Shawn Smith, a Hutchinson native who now lives in Carbondale, Ill., fills up his truck at the Zarco 66 filling station near Ninth and Iowa streets on his way through Lawrence. Zarco is buying the Citgo station in the adjacent lot, seen in background, and will convert it to sell nothing but ethanol and biodiesel products.
Jere White, executive director of the Kansas Corn Growers Association, talks about the benefits of E-85 ethanol.
Jere White, executive director of the Kansas Corn Growers Association, talks about the benefits of E-85 ethanol.
Gasoline issues
- National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition website that tells motorists how to determine if their car is set up to operate on E-85 ethanol fuel
- National gasoline average tops $3 a gallon (05-05-07)
- Full tank, empty wallet (05-04-07)
- 6News video: Gas prices continue to climb across the nation (05-03-07)
- Gas could reach $4 a gallon soon (04-26-07)
- Hybrid car sales gaining in Lawrence as gasoline prices continue climb(04-21-07)
- City's T service marks 8.6 percent ridership increase (04-21-07)
- Study finds health risks in expanded ethanol use (04-19-07)
- Gasoline price surge to ease for summer (04-11-07)
- Bush extols alternative fuel vehicles (03-27-07)
- Ethanol: A better burn? (10-04-06)
- More gas stations to sell ethanol blend (03-30-06)
So, $3-a-gallon gasoline has you ready to fight back against the big oil companies.
Good luck in Lawrence. You might have an easier time in small farm communities like Garnett, Bird City or Girard.
That's because those communities - and 14 others in Kansas - have gasoline stations that are selling a special type of motor fuel called E85. It's a fuel that contains 85 percent ethanol - made largely with Midwest corn - and just 15 percent gasoline from the big oil companies.
"I think this fuel can play a serious part in helping solve some of the big-picture energy issues we have in this country," said Steve Stewart, the city's central garage superintendent who has been studying E85 for the past five years. "The more we can do to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, the better off we're going to be."
But in Lawrence - where chants of "no war for oil" are common, and city commissioners are frequently proclaiming something as environmentally friendly - there's not a single gasoline station selling the fuel.
First in the state
That could change.
Scott Zaremba, president of the Lawrence-based Zarco 66 gas station chain, said he intends to create the state's first "earth-friendly fuels station." The station would sell only fuel that contains a significant amount of renewable energy. That mean selling E85 ethanol and several lower blends of ethanol, and biodiesel, which is made from soybeans.
"I think Lawrence is the type of town that is really going to embrace this," Zaremba said.
Zaremba recently finalized a deal to purchase the Citgo station at Ninth and Iowa streets. He said he hopes to have the new earth-friendly fuel station operating in about two months.
He thinks the fuel has two big selling points in Lawrence. The first is that it is a way for Lawrence residents to support farmers instead of oil companies. But he thinks the environmental benefits will be one of the bigger draws in Lawrence.
Numbers vary, but there has been agreement in the scientific community that ethanol burns significantly cleaner than gasoline because ethanol contains more oxygen. Some say it also poses less risk to groundwater because it does not contain specific chemicals found in gasoline that have been identified as carcinogens.
The science is evolving, though, as the fuel becomes more widely used. A study released last month by a Stanford University researcher predicted that smog rates would be unchanged or worse by 2020 if E85 ethanol becomes the predominant motor fuel in the country. Ethanol supporters have disputed those findings.
Flex fuel engines
The fuel isn't for everyone. Conventional engines are able to run on only about a 10 percent ethanol mixture. Vehicles must be equipped with a special flex fuel engine in order to run on E85. The flex fuel engines also can run on traditional gasoline.
According to the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition, there are about 6 million flex fuel vehicles on the road today. The organization's Web site lists about 90 different models - ranging in year from 1997 to 2007 - that have been manufactured with flex fuel engines by the major vehicle companies.
Stewart - the city's chief mechanic - said thus far car companies aren't charging a premium price for the flex fuel vehicles. Instead, he said many people are buying the vehicles and don't even know that the engine is capable of running on the ethanol fuel.
There are various Web sites that will help motorists determine whether their cars are E85-compatible. Stewart said many of the newer models with flex fuel engines will contain a small green leaf imprinted on the car's fuel cap.
Cost equation
Yes, but is it cheaper? That's what everyone wants to know, and it takes a little math to figure that out.
E85 typically sells for less per gallon than traditional gasoline, said Jere White, executive director of the Kansas Corn Growers Association. In Garnett, where the association is based, E85 was selling for about $2.80 per gallon as traditional gasoline was selling for about $3 per gallon.
There's a big catch here. White and other ethanol supporters concede that vehicles using E85 will have fuel mileage that is about 10 percent to 15 percent less than if they were using gasoline. White said consumers need to see how the fuel performs in their vehicles, and then determine how much cheaper E85 needs to be priced for it to be comparable to gasoline.
The good news, White said, is that he thinks ethanol prices are bound to come down while gasoline prices continue to increase. That's because the supply of ethanol is going to increase significantly.
There are 12 plants in Kansas either in construction or in the planning stages, in addition to the eight plants that are in operation.
"I think there may be a day that we find the cheapest way to travel day in and day out is on E85," White said.
Zaremba also is thinking along those lines. He said prices should fall even more as the technology is developed to produce ethanol from material other than corn. That also should alleviate concerns that a surge in ethanol production will lead to higher long-term food costs because of significantly higher corn prices.
Work is being done to use agricultural waste products, such as sugar stalks and rice hulls, to manufacture ethanol.
"With fuel prices so high, it really looks like an emerging market to me," Zaremba said. "It is a clean product, a renewable product, and it can be grown right here in the States. I'm not sure what other selling points we're going to need."
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
blackwalnut (anonymous) says…
This is great news! While biodiesel is not a solution, it is an improvement. I've been waiting for biodiesel to come to Lawrence. Now a diesel vehicle we had our eye on makes more sense for us.
I was sorry to see the Citgo fuel go away. It gave me a tiny, slightly irrational thrill to know I was buying gas indirectly from Hugo Chavez rather than from the oil corporations tied to the Iraq war. I don't think this is off topic here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWiLsh...
Scott Zaremba, please consider still selling Citgo gasoline. Not all vehicles are diesel ones!
nut_case (anonymous) says…
Go Scott! I'll be in line to load up the fleet with E85, and know several others who will as well. Do what you can to keep the E85 price low, though. Topeka just got it's first commercial E85 station, at last fill up E85 was $2.59, regular unleaded was $3.09, but Premium (the only thing with comparable octane) was up around 3.29 or so. E85 may not save the world, or be a miracle cure for everything, but if it keeps a few bucks from heading to the middle east, and puts it into an American farmer's pocket, it's worth it.
Baby_Snakes (anonymous) says…
http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm
Baby_Snakes (anonymous) says…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/na...
Lifelong_Lawrencian (anonymous) says…
Most scientists agree that ethanol production from corn or soybeans requires as much fossil fuel as it replaces. Many say that it is net negative. Granted some of this fuel is in the form of domestic coal and therefore saves the import of some foreign oil. Also note that the government heavily subsidizes the production of ethanol which greatly reduces its actual cost. Whether you use the stuff or not, it's costing you a bundle. The truth is that ethanol is one of the largest boondoggles in U.S. history. It is about the farthest thing from green that you can get.
roger_o_thornhill (anonymous) says…
What's all this about "Arabs" and the "Middle East"? What about Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria, Angola, Ecuador, UK, Brazil, Chad, Colombia, etc...Of the top ten countries WE import oil from, only 3 would be considered in the "Middle East". Only one in the top 5. People need to get off their prejudices. There is a reason why the "Powers That Be" want you to think all your gas comes from the "Middle East". Maybe you should question that.
P.S. This isn't directed necessarily at the last post.
emilyhadley (Emily Hadley) says…
I am not yet convinced that statistics include all of the energy used to produce ethanol (everything from irrigating crops to pesticides to the refining process).
however, the downsides of producing gasoline never stop, and we use two barrels of oil for every barrel discovered. Such fuels as biodiesel and ethanol also greatly shorten the line from production to consumption. As I will pay more to buy local when it comes to all other goods and services, especially cargo and food which must be flown and trucked in from afar, I would certainly welcome fuels which do not travel tens of thousands of miles to my car via drilling rigs, pipelines, oil tankers, AND finally 18-wheeled tractor trailers.
Entire regions and states have been subjugated by their role in the world oil industry. Coastal African countries are exploited through off-shore drilling that often gives little back to those governments and nothing to the residents. We can only do so much to influence policy and humanitarian crises in other nations and states, but we should always work to reduce our established role as an environmental and economic exploiter in those foreign lands. I look forward to Zarco's success in this.
Lifelong_Lawrencian (anonymous) says…
Emily those are worthy ideals, but ethanol is not the answer. Only a fraction of fuel is used in the midwest compared to the coasts that lie far from the ethanol production. All the ethanol must be trucked in your 18 wheelers, since it cannot be put in a pipeline like gasoline. The best way to think of it is that Ethanol is just a way to move the pollution of L.A. to the midwest where the ethanol plants generate it.
pilch (anonymous) says…
CO2 still comes out the pipe. CO2 comes out in the fermentation of ethanol. CO2 comes out the pipe of the trucks transporting it since there is no pipelines. H2O will be absorbed by the EtOH causing freezing and corrosion problems. And lastly EtOH is subsidized by all via taxes. Thoughts?
redglare (anonymous) says…
Ethanol is a hoax that costs more fossil fuel to produce than it "replaces." It's great for corn farmers (a.k.a., welfare queens) who vote in the Iowa caucuses; and great for Monsanto/ADM and other members of the agri-defense complex who buy off our politicians; and great for oil companies desperate to market something that looks "green" to consumers. But folks, add up the fossil fuel needed for irrigation pumps, pesticides, fertilizers, combines, and transportation, and you'll see this is a total sham.
booze_buds_03 (anonymous) says…
Also producing ethanol increases the cost of feed for all animals in the U.S. Therefore this directly impacts the cost of almost every consumer food purchase. Such as all dairy, meat and about everything else because they contain some for of corn, soybean or other oil. I saw the other day that the cost of eggs will increase 50%, which seems small but not when eggs are in so many products that you buy.
pilch (anonymous) says…
good points
timetospeakup (anonymous) says…
Ethanol IS energy positive. If you guys check where your "facts" are coming from that say "ethanol is a hoax" they all go back to studies performed by a single "scientist" and very much manipulate the numbers to show the agenda he's paid to show. Unfortunately it's been repeated enough times that a lot of people take it as truth.
newsreader (anonymous) says…
Both of my cars specifically say NOT to use ehtanoel fuels, when I tried it once anyway my check engine light come on after about 10 miles. I ran the tank out and put the premium stuff back in and the light went off... sad...
dulcinea47 (anonymous) says…
timetospeakup- can you please link us to some sources that demonstrate how everyone else is wrong? I have not seen the studies you're referring to and would like to so I can judge for myself.
OldEnuf2BYurDad (anonymous) says…
I have an E85 car, but there is a problem: The manual for the car says that you should do either E85 or gas, but not to mix the two. So, if I'm "on fumes" I can fill up with E85, but then if I'm somewhere where I cannot get E85 (99.9% of places, it seems) then I have to be on empty if I'm going to fill up with regular gas. The car has a sensor that can tell which fuel you are using, but you cannot have a blend of the different fuels in your tank at one time. So, if someone wants to use E85, they nearly have to commit to filling up at the same place every time, or they have to nearly run their tank dry every time they fill up.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Not too hard to do dulcinea47 if you have google available. Don't need to have someone to point the way. Here is something I found on the first page of a google search on one the authors referred to above. Judge away....
http://eerc.ra.utk.edu/etcfc/docs/pr/...
timetospeakup (anonymous) says…
dulcinea47 - I'm hardly saying "everyone else" is wrong, just an extremely vocal minority. This research details the current state of affairs fairly well. The Pimental and Ho study from the 70's they cite is the basis of nearly all of the current FUD. It's all based on 1970's crop yields and technology, but we make ethanol today with 21st century yields and tech - huge difference. It also fails to recognize that ethanol byproducts, such as distiller's grain, have value that is "outside" of the analysis used in these straight-efficiency studies.
It should be noted as well - as far as ethanol processes go, corn IS fairly inefficient. For better or worse we have a lot of corn, it was disgustingly cheap, and the technology straightforward. Technology is making other forms of ethanol that are even more energy efficient closer to being feasible on an industrial scale every day. So, it only gets better from here.
OldEnuf2BYurDad - what kind of car do you use? You might re-check that fact. E85 is "up to" 85% ethanol (and usually no less than 70%). The blends vary regionally and with the weather, so to say you can either run 0% ethanol OR 85% ethanol is not strictly true (because of the blending variances), so you may be misinterpreting something. I know I switch my chevy between E85 and gasoline at will.
timetospeakup (anonymous) says…
Sorry forgot my link http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm
redglare (anonymous) says…
Ethanol is a sham, hoax, joke and scam. Build rail, get a bike, support local economies. If you think magic corn juice will fuel your air conditioned, SUV-driving lifestyle as you lounge in your 4,000-square-foot McMansion chomping on a Cesar salad that came from 1,500 miles away to your plate, you are in total denial.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070423...
http://www.organicconsumers.org/artic...
http://energybulletin.net/2456.html
http://www.kunstler.com/spch_hudson.htm
RKLOG (Mark Andrew) says…
Yep, this is only a lateral move and doesn't really solve the main problems the we have regarding reliance on fuel. A hybrid electric car that combines several resources would better serve us in the long run if we truly want to reduce our reliance on fuel production. However getting out of the habit of relying on the Middle East for fuel is extremely tempting right now. This independence should be a driving force for change.
roger_o_thornhill (anonymous) says…
(referencing 10:21am post) Marion,
The first part of your (9:49am) post was worthwhile, but why include the line about the Arabs? I figured you'd think that was what I was referring to, but look around: Many posters mentioned the "Middle East" and "Arabs". It is something a person hears often when the subject of oil and petroleum arises and I was just trying to show that our fuel supply comes from a variety of sources. And as far as not being in conflict with UK, Canada, Chad, etc...that isn't exactly true. Maybe not "armed" conflict, but that isn't the only weapon in the arsenal. Only those who don't want to be "under the thumb" of the so-called "west" draw the ire of the "powers that be". Plus, I don't remember the U.S. ever going to war with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or Iran (not yet, at least). I wasn't saying YOU were prejudiced in this case (though it isn't as though I know). I was saying that the "blame the Arabs" mentality is prejudiced.
You make good points from time to time, but like myself, you sometimes cloud them with ridiculousness.
Aside from that, why isn't their more animosity against the corporations that engage in this trade. They are responsible for much more negativity than any peoples or countries. And our oil soaked "leaders". I mean, go figure, two oilmen in the Whitehouse and suddenly gas is $3-$4/gallon. Hmmmm. Just like predicting in 2000 that we'd be in Iraq at some point during Bush II's reign of terror. Who'd have ever guessed?
BTW, guess who's bringing you all the ethanol?--It isn't farmer "Joe". It's the same companies who brought you all the joys and troubles of oil based petroleum products. Them and ADM, ConAgra, et. al. Farmer "Joe's" still gonna have the same problems he's had since the beginning of the agrarian lifestyle.
lunacydetector (anonymous) says…
this makes me wonder.....how many people in lawrence own a vehicle conducive to E85?
then again, how many people in lawrence own a diesel?
i'm kind of surprised the reporter didn't ask these questions.
camflan (Camron Flanders) says…
E85 provides LESS power per liter than gasoline. This in turn gives you WORSE miles per gallon, AND less hp/tq per injector cycle. Ethanol is VERY expensive to produce and when the government reduces it's subsidization to the levels that they provide for gasoline, E85 will be $6+ per gallon. Do you really want to pay more money for less range in your car? I don't. Yes, it is better for the environment in regards to exhaust gases, but there are better solutions to this problem....and the Prius isn't it (the pollution from the creation of batteries is 10000x worse than the emissions of gasoline).
Get a diesel, the emissions are cleaner than what gasoline emits into the air, the mpg are 45% higher than that of "hybrids", and the fuel is cheaper. Prius' get 30-40mpg on a daily basis, VW TDIs get 50 mpg +, and can be stretched above 60. The new BlueTec/Blue Motion diesels coming from Europe soon will increase mpg another 30-50% and reduce emissions another 40-60% further.
Now, THAT is a win-win situation.
blackwalnut (anonymous) says…
I'm waiting for this: a car that runs on compressed air. It sounds too good to be true, but it will be sold soon in Europe. If the electricity to recharge it could come from wind and solar, it would be pollution-free power.
http://www.theaircar.com/
JohnBrown (anonymous) says…
It's great seeing this conversation taking place. Ethanol is not a final step, it's a first step. Overcoming inertia and getting the ball rolling is a HUGE accomplishment. All the complaints are the types indicative of a paradigm shift.
emilyhadley (Emily Hadley) says…
Since others are indicating that we should look elsewhere for solutions to emissions and fossil fuel consumption, I suggest reading this report by the United Nations. The livestock industry actually outweighs automobiles in its combination of energy used in production, polluting and warming emissions, and land and water degradation.
Title: Livestock a major threat to environment
Remedies urgently needed
URL: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2...
Title: Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns
URL: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp...
So, if you really want to make a difference, don't split hairs on ethanol facts, just go vegetarian.
http://www.goveg.com/environment-glob...