C&D July '06: Ethanol Promises

[pow]

[pow]

[pow]

[Shantanu]

The media seems hell bent on trying to "expose" the truth about ethanol.

It's a pity they didn't engage in this kind of investigative journalism when it came to Toyota's hybrids, which didn't perform as advertised.

[evok]

The media seems hell bent on trying to "expose" the truth about ethanol.

It's a pity they didn't engage in this kind of investigative journalism when it came to Toyota's hybrids, which didn't perform as advertised.

Or how well the GMT 900s compare to EPA rating.

[evok]

Really the article is pretty good and goes to illustrate the problem using corn derived ethanol as a replacement for gas.

Fuel economy is worse because there is less energy per pound compared to petroleum derived fuels. There is no way around that.

And corn is not the best source for ethanol. Leading experts in the energy field are promoting switch grass.

Even though most leading economist still believe there is an unlimited supply of petroleum as long as the energy companies keep exploring.

Edited June 2, 2006 by evok

[Clownzilla]

There is ALWAYS going to be the advantage of being able to grow much of our fuel in our country, not get fuel from contries that genuinly hate us. There is also the economic benefit that our agriculture sector would experience. Of coarse, as long as Toyota is building the hybrid batteries in the United States, and as long as Toyota is pumping and INSANE amount of cash into the USA economy and not sending back to Japan.............oh wait..............

[evok]

You should see some of what Minnesota governor Tim "Horn of" Pawlenty says about corn derived ethanol. According to him it does everything but make your penis bigger. Of course he ignores the fact no one wants to live by an ethanol plant due to the smell and all the state funded ethanol plants he keeps putting up could easily be built with out all that tax payer money, but so it goes . . .

The governor from Colorado I believe is as big as a crack pot. He wants to convert coal in the state into diesel, bag all the C02 from the conversion process, then transport that C02 to the Middle East so it can be ejected into the Ghawar oil fields to increase head pressures.

Yup that makes a lot of sence.

[Croc]

Really the article is pretty good and goes to illustrate the problem using corn derived ethanol as a replacement for gas.

Fuel economy is worse because there is less energy per pound compared to petroleum derived fuels.  There is no way around that.

And corn is not the best source for ethanol.  Leading experts in the energy field are promoting switch grass.

Even though most leading economist still believe there is an unlimited supply of petroleum as long as the energy companies keep exploring.

Hence my insistence on biodiesel as the answer...

[Sixty8panther]

Hmmmm fascinating thread. I guess Hydrogen is the

real answer after all. I for one am glad that at least

GM is not dumping a to of money into Hybrids...

investing millions inot Hybrids now is like investing

thousands in peace metals to Japan in Nov. 1941.

At least there's a slight performance benefit here

instead of the B.S. oxygenation addative.

BTW: I noticed there other day that on pumps in

Massachusetts it says all gasoline is 15 % ethanol

by volume... kind of the opposite of E85. G85?

[Croc]

I don't think hydrogen is really the answer...too many issues that need to be worked out...

[Brandon Lutz]

Corn based ethanol is the wrong way to get it. Switch grass, Sugar Cane, and Sugar beets would be the more efficient crops to get it from.

Speaking of alternative fuels. I will attempt to make my first batch of Bio-diesel this weekend

[pow]

I don't think hydrogen is really the answer...too many issues that need to be worked out...

At the moment, the best answer is to cut consumption. The whole ethanol hype reminds me of obese people who go for the Diet Coke "because it's better for you." Too bad it's still the big-gulp size.

[Shantanu]

I'm personally of the belief that the gasoline age has just begun and will likely last for several hundred years to come. I don't think ethanol, hybrid cars, hydrogen, or any of this other stuff will become big players in our lifetime because internal combustion is quite economically viable as it is.

[Croc]

Actually, the best answer would be to switch to a completely renewable resource, like 100% biodiesel. Unfortunately, most biodiesel blends are only 5% or 20% biodiesel...I agree on the Diet Coke analogy, though.

[Croc]

I'm personally of the belief that the gasoline age has just begun and will likely last for several hundred years to come.  I don't think ethanol, hybrid cars, hydrogen, or any of this other stuff will become big players in our lifetime because internal combustion is quite economically viable as it is.

until the petrol reserves run out

[Croc]

Speaking of alternative fuels. I will attempt to make my first batch of Bio-diesel this weekend

Cool!

[pow]

Actually, the best answer would be to switch to a completely renewable resource, like 100% biodiesel.  Unfortunately, most biodiesel blends are only 5% or 20% biodiesel...I agree on the Diet Coke analogy, though.

True... that will also help reduce consumption, as diesel engines are inherently more efficient.

Mercedes C240 on E85: 14/19 MPG

Mercedes E320 CDI on diesel: 27/37 MPG

The diesel gets nearly double the economy, despite being larger and significantly more powerful.

[Shantanu]

until the petrol reserves run out

Not going to happen for hundreds of years, if you extrapolate gasoline consumption increases and new deposits of oil being found through exploration.

[Shantanu]

True... that will also help reduce consumption, as diesel engines are inherently more efficient.

Mercedes C240 on E85: 14/19 MPG

Mercedes E320 CDI on diesel: 27/37 MPG

The diesel gets nearly double the economy, despite being larger and significantly more powerful.

It depends upon how you define efficient. I would define efficiency as mechanical efficiency, i.e. how much work you get from an engine divided by the energy released. You're just looking at how potent the fuel is, because some fuels are inherently more potent than others.

[evok]

Not going to happen for hundreds of years, if you extrapolate gasoline consumption increases and new deposits of oil being found through exploration.

Assuming demand stays at the levels they are at today, you are still so wrong on this subject when compared to the opinion of the leading experts in the energy field.

[Drew Dowdell]

A number of points to address the falsehoods in both the article and some C&Ger's opinions:

1. Corn is one of the least economical of all the potential crops to derive ethanol from.

2. Switchgrass, sugarbeats, Beer manufacturing byproduct, and sugarcane are the most economical. I've seen ratios for sugarcane ethenol in Brazil being 8:1 energy production: energy consumption.

3. Currently you will see a hit in milage running E85. This is due to the engine being tuned to run E85 as a secondary measure. If the engine were tuned for E85 as the primary fuel, the mileage difference would diminish.

4. Petrol fuels are subsidized

Let me say that again...

Petrol fuels are subsidized

Think 100 Billion for Iraq war 2.0 isn't a subsidy? How ever much for Iraq war 1.0 wasn't a subsidy?

Personally, I'd rather have the Feds kick in 51 cents a gallon towards my fuel bill if it means my partner doesn't have to go back to Iraq <he served a year there... analyzing fuel ironically>.

I'll tie a yellow ribbon 'round my Oldsmobile.

We'll protect Kuwait for daddy's V8.

[regfootball]

You should see some of what Minnesota governor Tim "Horn of" Pawlenty says about corn derived ethanol. According to him it does everything but make your penis bigger. Of course he ignores the fact no one wants to live by an ethanol plant due to the smell and all the state funded ethanol plants he keeps putting up could easily be built with out all that tax payer money, but so it goes . . .

c'mon Joe, CAMPAIGN DOLLARS! yet the Ford plant still goes away! What Tim-o should have done is fund the development for development of a new Ranger pickup....the state of Hockey should have foot the bill for the new Ranger..he tried to lure Ford with more ethanol subsidies but in the end Ford's pockets are getting greased more by wherever is building the next Ranger.

My wife's hometown is in the process of building an ethanol plant. Folks around there think its the second coming....for sure, they can grow their own fuel for their fuel sucking chariots. Bet if I showed them the article, it'd piss many off. I've read plenty of the exact same type of stuff about ethanol before. My position on it these days is its good and bad. Its nice to diversify and give us another fuel option, but folks need to know that more about it right now is that its more a farm subsidy than anything. Folks are totally oblivious to how much $$$$ gets pumped into farm subsidies anyways so whatever.

Note the graphic in the article....FIFTY PERCENT of our oil comes from WESTERN HEMISPHERE....NOT IRAQ WE SHOULD BE SUCKING UP TO OUR CANADIAN BUDDIES AND WHOA THOSE ILLEGALS FROM MEXICO CAN NEVER BE A BAD THING!

when we can truly corral all the wind's and sun's power and turn it into electricity, that will be our best solution. Hydrogen has promise. Long term, FUSION / Nuclear will have to be discovered.

Edited June 5, 2006 by regfootball

[Shantanu]

A number of points to address the falsehoods in both the article and some C&Ger's opinions:

1. Corn is one of the least economical of all the potential crops to derive ethanol from.

2. Switchgrass, sugarbeats, Beer manufacturing byproduct, and sugarcane are the most economical. I've seen ratios for sugarcane ethenol in Brazil being 8:1 energy production: energy consumption.

3. Currently you will see a hit in milage running E85. This is due to the engine being tuned to run E85 as a secondary measure. If the engine were tuned for E85 as the primary fuel, the mileage difference would diminish.

4. Petrol fuels are subsidized

Let me say that again...

Petrol fuels are subsidized

Think 100 Billion for Iraq war 2.0 isn't a subsidy? How ever much for Iraq war 1.0 wasn't a subsidy?

Personally, I'd rather have the Feds kick in 51 cents a gallon towards my fuel bill if it means my partner doesn't have to go back to Iraq <he served a year there... analyzing fuel ironically>.

I'll tie a yellow ribbon 'round my Oldsmobile.

We'll protect Kuwait for daddy's V8.

QFT

I read an article a while back that said that despite how big America's oil giants are, they have a difficult time competing for new gas fields with the gigantic state run oil companies of Russia, China, India, etc. So the U.S. government has to come in to secure access to oil overseas, because it can no longer be done by private sector companies alone.

And then there's the fact of how many troops we always seem to have in the Middle East, "protecting American interests". Those are all real costs on the taxpayers.

[regfootball]

fuel or food, take your pick, we only have so much land

[Shantanu]

fuel or food, take your pick, we only have so much land

What are you joking? America grows half the world's food. And we don't even use most of the land for farming. The vast majority of it gets exported, because as fat as Americans are, even Americans don't eat all that much. Food is the one thing that America still has a gigantic trade surplus in, perhaps the only thing other than jet airplanes.

In fact the bigger problem is farmers always complaining that they don't have enough demand for their crops, and demanding the government pay them subsidies to not grow food! If corn can be used for ethanol + food, that increases the demand, which increases prices, which is good for farmers, and hopefully also good for American taxpayers if it can eliminate some of these subsidies.

If you're so concerned about agricultural efficiency you should stop eating meat, because it takes hundreds of times as many acres to grow food for livestock as it does to just grow soy beans (in terms of the protein you get out of it in the end). A good chunk of the grains that are grown in the U.S. are actually fed to cattle and such, and not eaten by people.

Edited June 5, 2006 by Shantanu

[regfootball]

What are you joking?  America grows half the world's food.  And we don't even use most of the land for farming.  The vast majority of it gets exported, because as fat as Americans are, even Americans don't eat all that much.  Food is the one thing that America still has a gigantic trade surplus in, perhaps the only thing other than jet airplanes.

In fact the bigger problem is farmers always complaining that they don't have enough demand for their crops, and demanding the government pay them subsidies to not grow food!     If corn can be used for ethanol + food, that increases the demand, which increases prices, which is good for farmers, and hopefully also good for American taxpayers if it can eliminate some of these subsidies.

If you're so concerned about agricultural efficiency you should stop eating meat, because it takes hundreds of times as many acres to grow food for livestock as it does to just grow soy beans (in terms of the protein you get out of it in the end).  A good chunk of the grains that are grown in the U.S. are actually fed to cattle and such, and not eaten by people.

better to make fuel for people, not cars? did you read the article? only a 7.4% reduction in imports is possible? and we only get a fraction of our imports from the middle east now? and its expensive to produce and gets horsecrap mpg? In return for scavenging land to grow for fuel vs. food? It would make more sense to make ethanol from other plants like sugar before corn. How much of your yearly tax bill goes to farm subsidies?

its great as an alternative, but we are hosing ourselves if try to RELY on corn ethanol in a huge way. Warning, it may be better to feed the middle east monster than the midwest monster.

If we are going to pump money into something, why not solar/electric/wind/water energy and maybe even hydrogen and nuclear?

Edited June 6, 2006 by regfootball

[Shantanu]

Well nobody said ethanol has to 100% replace gasoline to be worthwhile. Reducing gasoline consumption will have to be multi-pronged attack, i.e. more fuel efficient cars, conservation, and using alternatives like ethanol added in when possible. And even then the end result is not to not import any oil at all from the Middle East, just to reduce consumption of it a bit, which will help everyone by bringing down prices as demand decreases.

And yes, if ethanol cuts gasoline usage by 7% that's billions of dollars. That's billions of dollars shaved off our trade deficit. And that's demand for gasoline being lowered by billions of dollars. That's that much less power OPEC has over the American economy.

Warning, it may be better to feed the middle east monster than the midwest monster.

What makes you say that? Are you one of those assholes from California that hates "flyover country"? I live in the Midwest and I'd rather see jobs being created here than in Iraq.

Edited June 6, 2006 by Shantanu

[regfootball]

Well nobody said ethanol has to 100% replace gasoline to be worthwhile.  Reducing gasoline consumption will have to be multi-pronged attack, i.e. more fuel efficient cars, conservation, and using alternatives like ethanol added in when possible.  And even then the end result is not to not import any oil at all from the Middle East, just to reduce consumption of it a bit, which will help everyone by bringing down prices as demand decreases.

And yes, if ethanol cuts gasoline usage by 7% that's billions of dollars.  That's billions of dollars shaved off our trade deficit.  And that's demand for gasoline being lowered by billions of dollars.  That's that much less power OPEC has over the American economy.

What makes you say that?   Are you one of those assholes from California that hates "flyover country"?  I live in the Midwest and I'd rather see jobs being created here than in Iraq.

i've lived my whole life in the HEART of ag country....the monster is big enough the way it is even before ethanol

[Shantanu]

i've lived my whole life in the HEART of ag country....the monster is big enough the way it is even before ethanol

BUY 'MERCHAN!

[Drew Dowdell]

If Brazil can do 100% ethanol fuel, we can do at least 50% ethanol fuel.

Imagine what cutting our consumption of oil in half would do to the fuel market.

[regfootball]

BUY 'MERCHAN!

AND DRIVE A PICK EM UP TRUK

[regfootball]

If Brazil can do 100% ethanol fuel, we can do at least 50% ethanol fuel.

Imagine what cutting our consumption of oil in half would do to the fuel market.

that must be some good weed you're smoking

or good kool aid

[regfootball]

If Brazil can do 100% ethanol fuel, we can do at least 50% ethanol fuel.

Imagine what cutting our consumption of oil in half would do to the fuel market.

ok, prove that we can do that. you can't just throw out a number like 50% and not back it up. and your prius gets 90 mpg when the wind is blowing 10 mph

give me acreage, how many acres of farmland per year do we need to grow enough sugar or corn for the 50%. what is our backup plan in case their is a natural ag disaster, i.e. drought, lack of yield, storm damage

yield

production quantities based on yield

taxpayer cost, for famring subsidies and ethanol production subsidies

cost of new refineries including tax breaks and other start up subsidies

increased food prices due to less 'food production' in lieu of using all that land for fuel

in your scenario then I would propose we mandate that large better managed businesses be able to farm the crops required for ethanol prodcution instead of often poorly managed family farms. Then we could see efficiencies in labor and production because the business could be managed. You certainly don't need farm workers on the clock 40/52 so we can make the production workers part time and save benefits costs.

Edited June 7, 2006 by regfootball

[mrmonte]

Any of you guys Hot Rodders ? Is it true this stuff has 105 octane ? I really could care less about MPG in this type of application but it would be great to be able to build a 13:1 comp. small block and get cheap pump gas to run it.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Silly posters...

Toyota got caught flat footed so C&D is just doing damage control for them... Just like any good PR firm or ass kissing media outlet would do!

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

The next phase:

To continue destroying hybrids by the time the GMT900 hybrids come out!!!

By then their goal will be: "It doesn't matter if the vehicle is hybrid or not.. It matters how big the vehicle is and what country of origin it is" Therefore relegating GM's BETTER plan of adapting the technology to bigger vehicles, to an also-ran status.

[Camino LS6]

ok, prove that we can do that.  you can't just throw out a number like 50% and not back it up.  and your prius gets 90 mpg when the wind is blowing 10 mph

give me acreage, how many acres of farmland per year do we need to grow enough sugar or corn for the 50%.  what is our backup plan in case their is a natural ag disaster, i.e. drought, lack of yield, storm damage

yield

production quantities based on yield

taxpayer cost, for famring subsidies and ethanol production subsidies

cost of new refineries including tax breaks and other start up subsidies

increased food prices due to less 'food production' in lieu of using all that land for fuel

in your scenario then I would propose we mandate that large better managed businesses be able to farm the crops required for ethanol prodcution instead of often poorly managed family farms.  Then we could see efficiencies in labor and production because the business could be managed.  You certainly don't need farm workers on the clock 40/52 so we can make the production workers part time and save benefits costs.

Wow!

You really want to add your name to the ever-expanding list of people beating up on the Family Farm?

Unbelieveable.

Your negative assesment conveniently ingores the fact that all of the economic activity you describe happens domestically , Americans would benefit from this increased demand, not volitile, unstable, unfriendly foreign nations.

No, ethanol is not the complete answer, but it is a step toward energy independence and deserves real support.

BTW: Florida can grow sugarcane, swtich-grass is native to the plains, and sugar beets could likely be grown somewhere in the US. Also, finding enough "beer by-product" shouldn't be too tough. Anyone looking into these?

[regfootball]

Wow!

You really want to add your name to the ever-expanding list of people beating up on the Family Farm?

Unbelieveable.

Your negative assesment conveniently ingores the fact that all of the economic activity you describe happens domestically , Americans would benefit from this increased demand, not volitile, unstable, unfriendly foreign nations.

No, ethanol is not the complete answer, but it is a step toward energy independence and deserves real support.

BTW: Florida can grow sugarcane, swtich-grass is native to the plains, and sugar beets could likely be grown somewhere in the US. Also, finding enough "beer by-product" shouldn't be too tough. Anyone looking into these?

just as i thought. no business case with dollars assigned. also, do you have proof that the family farm concept is our most efficient and best way to perform agriculture? perhaps in some instances if businesses farmed the land, it could be done better and more efficiently with less taxpayer subisdies and less drowining debt to the individuals involved in the process. something to chew on. all sorts of folks are 'running farms' who have no management education, marketing or economics educations, or post secondary education whatsoever.

no one else in America is 'entitled' to be allowed to run a govt subsidized family business, why do farmers get that exemption? everyone else works for the man......if the business case cannot be made for family farm concept maybe it needs to go away.

I am for ethanol as another alternative fuel. I am not for going out of our way for extra subsidizing beyond the already large farming subsidies with ethanol used a thin veil or shroud for what it really is.

In some ways, the defense of farming has many parallels to defending the UAW.

by the way, i was raised in sugar beet country. beet farmers are among the richest folks in America.............talk about a protected goods.......the beet farmers do probably the best of any farmers in America already. You should see the folks try to rent more land and get contracts for more beet production. I sure could do that gig.

Edited June 16, 2006 by regfootball

[zhawk]

Much of our government farm subsidies go to asking farmers to not plant. Turned loose the American farmer could produce so much more crops than they do. Its a simple fact. Some study in Agribusiness brings this to the forefront quickly.

The US has been dumping crops and asking farmers to scale back for simple reasons. The primary one is that we use our food as incentives to get other countries to go along with our desires. We've been doing this for years. Too much excess food drops the value of it. Therefore we decrease the amount we have available to increase the value.

Reg...you're not going to get a firm business plan from just about anyone here. Why? Because unless someone has been hiding their status, no one here has enough facts to show the exact plan that anyone would use. On the other hand there is enough evidence to show that E85 definately has potential. Corn is just the first step because it is a readily available crop and there is an overabundance of it. The other, potentially more effiecient crops will follow as the infrastructure is set.

As for anyone who complains ablout the energy needed to refine E85, remember oil also uses energy to refine. And since there is currently an E85 refinery being built in Washington State, I wouldn't worry about burning coal. Most of our energy here is hydroelectric.

[Drew Dowdell]

Reg,

It's not so much a "defense of farming" but a disgust towards the Saudis that drives me.

If GM could build a car that ran on British Beef, I'd be all for it as long as it was resonably enviromentally sound <or at least no worse then gas> and didn't come from unstable middle easter countries.

[evok]

If Brazil can do 100% ethanol fuel, we can do at least 50% ethanol fuel.

Imagine what cutting our consumption of oil in half would do to the fuel market.

Bigger question is, what will that do to the value of the dollar. The dollar is the world currency when it comes to the energy trade. Less, demand for oil means less demand for the dollar.

[Shantanu]

Bigger question is, what will that do to the value of the dollar.  The dollar is the world currency when it comes to the energy trade.  Less, demand for oil means less demand for the dollar.

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment. A currency's value is largely dictated by a nation's long term trade surplus/deficit. America's persistent trade deficits (much of it driven by oil imports), have caused the value of the USD to plummet. This is because Americans are demanding more foreign currency to buy imports and foreigners are demanding less American dollars to buy American exports.

Now for a long time America was able to cheat this, because as you stated the U.S. dollar is used by a lot of other countries. In Panama it's the national currency. In Russia, they use USD on the black market because their own currency is volatile. And many international trades are conducted in dollars because it's popular, stable currency. These all increase demand for dollars by foreigners. But the persistent trade deficits of America have finally led to a decline in the dollar's value, something that is not likely to change anytime soon.

Also if we start substituting a small amount of ethanol for oil in this country, that has very little bearing on oil trading by other countries. Most countries aren't developing ethanol as a fuel source.

Edited June 17, 2006 by Shantanu

[Brandon Lutz]

no one else in America is 'entitled' to be allowed to run a govt subsidized family business, why do farmers get that exemption?

Because about 30 years ago, the government decided that Americans desired to pay less for food. And as the majority of Americans want to pay the least amount as possible for anything regardless of consequences we have subsidized farming in some areas.

The price on the market for produce and other food from farming has not increased or gone up significantly in the last 30 years to offset the rising costs in farming. The same combine that cost only 50k ten years ago now costs 210K. The same type tractor that was 45k is now near 150K. Same goes for plows, planters, cultivators, etc. Fuel has gone up, checmicals are going up. The entire cost for everything has gone up. Because of this, subsidation has stayed put. But as long as we only want to pay such and such for a loaf of bread or a dozen eggs, or for 3 lbs of corn, subsidation will go away.

I grew up on a farm, and I'm proud to say that my father has never applied for a check nor received a subsidy check. Many of the farmers here are the same way. However none of them are rich, and many are closing up shop to take jobs elsewhere because of mounting debts and increasing costs in farming.

It's a dying business. The majority of farming across the nation is like this. I read the industry papers my father and grandfather get all the time, and farmers across the nation are going broke and closing up shop.

The farmers in this country who get "Rich" off of their subsidy checks are dirty. Because if they would actually use the checks for what the government intended it for, they would be successfull, but hardly rich. There is one farmer in my area that does miss-use his check that he applied for and got, but he is shunned by everyone else. Its also no surprise that he is also trying to get into local politics lol.

If it wasnt for my fathers small trucking fleet of 6 trucks and his dozer work he does on the side, he would've folded up loooong ago. This is basically why I never went into Farming. Sad that I ended a family tradition, but like to sleep at night, and not have to wonder if tomorrow if I will be presented with thousands of dollars of debt.

There are biodiesel plants and ethanol plants now being built here in Louisiana. Many farmers are pushing for more to be built because it gives them an potential increased income and a way to end subsidation. Alternative fuels based off of crops is promising as helping cut prices.

Will we ever be able to go 100 percent biofuel in this country? Of course not. Its not possible. There are to many variables and too many greedy politicians and corporations to enable this. However we can make a significant dent in our reliance off of imported oil. At least get us completely away from anything OPEC related.

Of course we could also shove the enviromentalists to the side and finally tap our own oil reserves like we should've long ago. However, I have a feeling as soon as alternate energy really gets some steam and moving along in this country, rather it be bio fuels or hydrogen, or a magical chemical, all the magical regulations and stupid appeasements will be swept aside so big oil can drill in Anwar, the Keys, and off the coast of Cali so we are "less dependent on imported oil"

[Shantanu]

Food in America is cheap, perhaps more cheap than it should be. Foreigners always comment that the restraunt portions here are gigantic, maybe 2-3 times the size of what you get in Europe and about 1/2 to 1/3 the cost. That's because the raw material cost of the food is almost nothing. Perhaps it would do the country a bit of good to see food prices go up, seeing that obesity and heart disease are huge public health problems.

And for those who can't afford food, there are always food stamps.

[evok]

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment.  A currency's value is largely dictated by a nation's long term trade surplus/deficit.  America's persistent trade deficits (much of it driven by oil imports), have caused the value of the USD to plummet. This is because Americans are demanding more foreign currency to buy imports and foreigners are demanding less American dollars to buy American exports.

Now for a long time America was able to cheat this, because as you stated the U.S. dollar is used by a lot of other countries.  In Panama it's the national currency.  In Russia, they use USD on the black market because their own currency is volatile.  And many international trades are conducted in dollars because it's  popular, stable currency.  These all increase demand for dollars by foreigners.  But the persistent trade deficits of America have finally led to a decline in the dollar's value, something that is not likely to change anytime soon.

Also if we start substituting a small amount of ethanol for oil in this country, that has very little bearing on oil trading by other countries.  Most countries aren't developing ethanol as a fuel source.

No doubt - The world economy is so complex and inter-woven - it is never one simple factor. Think of how 70usd/barrel is absorbing the deficit spending by the government. It is keeping the dollar a float.