# Ethanol, Pros and Con's



## FrancSevin

PREVIOUSLY POSTED IN SUNSPOTS, SOLAR ACTIVITY AND CLIMATE 
THREAD TOPIC SPLINTER SPIN OFF.

I do not wish to appear as an advocate for Oil suppliers anymore than as an enemy of farmers and the Agriculture industry. But the mandation of ETOH has created a "bubble" economy that would not sustain itself without said mandate. And would otherwise have to stand on it's own merits.

There are some virtues, but not enough to raise the price of corn by more than 3 times in 3 years from $80 a ton in 2008 to $280.00 a ton in 2009 and subsequently the price of almost all food stuffs worldwide. Dent corn is the number one food source for our current world. We, here in America, are gobbling it up in our cars to appear "green" or to appear less dependent on so called "foreign" oil.  To Boast such is a lie.

I simply believe we need to reconsider the  Federal and state mandates.




Originally Posted by *300 H and H* 

 



_frac,_

_Sorry been busy with my Mother and, work..._

_I quote,_

_Ethonal is not better for the environent. Even the tree huggers who begged for it now admit that. And it is bad for the overall economy. Whenthe government stops subsidizing it at a buck or more a gallon, When it is not mandated but stands on it's own in the market place,,,,,,I'll yeild to your fantasies. _


_Lots of unsupported stuff here. The tree huggers are admitting some thing really? I have never heard this one said before. As far as ethanol being bad for the enviroment, any quick check of MTBE will change your mind about that oxygenate. By the way that is what we are talking about a fuel additive with free oxygen with in it's molecules. That is what leads to cleaner exhaust.... I don't know where the $1 subsidy, when it's more like 45 cents/gallon. And the price of corn every one is hollering about is not just ethanols fault. Our currancy's fall from favor has just as much ifnot more to do with this. Corn is and international product at international prices. If the dollar falls corn goes up, usually the same day and hour. And inproportion to the dollars movement. Don't blame agriculture for this mess. I place the blame squarly our government for trashing the value of the dollar.._

_Bad for the overall economy? Don't get that one at all. Agriculture and all of it's manufacturing are running full tilt. The money spent on ethanol stays right here at home. We are buying ten % less oil than before, and the moeny is domestic all the way through. SO really tell me how this is ad for our economy. BOGUS I say to that one...Lastly, ethano will stand alone as far as removing any subsidies, so be prepared for some "Crow" eating on that one. The mandate will stand untill a product, and oxygenate that is better/cheaper than ethanol comes along. As it should._

_Don't bring any of David Pemmentell's work here unless you care to leave with your tail betweeen your legs. His junk science I would love to tear apart....Easy and fun to do! Some guy named "Thad" is out there too. UC Berkley, trust anything from these guys? All the early ethanol trashing came from this bastion of liberal slime...._

_As for immorailty, I'll send you all the No.2 yellow dent corn you can eat for the year. Just ask you video your self eating it. It might be food for something, but your not going to like it very much!_

_Wish you would address what I say, but no, you are just going on with unsupported "stuff" and assumptions. I spend my time addressing what you have said. Your not doing that for me. Avoidance will get you no where here..._

_Lastly, why do you want to trash the one LARGE segment of our economy at this time? So every part of america is trashed? I don't get your patrotism at all..._

_For 25 years corn farmers struggled with below cost of production prices and livin off the subsidies of artifically low prices, while the rest of economy was making it big. Now it's our turn, and you turn your backs on us and tell us what no good we are up to. Thanks alot..._

_Regards, Kirk_
*Since you have already determined who's research I can and cannot use, it would appear your mind is made up. That's sad. But then you have admitted a vested interest in proving the unprovable. That ETOH is a good thing. *

*And that you make a good living from it.*

*Here is a more balanced first look.*

*Eco Friendly Alternative Fuels or Environmental Hazards?*​ 

#link_ad_placeholder{ margin:10px 0 20px 0; }​ 



















Apr 17, 2008
*Laurence O'Sullivan*
Are biofuels an eco friendly alternative fuel? There are questions as to their use as an alternative energy, their impact on biodiversity and the environment. 


Biofuels are very much in the news today. They are considered one of the main responses to diminishing oil stocks and the high price of gasoline. They are considered eco friendly and a weapon against climate change. But the debate on such biofuels is not all one way. There are many voices questioning the wisdom of the growing use of plants as a means of producing alternative fuels.
*Biofuel Use*​ 

The use of biofuels over the last two decades has increased dramatically. In the Annual Energy Outlook 2008 by the US EIA ethanol use grows from 5.6 billion gallons in 2006 to 23.9 billion gallons in 2030—about 16 percent of total gasoline consumption by volume. The European Union in its green paper has called for biofuels to account for 20% of gasoline use by 2020. The Ministry for Energy in Thailand proposes phasing out all Octane 95 gasoline to be replaced by E10 in the next two years. The same trend in biofuel use is seen throughout the world.
Proponents of biofuels claim many advantages of replacing fossil fuels with ethanol and biodiesel, but there is a large dissenting voice out there also.
Ads by Google
*Biofuels as Energy* Learn how BP is working to increase production of sustainable biofuels. www.bp.com/energymix
*Natural Gas* Natural gas: part of a cleaner energy future. Read more at Shell. shell.com/natural-gas​ 




*Proven Technology*​ 

One of the earliest advantages cited by advocates of biofuels is that the technology is already here. There is no need to invent a new type of auto engine to use ethanol or biodiesel. At worst small modifications are all that is needed. Many experts disagree. They say that as alcohol is soluble in both gasoline and water, moisture is absorbed by the biofuel and will lead to high maintenance costs over the lifetime of the car and biodiesel has a higher corrosive effect on parts than gasoline based diesel.
*Carbon Neutrality*​ 

In the fight against greenhouse gas emissions, the main advantage cited for biofuels was their carbon neutrality. Any carbon dioxide released by their combustion was already taken from the atmosphere by their growth. Critics point out that this simplistic formula does not take into account the emissions created by the need to transport, process and fertilize such crops.
*Biodiversity*​ 

Critics also point out that from an environmental point of view the big issue with growing crops for biofuels is biodiversity. Much of the western world's farmland already consists of identikit fields of mono cultured crops, and a major switch to biofuel crops will reduce the habitat for animals and wild plants still further. Also the developing world will be tempted to replace their rain forests with palm oil plantations.
*Read This Next*​ 














Alternative Energy Jargon and Definitions
Environmental Impacts of Alternative Energy
Biodiesel as an Alternative Fuel
*Land Use*​
















Another problem with biofuels is the amount of land needed to produce the plants to process into biofuels. The targets set by both the United States and Europe cannot be met by the available land mass in these areas. U.S. Agriculture Department studies of ethanol production from corn find that an acre of corn yields about 139 bushels which would give about 250 gallons of ethanol. This means that using the entire 300 million acres of U.S. cropland for corn-based ethanol production would meet about 15 percent of the demand. These areas would have to import a lot of the raw materials from the third world.
*Food Shortage*​ 

In 2007 the International Food Policy Research Institute estimated that the price of basic staples will increase 20 to 33 percent by 2010 and 26 to 135 percent by 2020. As is proved by the huge price rise in basic foodstuffs since the beginning of 2008, that estimate has been proved to drastically underestimate the problem. A lot of the food shortages and food price rises being experienced in Haiti, Malaysia, Thailand and large parts of the developed world is being put down to the switch from planting for food to planting for fuel.
Irrespective of these concerns, *biofuels* will continue to feature in the fight against greenhouse gas emissions and the rising price of fossil fuels, but they will also *continue to cause controversy *among the environmentally aware.​ 



Read more at Suite101: *Problems with Biofuels: Eco Friendly Alternative Fuels or Environmental Hazards? | Suite101.com* *http://laurenceosullivan.suite101.com/problems-with-biofuels-a51031#ixzz1dpBIRBLq*​ 

*The simple fact is that Corn as a fuel source is a near negative when the totals are summed up*.

http://www.ewg.org/biofuels/report/E...-Engine-Damage
http://www.homefacts.com/environment...k-Ethanol.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0323/p01s01-sten.html

From Dana Blackenhorn.
_Then we come to the question of raw materials. In the U.S., it's corn, solely because of politics. __Archer Daniels Midland__ has been pushing corn ethanol for years, and domestic sugar producers have tariffs that keep foreign sugar out. It's a comfortable arrangement, but comfort does not solve problems. While efforts to produce ethanol from other biomass sources sounds great in theory, it's actually __an enormous scam__, because in the end you're still burning alcohol, and distilling alcohol, rather than moving away from the carbon cycle in any way._
_The most efficient way to produce ethanol is the way they did it in the 17th century, with sugar. But sugar as a crop is horrible to the soil, and the workers who produce sugar are__ uniformly exploited__. It's a labor-intensive crop, and the same conditions under which south Florida's cane workers are exploited exist in Brazil, in trumps and doubled. Add to that the fact that cane growers are destroying the rain forest in order to destroy the underlying soil for their crop and there's no bargain here -- none at all._
_So while it's possible that some ethanol can substitute for some additives and make some gasoline burn a little sweeter (at a price) that does not mean that ethanol is green. It is the color of its best-known product, molasses, and just as clear._
http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2007/...l_is_not_.html

*So we find that the production of ETOH from Corn or Sugar rapidly depletes the soils which then require high doses of fertilizers, derived from Petrochemicals, IE OIL.*

*More?*

*Cause I am hardly started here.*

*Even the socialist don't like it. *
http://www.socialistalternative.org/...e19.php?id=571

*Perhaps they found out there is profit in it.*

*You have bodly,and incorrectly assumed my "presumptions" on this subject. Perhaps you have discussed this with uniformed before but not this time. I have 12 inches of documents in a file drawer here. Much much more than that at the office. I'd be glad to research and post some for you. But as you said, we are not enemies. So I do not savor cutting your position to ribbons. *

*I am happy you are making a living on the product. But ETOH is not Noble and it is not the future. Not from Corn.*

*If you are actually growing corn then you know of the abuses to agriculture that has happened over the ETOH craze. Double cropping and use of marginal lands to produce corn and meet the burgoing market. The landgrabs that have shut out the small farmers and the Corporatism of government as the sweet back room deals are made over...Money.*

*Not the environment*
*Not energy independence*
*Not health safety*
*Not a solid future of soil fecundy*
*Not ecology*

*And it certainly does nothing to feed the world's hungry. Yellow dent corn is a major food source. Worldwide actually. #2 can be used for feed stock and many industrial applications. You would just burn it like trash for heat?*

*Do you really want me to continue here?*

*BTW, Cut the Patriotism crap. That is so feeble a guise. I had honestly thought of you better than that.* 
_Last edited by FrancSevin; 11-15-2011 at 07:26 PM. _


----------



## Catavenger

Why not use natural gas? It's cheap it's clean and the U.S.A. has plenty of it : http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20111113/BUSINESS01/311130094/Natural-gas-A-threat-to-biofuels--  sounds to me that it would be better than using FOOD for fuel.


----------



## 300 H and H

Ok franc,

I really haven't got time for this now, maybe in a mounth I could do better justis....

quote,



One of the earliest advantages cited by advocates of biofuels is that the technology is already here. There is no need to invent a new type of auto engine to use ethanol or biodiesel. At worst small modifications are all that is needed. Many experts disagree. They say that as alcohol is soluble in both gasoline and water, moisture is absorbed by the biofuel and will lead to high maintenance costs over the lifetime of the car and biodiesel has a higher corrosive effect on parts than gasoline based diesel​ 
Don't know about Bio diesel as much but the negative effects to a cars engine is hear say at this point in my state. we have been using it for over 30 years with little ill effects. I have an old beater pickup truck with 300,000+ miles on it with the original fuel injectors you are welcome to see and drive if you care to. For me this is just "hate ehanol" talk, nothing more.​ 

Quote,​ 
In the fight against greenhouse gas emissions, the main advantage cited for biofuels was their carbon neutrality. Any carbon dioxide released by their combustion was already taken from the atmosphere by their growth. Critics point out that this simplistic formula does not take into account the emissions created by the need to transport, process and fertilize such crops.
*Biodiversity*​ 

Critis should know that we're going to plant all of our acers with crops, and this naturally takes fuel to do. So this ain't going to happen any way. The science part i agree with... The idea we won't plant crops if there is not ethanol is just plain stupid!​ 
Quote,​ 


Critics also point out that from an environmental point of view the big issue with growing crops for biofuels is biodiversity. Much of the western world's farmland already consists of identikit fields of mono cultured crops, and a major switch to biofuel crops will reduce the habitat for animals and wild plants still further. Also the developing world will be tempted to replace their rain forests with palm oil plantations.​ 


SO why do we care what other countries are doing anyway? We are going to tell them what? How to run their rialroad? How does that work? Sounds rather "Imperial" on our part. Why don't we just worry about our courner of the world, as any moe getts us into small wars as we are now in.​ 


Quote,​ 


Another problem with biofuels is the amount of land needed to produce the plants to process into biofuels. The targets set by both the United States and Europe cannot be met by the available land mass in these areas. U.S. Agriculture Department studies of ethanol production from corn find that an acre of corn yields about 139 bushels which would give about 250 gallons of ethanol. This means that using the entire 300 million acres of U.S. cropland for corn-based ethanol production would meet about 15 percent of the demand. These areas would have to import a lot of the raw materials from the third world​ 


The average corn yeild given is 10-15 bushels on the light side, and hear in iowa we averaged 178 bu/acer. so at 2.8 gal/bu I get 498 gal/acer. Your numbers here are wrong or old... at half of the actual yeilds and conversion, yes they look not too good. But plug in some real numbers and walla, a diferent outcome. Why am I not surprised?​ 


quote,​ 




In 2007 the International Food Policy Research Institute estimated that the price of basic staples will increase 20 to 33 percent by 2010 and 26 to 135 percent by 2020. As is proved by the huge price rise in basic foodstuffs since the beginning of 2008, that estimate has been proved to drastically underestimate the problem. A lot of the food shortages and food price rises being experienced in Haiti, Malaysia, Thailand and large parts of the developed world is being put down to the switch from planting for food to planting for fuel.​ 
Irrespective of these concerns, *biofuels* will continue to feature in the fight against greenhouse gas emissions and the rising price of fossil fuels, but they will also *continue to cause controversy *among the environmentally aware.​ 





Wow this is sounding like the UN's position on global warming...As I have said before frac your not answering my points in my posts at all. IF you read them you will already know that the price of cornis international and so is our currancy. I suppose a dummy might be duped into thinking the price of corn only went up because of use in ethanol. Dumb....The value of our currancy nearly halved itself in those years. So naturally the price of corn dubbled, as this is how this price relationship works. As for starving people. I was smart enough to start my family when I had the resources to be able to pay for it. Why do you want me to "pay" for low prices so the ass who had kids with no way to feed them? Are you serious? Would you put your lifes work out there for free, or at some "acceptable" By some one elses idea, Price? I think not franc.​ 


Dana Blackburn? Who the heck is she and why should I care? Talikng heads don't mean a thing, unless they have weight, and she obviously does not. She is just like 99% of ethanol detractors. No credibility as she would enjoy the demise of the internal combustion engine. Are you ready for this? and if so Please tell me how I will farm and you will eat without them. really she is alot like a wall street protestor. I was hoping for some thing more than a wailing broad who doesn't know what she is talking about!!!​ 


Franc,​ 


really disapointed this is the best you could come up with. This stuff is like some of the very stuff the liberals are screaming on wall steet. They know just enough to be dangerous. But certainly not enough that those who know, we have to chuckle a little!!​ 


Surely you have better?​ 


regards, Kirk​


----------



## 300 H and H

Oh I forget you can use anyones reaserch. Pimmentels was just my way of telling you he doesn't hold water, So bring him here if you care to. I apologies franc for quiestionoing your patriotism, I should not have done that. 

I see many folks out there who don't give a damn about this country, but I do. With all that is wrong here I still live here and will die here as well. If I thought is was as bad as the nay sayers I would shut up. Untill a better oxygenate is found that is more workable than ethanol, it is the product of mandated choice. Sorry for that one, but I didn't make the law.

regards, Kirk


----------



## Melensdad

My concern with Ethanol is not that it is a horrible choice or a good choice or whatever but rather that it really doesn't solve the problem of efficiency.

Natural gas, which this nation has in abundance, is more efficient than Ethanol.  Natural gas can be piped long distances; something that cannot be done with Ethanol.  Natural gas vehicles work perfectly, as is evidenced by many fleets that run it.  Natural gas vehicles can actually be refilled at home in your own garage, if you install a pump that is tapped into your NG line _(which is common in most parts of this country)_.  

BioDiesel is another alternative and there are many experimental methods that will produce BioDiesel without using food crops.  BioDiesel can also be made from waste oil from restaurant deep fryers, etc.  

Regular Diesel is actually a better choice than Ethanol as it is roughly 55% more efficient per gallon to run in a vehicle than Ethanol and 30+% more efficient to run that Gasoline.  So simply getting more vehicles to run diesel will dramatically reduce the need for oil.

So my honest opinion is that Ethanol, and its mandate, is a solution for a problem to which nobody asked the right question!


----------



## thcri RIP

I don't use the ethanol or E85 in my pickup as the mileage drops about 20%.


----------



## Melensdad

thcri said:


> I don't use the ethanol or E85 in my pickup as the mileage drops about 20%.



That is because ethanol has less energy per gallon that gasoline.  So while its cheaper to buy at the pump it is not a good value.

Further, while there are some reports that there is a decline in fuel use, some people credit Ethanol for that decline.  That seems very simplistic to me to give the credit to Ethanol.  Seems like unemployed people can't afford to drive, also seems like the more efficient cars use less fuel.  The combination of those two factors probably contribute more to a theoretical reduction in fuel than anything from Ethanol.


----------



## SShepherd

LOL, I can't believe I just saw someone insinuate that if you're not for ethenol from corn....you don't care about the country.

I'm off to make a doghouse out of coal.


----------



## SShepherd

I'm not sure why corn is the crop of choice for ethenol. Maybe the corn growers lobbyists had something to do with it?

Seems sugar beets, or even carrots would do a better job.


----------



## FrancSevin

300 H and H said:


> Ok franc,
> 
> I really haven't got time for this now, maybe in a mounth I could do better justis....
> 
> quote,
> 
> 
> 
> Wow this is sounding like the UN's position on global warming...As I have said before frac your not answering my points in my posts at all. IF you read them you will already know that the price of cornis international and so is our currancy. I suppose a dummy might be duped into thinking the price of corn only went up because of use in ethanol. Dumb....The value of our currancy nearly halved itself in those years. So naturally the price of corn dubbled, as this is how this price relationship works. As for starving people. I was smart enough to start my family when I had the resources to be able to pay for it. Why do you want me to "pay" for low prices so the ass who had kids with no way to feed them? Are you serious? Would you put your lifes work out there for free, or at some "acceptable" By some one elses idea, Price? I think not franc.​
> 
> 
> Dana Blackburn? Who the heck is she and why should I care? Talikng heads don't mean a thing, unless they have weight, and she obviously does not. She is just like 99% of ethanol detractors. No credibility as she would enjoy the demise of the internal combustion engine. Are you ready for this? and if so Please tell me how I will farm and you will eat without them. really she is alot like a wall street protestor. I was hoping for some thing more than a wailing broad who doesn't know what she is talking about!!!​
> 
> 
> Franc,​
> 
> 
> really disapointed this is the best you could come up with. This stuff is like some of the very stuff the liberals are screaming on wall steet. They know just enough to be dangerous. But certainly not enough that those who know, we have to chuckle a little!!​
> 
> 
> Surely you have better?​
> 
> 
> 
> regards, Kirk​


 

Kirk, it would really help if you would separate your words from Mine and the articles I have posted.

Simple stuff really.

DANA Blackburn? To begin with Dana is a guy. Usual tactic of those who have no basis in their argument, discount the other guy's source. Before you do that, at least have the decency to investigate. 

Best I could come up with? Are you kidding?

Then you cherry pick the Balanced intro to the controversy. My both sides represented *intro premise* to the discussion.

For the record sir, I am the only one in this discussion who has actually offered research backed and linked facts.

Where are yours?

To which you respond,"Gee, I wish I had time now."

Ending that with personal dig about love of country.

Your all BS sir.

Sorry about your MOM. Stay away until you have time discuss this with honesty. The debate will still be going on. 

I will welcome a real discussion then.

MELENSDAD,You are right on the target with your comments. Please continue.

SSHEPERD,I believe you see it also. Shall we pusue this further?


----------



## jimbo

SShepherd said:


> I'm not sure why corn is the crop of choice for ethenol. Maybe the corn growers lobbyists had something to do with it?
> 
> Seems sugar beets, or even carrots would do a better job.



Growing corn to feed cattle then converting the manure into methanol is a better choice.  That way you get the food, fertilizer, and fuel. 

The ethanol program should have been labeled the ADM bailout bill.

I'm stuck with e90 here.  That is all that is available.  I just drove across the US to Colorado.  Gas mileage is 20 % better with gasoline.  It is most easily available in the corn growing states.  That ought to tell you something.


----------



## Dargo

Whoever says that ethanol does not do harm to gasoline engines is either flat out lying or highly misinformed.  This severe damage becomes particularly evident in smaller engines, such as in string trimmers, chain saws, leaf blowers and lawn mowers.  They are actually destroyed in short order.  Many members of small engine society groups claim that ethanol reduces the life of small engines by a factor somewhere around 60 to 70%.

These "small" engines also include the engines used in your portable generators, and smaller lawn tractors (that are gasoline powered).  This fact is pathetic because the lower wage earner will have their small engine powered equipment destroyed quickly and will not be able to afford to replace them.  And, it's a proven fact that it's these people who will load our landfills with these destroyed engines; replete with oil and remaining garbage fuel still in them.

Since it takes roughly 1.3 gallons of fossil fuel to produce 1 gallon of far less efficient ethanol, the entire house of cards is built on a false foundation.  We are not only raising the cost of food stuffs, but using more fossil fuel to produce the garbage that destroys our engines.  Get that shit out of our fuel and look towards an actual solution.  This entire ethanol thing is more of a problem than any sort of a solution.  And, if you wonder, yes, I have taken engines apart that have been severely damaged by running fuel they were never designed to use.  I see no "pros" to ethanol.


----------



## SShepherd

well, if uncle sugar didn't have his hand in ethenol I'm thinking it should cost about $25/fith...

silly corn growers have it all wrong and the hillbillys had it right


----------



## Cowboy

Dargo said:


> Whoever says that ethanol does not do harm to gasoline engines is either flat out lying or highly misinformed. This severe damage becomes particularly evident in smaller engines, such as in string trimmers, chain saws, leaf blowers and lawn mowers. They are actually destroyed in short order.


 
I wouldn't know about that, most of my small equipment I have used it in wont run long enough for it to ruin the engines. It melts the fuel lines and rubber parts inside the carbs before it has a chance.


----------



## FrancSevin

Cowboy said:


> I wouldn't know about that, most of my small equipment I have used it in wont run long enough for it to ruin the engines. It melts the fuel lines and rubber parts inside the carbs before it has a chance.


 
You guys haven't even mentioned the short shelf life of Ethanol fuel in overwinter storage.
Also of note
Ethonal must be transported in trucks, not pipelines, as it corrodeds the lines and ruins valves.
This is curious because in the North East, Dent Corn is not widely grown. SO, ETOH plants are all located in the Midwest.

Yet NE State mandates say Government subsidized ETOH must be in all fuels.
See, Central plannig works for somebody

Then there is this kind of stuff from a "GREEN" website
http://www.greenlivingtips.com/blogs/8/Ethanol-and-the-environment.html


----------



## 300 H and H

There is a pipeline in Florida, going into the Orlando are with ethanol in it exclusively. Why don't you know this? you seem to talk like you should know? 

No mention curency issues and the value of corn????

Sorry to Dana, Yes I didn't Take the time this morning to read more to the arguments I have already heard. I still don't think the guy can really pass muster as an "expert" By the way the these same so called experts, many also belive that CO2 is also causing global warming, Do you believe in that? The link I provided in the last theread should show you that the real science is being ignored, swallowed u by the mass of nscience here on the internet.......

Dargo, I don't doubt your clams in any way other way than you are assuming ethanol did it. Do you really know for sure? Lab tests would be definative. Yes I have had ethanol e10 go bad in a small engine. I have also had straght gas do the same, and cause simular problems. And do you really know what that gasoline in the mix was up to snuff? Or the ethanol pure? I know what your saying, just wish there were more easily attainable proof that the ethanol by itself is causing your problems. For he most part we who have had it don't expericance these much today.

Yup am busy getting NH3 down before freeze up...

I come back to this later....

Kirk


----------



## bczoom

300 H and H said:


> Dargo, I don't doubt your clams in any way other way than you are assuming ethanol did it. Do you really know for sure? Lab tests would be definative. Yes I have had ethanol e10 go bad in a small engine. I have also had straght gas do the same, and cause simular problems. And do you really know what that gasoline in the mix was up to snuff? Or the ethanol pure?


Does this one count?
IMPORTANT SAFETY RECALL
NOTICE TO STIHL CUSTOMERS
http://www.stihlusa.com/recalls/recall_toolless_cap/

THIS RECALL IS FOR SAFETY REASONS!

*Specifically, the levels of ethanol, aromatics or other additives in some gasoline sold in the United States may distort parts of the fuel cap*, which could make caps more difficult to install and/or remove. If a fuel cap is not properly installed and fuel spillage results, there is a risk of fire if an ignition source is present, which could result in a burn injury to the consumer. STIHL Incorporated has received no reports of injuries at this time.


----------



## FrancSevin

*Some objection to fossil fuels was raised earlier(the other thread) concerning health hazards andofcourse, "the children."*

*What is not widely known and discussed are the dangerous emmisions of ETOH based fuels.*
*Formaldehyde, the boon of foam furniture is well known and regulated. But somehow the very same EPA is mum on ETOH.*

*This from WIKI*



_Ethanol combustion in an internal combustion engine yields many of the products of incomplete combustion produced by gasoline and significantly larger amounts of __formaldehyde__ and related species such as acetaldehyde.[57] This leads to a significantly larger photochemical reactivity that generates much more __ground level ozone__.[58] These data have been assembled into The Clean Fuels Report comparison of fuel emissions[59] and show that ethanol exhaust generates 2.14 times as much ozone as does gasoline exhaust.[citation needed] When this is added into the custom Localised Pollution Index (LPI) of The Clean Fuels Report the local pollution (pollution that contributes to smog) is 1.7 on a scale where gasoline is 1.0 and higher numbers signify greater pollution. The __California Air Resources Board__ formalized this issue in 2008 by recognizing control standards for formaldehydes as an emissions control group, much like the conventional __NOx__ and Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs).[60]_


*On another note, it takes 1 gallon of oilbased fuel to produce 1.69 gallons of ETOH which has about 60% of the energy.  So the conversion is roughly one to one.  Assuming all other cost factors are ommitted.*

*Or subsidized by the tax payers.*


----------



## FrancSevin

bczoom said:


> Does this one count?
> IMPORTANT SAFETY RECALL
> NOTICE TO STIHL CUSTOMERS
> http://www.stihlusa.com/recalls/recall_toolless_cap/
> 
> THIS RECALL IS FOR SAFETY REASONS!
> 
> *Specifically, the levels of ethanol, aromatics or other additives in some gasoline sold in the United States may distort parts of the fuel cap*, which could make caps more difficult to install and/or remove. If a fuel cap is not properly installed and fuel spillage results, there is a risk of fire if an ignition source is present, which could result in a burn injury to the consumer. STIHL Incorporated has received no reports of injuries at this time.


 

I have a 1937 FORD 9N tractor. It had run with original parts for some 50 years.

In 1998 ,with the State mandated un availability of ETHANOLl free fuel, I had every gasket and fuel line destroyed by the stuff.  Fuel line went over the engine block from the tank.  

It was quite a fire Hazard.

Yep, I know what fuel did it.


----------



## FrancSevin

300 H and H said:


> There is a pipeline in Florida, going into the Orlando are with ethanol in it exclusively. Why don't you know this? you seem to talk like you should know?
> 
> No mention curency issues and the value of corn????
> 
> Sorry to Dana, Yes I didn't Take the time this morning to read more to the arguments I have already heard. I still don't think the guy can really pass muster as an "expert" By the way the these same so called experts, many also belive that CO2 is also causing global warming, Do you believe in that? The link I provided in the last theread should show you that the real science is being ignored, swallowed u by the mass of nscience here on the internet.......
> 
> Dargo, I don't doubt your clams in any way other way than you are assuming ethanol did it. Do you really know for sure? Lab tests would be definative. Yes I have had ethanol e10 go bad in a small engine. I have also had straght gas do the same, and cause simular problems. And do you really know what that gasoline in the mix was up to snuff? Or the ethanol pure? I know what your saying, just wish there were more easily attainable proof that the ethanol by itself is causing your problems. For he most part we who have had it don't expericance these much today.
> 
> Yup am busy getting NH3 down before freeze up...
> 
> I come back to this later....
> 
> Kirk


 

Not all pipelines can handle ETO In fact, most of the big ones cannot. The States I mentioned are in the North East
The pipeline to Florida is not going to NE States. . Seems like you would know.

BTW, They grow Dent corn in Florida. And Sugar cane. Now they are building 20 cellulose and other source ETOH plants there.
http://www.energyrefuge.com/archives/ethanol_in_florida.htm
Any Idea which way that Specific purpose built pipeline will flow?

Seems you should know that also.


Kirk, I will ask again.
Please stop making this discussion personal between you and me. It excludes the others from the subject and adds nothing but useless dischord.


----------



## thcri RIP

300 H and H said:


> There is a pipeline in Florida, going into the Orlando are with ethanol in it exclusively.
> Kirk



Can the pipeline be used for anything else??


----------



## joec

I have a question about this that I find kind of strange so bare with me on it. Ok I've have raced cars that run gasoline, alcohol and nitro methane. Now with that said every one of these engines had to run gaskets, compression ratios, fuel injector/carburetor jets etc to match the fuel. I would assume that an engine built to run a fuel available in 1937 might not be up to the task of running something like ethanol. I really am trying to understand this as not even all modern cars can run some of these fuels. Even natural gas requires modifications to an engine to run. Just asking for my own knowledge is all.


----------



## bczoom

Ethanol contains alcohol.  Alcohol eats rubber and some gasket materials.  New engines have more "alcohol proof" materials but it's still not 100%.


----------



## FrancSevin

joec said:


> I have a question about this that I find kind of strange so bare with me on it. Ok I've have raced cars that run gasoline, alcohol and nitro methane. Now with that said every one of these engines had to run gaskets, compression ratios, fuel injector/carburetor jets etc to match the fuel. I would assume that an engine built to run a fuel available in 1937 might not be up to the task of running something like ethanol. I really am trying to understand this as not even all modern cars can run some of these fuels. Even natural gas requires modifications to an engine to run. Just asking for my own knowledge is all.


 

Facts
First Ford cars until 1908 were designed to run on Ethanol changed to gasoline because of prohibition movemet and high taxes on alcohol production. Later, this change also allowed for some natural latexes and plastics to be incorprated into the production of automobile fuel systems


To your point the 1937 FORD tractor was designed to run on minimum 50 Octane fuels. You may have heard of a thing clled "Tractor" Gas or "B" gas.

As I recall this was mainly 55 Octane to somewhere in the 70's. 

My tractor ran fine on the higher octane fuels as octane has to do with compression and preignition heat.

No, the issue is,,, the corrosiveness of ETOH. It is also known as "denatured" alcohol. Something we often use as a paint thinner or paint stripper. It destroys adhesives.

Does that connect the dots for anyone?


----------



## joec

Thanks for the answers bczoom and Franc. I really know very little about ethanol as to my knowledge I've never used it in my street cars. I have use alcohol based fuels in a few race only setups and they can be a real tough to get right when building an engine/fuel system for them.


----------



## SShepherd

oddly, we have both a ethenol and a biodeisel plant within 30 miles of here. The BATFE is at the ethenol plant every other day, and the bioD plant is shut down.
Corn is shipped in my the traincar load, the BioD plant used waste oil and fat from slaughter houses along with soybean oil.

Ethenol is less BTU, and costs more than BioD......yet it's going strong


Biodiesel is easier to integrate into the energy matrix of Latin America. Many vehicles are diesel fueled and diesel is also used in certain areas for electricity generation. Biodiesel can be integrated without any modifications to engines, whereas ethanol requires an engine conversion process.
Biodiesel production uses a simpler process - resulting in fuel that costs less than ethanol.
Biodiesel can be produced from non-food feedstock. This means that the feedstock does not serve to diminish food supply. It also means that feedstock used for biodiesel can be shielded from global commodity prices.
Biodiesel feedstock can be grown on somewhat marginal lands, meaning there is no need to deforest in order to free up land to ensure sufficient feedstock supplies.
Biodiesel burns cleaner than ethanol.
I'm thinking the push for ethenol is because i can make bioD at home- and not have to render money to uncle sugar.


----------



## FrancSevin

joec said:


> Thanks for the answers bczoom and Franc. I really know very little about ethanol as to my knowledge I've never used it in my street cars. I have use alcohol based fuels in a few race only setups and they can be a real tough to get right when building an engine/fuel system for them.


 
What do you buy at the pump for the car you are driving? I was unaware that Kentucky did not have Ethanol added to their fuels.

It is supposed to be in there by "Federal Mandate."


----------



## SShepherd

*Lbs./gal. BTU/gal*.

No. 2 diesel 7.05 ...140,000 
100% Biodiesel (B100)

Methyl or ethyl ester 7.3 ....130,000 
B20 mix (20/80) 7.1 .....138,000 
Raw vegetable oil 7.5 ....130,000


----------



## joec

FrancSevin said:


> What do you buy at the pump for thecar you are driving? I ws unaware that Kentucky did not have Ethanol added to their fuels.
> 
> It is supposed to be in there by "Federal Mandate."


 
It may be but I wasn't aware of it is what I said. Hence me asking questions about it as it isn't a subject I know much about.


----------



## FrancSevin

SShepherd said:


> oddly, we have both a ethenol and a biodeisel plant within 30 miles of here. The BATFE is at the ethenol plant every other day, and the bioD plant is shut down.
> Corn is shipped in my the traincar load, the BioD plant used waste oil and fat from slaughter houses along with soybean oil.
> 
> Ethenol is less BTU, and costs more than BioD......yet it's going strong
> 
> 
> Biodiesel is easier to integrate into the energy matrix of Latin America. Many vehicles are diesel fueled and diesel is also used in certain areas for electricity generation. Biodiesel can be integrated without any modifications to engines, whereas ethanol requires an engine conversion process.
> Biodiesel production uses a simpler process - resulting in fuel that costs less than ethanol.
> Biodiesel can be produced from non-food feedstock. This means that the feedstock does not serve to diminish food supply. It also means that feedstock used for biodiesel can be shielded from global commodity prices.
> Biodiesel feedstock can be grown on somewhat marginal lands, meaning there is no need to deforest in order to free up land to ensure sufficient feedstock supplies.
> Biodiesel burns cleaner than ethanol.
> I'm thinking the push for ethenol is because i can make bioD at home- and not have to render money to uncle sugar.


 

I have always been an advocate of Biodiesel. Used itin my own vehicles. Engines run smoother and quieter.

Soybeans not only grow on marginal lands. They improve fecundy whereas corn drasticaly depletes soils. Soybeans can also be double cropped in southern lattitudes following corn one year and wheat another. 

Since most OTR trucking is with diesel engines the largest road use fuel is diesel oils. So, it would seem more logical that reducing our dependence on imported oil would be better served by addressing this huge sink of petroleum based fuel consumption, rather than our cars.

But, politics needed to make folks feel better about helping the environmet, and ADM/Monsanto needed a lift. So we now burn food in our cars and the world's children go hungry.


----------



## joec

I do know a bit about soybeans and they grow a lot of it in Louisiana today. It is almost as large a crop as rice is there though both are perhaps less than sugar cane. They rotate it with milo which is kind of a hybrid corn they use for feed for live stock. I do know that the US is the largest producer of soybeans about 35% of the worlds production.


----------



## SShepherd

lol, seems the only people really loving ethenol is the corn growers and uncle sugar


----------



## FrancSevin

SShepherd said:


> lol, seems the only people really loving ethenol is the corn growers and uncle sugar


 
The truth of it hurts.  One must be careful what they say, and to whom, when visiting Iowa, Indianna and Central Illinois.


----------



## SShepherd

FrancSevin said:


> The truth of it hurts. One must be careful what they say, and to whom, when visiting Iowa, Indianna and Central Illinois.


 
Trust me i know. My father in lawis from Iowa, the family owned a few thousand acers. Even he knows how silly ethenol is, but knows not to even comment in it when he speaks with relatives.


----------



## FrancSevin

SShepherd said:


> Trust me i know. My father in lawis from Iowa, the family owned a few thousand acers. Even he knows how silly ethenol is, but knows not to even comment in it when he speaks with relatives.


 
Here is another funny bit of how ilogical central planning by politicians chasing money can be...
Oil derived from corn. is just as viable a fuel source and soybean oils.  And the residue is still a great food source.

So why the desire to go ETOH?
Why did we paint ourselves into that corner?


----------



## waybomb

Not mentioned is the damage done to boats, boat systems, and boat engines. In many vessels, the fuel tanks were originally constructed of the hull material - fiberglass and resin. The alcohol attacks the resin. An explosive situation. A few have dies from it. Tank leaks, or rubber fuel lines leak, fuel fills the bilge, and then BOOM.

AND, for you folks that eat corn fed pork. Now, some farms are feeding pigs the leftover material from alcohol production. "They" say this is of no affect to pigs. "They" are wrong. It is affecting the meat. Our food supply is being modified by this misguided use of food for fuel. I am not biologically scientific, but I can tell you that we sausage-makers can tell when we use meat from real corn fed pigs and meat from leftover corn fed pigs.

What other unintended consequences are there?


----------



## tiredretired

This summer I discovered a station that sells Ethanol free gas.  That is now all my small engines get.  Starting to get sick of replacing the o-ring on the needle valve of my Lawn-Boy.  

I prefer to get my corn from my daily bag of Doritos.


----------



## FrancSevin

waybomb said:


> Not mentioned is the damage done to boats, boat systems, and boat engines. In many vessels, the fuel tanks were originally constructed of the hull material - fiberglass and resin. The alcohol attacks the resin. An explosive situation. A few have dies from it. Tank leaks, or rubber fuel lines leak, fuel fills the bilge, and then BOOM.
> 
> AND, for you folks that eat corn fed pork. Now, some farms are feeding pigs the leftover material from alcohol production. "They" say this is of no affect to pigs. "They" are wrong. It is affecting the meat. Our food supply is being modified by this misguided use of food for fuel. I am not biologically scientific, but I can tell you that we sausage-makers can tell when we use meat from real corn fed pigs and meat from leftover corn fed pigs.
> 
> What other unintended consequences are there?


 
When we feed it to our cows, we must also give them an antacid. If this stuff could be used for cattle feed the beer industry would love it.

BTW, ETOH absorbs water.  Boats are a good place to get water in the fuel no?


----------



## tiredretired

FrancSevin said:


> BTW, ETOH absorbs water.



Probably the only good thing I can say about this stuff is the ethanol gives us a built in can of dry gas with every fillup during the winter months.  

I would rather have all gas and buy my can of dry gas.


----------



## RedRocker

I thought this was a trick question since there is no up side to ethanol unless you grow corn.


----------



## tiredretired

RedRocker said:


> I thought this was a trick question since there is no up side to ethanol unless you grow corn.



  I was thinking the exact same thing before I made my last post.  I was trying to find an upside and the dry gas thing was it.  Pretty sad.


----------



## Kane

I'm not versed well enough on ethanol to really comment, but I do recall hearing that Brazil is striving for energy independence using sugarcane-based biomass in lieu of corn. 



> *The Brazilian Sugarcane Ethanol Experience*
> 
> Issue Analysis 2005 No. 3
> By                                                                      Marcus Renato S. Xavier
> February 14, 2007
> 
> Full Document Available in PDF
> ​ Biofuels are attracting increasing interest around the world.  Governments have announced strong commitments to biofuel programs as a  way to both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and diversify energy  sources. Advocates of biofuel subsidies and mandates frequently cite  Brazil´s experience with sugarcane-based biomass ethanol as a success  story and model for increasing energy security. Today, Brazil is the  world’s largest biofuel market and Brazilian ethanol from sugarcane is  arguably the first renewable fuel to be cost-competitive with petroleum  fuel for transport. The United States, where most ethanol is produced  from corn, is the second largest biofuel market.
> 
> However, ethanol production is more economical in  Brazil than in the United States. This is due to several factors,  including the superiority of sugarcane to corn as an ethanol feedstock,  Brazil’s large unskilled labor force (sugarcane production is very labor  intensive), and a climate ideally suited to growing sugarcane. While  the U.S. and Brazil make about the same volume of ethanol, the U.S. uses  almost twice as much land to cultivate corn for ethanol as Brazil does  to cultivate sugarcane for the same purpose, and ethanol fuels a greater  share of Brazil’s cars—there are simply a lot more cars in the United  States.
> 
> Given Brazil’s natural and acquired advantages for  ethanol production, it is difficult to imagine the United States  matching Brazil’s level of ethanol consumption—40 percent of the motor  fuel market—at a reasonable economic cost. In the U.S., corn-based  ethanol would be viable only if it were to compete in the market on the  same basis as other fuels. American taxpayers today pay twice for  ethanol: once in crop subsidies to corn farmers and again in a 51-cent  subsidy for every gallon of ethanol. Without such a subsidy, ethanol  simply would not be cost-competitive with gasoline.
> 
> Moreover, corn-based ethanol produced in quantities  large enough to displace a significant percentage of U.S. petroleum  consumption could have significant environmental impacts. According to  the Worldwatch Institute, ethanol may damage the environment when it is  produced on a large scale from low-yielding crops such as corn. In these  cases it may generate as much or more greenhouse gas emissions than do  petroleum fuels. Also, corn-based ethanol production process consumes  more non-renewable fuels compared to the production of sugarcane  ethanol.
> 
> Finally, Brazil’s ethanol infrastructure model did  not arise from free market competition: It required huge taxpayer  subsidies over decades before it could become viable. The ethanol  program became uneconomical when petroleum prices fell in the late  1990s. The country's Congress even resorted to drastic measures by  passing a law forcing oil companies to add small quantities of ethanol  to their gasoline (in Brazil, gas sold at the pumps is 25 percent  ethanol). Even today, during a period of high oil prices, ethanol  volatile prices have not freed Brazilians from losing money on the E20  blend mandated by their government. And depending on the price  fluctuations, sugar growers prefer to make even more money by selling  their product as sugar on the world market rather than fermenting it  into alcohol. Therefore, the Brazilian ethanol program is not a suitable  model for U.S. energy policy reform.


If it was actually feasible, wouldn't that (ahem) be sweet.

.


----------



## FrancSevin

Kane said:


> I'm not versed well enough on ethanol to really comment, but do I recall hearing that Brazil is striving for energy independence using sugarcane-based biomass in lieu of corn?
> 
> Wouldn't that (ahem) be sweet.
> 
> .


 
In 2007 when Crude prices went to $140.00 a barrel, Our 11th congress would not allow for offshore drilling. One of the reasons, I believe, is that the ethanol programs were getting off theground and needed $120 a barrel pricing to be economicaly viable. 
When gasoline hits $4.00 a gallon it makes sense economically ,to supllement it with $3.80 a gallon ETOH.

To allow gasoline to remain at $4.00 a gallon would then justify the Government's investments in the technology. Note thatBrrazil could not when oil became cheap in the 90's.

Many in Congress had their political careers hitched to ethanol and also their financial investments. Speaking of which

Fannie and Freddie were eager to put folks into homes they could not afford. So they over leveraged them and created the fabled Housing Bubble burst when those same people wer stressed by the higher costs of living, the result of $140.00 a barrel oil.

But the progressives seem to have seized a chance to derail our economy and gain power. Is it no wonder they would let the average working guy have to decide between making his house payments and then fueling his car to get to work?

So Pelosi and Reid,  refused to lift the ban on offshore drilling. Oil for Gasoline and heating oil put the hourly SOB in the red and then default. 
They sold the contry down the river, then Blamed it on GWB

And the congressional sins of ETHANOL were lost in the rapids.


----------



## 300 H and H

We don't grow sugar cane here unless your below the frost freeze line. My understandingis that it is also a two year crop, 2 years from seed till harvest. Yes it yeils well because you don't have to convert starch to sugar then sugar to alcohol, You get to skip a step.

I thought this was about an oxygenate for gasoline, to replace MTBE, not try and replace oil in general?

Just as the global warming guys, your only looking where the majority of people are, and trying to force the rest into a line of thinking. If you care to look and I bet you haven't there is lots of good about ethanol and it's use on the interenet as well. We all have a Google bar...Far to many closed minds here for an intellegent conversation, for me anyway.

Joe, I would really like to build a 15 to one engine maybe BBC to run E85 with. It is 107 octane and across america the racers are taking notice and it is fast becoming a very viable race fuel. At less money than pump gas per gallon, not to mention cam two. Big power, cooler EGT's, an excellent choice in Blown or turbo charged applicatons were long run times are expected at max power...(like a boat) So your right on point with what you said.

Gotta go to my Mom.

Kirk


----------



## FrancSevin

300 H and H said:


> We don't grow sugar cane here unless your below the frost freeze line. My understandingis that it is also a two year crop, 2 years from seed till harvest. Yes it yeils well because you don't have to convert starch to sugar then sugar to alcohol, You get to skip a step.
> 
> I thought this was about an oxygenate for gasoline, to replace MTBE, not try and replace oil in general?
> 
> Just as the global warming guys, your only looking where the majority of people are, and trying to force the rest into a line of thinking. If you care to look and I bet you haven't there is lots of good about ethanol and it's use on the interenet as well. We all have a Google bar...Far to many closed minds here for an intellegent conversation, for me anyway.
> 
> Joe, I would really like to build a 15 to one engine maybe BBC to run E85 with. It is 107 octane and across america the racers are taking notice and it is fast becoming a very viable race fuel. At less money than pump gas per gallon, not to mention cam two. Big power, cooler EGT's, an excellent choice in Blown or turbo charged applicatons were long run times are expected at max power...(like a boat) So your right on point with what you said.
> 
> Gotta go to my Mom.
> 
> Kirk


 
MTBE and Ethanol are two very different issues. And the majority of people are looking at the obvious because,,,,well,,,,it is obvious.

Please do some real research before you post again. Stop using MOM as a reason not to. lame man really lame.

Build your engine. But for common consumption and use, it will prove useless. We simply do not have enough arible land to grow all our fuels.


----------



## SShepherd

300 H and H said:


> We don't grow sugar cane here unless your below the frost freeze line. My understandingis that it is also a two year crop, 2 years from seed till harvest. Yes it yeils well because you don't have to convert starch to sugar then sugar to alcohol, You get to skip a step.
> 
> I thought this was about an oxygenate for gasoline, to replace MTBE, not try and replace oil in general?
> 
> *Just as the global warming guys, your only looking where the majority of people are, and trying to force the rest into a line of thinking*. If you care to look and I bet you haven't there is lots of good about ethanol and it's use on the interenet as well. We all have a Google bar...Far to many closed minds here for an intellegent conversation, for me anyway.
> 
> Joe, I would really like to build a 15 to one engine maybe BBC to run E85 with. It is 107 octane and across america the racers are taking notice and it is fast becoming a very viable race fuel. At less money than pump gas per gallon, not to mention cam two. Big power, cooler EGT's, an excellent choice in Blown or turbo charged applicatons were long run times are expected at max power...(like a boat) So your right on point with what you said.
> 
> Gotta go to my Mom.
> 
> Kirk


 
sorry, global warming...crap- climate change, the natural order of things.

Fact's tend to string people into believing, this group think crap is an excuse to try and make your arguement ligit.

Fact- ethenol burns less BTU than bioD or gasoline. That equates to MORE needing to be used to make the same result.
*The energy of ethanol relative to gasoline
* A.  76,000  = BTU of *energy in a gallon of ethanol
	
*
 B.  116,090 = BTU of *energy in a gallon of gasoline
	
*
 C.  .655 = *2/3* = GGE of energy in a gallon of ethanol.  A / B.
 D.  *1.53* = Gallons of ethanol with the energy of 1 gallon of gasoline.  D = B / A.

http://zfacts.com/p/436.html


----------



## RedRocker

He's projecting, it's always the folks with closed minds that accuse other of the same,
much like racism and every other BS accusation the left comes up with.


----------



## Dargo

300 H and H said:


> Dargo, I don't doubt your clams in any way other way than you are assuming ethanol did it. Do you really know for sure? Lab tests would be definative.
> Yup am busy getting NH3 down before freeze ...
> Kirk



Lab and over the counter kits PROVE this beyond any doubt. Pull out your warranty manual that came with your car. The factory reserves the right to deny engine claims due to methanol contamination!  It's pure garbage. Ask any boater. They will likely threaten you with bodily harm if you try to put that crap in their boat.  One of the biggest fleecing of Americans in the history of our country.  Anything claiming ethanol laced gasoline is good is pure bullshit.


----------



## tiredretired

Dargo said:


> Lab and over the counter kits PROVE this beyond any doubt. Pull out your warranty manual that came with your car. The factory reserves the right to deny engine claims due to methanol contamination!  It's pure garbage. Ask any boater. They will likely threaten you with bodily harm if you try to put that crap in their boat.  One of the biggest fleecing of Americans in the history of our country.  Anything claiming ethanol laced gasoline is good is pure bullshit.



True story.  The local TV station ran a piece this summer about all the problems boaters on Lake Champlain are having with this crap.  Non ethanol gas is available to me locally and here is a list of states where it is available.


----------



## 300 H and H

Dargo do you mean ethanol?.....Methanol comes from wood I think, and is MUCH more corrosive, and of course no one reccomends it. Two very different forms. Hope every one is on the same page here....Would hate for the haters to mess up....

And more hate talk. Got better things to do than to deal with this type of anger. The renewable fuels folks have a web site. I defere to it. Sorry but you can find the link.

Going to spend the night with my folks and a terminally ill Mother......

Regards, Kirk

Kirk


----------



## tiredretired

300 H and H said:


> Dargo do you mean ethanol?.....Methanol comes from wood I think, and is MUCH more corrosive, and of course no one reccomends it. Two very different forms. Hope every one is on the same page here....Would hate for the haters to mess up....
> 
> And more hate talk. Got better things to do than to deal with this type of anger. The renewable fuels folks have a web site. I defere to it. Sorry but you can find the link.
> 
> Going to spend the night with my folks and a terminally ill Mother......
> 
> Regards, Kirk
> 
> Kirk



Sorry to hear about your mum, Kirk.  We'll keep her in our prayers.  Ethyl can wait.


----------



## waybomb

"Everybody has a price." Not certain who the first person is that said that.
We know some people's price here, don't we.........
Blinded by the Benjamin.


----------



## nixon

I run a lot of small two stoke engines. Ethanol is not their friend. Anything over 10% will void the warranty on my saws. Therein lies the biggest problem ....it's batch mixed at the distributor.  I've tested the ethanol  contentment on various gasolines,and it varies between 8 -12 % . That doesn't make for consistent performance ,in fact I had one saw refuse to run at full load using this crap they call gas. I now use leaded 100+ octane fuel as a result .


----------



## waybomb

This will help you find non-corn gas:

http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=MI


----------



## nixon

waybomb said:


> This will help you find non-corn gas:
> 
> http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=MI



Thanks ! I've searched that site before, nothing in this area unfortunately.


----------



## FrancSevin

300 H and H said:


> Dargo do you mean ethanol?.....Methanol comes from wood I think, and is MUCH more corrosive, and of course no one reccomends it. Two very different forms. Hope every one is on the same page here....Would hate for the haters to mess up....
> 
> And more hate talk. Got better things to do than to deal with this type of anger. The renewable fuels folks have a web site. I defere to it. Sorry but you can find the link.
> 
> Going to spend the night with my folks and a terminally ill Mother......
> 
> Regards, Kirk
> 
> Kirk


 
Hey, what's with the "haters" stuff. Nobody here has said anything remotely hateful.

Seems all you have is words, opinions and personal attacks. Failing that you call folks who do not agree with you haters???????

Sorry you are going thru a personal crisis but from everyone here you have been given the best of wishes. Like I said before come back when you can be reasonably engaged in the subject.

It will still be here. MOM may not.  Spend you time and energy with her.

franc


----------



## Dargo

300 H and H said:


> Dargo do you mean ethanol?.....Methanol comes from wood I think, and is MUCH more corrosive, and of course no one reccomends it. Two very different forms. Hope every one is on the same page here....Would hate for the haters to mess up....
> 
> And more hate talk. Got better things to do than to deal with this type of anger. The renewable fuels folks have a web site. I defere to it. Sorry but you can find the link.
> 
> Going to spend the night with my folks and a terminally ill Mother......
> 
> Regards, Kirk
> 
> Kirk



Pecking on phone.  It has it's own agenda and "corrects" words.  Um, okay, I'll admit, I'm getting to the point where I need to wear my glasses if I'm going to post using my phone.


----------



## Cowboy

TiredRetired said:


> Sorry to hear about your mum, Kirk. We'll keep her in our prayers. Ethyl can wait.


 Ditto Kirk . Thoughts and prayers from here as well for your entire family.


----------



## Dargo

Me too; ethyl, methyl and all the other words my phone wants to make will still be here.  Family first.  All the best.


----------



## 300 H and H

I will not defend ethanol any more here. It's like 15 people here who will do anything to smear it and it's use. Ok then. I just hope agriculture doesn't turn it back on this country when you nix it and we are in the shitter too, like the rest of the economy. That is what a repeal of the mandate will do. I hope you know some farmers, and see their plight. I will still be here as truefully I have done nothing in my bussiness to expand in this over heated Ag climate or buble we are in. The reason we are in the bubble is because money from out side of Ag (BIg investers) have run up land prices to over $12,000 per acer, from about $3K only 5 yeras ago. SO Agriculture is being invaded in my part of the world. I will resist the temptation to do so. Some day the house fo cards will fall, and alot of money will be "left" out here when the out of state bozo's are gone. The deck will reshuffle and maybe things will get back to normal. SO you see I am not so hell bent on ethanol. At all. The prolems it is causing between fellow man is not worth it, and this thread proves this to me. Farming is the last bastion of mom and pop owned business. I would hate to see ethanol survive because it would mean an end to this family operated farm community. Large commrcialized operations would take the place, like they have in the livestock industry. Pity us when this happens.....All the modern bussiness tricks will be used on the public then, like the "spot shortage" and control of production so you will pay more. Right now the last place in America where there is "true" competition is in Agriculture. Everything else is eran oligopoly or a pure monopoly in bussiness today. 

I made points here about the price of corn and the value of the dollar, and they went ignored. I told of the vibrant economy in the corn belt. Of how we are keeping the money domestic. The good things. Yes there are bad as well....Never heard a word about those......Just the bad.

I was hoping for a balanced discussion, but none to be had here. I got tired of holding up the other end...

Best regards, and thanks for the concern for my Mother. She did well last night, just 4 trips to the bathroom.

Kirk


----------



## Melensdad

The farmers surrounding me are loving the corn prices and I honestly think they should be loving it.  I don't begrudge them any of the profits they gain from corn that is going to be used for ethanol.  It pays off their farm debts, buys new equipment, keeps their families together, and helps small town economies.

But as for an energy policy, the policy of pushing ethanol is really pretty illogical.


----------



## SShepherd

300 H and H said:


> I will not defend ethanol any more here.* It's like 15 people here who will do anything to smear it and it's use*. Ok then. I just hope agriculture doesn't turn it back on this country when you nix it and we are in the shitter too, like the rest of the economy. That is what a repeal of the mandate will do. I hope you know some farmers, and see their plight. I will still be here as truefully I have done nothing in my bussiness to expand in this over heated Ag climate or buble we are in. The reason we are in the bubble is because money from out side of Ag (BIg investers) have run up land prices to over $12,000 per acer, from about $3K only 5 yeras ago. SO Agriculture is being invaded in my part of the world. I will resist the temptation to do so. Some day the house fo cards will fall, and alot of money will be "left" out here when the out of state bozo's are gone. The deck will reshuffle and maybe things will get back to normal. SO you see I am not so hell bent on ethanol. At all. The prolems it is causing between fellow man is not worth it, and this thread proves this to me. Farming is the last bastion of mom and pop owned business. I would hate to see ethanol survive because it would mean an end to this family operated farm community. Large commrcialized operations would take the place, like they have in the livestock industry. Pity us when this happens.....All the modern bussiness tricks will be used on the public then, like the "spot shortage" and control of production so you will pay more. Right now the last place in America where there is "true" competition is in Agriculture. Everything else is eran oligopoly or a pure monopoly in bussiness today.
> 
> I made points here about the price of corn and the value of the dollar, and they went ignored. I told of the vibrant economy in the corn belt. Of how we are keeping the money domestic. The good things. Yes there are bad as well....Never heard a word about those......Just the bad.
> 
> I was hoping for a balanced discussion, but none to be had here. I got tired of holding up the other end...
> 
> Best regards, and thanks for the concern for my Mother. She did well last night, just 4 trips to the bathroom.
> 
> Kirk


 
so, facts about it's inefficiency compared to even bioD and it's corrosive peoperties are a smear ??? Wow, you need to take off your blinders.


----------



## FrancSevin

Melensdad said:


> The farmers surrounding me are loving the corn prices and I honestly think they should be loving it. I don't begrudge them any of the profits they gain from corn that is going to be used for ethanol. It pays off their farm debts, buys new equipment, keeps their families together, and helps small town economies.
> 
> But as for an energy policy, the policy of pushing ethanol is really pretty illogical.


 
I am happy for the new wealth of the farmers.  But reading the two paragraphs presents a delima.  Your logic here fails me

Is this not the same as suggesting we allow farmers to grow Pot and poppies.   As the society goes to hell on pot and heroin we could feel good about the new found wealth of the agribusinees corporations and the farmers.

Seems to have worked well for the Afghanitans before our military began burning the fields.

As Sshepard suggested, it is not a smear to discuss the pros and cons of ETOH or any government supported project.  I find the prolems with subsidized and mandted government intervention inthe ETOH area as evil to our nation as the Solyndra scandal.

Touting the benefits of spending $billions of tapayers money to create a questionable product as a conduit for lining the pockets of certain friends  and favored  industries seems wrong to me.  I do not believe it improper, much less unpatriotic, to talk about it.

It is not a smear to bring up the facts for close scrutiny.  It is, in fact, a civic duty.

Unless you are happy to be a Prole.


----------



## Melensdad

Franc, I have no idea what you are saying.  I do not support the Ethanol mandate.  You seem to suggest I do?  I'm not sure how you could come to that conclusion based on anything I've written in this thread.


----------



## SShepherd

FrancSevin said:


> I am happy for the new wealth of the farmers. But reading the two paragraphs presents a delima. Your logic here fails me
> 
> Is this not the same as suggesting we allow farmers to grow Pot and poppies. As the society goes to hell on pot and heroin we could feel good about the new found wealth of the agribusinees corporations and the farmers.
> 
> Seems to have worked well for the Afghanitans before our military began burning the fields.
> 
> As Sshepard suggested, it is not a smear to discuss the pros and cons of ETOH or any government supported project. I find the prolems with subsidized and mandted government intervention inthe ETOH area as evil to our nation as the Solyndra scandal.
> 
> Touting the benefits of spending  of tapayers money to create a questionable product as a conduit for lining the pockets of certain friends and favored industries seems wrong to me. I do not believe it improper, much less unpatriotic, to talk about it.
> 
> It is not a smear to bring up the facts for close scrutiny. It is, in fact, a civic duty.
> 
> Unless you are happy to be a Prole.


 
franc,

he's saying don't hate the player, hate the game.

unless the law is changed sund sunsides stop there's nothing thats going to done.


----------



## FrancSevin

Melensdad said:


> Franc, I have no idea what you are saying. I do not support the Ethanol mandate. You seem to suggest I do? I'm not sure how you could come to that conclusion based on anything I've written in this thread.


 
I am simply responding to that particular post. Without the Mandate, ETOH from corn would not make corn farmers, well really the commodity brokers, rich. I am suggesting you may have tried but, in reality, one simply cannot separate the two.

Here is the problem, we cannot be happy with the financial gain of someone over another when it is the result of Government manipultion of the free market, cronyism and lies.

In truth the USA is the OPEC of Dent Corn. Dent Corn is the largest single food source in the world. Our actions in the area of converting that food to fuel has raised the price of Corn, and every foodstuff that uses it, expotentialy.

That equation should impress a moral obligation on humanitarian princples alone. But there are a host of other environmental and performance issues with ETOH as well. And our pro ETOH government has hidden the science which a free market woud expose.

Perhaps we can somehow mediate those three points. We are still left with the corporatist cronyism that the Agribusiness and the Government have forged for mutual profit and benefit. So no, I cannot excuse from the process, the farmers who politicaly support this industry and turn a blind eye to the damages done by the product they produce.

A product Americans are forced by law to subsidize in production and then required to purchase. So take a good look and ask, are you comfortable with that? Well, that is what your post #61 says to me.

Are you happy for the Corn farmers? How about the beef producers that had to sell their herds because feed was too high. Poultry farmers? Swine? Are these not also American farmers who now suffer economic losses over ETOH? Beef, cereal, chicken all have increased at retail. What about American families?

All of these folks have a moral right to ask, why do the have to support ETOH?

I suggest we stop villifying those who ask such questions, and look for reasonable answers outside of Washington DC. Here's a hint, No company has ever successfully sold a product the consumer did not want unless the government forced them to do it.

How far down the road do we go before anyone notices, we have gone the wrong way? Maybe, before we take another blind step, we ought to take a good look around.


----------



## FrancSevin

SShepherd said:


> franc,
> 
> he's saying don't hate the player, hate the game.
> 
> unless the law is changed sund sunsides stop there's nothing thats going to done.


 
The player is playing "the game." The player should be aware of it's properties.

I have indicated no *hate* to anyone, just disagreement with actions some find acceptable. So, with all due respect, can we not imply that emotion?


----------



## SShepherd

FrancSevin said:


> The player is playing "the game." The player should be aware of it's properties.
> 
> I have indicated no *hate* to anyone, just disagreement with actions some find acceptable. So, with all due respect, can we not imply that emotion?


 
Frank, I'm guessing you're rather advanced in your years

"hate the game not the player" is a pretty common saying these days, usually relating to  persona being a "playah" in reference to relationships- a stud, a slut, a gigalo

honestly frank, lighten up a bit


----------



## FrancSevin

SShepherd said:


> Frank, I'm guessing you're rather advanced in your years
> 
> "hate the game not the player" is a pretty common saying these days, usually relating to persona being a "playah" in reference to relationships- a stud, a slut, a gigalo
> 
> honestly frank, lighten up a bit


 
I'd love to but I can't. 

principles man. 

Honestly, is this a discussion group or a play pen?

The subsidy laws will only be changed by the pressure of ground swell politics. Read your signature tag line.


----------



## SShepherd

FrancSevin said:


> I'd love to but I can't.
> 
> principles man.
> 
> Honestly, is this a discussion group or a play pen?
> 
> The subsidy laws will only be changed by the pressure of ground swell politics. Read your signature tag line.


 
ya, we have principles- it's not your place to question them

adults should be able to handle some humor, if you can't it's your problem-not ours. This place is a fun distraction from day to day activities for most of us, as debate is mostly a mental exercise. Nothing said here is liklrly to have an effect on anything we discuss "in the real world" This isn't a PAC.

you want honesty- there it is.


----------



## FrancSevin

SShepherd said:


> ya, we have principles- it's not your place to question them
> 
> adults should be able to handle some humor, if you can't it's your problem-not ours. This place is a fun distraction from day to day activities for most of us, as debate is mostly a mental exercise. Nothing said here is liklrly to have an effect on anything we discuss "in the real world" This isn't a PAC.
> 
> you want honesty- there it is.


 
Principles!

I didn't question them. I read your thoughtful posts with great respect, in part because of your tag line. A set of principles I believe. No question about them.

Politics can be humorus, and discussion of them can be, but they are serious business. So, shall we not be so destracted by the "humor' and "bantor" that we forget, politics matter and when opinions are freely exchanged, opinions are changed. 

I sense that a significant number of folks here are related to this particular issue of ETOH. That's just fine. Defend on solid ground, with facts, not insults.

Insults?  I gave none of those, certainly not personal ones. And most definitely not with malice or "Hate. Yet that was brought up in my face twice.

When, and if, my industry is questioned, I will stand for what I believe. But not if I am made aware of a deceit or danger not intended or known when I began this career. That is standing on a principle when it makes you uncomfortable.

I have resigned from companies who were making profits at the expense and danger to their customers and employees. And lobbied against them. At great personal and professional loss.

Principles....

Expecting the same from others is what,,,,too much honesty? Not any fun? There are 70 Sub Forums here, plenty of room for _Fun_.
I believe I have demostrated some pleasure in such "fun" on those other Sub Forums. Frequently

I am not really that old, just 65. But I have been a working stiff since 12 years of age. "Been there, Done that," is likely true in many cases for me.

I have seen this sort of patronizing advice from the "Old timers" before. Sorry if I made ripples in your pool.


----------



## SShepherd

*"Honestly, is this a discussion group or a play pen?"*

Do you not see that as patronizing?


----------



## SShepherd

*Expecting the same from others is what,,,,too much honesty? Not any fun? There are 70 Sub Forums here, plenty of room for Fun.
I believe I have demostrated some pleasure in such "fun" on those other Sub Forums. Frequently
*
if you have a question about how this forum is run, you maybe you would like to tell it's owner how it should be- contact a mod or the forum owner.

The day this place stops being fun, I'm outta here


----------



## bczoom

And back to Ethanol...

Anyone know a chain that offers gas (even on the side) that doesn't contain ethanol?

No marinas nearby and I wouldn't trust my engines to take aviation fuel.


----------



## nixon

Brian, what type of engines are you talking about ?


----------



## SShepherd

bczoom said:


> And back to Ethanol...
> 
> Anyone know a chain that offers gas (even on the side) that doesn't contain ethanol?
> 
> No marinas nearby and I wouldn't trust my engines to take aviation fuel.


 
question;

do the pumps have to list if it contains ethenol?

it would explain (other than a relative putting ethenol in my boat) why my fuel lines collapsed because the inside became gummy.


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

bczoom said:


> And back to Ethanol...
> 
> Anyone know a chain that offers gas (even on the side) that doesn't contain ethanol?
> 
> No marinas nearby and I wouldn't trust my engines to take aviation fuel.




I think this site is current:

http://pure-gas.org/

Stick it to the corn hogs.


----------



## bczoom

nixon said:


> Brian, what type of engines are you talking about ?


John - All of them from the V8 in my truck down to the 2-cycle chainsaws and weedeaters.  My concern is mainly the smaller engines.  Mowers, generators and smaller.



SShepherd said:


> question;
> 
> do the pumps have to list if it contains ethenol?
> 
> it would explain (other than a relative putting ethenol in my boat) why my fuel lines collapsed because the inside became gummy.


I believe they do.



PBinWA said:


> I think this site is current:
> 
> http://pure-gas.org/
> 
> Stick it to the corn hogs.


THANKS!  There's one about 45 minutes away.  I'll be giving them a call.


----------



## Dargo

PBinWA said:


> I think this site is current:
> 
> http://pure-gas.org/
> 
> Stick it to the corn hogs.



Bingo!  We have 3 additional stations making changes to offer gasoline since demand is really going up.  A local TV station tested a dozen local stations and the least amount found was 13% and the highest 22%!

Good idea, disastrous execution and end results!


----------



## thcri RIP

PBinWA said:


> I think this site is current:
> 
> http://pure-gas.org/
> 
> Stick it to the corn hogs.



Ok a couple in my area.  Question though, if mandated how can they sell it?


----------



## nixon

bczoom said:


> John - All of them from the V8 in my truck down to the 2-cycle chainsaws and weedeaters.  My concern is mainly the smaller engines.  Mowers, generators and smaller.



Brian, there's a place up in conneaut lake (sp ) tha sells  all grades of ethanol free. I believe it's a Sunoco station.


----------



## FrancSevin

SShepherd said:


> *Expecting the same from others is what,,,,too much honesty? Not any fun? There are 70 Sub Forums here, plenty of room for Fun.*
> *I believe I have demostrated some pleasure in such "fun" on those other Sub Forums. Frequently*
> 
> if you have a question about how this forum is run, you maybe you would like to tell it's owner how it should be- contact a mod or the forum owner.
> 
> The day this place stops being fun, I'm outta here


 
I have no questions about how things are run. I never complained about that.

I have no advice for the owner. Seems to run a good shop.
I haven't heard from him...

Says on the door,  "Warning: The posts/threads contained in this section of the forum can get heated."
I thought that was sufficient warning.

Now, back to the subject please


----------



## bczoom

thcri said:


> Ok a couple in my area.  Question though, if mandated how can they sell it?


Looking at all the places around me, their location/address probably puts them as a Marina which I'm guessing is exempt.



nixon said:


> Brian, there's a place up in conneaut lake (sp ) tha sells  all grades of ethanol free. I believe it's a Sunoco station.


Thanks John.

The place in Stoneboro is a bit closer so I'm going to try them first.  If no luck there, I'll try by the lake.


----------



## thcri RIP

bczoom said:


> Looking at all the places around me, their location/address probably puts them as a Marina which I'm guessing is exempt..



One of them is two blocks from my office.  And he isn't no where near a marina unless he is selling as "for boats"?


----------



## bczoom

Probably true Murph.


----------



## muleman RIP

Closest ones for me are 55 miles away. Wish I could get it in bulk but they won't even be bothered with it. Can't even buy clear kero anymore around here.


----------



## FrancSevin

Any Station that serves bikers will likely have it. Don't mean to "smear" ETHANOL but smaller engines and old bikes don't like the stuff.

Bikers must be mostly just stubborn, grumpy, old men,,,, I guess


----------



## SShepherd

FrancSevin said:


> Any Station that serves bikers will likely have it. Don't mean to "smear" ETHANOL but smaller engines and old bikes don't like the stuff.
> 
> Bikers must be mostly just stubborn, grumpy, old men,,,, I guess


 Newer bikes don't care for it either..
yes, yes, and old is relative


----------



## FrancSevin

Al Gore, who's tie breaking vote initiated the government debacle now known as the ETHANOL mandate, is now down on ETOH production.

http://employeeissues.com/at_will_states.htm

The unintended consequenses seem to hang on despite this royal renouncement. Anyone surprised by that?


----------



## RedRocker

Surprised he admitted it, not that nothing is being done.


----------



## 300 H and H

http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/policy-positions-food-vs-fuel

Good read...If your undecided, and want "links" provided. Good site to hear the other sides position on this topic....

franc, was is this link? http://employeeissues.com/at_will_states.htm it doesn't seem to be about ethanol at all...


BTW, all older tractors with gasoline tanks above the engine came originally with Steel fuel lines. Many rusted out long before the days of E 10. I suggest some one put on the rubber line, as it was easy and cheap. But dangerous as hell with any form of fuel in it. Get the steel line for it. You'll thank me some day.


Regards, Kirk


----------



## SShepherd

you still haven't commented(because you seem all for ethenol) on why the govt. should pay for a fuel source thats less effecient than biodesil-


----------



## Cowboy

SShepherd said:


> you still haven't commented(because you seem all for ethenol) on why the govt. should pay for a fuel source thats less effecient than biodesil-


 I beleive Kirk has been taking care of much more important matters then this thread Shep. 
http://www.forumsforums.com/3_9/showthread.php?t=50729


----------



## 300 H and H

The reason for subsidies was simple. To create a new ground up industry it takes guess what....money. This is the ony reason for it, and I expect it will go away. The industry doesn't need it for the most part any more. But to get the ball rolling, it was a way to speed the process. It's done all the time by our Gov. We're just not used to it in Agriculture. Normally Ag subsidies are to keep farmers who are facing prices below cost of production, something that doesn't happen since we make ethanol from corn. When corn was $2 bushel we left it outside in meager storage conditions, and much if it rotted, or was damaged and went to waste. We had way to much corn for not only us but for the rest of the world as well. Read my link above about what is happening with regards to production.

As for the the energy value of ethanol, yes it is different than gasoline. No one argues this, so why do you? So what if it is not as energy dense as gasoline. Find an alternative that exactly matches gosoline....It doesn't exist, with the same values as gas. The important math here is not miles per gallon, it should be cost per mile, as ethanol wins this race....

Last post here. I provided the LINK to the renewable fuels association, and their data set. I am not going to get ganged up on again,. This thead should have been named "cons of ethanol" as there are no pro's here, except me, and I am not that committed to it at all. But I am not going to participate in this one sided side show anymore.

Regards, Kirk


----------



## SShepherd

300 H and H said:


> The reason for subsidies was simple. To create a new ground up industry it takes guess what....money. This is the ony reason for it, and I expect it will go away. The industry doesn't need it for the most part any more. But to get the ball rolling, it was a way to speed the process. It's done all the time by our Gov. We're just not used to it in Agriculture. Normally Ag subsidies are to keep farmers who are facing prices below cost of production, something that doesn't happen since we make ethanol from corn. When corn was $2 bushel we left it outside in meager storage conditions, and much if it rotted, or was damaged and went to waste. We had way to much corn for not only us but for the rest of the world as well. Read my link above about what is happening with regards to production.
> 
> As for the the energy value of ethanol, yes* it is different* than gasoline. No one argues this, so why do you?* So what if it is not as energy dense* as gasoline. Find an alternative that exactly matches gosoline....It doesn't exist, with the same values as gas.* The important math here is not miles per gallon, it should be cost per mile, as ethanol wins this race*....
> 
> Last post here. I provided the LINK to the renewable fuels association, and their data set. I am not going to get ganged up on again,. This thead should have been named "cons of ethanol" as there are no pro's here, except me, and I am not that committed to it at all. But I am not going to participate in this one sided side show anymore.
> 
> Regards, Kirk


 
good greif....just say you sold out and are a shill and be done with it


----------



## FrancSevin

300 H and H said:


> The reason for subsidies was simple. To create a new ground up industry it takes guess what....money. This is the ony reason for it, and I expect it will go away. The industry doesn't need it for the most part any more. But to get the ball rolling, it was a way to speed the process. It's done all the time by our Gov. We're just not used to it in Agriculture. Normally Ag subsidies are to keep farmers who are facing prices below cost of production, something that doesn't happen since we make ethanol from corn. When corn was $2 bushel we left it outside in meager storage conditions, and much if it rotted, or was damaged and went to waste. We had way to much corn for not only us but for the rest of the world as well. Read my link above about what is happening with regards to production.
> 
> As for the the energy value of ethanol, yes it is different than gasoline. No one argues this, so why do you? So what if it is not as energy dense as gasoline. Find an alternative that exactly matches gosoline....It doesn't exist, with the same values as gas. The important math here is not miles per gallon, it should be cost per mile, as ethanol wins this race....
> 
> Last post here. I provided the LINK to the renewable fuels association, and their data set. I am not going to get ganged up on again,. This thead should have been named "cons of ethanol" as there are no pro's here, except me, and I am not that committed to it at all. But I am not going to participate in this one sided side show anymore.
> 
> Regards, Kirk


 
The reason for posting the energy density difference is to compare the price value of ETOH over Fossel fuel. That difference is currently so large that ETOH must be subsidized by at least 25% to be competitive gallon for gallon and then you have trhe offset of the usable BTU's. Untill Gas hits $4.00 a gallon (around $130.00 a barrel for crude) the US taxpayer must subsidize production.
With Corn going from $80.00 aton to $320 a ton the economics get even worse. So at what time do we,the taxpayers get off the hook?

Why Corn when Soybeans would suffice for far less cost per gallon and virtualy equal BTU's content?

One reason and one alone,,,,,,,Politics. The problem there is that once hatched by Washington, a good idea gone wrong continues with imortality.

Corn based ETOH is not good for the environment
Corn based ETOH is not good for our engines
Corn based ETOH is not good economics
Corn based ETOH is frankly not good for the farmers in the long run. Especially the small family farms.
Corn based ETOH is not good for the Taxpayer.
Corn based ETOH has done nothing to free theUS from importing significant percentages of our oil needs.


Corn Based ETOH seems only to bennefit the agrabussiness and politicians who got in on the action.

I'm glad it made you some money for now. Invest it wisely for ETOH will eventually lose favor. I would suggest keeping one eye on Soybean futures.


----------



## 300 H and H

I beg to differ, just READ the link I provided. It has the information corn farmers read, and maybe you should too. If some one provides the links to the information, it doesn't do any good if it is not read. As I have stated I am not nor have I been doing anything on my farms to take advantage of the mandate. I am just going with the flow, as I realize it is a stroke of a pen that can change every thing. Your just one of the chorus of folks who hate the stuff. Yes I will use the word hate here as it is certainly applicable to folks with a foot deep file of paper, saved for just this occasion, and most of the other posts in this thread.

So sold out I am not. A shill I am not. Maybe I should insult you, as you do me. But it woud do no good, as your mind is closed, like a book. Open your eyes and read what the other side of the argument is, then comment on that....Pretty please

http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/policy-positions-food-vs-fuel

 This site has many other pages in it other than this one. I suggest you click on the tabs of the issues you have with it, and READ what the other side has to say.......Maybe I should just down load the whole site here to make it harder to ignor?




Kirk


----------



## 300 H and H

In the United States of America, Yellow dent corn prodution is not the food we most eat. Only 2% of production is fed to humans. I know because this is the market I serve. Food grade grains. It is not a big deal as has been stated. Not in this country at least.

From the site...

*THE ROLE OF SPECULATION IN COMMODITY MARKETS*
July 2010 World Bank research found “…the use of commodities by financial investors (the so-called ‘financialization of commodities’) may have been partly responsible for the 2007/08 spike.” A November 10, 2010 _Wall Street Journal_ article echoed those results, noting the major factors driving up corn prices are U.S. monetary policy, speculation by Wall Street hedge funds, and surging demand from emerging markets. This goes for all commodities from grains to precious metals. Demand for ethanol production, by comparison, plays a relatively minor role.
The recent run-up in grain prices likely will prove to be grossly exaggerated, due to the unprecedented influx of speculative investment in grain futures. By early September 2010, there was more speculative investment in the corn futures market than ever before­–even more than at the height of the 2008 bubble. Non-commercial investors (e.g., hedge funds) and “index traders” together control roughly 4.3 billion bushels of corn – nearly equivalent to the amount of corn the ethanol industry used in 2010. As we saw in 2008, these investors can have perverse impacts on the market—and they can exit the market just as quickly as they entered, resulting in the collapse of prices.
An April 2008 study by Texas A& University found that, “Speculative fund activities in futures markets have led to more money in the markets and more volatility. Increased price volatility has encouraged wider trading limits. The end result has been the loss of the ability to use futures markets for price risk management due to the inability to finance margin requirements

Kirk


----------



## SShepherd

300 H and H said:


> I beg to differ, just READ the link I provided. It has the information corn farmers read, and maybe you should too. If some one provides the links to the information, it doesn't do any good if it is not read. As I have stated I am not nor have I been doing anything on my farms to take advantage of the mandate. I am just going with the flow, as I realize it is a stroke of a pen that can change every thing. Your just one of the chorus of folks who hate the stuff. Yes I will use the word hate here as it is certainly applicable to folks with a foot deep file of paper, saved for just this occasion, and most of the other posts in this thread.
> 
> So sold out I am not. A shill I am not. Maybe I should insult you, as you do me. But it woud do no good, as your mind is closed, like a book. Open your eyes and read what the other side of the argument is, then comment on that....Pretty please
> 
> http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/poli...s-food-vs-fuel
> 
> This site has many other pages in it other than this one. I suggest you click on the tabs of the issues you have with it, and READ what the other side has to say.......Maybe I should just down load the whole site here to make it harder to ignor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kirk


 you can disagree untill the cows come home......

you need to take a hard look at your link and decide if it's biased tward or against-- or neutral about ethenol..
The RFA is hardly a neutral group.

You ignoring bioD, and it's obvious, factuall advantages over ethenol is almost silly to the extreme. Many of the links here come from independant sources having nothing to do with the RFA or govt. Saying "so what" to the inefficiency of ethenol and then extoling the virtue of an emerging technology is a line of BS. The facts are there, only those sucking off the govt. tit are willing to ignore it. Just another bought and paid fr voter block


----------



## SShepherd

300 H and H said:


> In the United States of America, Yellow dent corn prodution is not the food we *most* eat. *Only 2%* of production is fed to humans. I know because this is the market I serve. Food grade grains. *It is not a big deal as has been stated. Not in this country at least.*
> 
> Kirk


 wow, you really don't get how the market works do you?


----------



## SShepherd

mater of fact, I'm sending an email to a friend of mine thats a senator I've known since I was 12.
I'm sending the links from this thread, and pushing him to get rid of the govt. waste in funding ethenol.


----------



## 300 H and H

Kinda reminds me of the kid at school who told on everyone...

OK, then. Just be sure to include the link to the renewable fuels association , as I provided. Anyone who reads this with an open mind will be able to sort it out. The hate is just ozzing out of most posts in this thread.

All the other links provide are by folks who have something to gain or loose...SO they are all tainted, aren't they?

I understand the markets better than most who don't stake their lively hoods to it, like I do. Don't slam me any more unless you want it right back at you.....

Kirk


----------



## SShepherd

300 H and H said:


> Kinda reminds me of the kid at school who told on everyone...
> And I'm not suprised you would see it thast way, but guess what- I don't like people stealing in the same way I don't like dishonesty
> OK, then. Just be sure to include the link to the renewable fuels association , as I provided. Anyone who reads this with an open mind will be able to sort it out. The hate is just ozzing out of most posts in this thread.
> Hate? No hate, you just don't like being told no.
> All the other links provide are by folks who have something to gain or loose...SO they are all tainted, aren't they?
> So, then you admit you're gaining from the entire ethenol scam ! Like I said before just admit you sold out and aree a shill for the govt. program- because you just did anyway
> Kirk




reminds me of the voters who say, " I'm voting for whoever gives me the most money"


----------



## 300 H and H

Stick to the facts there bud,

Slamming me will get you no where. The mandate is the LAW. I think for your sake I am glad it pisses you off. Maybe some day you won't be just a stubborn SOB and will actually read information on the other side of the argument. But YOUR MIND IS CLOSED and the hate is there in spades. Please keep your comments to the topic, and we'll get along just fine. 

Hell yes I benifit from ethanol, what corn farmer doesn't? Hater you are, but lies and self deception rule your day don't they?

I don't dislike you, but obviously being a corn farmer you hate me for it, because I benifit from ethanol.

I read BOTH SIDES of this, You don't do you?

Kirk


----------



## SShepherd

lol, if the work "hate" is all you have to justify yourself- enjoy it.

the fact is, ethenol is not an effecient fuel source. BioD is MORE efficient than ethenol. Govt is funding something that's a bad investment.Period.
Try as you like, you can't deny it- and you've even admited it but then said you don't care.
lol, I guess that means I Looooove soybean farmers. Oyvey

*"I don't dislike you, but obviously being a corn farmer you hate me for it, because I benifit from ethanol.*

and let me set this straight for you...

There is no "us". I don't know you. You need to stop trying to make this some emotional drama.

"


----------



## 300 H and H

Bud I grow 50% in each crop soy and corn.

Yup hate is the operative word here. The reasearch provided in the link is from independant reasearch and acknowledgements are at the bottom of the page. It came from our university system, and not UC berkley (liberals you wouldn't believe, except for this topic) either. Open the link and open your mind, just once....

I am not going to tattle to my senator....he knows this stuff already. The law was passed a long time ago. Not to mention he raises corn as well. 

Bio diesel has issues as well. It has not caught on as it takes 2X the acers to make it, as soybeans yeild far less than corn. Alge is the issue with it, as it can grow in the fuel tanks. We use a 2% blend to get the lubrication back in the fuel after the sulfur is taken out. Why are we doing that anyway? (sulfur) No one else on the planet is from what I can find.....

Kirk


----------



## 300 H and H

Look if your going to post more of the same, I will not answer you any more. If you cann't comment on some thing from the link I provided because you say it is tainted, what more proof do I need to disregard anything you say? I will not waste my time here if you do not read what I provided. Exect for one instance I have done that to all the links provided in this thread. You consitantly have declined to actually read any thing that might sway your opinion. Typical, I think, of some one who not only hates the madate, but probably has other irons in this fire your not telling about. Yup I have a dog in the fight, and I admitt it. You just have one hell of a burr under your saddle and I didn't put it there. Close your mind and hate away. It's the law and will be for some time to come. Like it?

Kirk


----------



## jimbo

Kirk, my issue with the corn/alcohol controversy lies in two areas.  First, the fact that every time I fill my tank with gasahol, I am paying an additional dollar in taxes to fund a crop.  In addition, my experience with one of the dual fuel vehicles is that it has been the most costly to maintain vehicle I have ever owned.  Whether or not the vehicle is inherently inferior due to the alcohol related parts, parts cost roughly double the standard, and seem to break more often.  

The links you provided do not address the subsidy, nor the possible shorter vehicle life.  It is also interesting that I cannot buy gasoline in Va, but in the corn producing states where I recently traveled pure gasoline was available almost exclusively.  From my experience, mileage in my pickup ran around 10% better on gasoline.

Just to set the record straight, I am in favor of no subsidy for any reason at any time.  Let the market sort it out.


----------



## SShepherd

then quit answering...

again, you're trying to make this an emotional drama about me and you with words like "hate"
I guess if you don't like what someone says it's "hate". You're dipping your foot into the liberal pool.

*"ypical, I think, of some one who not only hates the madate, but probably has other irons in this fire your not telling about"*

grasp at straws much?


----------



## 300 H and H

Jimbo,

Not sure where you are finding an extra dollar in taxes for ethanol. Give me the numbers and we'll discuss that in a reasonable fashion. thanks for going to the site, and please explore it some more, as it has many tabs with various topics that may well answer the questions the general public wants to know and more importantly needs the answers to. And of course your questions as well. Please feel free to copy and bring here for discussion anything form the site you think is worthy. At least someone on this thread is open to discussion, rather than calling out "schill" or "bought off"....or prone to use emotinal language like "hate" when it was obvious that was emotional content being directed from the other sideThen the name calling began from the other side as well. I should not have participated in it, but as I have always and obviosly said I have dog in this fight, to the extent of the price of corn. I do not sell to ethanol plants, but they push the price in my area. So yes I benifit indirectly.

I wasn't fishing with my comment about someones iron in the fire. Just tying to understand why the venum, the anger that is so obvious to me from my screen is directed my way, as yes I do benifit. Sort it out....

Kirk


----------



## 300 H and H

*Ethanol and Engines*

Today, ethanol makes up for 10% of our gasoline supply and can be found at nearly every station across the nation.  This domestic, home-grown fuel is being utilized in all engine types, including automobiles, non-road engines and marine engines.  Due to the increase in ethanol-blended fuels, small engine manufacturers have made modifications to the engine fuel systems to be compatible with ethanol blended fuels.  This can be seen through the collection of varying recommendations from equipment owner’s manuals from over the years.  These changing recommendations have led to some confusion about the selection of fuels to use in various non-automotive applications.  To help clarify any questions, the RFA has put together _The Use of Ethanol-Blended Fuels in Non-Road Engines_.  

Jimbo, This came from the media tab at the site. Check it out.

Kirk


----------



## 300 H and H

http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/tax-incentives

and another for tax incentives.....


----------



## 300 H and H

more...

http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/policy-positions-ethanol-and-land-use


----------



## 300 H and H

I've got some arrangements to make so will be back some day...soon

Kirk


----------



## Dargo

300 H and H said:


> *Ethanol and Engines*
> 
> Today, ethanol makes up for 10% of our gasoline supply and can be found at nearly every station across the nation.  This domestic, home-grown fuel is being utilized in all engine types, including automobiles, non-road engines and marine engines.  Due to the increase in ethanol-blended fuels, small engine manufacturers have made modifications to the engine fuel systems to be compatible with ethanol blended fuels.  This can be seen through the collection of varying recommendations from equipment owner’s manuals from over the years.  These changing recommendations have led to some confusion about the selection of fuels to use in various non-automotive applications.  To help clarify any questions, the RFA has put together _The Use of Ethanol-Blended Fuels in Non-Road Engines_.
> 
> Jimbo, This came from the media tab at the site. Check it out.
> 
> Kirk



But I buy nothing but the highest quality equipment and fully expect, and get, at least 20 years or more of service from them.  Current, 2012, personal watercraft state right on them that the use of fuels containing methanol in them is not recommended.  I'll be damned if I'm going to put shit for fuel in them and ruin perfectly good equipment.  Tens of thousands of others like me are in the same situation and the number of fuel stations selling "non-tainted" fuel is growing every day.  Corn is for eating, not for killing my engines.  It is a dead issue.  The obit just hasn't been written yet.  We will have alternative fuels, but ethanol is not going to be one of them unless you live in Brazil where sugar cane grows like weeds.  In North America, that's not the case.  It's all over and the fat lady is looking for her mic.


----------



## jimbo

The subsidy for ethanol last I heard is 45 cents a gallon.  My Sierra holds 23 gallons.  At 10% ethanol, 2 + gallons.  A buck goes to the subsidy via my taxes.  This over and above the fuel tax.  This is in addition to the increase in corn prices, which may or may not be directly attributable to alcohol.  The prime loin I buy has gone from 7 bucks to over 12 over the past couple of years.   Prime loin is made from corn.

As stated, I own an S-10 that is designed as a dual fuel vehicle.  It has been nothing but trouble since I owned it, and I will not purchase another dual fuel vehicle.  Parts are roughly double and I have replaced parts ranging from injectors through fuel pumps.  Incidentally, many of the parts are deliberately not interchangeable.

Incidentally, my experience with availability, as I stated, is that nearly every station does not carry ethanol.  At Fort Riley, I asked a couple of people if ethanol was even available in the town, and one of them thought there there was a station at the other end of town that carried it.  Virtually all my gas stops in the corn producing states carried only pure gasoline.  No need to ask, as the difference in mileage is evident.


----------



## FrancSevin

300 H and H said:


> In the United States of America, Yellow dent corn prodution is not the food we most eat. Only 2% of production is fed to humans. I know because this is the market I serve. Food grade grains. It is not a big deal as has been stated. Not in this country at least.
> 
> From the site...
> 
> Kirk


 
Either and incredibly illogical statement or anincrdible attemptto decieve.

http://www.heartlandscience.org/agrifood/yelcorn.htm

Yellow dent corn in not direcvtly eaten  to be sure but, one cnnot eat just about any prepared food without it as an ingredient or source of sugar (fructose), It is in cattle, poultry and pig feeds,  suggesting that it is eaten daily by most Americans in some form.  It is not the number one crop of American farmers just because of ETOH.

And it is not redily and cheaply available to world markets if we burn it. Which, by your own admission,  is the point of it, money, is it not?

Nothing wrong with that.  Unless you find you cannot admit it.

As Sshepard said, that is not the problem, the problem is the madates which force American tax payers to subsidize the production of, and then buy, a product they don't want.

The market place should sort out the truth here. it cannot because the Government has it heavy thumb on the scale.


----------



## 300 H and H

franc,

Yellow dent corn in not direcvtly eaten to be sure but, one cnnot eat just about any prepared food without it as an ingredient or source of sugar (fructose), It is in cattle, poultry and pig feeds, suggesting that it is eaten daily by most Americans in some form. It is not the number one crop of American farmers just because of ETOH


Quite true....I was talking about that corn eaten directly by people

And it is not redily and cheaply available to world markets if we burn it. Which, by your own admission, is the point of it, money, is it not?

And why should it be cheaply be available? You produce what so I can tell you it isn't cheap enough? By who's standards? Conjecture? Or just sour grapes...

jimbo,

The loin your wanting to buy cheap is cheap in many countries outside our borders. The value of the dollar vers's the price increase you sighted corrisponds nicely with the 50% reduction in the buying power of the dolllar. SO once again I have to bring this one up.....

If you can afford prime loin, why the only $1 per tank full you pay extra upsets you. You give more as tips to waitress's each day, I do. Seems like quite a small amount to pay. And it all stays here in our own borders, not in some arab's hands. Take the 45 cents away and the industry will keep chugging along. Maybe export the stuff if the mandate goes away. I bet the industry has this as plan B. It has value in other places in the world.....

Kirk


----------



## 300 H and H

Dargo,

Read again. it says methanol, not ethanol. different stuff.

Kirk


----------



## Dargo

300 H and H said:


> Dargo,
> 
> Read again. it says methanol, not ethanol. different stuff.
> 
> Kirk



Sorry.  Wanna take up a donation for me to get a phone with a larger screen?  I obviously refuse to wear glasses.   Who programmed the spell checker in my phone anyway.  I just checked, I typed ethanol and as soon as I hit the space bar, it changed it to "methanol".   Now I only feel half as stupid.


----------



## Dargo

FrancSevin said:


> As Sshepard said, that is not the problem, the problem is the madates which force American tax payers to subsidize the production of, and then buy, a product they don't want.
> 
> The market place should sort out the truth here. it cannot because the Government has it heavy thumb on the scale.



That would put an end to it this weekend.


----------



## 300 H and H

*Ethanol and Engines*

Today, ethanol makes up for 10% of our gasoline supply and can be found at nearly every station across the nation.  This domestic, home-grown fuel is being utilized in all engine types, including automobiles, non-road engines and marine engines.  Due to the increase in ethanol-blended fuels, small engine manufacturers have made modifications to the engine fuel systems to be compatible with ethanol blended fuels.  This can be seen through the collection of varying recommendations from equipment owner’s manuals from over the years.  These changing recommendations have led to some confusion about the selection of fuels to use in various non-automotive applications.  To help clarify any questions, the RFA has put together _The Use of Ethanol-Blended Fuels in Non-Road Engines_.  


*Entering a New Era: E15*

In October 2010 and January 2011, EPA announced the limited approval of E15 for strict use in gasoline powered vehicles only. The approval came after years of research on the safe and effective use of this fuel in varying model year automobiles. This approval is strictly limited to use in automobiles manufactured in model year 2001 and newer, and was NOT approved for any other engine use. EPA’s E15 approval is not a mandate for use; it provides an opportunity for retailers to offer their automobile consumers an additional fuel choice. Until fuel blends containing more than 10% ethanol have been tested and approved for use in marine engines, watercraft and non-road engines, equipment owners should _not_ use these fuel blends. The EPA E15 partial approval can be found here.
*Flex-Fuel Vehicles (FFVs)
*

The first flex-fuel vehicle (FFV) was designed by the automotive godfather himself, Henry Ford when he released the 1908 Model T. Although this automobile is a far cry from the sophisticated vehicles we drive today, it was designed to operate on pure ethanol.
Across the country, vehicle manufacturers offer FFVs. These vehicles are specifically designed to be able to run on any ethanol-blended fuel ranging from unleaded gasoline (0% ethanol) to E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline). FFVs also have the ability to run on mid-level blends, fuel that is blended with ethanol less than 85%, such as E20, E30 and E40. If you drive an FFV, you can pretty much fill your tank anywhere, no matter what the ethanol blend is! To date, there are more than eight million FFVs operating on America’s roadways. To help increase these numbers, some of the major automobile manufacturers in the U.S., including Ford, Chrysler and General Motors, have all pledged to make 50% of all new vehicles coming off their assembly line model year 2012 and beyond FFVs. There are currently more than 2,400 E85 stations throughout the U.S., providing America’s consumers with more fuel options and opportunity to support domestically grown transportation fuels. 

Blender pumps are also on the rise offering customers a variety of mid-level blended ethanol fuel options like E20, E30 and E40. Secretary Vilsack recently announced that the U.S. Department of Agriculture plans to help fund the installation of 10,000 blender pumps throughout the country. In addition, the Blend Your Own (BYO) Ethanol Campaign, a partnership between the RFA, American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE), National Corn Growers Association and numerous other state corn grower associations, aims to install 5,000 blender pumps across our nation over a three year period.
There are a number of ways to determine if your vehicle is an FFV. The inside of the fuel door will typically have a sticker noting E85 compatibility.  Some vehicles also have a yellow gas cap signifying the option to fuel up with E85. Flex-fuel compatibility is also marked in the owner’s manual as well as encoded in the vehicle’s identification number (VIN). You should also check your owner’s manual to determine if your vehicle is flex-fuel capable. Check and see if your car is an FFV on our chart here.
For more information on FFVs, E85 and where to find an E85 station near you, click here.
*Ethanol and Water Do Mix*

Today, virtually all of America’s fuel is blended with 10% ethanol. Some marinas offer unblended fuel for marine use. As ethanol has entered new markets, some marine equipment owners have raised questions about ethanol use in their equipment.  The RFA recognizes the concerns voiced by the marine and boating community and has published information to ensure the necessary information is reaching watercraft and boat owners including and Update for Boat Owners: Ethanol Blended Fuels for Use in Marine Equipment, E10 and Winterization and Frequently Asked Questions.
Avid water sports enthusiasts need not fear ethanol blends.  As is always the case with a fuel change, there are some basic maintenance strategies that can be employed to mitigate any possible fuel-related issues. Typically, the maintenance issues encountered by the marine engine community arise from residual fuel deposits being cleaned up by the ethanol portion or, as is the most prevalent case, improper fuel storage and handling conditions that have allowed the uptake of water during storage.  Information is available here to answer some Frequently Asked Questions.

Proper maintenance, vigilance over the performance of the engine, planning, and communication with marina operators can help to mitigate any impacts boaters may encounter with the switch to ethanol blended fuel. (See Winterization document)

It is true that in rare instances, some vintage boats have experienced problems with ethanol-blended fuels resulting in catastrophic damage.  These instances have almost exclusively involved older watercraft that utilize fiberglass fuel tanks in boat models older than 1981.  Gasoline blended with ethanol should be avoided if your boat features these criteria.  One way to avoid this issue is to know your equipment, read your operators manual, and talk with your marina about the fuels they offer.  There is a wealth of information available to you as a boat owner on the internet.
Ethanol and water sports can mix, as boaters and fishermen in Minnesota, “the Land of 10,000 Lakes” have proven for more than two decades.  Communication, knowledge, and a dose of common sense will lead to a resolution to this debate on which all parties can agree.  For more information on ethanol and marine engines, check our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs).
*RFA's Update for Boat Owners: Ethanol Blended Fuels for Use in Marine Equipment is available* *here*. 

For more information on ethanol and marine equipment, click *here.*
*Non-Road Engines*

It should be noted that all gasoline is designed for its primary intended use, the automobile.  In fact, the standard industry specification for gasoline is titled _Standard Specification for Automotive Spark Ignition Engine Fuel.  _Little consideration is given to the needs of the small engine manufacturer and they find themselves designing around whatever fuels are made for automotive use.  Recently, fuel blenders have extended the availability of fuels containing up to 10 volume percent ethanol (E10) to nearly every area of the U.S.  Many areas across the country successfully utilize only ethanol blended fuels year round and across all octane grades, proving that ethanol blended fuels can be used successfully in all applications.  E10 is interchangeable with gasoline and virtually every gallon of gasoline sold in the U.S. today contains a percentage of ethanol up to 10%.  As ethanol has entered these new markets, some equipment owners and operators have raised questions about ethanol’s use in their particular equipment.  The RFA Use of Ethanol Blended Fuels in Non-Road Engines bulletin is meant to provide information about successful operation of non-automotive equipment on E10.
*Search RFA*




*Go To:*


E-85
Fuel Cells


----------



## FrancSevin

Dargo said:


> Sorry. Wanna take up a donation for me to get a phone with a larger screen? I obviously refuse to wear glasses.  Who programmed the spell checker in my phone anyway. I just checked, I typed ethanol and as soon as I hit the space bar, it changed it to "methanol".  Now I only feel half as stupid.


 
Use ETOH with caps. Shorter than methanol and your spell checker won't change it.

And you are right.  Given free market use, Ethanol would drop off the map.

The price of Beef, Poultry and Cola would drop as well.
And farmers could afford to buy land again.


----------



## 300 H and H

*Ethanol Facts: Economy*

The growing ethanol industry provides a significant contribution to the American economy, creating new high-paying jobs, increasing market opportunities for farmers, generating additional household income and tax revenues, and stimulating capital investment.
*FACT: In 2010, the U.S. ethanol industry helped employ 400,677 jobs in all sectors of the economy.*
_Source: Contribution of the Ethanol Industry to the Economy of the United States _
*FACT: In 2010, ethanol contributed $53.6 billion to the national GDP, added $36 billion to household income, and displaced the need for 445 million barrels of oil.*
_Source: Contribution of the Ethanol Industry to the Economy of the United States_
*FACT: The ethanol industry employs a broad cross-section of Americans, paying good wages and providing benefits.*
A 2010 _Ethanol Producer Magazine_ survey of the industry found that 73% of industry employees have either a two or four year college degree.  83% reported earning at least $40,000 per year, and 99% reported receiving health care and other benefits, which is well above the national average of 71%.
*FACT: Ethanol refineries serve as local economic power houses.*
While the national economic impact of ethanol production is impressive, small and rural communities with ethanol facilities nearby see a much more dramatic economic boost. An average 100 million gallon per year ethanol biorefinery provides the following economic benefits to the local economy:

<LI value=0>The goods and services bought and sold as a result of the operation of the ethanol facility add $367 million to the local GDP. <LI value=0>The economic activity resulting from the ethanol biorefinery help create more than 2,400 new jobs across all sectors. Those include 50 at the biorefinery and more than 1,300 in the agricultural sector. 
The increase in good paying jobs as a result of the facility boosts local household incomes by more than $100 million.
_Source: "Contribution of the Ethanol Industry to the Economy of the United States," LECG, LLC, Feb 2008. _
*FACT: The federal ethanol program generates revenue for the U.S. Treasury.*
The federal ethanol incentive, which is available to gasoline marketers and oil companies (not ethanol producers) as an incentive to blend their gasoline with clean, domestic, renewable ethanol, is a cost-effective program. It actually returns more revenue to the U.S. Treasury than it costs, due to increased wages and taxes and reduced unemployment benefits and farm program payments, while at the same time holding down the price of gasoline and helping the American farmer.
In 2010, the ethanol industry contributed $11 billion in tax revenues, including $7 billion to the Federal Treasury and an additional $4 billion to state and local governments.  The $11 billion in tax revenue far surpasses the cost of federal tax incentives for ethanol, estimated at $6 billion.  _Source: Contribution of the Ethanol Industry to the Economy of the United States_
The federal ethanol program was established following the OPEC oil embargoes of the 1970s, which exposed our dangerous dependence on imported oil. As an alternative to petroleum, ethanol directly displaces imported oil and reduces tailpipe emissions while helping to bolster the domestic economy. Yet today we import more petroleum than ever before. With rising crude oil prices and increasing international instability, incentives for production and use of domestic ethanol are critical.
We have subsidized the oil industry substantially since the early 1900s, and continue to do so. In fact, according to the General Accounting Office in an October 2000 report, the oil industry has received over $130 billion in tax incentives just in the past 30 years. During this time, U.S. oil production has fallen while annual U.S. ethanol production has grown dramatically.
*Search RFA*




*Go To:*


Co-Products
Biorefinery Locations
Industry Statistics


----------



## 300 H and H

*Reports and Studies*



<LI value=0>Air, Water & Public Health Impacts <LI value=0>Ethanol Energy Life Cycle & Greenhouse Gas Issues <LI value=0>Land Use Change <LI value=0>Renewable Fuels Standard 2 <LI value=0>Food vs. Fuel <LI value=0>Ethanol Market & Infrastructure Issues <LI value=0>Economic Impacts <LI value=0>Tax Policy <LI value=0>Mid-Level Blends 
Archives
*Air, Water & Public Health Impacts*

back to top

<LI value=0>*Water Usage for Current and Future Ethanol Production*
Andy Aden, NREL
September/October 2007
View PDF <LI value=0>*Response to Mark Jacobson E85 Study*
Renewable Energy Action Project (REAP)
April 26, 2007
View PDF <LI value=0>*Review of “Effects of Ethanol (E85) Versus Gasoline Vehicles on Cancer and Mortality in the United States” authored by Mark Z. Jacobson*
Gary Z. Whitten, Smog Reyes
April 18, 2007
View PDF <LI value=0>*Regulated and Unregulated Exhaust Emissions Comparison for Three Tier II Non-Road Diesel Engines Operating on Ethanol-Diesel Blends*
Southwest Research Institute for NREL
February 29, 2004
View PDF 
*Air Quality and Ethanol in Gasoline*
Gary Z. Whitten, Ph.D and Smog Reyes
February 4, 2004
View PDF
*Ethanol Energy Life Cycle & Greenhouse Gas Issues*

back to top

*Securing Foreign Oil: A Case for Including Military Operations in the Climate Change Impact of Fuels
*Adam J. Liska and Richard K. Perrin, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
July/August 2010
View PDF
*2008 Energy Balance for the Corn-Ethanol Industry*
U.S. Department of Agriculture
June 2010
View PDF<LI value=0>*2008 National Dry Mill Corn Ethanol Survey
*University of Illinois at Chicago - Energy Resources Center
May 4, 2010
View PDF <LI value=0>*Greenhouse Gas Mitigation by Agricultural Intensification
*Stanford University and Carnegie Institution of Washington
May 2010
View PDF<LI value=0>*GHG Emission Reductions From World Biofuel Production And Use*
(ST)2 Consultants
November 23, 2009
View PDF <LI value=0>*Anaylsis of the Proposed Rulemaking for the Expansion of the U.S. Renewable Fuels Standard*
Informa Economics
September 2009
View PDF <LI value=0>*Review of EPA’s RFS2 Lifecycle Emissions Analysis for Corn Ethanol*
Air Improvement Resource, Inc
September 22, 2009
View PDF <LI value=0>*What Do Biofuels Replace and Why Does it Matter?*
Renewable Fuels Association
July 8, 2009
View PDF <LI value=0>*Biofuels and Greenhouse Gas Emissions on a Collision Course*
Dr. Robert Wisner, Biofuels Economist, Iowa State University
June 2009
View Link <LI value=0>*An Examination of the Potential for Improving Carbon/Energy Balance of Bioethanol*
(ST)2 Consultants
February 15, 2009
View PDF <LI value=0>*Improvements in Life Cycle Energy Efficiency & Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Corn-Ethanol*
University of Nebraska - Lincoln
January 22, 2009
View PDF <LI value=0>*Environmental Resource Indicators for Measuring Outcomes of On-Farm Agricultural Production in the United States*
Field to Market: The Keystone Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture
January 2009
View PDF <LI value=0>*U.S. Ethanol Industry Efficiency Improvements, 2004 through 2007*
John O. Christianson, CPA
August 5, 2008
View PDF <LI value=0>*Analysis of the Efficiency of the U.S. Ethanol Industry 2007*
Argonne National Laboratory
April 21, 2008
View PDF <LI value=0>*Life-Cycle Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts of Different Corn Ethanol Plant Types*
Wang, Wu & Huo, Argonne National Laboratory
May 22, 2007
View PDF <LI value=0>*Ethanol: Energy Well Spent*
A Survey of Studies Published Since 1990
Natural Resources Defense Council & Climate Solutions
February 7, 2006
View PDF <LI value=0>*Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals*
U.S. Berkeley Faculty and Staff
January 26, 2006
View PDF <LI value=0>*Effects of Fuel Ethanol Use on Fuel-Cycle Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions*
Argonne National Laboratory
December 31, 2005
View PDF <LI value=0>*Ethanol: The Complete Energy Lifecycle Picture*
U.S. Dept. of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
December 1, 2005
View PDF <LI value=0>*Fuel-Cycle Fossil Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Fuel Ethanol Produced from U.S. Midwest Corn*
Argonne National Laboratory
November 30, 2005
View PDF 
*The 2001 Net Energy Balance of Corn-Ethanol*
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture and Argonne National Lab
May 31, 2004
View PDF
*Land Use Change*

back to top

<LI value=0>*Effect of Recent Expert Working Group Recommendations on California Low Carbon Fuels Standard (LCFS) Corn Ethanol Land Use Change Emissions Estimate*
Air Improvement Resource, Inc.
October 29, 2010
View PDF <LI value=0>*Biofuels Done Right: Land Efficient Animal Feeds Enable Large Environmental and Energy Benefits*
Bruce Dale et. al, Michigan State University
October 7, 2010
View PDF <LI value=0>*A Comparison of Corn Ethanol Lifecycle Analyses: California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Versus Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2)
*Air Improvement Resource, Inc.
June 15, 2010
View PDF <LI value=0>*Analysis of NWF Pairie Pothole Region Paper *
Renewable Fuels Association
January 19, 2010
View PDF <LI value=0>*A Scientific Assessment of the Role of Distiller’s Grains (DGS) and Predictions of the Impact of Corn Co-Products Produced by Front-End Fractionation and Back-End Oil Extraction Technologies on Indirect Land Use Change*
Dr. Jerry Shurson, Professor, Department of Animal Science, University of Minnesota
September 10, 2009
View PDF <LI value=0>*Accounting for Differences in the Timing of Emissions in Calculating Carbon Intensity for the California Low Carbon Fuels Standard*
NERA Economic Consulting
April 2009
View PDF <LI value=0>*Calculating Carbon Intensity: Implications of Projection Horizon and Future Land Use*
NERA Economic Consulting
April 30, 2009
View PDF <LI value=0>*Biofuels and indirect land use change effects: the debate continues*
Matthews, John and Hao Tan - Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
April 14, 2009
View PDF <LI value=0>*Analysis of "Biofuels: Environmental Consequences & Interactions with Changing Land Use"*
Renewable Fuels Association
April 2, 2009
View PDF <LI value=0>*Analysis of Current Feeding Practices of Distiller's Grains with Solubles in Livestock and Poultry Feed Relative to Land Use Credits Associated with Determining the Low Carbon Fuels Standard for Ethanol*
Dr. Jerry Shurson, University of Minnesota
March 25, 2009
View PDF <LI value=0>*Indirect Land Use Emissions in the Lifecyle of Biofuels: Regulations vs. Science*
Adam J Liska and Richard K Perrin, University of Nebraska, Lincoln
March 19, 2009
View PDF <LI value=0>*Land Use Effects of U.S. Corn-Based Ethanol*
Tom Darlington, AIR, Inc
February 24, 2009
View PDF <LI value=0>*An Examination of the Potential for Improving Carbon/Energy Balance of Bioethanol*
(ST)2 Consultants
February 15, 2009
View PDF <LI value=0>*Biofuels, Land Use Change, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Some Unexplored Variables*
Hyungtae Kim, Seungdo Kim, and Bruce Dale, Michigan State University
January 28, 2009
View PDF <LI value=0>*Understanding Land Use Change and U.S. Ethanol Expansion*
Renewable Fuels Association
November 2008
View PDF 
*Letter to Scienceexpress in Response to Searchinger Article*
Argonne National Laboratory and U.S. DOE
February 7, 2008
View Link
*Renewable Fuels Standard 2*

back to top

<LI value=0>*Flexible-Fuel Vehicle and Refueling Infrastructure Requirements Associated with RFS2 Implementation*
Air Improvement Resource, Inc.
March 2011
View PDF <LI value=0>*USDA Regional Roadmap to Meeting Biofuels Goals of RFS2 by 2022
*United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
June 23, 2010
View PDF <LI value=0>*Benefits of an Enhanced RFS2 in the Midwestern States
*Air Improvement Resource, Inc.
June 18, 2010
View PDF 
*RFS2 Final Rule Lifecycle GHG Analysis "By the Numbers" 
*Renewable Fuels AssociationFebruary 3, 2010
View Link
*Food vs. Fuel*

back to top

<LI value=0>*Speculation and the Commodity Markets*
Cardno ENTRIX
October 2011
View the PDF <LI value=0>*Analysis of Corn, Commodity, and Consumer Food Prices*
Informa Economics
July 7, 2011
View Full Report PDF
View Executive Summary PDF <LI value=0>*Why Have Food Commodity Prices Risen Again?*
U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service
June 2011
View PDF <LI value=0>*Market Issues and Prospects for U.S. Distillers' Grains*
U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service
December 2010
View PDF <LI value=0>*Ethanol and the 2010 Corn Crop
*Renewable Fuels Association
October 14, 2010
View PDF
*Why Aren't Food Companies Reducing Prices?
*Renewable Fuels Association
November 20, 2008
View PDF <LI value=0>*Will the Plunge in Grain Prices Mean Lower Food Prices at the Supermarket?
*Renewable Fuels Association
October 15, 2008
View PDF <LI value=0>*Feeding the Future: The Role of the U.S. Ethanol Industry in Food and Feed Production
*Renewable Fuels AssociationSeptember 2008
View PDF <LI value=0>*What's Driving Food Prices?*
Tyner et al., Farm Foundation
July 2008
View PDF <LI value=0>*USDA/DOE Response to Sen. Bingaman Inquiry*
USDA/DOE Economists
June 1, 2008
View PDF <LI value=0>*Rising Food Prices and Global Food Needs: The U.S. Response*
Charles Hanrahan, Congressional Research Service
May 8, 2008
View PDF <LI value=0>*The Effects of Ethanol on Texas Food & Feed*
Anderson et al., Texas A&M
April 10, 2008
View PDF <LI value=0>*Ethanol and Food Prices - Preliminary Assessment*
Richard Perrin, University of Nebraska
April 2008
View PDF <LI value=0>*What is Driving Food Price Inflation?*
Jason Henderson, K.C. Federal Reserve Bank
April 2008
View PDF <LI value=0>*Corn Prices Near Record High, But What About Food Costs?*
Ephraim Leibtag, USDA Economic Research Service
February 2008
View Link <LI value=0>*Analysis of Potential Causes of Consumer Food Price Inflation*
Informa Economics
November 2007
View PDF <LI value=0>*Ethanol, Barley and Beer
*John Urbanchuk, LECG LLC
July 2007
View PDF <LI value=0>*The Relativ**e Impact of Corn and Energy Prices in the Grocery Aisle
*John Urbanchuk, LECG LLC
June 14, 2007
View PDF 
*Have Higher Corn Prices Really Driven Consumer Food Prices Higher in the Last Six Months?
*National Corn Growers Association
April 26, 2007
View PDF
*Ethanol Market & Infrastructure Issues*

back to top

<LI value=0>*The Potential Role for Corn Ethanol in Meeting the Energy Needs of the U.S. in 2016-2030
*Ross Korves, ProExporter Network
October 2008
View PDF <LI value=0>*Ethanol Market Outlook for California
*California Energy Commission
November 2005
View PDF <LI value=0>*2002 Ethanol Cost-of-Production Survey
*U.S. Department of Agriculture
July 2005
View PDF <LI value=0>*Bringing Biofuels to the Pump: An Agressive Plan for Ending America's Oil Dependence
*Natural Resources Defense Council
July 2005
View PDF <LI value=0>*Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply
*Oak Ridge National Laboratory
April 2005
View PDF 
*Ethanol from Biomass: America's 21st Century Transportation Fuel
*Governors' Ethanol Coalition
April 2005
View PDF
*Economic Impacts*

back to top

<LI value=0>*The Impact of Ethanol Production on U.S. and Regional Gasoline Markets: An Update to May 2009*
Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University
April 2011
View PDF <LI value=0>*Contribution of the Ethanol Industry to the Economy of the United States in 2010*
John Urbanchuk, Cardno ENTRIX
February 21, 2011
View PDF <LI value=0>*Contribution of the Ethanol Industry to the Economy of the United States in 2009*
John Urbanchuk, LECG LLC
February 12, 2010
View PDF <LI value=0>*Contribution of the Ethanol Industry to the Economy of the United States in 2008
*John Urbanchuk, LECG LLCFebruary 23, 2009
View PDF <LI value=0>*The Impact of Ethanol Blending on U.S. Gasoline Prices*
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
November, 2008
View PDF <LI value=0>*Big Oil, Bigger Giveaways*
Friends of the Earth
July 2008
View PDF <LI value=0>*Biofuels Driving Global Oil Supply Growth*
Francisco Blanch, Merrill Lynch
June 6, 2008
View PDF <LI value=0>*The Impact of Ethanol Production on U.S. and Regional Gasoline Prices and on the Profitability of the U.S. Oil Refinery Industry*
Xiaodong Du and Dermot Hayes, Iowa State University
April 2008
View PDF <LI value=0>*Contribution of the Ethanol Industry to the Economy of the United States in 2007
*John Urbanchuk, LECG, LLC
February 20, 2008
View PDF <LI value=0>*The Hidden Cost of Oil*
Set America Free
January 2007
View PDF <LI value=0>*Contribution of the Ethanol Industry to the Economy of the United States in 2006
*LECG, LLC
February 19, 2007View PDF <LI value=0>*Contribution of the Ethanol Industry to the Economy of the United States in 2005
*Includes Local Economic Impact of a 50 and 100 Million Gallon Ethanol Refinery
John Urbanchuk, LECG LLC
February 21, 2006View PDF <LI value=0>*The Economic Impact of Ethanol Plants in South Dakota
*Stuefen Research, LLC
December 27, 2005
View PDF 
*America's Achilles Heel: The Hidden Costs of Imported Oil*
Milton Copulos, National Defense Council Foundation
October 2003
View PDF
*Tax Policy*

back to top

<LI value=0>*Importance of the VEETC to the U.S. Economy and the Ethanol Industry
*John Urbanchuk, ENTRIX, Inc.
March 18, 2010*
View PDF*  <LI value=0>*Economic Contribution of the Partial Exemption for Ethanol from the Federal Excise Tax on Motor Fuel*
John Urbanchuk, LECG, LLC
November 18, 2008*
View PDF*  <LI value=0>*Petroleum and Ethanol Fuels: Tax Incentives and Related GAO Work*
U.S. Government Accounting Office
September 25, 2000*
View PDF* 
*Oil Slickers: How Petroleum Benefits at the Taxpayer's Expense*
Institute for Local Self-Reliance
July 31, 1996
*View Link*
*Mid-Level Blends*

back to top

<LI value=0>*New Engineering Analysis Confirms E15 Safe for Use in Older Vehicles*
Ricardo, Inc.
September 15, 2010
*View PDF* <LI value=0>*E12:  A Pathway* *to Increased Ethanol Use Today*
Renewable Fuels Association
November 6, 2009*
View PDF* 
*E20:  The Feasibility of 20 Percent Ethanol Blends by Volume as a Motor Fuel - Executive Summary
*State of Minnesota and Renewable Fuels Association
March 5, 2008*
View PDF*
*Search RFA*




*Go To:*


Industry Statistics
Policy Positions
Press Releases


----------



## FrancSevin

300 H and H said:


> *Ethanol and Engines*
> 
> Today, ethanol makes up for 10% of our gasoline supply and can be found at nearly every station across the nation. This domestic, home-grown fuel is being utilized in all engine types, including automobiles, non-road engines and marine engines. Due to the increase in ethanol-blended fuels, small engine manufacturers have made modifications to the engine fuel systems to be compatible with ethanol blended fuels. This can be seen through the collection of varying recommendations from equipment owner’s manuals from over the years. These changing recommendations have led to some confusion about the selection of fuels to use in various non-automotive applications. To help clarify any questions, the RFA has put together _The Use of Ethanol-Blended Fuels in Non-Road Engines_.
> 
> 
> *Entering a New Era: E15*
> 
> In October 2010 and January 2011, EPA announced the limited approval of E15 for strict use in gasoline powered vehicles only. The approval came after years of research on the safe and effective use of this fuel in varying model year automobiles. This approval is strictly limited to use in automobiles manufactured in model year 2001 and newer, and was NOT approved for any other engine use. EPA’s E15 approval is not a mandate for use; it provides an opportunity for retailers to offer their automobile consumers an additional fuel choice. Until fuel blends containing more than 10% ethanol have been tested and approved for use in marine engines, watercraft and non-road engines, equipment owners should _not_ use these fuel blends. The EPA E15 partial approval can be found here.
> *Flex-Fuel Vehicles (FFVs)
> *
> 
> The first flex-fuel vehicle (FFV) was designed by the automotive godfather himself, Henry Ford when he released the 1908 Model T. Although this automobile is a far cry from the sophisticated vehicles we drive today, it was designed to operate on pure ethanol.
> Across the country, vehicle manufacturers offer FFVs. These vehicles are specifically designed to be able to run on any ethanol-blended fuel ranging from unleaded gasoline (0% ethanol) to E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline). FFVs also have the ability to run on mid-level blends, fuel that is blended with ethanol less than 85%, such as E20, E30 and E40. If you drive an FFV, you can pretty much fill your tank anywhere, no matter what the ethanol blend is! To date, there are more than eight million FFVs operating on America’s roadways. To help increase these numbers, some of the major automobile manufacturers in the U.S., including Ford, Chrysler and General Motors, have all pledged to make 50% of all new vehicles coming off their assembly line model year 2012 and beyond FFVs. There are currently more than 2,400 E85 stations throughout the U.S., providing America’s consumers with more fuel options and opportunity to support domestically grown transportation fuels.
> 
> Blender pumps are also on the rise offering customers a variety of mid-level blended ethanol fuel options like E20, E30 and E40. Secretary Vilsack recently announced that the U.S. Department of Agriculture plans to help fund the installation of 10,000 blender pumps throughout the country. In addition, the Blend Your Own (BYO) Ethanol Campaign, a partnership between the RFA, American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE), National Corn Growers Association and numerous other state corn grower associations, aims to install 5,000 blender pumps across our nation over a three year period.
> There are a number of ways to determine if your vehicle is an FFV. The inside of the fuel door will typically have a sticker noting E85 compatibility. Some vehicles also have a yellow gas cap signifying the option to fuel up with E85. Flex-fuel compatibility is also marked in the owner’s manual as well as encoded in the vehicle’s identification number (VIN). You should also check your owner’s manual to determine if your vehicle is flex-fuel capable. Check and see if your car is an FFV on our chart here.
> For more information on FFVs, E85 and where to find an E85 station near you, click here.
> *Ethanol and Water Do Mix*
> 
> Today, virtually all of America’s fuel is blended with 10% ethanol. Some marinas offer unblended fuel for marine use. As ethanol has entered new markets, some marine equipment owners have raised questions about ethanol use in their equipment. The RFA recognizes the concerns voiced by the marine and boating community and has published information to ensure the necessary information is reaching watercraft and boat owners including and Update for Boat Owners: Ethanol Blended Fuels for Use in Marine Equipment, E10 and Winterization and Frequently Asked Questions.
> Avid water sports enthusiasts need not fear ethanol blends. As is always the case with a fuel change, there are some basic maintenance strategies that can be employed to mitigate any possible fuel-related issues. Typically, the maintenance issues encountered by the marine engine community arise from residual fuel deposits being cleaned up by the ethanol portion or, as is the most prevalent case, improper fuel storage and handling conditions that have allowed the uptake of water during storage. Information is available here to answer some Frequently Asked Questions.
> 
> Proper maintenance, vigilance over the performance of the engine, planning, and communication with marina operators can help to mitigate any impacts boaters may encounter with the switch to ethanol blended fuel. (See Winterization document)
> 
> It is true that in rare instances, some vintage boats have experienced problems with ethanol-blended fuels resulting in catastrophic damage. These instances have almost exclusively involved older watercraft that utilize fiberglass fuel tanks in boat models older than 1981. Gasoline blended with ethanol should be avoided if your boat features these criteria. One way to avoid this issue is to know your equipment, read your operators manual, and talk with your marina about the fuels they offer. There is a wealth of information available to you as a boat owner on the internet.
> Ethanol and water sports can mix, as boaters and fishermen in Minnesota, “the Land of 10,000 Lakes” have proven for more than two decades. Communication, knowledge, and a dose of common sense will lead to a resolution to this debate on which all parties can agree. For more information on ethanol and marine engines, check our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs).
> *RFA's Update for Boat Owners: Ethanol Blended Fuels for Use in Marine Equipment is available* *here*.
> 
> For more information on ethanol and marine equipment, click *here.*
> *Non-Road Engines*
> 
> It should be noted that all gasoline is designed for its primary intended use, the automobile. In fact, the standard industry specification for gasoline is titled _Standard Specification for Automotive Spark Ignition Engine Fuel. _Little consideration is given to the needs of the small engine manufacturer and they find themselves designing around whatever fuels are made for automotive use. Recently, fuel blenders have extended the availability of fuels containing up to 10 volume percent ethanol (E10) to nearly every area of the U.S. Many areas across the country successfully utilize only ethanol blended fuels year round and across all octane grades, proving that ethanol blended fuels can be used successfully in all applications. E10 is interchangeable with gasoline and virtually every gallon of gasoline sold in the U.S. today contains a percentage of ethanol up to 10%. As ethanol has entered these new markets, some equipment owners and operators have raised questions about ethanol’s use in their particular equipment. The RFA Use of Ethanol Blended Fuels in Non-Road Engines bulletin is meant to provide information about successful operation of non-automotive equipment on E10.
> *Search RFA*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Go To:*
> 
> 
> E-85
> Fuel Cells


 
We get it.  You love this stuff cause it makes you money
HtThe Renewable fuels council loves this stuff because it makesthem mnoney
The Refineries love it because it keeps the price of their gas up and they can blame corn farmers and the government mandates
The stuff is sold everywhere because it must be there "by law"  not market laws but federal laws


Everyone on your end of the equation is happy as hell about it.  Wonderful.


We consumers hate it because we have no choice but to pay for it's production so we can then pay for it's consumption. And frankly we don't like to put it inour cars.

But under the law, for no reason than politics....we have to.


This is nothing,,,,
Wait till Obama care gets up and running.  Exact same thing. On which end of that equation do you find yourself?


----------



## 300 H and H

*Ethanol Facts: Environment*

Ethanol is one of the best tools we have to fight air pollution from vehicles. And there is no fuel available at scale today that matches ethanol's ability to improve overall environmental quality compared to gasoline. From its biodegradable nature to reductions in greenhouse gas and tailpipe emissions, ethanol provides a tool to address environmental concerns without requiring an entirely new way for goods and people to get from one place to another.
Ethanol contains 35% oxygen. Adding oxygen to fuel results in more complete fuel combustion, reducing harmful tailpipe emissions. Ethanol also displaces the use of toxic gasoline components such as benzene, a carcinogen. Ethanol is non-toxic, water soluble and quickly biodegradable.  Ethanol is a renewable fuel produced from plants, unlike petroleum-based fossil fuels that have a limited supply and are the major contributor of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, a greenhouse gas (GHG).
*FACT: Using ethanol in place of gasoline helps to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by up to 29% given today's technology.*
Because ethanol is made from renewable, plant-based feedstocks, the CO2 released during a vehicle's fuel combustion is "recycled" during the growth of ethanol feedstocks. Independent analyses comparing ethanol and gasoline show ethanol reduces GHG emissions from 30-50%. A study published by Yale University's Journal of Industrial Ecology found that GHG emissions from ethanol produced at modern dry-mill facilities are "... equivalent to a 48 percent to 59 percent reduction compared to gasoline, a twofold to threefold greater reduction than reported in previous studies."  New technologies, additional feedstocks, and higher blends of ethanol including E85 all promise greater C02 reductions.
*FACT: In 2010, the production and use of 13 billion gallons of ethanol in the U.S. reduced CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions by 21.9 million tons, the equivalent to removing 3.5 million cars and pickups from America's roadways. *(Source: Argonne National Laboratory's GREET Model).




*FACT: New technologies are increasing ethanol yields, improving efficiencies and allowing ethanol biorefineries to make better use of natural resources.* According to May 2010 research on ethanol production resource requirements in 2008 from the University of Illinois at Chicago, energy requirements for ethanol production have decreased 28% since 2001, electricity demands by 32%, and water use is down to 2.72 gallons per gallon of ethanol produced. All of these improvements were achieved while ethanol yields increased by 5.3%. 
*FACT: Ethanol requires less fossil fuel inputs than gasoline refining.* According to the University of California at Berkeley, the production of 19 units of ethanol energy takes just one unit of petroleum energy. An analysis released in June 2010 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture concluded that one unit of fossil energy used in producing grain-based ethanol results in 2.3 units of energy in the form of ethanol. Researchers at the Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory found that it takes 1.23 units of fossil energy to produce one unit of energy in the form of gasoline.
*FACT: The American Lung Association in Illinois supports the use of E85, a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline for flex-fuel vehicles specifically designed to operate on this fuel.*  "E85 vehicles are required to meet the same tailpipe emission standards as other light duty vehicles, however, when using E85, these flex-fuel vehicles may have lower emissions of some pollutants than conventional gasoline-fueled vehicles.”
*FACT: Ethanol reduces tailpipe carbon monoxide emissions by as much as 30%, toxics content by 13% (mass) and 21% (potency), and tailpipe fine particulate matter (PM) emissions by 50%.  *Ethanol also reduces secondary PM formation by diluting aromatic content in gasoline. Over half of the air pollution attributable to vehicles comes from "high emitting" vehicles that make up only 10% of the vehicle fleet. High emitters include older vehicles as well as well as newer cars with malfunctioning pollution control systems. The use of ethanol-blended fuel is also one of the best pollution control strategies for off-road vehicles, including motorcycles, ATVs and snowmobiles, which represent a significant source of emissions. Source: Smog Reyes, February 2004.
*FACT: Ethanol is the oxygenate of choice in the federal winter oxygenated fuels program in cities that exceed public health standards for carbon monoxide pollution. *
*FACT: Ethanol is rapidly biodegraded in surface water, groundwater and soil, and is the safest component in gasoline today.*
A study conducted for the Governors' Ethanol Coalition, "The Fate and Transport of Ethanol-Blended Gasoline in the Environment," concluded that ethanol poses no threat to surface water and ground water. According to the report, ethanol is a naturally occurring substance produced during the fermentation of organic matter and is expected to rapidly biodegrade in essentially all environments. When gasoline contaminates soil or water, ethanol is the first component to quickly, safely, and naturally biodegrade. A study commissioned by the MTBE industry suggested that in the event of a gasoline spill or leak, since ethanol breaks down first, benzene would persist in the environment longer. But this ignores the fact that ethanol-blended fuels contain less benzene, and the real threat posed to the environment is from the presence of benzene in gasoline, not ethanol.
*FACT: Ethanol reduces smog pollution.*
Blending ethanol in gasoline dramatically reduces carbon monoxide tailpipe emissions. According to the National Research Council, carbon monoxide emissions are responsible for as much as 20% of smog formation. Additionally, ethanol-blended fuels reduce tailpipe emissions of volatile organic compounds, which readily form ozone in the atmosphere. These reductions more than offset any slight increases of evaporative emissions due to the higher volatility of ethanol-blended fuel. Thus, the use of ethanol plays an important role in smog reduction.
Importantly, in reformulated gasoline areas where smog is of most concern, gasoline blended with ethanol must meet the same evaporative emission standard as gasoline without ethanol. These ethanol blends have the added benefit of providing reduced tailpipe carbon monoxide emissions and, therefore, further emissions reductions of smog.
*FACT: Ethanol has a positive energy balance.*
Whether produced from corn or other biomass feedstocks, ethanol generates more energy than used during production. Plants used in ethanol production harness the power of the sun to grow. By releasing the energy stored in corn and other feedstocks, ethanol production utilizes solar energy, replacing fossil energy use. A life cycle analysis of ethanol production - from the field to the vehicle - found that ethanol has a large and growing positive fossil energy balance. According to a 2008 U.S. Department of Agriculture Study, each gallon of corn ethanol today delivers as much as *2.3 times *more energy than was used to produce it.  Significant energy efficiency improvements have been made in ethanol production due to higher yielding corn varieties, technological advances in ethanol production such as the use of molecular sieves and natural gas, and improved farming practices (precision and no-till farming.)
According to a University of California-Berkeley study, "Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals," the production of ethanol reduces petroleum use 95% as compared to gasoline refining.
Unlike ethanol, other fuels, including MTBE and gasoline, take more fossil energy to produce than they yield. Importantly, producing ethanol from domestic grains achieves a net gain in a more desirable form of energy. It utilizes abundant domestic energy sources, such as natural gas and coal, to convert grain into a premium liquid fuel. Only about 17% of the energy used to produce ethanol comes from liquid fuels, such as gasoline and diesel fuel.
*FACT: Water usage in ethanol production is declining.*
Water is required to produce most of the energy we consume. For example, a gallon of gasoline requires anywhere from 2.5-8 gallons of water to produce. The use of all natural resources, including water, in ethanol production is an issue the U.S. ethanol industry takes very seriously. That is why ethanol producers are researching ways to reduce water use. Those efforts are paying off. According to survey data compiled by the U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory, water consumption at America's ethanol biorefineries decreased 26.6% from 2001 to 2006. A new study from the University of Illinois-Chicago finds that, on average, a dry-mill corn ethanol plant in 2008 uses 2.72 gallons of water per anhydrous gallon of ethanol produced and discharges 0.46 gallons of water per anhydrous gallon of ethanol. We invite you to view "Water Facts" published by the U.S. Geological Survey for interesting water statistics.
*Search RFA*




*Go To:*


Co-Products
Biorefinery Locations
Industry Statistics


 

 

 

© 2005-2011 Renewable Fuels Association. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Site Map | Contact Us 
425 Third Street, SW - Suite 1150 - Washington, DC 20024 - (202) 289-3835


----------



## 300 H and H

Ok then franc you get it now....

And yes farmers are making money from it just as I am myself. This was decided long ago, and shouldn't be an issue as we have more important issues to worry about. Agreed?

Kirk


----------



## 300 H and H

Oh by the way I have LOTS more from the same site. If anyone wants I'll try and get it all for you, with out repeating, if I can.....SO much if you care to look....

Kirk


----------



## 300 H and H

Look guys I don't begrudge anyone here for their own feelings about this. For the most part there are many good people here that I can say I enjoy spending some free moments with. I really like that very much. Just know there is another side to this argument, and it wasn't being presented here. I hope it is to some fashion now. Hope you all had a good Thanksgiving too. Mine, well....

Have to go now to the funeral home for visitation. 

Hope you will forgive me if I have upset you personally. Hint hint....I like your posts alot, sorry to tangle with you this morning. Nothing personal, really. Just a hot button issue with me when I see it undefended.

Best regards, Kirk


----------



## mak2

Thansk for the education Kirk.  Good job, you probably give a great lecture.





300 H and H said:


> Look guys I don't begrudge anyone here for their own feelings about this. For the most part there are many good people here that I can say I enjoy spending some free moments with. I really like that very much. Just know there is another side to this argument, and it wasn't being presented here. I hope it is to some fashion now. Hope you all had a good Thanksgiving too. Mine, well....
> 
> Have to go now to the funeral home for visitation.
> 
> Hope you will forgive me if I have upset you personally. Hint hint....I like your posts alot, sorry to tangle with you this morning. Nothing personal, really. Just a hot button issue with me when I see it undefended.
> 
> Best regards, Kirk


----------



## loboloco

Sorry Kirk, but ethanol is only a way for unscrupulous people to steal from the American public by forcing them to buy a product they don't really want after they pay for its production with tax grants.  Theft is still theft, I don't care how you dress it up.


----------



## Kane

loboloco said:


> Sorry Kirk, but ethanol is only a way for unscrupulous people to steal from the American public by forcing them to buy a product they don't really want after they pay for its production with tax grants.  Theft is still theft, I don't care how you dress it up.


  Now I wouldn't go as far to call the farmers unscrupulous, but what if the farmers were made to pay a subsidy for someone to produce chocolate milk, and then the farmers were made to pay to put it in their fertilizer.

I do think they might howl.  Most farmers don't like chocolate milk.
.


----------



## Bamby

Boy this has been a long winded worthless debate simply because no matter how you wrap it "Ethanol will still suck" always has, always will. You know the best way to make some serious money from all your corn, well how about the old fashioned way "Still it Yourself" and decide how you'd like to consume it . Personally I like it eternally, it makes for a nice warm glow, and as a while ago it was bring 30 dollars a quart.

Just to get you started, you can purchase a small starter setup here, and free shipping for Christmas to boot....http://www.bootleggerstills.com/


----------



## SShepherd

Bamby said:


> Boy this has been a long winded worthless debate simply because no matter how you wrap it "Ethanol will still suck" always has, always will. You know the best way to make some serious money from all your corn, well how about the old fashioned way "Still it Yourself" and decide how you'd like to consume it . Personally I like it eternally, it makes for a nice warm glow, and as a while ago it was bring 30 dollars a quart.
> 
> Just to get you started, you can purchase a small starter setup here, and free shipping for Christmas to boot....http://www.bootleggerstills.com/


 
you hit the nail on the head


----------



## Dargo

300 H and H said:


> *Ethanol Facts: Environment*
> 
> Ethanol is one of the best tools we have to fight air pollution from vehicles. And there is no fuel available at scale today that matches ethanol's ability to improve overall environmental quality compared to gasoline. From its biodegradable nature to reductions in greenhouse gas and tailpipe emissions, ethanol provides a tool to address environmental concerns without requiring an entirely new way for goods and people to get from one place to another.
> Ethanol contains 35% oxygen. Adding oxygen to fuel results in more complete fuel combustion, reducing harmful tailpipe emissions. Ethanol also displaces the use of toxic gasoline components such as benzene, a carcinogen. Ethanol is non-toxic, water soluble and quickly biodegradable.  Ethanol is a renewable fuel produced from plants, unlike petroleum-based fossil fuels that have a limited supply and are the major contributor of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, a greenhouse gas (GHG).
> *FACT: Using ethanol in place of gasoline helps to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by up to 29% given today's technology.*
> Because ethanol is made from renewable, plant-based feedstocks, the CO2 released during a vehicle's fuel combustion is "recycled" during the growth of ethanol feedstocks. Independent analyses comparing ethanol and gasoline show ethanol reduces GHG emissions from 30-50%. A study published by Yale University's Journal of Industrial Ecology found that GHG emissions from ethanol produced at modern dry-mill facilities are "... equivalent to a 48 percent to 59 percent reduction compared to gasoline, a twofold to threefold greater reduction than reported in previous studies."  New technologies, additional feedstocks, and higher blends of ethanol including E85 all promise greater C02 reductions.
> *FACT: In 2010, the production and use of 13 billion gallons of ethanol in the U.S. reduced CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions by 21.9 million tons, the equivalent to removing 3.5 million cars and pickups from America's roadways. *(Source: Argonne National Laboratory's GREET Model).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *FACT: New technologies are increasing ethanol yields, improving efficiencies and allowing ethanol biorefineries to make better use of natural resources.* According to May 2010 research on ethanol production resource requirements in 2008 from the University of Illinois at Chicago, energy requirements for ethanol production have decreased 28% since 2001, electricity demands by 32%, and water use is down to 2.72 gallons per gallon of ethanol produced. All of these improvements were achieved while ethanol yields increased by 5.3%.
> *FACT: Ethanol requires less fossil fuel inputs than gasoline refining.* According to the University of California at Berkeley, the production of 19 units of ethanol energy takes just one unit of petroleum energy. An analysis released in June 2010 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture concluded that one unit of fossil energy used in producing grain-based ethanol results in 2.3 units of energy in the form of ethanol. Researchers at the Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory found that it takes 1.23 units of fossil energy to produce one unit of energy in the form of gasoline.
> *FACT: The American Lung Association in Illinois supports the use of E85, a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline for flex-fuel vehicles specifically designed to operate on this fuel.*  "E85 vehicles are required to meet the same tailpipe emission standards as other light duty vehicles, however, when using E85, these flex-fuel vehicles may have lower emissions of some pollutants than conventional gasoline-fueled vehicles.”
> *FACT: Ethanol reduces tailpipe carbon monoxide emissions by as much as 30%, toxics content by 13% (mass) and 21% (potency), and tailpipe fine particulate matter (PM) emissions by 50%.  *Ethanol also reduces secondary PM formation by diluting aromatic content in gasoline. Over half of the air pollution attributable to vehicles comes from "high emitting" vehicles that make up only 10% of the vehicle fleet. High emitters include older vehicles as well as well as newer cars with malfunctioning pollution control systems. The use of ethanol-blended fuel is also one of the best pollution control strategies for off-road vehicles, including motorcycles, ATVs and snowmobiles, which represent a significant source of emissions. Source: Smog Reyes, February 2004.
> *FACT: Ethanol is the oxygenate of choice in the federal winter oxygenated fuels program in cities that exceed public health standards for carbon monoxide pollution. *
> *FACT: Ethanol is rapidly biodegraded in surface water, groundwater and soil, and is the safest component in gasoline today.*
> A study conducted for the Governors' Ethanol Coalition, "The Fate and Transport of Ethanol-Blended Gasoline in the Environment," concluded that ethanol poses no threat to surface water and ground water. According to the report, ethanol is a naturally occurring substance produced during the fermentation of organic matter and is expected to rapidly biodegrade in essentially all environments. When gasoline contaminates soil or water, ethanol is the first component to quickly, safely, and naturally biodegrade. A study commissioned by the MTBE industry suggested that in the event of a gasoline spill or leak, since ethanol breaks down first, benzene would persist in the environment longer. But this ignores the fact that ethanol-blended fuels contain less benzene, and the real threat posed to the environment is from the presence of benzene in gasoline, not ethanol.
> *FACT: Ethanol reduces smog pollution.*
> Blending ethanol in gasoline dramatically reduces carbon monoxide tailpipe emissions. According to the National Research Council, carbon monoxide emissions are responsible for as much as 20% of smog formation. Additionally, ethanol-blended fuels reduce tailpipe emissions of volatile organic compounds, which readily form ozone in the atmosphere. These reductions more than offset any slight increases of evaporative emissions due to the higher volatility of ethanol-blended fuel. Thus, the use of ethanol plays an important role in smog reduction.
> Importantly, in reformulated gasoline areas where smog is of most concern, gasoline blended with ethanol must meet the same evaporative emission standard as gasoline without ethanol. These ethanol blends have the added benefit of providing reduced tailpipe carbon monoxide emissions and, therefore, further emissions reductions of smog.
> *FACT: Ethanol has a positive energy balance.*
> Whether produced from corn or other biomass feedstocks, ethanol generates more energy than used during production. Plants used in ethanol production harness the power of the sun to grow. By releasing the energy stored in corn and other feedstocks, ethanol production utilizes solar energy, replacing fossil energy use. A life cycle analysis of ethanol production - from the field to the vehicle - found that ethanol has a large and growing positive fossil energy balance. According to a 2008 U.S. Department of Agriculture Study, each gallon of corn ethanol today delivers as much as *2.3 times *more energy than was used to produce it.  Significant energy efficiency improvements have been made in ethanol production due to higher yielding corn varieties, technological advances in ethanol production such as the use of molecular sieves and natural gas, and improved farming practices (precision and no-till farming.)
> According to a University of California-Berkeley study, "Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals," the production of ethanol reduces petroleum use 95% as compared to gasoline refining.
> Unlike ethanol, other fuels, including MTBE and gasoline, take more fossil energy to produce than they yield. Importantly, producing ethanol from domestic grains achieves a net gain in a more desirable form of energy. It utilizes abundant domestic energy sources, such as natural gas and coal, to convert grain into a premium liquid fuel. Only about 17% of the energy used to produce ethanol comes from liquid fuels, such as gasoline and diesel fuel.
> *FACT: Water usage in ethanol production is declining.*
> Water is required to produce most of the energy we consume. For example, a gallon of gasoline requires anywhere from 2.5-8 gallons of water to produce. The use of all natural resources, including water, in ethanol production is an issue the U.S. ethanol industry takes very seriously. That is why ethanol producers are researching ways to reduce water use. Those efforts are paying off. According to survey data compiled by the U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory, water consumption at America's ethanol biorefineries decreased 26.6% from 2001 to 2006. A new study from the University of Illinois-Chicago finds that, on average, a dry-mill corn ethanol plant in 2008 uses 2.72 gallons of water per anhydrous gallon of ethanol produced and discharges 0.46 gallons of water per anhydrous gallon of ethanol. We invite you to view "Water Facts" published by the U.S. Geological Survey for interesting water statistics.
> *Search RFA*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Go To:*
> 
> 
> Co-Products
> Biorefinery Locations
> Industry Statistics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> © 2005-2011 Renewable Fuels Association. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Site Map | Contact Us
> 425 Third Street, SW - Suite 1150 - Washington, DC 20024 - (202) 289-3835



Sorry, but I'll have to call a very hard "bullshit" on most of those 'facts'.  The true litmus test would be to stop stealing money from the taxpayers for this terribly losing proposition. NO subsidies from the government, period. If all those 'facts' are not pure bullshit, people would ask for more and keep buying it. If it is 100% pure BULLSHIT with none of the 'facts' are true, people will quit buying it and we will go back to real gasoline and stop destroying engines in the name of higher taxes. That is the ONLY bullshit test. Otherwise, I call all the propaganda pure bullshit at the expense of taxpayers.


----------



## 300 H and H

Well I don't know,

But I think that what I have presented refutes much but not all that was said here. It is a very complicated issue at it's core. Hard to find the truth about much these days And, as I have said before, I don't hold anyones opinion about this particular issue, against them.....

That said, I just wanted you folks to have a taste of what the other side thinks and holds as "true" 

I think there is plenty of ammo for each side, if you look for it. Just need to look at both sides then decide for yourself. 

Yes this has been a long winded debate, and perhpas worthless as well. But I think not. Hopefully some thing has been learned, no matter witch side your on...

Best regards, Kirk


----------



## Av8r3400

It doesn't refute the funeral I went to because the undocumented ethanol in the fuel caused the seizure of the engine on my friend's airplane, 


*KILLING HIM*.



Ethanol is a net energy loss that uses more fuel to produce than it contains and destroys some engines.

Period.  End of story.


----------



## FrancSevin

300 H and H said:


> Ok then franc you get it now....
> 
> And yes farmers are making money from it just as I am myself. This was decided long ago, and shouldn't be an issue as we have more important issues to worry about. Agreed?
> 
> Kirk


 
Nope. The government is forcing us to buy a product that at one time they believed, or had at least convinced Americans, was a good idea. It has proven to be a bad idea.

Yet we are still forced to participate. In a free market we could chose.

Other than put my money in someones's pocket, by federal mandate, exactly what did ETOH do to relieve our energy importation problem? And in the end, we still have a hungry world watching us burn food in our cars.  even if ETOH stood on it's own, I would have trouble with that.

Not one word about that in your links and responses.


----------



## 300 H and H

And would you care to explain how? I know you told me once before. But exactly how, you have not. Sure it was E10 that did it? and how?

You should read all my posts in this thread, especiall those of today. It is the other side so many choose to ignor. Maybe the hate would leave your heart. I am sorry for the lost of your friend. Some times it is just their time. You don't get to chose the day, nor the method. I lost an identical twin brother in a car accident. I have not however chosen to devote my life to eliminate the automobile...... A drunk driver ended up being involved, but found out to late to matter....

Sorry for your loss,  
Regards, Kirk


----------



## 300 H and H

franc,

The dream of the American farmer feeding the world is dead on arrival. They cann't afford it, and we aren't going to just give it to them any more. Population control is their problem, and feeding them just makes it worse.

Ethanol has only proven to be a bad idea in SOME peoples minds. I guess a majority in congress wasn't one of them. They looked at all the best evidence and weighed the options, and in the end they thought enough of it to actually mandate it's use. Ya I know the same bunch of bumbs have wrecked our economy as well....

So believe what you want. I won't hold it against you, any more than any one here.

But you should consider that steel fuel line for the 8N. No matter what you burn in it, it just isn't safe to run it that way. Gravity will complicate this one day....

Regards, Kirk


----------



## Dargo

300 H and H said:


> Well I don't know,
> 
> But I think that what I have presented refutes much but not all that was said here. It is a very complicated issue at it's core. Hard to find the truth about much these days And, as I have said before, I don't hold anyones opinion about this particular issue, against them.....
> 
> That said, I just wanted you folks to have a taste of what the other side thinks and holds as "true"
> 
> I think there is plenty of ammo for each side, if you look for it. Just need to look at both sides then decide for yourself.
> 
> Yes this has been a long winded debate, and perhpas worthless as well. But I think not. Hopefully some thing has been learned, no matter witch side your on...
> 
> Best regards, Kirk




I live in farm country.  The "costs effective" part is pure BS, big time!  They conveniently left out fuel needed to bring the seed to market, to haul the seed to the farm, to load the seed in the seeder, to run the tractor seeding the ground (assuming no-till; if you till, it's even worse), to fuel trucks to go to market to get fertilizer, to power tractors to fertilize, to fuel trucks to go to market to get weed killer, to power tractors to spray for weeds, to run all the equipment getting the combines ready to cut, to power the combines to cut, to run tractors to haul wagons to semis, to run elevators to fill the semis to take to grain bins, to power dryers to dry the corn, power to then load the semis to take the dried and market ready corn to market, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

The people clearly failed to note the lies on just that part.  Here is an "inconvenient truth" lies exposed about ethanol.  Also, as quoted to congress as they were putting the screws to us *In the U.S. ethanol system, considerably more energy, including high-grade fossil fuel, is required to produce ethanol than is available in the energy- ethanol output. Specifically about 29% more energy is used to produce a gallon of ethanol than the energy in a gallon of ethanol. Fossil energy powers corn production and the fermenta- tion/distillation processes. Increasing subsidized ethanol production will take more feed from livestock production, and is estimated to currently cost consumers an additional $1 billion per year.*

The fact is, there is no debate.  It's not even close.  At best, it's a low grade Al Gore or Michael Moore trying to get this BS past the public.  I'm all for the farmers, but not at the expense of our economy on what is a dead issue; one that will *never* be even close to cost effective.  That's where I have the big problem with this boondoggle; it screws the economy and destroys billions and billions of dollars of equipment.  I understand that all knowing government wants people to buy less polluting equipment, but not all people can afford to do so.  Making them burn garbage in their good, working older equipment is just criminal.


----------



## FrancSevin

300 H and H said:


> franc,
> 
> The dream of the American farmer feeding the world is dead on arrival. They cann't afford it, and we aren't going to just give it to them any more. Population control is their problem, and feeding them just makes it worse.
> 
> Ethanol has only proven to be a bad idea in SOME peoples minds. I guess a majority in congress wasn't one of them. They looked at all the best evidence and weighed the options, and in the end they thought enough of it to actually mandate it's use. Ya I know the same bunch of bumbs have wrecked our economy as well....
> 
> So believe what you want. I won't hold it against you, any more than any one here.
> 
> But you should consider that steel fuel line for the 8N. No matter what you burn in it, it just isn't safe to run it that way. Gravity will complicate this one day....
> 
> Regards, Kirk


 
What nonsense. The ability of our farmers to feed the world is not the issue. Did you not just explain to us all how Commodity Markets work?

As for my tractor, why must I change it out. It is not just the fuel line but the whole system. Do you have any idea how carburated gasoline engines work?

When ETOH stands on it's own without government subsidies and mandates, you can call my game. But you will still not have answered the compelling question about feeding the world. 
The answer you have given here is misleading and patently wrong.


----------



## 300 H and H

franc,

But paying a fair price for it is. Like we can afford to police the rest of the world and feed it for free too! Wake up man this isn't a dream. The rules have changed, and we can afford to do this no longer. We spent too much and taxed too little for too long. Blame congress for this one.

Your tractor has it's gasoline tank above the engine right? Steel was originally used in these systems as gravity will let the contents feed a fire if there should be one. Not in a steel line. Rubber is more prone to leaks and will burn off if there is a fire. Maybe you should fix as many tractors as I have to see how simple this is. You don't have to change it out, it isn't mine, and I'll quit recommending such things. But for me I would.

Yup it will stand on it's own. Many plants have little or no debt left. If the rules here change they will already have the plans in place to export it to the highest bidder. I think the industry is beyond the mandate by now.I hope this doesn't up set your apple cart.

The rebuttle to all of the information I provided I am still waiting for. I realize it may take you some time. Then I have several dozen other pages you can start on. If you remember I rebuffed much of what you said line by line. 

You wanted links and I gave them to you. I started to down load the whole f ing site page by page. I fail to se how you have proven that I am "patentaly wrong" SO far it would seem to me I have brough much more to the table than all of you guys combined.

I don't give a rats ass on how the world gets fed. How is that for an answer. It ain't my problem. Growing corn and soybeans is. For a price that makes me a profit. Sounding pretty American I would say.

Stop looking at the trees, and notice the forest.....

Regards, Kirk


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

FrancSevin said:


> When ETOH stands on it's own without government subsidies and mandates, you can call my game.



Amen,  double Amen on the not forcing consumers to buy the crap.  If it stands on it's own then more power to you but I strongly suspect that it would not make it without the consumer being forced to consume it and the subsidies that go along with the production.

False economics.


----------



## 300 H and H

Dargo,

I quote;

I live in farm country. The "costs effective" part is pure BS, big time! They conveniently left out fuel needed to bring the seed to market, to haul the seed to the farm, to load the seed in the seeder, to run the tractor seeding the ground (assuming no-till; if you till, it's even worse), to fuel trucks to go to market to get fertilizer, to power tractors to fertilize, to fuel trucks to go to market to get weed killer, to power tractors to spray for weeds, to run all the equipment getting the combines ready to cut, to power the combines to cut, to run tractors to haul wagons to semis, to run elevators to fill the semis to take to grain bins, to power dryers to dry the corn, power to then load the semis to take the dried and market ready corn to market, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

Question...Would we not need all of this fuel without ethanol, growing corn for $2/ bushel? 

How about this one,  Why do we bother to grow corn at all if it takes so much fuel?

There is a correct answer here, so what is it?

Kirk


----------



## jimbo

Kirk, I am curious about one thing.  Do you use ethanol in your vehicles and machinery?

Being a hard core market system believer, I would define fair price as that meeting of the minds where a buyer is willing to buy and a seller is willing to sell, without any outside forces.  Alcohol is clearly not in this category as there are undue outside forces.


----------



## 300 H and H

I have about $1.5M in machinery inventory. IF we had a "piston count" I might well be in the top end of the forum. We use E10 and biodiesel blend in all of it, gasoline and diesel. We have had it in our cars since the summer of 1980 in Iowa. It just isn't an issue here for us.

Thanks for asking

Kirk


----------



## 300 H and H

jimbo,

Hard to argue your logic, about undue forces. How many other undue forces are in market place and economy that "steer the result"? I suspect more than just this one. The government has done this with other interests I am quite sure. 

Kirk


----------



## FrancSevin

300 H and H said:


> franc,
> 
> But paying a fair price for it is. Like we can afford to police the rest of the world and feed it for free too! Wake up man this isn't a dream. The rules have changed, and we can afford to do this no longer. We spent too much and taxed too little for too long. Blame congress for this one.
> 
> Your tractor has it's gasoline tank above the engine right? Steel was originally used in these systems as gravity will let the contents feed a fire if there should be one. Not in a steel line. Rubber is more prone to leaks and will burn off if there is a fire. Maybe you should fix as many tractors as I have to see how simple this is. You don't have to change it out, it isn't mine, and I'll quit recommending such things. But for me I would.
> 
> Yup it will stand on it's own. Many plants have little or no debt left. If the rules here change they will already have the plans in place to export it to the highest bidder. I think the industry is beyond the mandate by now.I hope this doesn't up set your apple cart.
> 
> The rebuttle to all of the information I provided I am still waiting for. I realize it may take you some time. Then I have several dozen other pages you can start on. If you remember I rebuffed much of what you said line by line.
> 
> You wanted links and I gave them to you. I started to down load the whole f ing site page by page. I fail to se how you have proven that I am "patentaly wrong" SO far it would seem to me I have brough much more to the table than all of you guys combined.
> 
> I don't give a rats ass on how the world gets fed. How is that for an answer. It ain't my problem. Growing corn and soybeans is. For a price that makes me a profit. Sounding pretty American I would say.
> 
> Stop looking at the trees, and notice the forest.....
> 
> Regards, Kirk


 
No one owns and operates a '37 9N tractor that does not know how to "fix" them.
Allthe "steel" parts of the system meet with Cork and rubber "gaskets" that are eroded by Ethanol.  From the, lid seal, to the tank seal, to the filter bowl to the carburator parts all the way to the intake manifold.  

Stop being a puttz.

I have no problem with yor profit. So get off that soapbox. I have a [pproblem with a cost inneffective product the government says I must buy. It has no benefit other that keeping my gas line from frezzing in winter.  For that I would by a small can just like we used to do and put it inmy tank.

As for profit,,,,,My company makes a smallpart for the food industry.  a worthless little scrap of paper, a coupon or a toy, we wrap it so tht companies can put the incentive in their cereal, Chips,  or Pet food, or Frozen vegetables.  I do OK  with margins.  But Ireally make mmoney when we have to imprint a stupid little message so folks don't eat the bag.

_"Caution, do not eat the plastic wrap"_  I get to charge big bucks for this because it is required by law in many cases and the market allows me to chrge what it will bear.  Now mind you hthat I believe danger is mother nature's way of getting stupid people out of the gene pool.  I tell my clients this whne i add the imprint charges.

Yes I make money from it.  Yes, I know exactly the stupidity it represents. and I make no bones about it.  Frankly I wish it was not required because it adds no real value to the product and the stupid ones eat the damm bag anyway.

So let us be honest here.  Does ETOH add value to the product?  Then why must we have to buy it?  You have not made that case here.

We must buy it because our government has taken the steps to take care of us because it does not believe our capitalistic system will do it as well.  I suggest we should fear a system of government that would be so keen as to persist in programs that save us from ourselves, at the expense of our liberty.


----------



## Av8r3400

I won't go through that all again out of respect to the fallen.  Here's the synopsis:

Ethanol dissolves certain plastic polymers.  Plastics mixed with gasoline does bad things inside an internal combustion engines, like causing them to seize.


----------



## 300 H and H

Av8r3400,

If the ethanol wasn't supposed to be in the fuel, I hope the fuel supplier had to answer to that one. Yes it is not compatable with certain plastics, and fiber glass resins. That said, if the supplier sold it as not containing ethanol, he should be punished for that.

Again sorry for your loss of your friend. I know this means very little compared to the loss of a person's life.

Regards, Kirk


----------



## Kane

BUMP



Kane said:


> Now I wouldn't go as far to call the farmers unscrupulous, but what if the farmers were made to pay a subsidy for someone to produce chocolate milk, and then the farmers were made to pay to put it in their fertilizer. It's better for the environment.
> 
> I do think they might howl.
> .



Kirk, would _you_ howl as loudly as the ethanol 'haters'?

.


----------



## Dargo

300 H and H said:


> Dargo,
> 
> I quote;
> 
> I live in farm country. The "costs effective" part is pure BS, big time! They conveniently left out fuel needed to bring the seed to market, to haul the seed to the farm, to load the seed in the seeder, to run the tractor seeding the ground (assuming no-till; if you till, it's even worse), to fuel trucks to go to market to get fertilizer, to power tractors to fertilize, to fuel trucks to go to market to get weed killer, to power tractors to spray for weeds, to run all the equipment getting the combines ready to cut, to power the combines to cut, to run tractors to haul wagons to semis, to run elevators to fill the semis to take to grain bins, to power dryers to dry the corn, power to then load the semis to take the dried and market ready corn to market, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.
> 
> Question...Would we not need all of this fuel without ethanol, growing corn for $2/ bushel?
> 
> How about this one,  Why do we bother to grow corn at all if it takes so much fuel?
> 
> There is a correct answer here, so what is it?
> 
> Kirk



I don't know about now, but we've always been a world leader in farming and exporting foods.  Now we charge our taxpayers extra and burn junk corn to make junk fuel that could be used for other crops or different hybrids of corn.


----------



## 300 H and H

Dargo,

My point was simply that we will plant corn and soy and wheat and what ever else we care to grow. It all takes the same amount of fuel basically from year to year. Pimmentel's logic is we wouldn't be doing any planting if it were not for ethanol. So he "charges" this fuel we are going to use anyway to the energy balance equation. He also fails to account that there is any energy stored in the crop from the sun light it recieved. Also no mention of the dried distillers grains that are fed to livestock as a high value product. His was the first attemp to smear ethanol. There are others. Hired guns as senator Chuck Grasley say's and he also says he has the proof. Anyway, I am to the point I need to consider a more permanent solution than my readers. My father says it's only a matter of time till I tire of having to find and wear them. He says just go and get some glass'es for Pete's sake!.....

Regards, Kirk


----------



## jimbo

300 H and H said:


> jimbo,
> 
> Hard to argue your logic, about undue forces. How many other undue forces are in market place and economy that "steer the result"? I suspect more than just this one. The government has done this with other interests I am quite sure.
> 
> Kirk


As I am a pure capitalist economically, I think there are too many outside forces screwing around with the market. This is why we cannot compete globally, borrow 40 cents per dollar the government spends, end up with millions of oil producing land out of reach due to non threatened threatened bears, have more houses built than the market can support, and have to pay for little labels telling me not to pour coffee on my balls at McDonalds.


----------



## Bamby

> I live in farm country. The "costs effective" part is pure BS, big time!  They conveniently left out fuel needed to bring the seed to market, to  haul the seed to the farm, to load the seed in the seeder, to run the  tractor seeding the ground (assuming no-till; if you till, it's even  worse), to fuel trucks to go to market to get fertilizer, to power  tractors to fertilize, to fuel trucks to go to market to get weed  killer, to power tractors to spray for weeds, to run all the equipment  getting the combines ready to cut, to power the combines to cut, to run  tractors to haul wagons to semis, to run elevators to fill the semis to  take to grain bins, to power dryers to dry the corn, power to then load  the semis to take the dried and market ready corn to market, etc., etc.,  etc., etc., etc.


You're just quoting the cost of doing you're business, which happens to be conveniently subsidized by us the consumer... Every business has costs their is no free lunch, and they then develop a business plan that somehow meets their needs in the competitive marketplace. Or should we as consumers be simply forced to subsidize every failed business model?? I'm sorry but you've pursued a bad business model that depends on government subsidies to make ends meet. That makes you no better than the welfare bums that demand free handouts at taxpayer expense.

In the meantime have you considered how your *subsidy* have actually hurt other farmers pursuing other farming business plans. Of course you wouldn't care or give a damn about them either would you. Do you really realize how many enemies America is making if the worlds population by this failed business model. Sure you're making out on it fine but virtually nobody else outside of government is receiving raises or pay increases to offset your particular chosen welfare program.

Read about the "Food Riots" going on throughout the world there are a lot of hungry angry citizens that are ready to spill somebodies or anybodies  blood, so I'm glad you're making good money and doing your part to create a good environment for another "world war".

is food costs causing the riots


----------



## 300 H and H

Bambi,

Yes your right about some of this. And yes it is why I sit on the fence most of the time, and have done nothing to change my operation to take advantage of it directly. I just get tired of so many people taking wild pot shots at it with no understanding of just why we have bothered with it. 

I know alot of people who arm chair agriculture, but don't have a clue how it really works. It is a business that is seperate and distinc from much of the rest of the economy. It operates under it's own set of rules, most aren't aware of. And if the mandate goes away, and the industry fails, I hope Willey Nelson still has his bus, and can make another tour....

From what I hear locally, the plants here have no debt left to pay. This puts them in a great possition, and last year they were already exporting ethanol. That is why I beleive the industry is beyond the mandate already.

The price of food is realted the the value of the currance involved. I have said this reapeatedly through out this thread. 

SO this read again may help you with your concerns...

*Policy Positions: Food vs. Fuel*

_updated October 2011_
Driven by the American public’s demand for alternatives to high-priced foreign oil, the production of ethanol in the U.S. has experienced an 800% increase since the start of the decade. Despite the well-documented economic and environmental benefits of expanded biofuels production, some critics have alleged increased ethanol production is diverting grain from food and feed markets and leading to higher retail food prices. Critics have suggested that crop-based biofuels simply can’t provide significant volumes of energy for transportation without starving the world’s poor. This emotionally-charged “food versus fuel” debate has unfairly plagued American ethanol production since its very inception. Of course, these ridiculous claims have been disproven time and time again, and the world’s farmers have repeatedly shown that they are more than capable of meeting the planet’s growing demands for food, feed, fuel, and fiber. Further, biofuels have proven themselves around the globe as essential conduits for rural development and technology transfer – not rural oppression.
Alarmist rhetoric was rampant in the summer of 2008 as corn prices followed oil prices to record highs, but mainstream media and opinion leaders have recently taken a more careful and measured approach to the discussion over current grain market dynamics and the role of biofuels. Stepping back for a holistic view of the global grain market coupled with multiple new analyses has tempered a repeat rush to judgment about the Food vs. Fuel canard. To quote the visionary Yogi Berra again, “You can observe a lot by just watching.”
*DRAMATIC INCREASES IN CROP PRODUCTIVITY HAVE ENSURED ADEQUATE SUPPLIES OF CORN ARE AVAILABLE FOR ALL USES*
No reasonable advocate for American ethanol will tell you that using corn to produce ethanol has no impact on food prices. But, to suggest that the _driving_ _factor_ behind the rise in food prices is our effort to develop a domestic renewable ethanol industry is disingenuous. An historic look at U.S. corn production and demand streams demonstrates that virtually every bushel of corn now turned into fuel and feed by U.S. ethanol producers comes from increases in productivity ­– _not _by “diverting” supplies from other uses like livestock feed.
Improved farming practices and seed technology advances are responsible for the dramatic increases in corn yields over the past four decades. Corn yields during 1970-1980 averaged 89.8 bushels per acre whereas corn yields during 2000-2010 averaged 145.4 bushels per acre. Average corn yield per acre has more than doubled in the last 40 years, from 72.4 bushels per acre in 1970 to 152.8 bushels per acre in 2010. In 2010, U.S. farmers had the third largest crop and fourth-highest average yield in history. Seed companies such as Monsanto and Pioneer project average corn yield may double, reaching 250 to 300 bushels per acre by 2030.
Annual grain supplies have grown large enough to satisfy increased demand from all end users. The impact of U.S. ethanol production on world grain supplies is minimal for feedstock demand. U.S. ethanol production accounts for just 3% on a net basis of what is projected to be the largest global grain supply in history in 2011. That means 97% of all the grain produced in the world is available for other uses. It’s important to understand that there are different types of corn: sweet corn is consumed by humans and not used in the production of ethanol whereas field corn is used to feed livestock as well as to produce ethanol.
*ETHANOL FEED CO-PRODUCTS MAKE AN IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTION TO THE GLOBAL FEED AND FOOD SUPPLY*
Discussions of ethanol’s impact on world grain markets often neglect the important contribution of distillers grains, corn gluten feed and corn gluten meal, the primary animal feed co-products resulting from the grain ethanol process. Every 56-pound bushel of corn entering the ethanol process produces about 2.8 gallons of ethanol and 17 pounds of high nutrient livestock and poultry feed. Thus, of the 4.7 billion bushels of corn projected to be used for ethanol in 2010/11, approximately 1.4 billion bushels (more than 35 million metric tons) are more accurately characterized as being used for animal feed production. In addition to feeding U.S. beef and dairy cattle, swine, and poultry, ethanol feed co-products are increasingly satisfying foreign demand for protein and energy feeds to the tune of approximately 9 million metric tons. _That’s the equivalent of 350 million bushels of corn. _Put into context, the livestock feed production of American ethanol producers is enough to produce 50 billion quarter pounders a year – that’s 7 hamburgers for every person on the planet.
*FARMERS RESPOND QUICKLY TO PRICE SIGNALS FROM THE MARKETPLACE*
Higher world prices for corn resulting in part from lower-than-expected 2011 production in the U.S. and elsewhere will lead farmers in other parts of the world to plant more corn instead of other less profitable crops. Further, U.S. farmers have a history of responding quickly to market signals by adjusting acreage and switching crops to best capitalize on current and expected prices. As an example, a short corn crop in 1995 caused prices to spike and left ending stocks at just 426 million bushels. Farmers responded the next year by increasing corn acres by 11% and boosting total production by 25%. More recently, farmers increased corn acreage by some 15 million acres in 2007 in response to demand and price signals. The 19% increase in corn acreage and 24% increase in production in 2007 clearly demonstrate the ability of farmers to react swiftly to changes in the marketplace.
*THE ROLE OF SPECULATION IN COMMODITY MARKETS*
July 2010 World Bank research found “…the use of commodities by financial investors (the so-called ‘financialization of commodities’) may have been partly responsible for the 2007/08 spike.” A November 10, 2010 _Wall Street Journal_ article echoed those results, noting the major factors driving up corn prices are U.S. monetary policy, speculation by Wall Street hedge funds, and surging demand from emerging markets. This goes for all commodities from grains to precious metals. Demand for ethanol production, by comparison, plays a relatively minor role.
The recent run-up in grain prices likely will prove to be grossly exaggerated, due to the unprecedented influx of speculative investment in grain futures. By early September 2010, there was more speculative investment in the corn futures market than ever before­–even more than at the height of the 2008 bubble. Non-commercial investors (e.g., hedge funds) and “index traders” together control roughly 4.3 billion bushels of corn – nearly equivalent to the amount of corn the ethanol industry used in 2010. As we saw in 2008, these investors can have perverse impacts on the market—and they can exit the market just as quickly as they entered, resulting in the collapse of prices.
An April 2008 study by Texas A& University found that, “Speculative fund activities in futures markets have led to more money in the markets and more volatility. Increased price volatility has encouraged wider trading limits. The end result has been the loss of the ability to use futures markets for price risk management due to the inability to finance margin requirements.”
*BIOFUELS POLICY AND FOOD PRICES*
An April 2011 report by Iowa State University suggests that market forces (chiefly high oil prices, low corn prices, and the phase-out of MTBE) had far more to do with ethanol expansion from 2005-2009 than the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) and Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). Thus, according to the authors, ethanol market dynamics were responsible for a larger share of the corn price increase during the study period. Still, their modeling revealed that just one-quarter ($0.45) of the average corn price increase from 2006-2009 could be attributed to the market-based expansion of the ethanol sector. Taken together, market-based ethanol expansion and the VEETC accounted for about one-third of the corn price increase, while other factors explained two-thirds of the increase, according to the paper. In certain years, ethanol policy and market-based expansion had an even smaller impact. In 2007, for example, “…almost 80% of the observed rise in corn prices was due to factors other than ethanol.” These modeling outcomes led the authors to suggest that “…most of the change in corn prices that we have seen is not due to ethanol expansion but rather is due to other forces at work.”
This Iowa State research found that only 8% ($0.14/bushel) of the increase in average corn prices from 2004 to 2006-2009 can be attributed to the existence of the blender’s credit (VEETC). Further, the authors write that, “Corn prices without the ethanol subsidies would have averaged only 4% less over this period than what they were.” Because VEETC’s contribution to corn prices was so small, the impact on food prices was even smaller. The authors write that the relatively small change in corn prices “…necessarily implies that the contribution of ethanol subsidies to food inflation is largely imperceptible in the United States.”
*FARM SHARE OF FOOD DOLLAR & THE FOOD CPI*
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (ERS) generated a report in February 2011 that found that just 11.6 cents of every dollar spent on food makes its way back to the farm. That share can be broken down further to approximate the contribution of individual commodities. Corn typically represents about 15% of the total farm value of all U.S. agricultural food and feed products. Thus, it could be argued that corn’s share of the food dollar is just 1.7 percent (15% of 11.6%). Admittedly, the math is rough, but it shows the almost negligible impact of corn on retail food prices.
According to a comprehensive study by Informa Economics, “the statistical evidence does not support a conclusion that there is a strict ‘food-versus-fuel’ tradeoff that is automatically driving consumer food prices higher.” The analysis further found that “…there has historically been very little relationship between annual changes in corn prices and consumer food prices. The corn price would be considered a statistically insignificant variable in determining what drives the food [consumer price index].” Rather, the report concludes that retail food prices are determined by a complex set of inter-related factors, including supply chain costs for energy, labor, transportation, packaging, and other marketing-related expenses.
Informa Economics found that the “farm value” of commodity raw materials used in retail foods accounts for just 16% of total U.S. food costs, a proportion that has declined significantly from 37% in 1973. For food products where corn is only one of several farm-produced inputs, the proportion of the total product cost attributable to the cost of corn is even less than 16%. The remaining portion of total retail food costs is known as the marketing bill. The costs of other components in the marketing bill (e.g., labor, packaging, transportation, energy, profits, advertising, depreciation, rent, interest, repairs, and business taxes) have also been increasing and general inflationary pressures have also impacted food prices. Increases in these marketing bill components are contributing to food price increases, as reflected in the growing farm-to-retail price spread for many food categories.
The Informa Economics study shows that historical price relationships between corn prices and livestock, poultry, egg, and milk prices show relatively weak correlations. With these low correlations, it is statistically unsupported to suggest that high and/or rising corn prices are the only or even the main reason behind high and rising retail meat, egg and milk product prices. Ethanol has not been the only factor influencing corn prices; other supply and demand factors have also been at play. Weather events, a decline in the U.S. dollar, strong export demand, and steady feed demand are among the supply/demand factors that have pressured corn prices in recent years.
*THE ROLE OF ENERGY PRICES ON FOOD PRICES*
So, if the farm value of each food dollar is actually decreasing, and corn demand and price are even smaller factors in food price determination than previously thought, what is driving American food bills higher? The simple answer *is and has been energy*. Researchers at Texas A&M concluded, “The underlying force driving changes in the agricultural industry, along with the economy as a whole, is overall higher energy costs, evidenced by $100 per barrel oil.” According to ERS, energy-intensive sectors are the second largest contributor to food prices – only trailing labor costs. And, as labor costs tend to be more stable and predictable, the volatility in energy prices is driving the sticker shock Americans may be feeling at the checkout counter. Totaling up the percentages for food processing, packaging, transportation – all energy intensive activities – and actual energy costs, nearly 33% of each food dollar is spent in these energy intensive areas. If you frequently eat away from home, labor and energy costs gobble up even more of your food dollar and leave just 3.4% for those involved in agriculture. Informa Economics underlined the important role of energy prices in determining consumer food prices and the ability of ethanol to reduce gasoline prices. “Within the overall marketing bill, the costs of energy and transportation have increased considerably over the last several years, with crude oil prices surging from just under $60 per barrel in fall 2006, reaching above $100 per barrel in the first half of 2008, falling back down during the economic recession and again breaking $100 per barrel in 2011, roughly the same periods during which corn prices have increased.”
“There is very clear evidence that oil prices are continuing to have a disproportionate effect on the price of our food,” according to the Global Renewable Fuels Alliance (GRFA). The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation’s (UN FAO) Deputy Director, David Hallam confirmed this same finding in early March 2011 by saying that “unexpected oil price spikes could further exacerbate an already precarious situation in food markets.” The International Energy Agency called rising oil prices “dangerous,” warning that high oil prices could threaten the stability of an already fragile recovering global economy. In January 2011, the UN FAO’s global Food Price Index hit an all-time high. According to the GRFA, data going back 30 years shows that the price of oil has driven the price of food and key grains, making prices directly proportional. Also, when shocks to the price of oil occur, the cost of food and key grains has followed suit. When oil prices spiked in the early 1980s, corn and rice also rose to new highs. When oil shot to more than $140 per barrel in 2008, crop prices also spiked to an all-time high, driving the FAO Food Index higher as well.
Biofuels indirectly exert downward pressure on food prices by reducing energy prices. According to Informa Economics research, “…to understand the net impact on consumers’ financial condition, changes in expenditures on not only food but also fuel would have to be considered. Specifically, if more abundant supplies of ethanol were to result in a measurable reduction in retail fuel prices, this would have to be compared to any food price increase in determining the net impact to consumers.”
April 2011 research by Du and Hayes found that the growth in ethanol production reduced U.S. gasoline prices by an average of $0.25, or 16%, over the entire decade of 2000-2010. Similarly, an analysis by Merrill Lynch found that, “Biofuels are making up a huge portion of oil supply growth…” and, “On a global scale, biofuels are now the single largest contributor to world oil supply growth. We estimate that retail gasoline prices would be $21/bbl higher, on average, without the incremental biofuel supply.”
*BIOFUELS AND FOOD SECURITY*
The UN FAO released information in May 2011 about its new “Bioenergy and Food Security (BEFS) Analytical Framework," which was created to help governments evaluate the potential of bioenergy as well as assess its possible food security impacts. It suggests that robust bioenergy industries can enhance food security in developing nations, stating that, “…investment in bioenergy could spark much-needed investment in agricultural and transport infrastructure in rural areas and, by creating jobs and boosting household incomes, could alleviate poverty and food security.” “FAO has been saying for years that under-investment in agriculture is a problem that seriously handicaps food production in the developing world, and that this, coupled with rural poverty, is a key driver of world hunger," according to BEFS project leader Heiner Thofern. "Done properly and when appropriate, bioenergy development offers a chance to drive investment and jobs into areas that are literally starving for them." FAO studies have shown that small-scale bioenergy projects not targeting export markets can improve food security and help boost rural economies. FAO points out that, as with development of any energy source, there are potential environmental, social, and economic considerations that must be contemplated when evaluating the benefits of a bioenergy project for a particular community or region. FAO says bioenergy likely isn’t a universal “silver bullet” solution that will be appropriate for every community in every case. “That being said, we can't turn our back on the fact that in other cases, bioenergy production holds great potential to revitalize rural economies, reduce poverty, and improve household food security,” Thofern says.
The second major international statement about the rural development and food security benefits of biofuels came in May 2011 as the Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP) announced it has agreed on a voluntary framework intended to help countries assess and develop sustainable production and use of bioenergy. GBEP is a group of government officials, organizations and institutions from around the world that was established to implement the commitments made by the G8 in 2005 to support biomass and biofuels deployment, “particularly in developing countries where biomass use is prevalent.” The government officials involved clearly had an eye on the vast potential of bioenergy to improve the quality of life in developing nations. In a GBEP statement, Daniel Clune of the U.S. Department of State said, “Modern bioenergy encompasses many technologies that have the potential to not only promote sustainable development, but also help meet two important needs in the developing world by enhancing food and energy security. The latest research shows that when done rationally and thoughtfully, sustainable modern bioenergy creates a virtuous cycle that improves agricultural productivity and draws investments in to expand associated infrastructures and promote economic and social development.” Indeed, one needs look no further than the American heartland to witness first-hand the tremendous rural economic development benefits of biofuels. What reason do we have to believe the U.S. biofuels model can’t be successfully replicated in developing nations around the globe? It’s encouraging to see influential international organizations and world leaders recognizing that bioenergy is a solution – not a threat – to economic development and food security in developing nations.
*BIOFUELS ACQUITTED OF CHARGES OF FOOD PRICE SPIKES AND WORLD HUNGER*
A number of new independent studies conducted by governmental agencies, universities, financial analysts, and others on the role of biofuels in the 2007/08 commodities bubble conclusively show that the increasing use of grains like corn for ethanol production played a negligible role in the recent rise in U.S. food prices. These analyses acknowledge that a number of simultaneously occurring factors – including rising energy costs, speculation in commodities markets, currency fluctuations, underinvestment in agricultural technology, changing diets in developing countries, and rising agricultural production costs – all contributed to higher food prices around the world in 2007/08.
A March 2010 report by the United Kingdom’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs found that, “available evidence suggests that biofuels had a relatively small contribution to the 2008 spike in agricultural commodity prices.” Even the World Bank, which in 2008 suggested biofuels was playing a large role in higher food prices, released an analysis in July 2010 that found “…the effect of biofuels on food prices has not been as large as originally thought…” and that “…the use of commodities by financial investors may have been partly responsible for the 2007-08 spike.”
The findings of a 2009 Congressional Budget Office analysis concluded that “…from April 2007 to April 2008, the rise in the price of corn resulting from expanded production of ethanol contributed between 0.5 and 0.8 percentage points of the 5.1 percent increase in food prices measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Over the same period, certain other factors—for example, higher energy costs—had a greater effect on food prices than did the use of ethanol as a motor fuel.”
A study released in June 2011 by the Geneva-based International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) found that “…US ethanol subsidies during this period (2005-2009) had little impact on consumer prices and quite modest impacts on crop prices.” It concluded that the most significant impact of U.S. ethanol policy on retail food prices was a two-cent-per-dozen (1 percent) increase in egg prices in just one of the last five years. Meanwhile, retail prices for beef, pork, and poultry meat were impacted by “much less than 1 percent.” The ICTSD study was authored by Iowa State University professor Bruce Babcock and it builds upon an April 2011 Iowa State University’s Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) paper. Professor Babcock ran a complex economic model to examine how U.S. ethanol policies influenced prices for agricultural commodities and food products from 2005-2009. For commodities, Babcock found that the impact of ethanol policy on corn prices was “modest.” The largest impact on corn prices occurred in the 2007 marketing year when prices would have been $0.30 per bushel (7.1 percent) lower than they actually were, according to the modeling results. The impact on wheat, rice, and soybean prices “was even smaller,” Babcock wrote.
As for consumer food prices, the ICTSD study found impacts of ethanol policy were negligible. For broilers, the modeling results show that prices _wouldn’t have changed by even one penny/pound _if there hadn’t been ethanol policies in place. For pork, prices would have been one penny/pound lower (three-tenths of 1 percent) in one year, but identical in the other four years. It’s the same for beef, with prices identical in four years and only one penny (two-tenths of 1 percent) lower in one year. The largest impact was for eggs, where prices would have been two pennies (1 percent) per dozen lower in one year if we hadn’t had ethanol policies in place.
Clearly, based on the ICTSD studyresults, one can conclude that U.S. ethanol policies have not been a factor in retail food prices in the last five years and have been only a modest driver of commodity prices. In addition, any microscopic impact on food prices that might be attributable to ethanol policy would be overwhelmingly offset by the savings on gasoline prices that results from increased ethanol use.
A study by Mueller et al. found very little support for statements that ethanol was the driving factor in the last quick run up in commodity prices in 2007-2008. “It is not possible to reconcile claims that biofuel production was the major factor driving food price increases in 2007–2008 with the decrease in food prices and increase in biofuel production since mid-2008. The available data suggests that record grain prices in 2008 were not caused by increased biofuel production, but were actually the result of a speculative bubble related to high petroleum prices, a weak US dollar, and increased volatility due to commodity index fund investments.”
Notably, in 2010 the World Bank itself renounced the results of its own 2008 study on biofuels and food prices. The World Bank found “…the effect of biofuels on food prices has not been as large as originally thought, but that the use of commodities by financial investors (the so-called “financialization of commodities”) may have been partly responsible for the 2007/08 spike.”
USDA-ERS confirmed that “Attributing most of the rise in food commodity prices to biofuel production, however, seems unrealistic. Crop prices dropped more than 30 percent during the last half of 2008 even though biofuel production continued to increase. Further, nonagricultural prices rose more than agricultural prices, and the price of corn (an ethanol feedstock) rose less than for rice and wheat (not biofuel feedstocks). Clearly, there were other factors at play.”
For opponents of ethanol and beneficiaries of cheap corn, pointing the finger at biofuels has become the reflexive knee-jerk response any time grain prices start to rise. The fact is that ethanol’s impact on grain and food supplies is marginal. It is clear from the latest research that ethanol is not the primary driver of food prices.
*WORKS CITED*
Anderson, D., J. Outlaw, H. Bryant, J. Richardson, D. Ernstes, M. Raulston, M. Welch, G. Knapek, B. Herbst, and M. Allison. _The Effects of Ethanol on Texas Food and Feed_. Texas A&M University Agricultural & Food Policy Center (AFPC), April 2008.
Babcock, Bruce A. _The Impact of US Biofuel Policies on Agricultural Price Levels and Volatility_. Issue paper no. 35. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development, June 2011.
Babcock, Bruce A., and Jacinto F. Fabiosa. _The Impact of Ethanol and Ethanol Subsidies on Corn Prices: Revisiting History_. CARD policy brief no. 11-PB 5. Iowa State University Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD), April 2011.
Baffes, John, and Tassos Haniotis. _Placing the 2006/08 Commodity Price Boom into Perspective_. Policy research working paper no. 5371. World Bank/Development Prospects Group, July 2010.
Bennett, David. "Vilsack: No Correlation between Food Prices and Ethanol." _Delta Farm Press_. 21 Apr. 2011.
Blanch, Francisco. "Biofuels Driving Global Oil Supply Growth." _Merrill Lynch: Global Energy Weekly_ (6 June 2008): 1-11.
Canning, Patrick. _A Revised and Expanded Food Dollar Series: A Better Understanding of Our Food Costs_. Economic research report no. 114. U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, February 2011.
Du, Xiaodong, and Dermot J. Hayes. _The Impact of Ethanol Production on US and Regional Gasoline Markets: An Update to May 2009_. Working paper no. 11-WP 523. Iowa State University Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD), April 2011.
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO). FAO Food Price Index. 9 Aug. 2011.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)/Bioenergy and Food Security Project. _Bioenergy and Food Security: The BEFS Analytical Framework_. ISSN 2071-0992. Bioenergy ed. Environment and Natural Resources Series 16. UN FAO, 2010.
Gecan, R., R. Johansson, and K. FitzGerald. _The Impact of Ethanol Use on Food Prices and Greenhouse-Gas Emissions_. Publication no. 3155. Congressional Budget Office (CBO), April 2009.
Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP). GBEP Sustainability Indicators for Bioenergy. 20 May 2011.
Global Renewable Fuels Alliance (GRFA). _UN FAO Confirms Rising Energy Prices Driving Up Food Costs_. 7 Mar. 2011.
Informa Economics. _Analysis of Corn, Commodity, and Consumer Food Prices_. July 2011.
Mueller, S. A., J. E. Anderson, and T. J. Wallington. "Impact of Biofuel Production and Other Supply and Demand Factors on Food Price Increases in 2008." _Biomass and Bioenergy_ 35.5 (May 2011): 1623-632.
Pfeifer, Sylvia. "Rising Oil Price Threatens Fragile Recovery." Financial Times. 4 Jan. 2011.
Pfuderer, S., G. Davies, and I. Mitchell. _The Role of Demand for Biofuel in the Agricultural Commodity Price Spikes of 2007/08, _Annex 5 to _T__he 2007/08 Agricultural Price Spikes: Causes and Policy Implications_, HM Government. United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), March 2010.
Practical Action Consulting. _Small-Scale Bioenergy Initiatives: Brief Description and Preliminary Lessons on Livelihood Impacts from Case Studies in Asia, Latin America and Africa_. UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and Policy Innovation Systems for Clean Energy Security (PISCES), January 2009.
Trostle, R., D. Marti, S. Rosen, and P. Westcott. _Why Have Food Commodity Prices Risen Again?_ Publication no. WRS-1103. U.S. Department of Agriculture/Economic Research Service, June 2011.

*Search RFA*




*Go To:*


Market Opportunities
Reports & Studies
National Ethanol Conference


 

 

 

© 2005-2011 Renewable Fuels Association. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Site Map | Contact Us 
425 Third Street, SW - Suite 1150 - Washington, DC 20024 - (202) 289-3835


----------



## 300 H and H

Lots cheaper than many things we do....like the middle east. And the money stays at home too....

Kirk


----------



## SShepherd

dude, your only reference is a group with a vested interest in ethenol. You need to find an independant source to be credible.  Even the big tobacco companies told everyone smoking didn't hurt people. The wolf telling the hens everything jussst fine.


----------



## Dargo

300 H and H said:


> Dargo,
> 
> My point was simply that we will plant corn and soy and wheat and what ever else we care to grow. It all takes the same amount of fuel basically from year to year.
> 
> Regards, Kirk



No, no, no, no!  The BS "models" showing where it is cost effective to waste corn to produce ethanol OMITS all these costs along with omitting the cost of producing ethanol from the corn.  It is so biased and so far off that I cannot believe you copied it.

The money spent planting crops and harvesting crops could have been spent producing profitable and people feeding crops!!!  The "the money would have been spent anyway" absolutely does NOT fit here.  Ethanol from corn is like something my 10 year old might come up with, not knowing that it 1) is completely cost ineffective and 2) destroys the engines it's supposed to power.  I would be 100% in favor of just writing the farmers checks as gifts than have them waste resources producing a corrosive product that destroys engines that our working poor cannot afford to replace.  From a true, from the heart of the U.S. citizen, cut that fucking program!  Who came up with it Obama or Hitler?!


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

On a related note, has anyone else noticed that the sweetness and quality of food grade corn has gone down in recent years?

We have had terrible luck with ears of corn from our local super market.  Of course, we aren't in a corn growing area.  The ears of corn from the store have been so bad that we have stopped buying them.  Even the "sweet" frozen corn has been disappointing lately.


----------



## FrancSevin

PBinWA said:


> On a related note, has anyone else noticed that the sweetness and quality of food grade corn has gone down in recent years?
> 
> We have had terrible luck with ears of corn from our local super market. Of course, we aren't in a corn growing area. The ears of corn from the store have been so bad that we have stopped buying them. Even the "sweet" frozen corn has been disappointing lately.


 

I would agree although I'm not sure why. Much of the sweet corn I ate last summer was local grown and yes of poorer quality than I am used to. Could be just the stress of the climate changes.

Two incredibly hot and dry summers.


----------



## thcri RIP

I bought some sweet corn in the spring before my garden stuff was ready and it was not good.  But that is the norm in the spring around here because they ship it in from Florida. The rest that I had came from my garden and was pretty good.


----------



## tiredretired

As a layman who has no dog in this fight, it would seem to me that any ethanol that is produced from electricity that was generated from fossil fuels would be defeating the purpose.  Am I missing something here?


----------



## FrancSevin

TiredRetired said:


> As a layman who has no dog in this fight, it would seem to me that any ethanol that is produced from electricity that was generated from fossil fuels would be defeating the purpose. Am I missing something here?


 
Nope. But under the crrent subsidy laws, laws created by a GOP congress under GWB, adding a little petroleum to your ethonal fuel system qualifies your paper mill to receive and additional $70 million in US taxpayer funded subsidies


----------

