WE can't produce enough ethanol to run everybody on E-15. So what's the point? Are they going to end the tariff on Brazillian ethanol?

Ethanol producers are behind this request. They don't think they can sell all they are producing with an E10 limit; an E15 limit would raise the amount that can be blended in to gasoline. It is likely that not all would be E15, at least for a while.

I looked at the notice, and it looks like the EPA is thinking about possibly mandating a maximum of E10 for some uses, while permitting E15 for other uses. It seems like this would be a major mess. The notice talks about the possibility of intentional mis-fueling, with whichever is slightly cheaper. Gas stations would either have to have extra pumps, or offer only one choice.

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/green_business/archives/2008/12/et...

We buy 135 billion gallons a gas a year, 70% of which is E-10. That suggests a blendwall of around 9 billion gallons though there's some controversy where the blendwall is. So naturally the ethanol producers ramp up their production from 9 billion gallons last year to 12 billion gallons this year. Now they think they might not be able to sell all that. When did the thought ever occur to them? Naturally it is up to Washington to fix their problem.

The amount of ethanol used is already mandated in law. They'll either have to raise the blend limit, or install a lot more E85 pumps.

Brazil went through this a while back (they're now up to 26% ethanol.) It's worked just fine for them, and it will for us, too. Unless, that is, you are Exxon.

I think they're looking at keeping "Premium" at E10.

Ummh, I Vote Yes.

You are absolutely correct as to who wants e15.If they get thier way,they'll be back soon for e20.
The subsidy the ethanol industry gets would be of far more value to the country both economically and environmentally if it were to be spent on energy efficiency measures IMO.

The net energy return of corn ethanol is probably only 20 to 25 percent at best in the estimation of most agricultural professionals not in the pocket of the ethanol industry.It might be less,as there is some disagreement as to what exactly should be "charged" to corn ethanol.

The history of agricultural subsidies in this country is nothing less than appalling measured in any terms other than the bottom line of the big operators who collect the checks.The ethanol industry may be a relatively new team in the ag subsidy big leagues, but their roster includes plenty of star players and they intend to permanently occupy a prime spot at the trough for the duration.History indicates that they may very well succeed.If they do,that's one more entrenched special interest standing in the way of any real progress away from the "compound growth forever" philosophy responsible for such a large share of our problems.

I am in favor of extensive research and development of biofuels in general,especillly any that might primarily use current waste products or low value inputs such as bark and sawdust as feedstocks,but the general situation out in farm country is too much like the general situation in the ff industry for comfort.Aquifers are going dry,phosphorus and potassium supplies are finite and may peak before too long.Too much prime land is disappearing under roads and houses,although this particular trend is off sharply for the moment at least.

It is time to start thinking about big ag in much the same terms that we are thinking about peak oil.The status quo is obviously unsustainable in the long run in both cases.