61 comments on Gasoline Blending 101: The Ethanol Blending Requirement
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
61 comments on Gasoline Blending 101: The Ethanol Blending Requirement
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- What "Lower Consumption" Means
- Tricking and Treating the Future
- Meeting Energy Decline Part-Way - Potatoes?
TOD:Europe
- EROWI - energy return of water invested
- An interview with Stoneleigh - the case for deflation
- The Future of European Transport: iTREN-2030
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Saturday 7th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 30th October 2009
- Details of Solar Flagships Released
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“Men argue; nature acts.”
—Voltaire
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
This mandate got passed when corn prices were very low, and petroleum prices were also low.
It is time to abandon this mandate, and let ethanol be sold just like any other fuel --- consumers can choose to buy it, or not.
At the same time, the subsidies for ethanol have to be eliminated.
Let' see if unsubsidized ethanol can compete at $3 a gallon.
You can put that in your tank if you want, but I will stick with 100% gasoline.
The problem, of course, would be that in a couple of years gasoline would be very, very high; and there would be no ethanol infrastructure in place to take the pressure off.
Oil is peaking, D111; but demand isn't. Unless you're one of those unlucky few whose car just hates e10 you're coming out well ahead the way things are going. If your car does "hate" e10 you might want to ask your dealer if there's a "reflash" available for your car. There might be.
The operative word is "peaking". Gasoline is still available and the premium between buying 100% gasoline vs. the blends is maybe 20 cents a gallon.
For the extra dimes, you get fuel that is not adulterated --- ethanol has less energy per unit --- and you get to send a message to the ethanol lobby that you do not appreciate the scam they pulled on US taxpayers.
FYI, the US bans duty free imports of ethanol so that their ethanol lobbyists can live high off the hog.
Leave me out of it.
Some people are looking a year, or two, into the future.
And, FYI, we imported about 400,000,000 Gallons of "tariff-free" ethanol this year; and, we'll import about 600,000,000 gallons of "tariff-free" ethanol in 09'.
BTW, that "duty-free" ethanol gets the $0.51/gal Blenders Credit just like Domestic ethanol does.
Great!
You go buy the stuff --- and subsidize the lazy native ethanol farmers and brewers.
Now, let the free market decide whether we want gasoline (pure) and is willing to pay for it, or that blended stuff.
Can the tax credit so I don't pay it each time I buy a steak, have corn flakes, pork chops, chicken, or everything else that corn and grains go into.
I don't need to be reminded of the power of this corrupt ethanol lobby every time I buy groceries.
Quite frankly, I would pay a nice premium for gasoline just to put these ethanol tax thieves out of business.
Yeah, you liked it better when I was subsidizing you every time you ate a steak, or a bowl of corn flakes; Didn't you?
Lazy, "Native" ethanol farmers? Okey, dokey. I think we've got YOU figured out, now.
You are free to go to Washington to demand an end to agricultural supports and any subsidies on cattle, beef, pig and pork production.
Let's put the Department of Agriculture out of business.
While we are at it... Department of Energy has got to be pretty high on the list too....
Is it a viable proposition to increase the supply of ethanol by increasing imports from Brazil and other tropical countries? I understand that there would be some resistance from the farm lobby. But if we could do this incrementally, maybe it is implementable. Thus we can reduce the price of ethanol and reduce the amount of corn going into biofuels and reduce impacts on food costs.
The subsidies are not going away, they are going UP. The new Farm Bill is a giant compromise that is not going to be undone easily over the next 5 years until the next Farm Bill.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4227#comment-370087
Not unless every senator and congressman that comes up for election this fall loses their seat because they backed the farm bill's provisions for ethanol subsidies.
The coalition against subsidizing ethanol is building pretty quickly --- cattlemen, pork, chicken farmers, food processors, anti poverty groups, you name it.
Interesting thought. However, it seems that American Voters support Increased Ethanol Blending by 59 - 30.
On the other hand, McCain's opposition to ethanol seems increasingly likely to cost him Iowa, Mn, Wi, and possibly Mo, thus sinking his Presidential ambitions.
Doesn't people on this site get it?
Corn ethanol derived from corn grown in the USA are an incredibly inefficient source of energy --- by the time you subtract the energy inputs required to make and distribute it (diesel fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, etc.) the net energy return on investment is marginally positive.
Brazilian ethanol from sugar cane, on the other hand, have a pretty good positive energy return on investment.
The only reason we bother with ethanol was, once upon a time, it was a good way to stitch up a political constituency with farmers faced with depressed prices for corn, and wacky arguments that it is "renewable".
A more recent argument in favor of it is that it is useful as a diluent in place of MMT, which got phased out because it contaminated water supplies. Diluents are used to lower the combustion temperature of, mostly summer gasoline, in order to reduce pollution.
Otherwise, the use of ethanol --- a low grade, corrosive fuel that attracts water --- is decidely bad for most gasoline engines.
Now, if we are in Brazil, it is a pretty good deal. But, in the USA, corn based ethanol is not even a very good renewable --- not when you use fossil fuels and inputs to make it.
Let's get rid of this pig.
"Let's" = Let us
Who, exactly, is "Us," D111?
The Brazil ethanol story IMO is all about the E100 which is not pure refined (90 or 95% I think) and requires a fraction of the energy to refine thus making it "economical".
Of coarse the auto fleet had to be retooled for this.$$$$$
Ethanol proponents love to cite Brazil but fail to compare apples to apples.
What about 90% refined corn ethanol and re-tool our auto fleet?
We do need to do a little research on hydrous ethanol, though.
You are making that up entirely. The vast majority of etanol consumed as fuel in Brazil is distilled just like in the US and blended with gasoline.
No E100 cars are manufactered in Brazil any more. It took me five seconds to look that up. Would have helped you to have tried to find facts to support your argument as you would have found out you were wrong and saved the post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil
The above quoted study is a slick propaganda piece that is put out to scam politicians by the lobbyists who will reap billions of dollars from the subsidies they receive from Washington.