Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 28

Thread: E.P.A. Expects to Raise Amount of Ethanol 15%

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern WV
    Posts
    621

    E.P.A. Expects to Raise Amount of Ethanol 15%

    I hope they don't go through with this. I guess if we had the choice at the pump, I wouldn't object. Maybe they should use "blending" pumps for ethanol?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/bu...anol.html?_r=1

  2. #2
    Registered User texanrt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    870
    How many (and what types of) bikes would be put out of service based on that decision?
    Texan RT | Houston | IBA
    BMW R1200RT | HD Road Glide

  3. #3
    Registered User 36654's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Central PA
    Posts
    1,721
    Quote Originally Posted by ridewv View Post
    I hope they don't go through with this. I guess if we had the choice at the pump, I wouldn't object. Maybe they should use "blending" pumps for ethanol?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/bu...anol.html?_r=1
    On one hand there's you and on the other is US Agri-business (i.e., Archer Daniels Midland, Monsanto and all the farm states). You loose. Very simple.

    Read the NY Times story............the ethanol producers have excess capacity that needs to be tapped. That's the issue. ADM(corn processing) and Monsanto (seed) dominate the Dept. of Ag. It's just like the coal company's and WV. In both cases, ADM/Monsanto and the Coal companies are simply supporting "domestic" fuel production to enable US energy independence.

    EPA is just giving permission for them to do so, relative to emissions. As a fuel, the emissions should be similar, or slightly improved, with the ethanol. If it possibly damages some vehicle's engine or fuel system, that isn't an issue for the EPA or USDA. You, as a consumer, might care, but caveat emptor my friend.........
    Last edited by 36654; 12-05-2009 at 03:08 PM. Reason: typo

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    34
    Personally, I hope it never happens. I know in most cases, we have no choice, as the ethanol is already blended in but I do not like to use gasoline with any percentage of ethanol in any of my vehicles. I think it is bad for the engines and it decreases the gasoline mileage. Just my opinion. Jim Reynolds

  5. #5
    grossjohann
    Guest
    Yup. Don't let it sit in your tank either... the Ethanol will break down in a couple of months.

    Higher Octane with Ethanol, but faster burn. Funny, I think it actually increases the amount of carbon emissions.

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    1,962
    Quote Originally Posted by grossjohann View Post
    Yup. Don't let it sit in your tank either... the Ethanol will break down in a couple of months.

    Higher Octane with Ethanol, but faster burn. Funny, I think it actually increases the amount of carbon emissions.
    If you look at it from the "life cycle" perspective; ie; including the activities involved in the corn production, it definitely does increase pollution. The real "green" people are figuring this out. The agrobiz political interests just repeat the "goin green" sloganeering so that most will never figure it out.

  7. #7
    JAMESDUNN
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by 36654 View Post
    On one hand there's you and on the other is US Agri-business (i.e., Archer Daniels Midland, Monsanto and all the farm states). You loose. Very simple.

    Read the NY Times story............the ethanol producers have excess capacity that needs to be tapped. That's the issue. ADM(corn processing) and Monsanto (seed) dominate the Dept. of Ag. It's just like the coal company's and WV. In both cases, ADM/Monsanto and the Coal companies are simply supporting "domestic" fuel production to enable US energy independence.

    EPA is just giving permission for them to do so, relative to emissions. As a fuel, the emissions should be similar, or slightly improved, with the ethanol. If it possibly damages some vehicle's engine or fuel system, that isn't an issue for the EPA or USDA. You, as a consumer, might care, but caveat emptor my friend.........
    All true and..Tom Vilsack is the head of Ag., Tom is the ex -governor of Iowa, the lagest corn producing state.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    WC Indiana
    Posts
    843
    If you increase the alcohol content to 15%, that means you would need to increase alcohol production 50%. Where would that much corn come from? Already alcohol plants have closed from lack of corn. Alcohol plants have went broke by paying too much for corn.

    Why not sell grain alcohol to the Chinese?

    Remember when the Chinese would only take pound sterling from the English in trade for tea? Once England's treasury was broke, what did England trade with China to get their pound sterling back?

    JON

  9. #9
    Registered User 36654's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Central PA
    Posts
    1,721
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkCloud View Post
    If you increase the alcohol content to 15%, that means you would need to increase alcohol production 50%. Where would that much corn come from? Already alcohol plants have closed from lack of corn. Alcohol plants have went broke by paying too much for corn.

    Why not sell grain alcohol to the Chinese?

    Remember when the Chinese would only take pound sterling from the English in trade for tea? Once England's treasury was broke, what did England trade with China to get their pound sterling back?

    JON
    JON,

    Alcohol plants went broke because the price of gas dropped.

    Believe it or not, I wasn't alive in the latter 1700's and early 1800's, so I can't remember, but I have studied this period in history. Drawing parallels to the opium/tea trade is really uncomfortable at this time ( Production (India, Pakistan and Afghanistan) - Market (China) - Profit (tea to England)). That worked for a while. But, eventually, the Chinese leadership realized that this market was corrupting their government and attempted various reforms. Sadly, the Chinese were never truly successful in purging the corruption until the Maoist revolution, a century later.

    Relative to US history, the developing opium/tea trade is really a pivotal event which enabled our independence from England. With the expansion of the Empire into India, cash strapped England was primarily focused on exploiting this new found source of wealth. As such, the American revolution was a minor annoyance (in a barren wilderness) of passing interest to the Empire and, thus, received commensurate levels of monetary and military support. The French recognized this and were happy to provide a modest naval blockage which resulted in the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown and American Independence.

    BTW, our financial wizards took your suggested approach a decade ago, they just substituted "Collateralized Debt Obligations" for corn alcohol and "us" for the Chinese.

  10. #10
    Rally Rat
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    629
    If approved, this is bad news for the world and American consumers. Ethanol requires cheap corn, high oil prices and a government subsidy for viability. Most of the ethanol plants over the past two years went out of business because of high price of corn ($10 a bushel) and lower fuel prices. With fuel cost again on the rise, so are corn prices. Corn is closing in on $4 a bushel. The only way to off-set these two variables is higher government subsidies. If this is EPA policy is approved (by unelected government bureaucrats - so much for our constitution), the demand for corn will again rise since it directly competes with domestic consumption in food stuffs and animal feed.

    The end result will be higher food prices and increased fuel costs. Meanwhile for folks in the Midwest, increased ethanol will decrease fuel mileage and cause potential problems with vehicles not designed for ethanol. For the rest of you folks that don't live in states where Ethanol is mandated, you will pay along with us with higher food prices and government subsidies.

    Another unintended cost of ethanol is the strain on the third world where corn is a staple food. You may recall the food riots a few years ago when the cost of corn hit $10 bushel. Higher corn prices result in higher numbers of starvation worldwide. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americ...d.food.crisis/
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=6933

    Meanwhile, the farmer is being duped into thinking they are getting ahead. As corn prices increase, so does fuel prices, corn seed and fertilizer. A bag of corn seed is now over $300 bags. And, you can't legally use the corn in your bins to plant another crop. The seed dealers know where you bought the seed and will test your crop genetically, and then prosecute you. This is nothing more than political payoffs for large campaign donations by ADM, Dupont and others.
    Last edited by kenk; 12-06-2009 at 10:57 PM.

  11. #11
    Registered User 119240's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cambridge,Ma
    Posts
    385
    Great more popcorn on the streets.
    I saw a great cartoon of a motorcycle blowing popcorn out it's tailpipe.
    '91 K75S, '06 K1200S
    BMWMOA #119240
    YB # 1463
    NRA #154764753

  12. #12
    Registered User 36654's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Central PA
    Posts
    1,721
    Quote Originally Posted by kenk View Post
    If this is EPA policy is approved (by unelected government bureaucrats - so much for our constitution), the demand for corn will again rise since it directly competes with domestic consumption in food stuffs and animal feed.
    Do you feel the same anger at USDA which administers the farm subsidies? EPA is only evaluating the impact of increasing the percentage of ethanol in the blend. These bureaucrats are only doing what your elected representatives have agree to for several decades? What you are asking for is a complete remake of US agribusiness which is effectively built on dirt cheap, subsidized corn and illegal alien labor to minimize costs. It's really ugly and just plain bad.

    You can rant all you want, but your anger at the EPA is misplaced.

  13. #13
    Rally Rat
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    629
    Quote Originally Posted by 36654 View Post
    Do you feel the same anger at USDA which administers the farm subsidies? EPA is only evaluating the impact of increasing the percentage of ethanol in the blend. These bureaucrats are only doing what your elected representatives have agree to for several decades? What you are asking for is a complete remake of US agribusiness which is effectively built on dirt cheap, subsidized corn and illegal alien labor to minimize costs. It's really ugly and just plain bad.

    You can rant all you want, but your anger at the EPA is misplaced.
    I do feel the same anger against the USDA. So does every farmer when he walks into a USDA service office. Any old farmer will tell you that they were much better off before government subsidies and USDA control. Farm subsidies have destroyed the traditional markets based on supply and demand. A few years ago, a study out of Kansas State University stated the average Kansas Farmer's income for the year was $42k. The average Kansas farmer received $47k in farm subsidies that year. The government now controls through their programs, just about every grain crop that goes into the ground.

    Bureaucrats are doing what bureaucrats do best....growing their budgets and control on the American people. Expanding the Ethanol program is the responsibility of elected accountable politicians, not bureaucrats. There are plenty of example of how the EPA has used bad science to eliminate individual liberties on individual property right or worked with other federal agencies to shut down citizens rights to use public lands.

    http://www.ama-cycle.org/legisltn/rapidresponse.asp

    Another well-known case is shutting down Yellowstone to only a small number of snowmobiles. This ridiculous policy was made by bureaucrats that sit in DC traffic fours hours each day.

    Left unchecked, the EPA will eventually destroy the motorcycle industry by forcing motorcycle to meet the much stricter small car emissions standard for HC + NOx. Only our elected official stand between the EPA and this future policy. This press release from the EPA dates back to 2003. http://epa.gov/otaq/regs/roadbike/420f03046.pdf

    From this EPA document....Are motorcycles a less-polluting alternative to cars?
    No, in fact, motorcycles produce more harmful emissions per mile than a
    car or even a large SUV. The current federal motorcycle standard for
    hydrocarbon emissions is about 90 times the hydrocarbon standard for
    today’s passenger cars. And when new emission standards go into effect,
    SUVs will be about 95 percent cleaner than today’s motorcycle.


    The current EPA emission standard is 16 times the HC standard for motorcycles when compared to the small car standard. The Bush administration stopped the EPA from mandating the small car standard. There's nothing stopping them now. It simply a matter of time before the EPA mandates a standard beyond the technical capabilities of the industry, increasing the already high prices of motorcycles, eliminating some or all manufacturers.

    No...my anger against the EPA is well-placed. They are a threat against our liberties.
    Last edited by kenk; 12-07-2009 at 01:50 AM.

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern WV
    Posts
    621
    In my original post I mentioned.....

    Quote Originally Posted by ridewv View Post
    . I guess if we had the choice at the pump, I wouldn't object. Maybe they should use "blending" pumps for ethanol?
    Would there be a negative consequence if stations sold gasoline (or whatever it is now) through "tri-blended pumps"? Consumers could chose what octane and however much alcohol they want? I know I would be willing to pay extra for a "less alcohol, adequate octane" blend. This could satisfy both the citizens and bureaucrats.

  15. #15
    Registered User 36654's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Central PA
    Posts
    1,721
    Quote Originally Posted by kenk View Post
    I do feel the same anger against the USDA. So does every farmer when he walks into a USDA service office. Any old farmer will tell you that they were much better off before government subsidies and USDA control. Farm subsidies have destroyed the traditional markets based on supply and demand. A few years ago, a study out of Kansas State University stated the average Kansas Farmer's income for the year was $42k. The average Kansas farmer received $47k in farm subsidies that year. The government now controls through their programs, just about every grain crop that goes into the ground.

    Bureaucrats are doing what bureaucrats do best....growing their budgets and control on the American people. Expanding the Ethanol program is the responsibility of elected accountable politicians, not bureaucrats. There are plenty of example of how the EPA has used bad science to eliminate individual liberties on individual property right or worked with other federal agencies to shut down citizens rights to use public lands.

    http://www.ama-cycle.org/legisltn/rapidresponse.asp

    Another well-known case is shutting down Yellowstone to only a small number of snowmobiles. This ridiculous policy was made by bureaucrats that sit in DC traffic fours hours each day.

    Left unchecked, the EPA will eventually destroy the motorcycle industry by forcing motorcycle to meet the much stricter small car emissions standard for HC + NOx. Only our elected official stand between the EPA and this future policy. This press release from the EPA dates back to 2003. http://epa.gov/otaq/regs/roadbike/420f03046.pdf

    From this EPA document....Are motorcycles a less-polluting alternative to cars?
    No, in fact, motorcycles produce more harmful emissions per mile than a
    car or even a large SUV. The current federal motorcycle standard for
    hydrocarbon emissions is about 90 times the hydrocarbon standard for
    todayÔÇÖs passenger cars. And when new emission standards go into effect,
    SUVs will be about 95 percent cleaner than todayÔÇÖs motorcycle.


    The current EPA emission standard is 16 times the HC standard for motorcycles when compared to the small car standard. The Bush administration stopped the EPA from mandating the small car standard. There's nothing stopping them now. It simply a matter of time before the EPA mandates a standard beyond the technical capabilities of the industry, increasing the already high prices of motorcycles, eliminating some or all manufacturers.

    No...my anger against the EPA is well-placed. They are a threat against our liberties.

    So, BMW motorcycles should be dirtier than BMW cars? What justifies sloppier engineering on the motorcycle? Based on the prices I've paid, the $/hp is similar for the small BMW cars and bikes, so the technology should be similar. Your defense of your liberties seems to be more of a defense of poor engineering.

    Relative to farmers and the free market, why don't your brave souls in Kansas just go cold turkey on the USDA handouts? They don't have to take crop insurance.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •