More bad news for the ethanol mandate.

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national...x-1227441940278

Quote:
NSW has mandated ethanol must make up 6 per cent of the fuel that service stations sell. But motorists have proved hard to convince. Latest statistics show ethanol makes up just over 3 per cent of the market.

The ethanol mandate has been a boost for farmers, as it is derived from agricultural waste, and for ethanol producers who are protected from overseas competition by trade barriers and tax exemptions..
.
.
.
One of the issues is that, although ethanol is cheaper, thanks to tax concessions, much of the savings are eaten up by greater fuel consumption.

In 2012, premier Barry O’Farrell announced regular unleaded would continue to be sold, amid concerns that motorists would be forced to pay for more expensive premium petrol.

Gavin Hughes, the chief executive of the Biofuels Association of Australia, said the simplest way to get to the 6 per cent was to ban regular unleaded.

Figures from Caltex, which says it is committed to ethanol, show sales of E10 drop from about 50 per cent to 20 per cent when motorists have the choice.
.
.
.

The only NSW ethanol producer, the Manildra Group, is one of the largest political donors in Australia. Australian Electoral Commission records show it gave $452,000 in 2013-14, almost all to the Nationals and Liberal Party.


and re that last paragraph....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-22/manildra-457/6033054
 
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
When a politician says that some big political goal can be achieved in 10 years, he's really saying EFF YOU.


Like this one?




Not arguing, just having some fun. What a difference 50 years makes.


Yes, that's a good example. And America defeated Germany and Japan in WW2 in less than 4 years. (And the space program was really just another battleground of the Cold War.) The difference was those were strong national priorities that most of the population agreed needed to be achieved. What we have now is a crisis every day and people are tuning out.

Look at how long NASA has been looking for a Space Shuttle replacement. The Orion spacecraft project is really on a lazy timeline.
 
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
What we have now is a crisis every day and people are tuning out.


I agree 100%. And, if there's not a REAL crisis the media manufactures one for us. I try to keep up with current events, but the more I know, the more I know I don't know.
 
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
What is the oxygenate replacement?

Is an oxygenate necessary with modern (like 1990 and later) engines that use programmed fuel injection with oxygen sensor feedback?

I thought oxygenates were only beneficial for carburetted engines.
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
When a politician says that some big political goal can be achieved in 10 years, he's really saying EFF YOU.


Like this one?




Not arguing, just having some fun. What a difference 50 years makes.


Excellent post! Too bad it was the only worthwhile goal that was met inside of 10 years, and we haven't been back since the 70's. Not sure, if I was an astronaut in this day and time, that I would care to volunteer for a moon shot today. NASA has had a poor track record of successful launches for a while.


If you objectively consider Kennedy's "mandate", you must know that he was friends with the captured Nazi rocket engineers. These guys were absolute pro's at making rockets. Kennedy knew this and knew what they could do when properly funded.

I recently toured Peenumunde, Germany, where the V2-A4 rocket was developed. The quality of certain components was stunning. The turbopumps, for example, were absolutely amazing. Higher quality than many gas turbine engines built today.
 
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
When a politician says that some big political goal can be achieved in 10 years, he's really saying EFF YOU.


Like this one?




Not arguing, just having some fun. What a difference 50 years makes.


Excellent post! Too bad it was the only worthwhile goal that was met inside of 10 years, and we haven't been back since the 70's. Not sure, if I was an astronaut in this day and time, that I would care to volunteer for a moon shot today. NASA has had a poor track record of successful launches for a while.


If you objectively consider Kennedy's "mandate", you must know that he was friends with the captured Nazi rocket engineers. These guys were absolute pro's at making rockets. Kennedy knew this and knew what they could do when properly funded.

I recently toured Peenumunde, Germany, where the V2-A4 rocket was developed. The quality of certain components was stunning. The turbopumps, for example, were absolutely amazing. Higher quality than many gas turbine engines built today.
Slave labor will do that for ya, cheaply.
 
Originally Posted By: BearZDefect
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
What is the oxygenate replacement?

Is an oxygenate necessary with modern (like 1990 and later) engines that use programmed fuel injection with oxygen sensor feedback?

I thought oxygenates were only beneficial for carburetted engines.


Probably not necessary, especially in the last few years with the advanced motor and fuel delivery designs that are common now. But once something gets established as the way to go, it is like turning an aircraft carrier.
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Originally Posted By: BearZDefect
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
What is the oxygenate replacement?

Is an oxygenate necessary with modern (like 1990 and later) engines that use programmed fuel injection with oxygen sensor feedback?

I thought oxygenates were only beneficial for carburetted engines.


Probably not necessary, especially in the last few years with the advanced motor and fuel delivery designs that are common now. But once something gets established as the way to go, it is like turning an aircraft carrier.


Substitute "oxygenate" for "less fuel". If "they" attempted to sell it to the public as "less fuel" it would have been a miserable failure. Oxygen is in air, the only reason to add more oxygen is to burn more fuel (turbos/superchargers/nitrous). "Oxygenate" is really a much less potent fuel to dilute gasoline because people didn't get their carbs re-jetted for each season of varying temperatures (increased or decreased air density and hence varying amounts of oxygen in the cyl.). Ethanol mandates started after the last carbureted new car sold had been sold 'Merica... too late, problem solved by EFI. Never let a phony crisis go to waste so start mandating diluted fuel after the real problem (cars not running stoichiometric air fuel ratios year around) had already been solved by EFI with O2 sensor feedback fuel adjustments.

For the vast majority of humans it is more important to "feel" right than to actually "BE" right. Growing our own renewable fuel with oxygen in it (never mind all the diesel, fertilizers, and pesticides used in the farming and transportation of said "fuel", nor the energy required to distill thousands of gallons of beer into tens of gallons of nearly pure alcohol)... that just FEELS like the right thing to do, like a Unicorn whizzed in my Cheerios.
 
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
If this stuff were to become economically viable without the dead hand of government meddling in the free market for it, then it will stay ON the market in some fashion. If not, some fat agribusiness types will not be buying bigger boats anytine soon.


Exactly my point.

Either it stands on its own in a free market without subsidies and the public decides m
If it can't then adios.

I like the tuning potential it has for engines but I don't see any point to the stuff mixed with gasoline. E-10 had its purpose. To reduce the need for foreign oil from the sandbox.
Today that's hardly an issue when the Saudis are pumping and the military has a base on the front lines of every oil field
 
True, oxygen is in the air, but roughly 20% of total atmosphere. And the wonderful folks at the EPA have decided to feed engine feces back into the motors to reduce NOx, so that displaces some of the available oxygen. So an oxygenate to gasoline, in this case via ethanol, is not necessarily the worse idea anyone has come up with.

The dead hand of government is on the 10% ethanol thing, I will concede, but on the other blends, not at all. Like E20, E30, and E85. Those are free market fuels. Ethanol is traded on the commodities exchanges just as any other commodity is. And E85, at least in some areas of the country, is extremely cost effective. Even with the lower mpg from it, the price spreads make is easily more cost effective on a cost per mile basis. I save from 1 to 2 cents a mile in my pickup by using it, at the current price spreads. So the so-called "mandate subsidy" argument doesn't apply.

It may be considered a "subsidy" if ethanol is required in gas by a jurisdiction, but the ethanol is traded on the free market exchanges, and that is where the pricing is made. There is no actual payment subsidies going to ethanol producers since the end of 2011. And come on, if we want to talk subsidies, how about the $14 billion a month cost to us for the Iraq war from 2004-2010. And one of the primary reasons for that was to keep the oil flowing. That dwarfs anything that could be considered a subsidy to ethanol producers. They only make roughly 13 billion gallons of that stuff per year. We need to tack on the price of that military adventure to the cost of each gallon of gas. Then folks would have something to really scream about when they see $6+ per gallon at the pump. At least we haven't had a stack of dead and wounded troops protecting the cornfields of America.

Of course, that could all change with the way we are importing the problems of the ME in the way we are bringing in "refugees" from that region. But that is another discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top