Ethanol industry demands higher ethanol limits in gasoline.

[miketheidiot]

Text

Bigger Share of Ethanol Is Sought in Gasoline

By CLIFFORD KRAUSS
Published: March 6, 2009

Burdened by falling gasoline consumption and excess production capacity, ethanol producers appealed to the government on Friday to raise the 10 percent limit on ethanol in most gasoline blends to as high as 15 percent.

Ethanol plants are closing across the country and some ethanol producers are declaring bankruptcy. The appeal will require the Obama administration to decide whether to increase federal support for the industry, which has already benefited from an array of subsidies, tax credits and Congressional production mandates.

?Approving the use of ethanol blends up to 15 percent is a necessary and positive step,? said Bob Dinneen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association, an industry lobbying group, ?to ensure the full potential of a robust domestic ethanol industry.?

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Department have been testing higher ethanol blends. The E.P.A. has nine months to review the request, but it could decide before that to increase the blend cap slightly, to 12 or 13 percent.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu has indicated that he would favor at least a small increase in ethanol levels unless auto companies said there was a risk the change would damage their products.

Wesley Clark, the retired general and co-chairman of the pro-ethanol group Growth Energy, said tests thus far had shown that ?there is no technically significant difference? between blends of gasoline with 10 percent ethanol and 15 percent ethanol.

?It?s important for American national security to be less dependent on foreign fuels and to create jobs and to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions,? he said in an interview, arguing that producing more ethanol would do all those things. ?For every billion gallons of ethanol we produce, that?s a billion and a half dollars we don?t spend on foreign oil.?

Some automakers have asserted that the use of the higher blends over time could cause corrosion and damage auto emission systems, particularly in older vehicles.

In a recent letter to the two Senate leaders, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, and Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers joined refiners and several environmental groups in warning that a higher blend level of ethanol in gasoline would ?lead to increased air emissions from gasoline-powered engines and potentially endanger consumers using these engines.?

Food producers are also lobbying against raising the blend limit. They say any increase in domestic production of ethanol will divert corn from use as food and animal feed, raising food prices for consumers.

At the end of 2007, Congress mandated the doubling of corn ethanol use, to 15 billion gallons, by 2015. At the time, gasoline demand was increasing, but now it is declining because of the slowing economy.

Should current gasoline consumption levels persist and the blend level remain at 10 percent, demand at the nation?s gas pumps would be inadequate to absorb the 15 billion gallons of ethanol that refiners are required to blend.

Ethanol producers also argue that without higher blend levels, there will be no room for the development of advanced biofuels, like ethanol made from wood chips or biological waste. Congress has set a target of using 21 billion gallons of that type of ethanol and other biofuels by the year 2022.

The industry has a capacity of 12.5 billion gallons a year, but so many plants have been idled that production is expected to reach only about 10 billion gallons this year.

I'm not a particular fan of ethanol, particularly the corn derived stuff in the united states. This is one industry that i say can bite the dust.

Nothing quite as brazen as an industry trying to legislate its demand.

On a related note, my respect of wesley clark dropped a few pegs.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Ethanol fuels would indeed be important if they did anything to reduce reliance on imported petroleum. Of course, if ethanol fuel were really a viable product, it would not still require government subsidy decades after its origin.

 

[Robor]

So our reward for conserving is lower quality gas shoved down our throats? Thanks. :disgust:

 

[StageLeft]

Good points on both posts, I'd say. I don't find the article convincing at all in the argument to support this industry any further whatsoever.

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Ethanol fuels would indeed be important if they did anything to reduce reliance on imported petroleum. Of course, if ethanol fuel were really a viable product, it would not still require government subsidy decades after its origin.

Decades? You mean a century don't you? You do realize that early Ford Model T engines were developed with both a gasoline and an ethanol mixer (crude carburetor) because at the time both fuels were available and it was not clear which would become the standard.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Ethanol fuels would indeed be important if they did anything to reduce reliance on imported petroleum. Of course, if ethanol fuel were really a viable product, it would not still require government subsidy decades after its origin.

Decades? You mean a century don't you? You do realize that early Ford Model T engines were developed with both a gasoline and an ethanol mixer (crude carburetor) because at the time both fuels were available and it was not clear which would become the standard.

I was referring to the current federally subsidized corn ethanol industry which, IIRC, started in the 1970s.

 

[imported_K3N]

screw these bastards and their hatred of a progressing society.

 

[Lemon law]

Corn based ethanol is now an economically dead issue in the US and for most of the world. If the ethanol industry is to have a real future, it better be able to talk new technologies like switchgrass or other waste by products. Basing ethanol production on corn is rude, crude, and socially unacceptable. And no one is investing in corn based ethanol anymore and have not been doing so for about a decade. Its an uneconomically unfeasible technology.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: K3N
screw these bastards and their hatred of a progressing society.

Care to elaborate on that sarcasm?

 

[bamacre]

I don't even like that 10% of the gasoline sold is ethanol. But then I only average about 7K miles a year, so it's not a big deal to me.

But is anyone surprised that they run to the government for help? They don't like that the market tells them to get lost, so they run to mommy government for intervention.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: bamacre
I don't even like that 10% of the gasoline sold is ethanol. But then I only average about 7K miles a year, so it's not a big deal to me.

But is anyone surprised that they run to the government for help? They don't like that the market tells them to get lost, so they run to mommy government for intervention.

Last time I filled up with non-ethanol gas, I got about 10% better gas milage. Typically I can only get about 390 miles per tank on the highway but I got 440 miles when I filled up without ethanol. I was shocked. Ethanol is evil.

 

[alphatarget1]

If Obama is anything like how he campaigned he would veto any BS like this that make its way onto his desk.

But then the hopemonger started fearmongering to pass his spending bill, so I highly doubt he'd do the right thing.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: bamacre
I don't even like that 10% of the gasoline sold is ethanol. But then I only average about 7K miles a year, so it's not a big deal to me.

But is anyone surprised that they run to the government for help? They don't like that the market tells them to get lost, so they run to mommy government for intervention.

Last time I filled up with non-ethanol gas, I got about 10% better gas milage. Typically I can only get about 390 miles per tank on the highway but I got 440 miles when I filled up without ethanol. I was shocked. Ethanol is evil.

I doubt that. If anything, driving a bit faster than usually would have done that. At 10%, ethanol is used to oxyginate the fuel. The impact on fuel economy is almost negligible. It was a replacement for MTBE.

 

[LTC8K6]

Just looking around the net, 10% ethanol drops fuel economy by 1 or 2 percent. Not a lot, but definitely significant in the long run.

Now, if 10% ethanol blends were cheaper...but they aren't.

Going to 15% ethanol would probably get you 2 to 3% less mpg.

 

[LTC8K6]

Also, most older cars limit the ethanol content that can be used to 10%.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: bamacre
I don't even like that 10% of the gasoline sold is ethanol. But then I only average about 7K miles a year, so it's not a big deal to me.

But is anyone surprised that they run to the government for help? They don't like that the market tells them to get lost, so they run to mommy government for intervention.

The market never told them to show up in the first place. The only reason this crap is in our gas in the first place is a government mandate. You get worse mileage, largely negating the "saved cost" and then the shit destroys all your small engines and boats. All so a bunch of morons could turn food into something to water down our gas.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Also, most older cars limit the ethanol content that can be used to 10%.

That was based on a Federal additive limit. Any FI car can run more than 10% with no little issue(if any) at all. Also, as usual - the press doesn't actually report factual information. It creates a premise of change due to.... when that isn't the case at all. The fall in gas consuption didn't CAUSE their push for this change - it actually has nothing to do with it. This change has been pushed for quite some time and is not some sudden effort due to gas consuption.

meh... not that correct and factual information regarding ethanol matters much in this forum... since most opine from a position of ignorance.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: bamacre
I don't even like that 10% of the gasoline sold is ethanol. But then I only average about 7K miles a year, so it's not a big deal to me.

But is anyone surprised that they run to the government for help? They don't like that the market tells them to get lost, so they run to mommy government for intervention.

Last time I filled up with non-ethanol gas, I got about 10% better gas milage. Typically I can only get about 390 miles per tank on the highway but I got 440 miles when I filled up without ethanol. I was shocked. Ethanol is evil.

I doubt that. If anything, driving a bit faster than usually would have done that. At 10%, ethanol is used to oxyginate the fuel. The impact on fuel economy is almost negligible. It was a replacement for MTBE.

Good to see someone who actually looks to be informed. :thumbsup:

 

[conehead433]

"I'm not a particular fan of ethanol, particularly the corn derived stuff in the united states. This is one industry that i say can bite the dust."

I would have to agree with the OP here 100%. Converting food products into fuel is incredibly wasteful and the process itself is very inefficient. Converting waste products from crops into ethanol would be somewhat of an improvement. Personally I don't want that junk mixed in with my fuel. It causes higher internal engine temperatures, which definitely isn't good over the life of an engine. Additionally if they can't be a viable industry without a government subsidy f 'em.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: bamacre
I don't even like that 10% of the gasoline sold is ethanol. But then I only average about 7K miles a year, so it's not a big deal to me.

But is anyone surprised that they run to the government for help? They don't like that the market tells them to get lost, so they run to mommy government for intervention.

Last time I filled up with non-ethanol gas, I got about 10% better gas milage. Typically I can only get about 390 miles per tank on the highway but I got 440 miles when I filled up without ethanol. I was shocked. Ethanol is evil.

I doubt that. If anything, driving a bit faster than usually would have done that. At 10%, ethanol is used to oxyginate the fuel. The impact on fuel economy is almost negligible. It was a replacement for MTBE.

Good to see someone who actually looks to be informed. :thumbsup:

I was just posting my real world experience. I'm not saying that everyone will get 10% better gas milage, but I certainly did. If you look around on the internet, you'll see a lot of people reporting that their gas milage does go down a measurable about when using ethanol blended gasoline.

 

[dualsmp]

15% ethanol? Holy crap I hope not. :frown: I believe many cars can't go beyond 10% so I can't see 15% becoming a reality. Ethanol is a no win situation for tax paying Americans and costs more money all around with the government subsidies (your tax money), reduced mpg (your money), prematurely dead fuel pumps and other related fuel problems (your money). Let ethanol die!

 

[JSt0rm]

wouldn't higher amounts of ethanol ruin fuel lines and anything rubber it comes in contact with?

 

[Lemon law]

Its a fact, a gallon of ethanol has less energy than a gallon of gas. Therefore one gets about 10% less milage. This is not a matter of opinion, ask any expert in the field and they all say the same thing.

And if nothing else, overuse of corn to make ethanol has caused the price of corn to rise beyond a an ethanol market sustainability level.

And the other curse of corn based ethanol, after the fertilizer and farm costs of production, both those inputs requiring huge amounts of petrochemicals , one barely get more energy out of the finished ethanol product that one put in, in the production process.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: conehead433
"I'm not a particular fan of ethanol, particularly the corn derived stuff in the united states. This is one industry that i say can bite the dust."

I would have to agree with the OP here 100%. Converting food products into fuel is incredibly wasteful and the process itself is very inefficient. Converting waste products from crops into ethanol would be somewhat of an improvement. Personally I don't want that junk mixed in with my fuel. It causes higher internal engine temperatures, which definitely isn't good over the life of an engine. Additionally if they can't be a viable industry without a government subsidy f 'em.

You do realize that 100% of the corn is utilized in the ethanol process lifecycle, don't you? The carbohydrate is removed from the corn in the production process, the rest goes back into supplement animal feedstuffs, and has a high fat and protein content. Myself, I would rather have the protein supplement fed to the livestock that I eat, in this form, rather than from urea , or ammonium nitrate.
Guess what those are made from?

Ethanol reduces our dependence on foreign oil, in a large amount, it's homegrown right here in the good old usa, it creates a lot of jobs, and it helps boost the price (demand) of our corn exports.

Another note to add. We subsidize oil (gas). You just don't see it...

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its a fact, a gallon of ethanol has less energy than a gallon of gas. Therefore one gets about 10% less milage. This is not a matter of opinion, ask any expert in the field and they all say the same thing.

And if nothing else, overuse of corn to make ethanol has caused the price of corn to rise beyond a an ethanol market sustainability level.

And the other curse of corn based ethanol, after the fertilizer and farm costs of production, both those inputs requiring huge amounts of petrochemicals , one barely get more energy out of the finished ethanol product that one put in, in the production process.

Any vehicle can be tweaked to negate the milage difference. The energy in the gasoline portion of the blend is not affected. A reduction of 2 to 3% in later model cars is more the norm, as they are being adapted to the blend. I have an older chevy truck with a 350 in it. I had the heads machined down 20/1000 and my milage went from 16mpg to 19mpg.

The use of corn for Ethanol will seek its own price in the market. If it goes up, so what? It adds to the GDP of USA, not Saudi Arabia.

Track A bushel of corn through the Ethanol industry -vs- through where it would have gone, would minimize your input argument.

Corn, processed into any final product, consumes a lot of energy. This is not limited to corn in ethanol.

To top it off, It is the only form of energy we have that recycles a large part of its carbon footprint.