Skip to comments.Ethanol loses friends and influence as reform movement grows
Posted on 12/31/2013 5:49:24 AM PST by thackneyEdited on 12/31/2013 8:02:13 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Ethanol requirements for U.S. gasoline appear to be losing friends and influencing the wrong people, with calls growing to reform or scrap the government mandates altogether.
The Environmental Protection Agency in November proposed reducing the amount of renewable fuels, including corn-based ethanol, that oil refiners must blend with gasoline. The rule is a centerpiece of government efforts to curb carbon emissions, while jump-starting alternative forms of energy.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
I wish I actually had some freedom of choice - that I could actually use - once in awhile.
Just because the creation and use of biofuels actually causes more so-called greenhouse gases” than does ordinary petroleum-based fuels, and just because diverting the land from the production of food that starving milliions in the third world need to survive, and just because growing biofuels depletes the land of nutrients (or cuases additional use of fertilizers hazardous to our water supply) is no reason for the EPA to stop mandating is use. After all, it makes them feel better. So there. /sarc/
Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) Corn headed for the biggest annual drop since at least 1960 and wheat tumbled the most in five years as grain production climbs to records worldwide and outpaces demand for food, livestock feed and use in biofuels.
I’m running for Iowa governor in 2014, and I agree with you about the RFS mandate.
“The rule is a centerpiece of government efforts to curb carbon emissions, while jump-starting CAMPAIGN DONORS.”
Iowa = ethanol = first primary state. Follow the =.
“This measure would strand billions of dollars already invested in advanced fuels; undermine research and development; and threaten thousands of potential jobs,” the group said. “
When you get in bed with government, don’t be surprised if you wake up with fleas and on the floor.
Why is the fact of millions of dollars of critical damage done to small engines from everything from boat engines to the gas engines in mowers, snow-blowers, saws and other wide spread tools not part of the discussion?
The “profits” to the farmers are offset by the costs to the people FORCED to use their damaging product, but what a source of votes for “you know who”.
I think I just answered my own question.
Here in Minnesota, they’re running anti-EPA ads 24/7, telling the public to “call their representative” and “put ethanol back in oil,” and “not become dependent on foreign oil;” Willfully oblivious to the Bakken shale just over the border.
Didn’t T-paw give us a E20 mandate as well?
Even if we wanted to keep ethanol in our fuel, we don’t meed to get it from corn. We can make ethanol from coal 30% cheaper than from corn.
More votes to be lost in urbanized areas from anger over skyrocketing food prices than to be gained in Iowa and Nebraska.
Adding alcohol to gasoline dilutes the fuel, and lowers the heat energy.
One US gallon of Gasoline (regular unleaded) = 114,100 BTU/gal
One US gallon of Ethanol (E100) = 76,100 BTU/gal [67% of gasoline BTU]
One US gallon of 10% Ethanol/Gasoline Blend (E10) = 110,300 BTU/gal [97% of gasoline BTU]
Math Check: [(114,100 X .9) + (76,100 X .1) = 110,300] [110,300/114,100 = .966]
Adding 10% ethanol to gasoline requires burning 3% more fuel to accomplish the same task.
Why do state and federal governments really like ethanol blended fuels?
Ethanol blended gasoline requires buying 3% more gallons of fuel in order to travel the same distance.
Highway fuels are taxed “by the gallon”, so governments collect more taxes with blended fuels.
Mandating the use of ethanol blended fuel was a disguise for a 3% hike in gasoline taxes.
My wife and I are retired on a limited income + SS, and our family car is a 10 year old Toyota that has only 80K miles on the clock, gets 35 mpg highway, and is in excellent condition overall. Our 2nd vehicle is a very handy but even older pickup with approximately 130K miles on the clock. If what I have read and heard about the new fuel requirement is correct it could cost me well over $1,000 to have the Toyota retrofitted to use the new ethanol/gas fuel, and probably even more to modify the older pickup. My wife and I are conservative on practically all issues and are registered as Republicans, but we won't vote for or contribute to any candidate of either party who supports this unnecessary nonsense that only benefits the highly improbable odd couple composed of enviro/whackos and the big-corporation corn industry. If I have been given incorrect information on the issue, someone please show where and how it's incorrect.
Burning corn as fuel is one reason why the cost of hamburger is at record levels.
There's your logic back at you LibTards!
That he did, and wasn’t too happy about that.
I hate putting ethanol through an engine. My solution, propane. My 77’ F150 now has 350K, still humms along happily. Propane is a domesticly produced fuel. A little less MPG, but I pay about $2.00/gal. Very clean, as a gaseous fuel, kind to an engine. 95,000BTU/gal.
Until a few years back, propane vehicles, mostly after sale conversions, were exempt from emissions test under EPA rule 1A. Yep, the very first rule EPA passed after its creation.
What I did lo these many years ago for about $700 would probably cost $4,000 or more, the propane system now has to interact with all the electronics. Payback depends on how long you intend to keep the vehicle. And yes, one has a switch in the cab, One can go from propane to gasoline and back runnning down the road. Suffice it to say, my conversion paid for itself years ago.
We just sent my in-laws 79 f150 to the bone yard when it broke down in nd. The propane system kept icing up is sub zero temps. He could remember the odometer turning over 4 times since he got it new. It was close to a 5th time when it died. It had low compression on 3 cylinders hence the reason we killed it over waiting for a warmer day to drive it. I did pull the oil cap just for a look. It looked new inside the cover. A engine ran on gasoline would have been sludge city and killed the motor long before it wore out.
I should note his truck was not dual fuel. Only had a propane carburetor on it.
I'll have to give this infuriating mess some serious thought before the 15% crap becomes the only available fuel, but offhand I'm thinking that even as much as I hate this mandated idiocy I might be better served in the long run by just buying a new or near-new car that would tolerate the 15% ethanol crap.
cableguymn: I have had my system ice up. I should have known better. The regulator/vaporizor takes in liquid propane (freezing point -44 degrees) and emits the vapor the engine runs on. Until the thermostat opens, there is no warm water to run through the regulator, and yes, it will turn into a block of ice. Actually, propane is used as a refrigerant commercially, and I have a “liquid out” valve on my tank. Got a hot case of beer on a warm summer day? A half gallon of propane and you are sucking ice chips off the can.
Really cold days here, I learned to crank it up on gasoline, once the radiator warms up, I’m good for the day on propane.
This truck did not have the gas option. it was propane or walking..
It also did not have a heated regulator or 4 wheel drive. How it survived as long as it did in the mountains of Montana is beyond me.
But I’d say they did alright with it, made it almost to Fargo where the weather turned cold (-10 to -20) and that is when it froze up.
The low compression didn’t cause it to stop (of course it did not help either) but I think he was just looking for a reason to call it and put it in the grave yard.
We replaced it with a 1995 F-150 4X4 that runs on gasoline. I think they will find it much easier to deal with.