|
Ethanol
Jan 29, 2013 14:10:29 GMT -5
Post by boxcar on Jan 29, 2013 14:10:29 GMT -5
Ethanol is one of the only products in history that Congress subsidizes and mandates at the same time. That sounds pretty generous. Yet now a federal court has ruled the Environmental Protection Agency is illegally giving the lobby extra benefits that Congress never intended. That takes some work.
On Friday the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the EPA had abused the law with "an unreasonable exercise of agency discretion," and it vacated the 2012 cellulosic ethanol mandate. The 2007 Bush-Pelosi energy bill required blending fuels that can allegedly be made from switchgrass or farm waste into the gasoline supply, though no companies produced the product at a commercial scale. Guarantee a market, the thinking went, and somebody somewhere will fill it.
Except six years later, little has changed. The cellulosic ethanol industry produced zero gallons in 2011 and zero in 2012. But the EPA still required oil companies and refiners to buy 6.6 million gallons in 2011 and 8.7 million in 2012—and then to purchase millions of dollars of "waiver credits" for failing to comply with a mandate to buy a product that did not exist. This is the sort of thing that led to the Protestant Reformation.
|
|
|
Ethanol
Jan 29, 2013 17:22:50 GMT -5
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Jan 29, 2013 17:22:50 GMT -5
Don't even set me started on this subject. What the stupid gomment did to the price of fuel, corn, meat, cereal, and a host of other products with this mush headed mandate is criminal! And that doesn't even take into account the number of engines that have been ruined or the repair bills that were generated.....
|
|
|
Ethanol
Jan 29, 2013 21:27:37 GMT -5
Post by dontom on Jan 29, 2013 21:27:37 GMT -5
Don't even set me started on this subject. What the stupid gomment did to the price of fuel, corn, meat, cereal, and a host of other products with this mush headed mandate is criminal! And that doesn't even take into account the number of engines that have been ruined or the repair bills that were generated..... It's not all bad. Those repair bills bring jobs! -Don-
|
|
|
Ethanol
Jan 30, 2013 0:14:03 GMT -5
Post by Swampy on Jan 30, 2013 0:14:03 GMT -5
Dump ethanol!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Ethanol
Jan 30, 2013 16:55:15 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2013 16:55:15 GMT -5
Many Australians have refused to buy gas/petrol containing Ethanol, E10 as we know it or unleaded E10.
In my vehicles (2 gas/petrol and LPG tanks and 1 diesel/LPG mixed) I use Premium Unleaded 95 octane rating (E10) is I think 91 octane) and fuel consumption verses cost of fuel is several percent better.
I have a Honda 130 outboard boat motor and have always used Premium in it but after one trip of two days aboard I refilled with 90 litres into the 160 litre fuel tank by mistake. I did not worry about it because of the Premium balance of tank. The boat was not used again for over a year because I moved house.
After a major service first time on the water the fuel pump failed but worked enough to get us back to the boat ramp, spluttering along at 4 knots.
The service people said that the Ethanol had caused seals within the pump to fail, and the rubber line to the motor was badly damaged too.
I now use a fuel additive to prolong storage life by boosting the octane level.
Ethanol is a no from me too.
|
|
|
Ethanol
Jan 30, 2013 17:09:50 GMT -5
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Jan 30, 2013 17:09:50 GMT -5
I fly with a number of Ultralight pilots and three of them have had bad experiences with ethanol. One had to land off airport (called a crash landing by the media) when pieces of his fuel tank clogged the fuel strainer and stopped flow to the engine. Had to replace the fuel tank. Another lost 12 gallons of fuel on the hangar floor when the ethanol ate through the fuel tank. Luckily there was no fire. The third one had engine failure on take off because the ethanol ate through the fuel line and interrupted flow to the engine. I had to have my lawn mower repaired twice due to ethanol contamination. I now burn AvGas in the mower. My airplane is certified to burn 87 octane, but I now must use much more expensive AvGas because of the ethanol added to mo gas. On the other side of the coin - the use of corn to produce ethanol has resulted in a sizeable increase in the price of corn and all things corn is used for - animal feed, etc. Ethanol and I are not friends.
|
|
|
Ethanol
Jan 30, 2013 23:44:57 GMT -5
Post by dontom on Jan 30, 2013 23:44:57 GMT -5
If you wanna be an expert on the stuff, see here.-Don- Reno, NV
|
|
|
Ethanol
Jan 31, 2013 2:40:58 GMT -5
Post by Sir John on Jan 31, 2013 2:40:58 GMT -5
When this idea was first floated, someone sat down and figured out that if EVERY square yard of the USA was put to producing corn, it would not produce enough ethanol to run America's cars.
SJ
|
|
|
Ethanol
Jan 31, 2013 3:23:33 GMT -5
Post by dontom on Jan 31, 2013 3:23:33 GMT -5
When this idea was first floated, someone sat down and figured out that if EVERY square yard of the USA was put to producing corn, it would not produce enough ethanol to run America's cars. SJ But then we would not have room for cars anyway.
-Don-
|
|
|
Ethanol
Jan 31, 2013 12:25:47 GMT -5
Post by Sir John on Jan 31, 2013 12:25:47 GMT -5
..or your house!
|
|
|
Ethanol
Jan 31, 2013 13:23:49 GMT -5
Post by Sir John on Jan 31, 2013 13:23:49 GMT -5
Taking it one step further, or back, if you devoted 50% of the entire land mass of the USA, you 'may' reduce your gas consumption by 50%.
Not the cost, just the volume.
SJ
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2013 0:30:59 GMT -5
That's corny Sir John
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Feb 4, 2013 2:18:22 GMT -5
"very droll Prime Minister, very droll."
|
|