Results 1 to 10 of 34
06-03-2013, 12:52 PM #1
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Grand Prairie, Texas
- Blog Entries
Pending change in Ethanol/fuel limits
The EPA pushed by the Agriculture industry is lobbying for higher Ethanol limits in pump gasoline with proposed changes to take affect later this summer.
As always theres multi sides to the story:
Fuel producers/suppliers argue the agriculture industy is attempting to boost sagging crop sales/profits and the added expense will be passed on to consumers. If approved the result will be to finally force per gallon fuel prices above the $5.00 mark, permanently.
Resulting in another blow to an already troubled economy and forcing crop whole sellers to leverage remaining supplys at higher prices forcing food suppliers and ethanol suppliers to compete for the same product, at you guessed it, higher prices to be passed on to consumers.
Auto mfgrs have stated their opinion on the issue by simply stating Ethanol use in engjnes promotes/creates increased corrosion in engines, this corrosion issue is not covered under vehicle mfgr warranties and increased coverage on the mfgrs part is not a negotiable option. Additionally Ethanol has also been proven to reduce fuel mileage and increased use will affect CAFE standards negatively, if passed some favored model vehicles may no longer be produced as without major reengjneering they would never pass existing standards. Reengineering would be so prohibitively expensive the mfgrs would be forced to forgo the product or possibly face financial issues attempting to develop product.
Ag industy has stated they, and they alone with the production of Ethanol have reduced the U.S. dependency on foreign oil from 65% to 41% and prevented untod levels of polution from being developed. The proposal their backing would further reduce polution and decrease dependency by at least another 15 to 20%. While allowing the farming industry to flourish and develop new markets and increased crop yield that would eventually decrease overall operating costs. ( no statement on how/whether consumers would benefit on this savings in their pocket book).
06-03-2013, 01:00 PM #2
Why is this post in Perf/Fuel? What does it have to do with GM trucks? Is it just a rant disguised as a non-rant?
All three paragraphs there are mostly total BS though. They're just a bunch of trite remarks to shift and avert blame and responsibility.
06-03-2013, 01:03 PM #3
06-03-2013, 02:13 PM #4
Sorry if I'd like to get actual factual information that's relevant every once in a while. But I'm tired of all the ranting about E15 gas, and all the non-information floating around about it. The political blame-shifting is getting quite tiresome.
There are some simple facts, though:
a) It won't push gas prices to $5.00. In fact, it's more likely to lower them. Subsidies do wonders for things like that.
b) It's probably not going to destroy your car. E10 didn't, and E15 won't. Don't go running E85 in a car not designed for it though. That probably will cause you problems.
c) The manufacturers are just playing hardball. They can easily solve the CAFE related issues, and any reliability concerns about "corrosion" and such. There goal isn't to protect the consumer. It's to protect their profits. They use cheaper parts in the US for most vehicles, because it's cheaper. They may produce/sell the same vehicles in other countries, such as Brazil, where Ethanol mixtures range up to 25% in the gasoline.
06-03-2013, 02:55 PM #5
Heh, that's not what you asked, initially. (You're also better informed than most people on ethanol fuel, it seems.) You're absolutely right about profit protection, by the way.
Personally, I'm curious as to the source of the info so that I can see where the 5/gal slant came from. Got a link @tbplus10?
06-03-2013, 02:59 PM #6
Exactly. I don't see a point to the thread, from the OP.
06-03-2013, 06:59 PM #7
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Grand Prairie, Texas
- Blog Entries
I caught the article on FOX news on television this afternoon getting ready for work so I didnt get a chance to find the article on the net yet (still at work).
Well Dobey I take it your an Ethanol supporter but you dont have all your facts, The previous increase in Ethanol was approved and selected areas have been selling it for over 9 months now. This proposal is a further increase in Ethanol limits.
And as pointed out who pays for subsidies?
And there have been in depth engineering studies on the affects of Ethanol to engines and related fuel systems, which is the reason mfgrs wont warranty them, Ethanol has been known for a while to cause issues with older engines and seals/O rings, also more corrosion issues on newere engines and their fuel systems.
I dont see the point to your attitude towards the increase in Ethanol limits or a post on it.
Heres the FOX news article, unfortunately the article doesnt cover the whole round table discussion Jon Stossell had with their selected industry experts that had much more to say on the subject.
Last edited by tbplus10; 06-03-2013 at 07:10 PM.
06-04-2013, 12:43 PM #8
Who do you think funds those subsidies? Its our taxes, and that extra $$ is coming from somewhere (likely as a fuel tax at the pump, or a mileage tax that PA is trying to instate). Nothing is "free". Even if they end one program to fund another...someone loses.
As for your second part, there have been a good many issues running ethanol fuels...there is not very much OPE that is designed for fuel with ethanol, and there have been a good many engines (fuel systems) ruined by running it. I causes the fuel system components to deteriorate, and the OPE manufacturers haven't caught up to making fuel stable components. All you have to do is search the small engines forums, boating forums, etc. to see that...the same happened with the introduction of ultra low sulfur diesel...fuel systems on older equipment started leaking because the seals deteriorated.
The Government is protecting the American farmer. Period. It is keeping the agricultural business in business as most of them are practically defunct without loads of Government subsidies. One way to look at it is this...do we keep the farms running by spending money on them, or do we pay all those people welfare when they are out of work? I have no issues protecting our Nation's farmers; but don't make some lame excuse to push your agenda.
One thing I have seen on more than one occasion is that it reportedly takes more energy per acre (in BTUs) to plant/harvest/produce ethanol than an acre of corn produces (point being - we need to use another crop such as sugar beets or switch grass). We need to take a lesson from South America. And what happens if we have a bad crop year? Another thing to remember is that ethanol production is very water intensive from what I understand, which can further deplete the aquifers throughout the country (that include at least one that is no longer recharged).
As for the claim on foreign oil made by the agricultural entities...you can make statistics numbers say anything. While they likely had a hand in some of the decrease, I highly doubt they solely made that difference.
06-03-2013, 03:03 PM #9
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- River Ridge Louisiana-4 miles W of New Orleans-didn't flood-water stopped 800 yards away.
OK so they want to go ABOVE 10% ??
iS THAT CORRECT?
My 1998 Suburban is supposed to be OK at 10% but not OK at over 10%
so I don't favor the boost.
Now the AG folks-can't possibly be claiming THEY dropped our dependence on foreign oil by those HUGE amounts?
By memory I "THINK" we used to use~ 20,000,000 barrels per day-and about 13,000,000 barrels (65%) was imported.
Now more like 19,000,000 and maybe 8,000,000 imported-close to 41%
But that 5,000,000 barrels per day drop has very very little to do with ethanol
Increased production decreased use(more efficient vehicles and poor economy)
Ethanol is OK as a octane booster-and oxygenator-but we don't need over 10% for that
certainly not older vehicles like mine
Yeah lets NOT go above 10%-
Besides corn ethanol not a really efficient way to produce ethanol
I understand that the "sugar' is converted to ethanol-but the rest(oils and proteins) isn't wasted-it is animal feed and humans eat corn oil-so no waste
10% is plenty high enough-ethanol is a good safe additive(beats MTBE) but it does "attract" water-and it works fine at 10%-why go higher??
Do we really want to beat up that soil to grow more corn-to burn as fuel??
There is no free lunch-guessing water isn't a problem in corn country-not irrigated right??-so pumping down the reservoir isn't a concern-but overusing the soil-??
If it deep reservoir water that would be another negative-but I don't think that is the case in corn country?? Maybe someone can clarify that??
10% is just fine-leave it at 10%1998 suburban-
06-03-2013, 03:12 PM #10
My wifes brand new car specifically states not to use over 10% ethanol. Ethanol gets worse mileage than ethanol free gas. Oh and to subsidies, who do you think pays for subsidies? The govt? Where do they get the money for subsidies? They have to take it from someone first.David
2004 Silverado 2500 Crew Cab 4x4, AMSOIL EA air filter, Granatelli MAF sensor, Throttle body spacer, Magnaflow exhaust (true dual to 2 in 1 out muffler), 6" ProComp lift (add a leaf and 5" superlift rear block), Bilstein shocks, 35's (Cooper Disoverer ST) and 4.10 gears, Rhino Liner, EGRUSA fender Flares and widow visors, extended stainless steel brake lines, firestone airbags w/onboard air compressor, Pioneer Avic X940BT navigation, Accel backup camera.
1960 Land Rover Series II 88
2001 Pontiac Sunfire
2013 Toyota Avalon Limited (Wife's Car)
NRA Life Member
By Big_Mike in forum Performance & FuelReplies: 5Last Post: 08-17-2012, 08:55 PM
By LoneWolf'burban in forum Performance & FuelReplies: 2Last Post: 05-03-2011, 09:17 PM
By freddie in forum General Chevy & GM Tech QuestionsReplies: 1Last Post: 11-10-2009, 05:45 PM
By Dr_Zero in forum Performance & FuelReplies: 12Last Post: 09-07-2009, 07:04 AM
By vncj96 in forum The Coffee Shop ~ Chit ChatReplies: 0Last Post: 06-20-2009, 10:55 AM