That is correct. In the 60's a farmer would sell a bushel of corn and with the proceeds could buy more than 10 gallons fuel. The price of corn remained stagnant while the price of everything else went up - so by 2005 a bushel of corn was worth less than 1 gallon of fuel. And it isn't just corn - all grains and beans have seen more or less stagnant prices for decades.
US farmers are not the only ones that have been working below the cost of production. For farmers in the third world countries the recent increases in grain prices means they can now afford to buy improved seed and fertilizer for their next crop. It is a myth that ethanol production in the US causes hunger. The main cause of hunger in the world is the dumping of cheap subsidized agricultural produce from western nations on nations where the majority of the population are trying to make a living by farming. Al Gore and the rest of the US politicians have now come to realize that ethanol is a bad idea because it is undermining their ability to control the impoverished countries of the world by controling their food supply. With decent grain prices third world countries gain control of their own food supply and the politicions in Washington don't like that at all.
dude, it's the /taxpayer/ who is subsidizing the use of ethanol.
it's the /taxpayer/ subsidizing big oil. it's also the taxpayer subsidizing the agri-commodity houses.
good - pay attention to the big picture. add the fact that these are /your/ tax dollars doing other people's work, and the picture will be more realistic.
How is it "your tax dollars doing other people's work"?. What is being discussed is putting a federal tax on ethanol. Right now the government is not collecting this tax on the ethanol. Under the current law ethanol will be taxed starting January 1, 2011.
What you are asking people to do is write their congressman and ask for an increase in their taxes. The new tax that is scheduled to start Jan
will increase the price at the pump by about 5 cents/gallon. personally I think they should increase taxes on motor fuel a lot more than that, but this is a start.
No, that's E-90. That's a good thing. What is good about it is that it uses ethanol to bring the octane up instead of tetraethyl lead or MBTE, both of which are really toxic things you don't want around you.
Just about every gas you've seen in the US for many years has been E-90.
It might be harsher on fuel hoses than the old gas back in 1983 was, and you'll probably have to replace them with modern lines faster than you otherwise would (unless they have already been replaced with modern lines, which given the age wouldn't surprise me).
When you first change over to a fuel with ethanol in it, you can have some problems because the ethanol will dissolve some of the gums in the fuel tank that petroleum wouldn't. So you can get carb gunking for a bit... the thing is, that changeover is something the previous owner probably did most of a decade ago so it's not something you'll have to worry about now.
Gasoline mixes with really high ethanol levels can start to run you into trouble with older cars... you may have to change out the carb jets to get the mixture right and you often have to replace hoses. I had a friend who had an apple farm back in the seventies and during the Great Gas Crisis he was running his truck on 80% ethanol/ 20% water mix which he distilled from rotten apples. He had to change out hoses and make some carb mods, but it ran great and the exhaust smelled like applejack.
I think you mean E-10 (10% ethanol - E-90 would be 90% ethanol).
I disagree. For years oil companies have ben able to make unleaded gas with the necessary octane rating without ethanol, MDTE, or lead. Ethanol might allow oil companim to appear do it for less that just using pure petroleum, but as far as I can tell, they are not passing these saving along to the public - to the contrary, they are sticking it to us, because the E-10 "gas" provides less total energy and therefore we need more of it to go the same distance as we could have gone with straight gasoline. I'd like to be able to choose whether I buy E-0 (no ethanol at all) or some other blend. Unfortunately in my state they repealed the laws that required labeling the pumps with the Ethanol contnet, so now there is no easy well to tell what you are getting. Occasionally I can find a station (usually near the water) that advertises ethanol free gas (to attract boat owners), but it is becoming less common. It maybe that E-10 gasoline is a good deal for the public, but I suspect we are getting screwed. And with no way to choose straight gasoline, there is no easy way to tell how badly we are getting screwed.
My 1983 Dodge van has a plastic gas tank.I reckon that gas tank was factory installed. Marinas sell non ethanoline gasoline? I didn't know that before.There is a Marina about eighteen miles from me. cuhulin
Better? The responses aren't even in the same ballpark.
That's different from paying mobsters protection exactly how?
And yet, even when 80% is not in favor they still vote for the legislation.
If voting made a difference it would be illegal.
Spin their wheels or root for a team. Those are the choices. Both are pointless. Mass ignoring of the government's mandates, restrictions, and everything else that doesn't have a victim is what needs to happen.
I have had my "favorite" representive do that to me, lie to my face. No problem there.
The compliant media. LOL.
Ignoring the government's laws for their corporate masters is a good start. Deny them consent. That's when they'll have to change.
On what basis do you claim the oil companies aren't passing the saving along? It has been estimated that if all the ethanol suddenly vanished the price of gasoline would increase by about 50 cents/gallon. It's been
90 years since the gasoline supply in the US has been composed of fuel made from just petroleum with no added octane booster. So how do you know what the cost of gasoline would be if all the necessary octane came from petroleum?
FYI it takes more energy to process petroleum feed stocks into higher octane components. Blending ethanol with gasoline saves energy and money in refinery costs. It means the refiners can produce mostly 84 octane fuel instead of mostly 87 octane fuel.
The cost of increasing octane content today is even more expensive than it was in the past. Removing sulfur lowers the overall octane. Lower allowable limits on aromatics lowers octane. Yes a refinery can produce the necessary octane by only processing petroleum, but it would cost money and energy to do so.
Where I live thay have always labeled. They have been selling E10 for 35 years. 15 years ago you couldn't find anything but ethanol blends. Today a few stations advertise that the sell ethanol free gas - This is largely due to the current massive national campaign to vilify ethanol. But the straight gasoline is more expensive and tends to be stale because nobody is buying it.
If there is some advantage in buying/selling straight gasoline then some gas station would put up a sign saying "get your ethanol free gasoline here"
Boat owners got over it back in the 80's around here.
The public is mostly getting screwed because the government refuses to use ethanol blends in their fuel economy tests. If the fuel economy test used E25 gasoline, the automakers would design cars that gets better mileage when running E25 then it does on straight gasoline. That is what is happening in Brazil.
The fact is that ethanol blended with gasoline has the potential to be a better fuel than straight gasoline. But that increased potential is never going to be realized as long as the automakers have a huge financial incentive to design their cars to get better mileage without ethanol in the tank.
no, the tax breaks handed out to commodity producers, processors, and oilco's mean you're already paying /more taxes than you need to. canceling those tax breaks will /decrease/ you total financial burden, not increase it.
well, there's two factors in that. first, the average representatives office is not staffed by illiterates, so the second factor is the nature of the letter they received.
what are you not understanding about the way things work and getting results?
80%??? when 99.995% of their electorate sit on their asses and can't be bothered to press "send" on an email???
then why haven't you fled and sought asylum in some other fine upstanding democracy like north korea?
defeatism - yeah, history is littered with the achievements of defeatists. oh, wait...
PFFFFT. Not putting a tax on ethanol means the 10% of the gasoline I pump into my gas tank is not taxed by the feds (the state taxes the 100%)
You are asking people to write their Congressperson and ask for an increase in the fuel tax.
Increasing the tax on motor vehicle fuel is fine by me. People should ask congress to raise the tax on fuel more often. The reason that the average car in the US get
20 mpg and cars in Europe get 45 mpg is because they have a healthy tax on fuel in Europe that encourages fuel economy.
that's not what i said - don't put words in my mouth.
on that we agree. but it'll never happen - not because we can't afford it, but because any part of the price not being taxed goes to the oilcos. higher tax means skinnier margins.
Exactly what results have occured that haven't increased the power of government and or cash for the insiders? Here's the "long" list as I know it:
1) Repeal of the NMSL.
2) Repeal of the law prohibiting americans from owning gold.
That's all folks. Simply occasionally blocking some new control freak or corporatist legislation doesn't count. They just do it again and again until it passes. Or there is a "compromise" which means the people lose something less than initially planned, but still lose. So they come back again and there is another compromise. The rate of decline is simply slowed.
Of those that write or call. Or didn't you just argue that each person who writes represents thousands that don't?
Why do you apparently believe tyranny of the majority is better than the tyranny of one? What difference does it make to me when the government (or some employee there of) demands I do something (with the threat of violence that is behind all government demands) because the majority says so or because the dictator says so? The government doesn't care about the results of voting, it always wins a vote. Government wants a vote because voting means keeping the present system, keeping the government. The government fears when people decide the system isn't any good. Change is when people stop consenting to being ruled over.
As far as North Korea is concerned, the US is getting there. And it's not because people don't vote or don't write their congress critters. Probably more so because they do. The vote appeals to their base interests and the worst rise to the top.
Who said anything about defeatism? I gave a solution. Ignore the government in mass. We've been playing within the system as you argue for, for decades. What has happened? The government is more powerful, more intrusive, costs more, is more corrupt, is worse by every measure. It's not working. Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. I am arguing to do something -different-.
It is clear that you fail to understand what it is you advised people to do.
You encouraged people to write their congressman. What exactly would you like them to say when they do that? Do you want them to just babble some meaningless political jargon about "subsidies" like do or do you want them to say something that can actually be implemented into law?
Currently the ethanol "subsidy" (VEETC) consists of not charging the federal road use tax on that portion of gasoline that is ethanol. If people write their congressman and ask for the "subsidy" to end, what they are doing is asking Congress to increase the tax they pay at the pump on gasoline. You may not understand that is what they would be asking for, but nevertheless that would be what they are asking for.
Well no it is not the oilcos or the politicians that are responsible. This is the policy of the people. If the oilcos or politicians would go against the policy the public would replace them with new oilcos and politicians.
"jim" wrote in message news:J4ydnXrF-ekTL2vRnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@bright.net...
BS. For years Amoco sold gasoline without lead. From the mid 70's until recent times lead free / ethanol free gasoline was virtually all you could buy in my area.
Do you have proof, or are you just saying this? Less than 4 years ago I had no trouble finding ethanol free premium gasoline at the same (or sometimes lower) price than ethanol tainted gasoline.If ethanol tainted gasoline is so cost effective, why wasn't it cheaper?
I do not know where you live, so I can comment on this statement. In my area (Central North Carolina) the first time ethanol showed up in gasoline was around 1988. Back then the pumps had ot be labeled if the product being dispensed contain either ethanol or MBTE. We only got the ethanol (or MBTE) in the winter as part of some failed emmision reduction program. There was no noticeable price decrease when the ethanol "enhaned" gasoline went on sale in November, or price increase when they went back to straight gasoline in April. In more recent times when the ethanol began to be promoted as a way of reducing energy dependence on foreign oil, ethanol "ehanced" gasoline started showing up at some station throughout the year (both E-5 and E-10). For many years it was required by North Carolina law that pumps be labeled if the product contained ethanol. While the labeling laws were in effect it was easy to find gas with or without ethanol (same octane rating either way). In general gas with ethanol was not cheaper than gas without ethanol. There were many cases where the discount station on one side of the road sold gasoline with ethanol and the discount station on the oppoiste side of the road sold straight gasoline for the same or sometimes a lower price. Givent hat in recent times ethanol has been subsidized, it seems to me that people who made the mistake of buying the ethanol tainted product were getting screwed, in multiple ways.
15 years ago in my area outside of the winter months you never saw gasoline tainted with ethanol. Even 5 years ago it was rare. I buy a lot of gas at either Costco or Murphy USA and I can remember when they first added labels to the pump anonoucing (or more correctly warning) buyers tha the product contained ethanol. The Murphy pumps were especially obvious. They attached a cutout of an ear of corn to the hose near the handle extolling the virtues of ethanol tainted gasoline. Costco was more stealthy. They attached a simple black and while label to the pumps that warned the product could contain up to 10% ethanol. As soon as NC repleaed the law requiring the ethanol warning labels, both retinlers removed the warning from the pumps.
In my arear there are stations that post huge sign advertising Ethanol Free Gasoline.
Aroundf here they are still raising hell about having fuel tanks and outboards ruined by ethanol. A good friend just had the tank in his boat repleased because of ethanol related dampage.
I agree that the government should test with the sort of gasoline we are FORCED to buy.
I have no problem with ethanol tainted gasoline if it is actually more cost effective for me. But facts are facts - Ethanol has less energy per gallon that traditional gasoline. Ethanol absorbs water. Ethanol can damage older fuel systems. And personally, I doubt that ethanol is cheaper on a dollar per unit of energy basis than petroleum at this time. If you want to make the case that we should move to ethanol (like Brazil has done) for larger economic reason (i.e., stop importing foreign oil, imporve balance of payments, etc), then make the case along those lines. Don't try to sell me on the idea that ethanol is better or cheaper than straight gasoline under the present set of economic conditions and US laws.
The idea behind MTBE and ethanol was that old carburated cars would run leaner and thus have lower HC emissions because oxygen was in the fuel. This is what happens when government types make technical decisions. When RFG hit in my area I was driving a 1973 car as a daily driver. it didn't run right on the stuff so I adjusted the mixture to compensate. One tune up and all the old cars were compensating for it. Cars with computerized carbs or fuel injection immediately compensated via the O2 sensor. Another great thing about those early oxygenated formulas was they would boil in the fuel lines when the engine was shut off. In the first few months of the stuff I learned to disconnect the fuel line and vent the vapor so I could start the car hot. This was fixed pretty quickly, but was pretty dumb as even someone cranking the starter would just be pumping HCs into the air.
Now that there hasn't been a new carburated car sold by any manufacturer of any volume worth mentioning in over 20 years the excuse has moved on to the CO2 global warming fraud and this foreign oil stupidity. Foreign oil isn't a problem if the government isn't using bombs so big connected oil companies can get it cheap. Trade is a wonderful thing if left work naturally and fairly.
Ethanol handling and blending adds expense to the gasoline. Ethanol (especially from corn) is expensive to make. Hence the subsidy through taxes so people can't see the actual expense of this corporatist fraud.
That should cause considerable harm when and if 15% ethanol fuel starts being sold.
engines are supposed to be tested with a special research gasoline. Engine makers test with commerically available to the end user fuels for durability but the government mandates what is used for emission and fuel economy tests. Fuel economy tests are only good for comparing car A to car B anyway. Nobody actually drives like those tests and that has a far bigger impact than 10% ethanol. Of course combined the tests can then be even further removed from reality.
Apparently you can't read very well. Amoco is hardly the only producer of US gasoline. Nor has Amoco ever produced all of its gasoline without any added octane booster. The law of diminishing returns applies to the production of higher octane components. It is relatively cheap and easy for a refinery to produce 20% 91 octane and 80% 84 octane. If a refinery needs to produce 50% 84 octane and 50% 91 octane the cost goes up quite a bit. If a refinery would need to produce 100% 91 octane the cost increase would be much larger.
It also makes a big difference what feed stocks the refinery is supplied with and what percentage of their output goes to gasoline. In case you were unaware the world is rapidly running short of sweet light conventional crude that was so abundant 30 years ago. It costs more to produce higher octane components from sour heavy crude. That is the main reason that sweet light conventional crude commands a higher price per barrel. So it may be that some refineries that process sweet light conventional crude it costs less to produce higher octane fuel but those refiners are paying the cost in front end price of the crude.
Probably because the ethanol was trucked in from a long distance away. Ethanol blends have never been more expensive where I live. The cost of ethanol production has also been dropping for years.
Yes but you are like the blind men and the elephant you are drawing dubious conclusions from very little data. In 1973 the only place ethanol blended gasoline was sold was at a farm coop. Back then I had a 1949 chevy pickup. That thing clearly ran better and quieter on the ethanol blend. It also got slightly better mileage. Of course that gasoline was ethanol mixed with the regular leaded fuel that was generally available.
Nowadays the gasoline blended with ethanol is unleaded 84 octane. If you put 84 octane in your tank without the ethanol you get pretty crappy performance. And that is what tends to happen in places where the ethanol supply is not so consistent and robust. If you are a blender and your shipment of ethanol didn't arrive you would need to add about 45%
91 octane premium to the 84 octane fuel to get the octane up to 87 octane. That would mean the blender is giving away almost half of the truck load of premium at the regular price.
I doubt there is anything stopping a gas station in your area from advertising and selling ethanol free if there is some big advantage in doing so. I expect if some gas station did that the fuel would cost more and most people would not see any advantage in paying that extra cost.
So what is the problem? That contradicts everything you said previously
They should test with what people use. You just said you are not forced to buy ethanol. You can buy from one of the stations with the big signs.
That is a fact, but it has no bearing on fuel economy and performance.
It didn't damage my 1949 truck. How old does the fuel system have to be?
You are the one claiming it is not economic. You pulled that conclusion from nowhere
I think ethanol is a far better use of corn than feeding it to live stock for the sole purpose of producing more animal fat, or making soda pop sugar, or using it as a foreign policy tool to prop up the dictators around the world the politicians in Washington happen to like. If they took the corn that US farmers produce and dumped it in a hole in the ground and covered it up that would be a more constructive use for corn. Making ethanol is slightly better than dumping it in a hole in the ground.
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.