Ethanol was a "Mistake" says Al Gore

When I lived there, PetroBras planted thousands of trees (eucalytus, IIRC) with the intent of making fuel from them by destructive distillation. Alcohol, I guess, turned out to be a better process.

It is not hard to stay warm in Brasil, even for an old guy.

Reply to
hls
Loading thread data ...

Isn't hard to stay warm in Saigon/Tan Son Nhut either.First chance I got, I went to a store in Saigon and I bought an electric fan.I hung the fan on my bunk with a coathanger wire.When I left Tan Son Nhut a year later, I said, Who wants my fan?

formatting link
cuhulin

Reply to
cuhulin

The requirement for ethanol blended gasoline was little more than a taxpayer funded welfare program for corn farmers.

Reply to
John S.

Actually I think there is quite a lot of interest in methods of producing ethanol by non-traditional means. Even GM invested quite a bit of money in schemes involving the use of algae to create ethanol. I got sucked into investing a small amount into a company promoting a similar scheme (orginal investment is now worth almost but not quite zero). Numerous companies have been trying to come up with schemes for converting wood pulp, switch grass, you name it, into ethanol but with only minimal sucess so far. The government is funding much of this research.

You might like to read:

formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
I am not sure about your comment that the raw materials are unlimited. While there is quite a bit of marginal land that can grow switch grass, a lot of that land is already being used for pasture. Ant if they figure out how to make ethanol economically from wood pulp, how long before there is a shortage of that commodiity? In my area when they cut a piece of forest land, they pretty much haul off everything but the roots. My Mother just had a tract thinned, and anything not large enough to make into boards was chipped up and shipped to the paper plant.

The tax subsidy for ethanol is not connected directly to the method of production (i.e., ethanol from wood pulp gets the same subsidy as ethanol from corn). In my area a company is trying to sign farmers up to grow barely to be used to produce ethanol. Not many takers at the moment. With weat prices almost back to the levels of the 70's, most farmers interested in planting winter small grain are planting large tracts of wheat. I only wish I could get corn prices (when adjusted for inflation) back to the prices my father got in the 50's, 60's, and 70's.

I think one thing that could be done immeadiately to make ethanol more affordable would be to allow in ethanol from other countries (like Brazil). Of course this is where politics comes into play in a big way. I don't expect to see the barrier to foreign ethanol lowered anytime soon. Too bad the government doesn't treat imported oil the same way they treat imported ethanol.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

as usual ed, you're allowing the smoke screen to obscure and not focusing on the big picture. it's not about "ethanol", it's about boondoggle. the way to /keep/ it boondoggle is to ensure the market is rigged, and ethanol is simply a part of that. so you got one bit right, but you're missing the bit about the big recipients, the big commodity houses, which would include companies like cargill, a.d.m., and the oilcos, that retain their ability to suck on the taxpayers teat.

ethanol may have been initially intended to support farmers, and to some extent it still does, but it was quickly seized on by by the above as a spectacular windfall quite without precedent. and it's going to stay that way for as long as the public keep rolling over and taking it up the ass every day they /don't/ write their representatives to stop this rort.

Reply to
jim beam

Time to stand up to ethanol interest

formatting link
cuhulin

Reply to
cuhulin

The representives don't even read/listen. What are people going to do? Keep replacing Ds with Rs and Rs with Ds? Same difference as far as the corporate powers that be are concerned.

Reply to
Brent

not true. i always get responses when i write. now, they may not /always/ be more than a form letter [but often they're individually written by a real person], but someone has had to read them, and they pay as much attention as they think they have to without upsetting the balance between their voter interests and their funder interests.

upset the above balance!!! there's only one thing a politician loves more than money - votes. if they seriously think their position is at risk because someone is expressing discontent with their activities, or lack thereof, and there are enough for them to have to pay attention, then pay attention they most certainly will do. even more especially if there's a check attached, albeit for a small amount.

don't forget, unless your letter looks like the unhinged ramblings of a lunatic, they have to assume that for every person amped enough to write, there are thousands more discontents who might just be thinking the same thing and who are a vote risk. particularly if you can get it published and start a letter chain in one of the local newspapers criticizing your representatives for inaction.

you can keep whichever one you want - just make them respond to your wishes. if you sit on your ass doing nothing, there's only one certain outcome - your voice will NOT be heard.

Reply to
jim beam

So do I. They make absolutely no sense with regard to what I wrote. What I wrote was clearly not even read.

That being about 95/5 in favor of the funders.

Two elections of wholesale replacements and yet, no change. Look at what is going on right now. A bunch of middle finger to the people legislation.

And yet, despite getting input of 'no' and 'hell no' on various legislation, they still pass it.

Experience tells me that is an illusion. I've written more than enough. It's fundamentally pointless. At the most they will make some verbal gesture or slight of hand and then go back to voting for the wars, the bailouts, the corporate cartels, the body scanners, the security state, and so on. All the people writing congress critters on the TSA and look what happened? The TSA doubled down and congress did nothing. The remaining avenue is to shatter the illusions like the one you state above such that actual change becomes possible.

Reply to
Brent

Yes, write your congressman and tell them to let the ethanol tax credit expire (the credit ends Dec 31 unless Congress passes a new law.)

Letting the ethanol tax credit expire will mean the price of gasoline will increase by about $.05, but it won't have any effect on ethanol sales.

It will mean the government no longer subsidizes ethanol . That should mean that Mr Bean will stop whining bout ethanol, but I wouldn't suggest anybody hold their breath waiting for that to happen.

Reply to
jim

Washingon Set To Control Your Light Switch!

formatting link
Washington D.C. - electricity - smart grid - home appliances, including battery chargers for charging up electric cars. Do you see ''where'' that is coming from, or ''where'' that is going? cuhulin

Reply to
cuhulin

I see where it's coming from and it's not where you think.

It's not Washington that is going to control your appliances, it's Wall Street. You see, it costs much less to add hardware to shed loads at peak times than it costs to actually build infrastructure to support demand...

--scott

Reply to
Scott Dorsey

but it will on oilco willingness to keep using that stuff - they're not /required/ to use a full 10%, only "up to" 10%. with tax credits and reduced mpg's, they have every incentive to use the maximum allowed.

the government doesn't subsidize ethanol, taxpayers do. duh.

some people aren't good at math - that's why they think they're getting a good deal if they're getting lower mpg's, subsidizing oilco's, agricommodity houses, and wrecking their car all at the same time, just because the ethanol producers association blows smoke up their ass about irrelevant "octane rating".

Reply to
jim beam

well, write better letters and you'll get a better response. enclose a check and you'll /definitely/ get a better response.

only if voters sit on their asses and stay silent.

so keep on writing dude - or change your vote.

then get your friends to write. get your friends' friends to write. if enough people do it, they'll sure as heck pay attention.

well, sitting on your ass and being defeatist sure won't help. if you don't think you're being heard, make an appointment to go see them in person. at least that way they'll have to go to the trouble of lying to your face, and you can write to your local press accordingly if they do.

politicians can /only/ take the corporate dollar if voters let them. apathy is a giant-ass paycheck.

Reply to
jim beam

Yes. I've woken up on many a morning wishing I'd never heard of the stuff.

Reply to
Paul Hovnanian P.E.

I definitely want the US government to stop subsidizing the use of ethanol. I also want them to stop subsidizing big oil. The money spent on ethanol subsidies is a drop in the buckets compared to the trillions spent on providing security for oil company supplies. The federal government taxes ethanol imports to protect the domestic producers of ethanol while allowing oil/gasoline in duty free. Yet we spend trillion maintaining forces whose primary function is protecting middle east oil supplies. I can't see where this is a reasonable policy.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

The blenders at oil terminals will continue to use ethanol because ethanol currently costs 30 cents less per gallon than the 84 octane fuel that they blend with ethanol. And that is in spite of record high corn prices. If the price of corn goes down or gasoline consumption increases to where it was 3 years ago, the price difference will likely grow even greater.

Look at the price of premium ethanol free gasoline at any gas station that sells that grade. It takes close to a 50:50 mix of premium E0 fuel mixed with the base 84 octane E0 to produce 87 octane regular E0 gasoline. And premium ethanol free gasoline is currently very inexpensive because refineries need to produce very little of it. If ethanol disappeared from the market the burden to produce the higher octane components would put the cost of producing those components through the roof.

If a blender decides not to use ethanol it will cost them a bundle in lost profits and that means it won't happen.

Yes we know you are not good at math. The octane rating is what it is all about. The Saudis bought millions of gallons of US ethanol this year because it is cheaper for them to ship a tanker of ethanol to Saudi Arabia and blend it in than it is to process the gasoline to boost octane.

But I suggest everyone write their congressman and tell them to let the ethanol credit go away and then maybe Mr. Bean will go away also.

Reply to
jim

........ And that is in spite of record high corn prices.

Corn prices are not a record high when adjsuted for inflation. For the decade before 2007 corn prices were barely above the cost of production (and actually below the cost of production if you properly accounted for equipment depreciation and the farmer's labor). Even with the recent up tick in prices, growing corn is not a particualrly profitable activity.

References:

formatting link
formatting link

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

Last week, I gassed up at a Murphy USA gas station.A sticker on the pump said 10 % Ethanol.Is that E-85 Ethanol? Will that Ethanol hurt my 1983 Dodge van? cuhulin

Reply to
cuhulin

Yup your screwed,

Drive the van into lake and walk away from it while its still running.

Reply to
jim

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.