Recent Topics
Bypass PSI Reference Chart
by JohnMc
5 minutes 4 seconds ago
Oil, Oil Filters, Additive For Sale
by NHHEMI
9 minutes 47 seconds ago
an older daily driver
by OneEyeJack
23 minutes 6 seconds ago
What pressure for towing?
by Nick1994
24 minutes 52 seconds ago
Oil suggestion for 2002 Ford Focus ZX3 2.0 Zetec
by dx92beater
39 minutes 54 seconds ago
Opinion on Multi Vehicle ATF
by 3800Series
46 minutes 13 seconds ago
Walmart.com
by Tdbo
Today at 11:24 AM
Shelf life of Amsoil ATF
by LexAtlanta
Today at 11:01 AM
Dino vs Synthetic 5w30 cold pour test
by HKPolice
Today at 10:42 AM
My new 98 Monte Carlo z34
by clarkflower
Today at 10:02 AM
Maxlife ATF in Honda DW1 Tranny?
by jmb106
Today at 09:17 AM
PL14610 ~6700mi. oci Pics.
by sayjac
Today at 09:01 AM
Newest Members
jiffydarren, 9Sam4, STELIOKONTOS, boosterboy, Streetside
51140 Registered Users
Who's Online
85 registered (ag_ghost, 901Memphis, 2010_FX4, Apollo14, andyd, 5 invisible), 1992 Guests and 191 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
51140 Members
64 Forums
218523 Topics
3445850 Posts

Max Online: 2862 @ 07/07/14 03:10 PM
Donate to BITOG

Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#3363148 - 05/06/14 08:31 AM Re: ETHANOL mandate cut! [Re: turtlevette]
OVERKILL Offline


Registered: 04/28/08
Posts: 25941
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
They should price pure gas at about $8 gal and we'll just call it a dumb tax.

I'm not convinced any of these E0 gas stations are really selling alcohol free gas.

There's a feel good factor that provides a strong placebo effect.





_________________________
Network Engineer
02 Expedition
01 BMW ///M5
05 Forester XT

Top
#3364132 - 05/07/14 01:44 AM Re: ETHANOL mandate cut! [Re: OVERKILL]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
That's Canada. Here, I would doubt the veracity of any station that says it has no ethanol in gas.

Top
#3364177 - 05/07/14 05:43 AM Re: ETHANOL mandate cut! [Re: gfh77665]
SteveSRT8 Offline


Registered: 10/10/08
Posts: 14549
Loc: Sunny Florida
I would surmise many here have equal doubts about yours!

You are the same guy who posted how your governing officials somehow "care" for you...
_________________________
"In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith."
J. William Fulbright
Best ET-12.79 @ 111 mph
4340 pounds, Street tires
Just like we go to Publix

Top
#3364190 - 05/07/14 06:06 AM Re: ETHANOL mandate cut! [Re: turtlevette]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11171
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
That's Canada.

The ethanol mandate is a little different here, and is under provincial jurisdiction. Most provinces have a minimum ethanol content to be averaged out over litres sold. Since regular vastly outstrips premium in sales, they get away with regular E-10 and E-0 premium here, except for stations that actually use a higher octane ethanol enhanced premium as a selling point (Husky/Mohawk).
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 coupe - Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Hastings LF113
1984 F-150 4.9L six - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#3364207 - 05/07/14 06:32 AM Re: ETHANOL mandate cut! [Re: David1]
marshall25 Offline


Registered: 07/10/04
Posts: 69
Loc: Indiana
Originally Posted By: David1
Originally Posted By: ironman_gq
I've been waiting for someone to figure out how much pollution is made to grow the corn and go through the distillation process to make a gallon of ethanol compared to how much a gallon of gas produces. I think between fuel oil and petroleum derived fertilizers, then the energy needed to ferment and distill then ship the ethanol, gasoline might actually be cleaner.


Thats true.... plus the farm machinery to collect the CORN...... and the water and fertilizer and all that it entails.

I remember years ago only Citgo put Ethanol in there Gas and I know this b.c my family owned a Shell Station and 1 time 3 Sunoco stations and none of them at Ethanol....

This was the days back when Sunoco had 94 Ultra aka 94 Octane.

Also I remember our mechinacis saying that ethanol was no good for engines. Now perhaps he meant the cars built in them days and earlier.

However is Ethanol / does Ethanol cause Engine damage???





I'd like to see how much pollution is caused by extracting and refining oil into gasoline. I'd bet it is the same, if not more than ethanol.

Top
#3364230 - 05/07/14 07:08 AM Re: ETHANOL mandate cut! [Re: marshall25]
Shannow Offline


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26324
Loc: a prison island
Originally Posted By: marshall25

I'd like to see how much pollution is caused by extracting and refining oil into gasoline. I'd bet it is the same, if not more than ethanol.


Except you don't "extract" ethanol, you have to grow it...as previously explained by others, using fuel that you've already "extracted".

Don't "like to see", and "bet", when the figures and science are more available to you than ever.

Top
#3364349 - 05/07/14 09:51 AM Re: ETHANOL mandate cut! [Re: Wolf359]
hatt Offline


Registered: 01/03/12
Posts: 932
Loc: Florida
Originally Posted By: Wolf359


I think your quote doesn't really make sense because you left out some key units and I think you also made a mistake between gallons, barrels, days and per year. I think in 2012, they made some 12.7 billion gallons of ethanol from corn. Or around 830,000 barrels of ethanol per day. In 2012, the US consumed about 133 billion gallons of gasoline. 10% of 133 billion is 13.3 billion so if the EPA hadn't scaled back the mandate, instead of E10, you'd have to go to E15 in order to use more than 13.3 billion gallons a year.

If you were really talking about a total of 810,185 gallons, that's just a drop in a bucket.
Or you could simply use E85 and have no mandates. We don't use much E85 because it's too expensive because all the ethanol is being wasted with E10 foolishness.
_________________________
2013 F150 5.0, PU 10w-30, FL500s
2010 Camry 2.5, PP 5w-30, Wix 57047

Top
#3372829 - 05/15/14 08:57 PM Re: ETHANOL mandate cut! [Re: hatt]
chuck1955 Offline


Registered: 02/11/12
Posts: 59
Loc: minnesota
Hatt ethanol whether its in e85 or e10 cost the same. It cost 10-20% more to use e85 in a flex vehicle verses gasoline and explains why less than 4% flex owners use it. Ethanol makes any gasoline product more expensive. Makes you wonder how the ethanol promoters get away with telling consumers they save them $1.09 on $4 e10. I wonder if the government wants to deal with irate consumers if they would try to force e15 on them which would have to happen if they keep the current mandate level. It could cause enough of a up roar to shut this program down altogether.

Top
#3373048 - 05/16/14 07:35 AM Re: ETHANOL mandate cut! [Re: Wolf359]
A_Harman Offline


Registered: 10/01/10
Posts: 4108
Loc: Michigan
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: Tegger
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Billions. Not millions. I don't understand how people can make that mistake.

The "millions" refers to the cellulosic ethanol mandate. I should have been more careful.

Excerpt from the Wall Street Journal article from last week:
"On Wednesday the EPA retroactively reduced
the 2013 gasoline-blending mandate for cellulosic ethanol
to 810,185 gallons from six million. If that sounds like
a big cut, 810,185 gallons is precisely every last drop
the industry managed to produce. The 2014 mandate is
nonetheless pegged at a preposterous 17 million gallons."


I think your quote doesn't really make sense because you left out some key units and I think you also made a mistake between gallons, barrels, days and per year. I think in 2012, they made some 12.7 billion gallons of ethanol from corn. Or around 830,000 barrels of ethanol per day. In 2012, the US consumed about 133 billion gallons of gasoline. 10% of 133 billion is 13.3 billion so if the EPA hadn't scaled back the mandate, instead of E10, you'd have to go to E15 in order to use more than 13.3 billion gallons a year.

If you were really talking about a total of 810,185 gallons, that's just a drop in a bucket.


I think Tegger is right on this. He is talking about cellulosic ethanol, not corn-derived ethanol. When Congress wrote the ethanol mandate, they were mindful of the criticism that mandating 36 billion gallons of ethanol production by 2022 was going to cause too much of an increase in food prices. So they threw in a placebo in the form of cellulosic ethanol, which can be made from non-food plants grown on marginal lands not used for corn production. The promise was that in 10 years, cellulosic ethanol production was going to ease the pressure on corn ethanol, but that didn't happen.

From Business Week:
"U.S. legislation in 2007 mandated that a growing quantity of “renewable” biofuels be mixed with gasoline—9 billion gallons in 2008, climbing to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Last year the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, responsible for implementing the law, demanded fuel companies mix in 14 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol and 2.75 billion gallons of so-called advanced biofuels, which are usually manufactured using scrap wood or corn husks."


So here we can see how well the government's promise in 2007 has been kept: 2.75 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol was mandated, 810 thousand gallons was actually produced. Just another case of social engineering by the gummint that just won't work.
_________________________
1985 Z51 Corvette track car
2002 Camaro Z28 LS1/6-speed
2001 Dodge Ram 2500 diesel
1972 GMC 1500 shortbed project truck

Top
#3374819 - 05/18/14 01:40 PM Re: ETHANOL mandate cut! [Re: Black_Thunder]
sleddriver Offline


Registered: 02/06/10
Posts: 1695
Loc: Central Texas
Originally Posted By: Black_Thunder
I don't use ethanol blended gas unless i really really have to.

You're lucky. We can't buy it here in central Tx thanks to the EPA (exceedingly [censored] administration). It may be available in the panhandle. I doubt if you can buy E0 in DFW, Houston, San Antonio triangle.
_________________________
1998 Volvo V70 T5 200,771 mi. Original Owner.

Top
#3374865 - 05/18/14 03:20 PM Re: ETHANOL mandate cut! [Re: chuck1955]
hatt Offline


Registered: 01/03/12
Posts: 932
Loc: Florida
Originally Posted By: chuck1955
Hatt ethanol whether its in e85 or e10 cost the same. It cost 10-20% more to use e85 in a flex vehicle verses gasoline and explains why less than 4% flex owners use it. Ethanol makes any gasoline product more expensive. Makes you wonder how the ethanol promoters get away with telling consumers they save them $1.09 on $4 e10. I wonder if the government wants to deal with irate consumers if they would try to force e15 on them which would have to happen if they keep the current mandate level. It could cause enough of a up roar to shut this program down altogether.
Without the mandate E85 would be much cheaper and a nice option for people in areas where ethanol is produced. That would in turn would actually lower demand for gasoline in those areas and likely help us all with prices. The nationwide E10 scheme basically wastes any benefits of producing the ethanol in the first place.
_________________________
2013 F150 5.0, PU 10w-30, FL500s
2010 Camry 2.5, PP 5w-30, Wix 57047

Top
#3376123 - 05/20/14 02:46 AM Re: ETHANOL mandate cut! [Re: hatt]
chuck1955 Offline


Registered: 02/11/12
Posts: 59
Loc: minnesota
Hatt if the mandate were removed like it should be I believe ethanol as it exist today would go back to levels prior to 2007. Ethanol has to sell for 33% less than gasoline and has almost always been more than the break even point. All one needs to do is compare futures prices of ethanol and gasoline. Experiments have been done to see at what price point consumers would use E85. It's usually 10-30% more to use than gasoline. For it to make sense for the consumer they should save 20-30% for the trouble ethanol presents. If you artificially lower the price who picks up the tab? Like always the taxpayer.

Top
#3381972 - 05/27/14 07:20 AM Re: ETHANOL mandate cut! [Re: gfh77665]
hatt Offline


Registered: 01/03/12
Posts: 932
Loc: Florida
What matters is what price ethanol can be sold at to make it worthwhile to producers and consumers. You're dealing with just the consumer side. What price does it need to sell at for producers to make an acceptable profit?
_________________________
2013 F150 5.0, PU 10w-30, FL500s
2010 Camry 2.5, PP 5w-30, Wix 57047

Top
#3384089 - 05/29/14 04:18 PM Re: ETHANOL mandate cut! [Re: gfh77665]
chuck1955 Offline


Registered: 02/11/12
Posts: 59
Loc: minnesota
A report out today saying that the 1.39 billion gallon cut would have the environmental impact of taking 580,000 cars off the road. That would translate to 6 million cars if you removed all the corn ethanol. It will be interesting if main stream media takes it to this administration like they are the problems with the VA. That's exactly what it will take to get this administration off their rears to do something about this. They have made a lot of promises to the corn lobby but their driving into a black cloud of corm smut.

Top
#3391342 - 06/07/14 09:05 AM Re: ETHANOL mandate cut! [Re: gfh77665]
2009Edge Offline


Registered: 06/10/09
Posts: 96
Loc: Texas
End the Ethanol Insanity: Ed Wallace
By Ed Wallace December 23, 2010

"First-generation [corn] ethanol, I think, was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small." —Al Gore, speaking at a green energy conference on Nov. 22, 2010

"Ethanol is not an ideal transportation fuel. The future of transportation fuels shouldn't involve ethanol." —Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Nov. 29, 2010

STORY: Chevron Dims the Lights on Green Power
It is now conceivable that the myth of ethanol as the salvation for America's energy problem is coming to an end. And maybe we always should have known it would wind up in italics, underlined, with the real facts of the damage ethanol can do to gas-powered motors laid out for all to see in a court of law. I say that because this past Monday a group calling itself the Engine Products Group, comprising small-engine manufacturers, automakers, and boat manufacturers, filed suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to vacate the EPA's October ruling that using a 15 percent blend of ethanol in the nation's fuel supplies would not harm 2007 and newer vehicles.

Each group of plaintiffs in this case has a different reason for objecting to putting more ethanol into America's gasoline. The automakers claim they have no idea whether a higher percentage of ethanol would damage their newer cars—and won't know until their testing is completed next year. The boat manufacturers claim their engines stay in service much longer, and are therefore more likely to be damaged by this fuel. The small-engine manufacturers are positive E15 would severely shorten the life of their products. According to The Washington Post, that's already been happening. The source is Mick Matuskey, co-owner of Power and Lawn Equipment of Gaithersburg, Md., who said, "You're getting half of the life out of the product today [when using E10 ethanol], compared to 30, 40 years ago."

Ultimately this lawsuit stems from one major issue: Manufacturers have to take legal action to protect their customers from the damage higher blends of ethanol would do to their motors, because their warranties generally don't cover it.

STORY: Santa Barbara Massacre Defies Gun Control, Mental Health Proposals: 4 Blunt Points
Of course, no such lawsuit would be complete without the ethanol lobby trying to obfuscate the facts of the case. Reuters quoted Tom Buis, head of lobbying group Growth Energy, as saying of the new proposed fuel, "E15 is safe for all vehicles on the road today."

That's patently untrue. For years cars nationwide have been damaged when motorists ended up with more than 10 percent ethanol in their fuel. I covered that situation last year in "The Great Ethanol Scam."

But ethanol's newest public-relations problem actually started in the last eight days of November. Having been fervidly pro-ethanol in the last decade of his political career, former Vice-President Al Gore reversed course and apologized for supporting ethanol. Of course, Gore's reason for taking his original position was perfectly understandable—to a politician. As he told energy conference attendees in Athens, Greece, "One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers of Iowa because I was about to run for President."

Top
Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >