Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ethanol loses friends and influence as reform movement grows
CNBC ^ | 29 Dec 2013 | Javier E. David

Posted on 12/31/2013 5:49:24 AM PST by thackney

Edited 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 ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: corn; energy; ethanol; gasoline; kenyanbornmuzzie; ntsa; opec

1 posted on 12/31/2013 5:49:24 AM PST by thackney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: thackney
I'm an Iowan with friends and relatives who are vested in ethanol, but who is very unhappy with the recent ethanol mandate that essentially forces me to buy ethanol-blended gasoline. I commute to work, and my formerly-fuel efficient car has seen its gas mileage go to hell. Winter-blend straight unleaded gasoline was bad enough, but with ethanol in the mix, the drop in MPG is alarming. If the greenies, state-owned vehicle users and ethanol-subsidy families wish to use ethanol blends, that's great, but I'd prefer to opt out.

I wish I actually had some freedom of choice - that I could actually use - once in awhile.

Mr. niteowl77

2 posted on 12/31/2013 6:14:23 AM PST by niteowl77 (Establishment Republicans: too cowardly to fight their enemies, brave enough to beat their friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

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/


3 posted on 12/31/2013 6:16:18 AM PST by Pecos (The Chicago Way: Kill the Constitution, one step at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney
"...strip ethanol completely from the Renewable Fuel Standard..."
-
I sure would appreciate it!

4 posted on 12/31/2013 6:17:20 AM PST by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

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.


5 posted on 12/31/2013 6:19:33 AM PST by artichokegrower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney
I will be amazed if the government refuses to quit burning food for energy. They dare not try sugar cane or switch grass. No. No. No. Why should logic get I the way of a well placed, vote buying subsidy program. Call me skeptical and sarcastic.
6 posted on 12/31/2013 6:20:24 AM PST by cashless (Obama told us he would side with Muslims if the political winds shifted in an ugly direction. Ready?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: niteowl77

I’m running for Iowa governor in 2014, and I agree with you about the RFS mandate.

http://www.tomhoefling.com/8/post/2013/12/iowa-republican-gubernatorial-candidate-tom-hoefling-i-oppose-the-ethanol-mandate.html


7 posted on 12/31/2013 6:23:28 AM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thackney

“The rule is a centerpiece of government efforts to curb carbon emissions, while jump-starting CAMPAIGN DONORS.”

Fixed it.


8 posted on 12/31/2013 6:23:30 AM PST by headstamp 2 (What would Scooby do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Iowa = ethanol = first primary state. Follow the =.


9 posted on 12/31/2013 6:24:15 AM PST by McGruff (I stand with Phil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

“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.


10 posted on 12/31/2013 6:25:53 AM PST by headstamp 2 (What would Scooby do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

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.


11 posted on 12/31/2013 6:56:21 AM PST by CaptainAmiigaf (NY TIMES: We print the news as it fits our views.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

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.


12 posted on 12/31/2013 6:59:23 AM PST by Thorliveshere (Minnesota Survivor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thorliveshere

Didn’t T-paw give us a E20 mandate as well?


13 posted on 12/31/2013 7:11:11 AM PST by cableguymn (It's time for a second political party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: thackney

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.


14 posted on 12/31/2013 7:11:18 AM PST by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: niteowl77

More votes to be lost in urbanized areas from anger over skyrocketing food prices than to be gained in Iowa and Nebraska.


15 posted on 12/31/2013 7:18:22 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th

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.


16 posted on 12/31/2013 7:29:37 AM PST by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: thackney
I don't see anything in the article that mentioned what to me is the most important issue in the so-called "renewable energy" debate, i.e., the cost of retrofitting motor vehicles over a certain date of manufacture to operate properly on the 15% ethanol fuel.

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.

17 posted on 12/31/2013 7:38:54 AM PST by epow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Burning corn as fuel is one reason why the cost of hamburger is at record levels.


18 posted on 12/31/2013 7:52:36 AM PST by bestintxas (Obamacare = Obamascrewed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney
Ethanol requirements = KILLING CHILDREN, Starving them to Death!


There's your logic back at you LibTards!

19 posted on 12/31/2013 7:58:57 AM PST by MaxMax (Pay Attention and you'll be pissed off too! FIRE BOEHNER, NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

That he did, and wasn’t too happy about that.


20 posted on 12/31/2013 9:07:56 AM PST by Thorliveshere (Minnesota Survivor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: epow

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.


21 posted on 12/31/2013 9:13:37 AM PST by Barkeep99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Barkeep99

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.


22 posted on 12/31/2013 9:33:50 AM PST by cableguymn (It's time for a second political party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

I should note his truck was not dual fuel. Only had a propane carburetor on it.


23 posted on 12/31/2013 9:35:06 AM PST by cableguymn (It's time for a second political party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Barkeep99
Thanks for the interesting information. It gives me a lot to think about, and my first thought is that $4000 would be a lot of money to put into even a low mileage, way above average 10 YO car like my Toyota that's worth maybe $7000-$7500 tops at private sale. But OTOH, that's a mere fraction of what a new car of any make or model would cost.

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.

24 posted on 12/31/2013 12:42:08 PM PST by epow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

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.


25 posted on 01/01/2014 8:43:54 AM PST by Barkeep99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Barkeep99

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.


26 posted on 01/01/2014 1:50:26 PM PST by cableguymn (It's time for a second political party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson