Ethanol was a "Mistake" says Al Gore

"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
.. .
>
>
> "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.

I think most people don't realize they are getting screwed when they buy
ethanol tainted gasoline. Very few people I know have any idea of their
actual fuel economy. And these days ethanol tainted gasoline is not readily
identified since there are no requirements that it be labeled as such.

>> >> 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

It contraticts nothing I said. My area includes a station near a lake 35
miles away....It is not likely to be cost effective for me to drive 35 miles
to fill up. These days I assume any station that doesn't advertise etahnol
free gasoline is selling gasoline with ethanol. And unfortunately this is
all of the stations I routinely pass. There are more stations closer to the
ocean selling ethanol free gasoline, but again it is not economical to drive
far out of my normal commute to hunt them down.

>> >> 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.

As noted above, although there are station in my area advertising ethanol
free gas, they are not conveniently located for me to use on a daily basis.

>> > 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.

I don't believe this. I keep detail gas mileage records, and despite owning
vvehicles with higher EPA rating than in the past, my fuel economy on
average is significantly worse.

>>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?

A 1974 Jensen-Healy I owned literally burned up when the second owner used
"gasahol." It degarded the plastic fuel line tee that connected the
carburetors and this led to a significant gas leak, followed by a fire(this
was a very common problem on those cars). My old chain saw refuses to run
properly on gasahol (I finally replaced it with a new one that can handle
the crap).

>> 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

It is my opinion that it is not economic. Provide some proof that my opinion
is wrong. Credible sources all seem to agree that at the very best, vehicles
get 3% fewer miles per gallon of E-10 (compared to straight gasoline with
the same octane and most do significantly worse than jsut a 3% decrease). So
even if the per gallon cost is the same for E-10 as for straight gasoline,
you are going to spend at least 3% more for fuel. E10 is already subsidized
with taxpayer dollars. If you consider the subsidy, and the increased fuel
consumption, do you really think you are saving any money by using E10. I
don't.

> 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.

So you want to dump soybeans in a hole in the groud also? A large percentage
of soybeans are used for animal feed as well. Do you really want to make the
arguement that we should stop feeding corn to animals so we can burn it in
cars? And imagine what it does to the economics of ethanol production if
there is no market for the left over mash (which is used for animal feed).

Ed

"C. E. White" wrote:

>
> >> 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
>
> It contraticts nothing I said. My area includes a station near a lake 35
> miles away....It is not likely to be cost effective for me to drive 35 miles
> to fill up.

So that merely suggests you need a fairly large concentration of superstitious
people that think ethanol is tainting their fuel to support a market for ethanol
free gasoline.




> These days I assume any station that doesn't advertise etahnol
> free gasoline is selling gasoline with ethanol. And unfortunately this is
> all of the stations I routinely pass. There are more stations closer to the
> ocean selling ethanol free gasoline, but again it is not economical to drive
> far out of my normal commute to hunt them down.

So it wasn't true when you wrote "In my area there are stations that post huge
sign advertising Ethanol Free Gasoline."
It sounds like in your area there is no viable market for ethanol free gasoline.
And I suppose you want the government to step in and artificially create that
market for you?


>
> >> 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.
>
> I don't believe this. I keep detail gas mileage records, and despite owning
> vvehicles with higher EPA rating than in the past, my fuel economy on
> average is significantly worse.

First of all, you imagine this poor mileage is due to ethanol. It is possible
that you have created a bogeyman in your mind that has prevented you from
investigating what the real problem is.

Second as I said cars would perform better on ethanol blend if the government
economy tests used the ethanol blends. This would give car manufacturers an
incentive to design cars that perform best on ethanol blends. Right now there is
disincentive for car to perform well with ethanol.



>
>
> >>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?
>
> A 1974 Jensen-Healy I owned literally burned up when the second owner used
> "gasahol." It degarded the plastic fuel line tee that connected the
> carburetors and this led to a significant gas leak, followed by a fire(this
> was a very common problem on those cars). My old chain saw refuses to run
> properly on gasahol (I finally replaced it with a new one that can handle
> the crap).

I have a 1971 Husquavarna chain saw that runs great on ethanol blends. Runs
really great since I put a new bar and chain on it last week. I cut 2 cords of
frozen wood this morning. Took several breaks to warm up my fingers and post
messages :^)



>
>
> >> 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
>
> It is my opinion that it is not economic. Provide some proof that my opinion
> is wrong.

You have provided the proof. The economics is why it exists in your gas tank.



> Credible sources all seem to agree that at the very best, vehicles
> get 3% fewer miles per gallon of E-10 (compared to straight gasoline with
> the same octane and most do significantly worse than jsut a 3% decrease). So
> even if the per gallon cost is the same for E-10 as for straight gasoline,
> you are going to spend at least 3% more for fuel. E10 is already subsidized
> with taxpayer dollars. If you consider the subsidy, and the increased fuel
> consumption, do you really think you are saving any money by using E10. I
> don't.

No that is just something you hope is true. Some engines do better on ethanol
blends some don't. They all would be designed to get better mileage if the auto
makers were allowed to test and report mileage based on ethanol blends. Right
now it is illegal for the auto makers to do that. And the price of ethanol at
the moment is 30 cents/gal. cheaper than the gasoline it replaces. That is not
going to change when ethanol is taxed like gasoline starting Jan 1.

All you have done is demonstrate you have no economic argument. What will you
say when the subsidy is gone?



>
>
> > 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.
>
> So you want to dump soybeans in a hole in the groud also? A large percentage
> of soybeans are used for animal feed as well. Do you really want to make the
> arguement that we should stop feeding corn to animals so we can burn it in
> cars? And imagine what it does to the economics of ethanol production if
> there is no market for the left over mash (which is used for animal feed).

I definitely want to make the argument that shifting the economics from meat
with high fat content to leaner meats is not going to be the end of the world.
And the Chinese seem to be interested in buying all the Dried Distiller Grains
that ethanol plants can produce. It is a very high protein feed.

Look around - obesity, heart disease and diabetes are killing off Americans at a
record pace. Do you really want to make the argument that we need to step in and
do something to keep it that way? In my opinion it is laughable to have spent
all these years using corn to produce fatty meat, soda pop sweeteners and
putting third world farmers out of business and then argue that corn is needed
to feed the hungry. I see a history of decades of using corn to cause hunger and
disease and now the argument is made that we need this corn to prevent hunger?
That argument is crap.

The only thing better than making ethanol from corn is to use it as a fuel and
burn it directly. Burning it directly is far better if the only thing you care
about is energy efficiency and economics of producing energy. But then economics
and efficiency have never been the only driving force behind energy consumption.

-jim



>
>
> Ed

On 12/01/2010 07:38 PM, Brent wrote:
<snip defeatist waffle>
> 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-.

so you don't pay taxes. if you do, you're a coward and a hypocrite.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 2010-12-03, jim beam > wrote:
> On 12/01/2010 07:38 PM, Brent wrote:
><snip defeatist waffle>
>> 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-.
>
> so you don't pay taxes. if you do, you're a coward and a hypocrite.

What about "in mass" do you not understand? So long as the masses demand
the blood of those who simply refuse to pay taxes individuals are easily
crushed to the cheers of the masses.

"Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that
you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you
support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus
whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break
into pieces."- Etienne de la Boetie

On 12/03/2010 06:49 AM, Brent wrote:
> On 2010-12-03, jim > wrote:
>> On 12/01/2010 07:38 PM, Brent wrote:
>> <snip defeatist waffle>
>>> 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-.
>>
>> so you don't pay taxes. if you do, you're a coward and a hypocrite.
>
> What about "in mass" do you not understand? So long as the masses demand
> the blood of those who simply refuse to pay taxes individuals are easily
> crushed to the cheers of the masses.
>
> "Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that
> you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you
> support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus
> whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break
> into pieces."- Etienne de la Boetie
>

suspicions confirmed.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum