Turlevette I do think we need to do what we can about energy and environmental concerns. The fact is this program does very little towards replacing oil needs. I like that California's approach "if it isn't clean we shouldn't use it". I would go one step further and not allow product into this country that doesn't meet the same standards we hold our manufactures to. I hope you took the time to read that article. Really spells out the reasons why this program is wrong. Usage is down 6% and we driving more efficient cars, that's a far better way to go.
Another Look at Ethanol
- Thread starter MolaKule
- Start date
- Status
I still am confused on the whole reason we need to replace oil. Does the US have an oil shortage?
Originally Posted By: chuck1955
Turlevette I do think we need to do what we can about energy and environmental concerns. The fact is this program does very little towards replacing oil needs. I like that California's approach "if it isn't clean we shouldn't use it". I would go one step further and not allow product into this country that doesn't meet the same standards we hold our manufactures to. I hope you took the time to read that article. Really spells out the reasons why this program is wrong. Usage is down 6% and we driving more efficient cars, that's a far better way to go.
Originally Posted By: chuck1955
Turlevette I do think we need to do what we can about energy and environmental concerns. The fact is this program does very little towards replacing oil needs. I like that California's approach "if it isn't clean we shouldn't use it". I would go one step further and not allow product into this country that doesn't meet the same standards we hold our manufactures to. I hope you took the time to read that article. Really spells out the reasons why this program is wrong. Usage is down 6% and we driving more efficient cars, that's a far better way to go.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
I still am confused on the whole reason we need to replace oil. Does the US have an oil shortage?
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr6enr/pdf/BILLS-110hr6enr.pdf
I still am confused on the whole reason we need to replace oil. Does the US have an oil shortage?
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr6enr/pdf/BILLS-110hr6enr.pdf
So there's a shortage of oil?
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: kschachn
I still am confused on the whole reason we need to replace oil. Does the US have an oil shortage?
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr6enr/pdf/BILLS-110hr6enr.pdf
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: kschachn
I still am confused on the whole reason we need to replace oil. Does the US have an oil shortage?
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr6enr/pdf/BILLS-110hr6enr.pdf
Kschachn that's the theme of this program "wean us from foreign oil". 50% of the tilled land in the corn belt goes into this program with little or no return, and yes the oil situation has changed. That's one reason this program needs an overhaul. The increasing mandates aren't manageable without increasing the amount required in gasoline.
SteveSRT8 that IG report is a good read. It just tells you a little more about this administration. We need them to come up with a good decision on the ethanol mandate and their busy spending tax payer dollars. Obama was going to clean this type of thing up and it looks like its only getting worse under his watch.
Originally Posted By: chuck1955
The increasing mandates aren't manageable without increasing the amount required in gasoline.
Pretty simple. Some understand the need to 'change', some don't.
And TV, it's not my problem you can't find the report. But just trust me on this one, it doesn't do much to make them look like the saints on a pedestal you painted them as here!
The increasing mandates aren't manageable without increasing the amount required in gasoline.
Pretty simple. Some understand the need to 'change', some don't.
And TV, it's not my problem you can't find the report. But just trust me on this one, it doesn't do much to make them look like the saints on a pedestal you painted them as here!
Steve main stream media supports this administration. They played a large part in Obama being reelected. Fox media has a report on the IG investigation, so I would look for it to show up on their channel and is part of the reason their viewership is up 30% during this administration. I still don't understand with the administration's drive on climate change how do they support this ecological mess? I don't agree with mandates. When I talk about the increase its based on what has to be done if the quota is to be met.
You mean buy it, like having to buy EGR, catalytic converters, seat belts, daytime running lights, tire pressure monitoring systems, air bags, etc? Having a EPA mandate on fuel emissions by using ethanol seems like a very slight issue compared to all the other stuff we are forced to buy. My 2013 Silverado, right out of the gate I disabled the daytime running lights, the Automated Fuel Management [censored] on the engine, and a few other things. I had to pay for them, but didn't want them, and in some cases, had to pay even more just to be able to disable them. The AFM might have been pushed by the EPA, but is not mandated to be operational like, say, the catalytic converters and other emission stuff, and the daytime running lights are not mandated by any regulation. The other "safety" things might be justifiable, but I sure don't need beeper alarms going off. So, yet another thing I had to disable...the seat belt chimes reminding me like a little school boy to fasten my seatbelt. Even though all I may be doing is driving the pickup from the barn to the grain bin, or checking a fence line, in which case, I am not wasting time fastening the darn thing. It does make me wonder how much of the purchase price went for this junk.
And having to use 10% ethanol really seems like a joke compared to all of the other stuff we are "forced" to buy. Especially when there has been vehicles using 10% blends for over 4 decades with no issues. Sure, there is the occasional problem that seems to crop up, but most times it is found to be a result of something that was not directly anything related to the ethanol itself.
And having to use 10% ethanol really seems like a joke compared to all of the other stuff we are "forced" to buy. Especially when there has been vehicles using 10% blends for over 4 decades with no issues. Sure, there is the occasional problem that seems to crop up, but most times it is found to be a result of something that was not directly anything related to the ethanol itself.
Originally Posted By: chuck1955
Steve main stream media supports this administration. They played a large part in Obama being reelected. Fox media has a report on the IG investigation, so I would look for it to show up on their channel and is part of the reason their viewership is up 30% during this administration. I still don't understand with the administration's drive on climate change how do they support this ecological mess? I don't agree with mandates. When I talk about the increase its based on what has to be done if the quota is to be met.
Here's some more perspective on that wonderful EPA:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/...ind-costly-epa/
Steve main stream media supports this administration. They played a large part in Obama being reelected. Fox media has a report on the IG investigation, so I would look for it to show up on their channel and is part of the reason their viewership is up 30% during this administration. I still don't understand with the administration's drive on climate change how do they support this ecological mess? I don't agree with mandates. When I talk about the increase its based on what has to be done if the quota is to be met.
Here's some more perspective on that wonderful EPA:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/...ind-costly-epa/
Steve it's disappointing the process that allows these guys appointment. A lot of times we end up with people that are yes men to the administration and not truly representing the main stream consumer. TiredTrucker I don't think the mandates a joke. Its a prime example of government at its worst. If you want ethanol you should have it by all means unless keeping it around cost to much. For ethanol at this point its has way more negatives to the consumer than benefits. The consumer would be way ahead if this mandate was lifted and farmers were subsidized to make sure the consumer was supplied with food at a fair price. We need to go after our energy supplies here and use it more efficiently.
Originally Posted By: chuck1955
. The consumer would be way ahead if this mandate was lifted and farmers were subsidized to make sure the consumer was supplied with food at a fair price. We need to go after our energy supplies here and use it more efficiently.
So now you know what's best for the consumer. More government is OK when it suits your purpose?
. The consumer would be way ahead if this mandate was lifted and farmers were subsidized to make sure the consumer was supplied with food at a fair price. We need to go after our energy supplies here and use it more efficiently.
So now you know what's best for the consumer. More government is OK when it suits your purpose?
Originally Posted By: chuck1955
Turtlevette your right this government shouldn't be allowed to run anything of this nature. The consumer would be better served to allow the free market to pick winners and losers.
Absolutely.
I've said it many times but I'll say it again. Fuel to me is cost per mile I don't care if its ethanol,gasoline or coffee,as long as my cost per mile is as little as possible,and still maintaining performance of course.
Turtlevette your right this government shouldn't be allowed to run anything of this nature. The consumer would be better served to allow the free market to pick winners and losers.
Absolutely.
I've said it many times but I'll say it again. Fuel to me is cost per mile I don't care if its ethanol,gasoline or coffee,as long as my cost per mile is as little as possible,and still maintaining performance of course.
Originally Posted By: chuck1955
Steve it's disappointing the process that allows these guys appointment. A lot of times we end up with people that are yes men to the administration and not truly representing the main stream consumer. TiredTrucker I don't think the mandates a joke. Its a prime example of government at its worst. If you want ethanol you should have it by all means unless keeping it around cost to much. For ethanol at this point its has way more negatives to the consumer than benefits. The consumer would be way ahead if this mandate was lifted and farmers were subsidized to make sure the consumer was supplied with food at a fair price. We need to go after our energy supplies here and use it more efficiently.
Well, the dollar has lost 28% of it's value during the last 10 years, so what would you consider a fair price for food? The same price as it was 10 years ago? It essentially is!! When you factor the cost of food inflation, and compare it to the dollar loss of value, they exhibit almost a 1 for 1 correlation, which in buying terms, makes food essentially the same value. The value didn't change, only the value of the dollar. Seems the outrage over food pricing is being directed to the wrong people. And it isn't even all that bad when it comes to corn used for ethanol production. The cost has remained essentially flat for the last two decades, except for a few spikes and dips. Now Beef is substantially higher, but that is not the fault of the corn ethanol producers. Again, corn is priced today at almost the same price it was 20 years ago. The availability of beef on the hoof in relation to the demand is out of sync, so that the price for beef is thru the roof. And the beef producers still complain they can't make it. Right. As for the argument of increased irrigation needed to produce the corn, there is a grand total of 15% irrigated crop land in the U.S. Of that the vast majority by several factors is for traditional produce crops targeted at human consumption. Very little corn crop land is irrigated in relation to the total irrigation used in the U.S. and barely a blip on the radar compared to corn production in general.
Would you please outline the negatives vs the positives regarding ethanol? I know of a few. It has no government subsidies being paid to the industry, for a few years now. It does have some plusses and minuses in the emission arena, but many studies (both in and outside of the U.S.) have shown net positives in favor of ethanol, even including the entire crop life cycle cost equation. The cost is substantially lower than gasoline, even without subsidies, so much so that even with the lower mpg out of the current crop of engines on the market now, many experience a lower actual cost per mile using ethanol. E85 is not mandated in any way, shape, or form, and offers at a true market cost a lower cost per mile than regular gas while offering better octane than premium and lower combustion deposits. With the engines being developed and tested today, the game is rapidly going to swing in ethanol's favor. Even more than using diesel when it comes to power, fuel economy, and emissions. And the negatives that seem to get floated about turning more land into corn crop land is bogus on it's face. Corn bushel production per acre is at record highs. An Illinois farm broke all records this last year by producing an average 450 bushel per acre! And no irrigation was used! And the government has put a cap on ethanol production from corn at 14 billion gallons per year. We produced 13.7 billion gallons last year. So we are essentially capped in the so called food to fuel argument. Inconvenient truths.
Steve it's disappointing the process that allows these guys appointment. A lot of times we end up with people that are yes men to the administration and not truly representing the main stream consumer. TiredTrucker I don't think the mandates a joke. Its a prime example of government at its worst. If you want ethanol you should have it by all means unless keeping it around cost to much. For ethanol at this point its has way more negatives to the consumer than benefits. The consumer would be way ahead if this mandate was lifted and farmers were subsidized to make sure the consumer was supplied with food at a fair price. We need to go after our energy supplies here and use it more efficiently.
Well, the dollar has lost 28% of it's value during the last 10 years, so what would you consider a fair price for food? The same price as it was 10 years ago? It essentially is!! When you factor the cost of food inflation, and compare it to the dollar loss of value, they exhibit almost a 1 for 1 correlation, which in buying terms, makes food essentially the same value. The value didn't change, only the value of the dollar. Seems the outrage over food pricing is being directed to the wrong people. And it isn't even all that bad when it comes to corn used for ethanol production. The cost has remained essentially flat for the last two decades, except for a few spikes and dips. Now Beef is substantially higher, but that is not the fault of the corn ethanol producers. Again, corn is priced today at almost the same price it was 20 years ago. The availability of beef on the hoof in relation to the demand is out of sync, so that the price for beef is thru the roof. And the beef producers still complain they can't make it. Right. As for the argument of increased irrigation needed to produce the corn, there is a grand total of 15% irrigated crop land in the U.S. Of that the vast majority by several factors is for traditional produce crops targeted at human consumption. Very little corn crop land is irrigated in relation to the total irrigation used in the U.S. and barely a blip on the radar compared to corn production in general.
Would you please outline the negatives vs the positives regarding ethanol? I know of a few. It has no government subsidies being paid to the industry, for a few years now. It does have some plusses and minuses in the emission arena, but many studies (both in and outside of the U.S.) have shown net positives in favor of ethanol, even including the entire crop life cycle cost equation. The cost is substantially lower than gasoline, even without subsidies, so much so that even with the lower mpg out of the current crop of engines on the market now, many experience a lower actual cost per mile using ethanol. E85 is not mandated in any way, shape, or form, and offers at a true market cost a lower cost per mile than regular gas while offering better octane than premium and lower combustion deposits. With the engines being developed and tested today, the game is rapidly going to swing in ethanol's favor. Even more than using diesel when it comes to power, fuel economy, and emissions. And the negatives that seem to get floated about turning more land into corn crop land is bogus on it's face. Corn bushel production per acre is at record highs. An Illinois farm broke all records this last year by producing an average 450 bushel per acre! And no irrigation was used! And the government has put a cap on ethanol production from corn at 14 billion gallons per year. We produced 13.7 billion gallons last year. So we are essentially capped in the so called food to fuel argument. Inconvenient truths.
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: chuck1955
Turtlevette your right this government shouldn't be allowed to run anything of this nature. The consumer would be better served to allow the free market to pick winners and losers.
Absolutely.
I've said it many times but I'll say it again. Fuel to me is cost per mile I don't care if its ethanol,gasoline or coffee,as long as my cost per mile is as little as possible,and still maintaining performance of course.
Great quote. Of course that is probably true for most folks here, just not obvious to all...
Originally Posted By: chuck1955
Turtlevette your right this government shouldn't be allowed to run anything of this nature. The consumer would be better served to allow the free market to pick winners and losers.
Absolutely.
I've said it many times but I'll say it again. Fuel to me is cost per mile I don't care if its ethanol,gasoline or coffee,as long as my cost per mile is as little as possible,and still maintaining performance of course.
Great quote. Of course that is probably true for most folks here, just not obvious to all...
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
You mean buy it, like having to buy EGR, catalytic converters, seat belts, daytime running lights, tire pressure monitoring systems, air bags, etc? Having a EPA mandate on fuel emissions by using ethanol seems like a very slight issue compared to all the other stuff we are forced to buy. My 2013 Silverado, right out of the gate I disabled the daytime running lights, the Automated Fuel Management [censored] on the engine, and a few other things. I had to pay for them, but didn't want them, and in some cases, had to pay even more just to be able to disable them. The AFM might have been pushed by the EPA, but is not mandated to be operational like, say, the catalytic converters and other emission stuff, and the daytime running lights are not mandated by any regulation. The other "safety" things might be justifiable, but I sure don't need beeper alarms going off. So, yet another thing I had to disable...the seat belt chimes reminding me like a little school boy to fasten my seatbelt. Even though all I may be doing is driving the pickup from the barn to the grain bin, or checking a fence line, in which case, I am not wasting time fastening the darn thing. It does make me wonder how much of the purchase price went for this junk.
And having to use 10% ethanol really seems like a joke compared to all of the other stuff we are "forced" to buy. Especially when there has been vehicles using 10% blends for over 4 decades with no issues. Sure, there is the occasional problem that seems to crop up, but most times it is found to be a result of something that was not directly anything related to the ethanol itself.
If you didn't like paying for all the bells and whistles that your truck came with, then why did you buy it? Were you forced to? If i was to buy a farm truck, id personally go with a earlier used model..
As a consumer, do we have that option with ethanol? A few stations and boat marinas within a 60+ mile radius of me offer ethanol free fuel. Most of it is high octane though. Sure looks to me like we are forced to buy something that isn't necessarily good. You seem to already know that ethanol use, like E85 for example, decreases fuel mileage to a point where it is actually cheaper to E10 so I wont go into the details. As stated, at the end of the day, people simply want the cheapest cost per mile. 10% alcohol content sure is nice in the winter time though..
Ethanol just seems like we have an excess of corn and are running out of things to do with it. While we are on the subject, lets talk about the tariff on sugar and how the amount that is imported into the US is limited. For one it helps the US sugar farmers, but it also creates another demand for corn in the form of corn syrup. Do you know how much that stuff is used as opposed to real sugar?? Once again.. another excess in corn that we are trying to find ways to use.
I am by no means anti farmer. I live in Indiana after all.. But i cant help but wonder how things would be different if the govt stayed out of telling people what to grow.
You mean buy it, like having to buy EGR, catalytic converters, seat belts, daytime running lights, tire pressure monitoring systems, air bags, etc? Having a EPA mandate on fuel emissions by using ethanol seems like a very slight issue compared to all the other stuff we are forced to buy. My 2013 Silverado, right out of the gate I disabled the daytime running lights, the Automated Fuel Management [censored] on the engine, and a few other things. I had to pay for them, but didn't want them, and in some cases, had to pay even more just to be able to disable them. The AFM might have been pushed by the EPA, but is not mandated to be operational like, say, the catalytic converters and other emission stuff, and the daytime running lights are not mandated by any regulation. The other "safety" things might be justifiable, but I sure don't need beeper alarms going off. So, yet another thing I had to disable...the seat belt chimes reminding me like a little school boy to fasten my seatbelt. Even though all I may be doing is driving the pickup from the barn to the grain bin, or checking a fence line, in which case, I am not wasting time fastening the darn thing. It does make me wonder how much of the purchase price went for this junk.
And having to use 10% ethanol really seems like a joke compared to all of the other stuff we are "forced" to buy. Especially when there has been vehicles using 10% blends for over 4 decades with no issues. Sure, there is the occasional problem that seems to crop up, but most times it is found to be a result of something that was not directly anything related to the ethanol itself.
If you didn't like paying for all the bells and whistles that your truck came with, then why did you buy it? Were you forced to? If i was to buy a farm truck, id personally go with a earlier used model..
As a consumer, do we have that option with ethanol? A few stations and boat marinas within a 60+ mile radius of me offer ethanol free fuel. Most of it is high octane though. Sure looks to me like we are forced to buy something that isn't necessarily good. You seem to already know that ethanol use, like E85 for example, decreases fuel mileage to a point where it is actually cheaper to E10 so I wont go into the details. As stated, at the end of the day, people simply want the cheapest cost per mile. 10% alcohol content sure is nice in the winter time though..
Ethanol just seems like we have an excess of corn and are running out of things to do with it. While we are on the subject, lets talk about the tariff on sugar and how the amount that is imported into the US is limited. For one it helps the US sugar farmers, but it also creates another demand for corn in the form of corn syrup. Do you know how much that stuff is used as opposed to real sugar?? Once again.. another excess in corn that we are trying to find ways to use.
I am by no means anti farmer. I live in Indiana after all.. But i cant help but wonder how things would be different if the govt stayed out of telling people what to grow.
Tiredtrucker I know your pretty good at massaging numbers, I work mainly on numbers posted in articles on the internet. You also multiple times have stated you don't believe in a mandate. Your attitude tells me that's not really true. The corn lobby should do their work in front of the consumer. Do away with the mandate and allow the consumer to have their choice. Since this program began food prices have risen by over $2000 per year for a family of four. Flex vehicles on average cost around 20% more to use E85 verses gasoline. That easily explains why less than 4% of flex owners chose to use it. It also tells us ethanol cost more to use overall. Others have stated there is money given to blenders to mix ethanol. Corn prices might be low now, but when it was high recently it forced the livestock industry to reduce its size to less than 1952 levels and the consumer is paying for it now. The amount of idle land that has gone back into production tells the story and the environmental impact is large. In this administrations 2015 budget they have 200 million subsidizing the alternative fuel industry. Is that to make ethanol appear cheaper?
Originally Posted By: chuck1955
The corn lobby should do their work in front of the consumer. Do away with the mandate and allow the consumer to have their choice.
The amount of idle land that has gone back into production tells the story and the environmental impact is large.
So should the oil lobby. Wanna talk environmental impact? Another spill in Galveston is going to cause a gas price spike not to mention destroying the environment for many years.
The Gulf of Mexico is getting so trashed. It'll be 100s of years before things are clean again.
The corn lobby should do their work in front of the consumer. Do away with the mandate and allow the consumer to have their choice.
The amount of idle land that has gone back into production tells the story and the environmental impact is large.
So should the oil lobby. Wanna talk environmental impact? Another spill in Galveston is going to cause a gas price spike not to mention destroying the environment for many years.
The Gulf of Mexico is getting so trashed. It'll be 100s of years before things are clean again.
- Status
