Posted on 01/09/2015 10:58:39 AM PST by george76
The fiscal impact of the ethanol mandate is huge — Michaels estimated it totals “billions, easily” in direct and indirect money — but it has come under attack by liberals as well as conservatives and appears to have lost some of its clout on Capitol Hill.
For example, the Environmental Protection Agency — which administers the Renewable Fuel Standard — is considering a cut to the amount of ethanol blended into the nation’s gasoline supply.
...
a growing number of environmentalists want the ethanol requirement eliminated, too.
...
In 2007, Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into law an updated version of the RFS, requiring an increasing amount of biofuels mixed into gasoline — starting at 9 billion gallons in 2008 and increasing to 36 billion gallons by 2022.
...
The requirements have had a huge effect on farming in the nation’s heartland. It’s estimated 40 percent of the corn raised in the U.S. goes to ethanol.
“If we took all the corn that was diverted to ethanol and used it for its other normal uses for feed grains and foods, etc., the price of corn would be much, much lower than it is now,”
...
Ethanol is knocked by critics who say the fuel can hurt car engines — particularly those built before the RFS went into effect — as well as smaller gasoline-powered engines, such as lawnmowers and weed trimmers.
...
In 2010, Al Gore told a green energy business conference he regretted his earlier support for ethanol subsidies and tied it to his presidential ambitions at the time.
(Excerpt) Read more at watchdog.org ...
Per gallon, ethanol is of much lower BTU value than gasoline is.
Putting ethanol in gasoline is like adding water to wine and still call it wine and sell it as such.
In either case, the consumer gets cheated.
“The liberals have turned against ethanol because it now accounts for over 10% of the U.S. automotive fuel supply. It is reducing costs at the pump and helping put OPEC on the run”
It reduces miles per gallon and raises the cost of food.
“Personally, I want to bankrupt OPEC.
Personally, I want to buy ALL their oil at $50 per barrel or less.
“Corn ethanol is an important tool. It is also probably just a bridge to third generation feedstocks, which I expect we will see in 5-10 years.”
We pay farm subsidies, pay more for our food, pay more to operate our vehicles and help create bigger government through ethanol requirements.
“The price of corn, by the way, is less than half of what it was two years ago. Not that you will hear any acknowledgment of that from the food vs. fuel alarmists. “
Welfare Farmers are feeding at big gov’t’s trough by planting the sure thing. It isn’t free go consumers. We pay for this multiple times
For quite some time, ethanol was cheaper than gasoline.
So in theory, diluting a product with 10% of a lower cost product reduces the cost of the blend.
Currently with the petroleum price drop, wholesale gasoline is cheaper than ethanol.
Bonehead is too spineless to lead Republicans in this common sense correction of a huge screw up.
The only answer is the power of the corn lobby.
With such brilliant posters on this thread, I can't pass by the opportunity of having you explain why they started with MTBE, long before ethanol?
And then later, why did they switch to ethanol?
Ethanol lowers your miles per gallon. Therefore, by adding it to our fuel we need to burn more to get the same mileage as straight gasoline.
It is also hydroscopic. It attracts water. It dissolves fuel lines and turns to gel in cold weather.
There is a reason why service stations stopped selling Ethel and went to selling gasoline. It is a better fuel.
I am not sure why formula 1 race cars burn alcohol.
That mountain is already larger than the market can support. You may laugh at it and mock it, but it is real, and it is a threat.
Prices are less than half of what they were less that two years ago, and that because that mountain of surplus corn is an oversupply threat that can't be ignored.
But mandating ethanol is horrible policy.
Gasoline prices January 6, 2015, Springfield, Missouri.
Regular gasoline 87 octane E-10 $1.729
E-85 Flex Fuel $1.999
If this 27 cents per gallon price differential continues demand for E-85 will drop.
Rule #2: If it is a bad idea, subsidize it.
It is easy if you try. Want to buy a weed eater? How about a chain saw?
You're correct.
I should have added 'by rational people"
>> I am not sure why formula 1 race cars burn alcohol.
That is a good question. I didn’t know either so I looked into it.
Apparently, safety is a big reason, maybe the biggest. Also, even though the power *density* of alcohol is lower than that of gasoline, you can develop more engine power under the right conditions using alcohol (it just takes more of it).
http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/ctrp-1201-alcohol-fuel-basics/
Oil dropped as low as $12 a barrel in the wake of the first gulf war. From that point, it marched inexorably upwards and was approaching $150 a barrel just prior to the recession. While most commentators devote most of their attention to the housing bubble and the financial crisis, $150 oil has to recognized as a contributing factor, and perhaps a precipitant, to the recent and continuing unpleasantness.
During that period, in response to rising oil prices, we intensified the search for alternatives to oil. Looking across the sweep of the Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama administrations, I still think that Bush 43 had the soundest approach. He favored expanded drilling, unconventional drilling, and research across all sectors, including electrics, fuel cells, and biofuels. At some point, as oil reached the $60-80 range, corn ethanol became viable without subsidy, and that is the point at which the ethanol industry really took off. Ethanol continues to be fiercely resisted by the oil industry, however, because fuel economy has increased, gasoline consumption is flat or declining, and ethanol cuts into oil refiners' market share. Then came fracking.
At the moment, OPEC is back to its old tricks, dumping oil on the market in an effort to break the fracking and biofuels revolutions. OPEC has done this before, and I do not think we should fall for it again. I would keep the pressure on, on all fronts, until the Saudi princes have to trade in the gold plated limos for used camels, and the jihadis are reduced to fighting with sticks and stones.
>> I would keep the pressure on, on all fronts
That’s fine. Make and sell all the ethanol the market will bear!
But don’t FORCE me to pump it into my gasoline tank at the point of a Federal gun! Is that too much to ask?
Anyway, don’t try to fool me that the impetus of the government mandate is to “fight the arabs”. You and I both know that the real reason for the ethanol mandate is to appease the environazis. Environazis are every bit as evil as are islamonazis.
Ethanol is a good extender, and a good use to the massive excess corn supply. It also makes much better cattle feed than the raw corn (most of the corn grown in North America is for animal feed).
But the boom town mentality needs to end. There are to many plants, with to much capacity, and no way to turn a profit unless they have government handouts.
That is not ethanol, but methanol. Much harsher on the fuel system and less energy. There are a few other side product you can make from coal that would be much better anyway.
Doesn’t say anything about the method. Or even if it is really ethanol (the China aspect leads me to think it is a different chemical)>
If it is what I am thinking of, it uses ethane as a feed stock with modification and a catalyst. So you have a two Carbon group, but not ethanol (alcohol)
Which we used to do here, till the refineries realized it was getting into the ground water and making the wells smell like dead fish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.