ETHANOL mandate cut!

Messages
6,029
Location
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.
 
Messages
59
Location
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.
 
Messages
6,029
Location
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?
 
Messages
59
Location
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.
 
Messages
312
Location
Burleson,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."
 
Messages
439
Location
USA
For me, if ethanol is not mixed into the unleaded gasoline, my miles per gallon will increase to around 27-30 miles per gallon from barely 22 miles per gallon in my Nissan. It may even reduce my cost per gallon and my stops at the gas station to fill up.
 
Messages
1,462
Location
Gulf Coast, MS
I despise Ethonal with a passion. I personally don't believe it should be in gasoline. It raises cost of gas (mile for mile ethonal is more expensive then gasoline). Not only that but its bad for old cars dries put fuel lines and eats away at plastic over time. While working the "Deep Horizon oil spill" BP refused to pay for any gasoline used in pumps, boats, and and vehicles. They would only pay for pure gasoline and strictly prohibited its use in any gasoline engine. On a side note don't trust BP Water and oil doesn't mix since water is denser then oil. BP produced a chemical which when sprayed made oil more dense then water. So you wonder where the oil went? Check the bottom of the ocean. "We are commented to the Gulf Coast". BP
 
Messages
43,658
Location
'Stralia
Interesting article, elucidating some very very interesting facts. Wondering how long the usual suspect(s) will take to call us all ignorant of facts, and check the EPA (oops) stance.
 
Messages
884
Location
CA
Oh they'll find a way to argue it both ways. Its been like that since 2009. Note that the standard to radically increase ethanol production came into effect in 2008 but that will be ignored too.
 
Messages
6,029
Location
Florida
Originally Posted By: Apollo14
http://www.ewg.org/release/epa-plan-reduce-corn-ethanol-mandate-would-cut-carbon-emissions This seems like a decision that's right for a lot of reasons.
Quote:
Researchers found that most studies that claim the corn ethanol mandate reduces emissions do not properly account for the resources needed to improve crop yields and significantly underestimate the emissions from conversion of land to corn production driven by the federal ethanol mandate.
I doubt that's the only thing underestimated.
 
Messages
220
Location
Massachusetts
http://thehill.com/regulation/energy-environment/217548-epa-faces-accusations-on-ethanol-standard By Tim Devaney - 09/12/14 11:31 AM EDT
Quote:
Last November, the EPA proposed to cut the ethanol mandate for the first time to 15.21 billion gallons from 16.55 billion gallons in 2013, because some say ethanol is raising gas prices at the pump. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy is now signaling that the agency will do a 180 degree turn and actually raise the ethanol mandate when it releases the new Renewable Fuel Standard in the coming weeks. [..] The renewable energy groups point out that McCarthy hinted the EPA is considering raising the mandate only because demand for gasoline is growing, but if demand were to fall again they’re afraid they could be stuck in the same position consistently seeking a higher mandate.
 
Messages
6,029
Location
Florida
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
ANYTIME you hear the code word "carbon" you know to grab your wallet!
You beat the nail clear out the other side.
 
Top