Non-ethanol gas a necessity?

[midwest_170]

he wa

he was on here,,while back,,tooting the justification for eth fuel...................smoke and mirrors.....

Really, pull those threads so I can read them. I have no agenda. I'm a farmer, I grow corn which is used in ethanol production. Just don't enjoy reading propaganda like this. There's a big misconception about ethanol, especially from the subsidies stand point. I'll ask one more time provide a link showing where ethanol is directly or indirectly getting government assistance. If you can't I'll assume u have conceded, and don't respond with some long winded response blowing smoke.

One thing I will agree with, it's not for small engines or anything that will sit for months with fuel in the system. I made that comment in my 1st post, I run 91 ethanol free in my small engines.

 

[Deleted member 83629]

i have not burned E5 OR E10 in my truck in two years i get 21.3 highway using ethanol free and running E5,E10 i only got 17.9 highway plus my truck doesn't have a rough idle anymore.

 

[Whitespider]

I'll ask one more time provide a link showing where ethanol is directly or indirectly getting government assistance.

So you're claiming Federal law/mandates such as the RFS and RFG, that require the use of oxygenates and/or (so-called) renewable fuels are not in themselves a subsidy?? You're claiming that ain't "assistance" from Government?? Where is your head man??
I've already pointed that out... those laws/mandates force the use of ethanol... they force the market to use something against it's will. I don't care how you defend it... that's subsidizing ethanol. If you force, by law, sector A of the market to buy and use the products from sector B... that's subsidizing sector B anyway you look at it. And that ain't even the real smoke 'n' mirrors part.

What do you think would happen to ethanol if the RFS and RFG were abolished (as they should be)??
I'll tell you... ethanol fuel would fall into obscurity faster than a burning zeppelin falls from the sky.

Anyway... you asked for one link, I'll give you three that tells how smoke 'n' mirrors work to subsidize ethanol.
And if you need more... well... then your in flat denial because you like the flavor of the Kool-Aid you're being served.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/econo...15-budget-backs-costly-corn-ethanol-subsidies

http://watchdog.org/206711/ethanol-subsidies-ia-bad/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/dirty-rotten-ethanol-scoundrels-1433716070

Getting screwed at both ends... gotta' love it.
*

 

[midwest_170]

1st article talks about past subsidies and proposed subsidies to blender pumps but fails to mention anything about current subsidies, maybe because there isn't any. 2nd article talks about RFS being a subsidy, but fails to point out that the current ethonal production exceeds the RFS level, which means RFS is not holding ethanol up. Couldn't read last one, but probably just more propaganda. America has been brain washed by big oil. On top of being a farmer I'm also an engineer. In the early 2000's before any of the ethanol boom started I did a 2 semester project involving ethonal use in gasoline engines. Pure ethanol is not destructive, think of moon shine, it's the same process. The engine build up u see comes from additives to help clean your engine etc put in by oil companies that settle out over time. Gasoline from pumps is meant to be consumed not stored.

 

[Whitespider]

...the current ethonal production exceeds the RFS level, which means RFS is not holding ethanol up.

So what?? There wouldn't be any ethanol in our gas if not for the RFS... that's the point.
Refiners, blenders, and suppliers were stockpiling and pre-purchasing ethanol (RIN's) at massive levels starting in 2012 in anticipation of meeting the ever increasing RFS. The more they could incorporate into the fuel, the less tax and penalties they would be paying. However, they were up against a blend ceiling... no matter what, they weren't gonna' be able to meet the standard. Heck, RIN's were even being speculated and traded like stock through brokers. But then the EPA pulled the ultimate dirty trick... they reduced the mandated amount citing the blend ceiling. What were producers gonna' do with all that ethanol they were now not required to use?? Ethanol they never would have purchased in the first damn place if not for the RFS?? Dump it in the river?? They've already spent the money on it, invested heavy in it... they're using it, they have no choice now, they own it.

Even though the ethanol lobby was against the mandate reduction in the first place (what a surprise)... they joined the EPA in a smoke 'n' mirrors PR program. They could now claim that more ethanol was being used than what was required... but they fail to mention that's because of the last minute reduced mandate, and has absolutely nothing to do with ethanol being a "free market" contributor. The facts remain, if not for the RFS creating the artificial market, the gasoline industry would not have purchased the ethanol in the first place, then the EPA artificially created the ethanol glut by first setting an impossible to meet mandate and then reducing it at the last second.

Trying to claim the RFS is not holding ethanol up is smoke 'n' mirrors. The RFS is what created the market in the first damn place, then with a stroke of the pen the RFS creates the ethanol glut. And the story told to the Kool-Aid drinkers is that ethanol now stands on its own two feet... which is total bullcrap, more smoke 'n' mirrors. And this sort'a crap is just the easy to see and point out crap... the ethanol scam, the shell game, is a monster convoluted maze of lies designed to keep the money flowing into already bulging pockets.

Only if the RFS and RFG were completely abolished... and a few years allowed for things to settle out... can your claim even be considered.
However, I'm 101% sure you'd have no claim... b'cause ethanol fuel would be a footnote in history.

What flavor is the Kool-Aid you're drinkin' anyway??
*

 

[mga]

the price difference is mandated by the EPA to discourage people from using non-ethanol gas.

without getting political, the corn belt lobbyists are a very powerful group.

 

[Whitespider]

Watch and see what happens to the ethanol industry in 2016 and into 2017...

Falling oil prices are bad news for ethanol... it could survive $50 oil for a while, but oil under $40 and still falling is horrible news. The new omnibus spending bill opens up more export of U.S. shale oil, and U.S. production has been one of the major contributors to falling prices. The artificial ethanol glut has tightened margins for ethanol producers (that's why they opposed the mandate reduction), and falling oil prices will reduce demand for ethanol and therefore margins even more. Lucky for them corn prices are low right now... but that's a double-edged sword. Why grow $3 corn when you can grow $9 beans or some other crop??

Lower oil prices mean lower demand for ethanol (as does the mandate reduction)... lower demand for ethanol means lower demand for corn... lower demand for corn means less corn grown... less corn grown means prices go up... and the ethanol lobby will be screaming like babies again. The ethanol industry will be facing layoffs, shutdowns, and even failures. You can bet your azz Government will step in with new market manipulations to keep ethanol afloat (including restrictions/regulations on oil production)... and the American taxpayer will be footing the bill.

That's what happens when Government "creates" a false market way out of proportion to free market sustainability. It's one bail-out after another... more smoke 'n' mirrors to hide it... until the house-of-cards finally collapses under its own weight. Ethanol is closer to that point than most realize... it's been teetering on the edge for a few years now, kept alive by convenient oil price spikes and market manipulations. There's gonna' be hell-to-pay when it happens. But... as they say... make hay while the sun shines... get rich while ya' can... the suckers will clean up the mess.
*

 

[philoshop]

Corn goes into stews, muffins, and bourbon. Dead dinosaurs go in my fuel tanks.

 

[philoshop]

I'm just happy that no one here has tried floating the lead balloon that "ethanol is more environmentally friendly".

 

[cuinrearview]

Why?? Why would nearly every gas station around here keep 87 octane E-free if it wasn't selling??
*

The answer to this question lies in your post above. Currently the E10 fuel is manipulated to look more attractive financially for the consumer, but if this section of the economy were failing our government would push further to ensure it didn't. Ethanol has the farmers and the global warmers behind it. Heck, I already have to drive 45 minutes each way to get E0. Maybe I've just lost faith that the people's voice matters, or maybe the next couple of election cycles will change my mind.

 

[olyman]

So what?? There wouldn't be any ethanol in our gas if not for the RFS... that's the point.
Refiners, blenders, and suppliers were stockpiling and pre-purchasing ethanol (RIN's) at massive levels starting in 2012 in anticipation of meeting the ever increasing RFS. The more they could incorporate into the fuel, the less tax and penalties they would be paying. However, they were up against a blend ceiling... no matter what, they weren't gonna' be able to meet the standard. Heck, RIN's were even being speculated and traded like stock through brokers. But then the EPA pulled the ultimate dirty trick... they reduced the mandated amount citing the blend ceiling. What were producers gonna' do with all that ethanol they were now not required to use?? Ethanol they never would have purchased in the first damn place if not for the RFS?? Dump it in the river?? They've already spent the money on it, invested heavy in it... they're using it, they have no choice now, they own it.

Even though the ethanol lobby was against the mandate reduction in the first place (what a surprise)... they joined the EPA in a smoke 'n' mirrors PR program. They could now claim that more ethanol was being used than what was required... but they fail to mention that's because of the last minute reduced mandate, and has absolutely nothing to do with ethanol being a "free market" contributor. The facts remain, if not for the RFS creating the artificial market, the gasoline industry would not have purchased the ethanol in the first place, then the EPA artificially created the ethanol glut by first setting an impossible to meet mandate and then reducing it at the last second.

Trying to claim the RFS is not holding ethanol up is smoke 'n' mirrors. The RFS is what created the market in the first damn place, then with a stroke of the pen the RFS creates the ethanol glut. And the story told to the Kool-Aid drinkers is that ethanol now stands on its own two feet... which is total bullcrap, more smoke 'n' mirrors. And this sort'a crap is just the easy to see and point out crap... the ethanol scam, the shell game, is a monster convoluted maze of lies designed to keep the money flowing into already bulging pockets.

Only if the RFS and RFG were completely abolished... and a few years allowed for things to settle out... can your claim even be considered.
However, I'm 101% sure you'd have no claim... b'cause ethanol fuel would be a footnote in history.

What flavor is the Kool-Aid you're drinkin' anyway??
*

SOME farmers,,put on horse blinders every morning....he will still argue till the cows come home,,,,

 

[TRTermite]

SOME farmers,,put on horse blinders every morning....he will still argue till the cows come home,,,,

We have an Amish Community That make use of Horse Blinders all the time...

 

[jrclen]

Every motor smaller than my truck gets non ethanol gas. It's well worth the cost. Ethanol is evil.