US House: cars are cleaner, so we should use less ethanol

[kscarbel2]

Autoblog  /  May 19, 2016

A new House bill proposes decreasing the ethanol fuel-blend mandate.

Some US lawmakers want to lower the minimum amount of ethanol that is required to be blended into the domestic gasoline supply.

The irony is that some ethanol advocates have a problem with the fact that better fuel economy may be to blame.

The idea of House Resolution 5180 is to bring this year's annual target usage of renewable fuels down to 18.1 billion gallons from 22.3 billion, a drop of about 19 percent. This would bring the amount of ethanol blended into the national gasoline supply to under 10 percent.

Proponents say blending ethanol into gasoline cuts foreign-oil dependency and emissions.

Opponents say ethanol production may actually increase pollution while tightening up the supply of corn that would otherwise be used for food stock.

Also, some in the vehicle industry aren't convinced that ethanol doesn't damage engines, especially at higher blend levels like E15.

What can't be debated is that increased fuel economy is causing an overall decrease in gasoline use. That is great news for the environment but makes it harder and harder for the country to reach its ethanol mandates because they are largely based on flat numbers and not on a percentages of total fuel use.

The current fleetwide fuel economy of more than 25 miles per gallon is about 25 percent more than it was when the Renewable Fuel Standard was first enacted. For more, take a look at the EPA's "rule summary" page on the Renewable Fuel Standard proposal here.

Earlier this year, the anti-ethanol camp received yet more ammunition after researchers at the Argonne National Laboratory estimated that ethanol production used about 12 times as much water as gasoline. So, basically, those folks could argue that more ethanol production is messing with both the country's food and water.

[41chevy]

Average mileage is actually better with out Ethanol. It is about 3 to 5 mpg higher with pure gas. Picture ethanol costs with out the Federal subsidies.     Paul

[HeavyGunner]

It's funny how our government always uses foreign oil dependency to push whatever agenda they have. Anyone ever wondered why the oil price tanked this winter?  The Saudis didn't like the oil boom in ND and started flooding our market with foreign oil (which our government let them do so) to drive the price down which would make any more drilling uneconomical.  Now that most of the outfits have pulled out of ND and no new wells are being drilled the price is slowly creeping back up. Good thing Uncle Sam is watching out for us citizens. 

[HeavyGunner]

5 minutes ago, 41chevy said:

Average mileage is actually better with out Ethanol. It is about 3 to 5 mpg higher with pure gas. Picture ethanol costs with out the Federal subsidies.     Paul

There is a biodiesel plant in my area and it's a total waste of taxpayer dollars in my opinion. It's not self sustaining, the owners told me as soon as the subsidies run out they will close their doors. So we are wasting farm land to grow a subsidized crop instead of food. So in reality we are subsidizing the biodiesel twice. Like you brought up Paul with out subsidies the price would be astronomical and no one would waste there time if this was a real business. 

[kscarbel2]

Big business runs the world (today's Rockefellers / aristocracy).

Governments are the servants of big business.

An example that came up this week in a meeting: Who decides the used car values in the Blue Book? (they're actually yellow)  Do you really think the values are decided based on market data, and not by the carmaking heads whose profit model is based on repeat business). Not.

Both the car AND commercial truck industries, not unlike your cellular and internet service providers, are examples of "price fixing" on a massive scale. And your government is "hands off".......as instructed.

[dogg rescue]

Ethanol subsides have been gone for a while now. And yes you get worse mileage with ethanol tha straight gas.

[41chevy]

There are still subsidies around for installing blend pumps and tanks, no interest loans and grants for agro equipment to produce corn and other bio fuels. Tax incentives for construction and operation of ethanol refineries. The ethanol cost at the pump is keep down because refiners federal incentives.  The dept of agriculture helps foolish farmers who grow corn for food and animal feed with tax credits and incentives equal to the fuel farmers.  The ethanol subsidies now are just called different names through different agencies and cost the average motorist up to $470 a year extra in hidden costs.

[grayhair]

Yeah, and that stinkin' ethanol blend ruined several weed-eaters, my power washer engine and a lawnmower.  I now drive 100 miles round trip to buy ethanol-free gas and bring it home in 5 gallon containers.  Me and hundreds of other guys.  I see some guys filling up 55 gallon drums and bringing them home.  Just another hidden cost that the ethanol proponents don't include in their self-serving calculations.

As George Carlin said, "the problem is that Congress is a club, and you don't belong."

   

Edited May 21, 2016 by grayhair

[kscarbel2]

USDA awarding $8.8M to 108 companies to support the production of advanced biofuel

Green Car Congress  /  May 28, 2016

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is awarding $8.8 million to 108 companies in 39 states to boost the production of advanced biofuels. The funding is being provided through USDA’s Advanced Biofuel Payment Program, which was established in the 2008 Farm Bill.

Payments are made to biofuels producers based on the amount of advanced biofuels produced from renewable biomass, other than corn kernel starch. Examples of eligible feedstocks include crop residue, food and yard waste, vegetable oil, and animal fat.

Through this program to date, USDA has made $308 million in payments to 382 producers in 47 states and territories. These payments have produced enough biofuel to provide more than 391 billion kilowatt hours of electric energy.

[m16ty]

Ethanol is one of the biggest scams that's ever been pulled (global warming is probably the biggest). 

Fact 1- It takes more energy to produce ethanol than it makes.

Fact 2- there is less energy in ethanol than there is gasoline. This means adding ethanol to fuel decreases fuel mileage.

Fact 3- Ethanol will cause all sorts of problems with older fuel systems, especially small engines and boat motors.

Fact 4- There's not enough corn in this world to swap everything over to E85 and also feed everybody. 

About the only thing it does is help the corn farmers, while the rest of us have to suffer the consequences. 

[kscarbel2]

1 hour ago, m16ty said:

Ethanol is one of the biggest scams that's ever been pulled (global warming is probably the biggest). 

Fact 1- It takes more energy to produce ethanol than it makes.

Fact 2- there is less energy in ethanol than there is gasoline. This means adding ethanol to fuel decreases fuel mileage.

Fact 3- Ethanol will cause all sorts of problems with older fuel systems, especially small engines and boat motors.

Fact 4- There's not enough corn in this world to swap everything over to E85 and also feed everybody. 

About the only thing it does is help the corn farmers, while the rest of us have to suffer the consequences. 

Trump calls for higher ethanol mandate

The Hill  /  January 19, 2016

Donald Trump said Tuesday that federal regulators should increase the amount of ethanol blended into the nation’s gasoline supply.

Speaking at an event hosted by the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, Trump, a real estate mogul and the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, said the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ought to follow the ethanol volumes Congress set in 2007.

“The EPA should ensure that biofuel ... blend levels match the statutory level set by Congress under the [renewable fuel standard],” Trump said.

The mandate is popular in Iowa, which hosts the nation's first caucuses.

In setting the ethanol blending mandate for 2016 last year, the EPA used a provision in the law that allows it to waive the specific volumes Congress set out, citing lower than expected gasoline demand, among other factors.

Trump spoke very briefly about the ethanol mandate at the beginning of his speech, reading from notes in a straightforward fashion, before continuing onto other subjects in the more lively manner he usually shows in stump speeches.

The event came hours after Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad (R) told voters in the first state to choose presidential candidates that they shouldn’t vote for Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas), one of Trump’s most potent challengers.

Branstad cited Cruz’s opposition to continuing the ethanol mandate after 2022, saying Cruz is “heavily financed by Big Oil.”

Trump welcomed Branstad’s comment.

Cruz has “been mixed in the subject, he goes wherever the votes are, so he all of the sudden went over here, and then all of the sudden, he got slapped,” Trump said. “So it’s very interesting to see.”

Trump was generally very supportive of the ethanol law, saying he is “100 percent” behind the ethanol industry, a powerful force in Iowa.

“As president, I will encourage Congress to be cautious in attempting to charge and change any part of the RFS,” he said.

Trump tied ethanol to his campaign slogan “Make America Great Again,” saying ethanol reduces dependence on imported oil, which helps energy independence.

“Energy independence is a requirement if America is to become great again. My theme is ‘Make America Great Again.’ It’s an important part of it,” he said.

[mrsmackpaul]

Ha Ha I laugh when I read all this anti ethanol stuff its been 10% out here for years and years I have never noticed any difference people crap on about bits of rubber and diaphragms dont last as long what a crock and mileage isnt as good seems just the same out here maybe our ethanol in Australia is a higher quality 

Brazil runs 85 % ethanol and all cars sold in Australia now have to be built to run at 85% as well guess what news flash its same car different sticker LOL

 

Dunno why you dont like ethanol blends they work just fine here or maybe as I said the ethanol is different in the US than here 

 

Paul  

[m16ty]

Ethanol is ethanol, wherever you are at.

It is a scientific fact there are less btu in a gallon of ethanol than there is in a gallon of gasoline. That tells us that fuel mileage must go down with ethanol. I bought a new Chevy that can run E85. Just for the heck of it, I decided to run a tank. Fuel mileage was awful.

I've got a pile of weed eaters and chainsaws that people have given men that ethanol has destroyed the fuel system. I took them thinking I'd fix them but haven't got around to it yet.

Also, you show me a ethanol plant that produces more energy than it uses. They have gotten better over the years but they are still at a net loss.

I'd just like to see somebody show me what the advantages are with ethanol, other than padding the pockets of the corn farmers. I'm all for the farmer but not at the expense of everybody else.

[TeamsterGrrrl]

mrsmackpaul, I agree- I've got a few motorcycles that demand high octane fuel and out here on the prairies the only options are usually 87 octane E10 or Diesel #2. But at many of the CO-OPs they have blender pumps offering anything from E10 to E85, and these modern bikes are built to run on Brazil's weakest ethanol mixture, E25. The octane rating rises about 3 for every 10% of ethanol in the fuel, so E20 brings the octane up to 90 which exceeds the bikes 89 octane requirement. The E20 is a hair cheaper and mileage is about the same, so I'm saving a bit while insuring that my bike's engine won't get ruined by detonation.

[TeamsterGrrrl]

M16TY, it's also a scientific fact that ethanol's higher octane means that engines that can adapt for it can run more ignition advance and regain some of the efficiency lost to ethanol's lower energy density. The "sweet spot" seems to be around E30, especially with high compression and turbocharged engines like the Ford Ecoboosts. And even if they're not officially "E85" rated, most of the spark ignition vehicles sold in the U.S. are made to run on Brazil's high % ethanol mixes. I looked up the numbers of the fuel system parts on my newer spark ignition vehicles and see if they're the same as the ones sold in Brazil- My BMW F800's fuel system is the same here as the fuel system in Brazil, so I run E20 in that bike all the time. My Yamaha Super Tenere has a different fuel pump part number than the one used in Brazil, so I don't feed it anything stronger than E10.

As for energy use in making ethanol, do you really believe they're going to spend more on energy to make ethanol than they can sell the ethanol for?

[Quickfarms]

The truth, that the environmentalists do not want you to know, is that there is more known oil reserves under North America than there is in the Middle East.

If we want to be free of foreign oil we should expand our oil industry.

The truth is that Middle East crude is low grade and easier to crack into fuel and that is all it is good for.

North American crude is harder to crack and makes great lubricants.

If we want to put the oil prices in the toilet all we have to do is start a real drilling program and bring the fields to production.

[m16ty]

Show me proof of a ethanol plant that produces more energy than it used. At this time, the only way a ethanol plant stays afloat is because it's supported by the government. There have been a whole pile of them that have went bankrupt.

Nobody as of yet has told me the advantages of ethanol. All Teamstergrrrl has said is they have gotten ethanol blends almost as good as straight gasoline, still not as good though.

I'd be all for it if it was viable. Some day it may be but we are nowhere near there yet. I think the market should decide though instead of government forcing it down our throat. If ethanol is so great, we shouldn't need government to force us to use it.

[1958 F.W.D.]

On 5/19/2016 at 8:43 PM, 41chevy said:

Average mileage is actually better with out Ethanol. It is about 3 to 5 mpg higher with pure gas. Picture ethanol costs with out the Federal subsidies.     Paul

When I used to use corn squeezings in my small engines, it would take an entire tank of gas on my small 3.5hp Briggs to mow the entire yard. I switched last year to non-eth, and now it takes about 3/4ths a tank to do the entire yard....and it runs 10x better. No wheezing, hiccups or dying in tall grass.....what a pisser. 

[1958 F.W.D.]

12 hours ago, TeamsterGrrrl said:

As for energy use in making ethanol, do you really believe they're going to spend more on energy to make ethanol than they can sell the ethanol for?

The Gubmint will do whatever the Gubmint wants to do in order to further an agenda. 

[1958 F.W.D.]

17 hours ago, mrsmackpaul said:

Ha Ha I laugh when I read all this anti ethanol stuff its been 10% out here for years and years I have never noticed any difference people crap on about bits of rubber and diaphragms dont last as long 

 

Almost each and every single Fire Department in the USA- from the busiest of urban Departments that run thousands of runs per year to the slowest of the slowest rural Volunteer Departments have all switched their small engines (chainsaws, circular saws, rescue tool pumps, generators, portable pond pumps, etc....) to non-ethanol gasoline or even synthetic gasolines due to the number of problems that corn squeezings cause to the rubber and plastic parts in fuels systems.

Many small engine manufacturers are not now not covering warranty claims for fuel system problems if corn squeezings have melted the parts.

Many auto manufacturers here in the USA will not cover warranties if E15 is introduced into the system. 

[41chevy]

14 hours ago, 1958 F.W.D. said:

Almost each and every single Fire Department in the USA- from the busiest of urban Departments that run thousands of runs per year to the slowest of the slowest rural Volunteer Departments have all switched their small engines (chainsaws, circular saws, rescue tool pumps, generators, portable pond pumps, etc....) to non-ethanol gasoline or even synthetic gasolines due to the number of problems that corn squeezings cause to the rubber and plastic parts in fuels systems.

Many small engine manufacturers are not now not covering warranty claims for fuel system problems if corn squeezings have melted the parts.

Many auto manufacturers here in the USA will not cover warranties if E15 is introduced into the system. 

My Ford and my Dodge 3500 both state in the warranty data that use of over 10% Ethanol in a non Flex-Fuel Vehicle voids the warranty. 

[kscarbel2]

The EPA hasn't filed a required report on ethanol and other biofuels in years

Autoblog  /  August 23, 2016

The Renewable Fuel Standard is a simple thing – it mandates a minimum amount of biofuel (stuff like E85 ethanol and B20 biodiesel) in US vehicles, all in the name of cutting emissions. But since the Environmental Protection Agency, the group responsible for enforcing the RFS, hasn't filed a report on the environmental impact of biofuels since 2011, neither we nor Congress have any idea if it's actually working.

That's according to the EPA's Office of Inspector General, the independent internal group tasked with auditing and generally keeping an eye on EPA efforts. Federal law requires the EPA to file a report on the RFS' environmental impact every three years, but the agency hasn't done that in almost six, with the last one filed in 2011.

It gets worse. According to Reuters, the EPA Inspector General told Congress the agency doesn't even have a way of measuring whether the RFS is improving or worsening air quality or how long biofuel greenhouse gas emissions linger. In other words, we're flying blind.

"Not having required reporting and studies impedes the EPA's ability to identify, consider, mitigate and make policymakers aware of any adverse impacts of renewable fuels," the report says.

Reuters reports that the EPA "agreed to a set of corrective actions and timelines" and will issue a report by the end of 2017. Better late than never.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA has not completed required review of biofuel mandate: report

Reuters  /  August 18, 2016

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has not complied with federal requirements to study the effects of the nation's biofuel use mandate, an agency watchdog said on Thursday.

EPA's Inspector General concluded that the agency has not issued a report to Congress on the environmental impacts of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) since 2011, even though federal law requires that the agency provide a report every three years.

The RFS, which is administered by EPA, sets the amounts of biofuels, such as ethanol, that must be blended into U.S. gasoline and diesel supplies annually.

The IG report also said the agency has not evaluated whether the program is causing any harm to air quality and it has no formal process to initiate an update of its data on the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of biofuels.

"Not having required reporting and studies impedes the EPA's ability to identify, consider, mitigate and make policymakers aware of any adverse impacts of renewable fuels," the report said.

EPA said it mostly agreed with the report's findings. The agency said it has "agreed to a set of corrective actions and timelines" to address the report's conclusions.

The agency estimated that it would complete a report on the impact of the biofuel mandate by the end of 2017.

The renewable fuel program has faced intense opposition in recent years from oil companies, who argue that the program places undue financial burdens on refiners.

A spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute said the oil and gas trade group is still reviewing the IG report.

Some environmental groups have also questioned whether EPA has properly evaluated the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of corn ethanol to calculate its global warming potential. They say land-use change associated with its production outweighs the environmental benefits of replacing gasoline.

But, biofuel backers have strongly pushed back against these claims.

"We are confident that once EPA conducts these required studies, they will show that biofuels like ethanol are significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, even above the threshold reductions," said Renewable Fuels Association President Bob Dinneen in a statement.

[41chevy]

The Cellulosic Debacle

Congress mandated purchase of 250 million gallons in 2011. Actual production: 1.6 million.

 

December 14, 2015

'We'll fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn but from wood chips and stalks or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years."

The Obama Administration has dumped $170 billion into solar and wind energy and battery operated cars. The  President launched his version of a green energy revolution. The future he saw was biofuels. In addition to showering billions of dollars on corn ethanol, President Obama assured the nation that by 2012 cars and trucks could be powered by cellulosic fuels from switch grass and other plant life.

To launch this wonder-fuel industry,  President Obama have pumped at least $1.5 billion of grants and loan subsidies to fledgling producers.

Most important, the Nancy Pelosi Congress passed and President Obama signed a law imposing mandates on oil companies to blend (the non existent) cellulosic fuel into conventional gasoline. This guaranteed producers a market. In 2010 the mandate was 100 million barrels, rising to 250 million in 2011 and 500 million in 2012. By the end of this decade the requirements leap to 10.5 billion gallons a year.

When these mandates were established, no companies produced commercially viable cellulosic fuel. But the dream was: If you mandate and subsidize it, someone will build it.

Guess what? Nobody has. Despite the taxpayer enticements,  cellulosic fuel production won't be 250 million or even 25 million gallons. Last year (2015) the Environmental Protection Agency increased the required non existent additive by 35%.

One reason the mandates can't be met is the half-dozen or so companies that received the first round of subsidies to produce cellulosic fuel never got off the ground. Some 70 million gallons, or 70% of the cellulosic supply to meet the 2010 mandate, was supposed to come from Alabama-based Cello Energy. Incredibly, those projections were made before Cello had built its plant to produce the fuel and before the technology was proven to work.

In 2009 a jury in a civil fraud case ruled that Cello had lied about how much cellulosic fuel it could produce. Some of the fuel that Cello showed to investors was derived from petroleum, not plants. The firm produced little biofuel and in October 2010 it declared bankruptcy.

It gets worse. Because there was no cellulosic fuel available, oil companies have had to purchase "waiver credits"—for failing to comply with a mandate to buy a product that doesn't exist. In 2010 to this year, the EPA has forced oil companies to pay about $10 million for these credits. . .  per year.   Since these costs are eventually passed on to consumers, the biofuels mandate is an invisible tax paid at the gas pump.

And for what? An October 2011 report on biofuels by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the mandates "may be an ineffective way to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions." Because production is so low, advanced cellulosic fuels also do very little to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The report notes that "currently, no commercially viable biorefineries exist for converting cellulosic biomass to fuel."

Why? Because of what the National Academy report calls "the high cost of producing cellulosic biofuels compared with petroleum-based fuels, and uncertainties in future biofuel markets." The report does say that technological breakthroughs in the future, could make cellulosic fuels cost-competitive, but that same leap of faith has driven subsidies to alternative energy for 40 years.

Still, the subsidies roll on. In August 2011 the Obama Administration funded a $510 million program in partnership with the Navy to produce advanced biofuels for the military. In September the feds loaned $134 million to Abengoa Bioenergy to build a cellulosic plant in Kansas. The optimistic forecast is that this plant will produce about 3 million barrels a year—a fraction of what Washington promised in 2009. In September the Department of Energy provided POET, which advertises itself as the "world's largest ethanol producer," a $705 million loan guarantee for cellulosic additives.

 Congress is subsidizing a product that didn't exist, mandated its purchase and use though it still didn't exist, is punishing oil companies for not buying the product that doesn't exist, and is now doubling down on the subsidies in the hope that someday it might exist.

I'd call this the march of folly, but that's unfair to fools.

Edited August 24, 2016 by 41chevy

[kscarbel2]

Solar and wind power have proven their relevance throughout the world today. I just don't want the U.S. taxpayer paying for it.

I don't recall the US taxpayer subsidizing Bill Gates or Steve Jobs? They took chances, wined and dined venture capitalist, invested, came up with the right mouse trap and earned a fortune.

At the nice rate with which battery technology is progressing, electric cars will be mainstream within 10 years. And with their breathtaking acceleration, you'll have a ball driving them. Range-extended (micro-turbine) electric trucks, or fuel-cell powered, are a "possibility" (there's always an all-new seemingly more viable technology around the corner).

 

[m16ty]

That's what I say, if any of these products are economically viable, more power to them. Let the market decide, not the government. 

All I see is billions of taxpayer's dollars and billions charged to oil companies ( which gets passed on to consumers) and not a thing to show for it. Then add in all the other billions of dollars we spend on other worthless crap. This country is in a world of hurt.