Ethanol was a "Mistake" says Al Gore

On 12/01/2010 08:17 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>
>
>> good - pay attention to the big picture. add the fact that these are
>> /your/ tax dollars doing other people's work, and the picture will be
>> more realistic.
>
> How is it "your tax dollars doing other people's work"?. What is being
> discussed is putting a federal tax on ethanol. Right now the government
> is not collecting this tax on the ethanol. Under the current law ethanol
> will be taxed starting January 1, 2011.
>
> What you are asking people to do is write their congressman and ask for
> an increase in their taxes. The new tax that is scheduled to start Jan
> 1. will increase the price at the pump by about 5 cents/gallon.
> personally I think they should increase taxes on motor fuel a lot more
> than that, but this is a start.

no, the tax breaks handed out to commodity producers, processors, and
oilco's mean you're already paying /more taxes than you need to.
canceling those tax breaks will /decrease/ you total financial burden,
not increase it.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 12/01/2010 12:16 PM, Brent wrote:
> On 2010-12-01, jim > wrote:
>> On 11/30/2010 12:34 PM, Brent wrote:
>>> On 2010-11-30, jim > wrote:
>>>> On 11/30/2010 09:35 AM, Brent wrote:
>>>>> On 2010-11-30, jim > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> spectacular windfall quite without precedent. and it's going to stay
>>>>>> that way for as long as the public keep rolling over and taking it up
>>>>>> the ass every day they /don't/ write their representatives to stop this
>>>>>> rort.
>>>>>
>>>>> The representives don't even read/listen.
>>>>
>>>> not true. i always get responses when i write.
>>>
>>> So do I. They make absolutely no sense with regard to what I wrote. What
>>> I wrote was clearly not even read.
>>
>> well, write better letters and you'll get a better response.
>
> Better? The responses aren't even in the same ballpark.

well, there's two factors in that. first, the average representatives
office is not staffed by illiterates, so the second factor is the nature
of the letter they received.


>
>> enclose a
>> check and you'll /definitely/ get a better response.
>
> That's different from paying mobsters protection exactly how?

what are you not understanding about the way things work and getting
results?


>
>>>> now, they may not
>>>> /always/ be more than a form letter [but often they're individually
>>>> written by a real person], but someone has had to read them, and they
>>>> pay as much attention as they think they have to without upsetting the
>>>> balance between their voter interests and their funder interests.
>>>
>>> That being about 95/5 in favor of the funders.
>
>> only if voters sit on their asses and stay silent.
>
> And yet, even when 80% is not in favor they still vote for the
> legislation.

80%??? when 99.995% of their electorate sit on their asses and can't be
bothered to press "send" on an email???


>
>>>>> What are people going to do?
>>>
>>>> upset the above balance!!! there's only one thing a politician loves
>>>> more than money - votes. if they seriously think their position is at
>>>> risk because someone is expressing discontent with their activities, or
>>>> lack thereof, and there are enough for them to have to pay attention,
>>>> then pay attention they most certainly will do. even more especially if
>>>> there's a check attached, albeit for a small amount.
>>>
>>> Two elections of wholesale replacements and yet, no change. Look at what
>>> is going on right now. A bunch of middle finger to the people
>>> legislation.
>>
>> so keep on writing dude - or change your vote.
>
> If voting made a difference it would be illegal.

then why haven't you fled and sought asylum in some other fine
upstanding democracy like north korea?


>
>>>> don't forget, unless your letter looks like the unhinged ramblings of a
>>>> lunatic, they have to assume that for every person amped enough to
>>>> write, there are thousands more discontents who might just be thinking
>>>> the same thing and who are a vote risk. particularly if you can get it
>>>> published and start a letter chain in one of the local newspapers
>>>> criticizing your representatives for inaction.
>>>
>>> And yet, despite getting input of 'no' and 'hell no' on various
>>> legislation, they still pass it.
>
>> then get your friends to write. get your friends' friends to write. if
>> enough people do it, they'll sure as heck pay attention.
>
> Spin their wheels or root for a team. Those are the choices. Both are
> pointless. Mass ignoring of the government's mandates, restrictions, and
> everything else that doesn't have a victim is what needs to happen.

defeatism - yeah, history is littered with the achievements of
defeatists. oh, wait...


>
>>>>> Keep replacing Ds with Rs and Rs with Ds? Same difference as far as the
>>>>> corporate powers that be are concerned.
>
>>>> you can keep whichever one you want - just make them respond to your
>>>> wishes. if you sit on your ass doing nothing, there's only one certain
>>>> outcome - your voice will NOT be heard.
>>>
>>> Experience tells me that is an illusion. I've written more than enough.
>>> It's fundamentally pointless. At the most they will make some verbal
>>> gesture or slight of hand and then go back to voting for the wars,
>>> the bailouts, the corporate cartels, the body scanners, the security
>>> state, and so on. All the people writing congress critters on the TSA
>>> and look what happened? The TSA doubled down and congress did nothing.
>>> The remaining avenue is to shatter the illusions like the one you state
>>> above such that actual change becomes possible.
>
>> well, sitting on your ass and being defeatist sure won't help. if you
>> don't think you're being heard, make an appointment to go see them in
>> person. at least that way they'll have to go to the trouble of lying to
>> your face,
>
> I have had my "favorite" representive do that to me, lie to my face. No
> problem there.

so? did you ever graduate from the schoolyard?


>
>> and you can write to your local press accordingly if they do.
>
> The compliant media. LOL.
>
>> politicians can /only/ take the corporate dollar if voters let them.
>> apathy is a giant-ass paycheck.
>
> Ignoring the government's laws for their corporate masters is a good
> start. Deny them consent. That's when they'll have to change.

so freakin' well get involved!!!


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

jim beam wrote:

>
>
> no, the tax breaks handed out to commodity producers, processors, and
> oilco's mean you're already paying /more taxes than you need to.
> canceling those tax breaks will /decrease/ you total financial burden,
> not increase it.

PFFFFT. Not putting a tax on ethanol means the 10% of the gasoline I pump into my
gas tank is not taxed by the feds (the state taxes the 100%)

You are asking people to write their Congressperson and ask for an increase in the
fuel tax.

Increasing the tax on motor vehicle fuel is fine by me. People should ask congress
to raise the tax on fuel more often. The reason that the average car in the US get
20 mpg and cars in Europe get 45 mpg is because they have a healthy tax on fuel in
Europe that encourages fuel economy.

On 12/01/2010 05:16 PM, jim wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> no, the tax breaks handed out to commodity producers, processors, and
>> oilco's mean you're already paying /more taxes than you need to.
>> canceling those tax breaks will /decrease/ you total financial burden,
>> not increase it.
>
> PFFFFT. Not putting a tax on ethanol means the 10% of the gasoline I pump into my
> gas tank is not taxed by the feds (the state taxes the 100%)

you need to go spank your old math teachers.


>
> You are asking people to write their Congressperson and ask for an increase in the
> fuel tax.

that's not what i said - don't put words in my mouth.


>
> Increasing the tax on motor vehicle fuel is fine by me. People should ask congress
> to raise the tax on fuel more often. The reason that the average car in the US get
> 20 mpg and cars in Europe get 45 mpg is because they have a healthy tax on fuel in
> Europe that encourages fuel economy.

on that we agree. but it'll never happen - not because we can't afford
it, but because any part of the price not being taxed goes to the
oilcos. higher tax means skinnier margins.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 2010-12-02, jim beam > wrote:

> what are you not understanding about the way things work and getting
> results?

Exactly what results have occured that haven't increased the power of
government and or cash for the insiders? Here's the "long" list as I
know it:
1) Repeal of the NMSL.
2) Repeal of the law prohibiting americans from owning gold.

That's all folks. Simply occasionally blocking some new control freak or
corporatist legislation doesn't count. They just do it again and again
until it passes. Or there is a "compromise" which means the people lose
something less than initially planned, but still lose. So they come back
again and there is another compromise. The rate of decline is simply
slowed.

> 80%??? when 99.995% of their electorate sit on their asses and can't be
> bothered to press "send" on an email???

Of those that write or call. Or didn't you just argue that each person
who writes represents thousands that don't?

>>>> Two elections of wholesale replacements and yet, no change. Look at what
>>>> is going on right now. A bunch of middle finger to the people
>>>> legislation.
>>>
>>> so keep on writing dude - or change your vote.
>>
>> If voting made a difference it would be illegal.

> then why haven't you fled and sought asylum in some other fine
> upstanding democracy like north korea?

Why do you apparently believe tyranny of the majority is better than the
tyranny of one? What difference does it make to me when the government
(or some employee there of) demands I do something (with the threat of
violence that is behind all government demands) because the majority
says so or because the dictator says so? The government doesn't care
about the results of voting, it always wins a vote. Government wants a
vote because voting means keeping the present system, keeping the
government. The government fears when people decide the system isn't any
good. Change is when people stop consenting to being ruled over.

As far as North Korea is concerned, the US is getting there. And it's
not because people don't vote or don't write their congress critters.
Probably more so because they do. The vote appeals to their base
interests and the worst rise to the top.

>>> then get your friends to write. get your friends' friends to write. if
>>> enough people do it, they'll sure as heck pay attention.

>> Spin their wheels or root for a team. Those are the choices. Both are
>> pointless. Mass ignoring of the government's mandates, restrictions, and
>> everything else that doesn't have a victim is what needs to happen.

> defeatism - yeah, history is littered with the achievements of
> defeatists. oh, wait...

Who said anything about defeatism? I gave a solution. Ignore the
government in mass. We've been playing within the system as you argue
for, for decades. What has happened? The government is more powerful,
more intrusive, costs more, is more corrupt, is worse by every measure.
It's not working. Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting
different results. I am arguing to do something -different-.

jim beam wrote:

> >
> > You are asking people to write their Congressperson and ask for an increase in the
> > fuel tax.
>
> that's not what i said - don't put words in my mouth.

It is clear that you fail to understand what it is you advised people to
do.

You encouraged people to write their congressman. What exactly would you
like them to say when they do that? Do you want them to just babble some
meaningless political jargon about "subsidies" like do or do you want
them to say something that can actually be implemented into law?

Currently the ethanol "subsidy" (VEETC) consists of not charging the
federal road use tax on that portion of gasoline that is ethanol. If
people write their congressman and ask for the "subsidy" to end, what
they are doing is asking Congress to increase the tax they pay at the
pump on gasoline. You may not understand that is what they would be
asking for, but nevertheless that would be what they are asking for.




>
> >
> > Increasing the tax on motor vehicle fuel is fine by me. People should ask congress
> > to raise the tax on fuel more often. The reason that the average car in the US get
> > 20 mpg and cars in Europe get 45 mpg is because they have a healthy tax on fuel in
> > Europe that encourages fuel economy.
>
> on that we agree. but it'll never happen - not because we can't afford
> it, but because any part of the price not being taxed goes to the
> oilcos. higher tax means skinnier margins.

Well no it is not the oilcos or the politicians that are responsible.
This is the policy of the people. If the oilcos or politicians would go
against the policy the public would replace them with new oilcos and
politicians.

"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
...
>
>
> "C. E. White" wrote:
>>
>> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > No, that's E-90.
>>
>> I think you mean E-10 (10% ethanol - E-90 would be 90% ethanol).
>>
>> > That's a good thing. What is good about it is that it
>> > uses ethanol to bring the octane up instead of tetraethyl lead or MBTE,
>> > both of which are really toxic things you don't want around you.
>>
>> I disagree. For years oil companies have ben able to make unleaded gas
>> with
>> the necessary octane rating without ethanol, MDTE, or lead. Ethanol might
>> allow oil companim to appear do it for less that just using pure
>> petroleum,
>> but as far as I can tell, they are not passing these saving along to the
>> public - to the contrary, they are sticking it to us, because the E-10
>> "gas"
>> provides less total energy and therefore we need more of it to go the
>> same
>> distance as we could have gone with straight gasoline.
>
> On what basis do you claim the oil companies aren't passing the saving
> along? It has been estimated that if all the ethanol suddenly vanished
> the price of gasoline would increase by about 50 cents/gallon. It's been
> 90 years since the gasoline supply in the US has been composed of fuel
> made from just petroleum with no added octane booster. So how do you
> know what the cost of gasoline would be if all the necessary octane came
> from petroleum?

BS. For years Amoco sold gasoline without lead. From the mid 70's until
recent times lead free / ethanol free gasoline was virtually all you could
buy in my area.

>
> FYI it takes more energy to process petroleum feed stocks into higher
> octane components. Blending ethanol with gasoline saves energy and money
> in refinery costs. It means the refiners can produce mostly 84 octane
> fuel instead of mostly 87 octane fuel.
>
> The cost of increasing octane content today is even more expensive than
> it was in the past. Removing sulfur lowers the overall octane. Lower
> allowable limits on aromatics lowers octane. Yes a refinery can produce
> the necessary octane by only processing petroleum, but it would cost
> money and energy to do so.

Do you have proof, or are you just saying this? Less than 4 years ago I had
no trouble finding ethanol free premium gasoline at the same (or sometimes
lower) price than ethanol tainted gasoline.If ethanol tainted gasoline is so
cost effective, why wasn't it cheaper?

>>I'd like to be able
>> to choose whether I buy E-0 (no ethanol at all) or some other blend.
>
> Where I live thay have always labeled. They have been selling E10 for 35
> years.

I do not know where you live, so I can comment on this statement. In my area
(Central North Carolina) the first time ethanol showed up in gasoline was
around 1988. Back then the pumps had ot be labeled if the product being
dispensed contain either ethanol or MBTE. We only got the ethanol (or MBTE)
in the winter as part of some failed emmision reduction program. There was
no noticeable price decrease when the ethanol "enhaned" gasoline went on
sale in November, or price increase when they went back to straight gasoline
in April. In more recent times when the ethanol began to be promoted as a
way of reducing energy dependence on foreign oil, ethanol "ehanced" gasoline
started showing up at some station throughout the year (both E-5 and E-10).
For many years it was required by North Carolina law that pumps be labeled
if the product contained ethanol. While the labeling laws were in effect it
was easy to find gas with or without ethanol (same octane rating either
way). In general gas with ethanol was not cheaper than gas without ethanol.
There were many cases where the discount station on one side of the road
sold gasoline with ethanol and the discount station on the oppoiste side of
the road sold straight gasoline for the same or sometimes a lower price.
Givent hat in recent times ethanol has been subsidized, it seems to me that
people who made the mistake of buying the ethanol tainted product were
getting screwed, in multiple ways.

> 15 years ago you couldn't find anything but ethanol blends. Today
> a few stations advertise that the sell ethanol free gas - This is
> largely due to the current massive national campaign to vilify ethanol.
> But the straight gasoline is more expensive and tends to be stale
> because nobody is buying it.

15 years ago in my area outside of the winter months you never saw gasoline
tainted with ethanol. Even 5 years ago it was rare. I buy a lot of gas at
either Costco or Murphy USA and I can remember when they first added labels
to the pump anonoucing (or more correctly warning) buyers tha the product
contained ethanol. The Murphy pumps were especially obvious. They attached a
cutout of an ear of corn to the hose near the handle extolling the virtues
of ethanol tainted gasoline. Costco was more stealthy. They attached a
simple black and while label to the pumps that warned the product could
contain up to 10% ethanol. As soon as NC repleaed the law requiring the
ethanol warning labels, both retinlers removed the warning from the pumps.

>> Unfortunately in my state they repealed the laws that required labeling
>> the
>> pumps with the Ethanol contnet, so now there is no easy well to tell what
>> you are getting.
>
> If there is some advantage in buying/selling straight gasoline then some
> gas station would put up a sign saying "get your ethanol free gasoline
> here"

In my arear there are stations that post huge sign advertising Ethanol Free
Gasoline.

>> Occasionally I can find a station (usually near the water)
>> that advertises ethanol free gas (to attract boat owners), but it is
>> becoming less common.
>
> Boat owners got over it back in the 80's around here.

Aroundf here they are still raising hell about having fuel tanks and
outboards ruined by ethanol. A good friend just had the tank in his boat
repleased because of ethanol related dampage.

>>It maybe that E-10 gasoline is a good deal for the
>> public, but I suspect we are getting screwed. And with no way to choose
>> straight gasoline, there is no easy way to tell how badly we are getting
>> screwed.
>
> The public is mostly getting screwed because the government refuses to
> use ethanol blends in their fuel economy tests. If the fuel economy test
> used E25 gasoline, the automakers would design cars that gets better
> mileage when running E25 then it does on straight gasoline. That is what
> is happening in Brazil.

I agree that the government should test with the sort of gasoline we are
FORCED to buy.

> The fact is that ethanol blended with gasoline has the potential to be a
> better fuel than straight gasoline. But that increased potential is
> never going to be realized as long as the automakers have a huge
> financial incentive to design their cars to get better mileage without
> ethanol in the tank.

I have no problem with ethanol tainted gasoline if it is actually more cost
effective for me. But facts are facts - Ethanol has less energy per gallon
that traditional gasoline. Ethanol absorbs water. Ethanol can damage older
fuel systems. And personally, I doubt that ethanol is cheaper on a dollar
per unit of energy basis than petroleum at this time. If you want to make
the case that we should move to ethanol (like Brazil has done) for larger
economic reason (i.e., stop importing foreign oil, imporve balance of
payments, etc), then make the case along those lines. Don't try to sell me
on the idea that ethanol is better or cheaper than straight gasoline under
the present set of economic conditions and US laws.

Ed

On 2010-12-02, C. E. White > wrote:

> I do not know where you live, so I can comment on this statement. In my area
> (Central North Carolina) the first time ethanol showed up in gasoline was
> around 1988. Back then the pumps had ot be labeled if the product being
> dispensed contain either ethanol or MBTE. We only got the ethanol (or MBTE)
> in the winter as part of some failed emmision reduction program. There was
> no noticeable price decrease when the ethanol "enhaned" gasoline went on
> sale in November, or price increase when they went back to straight gasoline
> in April. In more recent times when the ethanol began to be promoted as a
> way of reducing energy dependence on foreign oil, ethanol "ehanced" gasoline
> started showing up at some station throughout the year (both E-5 and E-10).

The idea behind MTBE and ethanol was that old carburated cars would run
leaner and thus have lower HC emissions because oxygen was in the fuel.
This is what happens when government types make technical decisions.
When RFG hit in my area I was driving a 1973 car as a daily driver. it
didn't run right on the stuff so I adjusted the mixture to compensate.
One tune up and all the old cars were compensating for it. Cars with
computerized carbs or fuel injection immediately compensated via the O2
sensor. Another great thing about those early oxygenated formulas was
they would boil in the fuel lines when the engine was shut off. In the
first few months of the stuff I learned to disconnect the fuel line and
vent the vapor so I could start the car hot. This was fixed pretty
quickly, but was pretty dumb as even someone cranking the starter would
just be pumping HCs into the air.

Now that there hasn't been a new carburated car sold by any manufacturer
of any volume worth mentioning in over 20 years the excuse has moved on
to the CO2 global warming fraud and this foreign oil stupidity. Foreign
oil isn't a problem if the government isn't using bombs so big connected
oil companies can get it cheap. Trade is a wonderful thing if left work
naturally and fairly.

> For many years it was required by North Carolina law that pumps be labeled
> if the product contained ethanol. While the labeling laws were in effect it
> was easy to find gas with or without ethanol (same octane rating either
> way). In general gas with ethanol was not cheaper than gas without ethanol.
> There were many cases where the discount station on one side of the road
> sold gasoline with ethanol and the discount station on the oppoiste side of
> the road sold straight gasoline for the same or sometimes a lower price.
> Givent hat in recent times ethanol has been subsidized, it seems to me that
> people who made the mistake of buying the ethanol tainted product were
> getting screwed, in multiple ways.

Ethanol handling and blending adds expense to the gasoline. Ethanol
(especially from corn) is expensive to make. Hence the subsidy through
taxes so people can't see the actual expense of this corporatist fraud.

> contain up to 10% ethanol. As soon as NC repleaed the law requiring the
> ethanol warning labels, both retinlers removed the warning from the pumps.

That should cause considerable harm when and if 15% ethanol fuel starts
being sold.

>> The public is mostly getting screwed because the government refuses to
>> use ethanol blends in their fuel economy tests. If the fuel economy test
>> used E25 gasoline, the automakers would design cars that gets better
>> mileage when running E25 then it does on straight gasoline. That is what
>> is happening in Brazil.

> I agree that the government should test with the sort of gasoline we are
> FORCED to buy.

engines are supposed to be tested with a special research gasoline.
Engine makers test with commerically available to the end user fuels for
durability but the government mandates what is used for emission and
fuel economy tests. Fuel economy tests are only good for comparing car A
to car B anyway. Nobody actually drives like those tests and that has a
far bigger impact than 10% ethanol. Of course combined the tests can
then be even further removed from reality.

"C. E. White" wrote:

> >
> > On what basis do you claim the oil companies aren't passing the saving
> > along? It has been estimated that if all the ethanol suddenly vanished
> > the price of gasoline would increase by about 50 cents/gallon. It's been
> > 90 years since the gasoline supply in the US has been composed of fuel
> > made from just petroleum with no added octane booster. So how do you
> > know what the cost of gasoline would be if all the necessary octane came
> > from petroleum?
>
> BS. For years Amoco sold gasoline without lead. From the mid 70's until
> recent times lead free / ethanol free gasoline was virtually all you could
> buy in my area.
>
> >

Apparently you can't read very well. Amoco is hardly the only producer
of US gasoline. Nor has Amoco ever produced all of its gasoline without
any added octane booster. The law of diminishing returns applies to the
production of higher octane components. It is relatively cheap and easy
for a refinery to produce 20% 91 octane and 80% 84 octane. If a refinery
needs to produce 50% 84 octane and 50% 91 octane the cost goes up quite
a bit. If a refinery would need to produce 100% 91 octane the cost
increase would be much larger.

It also makes a big difference what feed stocks the refinery is supplied
with and what percentage of their output goes to gasoline. In case you
were unaware the world is rapidly running short of sweet light
conventional crude that was so abundant 30 years ago. It costs more to
produce higher octane components from sour heavy crude. That is the main
reason that sweet light conventional crude commands a higher price per
barrel. So it may be that some refineries that process sweet light
conventional crude it costs less to produce higher octane fuel but those
refiners are paying the cost in front end price of the crude.




> > FYI it takes more energy to process petroleum feed stocks into higher
> > octane components. Blending ethanol with gasoline saves energy and money
> > in refinery costs. It means the refiners can produce mostly 84 octane
> > fuel instead of mostly 87 octane fuel.
> >
> > The cost of increasing octane content today is even more expensive than
> > it was in the past. Removing sulfur lowers the overall octane. Lower
> > allowable limits on aromatics lowers octane. Yes a refinery can produce
> > the necessary octane by only processing petroleum, but it would cost
> > money and energy to do so.
>
> Do you have proof, or are you just saying this? Less than 4 years ago I had
> no trouble finding ethanol free premium gasoline at the same (or sometimes
> lower) price than ethanol tainted gasoline.If ethanol tainted gasoline is so
> cost effective, why wasn't it cheaper?

Probably because the ethanol was trucked in from a long distance away.
Ethanol blends have never been more expensive where I live. The cost of
ethanol production has also been dropping for years.


>
> >>I'd like to be able
> >> to choose whether I buy E-0 (no ethanol at all) or some other blend.
> >
> > Where I live thay have always labeled. They have been selling E10 for 35
> > years.
>
> I do not know where you live, so I can comment on this statement. In my area
> (Central North Carolina) the first time ethanol showed up in gasoline was
> around 1988. Back then the pumps had ot be labeled if the product being
> dispensed contain either ethanol or MBTE. We only got the ethanol (or MBTE)
> in the winter as part of some failed emmision reduction program. There was
> no noticeable price decrease when the ethanol "enhaned" gasoline went on
> sale in November, or price increase when they went back to straight gasoline
> in April. In more recent times when the ethanol began to be promoted as a
> way of reducing energy dependence on foreign oil, ethanol "ehanced" gasoline
> started showing up at some station throughout the year (both E-5 and E-10).
> For many years it was required by North Carolina law that pumps be labeled
> if the product contained ethanol. While the labeling laws were in effect it
> was easy to find gas with or without ethanol (same octane rating either
> way). In general gas with ethanol was not cheaper than gas without ethanol.
> There were many cases where the discount station on one side of the road
> sold gasoline with ethanol and the discount station on the oppoiste side of
> the road sold straight gasoline for the same or sometimes a lower price.
> Givent hat in recent times ethanol has been subsidized, it seems to me that
> people who made the mistake of buying the ethanol tainted product were
> getting screwed, in multiple ways.

Yes but you are like the blind men and the elephant you are drawing
dubious conclusions from very little data.
In 1973 the only place ethanol blended gasoline was sold was at a farm
coop. Back then I had a 1949 chevy pickup. That thing clearly ran better
and quieter on the ethanol blend. It also got slightly better mileage.
Of course that gasoline was ethanol mixed with the regular leaded fuel
that was generally available.

Nowadays the gasoline blended with ethanol is unleaded 84 octane. If you
put 84 octane in your tank without the ethanol you get pretty crappy
performance. And that is what tends to happen in places where the
ethanol supply is not so consistent and robust. If you are a blender and
your shipment of ethanol didn't arrive you would need to add about 45%
91 octane premium to the 84 octane fuel to get the octane up to 87
octane. That would mean the blender is giving away almost half of the
truck load of premium at the regular price.


>
> > 15 years ago you couldn't find anything but ethanol blends. Today
> > a few stations advertise that the sell ethanol free gas - This is
> > largely due to the current massive national campaign to vilify ethanol.
> > But the straight gasoline is more expensive and tends to be stale
> > because nobody is buying it.
>
> 15 years ago in my area outside of the winter months you never saw gasoline
> tainted with ethanol. Even 5 years ago it was rare. I buy a lot of gas at
> either Costco or Murphy USA and I can remember when they first added labels
> to the pump anonoucing (or more correctly warning) buyers tha the product
> contained ethanol. The Murphy pumps were especially obvious. They attached a
> cutout of an ear of corn to the hose near the handle extolling the virtues
> of ethanol tainted gasoline. Costco was more stealthy. They attached a
> simple black and while label to the pumps that warned the product could
> contain up to 10% ethanol. As soon as NC repleaed the law requiring the
> ethanol warning labels, both retinlers removed the warning from the pumps.

I doubt there is anything stopping a gas station in your area from
advertising and selling ethanol free if there is some big advantage in
doing so. I expect if some gas station did that the fuel would cost more
and most people would not see any advantage in paying that extra cost.



>
> >> Unfortunately in my state they repealed the laws that required labeling
> >> the
> >> pumps with the Ethanol contnet, so now there is no easy well to tell what
> >> you are getting.
> >
> > If there is some advantage in buying/selling straight gasoline then some
> > gas station would put up a sign saying "get your ethanol free gasoline
> > here"
>
> In my arear there are stations that post huge sign advertising Ethanol Free
> Gasoline.

So what is the problem? That contradicts everything you said previously

>
> >> Occasionally I can find a station (usually near the water)
> >> that advertises ethanol free gas (to attract boat owners), but it is
> >> becoming less common.
> >
> > Boat owners got over it back in the 80's around here.
>
> Aroundf here they are still raising hell about having fuel tanks and
> outboards ruined by ethanol. A good friend just had the tank in his boat
> repleased because of ethanol related dampage.
>
> >>It maybe that E-10 gasoline is a good deal for the
> >> public, but I suspect we are getting screwed. And with no way to choose
> >> straight gasoline, there is no easy way to tell how badly we are getting
> >> screwed.
> >
> > The public is mostly getting screwed because the government refuses to
> > use ethanol blends in their fuel economy tests. If the fuel economy test
> > used E25 gasoline, the automakers would design cars that gets better
> > mileage when running E25 then it does on straight gasoline. That is what
> > is happening in Brazil.
>
> I agree that the government should test with the sort of gasoline we are
> FORCED to buy.

They should test with what people use. You just said you are not forced
to buy ethanol. You can buy from one of the stations with the big signs.


>
> > The fact is that ethanol blended with gasoline has the potential to be a
> > better fuel than straight gasoline. But that increased potential is
> > never going to be realized as long as the automakers have a huge
> > financial incentive to design their cars to get better mileage without
> > ethanol in the tank.
>
> I have no problem with ethanol tainted gasoline if it is actually more cost
> effective for me. But facts are facts - Ethanol has less energy per gallon
> that traditional gasoline.

That is a fact, but it has no bearing on fuel economy and performance.



>Ethanol absorbs water. Ethanol can damage older
> fuel systems.

It didn't damage my 1949 truck. How old does the fuel system have to be?


> And personally, I doubt that ethanol is cheaper on a dollar
> per unit of energy basis than petroleum at this time. If you want to make
> the case that we should move to ethanol (like Brazil has done) for larger
> economic reason (i.e., stop importing foreign oil, imporve balance of
> payments, etc), then make the case along those lines. Don't try to sell me
> on the idea that ethanol is better or cheaper than straight gasoline under
> the present set of economic conditions and US laws.

You are the one claiming it is not economic. You pulled that conclusion
from nowhere

I think ethanol is a far better use of corn than feeding it to live
stock for the sole purpose of producing more animal fat, or making soda
pop sugar, or using it as a foreign policy tool to prop up the dictators
around the world the politicians in Washington happen to like. If they
took the corn that US farmers produce and dumped it in a hole in the
ground and covered it up that would be a more constructive use for corn.
Making ethanol is slightly better than dumping it in a hole in the
ground.



>
> Ed

"Brent" > wrote in message

> Who said anything about defeatism? I gave a solution. Ignore the
> government in mass.

They have lived in fear of a mass tax revolt for years. A nationwide
strike - a mere period of civil disobedience - might get their attention.

Obama is clueless. A vote for him was a betrayal of America.