WARNING FROM THE AAA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
The US Government spent over $2B last year on corn subsides of one type or another. The EPA mandates the use of ethanol. Is it so hard to put two and two together?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/20/its-final-corn-ethanol-is-of-no-use/


Read the article and must have missed it, as I did not find one thing that said corn got any direct subsidies. Not saying it wasn't buried in there, just never saw it. Interesting article, but not sure it quite developed the point you were trying to make. Would you also dig up how much in government subsidies are paid to various aspects of the petroleum sector and give us the comparison. Not quite fair to only show one side of the equation.

As for mandates, everyone's entire life is surrounded with mandates. I am for eliminating them all. Let's see.... all those air bag recalls for bags that are all mandated. Product labeling and warnings, most to which are nonsense, in multiple languages, and only add cost to the finished product, all mandated in some way. Financial mandates by government like Dodd/Frank and other regulatory stuff that make it so small businesses have more limited access to capitol. And traditionally over 80% of jobs are created by small business. So job creation suffers. And all of these cost the consumer far and away more actual money than any supposed corn subsidies or ethanol mandates. At least with the ethanol mandate, you actually get fuel to use. One may not like using that fuel, but they are not out much of anything. There is billions of dollars that disappear into the sink hole of government each year that most folks barely give a rip about. The 2B you mention, and I will even give you as being true, is hardly a blip on the radar compared to most of the other waste, and at least, this one stays in the country.

And in the overall picture, ethanol barely is a blip on the radar. Actual ethanol subsidies were eliminated in 2011, corn prices have not reached the floor support price in well over 2 decades, so there has been no actual corn price support payments paid in that time. Sure, there has been government subsidies to improve crop land, control erosion, crop insurance programs, etc. And the argument that more land that could be used for other crops has been taken over by corn, is dwarfed by the largest crop land reduction problem ever.... urban sprawl, city expansion, housing subdivisions, and poor highway design.

Ethanol gets $2B in subsidies? That could be. Compare to the billions upon billions for petroleum energy...... and at least corn ethanol doesn't require military adventures and GI's coming home in coffins to keep it going like petroleum does...

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/


Me thinks thine outrage is misdirected.
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
The US Government spent over $2B last year on corn subsides of one type or another. The EPA mandates the use of ethanol. Is it so hard to put two and two together?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/20/its-final-corn-ethanol-is-of-no-use/


Read the article and must have missed it, as I did not find one thing that said corn got any direct subsidies. Not saying it wasn't buried in there, just never saw it. Interesting article, but not sure it quite developed the point you were trying to make. Would you also dig up how much in government subsidies are paid to various aspects of the petroleum sector and give us the comparison. Not quite fair to only show one side of the equation.

As for mandates, everyone's entire life is surrounded with mandates. I am for eliminating them all. Let's see.... all those air bag recalls for bags that are all mandated. Product labeling and warnings, most to which are nonsense, in multiple languages, and only add cost to the finished product, all mandated in some way. Financial mandates by government like Dodd/Frank and other regulatory stuff that make it so small businesses have more limited access to capitol. And traditionally over 80% of jobs are created by small business. So job creation suffers. And all of these cost the consumer far and away more actual money than any supposed corn subsidies or ethanol mandates. At least with the ethanol mandate, you actually get fuel to use. One may not like using that fuel, but they are not out much of anything. There is billions of dollars that disappear into the sink hole of government each year that most folks barely give a rip about. The 2B you mention, and I will even give you as being true, is hardly a blip on the radar compared to most of the other waste, and at least, this one stays in the country.

And in the overall picture, ethanol barely is a blip on the radar. Actual ethanol subsidies were eliminated in 2011, corn prices have not reached the floor support price in well over 2 decades, so there has been no actual corn price support payments paid in that time. Sure, there has been government subsidies to improve crop land, control erosion, crop insurance programs, etc. And the argument that more land that could be used for other crops has been taken over by corn, is dwarfed by the largest crop land reduction problem ever.... urban sprawl, city expansion, housing subdivisions, and poor highway design.

Ethanol gets $2B in subsidies? That could be. Compare to the billions upon billions for petroleum energy...... and at least corn ethanol doesn't require military adventures and GI's coming home in coffins to keep it going like petroleum does...

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/


Me thinks thine outrage is misdirected.


Ethanol in gasoline is a jobs program boondoggle. You are part of the jobs program,
 
As is the myriad of other things that government has its finger in. I am not in a jobs program. I just use the stuff in my pickup. No, I have nothing to do with ethanol production or policy. And if it is a jobs program as you state, I would rather money go to that than the money wasted on beach bums getting food stamps and other black holes we throw money at.
 
Here's an about face from the EPA and they seem to finally face reality.

Feds Move to Reduce Ethanol Blended Gasoline

Quote:
The Obama administration has proposed a new renewable fuel standard that could drop the ethanol level used in gasoline by four-billion gallons this year alone.

In 2007, the renewable fuel laws worked to address global warming, mandating a steady increase in the amount of renewable fuels, such as ethanol, to be blended into gasoline. The new proposal by the EPA would also result in a three-billion gallon reduction of ethanol use in 2016, marking a significant change for renewable fuel companies.

As a result, the EPA is hoping that the new proposed laws will “provide a strong incentive for continued investment and growth in biofuels,” according to EPA’s Janet McCabe. The lower targets will also benefit the oil industry, which prefers the market determine how much ethanol is blended into their gas.

The agency believes the standards set by the original law cannot be achieved, partly due to the limitations on the amount of nonethanol renewable fuels that can be produced. In addition, next-generation biofuels haven’t been as widespread as originally expected and less gasoline has been used than predicted.

Additionally, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced that it will invest up to $100 million in Biofuels Infrastructure Partnership to support the infrastructure required to make renewable fuel options available to American consumers.
 
Shoz, congress mandated the increased use of ethanol in 2007 as it plainly says above; EPA is just increasing the use in the most practical way (i.e. motor fuels)

It was the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
Shoz, congress mandated the increased use of ethanol in 2007 as it plainly says above; EPA is just increasing the use in the most practical way (i.e. motor fuels)

It was the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007



Yes I know and they were thinking of boosting the additive to E15. But now they are dropping that and reconsidering the entire thing it looks to me.
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Corn that is used for ethanol production does go to livestock feed and other uses! I haul feed products from ethanol plants frequently. The poultry production sector loves the products from ethanol production. High protein (lysine) feed supplements made from Dried Distillers Grain (DDG) that is the result of ethanol production. Corn oil and a host of other products come out of ethanol plants daily. Only an idiot who doesn't take the time to actually look at what ethanol production is all about believes that a bushel of corn that goes to ethanol production is forever lost to any other use. There are dozens of by products that are used from ethanol production.

I fueled with E15 most of the winter (Murphy's in Newton, IA in the dead heart of ethanol country). Nozzle right between the E85 nozzle and regular nozzle. Nary an issue. Got equivalent mpg as I ever did with E10 varieties. I do know for a fact, that at the pump, it has a separate yellow color coded nozzle with plenty of warnings that it should not be used in vehicles prior to 2012. Only for newer vehicles and flex fuel vehicles. Any dufus that fills a vehicle not made for this stuff deserves whatever happens.

Been using ethanol laced fuel since the late 70's / early 80's and have never had, or even heard of, any fuel related problems in my vehicles or any of my neighbor's vehicles that can be attributed to ethanol. Only on the internet and talking heads on TV. Even my Yamaha portable generator has had a study diet of E10 as has my previous John Deere mower and my present one. But the hysteria lives on.

And the amazing thing is, though I live in ethanol central, surrounded by 46 ethanol plants in Iowa alone, if I wanted I could get ethanol free 87 and 91 anywhere around me any time I want. If the corn lobby was so against anyone having ethanol free gas, you would think it would be right here in the heart of corn country.

THIS.

Folks, whether or not ethanol harms our engines; whether or not any of these "one side or the other" arguments is true or false...

If you put this fuel in a car that isn't meant to run on it... You are the dufus! Not the gov't, not the EPA, not Uncle Sam - YOU are.

"Think with your dipstick, Jimmy!"

Nobody is holding you at gunpoint to fuel your vehicle with this stuff! You have the option to use the other available fuels, of which, you can select the proper fuel for your car!

Gosh, it's senseless to blame anyone but yourself if you put E15 or even E85 in your car that isn't flex fuel. You put it in; blame yourself.

~ Triton
 
Originally Posted By: datech
Originally Posted By: mongo161
Each tank of gas gets 1 ounce of TC-W3 and 1 ounce of Chevron Fuel System cleaner for every 5 gallons of gasoline with ethanol 10%. I've been doing this for a few years, with pre-filled 6-ounce bottles of the mix to add to 15 gallons of gas at fill-up time. Smooth sailing.....all the time.



That's a good idea because its kind of a mess to try and dose with the regular bottle at the gas station. What kind of bottles do you use?


I just use a small funnel and add 1oz per 5 gal of TCW3 from a reused Stabil bottle. It has the easy squeeze measure system built into the bottle. then while the fuel pumps, the funnel and bottle go into a plastic tote in the trunk/bed for zero mess.
 
You know that EBTE in oxygenated E0 is derived from Ethanol, right? MBTE is derived from Methanol. And oxygenated gasoline contains 10% of either one.

Both are replacements for lead and octane boosters. It's cheaper and more energy efficient to put straigt Ethanol into the gas, than to convert it to EBTE first, which requires additional energy.

If you want E0, you gotta bring back lead for premium fuel, too.
 
Oh, and all cars that have a tank made from plastics (about 1992 and later) will take anything up to E85 without damage to the fuel system. It has been proven that even E85 won't damage most common rubber hoses a zillion times, too:
U5ckJhZ.png

Source: Gates (pdf), E15 is more aggressive because gasoline is more aggressive to hoses.

The worst that could possibly happen on a fuel injected car is that you get a check engine light. Not with E10, but if you're running more than 50% or so ethanol, in which case you'd need to install a flexfuel conversion box if you want to continue doing so. That's all.
 
Originally Posted By: JohnnyMerrill
You know that EBTE in oxygenated E0 is derived from Ethanol, right? MBTE is derived from Methanol. And oxygenated gasoline contains 10% of either one.

Both are replacements for lead and octane boosters. It's cheaper and more energy efficient to put straigt Ethanol into the gas, than to convert it to EBTE first, which requires additional energy.

If you want E0, you gotta bring back lead for premium fuel, too.



If they reduce the base stock octane rating to 85 to make 87 by adding E10 that would imply to me that they also can make the premium without any additives.

So 89 octane is 87 base with E10, 92 octane is 90 with E10 added.

Lead never was a good idea in gasoline.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Char Baby
This may have been discussed before though, I have never seen it here. This is a link to a Fox News Video:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/ceW9Nc1hVHU?feature=player_detailpage


This is always political. Does a reasonable person think that 5% makes that much difference if any?


Well if it's not that much of a difference, then how on earth does all that artificilly wasted effort and money give you the energy security that you keep talking about ?
 
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
So what's the difference. The forced use of ethanol in gas is because of the government and the reason we cannot get the ethanol free gas is because of the government. Now the government wants to force is to use a blend that is not recommended for our cars. Will cause us to use more gas. Will cause more funds to be collected because of the taxes on gas.

Ethanol in gas is a scam.


This^^^
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Char Baby
This may have been discussed before though, I have never seen it here. This is a link to a Fox News Video:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/ceW9Nc1hVHU?feature=player_detailpage


This is always political. Does a reasonable person think that 5% makes that much difference if any?


Well if it's not that much of a difference, then how on earth does all that artificilly wasted effort and money give you the energy security that you keep talking about ?


The engine isn't adversely affected with the extra 5%. That 5% displaces millions of barrels of crude.

Would you have a problem with ethanol if it was made from non food sources? I want to get at the root of your objections.
 
And if the gas was cut off tomorrow, exactly WHAT security does the ethanol provide ?

Bunk argument when you can't live without the other 95%.

What have I got against ethanol ?

Problem with your type turtle, is that people who disagree with you are automatically labelled haters, ignorant, racist, all the other stuff.

I'm not against ethanol as either product or fuel.

Stupid arguments like "corn is a grass, so brewer's mash is feeding cattle grass" (not you, but it's here) are patently stupid, but refuting them gets a label.

Current studies on acetobacteria in underground tanks get hosed down, while 70s studies on carbed engines still get a run.

I've used ethanol when the energy break was there (used to be a flat 4c/l off a 90-95c/l product, now it's 3c off $1.50, so the consumer is getting hosed...which is why the ethanol industry in Oz wants a mandate.

I'm against political lobbying to get my money into some-one else' pocket. Big grain group in Oz wined and dined my state premier to get a 10% mandate even 'though their own papers said they couldn't meet the mandate and supply and demand (LOL) would make their product more expensive. He got his mandate through, and some whistleblowers brought up the influence, which he denied, until the records were brought out of the lunch meetings that he "forgot" about (forgetting a $3,000 bottle of wine had him marching)

I'm against the corruption that the lobbyists bring to the process.

I'm against the argument that it's "non food" corn, when the same patch could be growing "food corn", other "food", or simply grass raising cattle to a much better health effect for the people eating the meat, and less room for greenies to be using the land and water consumption argument against meat because the industry is grain fed (or mash fed)...and if it wasn't for the corn and ethanol lobbies and mandates it would be.

Look at biodiesel...the US standard is geared around soy oil, the Australian standard is geared around canola...not for any scientific reason, because is it was an absolute specification, you wouldn't need a particular core ingredient to make it....again, you have a soy lobby, we have canola, as GM soy hasn't taken off here.

I'd favour mixer pumps, with the two prices next to each other, the energy content on the label, and dial up your blend...that's not a hater.

I'd favour biofuels that provide a serious nett positive energy balance, and powered the farm/transport vehicles making it
 
Originally Posted By: Triton_330
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Corn that is used for ethanol production does go to livestock feed and other uses! I haul feed products from ethanol plants frequently. The poultry production sector loves the products from ethanol production. High protein (lysine) feed supplements made from Dried Distillers Grain (DDG) that is the result of ethanol production. Corn oil and a host of other products come out of ethanol plants daily. Only an idiot who doesn't take the time to actually look at what ethanol production is all about believes that a bushel of corn that goes to ethanol production is forever lost to any other use. There are dozens of by products that are used from ethanol production.

I fueled with E15 most of the winter (Murphy's in Newton, IA in the dead heart of ethanol country). Nozzle right between the E85 nozzle and regular nozzle. Nary an issue. Got equivalent mpg as I ever did with E10 varieties. I do know for a fact, that at the pump, it has a separate yellow color coded nozzle with plenty of warnings that it should not be used in vehicles prior to 2012. Only for newer vehicles and flex fuel vehicles. Any dufus that fills a vehicle not made for this stuff deserves whatever happens.

Been using ethanol laced fuel since the late 70's / early 80's and have never had, or even heard of, any fuel related problems in my vehicles or any of my neighbor's vehicles that can be attributed to ethanol. Only on the internet and talking heads on TV. Even my Yamaha portable generator has had a study diet of E10 as has my previous John Deere mower and my present one. But the hysteria lives on.

And the amazing thing is, though I live in ethanol central, surrounded by 46 ethanol plants in Iowa alone, if I wanted I could get ethanol free 87 and 91 anywhere around me any time I want. If the corn lobby was so against anyone having ethanol free gas, you would think it would be right here in the heart of corn country.

THIS.

Folks, whether or not ethanol harms our engines; whether or not any of these "one side or the other" arguments is true or false...

If you put this fuel in a car that isn't meant to run on it... You are the dufus! Not the gov't, not the EPA, not Uncle Sam - YOU are.

"Think with your dipstick, Jimmy!"

Nobody is holding you at gunpoint to fuel your vehicle with this stuff! You have the option to use the other available fuels, of which, you can select the proper fuel for your car!

Gosh, it's senseless to blame anyone but yourself if you put E15 or even E85 in your car that isn't flex fuel. You put it in; blame yourself.

~ Triton


I like alcohol and think all vehicles should be multi-fuel. In the case of gas engines there is ethanol. I like ethanol. Burns fairly clean,nothing super special needed though a bigger fuel line and maybe a larger pump might be smart only because you need more of it to equal gasoline but no internal changes.
What I think is dumb is the politics behind it. Sell me eithe ethanol or gas and sell it at a price that represents each's energy content so that even though the alcohol is going to burn more,make the cost lower to reflect that.
I like that when custom tuning you can crank the timing forward which really gives an engine more instant snap responsiveness.
And make the infrastructure at all stations. The way it is now is like it's only a halfway effort instead of really implementing the program and reaping as much benefit as can be had.
But don't force it on people. That's wrong. I bet if vehicles were all flex fuel and e85 at every station many people will go alcohol,as long as the price was proper in relation to gas.
Jmo
 
More relevant objections for the ethanol supporters to refute. Thank you Shannow for a thoughtful and well reasoned response.

Turtle, we are all anxiously awaiting for your response....
 
Originally Posted By: Clevy
What I think is dumb is the politics behind it. Sell me eithe ethanol or gas and sell it at a price that represents each's energy content so that even though the alcohol is going to burn more,make the cost lower to reflect that.

Clevy has wonderfully illustrated the point as to E10 in our province. We don't do much in the way of the corn thing here, certainly, and the argument about non-food crops on food land won't hold water in the ethanol debate here, since the grain is graded as feed grade or "human food" (I won't bore all of you with the grain grading system). It's not the farmer's choice, and he certainly wants human food grain, since it pays much more. So, the feed grain gets used for silage and there are ethanol plants that go with them.

And, as Clevy and I have lamented many times, Husky/Mohawk was selling E10 without any "help" from anyone, and selling a lot of it, I might add. When you sell 89 octane E10 for the price of 87 octane regular, and don't hide the notion of it ethanol content in the least, people will buy the fuel and in large quantities.

The mandate here totally destroyed how the market was pricing that product and ended up taking away the product differentiation Husky/Mohawk had. All they have left now is the fact that they have the highest octane premium available and it's E10, whereas most other premiums here are E0. But, it's certainly not as cheap as the other premiums, whereas in days gone by, it was.

What a fantastic mandate, and all in a province with the population of 1,000,000 people.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette


The engine isn't adversely affected with the extra 5%. That 5% displaces millions of barrels of crude.

Would you have a problem with ethanol if it was made from non food sources? I want to get at the root of your objections.
Millions of barrels of ethanol takes millions of barrels of crude to produce and distribute.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
Video, Fuel Pump Hurt/Failing? Got some water in the tank. 😠 06 V6 Accord
Replies
10
Views
555
Gasbuggy
A
Back on the moon, LUNR did it, Stock price up after hours over 40%
Replies
11
Views
656
alarmguy
cwilliamsws6
Jack Rebney, aka Winnebago Man, passed away at 93
Replies
1
Views
667
Jetronic
F
Abandoned TRW World Headquarters Lyndhurst OH - Demolished
Replies
10
Views
2K
Carmudgeon
O
Uncle Tony's Garage - Cuba, here we come!
Replies
9
Views
929
malibuguy79
Back
Top