WARNING FROM THE AAA
- Thread starter CharBaby
- Start date
- Status
Every thing follows the money. Even in Communist countries.
Here in Corn Country, the Lobby has removed the Up to 10% ethanol stickers from the pumps. I used to see the stickers, but not anymore. I often wonder how accurate or consistent the 10% is. Of course if it doesn't benefit them, they won't go > 10% for E10. I have not seen any E15 around here yet, probably only a matter of time.
Here in corn country west of you JetStar I've never seen E15. Almost all is E10 though. The ethanol is (was maybe) cheaper to make than gasoline and the stations get a 3% sales tax rebate from the state for using it. The blenders at the pipeline terminals also get a tax credit for using ethanol. The farmers get price support from the government for growing corn.
Closest station with E0 87 octane charges a $0.20 premium for the stuff and is 40 miles away.
Closest station with E0 87 octane charges a $0.20 premium for the stuff and is 40 miles away.
I should add that the Chicago City council is trying to pass legislation requiring stations in the city to have E15 available. For no good reason as no one wants it but the aldermen. Stations would have to add equipment.
Chicago is already the highest price gas in the state by +$1.00 a gallon for 87 E10 compared to the rest of the state.
Chicago is already the highest price gas in the state by +$1.00 a gallon for 87 E10 compared to the rest of the state.
Not a lot of pumps, but further west of Illinois and Indiana, in Iowa, I have come across, and filled, with E15 frequently. I am sure it has to do with trying to get folks to buy it, but the stations I have seen that have it are guaranteeing that E15 will always be 10 cents lower per gallon than 87 E10.
I still contend that any lack of availability of non ethanol fuel has nothing to do with the Feds, corn lobby, etc but is purely the motivation of state and local governments. We in Iowa have a plethora of fuel choices all the time, with and without ethanol. Virtually every town, year round. E0 (regular and premium) E10, E15, E20, E30, and E85.
I still contend that any lack of availability of non ethanol fuel has nothing to do with the Feds, corn lobby, etc but is purely the motivation of state and local governments. We in Iowa have a plethora of fuel choices all the time, with and without ethanol. Virtually every town, year round. E0 (regular and premium) E10, E15, E20, E30, and E85.
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.
Ethanol in gas is a scam.
The difference is that local and state governments, the people should show up with pitch forks and torches and demand free choice of motor fuel. Those that have no problem with ethanol can buy it, and those that have serious issues with it can buy non ethanol gas. The feds only demand that a certain amount of ethanol be used, they do not state it has to be the only fuel available. And the government, local, state, or Federal, is NOT REQUIRING YOU TO USE A MOTOR FUEL THAT IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR YOUR CAR. I have seen the E15 pumps and they are very clearly labeled that it should not be used in certain vehicles, and is illegal to dispense into vehicles not designed for its use.
Sure, ethanol fuel is less mpg and the government gets more in fuel taxes on a volume basis, but I could really care less. When the price of E85 compared to gas has a good spread, as it does now in my area, even with the decreased mpg, the cost per mile is still lower than using regular gas. Right now, based on the mpg of each fuel and the price spread, E85 costs about 3-4 cents a mile LESS to use than gas. It is about a wash between regular E0 and E10/E15. I have run the mpg numbers on all the various fuels in my vehicles. I might get a little better mpg on E0, but the cost per mile of E10/E15 is, even with a lower mpg, is equal or lower than using E0.
It is all about money again. Whatever delivers the lowest cost per mile for me to use, I use. The beauty of having a flex fuel motor. I don't stress over the politics behind it.
Sure, ethanol fuel is less mpg and the government gets more in fuel taxes on a volume basis, but I could really care less. When the price of E85 compared to gas has a good spread, as it does now in my area, even with the decreased mpg, the cost per mile is still lower than using regular gas. Right now, based on the mpg of each fuel and the price spread, E85 costs about 3-4 cents a mile LESS to use than gas. It is about a wash between regular E0 and E10/E15. I have run the mpg numbers on all the various fuels in my vehicles. I might get a little better mpg on E0, but the cost per mile of E10/E15 is, even with a lower mpg, is equal or lower than using E0.
It is all about money again. Whatever delivers the lowest cost per mile for me to use, I use. The beauty of having a flex fuel motor. I don't stress over the politics behind it.
CT has had ethanol in gas long before the recent mandate; At one time there were sound technical reasons for it and it primarily dealt with emissions.
I suppose the elimination of lead from gasoline would be construed as a 'job killer' the way things are represented these days.
As indicated, just use a fuel that one's vehicle was designed to run.
On a side note, no sign of ethanol free or 15% here in CT
I suppose the elimination of lead from gasoline would be construed as a 'job killer' the way things are represented these days.
As indicated, just use a fuel that one's vehicle was designed to run.
On a side note, no sign of ethanol free or 15% here in CT
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
If the price supports for ethanol were not there then there would be no competitive advantage. Mal-investment at it's finest. The ethanol mandate has become little more than a government sponsored jobs program.
Price supports? Prove it! There has not been an ethanol subsidy paid since 2011. And any other "support" or subsidies has to do with retailers providing blender pumps and such so customer can buy different levels of ethanol fuel. The ethanol producers have nothing to do with that. Ethanol is traded on the commodities exchange just like gas and diesel.
If the price supports for ethanol were not there then there would be no competitive advantage. Mal-investment at it's finest. The ethanol mandate has become little more than a government sponsored jobs program.
Price supports? Prove it! There has not been an ethanol subsidy paid since 2011. And any other "support" or subsidies has to do with retailers providing blender pumps and such so customer can buy different levels of ethanol fuel. The ethanol producers have nothing to do with that. Ethanol is traded on the commodities exchange just like gas and diesel.
Ok, Shannow, let's break this all down on that article since you cannot seem to read links you post, all of these quotes from the article you linked to....
"The corn ethanol industry has a long history of receiving federal taxpayer subsidies. One of the biggest subsidies – the $6 billion-per-year Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit – was finally allowed to expire in 2011"
"Congress even specifically barred corn ethanol from receiving taxpayer subsidies through it and other energy title programs in the 2008 Farm Bill. But in 2011 USDA began to allow blender pump subsidies to qualify for these payments since efforts to secure more subsidies through Congress were unsuccessful"
So we see, corn ethanol producers get squat. I stated in my other posts that any subsidies are now for blender pumps, which are a retail thing, as ethanol producers are NOT in the retail business any more than a oil refinery is. Blender pumps can dispense E0, E10, E15, E20, E30, E85. We have a few of them around me and I am very familiar with what and how they are. They just mix levels of ethanol in fuels, hence the name "blender pump".
"Less than a month after signing the farm bill into law, the president proposed new subsidies for ethanol blender pumps in his FY 2015 budget proposal".
Folks that are so set in a mindset are usually the ones who are not actively participating in reality, both those that write articles and those who read them and assume stuff that wasn't even stated in the article. Retail filling stations are NOT ethanol producers.
Hence, my invite still stands.... prove it that ethanol producers get subsidies. We are all waiting with baited breath.
"The corn ethanol industry has a long history of receiving federal taxpayer subsidies. One of the biggest subsidies – the $6 billion-per-year Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit – was finally allowed to expire in 2011"
"Congress even specifically barred corn ethanol from receiving taxpayer subsidies through it and other energy title programs in the 2008 Farm Bill. But in 2011 USDA began to allow blender pump subsidies to qualify for these payments since efforts to secure more subsidies through Congress were unsuccessful"
So we see, corn ethanol producers get squat. I stated in my other posts that any subsidies are now for blender pumps, which are a retail thing, as ethanol producers are NOT in the retail business any more than a oil refinery is. Blender pumps can dispense E0, E10, E15, E20, E30, E85. We have a few of them around me and I am very familiar with what and how they are. They just mix levels of ethanol in fuels, hence the name "blender pump".
"Less than a month after signing the farm bill into law, the president proposed new subsidies for ethanol blender pumps in his FY 2015 budget proposal".
Folks that are so set in a mindset are usually the ones who are not actively participating in reality, both those that write articles and those who read them and assume stuff that wasn't even stated in the article. Retail filling stations are NOT ethanol producers.
Hence, my invite still stands.... prove it that ethanol producers get subsidies. We are all waiting with baited breath.
Tired Trucker...you ARE a charmer.
If ethanol was competing against gasoline, in an open market, with both avialable side by side atthe boweser, would the volumes sold be more or less, and the prices more or less when under a mandated utilisation rate.
If ethanol was competing against gasoline, in an open market, with both avialable side by side atthe boweser, would the volumes sold be more or less, and the prices more or less when under a mandated utilisation rate.
You are confusing a mandate by government that may influence the market pricing with a subsidy. An apples to oranges thing. We could use that for a variety of things. Would seat belts be the same price if they were only an option for the consumer to buy on their own as opposed to being a mandated feature of an automobile? How about the fuel price if the government wasn't taxing motor fuel? If we factor in the military adventures we get involved in, and if those costs were included in the price of gasoline, would not the price be higher?
There are no truly "open markets" for any fuel. Government regulations influence everything. Maybe ethanol might be mandated to some degree, it sure doesn't require billions upon billions of dollars of tax payer money to keep the supply lines open world wide like petroleum does. Not to mention the lives that are destroyed. Troops are not dying in the cornfields of Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana, etc to keep the supply of ethanol flowing. And government regulates gasoline in many ways. Sulfur content, octane ratings, etc, etc. All mandates. Is not that something that is forced down folk's throats and inflate the cost to the consumer?
But I suppose to those that like gasoline and detest ethanol, they are happy with all those regulations and mandates on gasoline and diesel, the government imposed restrictions on drilling and acquisition of petroleum, the government regulations and mandates on oil refineries that add to the fuel cost, etc. When we step back and look at the broader picture, ethanol hardly seems to be much of an issue as many would have it be.
If only people would pitch a fit over many of the other things that governments do that truly are detrimental to folk's lives and freedoms. It's ok to mandate that the people be monitored in all their activities and lives, but God forbid, and how terrible it is, that they might have to buy fuel with 1/10th ethanol blended in.
There are no truly "open markets" for any fuel. Government regulations influence everything. Maybe ethanol might be mandated to some degree, it sure doesn't require billions upon billions of dollars of tax payer money to keep the supply lines open world wide like petroleum does. Not to mention the lives that are destroyed. Troops are not dying in the cornfields of Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana, etc to keep the supply of ethanol flowing. And government regulates gasoline in many ways. Sulfur content, octane ratings, etc, etc. All mandates. Is not that something that is forced down folk's throats and inflate the cost to the consumer?
But I suppose to those that like gasoline and detest ethanol, they are happy with all those regulations and mandates on gasoline and diesel, the government imposed restrictions on drilling and acquisition of petroleum, the government regulations and mandates on oil refineries that add to the fuel cost, etc. When we step back and look at the broader picture, ethanol hardly seems to be much of an issue as many would have it be.
If only people would pitch a fit over many of the other things that governments do that truly are detrimental to folk's lives and freedoms. It's ok to mandate that the people be monitored in all their activities and lives, but God forbid, and how terrible it is, that they might have to buy fuel with 1/10th ethanol blended in.
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/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/20/its-final-corn-ethanol-is-of-no-use/
I have seen and used E 0 87 & 91 from hyvee in lawrence,topeka, and manhattan. I think the performance and mpg are better but to what extent I dont know. If your stuck running ethanol fuels and want protection use Gumout All in One that has ability to protect up to E 15. Most Caseys Gas Stations have No Alcohol fuels too. Ethanol/Corn is bad on so many levels lol. Its not the best for lots of cars, a lousy cheap filler in low budget dog food, and is awful to consume if you have eczema or other skin issues. Been thinking maybe a TDi is the way to go.
Originally Posted By: stro_cruiser
I agree with you guys above ^^..A scam founded in corrupt organisations that probably costs more in energy than it actually produces. Insanity.
Is anyone here regularly using any kind of researched additive to help combat the ill effects of 10% ethanol, over time?
I have been using E10 gas for 20 years with never a single problem in vehicle engines or OPE.
I agree with you guys above ^^..A scam founded in corrupt organisations that probably costs more in energy than it actually produces. Insanity.
Is anyone here regularly using any kind of researched additive to help combat the ill effects of 10% ethanol, over time?
I have been using E10 gas for 20 years with never a single problem in vehicle engines or OPE.
- Status
