars, vans and smaller pickups.  Thanks for the lively conversation...

ngh

[rebel dunn]

New small diesels are not to be found around here .You either have to get a 3/4 ton or bigger or  go back in years to find a small Toyota, VW  or such .I had a 85 ford ranger diesel that  couldn't get out of it's own way.No power at all.

[ironglow]

  Differrent strokes for different folks....
   To start out, I am not tall..never could top 5'8", but in my younger years, whenever I happened to wear one of those T-shirts with the nearest pro football logo on it; folks would ask me questions about the team..they thought I was a fullback for that team..so that explains my size needs.
   I have always took the attitude of K.I.S.S. (yup! keep it simple stupid) I drive the smallest, lightest vehicle that will do the job for me. For years, I drove the VW Beetles.
  I started with a '61 model..then spent 3 years with Unc Sam IN Beetle land..and did drive the Autobahn.
   Coming home, I bought my first new car,a Beetle and continued that way, swapping about every 2-3 years for new. As the pollution controls came on, the mileages of the beetles started down my new '66 got about 36 mpg highway, my last, a '73, got about 28 mpg. Later, VW Rabbits ( not what the Beetle was)
  Much of the time from '69 on leaving the cars to my wife, I personally drove a small trucks,  Datsuns , Chevy Luv and Ford Courier ..later, when Ford brought out their smaller vehicles, I bought their smallest lines Escort & Ranger..always 4 cyl, manual, no trimmings (less "geegaws"...less to go wrong).
   My only deviance from that norm was to get an '02 Ranger 4.0 litre w/auto (to haul a light camper) 18 mpg highway..12 mpg towing.... sold camper, gave the V6 auto to my son and a bit later bought my ( no more 6cyl or auto trans if I can help it) current '05 Ranger 4cyl , manual ( I do add cruiise & air now) and still use a camper for hunting and travelling to my demos at museums, festivals etc...but I build my own, the old teardrop style, and the truck barely knows it's back there. i've built two..one at 780# and the second bigger at 880#... towing drops my OTR mileage from 28 mpg to 25.5 mpg.
     My car is now an '07 Toyota Yaris Hatchback..and I really like it..small indeed outside, but larger than many bigger cars inside, more room by far than my grandson's Mustang, larger inside and a MUCH BETTER car than the '03 Ford Focus I dumped couple years ago (baaad).
   My son, who is accustomed to at least medium sized cars , used it a couple weeks ago to go with his wife & daughter , from NY state to SC and back, and they fell in love with it..lots of room and cruises with the best of them..hovering around the 40mpg mark all the way.

   What I have a hard time understanding, whenever I get anywhere near the suburbs or city, is why a 120# woman, living in the suburbs, needs a big 4WD SUV or Hummer to skip
   around town after groceries or getting their hair done. Some of these folks I know personally..they have many $$, but don't hunt or haul horses ..and claim to be "green"... 

   Just my $.02 ...

[SHOOTALL]

I have a 2004 chevy diesel , have had it for a little over 3 years . Got new , sticker price $ 52000.00 . it gets 18.2 MPG
it has 155000 miles on it thats over 8000 galons on $4.00 fuel or over $ 32000.00 + dollars add in tires and other cost like a rear , transfer case ,  oil and filters and i drive a $100000.00 investment that is still rising . I think my next one might be gas !

[sdb777]

Everyone should get a Dazon 125!!!  85mpg and you can be the coolest guy on the street(not really), top speed is almost 45, comes in three colors so yours won't look just like your neighbors.

Nah............1995 Jeep YJ, 11 inches of lift with 36", and it gets 8.4mpg(last tank I ran through it)!  Been looking to drive over one of those Dazon thingies though!!!



Scott (we are cattle, government is the rancher) B

[oldandslow]

I wonder if our emission standards are enough stricter than other countries to have something to do with the lack of diesel cars. I know I read occasionally about some European auto that is not imported because it won't meet our emission standards. My son-in-law just purchased a new Duramax for a work truck and told me is doesn't get nearly as good mileage as his old one. The dealer told him it was because of changes to meet the newer emission standards for diesels and Ford and Dodge had the same problem.

I have an '03 Duramax that I don't drive much. Bought it to pull a 30' fifth wheel camper which it does nicely. I just drive it when I have to haul something when not pulling the trailer. I just filled up two days ago and the mileage was 19.33, not too shabby for a big, heavy truck. When I pull the trailer up to northern NM which includes quite a bit of mountain climbing I get 12 MPG if I don't have a stiff headwind coming home. What will it do do running empty on the interstate? Don't know, I always go in the car which will do 28 on the road.

[30-06man]

I wonder if our emission standards are enough stricter than other countries to have something to do with the lack of diesel cars. I know I read occasionally about some European auto that is not imported because it won't meet our emission standards. My son-in-law just purchased a new Duramax for a work truck and told me is doesn't get nearly as good mileage as his old one. The dealer told him it was because of changes to meet the newer emission standards for diesels and Ford and Dodge had the same problem.

I have an '03 Duramax that I don't drive much. Bought it to pull a 30' fifth wheel camper which it does nicely. I just drive it when I have to haul something when not pulling the trailer. I just filled up two days ago and the mileage was 19.33, not too shabby for a big, heavy truck. When I pull the trailer up to northern NM which includes quite a bit of mountain climbing I get 12 MPG if I don't have a stiff headwind coming home. What will it do do running empty on the interstate? Don't know, I always go in the car which will do 28 on the road.

Diesels run cleaner than gas engines in some cases so I don't think it has to do with that. I just don't think with the new diesel prices and what some think a diesel is (which its really not anymore) that its loud and puffs out black smoke. There just isn't that big of a market for it and some feel the need to go to other sources and try to stay away from anything that has to do with oil.

[Cabin4]

Primarily because of left wing idiots like Obama, Pelosi, Reed, Clinton, and the ACLU.

[Sourdough]

Back in 1982 the wife bought a new Honda Civic.  She got the bigger engine, 1500 CCs.  We lived in New Mexico then, and drove 100 miles to El Paso every weekend.  If I drove at 55 mph I got 48 mpg.  If I ran at 80 mph I got 52 mpg.  (Speed limit back then was only 55 nationwide).  Her boss bought the same car only smaller engine 1300 CCs, he could only get 42 mpg out of his car making the same drive.  His smaller engine had to work harder, and his top speed was only 70.  This was back in the early 80s. 

After an assignment in Europe and the Middle east, I learned that the rest of the world drives diesels.   I saw some really hot cars in Germany, BMWs, VWs, Peugeots, and many others, all diesels.  And mileage was a lot higher than their gasoline counterparts.  Some of those cars were not little cars either, but bigger luxury cars.

As for the price of diesel, we can thank India, China, and the environmentalist, for the sudden cost increase.  Both India and China has had a big increase in their standard of living.  Increase in commerce, and increase in private car ownership.  Almost exclusively fueled by diesel.  The environmentalist and Congress, won't let us drill in places that we know hold huge amounts of oil.  Without large increases in domestic oil production we will continue to be held hostage to OPEC.

[ironglow]

From what I understand, the Euro vehicles won't meet out pollution standards. Best mileage vehicle I ever owned was an '83 Dodge Omni...right around 50 mpg on trips.
  It had a 1600 cc Peugeot engine. It cruised at 70 mph effortlessly..but would never snap your neck at the green lights.

[Brett]

Oldandslow and Ironglow have hit on it.  The Euro' diesels are not choked by all the pollution control devises that are required here in the states.   To the best of my knowledge there are no 50mpg diesels currently available here in the US.   Unleaded regular sells for around $3.27/gal around here, highway diesel fuel sells for $4.99/gal, which means a diesel would have to get better than 65% better millage than a gasoline powered vehicle just to break even in fuel cost.  Add to this the fact that initial cost and the cost of routine maintenance is substantially higher for the diesel vehicle and you will understand why you don't see many of them on the road in the US.     

As an aside, only someone with a death wish would even consider doing 90+ miles an hour in a VW beetle IMHO.   

[30-06man]

WHOAA!!! You are about a $1 high on that diesel price. I saw ethanol for anyone intrested for $2.99 today and the pump never looks like it gets used at all. I have noticed a bunch of people buying the Flex Fuel vehicle's but never using that option for the cheaper stuff.

[ironglow]

  That price of $2.99 just about makes up for the loss in mileage with ethanol, from what I understand, and ethanol production is currently govt subsidized.
   I really don't believe that ethanol is the answer..a friend that is normally in the know has told me that it takes about 7/8 of a gallon of diesel to produce
  the crop that converts to 1 gal of ethanol. Then there is processing, wear & tear on refinery equipment and the normal machinery, labor & overhead costs
   to the farmer.
   I really wonder just how many "regular farmers" are benefiting by the program and how many are corporate entities that will only stay in the game for as
   long as the subsidies continue ?

   Perhaps I am too cynical, but it would seem odd to "grow" fuel, when there is a great deal of it right here in the US, in such things as oil shale etc. Yes oil
  shale has been tried, tentatively, but we may have to look at a whole new type engine, that utilizes the fuel differently..same for our vast deposits of coal.

    Personally, I think all this turmoil and super regulation goes back to people presently in power, that were gullible and taken in by Marxist inspired professors
    in college. Professors that taught these malleable minds to dislike their own country and sent them out on a mission to impede US progress in every way they can...

   ..But that is only opinion..

[30-06man]

  That price of $2.99 just about makes up for the loss in mileage with ethanol, from what I understand, and ethanol production is currently govt subsidized.
   I really don't believe that ethanol is the answer..a friend that is normally in the know has told me that it takes about 7/8 of a gallon of diesel to produce
  the crop that converts to 1 gal of ethanol. Then there is processing, wear & tear on refinery equipment and the normal machinery, labor & overhead costs
   to the farmer.
   I really wonder just how many "regular farmers" are benefiting by the program and how many are corporate entities that will only stay in the game for as
   long as the subsidies continue ?

   Perhaps I am too cynical, but it would seem odd to "grow" fuel, when there is a great deal of it right here in the US, in such things as oil shale etc. Yes oil
  shale has been tried, tentatively, but we may have to look at a whole new type engine, that utilizes the fuel differently..same for our vast deposits of coal.

    Personally, I think all this turmoil and super regulation goes back to people presently in power, that were gullible and taken in by Marxist inspired professors
    in college. Professors that taught these malleable minds to dislike their own country and sent them out on a mission to impede US progress in every way they can...

   ..But that is only opinion..

I don't think ethanol is the way to go either. I just don't see why we let the enviromentist bother us when we go drill for oil but that's the government for you.

[Cabin4]

Setting aside MPG and cost issues related to ethanol, anything that reduces our need to import oil is helpful. At the same time I think we need to open up drilling off-shore and in Alaska as well as we need to build more refining capabilities. We need to see advancements in Hybrid cars/trucks as well as more wind and solar power both at the grid and home owner level. We need to build more nuke plants and dams.

There is no silver bullet when it comes to energy. We need to chip away at any technology that helps us import less oil from abroad. Ethanol is just one of those technologies.

[Badnews Bob]

E 85 doesn't help anyone but the politicians and corporations that are selling it to you! VW diesels do work very well but they cost way to much to buy, I would like to have one, but right now my 81 chevy 1/2 ton is making me money because its paid for, No 400 a month payment and no high insurance cost I come out ahead on my gas guzzler.
 The Gov and the corps want to stop this so they can get all my money and turn me into a subject instead of a citizen, Plain and simple gentlemen, They are out to take the middle class down.

[Cabin4]

E 85 doesn't help anyone but the politicians and corporations that are selling it to you! VW diesels do work very well but they cost way to much to buy, I would like to have one, but right now my 81 chevy 1/2 ton is making me money because its paid for, No 400 a month payment and no high insurance cost I come out ahead on my gas guzzler.
 The Gov and the corps want to stop this so they can get all my money and turn me into a subject instead of a citizen, Plain and simple gentlemen, They are out to take the middle class down.

e85 helps farmers by having a new market for their product and it helps us reduce oil imports. It keeps our money in America instead of sending overseas.

I'm not suggesting that anyone send their non-e85  truck or car to the junk yard so they can be strapped with a new car payment. Drive your current car or truck till you need a new one. Many new cars & trucks today are already e85 compliant as a standard feature. So when you buy your new car or truck, you can use e85 if its available. Availability and distribution of e85 is the issue at hand.

I don't see the evil connection with e85 to corporations and Gov. It looks to me  like one of the things that can help us reduce oil imports, keep the $$ in the USA and its harmless and optional for the public. If you oppsed to e85 for some reason, you don't have to buy it.

[oldandslow]

It has already been found that it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than that gallon of ethanol can produce. The energy to produce the ethanol comes from oil mostly so I fail to see where it is helping our energy situation. Figure in the tax dollars subsidizing the ethanol industry and the increased cost of foods produced from the same grains used in ethanol production and it just isn't economically effective. Yes, the farmers like it because they have seen a big increase in grain prices. The consumer gets hurt because the price of foods that use feed grains that are being diverted to ethanol production have increased.

[30-06man]

It has already been found that it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than that gallon of ethanol can produce. The energy to produce the ethanol comes from oil mostly so I fail to see where it is helping our energy situation. Figure in the tax dollars subsidizing the ethanol industry and the increased cost of foods produced from the same grains used in ethanol production and it just isn't economically effective. Yes, the farmers like it because they have seen a big increase in grain prices. The consumer gets hurt because the price of foods that use feed grains that are being diverted to ethanol production have increased.

Exactly. I agree.

[deltecs]

The truth is that is does cost more to make E85 fuel than we get out of it.  The same with unleaded gasoline.  Why is cost of unleaded gas more expensive, when you have to add the lead content.  Marketability and special interest groups get donations for environmental purposes.  The Dems have prevented any new refineries, wind farms, solar arrays, nuclear, and hydro plants on a nationwide scale for environmental purposes and have supported nothing to replace our dependency on oil.  If we can reduce our dependency on oil for electrical generation and home use, there would be an abundant supply of domestic oil for our vehicles until we can transition to alternative energy sources like fuel cells.  I for one do not like to see our food products going to fuel.  All we do then is substitute one monopoly for another and ignores the real problem.

[30-06man]

The truth is that is does cost more to make E85 fuel than we get out of it.  The same with unleaded gasoline.  Why is cost of unleaded gas more expensive, when you have to add the lead content.  Marketability and special interest groups get donations for environmental purposes.  The Dems have prevented any new refineries, wind farms, solar arrays, nuclear, and hydro plants on a nationwide scale for environmental purposes and have supported nothing to replace our dependency on oil.  If we can reduce our dependency on oil for electrical generation and home use, there would be an abundant supply of domestic oil for our vehicles until we can transition to alternative energy sources like fuel cells.  I for one do not like to see our food products going to fuel.  All we do then is substitute one monopoly for another and ignores the real problem.

Yeah the funny thing is they are the eniviromentist and they are against helpful things like wind energy because it dosen't look good.

[kevthebassman]

It takes 4-5 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of ethanol, not counting any irrigation water used.  In places like Nebraska and Kansas, where the aquifer is going to be gone in 30 years at the current pace, ethanol just doesn't make sense.  Add to that the fact that we could never produce enough corn to make enough ethanol to even put a dent in our oil consumption, and you've got one hell of a dud in ethanol.

[Cabin4]

It takes 4-5 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of ethanol, not counting any irrigation water used.  In places like Nebraska and Kansas, where the aquifer is going to be gone in 30 years at the current pace, ethanol just doesn't make sense.  Add to that the fact that we could never produce enough corn to make enough ethanol to even put a dent in our oil consumption, and you've got one hell of a dud in ethanol.

By definition e85 is 15% corn oil, so therefor it represents a 15% reduction in oil consumption. As far as the reset of the stats being stated here I'm not sure. I do know that e85 has its down side today. That does not mean that increased consumption/production won't resolve some of these stated issues if there accurate. If we base every alternative energy on pure costs in today's dollars, none of the alternatives will make sense. Thats does not mean that once a particular alternative energy source reaches its "critical mass" the costs may be beneficial. Its like an investment and thats the way we have to look at at. As an example, building a nuke plant seems to make no $$ and cents. It may take 10 years for it to pay off and them we get the financial benefit. Same is true for hydro power plants. They cost a fortune to build but we don't see the price reduction today in our electric bill/ It could 10 to 15 years for the plant to pay off. The same is true for e85, we just need everything to catch up and get some critical mass before it starts to pay off

[deltecs]

It takes 4-5 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of ethanol, not counting any irrigation water used.  In places like Nebraska and Kansas, where the aquifer is going to be gone in 30 years at the current pace, ethanol just doesn't make sense.  Add to that the fact that we could never produce enough corn to make enough ethanol to even put a dent in our oil consumption, and you've got one hell of a dud in ethanol.

By definition e85 is 15% corn oil, so therefor it represents a 15% reduction in oil consumption. As far as the reset of the stats being stated here I'm not sure. I do know that e85 has its down side today. That does not mean that increased consumption/production won't resolve some of these stated issues if there accurate. If we base every alternative energy on pure costs in today's dollars, none of the alternatives will make sense. Thats does not mean that once a particular alternative energy source reaches its "critical mass" the costs may be beneficial. Its like an investment and thats the way we have to look at at. As an example, building a nuke plant seems to make no $$ and cents. It may take 10 years for it to pay off and them we get the financial benefit. Same is true for hydro power plants. They cost a fortune to build but we don't see the price reduction today in our electric bill/ It could 10 to 15 years for the plant to pay off. The same is true for e85, we just need everything to catch up and get some critical mass before it starts to pay off

I agree that hydro and nuclear are expensive plants to build, but they also have a life span over 50 years of renewable energy with relatively low maintanance.  Hydro also contributes toward flood control, provides recreational opportunities, and potential potable water supplies.  Nuclear has the advantage of using the excess steam to provide heating sources for factories, small towns, or the like.  Also, the fuel can be regenerated so we don't have the disposal problems as in the past.  The fuel saved from transportation of fuel to supply electrical generation alone is a substantial savings in the long run.  In addition, we haven't really explored the thermal energy from the earth's molten magma, more wind farms and solar panels, and tidal.  There are many places in the US that could use electricity generated in much smaller scale and placed on the grid without excessive costs, and yet be effective in a reduction of fossil fuels. 

[kevthebassman]

By definition e85 is 15% corn oil, so therefor it represents a 15% reduction in oil consumption. As far as the reset of the stats being stated here I'm not sure. I do know that e85 has its down side today. That does not mean that increased consumption/production won't resolve some of these stated issues if there accurate. If we base every alternative energy on pure costs in today's dollars, none of the alternatives will make sense. Thats does not mean that once a particular alternative energy source reaches its "critical mass" the costs may be beneficial. Its like an investment and thats the way we have to look at at. As an example, building a nuke plant seems to make no $$ and cents. It may take 10 years for it to pay off and them we get the financial benefit. Same is true for hydro power plants. They cost a fortune to build but we don't see the price reduction today in our electric bill/ It could 10 to 15 years for the plant to pay off. The same is true for e85, we just need everything to catch up and get some critical mass before it starts to pay off

This is one of my posts from an old ethanol debate.  I think it sums up my reservations about ethanol.

The problem, as I see it, is going to be water.  Corn needs to be irrigated, and it needs a LOT of water to be distilled into ethanol.  If we were to switch over to all ethanol, we would be using a whole lot more water than we already do, and we're depleting the aquifers already.  The Ogallala Aquifer under Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, etc is going to be gone in 30 years at the current pace.

3.One bushel of corn yields about 2.8 gallons of ethanol.

Here's the problem though.  In 2006, we grew 11.1 Billion bushels of corn, total.   11.1 X 2.8 = 31 billion gallons of ethanol fuel if we turned 100% of our corn crop into ethanol. 

In 2005 we used 385 million US liquid gallons of gasoline each day.  385,000,000 X 365 = 140,525,000,000  That's 140 billion gallons of gasoline.

140 billion gallons minus 31 billion gallons still leaves us with a 109 billion (with a B ) gallon shortfall.  Ethanol isn't going to solve our problems.  It isn't even going to come close if we plan on eating any of our corn or feeding any of it to our livestock.  Lets also remember that with more of our potential food being put into our gas tanks, food prices are going to climb.

Corn info

gas info

Ethanol is a dud.  A bill of goods being crammed down our throat by the government and the corn lobby.