ETHANOL mandate cut!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Billions. Not millions. I don't understand how people can make that mistake.

The "millions" refers to the cellulosic ethanol mandate. I should have been more careful.

Excerpt from the Wall Street Journal article from last week:
"On Wednesday the EPA retroactively reduced
the 2013 gasoline-blending mandate for cellulosic ethanol
to 810,185 gallons from six million. If that sounds like
a big cut, 810,185 gallons is precisely every last drop
the industry managed to produce. The 2014 mandate is
nonetheless pegged at a preposterous 17 million gallons."
 
I've been waiting for someone to figure out how much pollution is made to grow the corn and go through the distillation process to make a gallon of ethanol compared to how much a gallon of gas produces. I think between fuel oil and petroleum derived fertilizers, then the energy needed to ferment and distill then ship the ethanol, gasoline might actually be cleaner.
 
Originally Posted By: ironman_gq
I've been waiting for someone to figure out how much pollution is made to grow the corn and go through the distillation process to make a gallon of ethanol compared to how much a gallon of gas produces. I think between fuel oil and petroleum derived fertilizers, then the energy needed to ferment and distill then ship the ethanol, gasoline might actually be cleaner.


Thats true.... plus the farm machinery to collect the CORN...... and the water and fertilizer and all that it entails.

I remember years ago only Citgo put Ethanol in there Gas and I know this b.c my family owned a Shell Station and 1 time 3 Sunoco stations and none of them at Ethanol....

This was the days back when Sunoco had 94 Ultra aka 94 Octane.

Also I remember our mechinacis saying that ethanol was no good for engines. Now perhaps he meant the cars built in them days and earlier.

However is Ethanol / does Ethanol cause Engine damage???
 
Those are government subsidies in a different way. They do not want to say it is subsidy for political purposes, but national security issue (cutting demand of oil).
The fact that someone in Africa has to pay corn more then ever before, or that we pollute more, or that cars get less mpg, or that oil needs to be changed earlier, creating oil waste, is not Congresses concern. Only concern is to win votes in states where corn is grown.
 
Originally Posted By: Tegger
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Billions. Not millions. I don't understand how people can make that mistake.

The "millions" refers to the cellulosic ethanol mandate. I should have been more careful.

Excerpt from the Wall Street Journal article from last week:
"On Wednesday the EPA retroactively reduced
the 2013 gasoline-blending mandate for cellulosic ethanol
to 810,185 gallons from six million. If that sounds like
a big cut, 810,185 gallons is precisely every last drop
the industry managed to produce. The 2014 mandate is
nonetheless pegged at a preposterous 17 million gallons."


I think your quote doesn't really make sense because you left out some key units and I think you also made a mistake between gallons, barrels, days and per year. I think in 2012, they made some 12.7 billion gallons of ethanol from corn. Or around 830,000 barrels of ethanol per day. In 2012, the US consumed about 133 billion gallons of gasoline. 10% of 133 billion is 13.3 billion so if the EPA hadn't scaled back the mandate, instead of E10, you'd have to go to E15 in order to use more than 13.3 billion gallons a year.

If you were really talking about a total of 810,185 gallons, that's just a drop in a bucket.
 
Originally Posted By: Black_Thunder
Originally Posted By: Kuato
Guess "somebody" finally figured out that Ethanol reduces mpg....



I have been telling people I know about it for years and I always get the confused look in return like.....what the heck are you talking about?

I don't use ethanol blended gas unless i really really have to.

I make it a point to search out and patronize places which have non-ethanol fuel.

As you've seen, people blink at you. "B-b-but it's more expensive!" I calmly explain that yes, it's about 5% more expensive; but you'll probably see close to a 10% increase in your mpg, resulting in a net win for you.

The usual response? "Well, I jus' gas up whenever I go to Walmart. . . ."
 
There do not seem to be any stations around here (North Dallas area) that have E0, even marinas. At least puregas.org doesn't list any.
 
They should price pure gas at about $8 gal and we'll just call it a dumb tax.

I'm not convinced any of these E0 gas stations are really selling alcohol free gas.

There's a feel good factor that provides a strong placebo effect.
 
Only someone with total naivete about how business works would ever want to just arbitrarily raise the price of fuel.

EVERYTHING would skyrocket in price and millions would instantly become unemployed as their job providers failed.

Brilliant, maestro! The word "dumb" really works here...
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
They should price pure gas at about $8 gal and we'll just call it a dumb tax.

I'm not convinced any of these E0 gas stations are really selling alcohol free gas.

There's a feel good factor that provides a strong placebo effect.





Shellgasoline.jpg
 
I would surmise many here have equal doubts about yours!

You are the same guy who posted how your governing officials somehow "care" for you...
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
That's Canada.

The ethanol mandate is a little different here, and is under provincial jurisdiction. Most provinces have a minimum ethanol content to be averaged out over litres sold. Since regular vastly outstrips premium in sales, they get away with regular E-10 and E-0 premium here, except for stations that actually use a higher octane ethanol enhanced premium as a selling point (Husky/Mohawk).
 
Originally Posted By: David1
Originally Posted By: ironman_gq
I've been waiting for someone to figure out how much pollution is made to grow the corn and go through the distillation process to make a gallon of ethanol compared to how much a gallon of gas produces. I think between fuel oil and petroleum derived fertilizers, then the energy needed to ferment and distill then ship the ethanol, gasoline might actually be cleaner.


Thats true.... plus the farm machinery to collect the CORN...... and the water and fertilizer and all that it entails.

I remember years ago only Citgo put Ethanol in there Gas and I know this b.c my family owned a Shell Station and 1 time 3 Sunoco stations and none of them at Ethanol....

This was the days back when Sunoco had 94 Ultra aka 94 Octane.

Also I remember our mechinacis saying that ethanol was no good for engines. Now perhaps he meant the cars built in them days and earlier.

However is Ethanol / does Ethanol cause Engine damage???





I'd like to see how much pollution is caused by extracting and refining oil into gasoline. I'd bet it is the same, if not more than ethanol.
 
Originally Posted By: marshall25

I'd like to see how much pollution is caused by extracting and refining oil into gasoline. I'd bet it is the same, if not more than ethanol.


Except you don't "extract" ethanol, you have to grow it...as previously explained by others, using fuel that you've already "extracted".

Don't "like to see", and "bet", when the figures and science are more available to you than ever.
 
Originally Posted By: Wolf359


I think your quote doesn't really make sense because you left out some key units and I think you also made a mistake between gallons, barrels, days and per year. I think in 2012, they made some 12.7 billion gallons of ethanol from corn. Or around 830,000 barrels of ethanol per day. In 2012, the US consumed about 133 billion gallons of gasoline. 10% of 133 billion is 13.3 billion so if the EPA hadn't scaled back the mandate, instead of E10, you'd have to go to E15 in order to use more than 13.3 billion gallons a year.

If you were really talking about a total of 810,185 gallons, that's just a drop in a bucket.
Or you could simply use E85 and have no mandates. We don't use much E85 because it's too expensive because all the ethanol is being wasted with E10 foolishness.
 
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.
 
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: Tegger
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Billions. Not millions. I don't understand how people can make that mistake.

The "millions" refers to the cellulosic ethanol mandate. I should have been more careful.

Excerpt from the Wall Street Journal article from last week:
"On Wednesday the EPA retroactively reduced
the 2013 gasoline-blending mandate for cellulosic ethanol
to 810,185 gallons from six million. If that sounds like
a big cut, 810,185 gallons is precisely every last drop
the industry managed to produce. The 2014 mandate is
nonetheless pegged at a preposterous 17 million gallons."


I think your quote doesn't really make sense because you left out some key units and I think you also made a mistake between gallons, barrels, days and per year. I think in 2012, they made some 12.7 billion gallons of ethanol from corn. Or around 830,000 barrels of ethanol per day. In 2012, the US consumed about 133 billion gallons of gasoline. 10% of 133 billion is 13.3 billion so if the EPA hadn't scaled back the mandate, instead of E10, you'd have to go to E15 in order to use more than 13.3 billion gallons a year.

If you were really talking about a total of 810,185 gallons, that's just a drop in a bucket.


I think Tegger is right on this. He is talking about cellulosic ethanol, not corn-derived ethanol. When Congress wrote the ethanol mandate, they were mindful of the criticism that mandating 36 billion gallons of ethanol production by 2022 was going to cause too much of an increase in food prices. So they threw in a placebo in the form of cellulosic ethanol, which can be made from non-food plants grown on marginal lands not used for corn production. The promise was that in 10 years, cellulosic ethanol production was going to ease the pressure on corn ethanol, but that didn't happen.

From Business Week:
"U.S. legislation in 2007 mandated that a growing quantity of “renewable” biofuels be mixed with gasoline—9 billion gallons in 2008, climbing to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Last year the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, responsible for implementing the law, demanded fuel companies mix in 14 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol and 2.75 billion gallons of so-called advanced biofuels, which are usually manufactured using scrap wood or corn husks."


So here we can see how well the government's promise in 2007 has been kept: 2.75 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol was mandated, 810 thousand gallons was actually produced. Just another case of social engineering by the gummint that just won't work.
 
Originally Posted By: Black_Thunder
I don't use ethanol blended gas unless i really really have to.

You're lucky. We can't buy it here in central Tx thanks to the EPA (exceedingly [censored] administration). It may be available in the panhandle. I doubt if you can buy E0 in DFW, Houston, San Antonio triangle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top