One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
The Ethanol Gravy Train Rolls On
May 15, 2018 11:39:12   #
pafret Loc: Northeast
 
https://canadafreepress.com/article/the-ethanol-gravy-train-rolls-on?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=michael_avenatti_the_deep_state_tool&utm_term=2018-05-15

The ethanol gravy train rolls on

By Paul Driessen —— Bio and Archives--May 14, 2018

Like most people I’ve spoken with, I have no innate, inflexible antipathy to ethanol in gasoline. What upsets me are the deceptive claims used to justify adding mostly corn-based ethanol to this indispensable fuel; the way seriously harmful unintended consequences are brushed aside; and the insidious crony corporatist system the ethanol program has spawned between producers and members of Congress.

What angers me are the legislative and regulatory mandates that force us to buy gasoline that is 10% ethanol—even though it gets lower mileage than 100% gasoline, brings none of the proclaimed benefits (environmental or otherwise), drives up food prices, and damages small engines. In fact, in most areas, it’s almost impossible to find E-zero gasoline, and that problem will get worse as mandates increase.

My past articles lambasting ethanol addressed these issues, and said ethanol epitomizes federal programs that taxpayers and v**ers never seem able to terminate, no matter how wasteful or harmful they become. That’s primarily because its beneficiaries are well funded, motivated, politically connected and determined to keep their gravy train rolling down the tracks—while opponents and victims have far less funding, focus, motivation and ability to reach the decision-making powers.

Ethanol got started because of assertions that even now are still trotted out, despite having outlived their time in the real-world sun. First, we were told, ethanol would be a bulwark against oil imports from unfriendly nations, especially as the USA depleted its rapidly dwindling petroleum reserves. Of course, the fracking (horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing) revolution has given America and the world at least a century of new reserves, and the US now exports more oil and refined products than it imports.

Second, renewable fuels would help prevent dangerous manmade c*****e c****e. However, with the 2015-16 El Nino temperature spike now gone, average global temperatures are continuing the 20-year no-increase trend that completely contradicts alarmist predictions and models. Harvey was the first major hurricane in a record twelve years to make US landfall. And overall, the evidence-based scientific case for “dangerous manmade c*****e c****e” has become weaker with every passing year.

Moreover, the claim that ethanol and other biofuels don’t emit as much allegedly climate-impacting (but certainly plant-fertilizing) carbon dioxide as gasoline has also been put out to pasture. In reality, over their full life cycle (from planting and harvesting crops, to converting them to fuel, to t***sporting them by truck, to blending and burning them), biofuels emit at least as much CO2 as their petroleum counterparts.

Ironically, the state that grows the most corn and produces the most ethanol—the state whose Republican senators had a fit when EPA proposed to reduce its 2018 non-ethanol biodiesel requirement by a measly 315 million gallons, out of 19.3 billion gallons in total renewable fuels—buys less ethanol-laced gasoline than do average consumers in the rest of the USA. That state is Iowa.

In fact, Iowans bought more ethanol-free gasoline in 2016 than what EPA projects the entire United States will be able to buy in just a few more years, as the E10 mandates ratchet higher and higher.

And so this past week, after months of battles, debates and negotiations, President Trump hosted a White House meeting with legislators The purpose was to address and compromise on at least some of the thorny issues that had put Ted Cruz, Joni Ernst and other politicians at loggerheads, as they sought to reform some aspects of the Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) system while protecting their constituents.

In an effort to expand the reform agenda, by making legislators and citizens better informed in advance of the meeting, 18 diverse organizations wrote a joint letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, underscoring why they believe broad and significant RFS reform is essential. Signatories included major national meat and poultry producers and processors, restaurants, marine manufacturers, small engine owners, consumer and taxpayer organizations, and conservation and environmental groups. They were especially worried about the prospect that the Congress and Administration might allow year-round sales of 15% (E15) ethanol blends in gasoline, but they raised other pressing concerns as well.

As large shares of domestic corn and soy crops are now diverted from food use to fuel production, poultry, beef, pork and fish producers (and consumers) face volatile and increasing prices for animal feed.
Ethanol wreaks havoc on the engines and fuel systems of boats, motorcycles and lawn equipment, as well as many automobiles, which are not capable or allowed to run on E15. Repair and replacement costs are a major issue for marine and small engine owners (as I personally discovered when I owned a boat).
Consumers and taxpayers must pay increasing costs as biofuel mandates increase under the RFS.
Millions of acres of native prairie and other ecosystems have been turned into large-scale agricultural developments, because the RFS encourages farmers to plow land, instead of preserving habitats. This endangers ecosystems and species, exacerbates agricultural run-off and degrades water quality.
Biofuel demand promotes conversion of natural habitats to palm oil and other plantations overseas, as well as domestically. Their life-cycle carbon dioxide emissions rival or exceed those of oil and gas.
Expanding markets for corn ethanol by increasing E15 sales ignores and exacerbates these problems—while benefiting a small subset of the US economy but negatively impacting far more sectors, including the general public and the industries and interests represented by signatories to the Pruitt letter.
Following the meeting, several signatories expanded on these concerns—and noted that the compromise did increase E15 sales, while reducing the RFS impact on small refineries that were being forced to buy paper biofuel certificates because they weren’t making enough gasoline to need mandated real biofuel.

Requiring every American to buy ethanol gasoline “isn’t good enough” for biofuel companies anymore, the National Council of Chain Restaurants remarked. “Now they want a waiver from federal clean air laws so they can sell high blends of ethanol, which pollutes the air in warm weather months, year round.”

Reply
May 15, 2018 11:59:26   #
boatbob2
 
Ethanol fuel costs me a MINIMUN of $260.00 dollars a year in replacement,and repairing my fleet of cars,and small engines,the time to ban ethanol,was the day they started with it.ethanol gas,,,,yesterday in Crystal River Florida,ethanol gas Was $277.9 per gallon.

Reply
May 15, 2018 12:11:59   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
pafret wrote:
https://canadafreepress.com/article/the-ethanol-gravy-train-rolls-on?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=michael_avenatti_the_deep_state_tool&utm_term=2018-05-15

The ethanol gravy train rolls on

By Paul Driessen —— Bio and Archives--May 14, 2018

Like most people I’ve spoken with, I have no innate, inflexible antipathy to ethanol in gasoline. What upsets me are the deceptive claims used to justify adding mostly corn-based ethanol to this indispensable fuel; the way seriously harmful unintended consequences are brushed aside; and the insidious crony corporatist system the ethanol program has spawned between producers and members of Congress.

What angers me are the legislative and regulatory mandates that force us to buy gasoline that is 10% ethanol—even though it gets lower mileage than 100% gasoline, brings none of the proclaimed benefits (environmental or otherwise), drives up food prices, and damages small engines. In fact, in most areas, it’s almost impossible to find E-zero gasoline, and that problem will get worse as mandates increase.

My past articles lambasting ethanol addressed these issues, and said ethanol epitomizes federal programs that taxpayers and v**ers never seem able to terminate, no matter how wasteful or harmful they become. That’s primarily because its beneficiaries are well funded, motivated, politically connected and determined to keep their gravy train rolling down the tracks—while opponents and victims have far less funding, focus, motivation and ability to reach the decision-making powers.

Ethanol got started because of assertions that even now are still trotted out, despite having outlived their time in the real-world sun. First, we were told, ethanol would be a bulwark against oil imports from unfriendly nations, especially as the USA depleted its rapidly dwindling petroleum reserves. Of course, the fracking (horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing) revolution has given America and the world at least a century of new reserves, and the US now exports more oil and refined products than it imports.

Second, renewable fuels would help prevent dangerous manmade c*****e c****e. However, with the 2015-16 El Nino temperature spike now gone, average global temperatures are continuing the 20-year no-increase trend that completely contradicts alarmist predictions and models. Harvey was the first major hurricane in a record twelve years to make US landfall. And overall, the evidence-based scientific case for “dangerous manmade c*****e c****e” has become weaker with every passing year.

Moreover, the claim that ethanol and other biofuels don’t emit as much allegedly climate-impacting (but certainly plant-fertilizing) carbon dioxide as gasoline has also been put out to pasture. In reality, over their full life cycle (from planting and harvesting crops, to converting them to fuel, to t***sporting them by truck, to blending and burning them), biofuels emit at least as much CO2 as their petroleum counterparts.

Ironically, the state that grows the most corn and produces the most ethanol—the state whose Republican senators had a fit when EPA proposed to reduce its 2018 non-ethanol biodiesel requirement by a measly 315 million gallons, out of 19.3 billion gallons in total renewable fuels—buys less ethanol-laced gasoline than do average consumers in the rest of the USA. That state is Iowa.

In fact, Iowans bought more ethanol-free gasoline in 2016 than what EPA projects the entire United States will be able to buy in just a few more years, as the E10 mandates ratchet higher and higher.

And so this past week, after months of battles, debates and negotiations, President Trump hosted a White House meeting with legislators The purpose was to address and compromise on at least some of the thorny issues that had put Ted Cruz, Joni Ernst and other politicians at loggerheads, as they sought to reform some aspects of the Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) system while protecting their constituents.

In an effort to expand the reform agenda, by making legislators and citizens better informed in advance of the meeting, 18 diverse organizations wrote a joint letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, underscoring why they believe broad and significant RFS reform is essential. Signatories included major national meat and poultry producers and processors, restaurants, marine manufacturers, small engine owners, consumer and taxpayer organizations, and conservation and environmental groups. They were especially worried about the prospect that the Congress and Administration might allow year-round sales of 15% (E15) ethanol blends in gasoline, but they raised other pressing concerns as well.

As large shares of domestic corn and soy crops are now diverted from food use to fuel production, poultry, beef, pork and fish producers (and consumers) face volatile and increasing prices for animal feed.
Ethanol wreaks havoc on the engines and fuel systems of boats, motorcycles and lawn equipment, as well as many automobiles, which are not capable or allowed to run on E15. Repair and replacement costs are a major issue for marine and small engine owners (as I personally discovered when I owned a boat).
Consumers and taxpayers must pay increasing costs as biofuel mandates increase under the RFS.
Millions of acres of native prairie and other ecosystems have been turned into large-scale agricultural developments, because the RFS encourages farmers to plow land, instead of preserving habitats. This endangers ecosystems and species, exacerbates agricultural run-off and degrades water quality.
Biofuel demand promotes conversion of natural habitats to palm oil and other plantations overseas, as well as domestically. Their life-cycle carbon dioxide emissions rival or exceed those of oil and gas.
Expanding markets for corn ethanol by increasing E15 sales ignores and exacerbates these problems—while benefiting a small subset of the US economy but negatively impacting far more sectors, including the general public and the industries and interests represented by signatories to the Pruitt letter.
Following the meeting, several signatories expanded on these concerns—and noted that the compromise did increase E15 sales, while reducing the RFS impact on small refineries that were being forced to buy paper biofuel certificates because they weren’t making enough gasoline to need mandated real biofuel.

Requiring every American to buy ethanol gasoline “isn’t good enough” for biofuel companies anymore, the National Council of Chain Restaurants remarked. “Now they want a waiver from federal clean air laws so they can sell high blends of ethanol, which pollutes the air in warm weather months, year round.”
https://canadafreepress.com/article/the-ethanol-gr... (show quote)


This is a monster which has continued to grow out of control. Seemed like a good idea at the time, though!

I get ethanol free gas at the local marina for my motorcycle. Much less carb problems with that!!

Reply
 
 
May 15, 2018 14:42:58   #
boatbob2
 
Ethanol free gas here,is $3.19.9 per gallon.

Reply
May 15, 2018 15:04:58   #
woodguru
 
I pay $100 for five gallon cans of ethanol free 104 octane gas for my chainsaws, weedeaters, and small motors because I got tired of them needing new carb lines and gaskets every year or two. It's cheaper than repairs.

And it pisses me off that cars get at least 10% less fuel efficiency...there is no viable reason for the government to be subsidizing farmers or oil companies.

Reply
May 15, 2018 17:30:37   #
pafret Loc: Northeast
 
woodguru wrote:
I pay $100 for five gallon cans of ethanol free 104 octane gas for my chainsaws, weedeaters, and small motors because I got tired of them needing new carb lines and gaskets every year or two. It's cheaper than repairs.

And it pisses me off that cars get at least 10% less fuel efficiency...there is no viable reason for the government to be subsidizing farmers or oil companies.


This is another Al Gore Boondoggle, it increases costs to operate our vehicles, it damages engines, it raises prices on food both in scarcity driven price increases and cost driven increases. In short, only some weenie buried in the wood works is making money from this and the rest of us pay for it.

Reply
May 16, 2018 08:56:38   #
valkyrierider Loc: "Land of Trump"
 
woodguru wrote:
I pay $100 for five gallon cans of ethanol free 104 octane gas for my chainsaws, weedeaters, and small motors because I got tired of them needing new carb lines and gaskets every year or two. It's cheaper than repairs.

And it pisses me off that cars get at least 10% less fuel efficiency...there is no viable reason for the government to be subsidizing farmers or oil companies.


This is because the oil companies lowered the octane ratings of gasoline 3 octane because they had to put 10% alcohol in the gasoline. This is why you get less mileage. If they had left the gasoline at the standard octane and then added the 10% you would get better mileage. so the oil companies screwed us as they did not want to have to change their blends to please the government. So now we the public get screwed.

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.