A couple weeks ago I traveled to Iowa, and spent about 10 days there. Iowa is one of the states that really pushed to get corn alcohol (ethanol) into the fuel. Yet, every gas station I went to had 87 octane with ethanol and 87 octane without alcohol for about 30 cents more a gallon. Everybody I saw pumping, and everybody I talked to used the non-ethanol stuff. Here in CA I cannot even find non-ethanol unless I buy a 5 gallon can of it for $70.00 at a distributor. What gives that the people who pushed it don't even use it?
In the corn belt, non ethanol fuel is everywhere
- Thread starter another Todd
- Start date
- Status
Because basically it's a failed program started by an ex-President to appease the farmers. It was very inflationary to food prices-
quote- There’s very little question about whether or not ethanol subsidies and related mandates, which essentially pay farmers to grow fuel instead of food, drive up the price of food. Ethanol policy hits corn directly, but because corn is so integral to the rest of the food production process, a rise in the price of corn quickly results in a rise in the price of other farm commodities such as meat, poultry, dairy, and soy products. When the Congressional Budget Office looked at the impact of ethanol subsidies on overall food prices between April 2007 and April 2008, the nonpartisan scorekeeper found that 10-15 percent of the 5.1 percent rise in food prices, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, could be attributed to ethanol subsidies.
quote- There’s very little question about whether or not ethanol subsidies and related mandates, which essentially pay farmers to grow fuel instead of food, drive up the price of food. Ethanol policy hits corn directly, but because corn is so integral to the rest of the food production process, a rise in the price of corn quickly results in a rise in the price of other farm commodities such as meat, poultry, dairy, and soy products. When the Congressional Budget Office looked at the impact of ethanol subsidies on overall food prices between April 2007 and April 2008, the nonpartisan scorekeeper found that 10-15 percent of the 5.1 percent rise in food prices, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, could be attributed to ethanol subsidies.
Last edited by a moderator:
The fuel available is largely based on the state requirements and individual state legislature. Maybe you're also under the impression that everyone (citizens and not lobbiest) from the cornbelt pushed it and wanted it, which is not true.
Most people do use the E10 blend since its the cheapest and since the pipeline quit carrying pure 87 octane about a year or 2 ago, E0 is starting to disappear in rural areas and is mostly only available in larger population areas.
What areas did you visit and how was your trip here?
Most people do use the E10 blend since its the cheapest and since the pipeline quit carrying pure 87 octane about a year or 2 ago, E0 is starting to disappear in rural areas and is mostly only available in larger population areas.
What areas did you visit and how was your trip here?
This is a case where I wish they would let the market decide(instead of legislating), but at the same time not allow the EPA to basically close down refineries that only produce E0.
I'm fairly lucky that my state is plentiful in E0 but the price differential has gone up over the years as we've lost some refineries that were producing the stuff. It used to be 10c/gal higher than E10 but now is anywhere from 25-40c/gal more expensive.
Nonetheless, people still flock to the E0 stations and pay the difference.
I'm fairly lucky that my state is plentiful in E0 but the price differential has gone up over the years as we've lost some refineries that were producing the stuff. It used to be 10c/gal higher than E10 but now is anywhere from 25-40c/gal more expensive.
Nonetheless, people still flock to the E0 stations and pay the difference.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: another Todd
. What gives that the people who pushed it don't even use it?
Applies to drugs too.
. What gives that the people who pushed it don't even use it?
Applies to drugs too.
My Equinox 2.4 gets 3 more MPG with plain ol' unleaded gasoline. If it is so good??? Why does our tax dollars still subsidize the ethanol plants??? Can't the ethanol plants make profit on their own merit??? No....they can't.
Just because those farmers sell corn for fuel does not mean they're stupid enough to use it themselves.
Originally Posted By: CKN
[ When the Congressional Budget Office looked at the impact of ethanol subsidies on overall food prices between April 2007 and April 2008, the nonpartisan scorekeeper found that 10-15 percent of the 5.1 percent rise in food prices, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, could be attributed to ethanol subsidies.
You think 0.5 % is a big deal. That's noise.
Better to appease the Saudis and isis than the U.S. farmers?
[ When the Congressional Budget Office looked at the impact of ethanol subsidies on overall food prices between April 2007 and April 2008, the nonpartisan scorekeeper found that 10-15 percent of the 5.1 percent rise in food prices, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, could be attributed to ethanol subsidies.
You think 0.5 % is a big deal. That's noise.
Better to appease the Saudis and isis than the U.S. farmers?
Iowa folk live in a free state, so they have choices. In CA, the citizenry have decided their government knows best, hence their choices are...limited.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: CKN
[ When the Congressional Budget Office looked at the impact of ethanol subsidies on overall food prices between April 2007 and April 2008, the nonpartisan scorekeeper found that 10-15 percent of the 5.1 percent rise in food prices, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, could be attributed to ethanol subsidies.
You think 0.5 % is a big deal. That's noise.
Better to appease the Saudis and isis than the U.S. farmers?
Serve the best paying lobby efforts.
Originally Posted By: CKN
[ When the Congressional Budget Office looked at the impact of ethanol subsidies on overall food prices between April 2007 and April 2008, the nonpartisan scorekeeper found that 10-15 percent of the 5.1 percent rise in food prices, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, could be attributed to ethanol subsidies.
You think 0.5 % is a big deal. That's noise.
Better to appease the Saudis and isis than the U.S. farmers?
Serve the best paying lobby efforts.
Originally Posted By: NHGUY
Ever think those old gas powered International Farmall and John Deere tractors in the corn belt wouldn't prefer to burn straight fuel as opposed to gasohol?
Honestly they don't care what fuel they burn. I've spent way too many hours behind a Farmall Super MTA baling hay- and that thing NEVER missed a lick. Not once. Every old tractor I've seen, used and/or worked on, works fine on E10.
Ever think those old gas powered International Farmall and John Deere tractors in the corn belt wouldn't prefer to burn straight fuel as opposed to gasohol?
Honestly they don't care what fuel they burn. I've spent way too many hours behind a Farmall Super MTA baling hay- and that thing NEVER missed a lick. Not once. Every old tractor I've seen, used and/or worked on, works fine on E10.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: CKN
[ When the Congressional Budget Office looked at the impact of ethanol subsidies on overall food prices between April 2007 and April 2008, the nonpartisan scorekeeper found that 10-15 percent of the 5.1 percent rise in food prices, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, could be attributed to ethanol subsidies.
You think 0.5 % is a big deal. That's noise.
Better to appease the Saudis and isis than the U.S. farmers?
Last time I checked we were actually exporting fuel due to shale production.
Originally Posted By: CKN
[ When the Congressional Budget Office looked at the impact of ethanol subsidies on overall food prices between April 2007 and April 2008, the nonpartisan scorekeeper found that 10-15 percent of the 5.1 percent rise in food prices, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, could be attributed to ethanol subsidies.
You think 0.5 % is a big deal. That's noise.
Better to appease the Saudis and isis than the U.S. farmers?
Last time I checked we were actually exporting fuel due to shale production.
Originally Posted By: stevejones
Iowa folk live in a free state, so they have choices. In CA, the citizenry have decided their government knows best, hence their choices are...limited.
Limited ? We didn't have any choice.
Iowa folk live in a free state, so they have choices. In CA, the citizenry have decided their government knows best, hence their choices are...limited.
Limited ? We didn't have any choice.
Originally Posted By: another Todd
A couple weeks ago I traveled to Iowa, and spent about 10 days there. Iowa is one of the states that really pushed to get corn alcohol (ethanol) into the fuel. Yet, every gas station I went to had 87 octane with ethanol and 87 octane without alcohol for about 30 cents more a gallon. Everybody I saw pumping, and everybody I talked to used the non-ethanol stuff. Here in CA I cannot even find non-ethanol unless I buy a 5 gallon can of it for $70.00 at a distributor. What gives that the people who pushed it don't even use it?
Actually, Iowans buy more E10 by several margins than they buy ethanol free. That is pure fact. There are vastly more E10 pumps than there are ethanol free. We also buy E15, E20, E30, and E85 as prices fluctuate seasonally and make it a value choice. True, we have ethanol free very available most everywhere. While the EPA has some say in all of this, it is the state governments who actually dictate whether ethanol free can be available along side of E10 and such. That is where the blame lies. Iowa, while pushing ethanol use, does not hamstring its citizens from making their own choices. There are some retailers than don't have ethanol free, but that mostly centers around the available storage tanks they have. They are only going to carry E10 regular and premium.
But you mention California, and that says it all. Because of CA government nonsense, I no longer haul freight in or out of CA. Just not worth the hassles.
For many locations around the country, it is a game on how things are done. Many refiners will pipe 85 octane gasoline to some areas, that requires some ethanol to be blended in to make it 87 octane as required by car manufacturers and minimum octane standard regulations. Many refiners are taking advantage of the ethanol thing to ship cheaper produced fuel. So while it is easy to blame the corn lobby and the EPA, even the oil companies themselves share the blame.
A couple weeks ago I traveled to Iowa, and spent about 10 days there. Iowa is one of the states that really pushed to get corn alcohol (ethanol) into the fuel. Yet, every gas station I went to had 87 octane with ethanol and 87 octane without alcohol for about 30 cents more a gallon. Everybody I saw pumping, and everybody I talked to used the non-ethanol stuff. Here in CA I cannot even find non-ethanol unless I buy a 5 gallon can of it for $70.00 at a distributor. What gives that the people who pushed it don't even use it?
Actually, Iowans buy more E10 by several margins than they buy ethanol free. That is pure fact. There are vastly more E10 pumps than there are ethanol free. We also buy E15, E20, E30, and E85 as prices fluctuate seasonally and make it a value choice. True, we have ethanol free very available most everywhere. While the EPA has some say in all of this, it is the state governments who actually dictate whether ethanol free can be available along side of E10 and such. That is where the blame lies. Iowa, while pushing ethanol use, does not hamstring its citizens from making their own choices. There are some retailers than don't have ethanol free, but that mostly centers around the available storage tanks they have. They are only going to carry E10 regular and premium.
But you mention California, and that says it all. Because of CA government nonsense, I no longer haul freight in or out of CA. Just not worth the hassles.
For many locations around the country, it is a game on how things are done. Many refiners will pipe 85 octane gasoline to some areas, that requires some ethanol to be blended in to make it 87 octane as required by car manufacturers and minimum octane standard regulations. Many refiners are taking advantage of the ethanol thing to ship cheaper produced fuel. So while it is easy to blame the corn lobby and the EPA, even the oil companies themselves share the blame.
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Originally Posted By: NHGUY
Ever think those old gas powered International Farmall and John Deere tractors in the corn belt wouldn't prefer to burn straight fuel as opposed to gasohol?
Honestly they don't care what fuel they burn. I've spent way too many hours behind a Farmall Super MTA baling hay- and that thing NEVER missed a lick. Not once. Every old tractor I've seen, used and/or worked on, works fine on E10.
Won't they run on just about anything? As in: ethanol, methanol, 70 octane gas, gas cut with kerosene, etc?
I have run exclusively E10 for probably fifteen years with no trouble.
Originally Posted By: NHGUY
Ever think those old gas powered International Farmall and John Deere tractors in the corn belt wouldn't prefer to burn straight fuel as opposed to gasohol?
Honestly they don't care what fuel they burn. I've spent way too many hours behind a Farmall Super MTA baling hay- and that thing NEVER missed a lick. Not once. Every old tractor I've seen, used and/or worked on, works fine on E10.
Won't they run on just about anything? As in: ethanol, methanol, 70 octane gas, gas cut with kerosene, etc?
I have run exclusively E10 for probably fifteen years with no trouble.
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Originally Posted By: NHGUY
Ever think those old gas powered International Farmall and John Deere tractors in the corn belt wouldn't prefer to burn straight fuel as opposed to gasohol?
Honestly they don't care what fuel they burn. I've spent way too many hours behind a Farmall Super MTA baling hay- and that thing NEVER missed a lick. Not once. Every old tractor I've seen, used and/or worked on, works fine on E10.
Won't they run on just about anything? As in: ethanol, methanol, 70 octane gas, gas cut with kerosene, etc?
I have run exclusively E10 for probably fifteen years with no trouble.
Same here. This E10 thing is overblown in several ways.
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Originally Posted By: NHGUY
Ever think those old gas powered International Farmall and John Deere tractors in the corn belt wouldn't prefer to burn straight fuel as opposed to gasohol?
Honestly they don't care what fuel they burn. I've spent way too many hours behind a Farmall Super MTA baling hay- and that thing NEVER missed a lick. Not once. Every old tractor I've seen, used and/or worked on, works fine on E10.
Won't they run on just about anything? As in: ethanol, methanol, 70 octane gas, gas cut with kerosene, etc?
I have run exclusively E10 for probably fifteen years with no trouble.
Same here. This E10 thing is overblown in several ways.
- Status
Similar threads
