UN Calls for Halt to U.S. Ethanol Fuel Policy

In the super-wet Pacific Northwest the previous exhaust systems I've owned have rusted from the inside out thanks to Ethanol's ability to absorb water. Not so much of a problem with a Gen2 Prius with rubber bladder gas tank though.

In some states we can vote with our wallet and insist on buying only ethanol-free gas, especially important if your car was built before this starving the world for ethanol crime began.

Learn more about where to find non-ethanol gas here: Ethanol-free gas stations in the U.S. and Canada

As an aside the reason people think they don't like the UN and make up crazy conspiracies about them 'taking over the world' is because they're much harder to bribe than the US congress.

And if we had lost WWII we'd of never had Nuremberg tribunals, which formed the basis of the UN, international laws and rules of war, as well as countless treaties and interventions for peaceful resolutions in war-torn places.

For these reasons and many others the most immoral voices of capitalism will always spend huge sums of money to convince the world that the UN is pure evil. And in this particular instance they will spend a great deal of money to claim that the UN is conspiring to destroy the livelihood of american farmers by opposing ethanol.

And to people as crooked as the ones who'd rather see the world starve so they can profit off putting food in our gas tanks... Clearly the UN is the enemy, right?

Or perhaps the people who think the UN is bad are the real one's who are bad?

 

Considering there are better uses for corn, well like eating it, than making Ethanol, "The Feel Good Fuel" There are numerous other biological substances, like alge, or using the rest of the plant, not the food part to generate Ethanol! I have always noted what a waste it was to grow all that extra corn, just to distill it down for cars. Just wasteful IMO!

 

Think we may need some kind of ethanol/fuel posting area.
Interesting post, I don't know if it makes sense to temporarily suspend or reduce ethanol requirements.
To some extent it may be needed to meet octane and/or other specs.

 

Wasn't Ethanol an emergency substitute for MTBE, which became a huge groundwater pollution disaster?

PS: The corn lobby is pure evil... They don't represent legit farmers, they represent the forces of exploitative greed that is ruining not just farming but topsoils, groundwater supplies, aquatic habitat, non-GE foods and so much more!

 

Some, yes. Certainly not 10%.

 

I agree that the corn subsidies (ethanol and otherwise) is a really bad idea, but I'm willing to bet they have broad-based political support among 'legit' corn farmers.

 

I would say ethanol was a permanent (not emergency) substitute for MTBE.

When the Clean Air Ammend. Act of 1990 mandated ethanol, the oil industry fought hard against it and lost, but the compromise was ethanol + MTBE (which had been used for many years by Arco). When widespread MTBE use unexpectedly showed enviro. problems, then ethanol was allowed to take over the whole 10% of the oxygenates, thus the ethanol issue became a total loss for the oil company lobbyists. Interestingly, today many in the public would agree that ethanol is a "pork", but in 1990 many in the public felt if the oil cos. were against it, then ethanol must be fablulous.

The practical significance of MTBE (as discovered by ARCO) was that MTBE was a relatively cheap side-product to make in a refinery. No one of course realized MTBE was essentially non-biodegradable in nature, which killed it. Still there are other gaso blending hydrocarbons (iso-octane) refineries could make cost-effectively in a similar manner, but this is discouraged by the regs which mandate the corn ethanol solution.

 

The UN is often bad because it stands up for terrorists and thug regimes. The US definitely has been able to manipulate the UN in some regards, think Korean War, Gulf war. The arab league, the russians, the chinese, all manipulate it. If you want to be ruled by a world government created by appointees, I guess you and Ted turner can go to Sudan or Syria and see how well it has done there.

That doesn't mean that occasionally it doesn't get things right, but come on, the US should not follow the UN into its cubby hole of bad world government. [/soap box off] The UN would be best to work as a way for governments to avoid war. Expanding its powers just has corrupted it more.

back on topic. Agricultural special interests need to be kept in check. Unfortunately the first primary is iowa, a corn state.

MBTE was a CARB mandate, that polluted ground water. The mandate was forced to go through fast, and caused problems with existing fuel tanks at stations. It was a government created emergency. At the time using oxygenates reduced air pollution, and ethanol was a ready substitute. This was in the era of carburators, with fuel injection and other reformulated gasoline, air pollution is much less of a problem.

wow, and I thought I had good rants. They are greedy, and work against the interests of most good Americans but I wouldn't call them pure evil. I mean I would not put them on the same footing as Tobacco or trial lawyer PACs. They also haven't done anti-american acts like Halliburton.

The problem with MTBE was not that it is poison, gasoline is also poison, it is that it leaked through the gasoline infrastructure into ground water. When the EPA banned MBTE, many wanted to open up the oxygenate mandate to other substances. Al gore cast the tie braking vote in the senate to force ethanol to be used as the oxygenate. This is a decision that he has gone public on and now regrets. Bush doubled down on the Carter promise of gasohol, and increased the mandate to use ethanol as fuel even when the clean air act did not call for it. Its time to step away from this bad policy. We can allow ethanol, without forcing ethanol.

 

In the form of increased E85 use. Which I would have liked to experiment with when I still had the Ranger, but the closest station was in the center of Philly. Which was the problem with the mandate, and the flex-fuel loop hole before it. It didn't do much if anything in making the E85 available to the public. Without the E85 sales, the Ethanol lobby has used the mandate to push for E15.

 

Here's a pretty good discussion of OP topic of suspending ethanol mandate in USA.
This guy (claims to be impartial but let's face it he is pro-ethanol) says that ethanol accounts for +6 cents of the current larger price increase. He says suspending mandate is questionable impact because ethanol is cheaper than gaso so it will still benefit refineries to buy ethanol voluntarily. Refineries only make 84 octane so they would need to run harder to make up for ethanol. He admits some refineries may find it advantageous to not blend ethanol, so there could be some benefit of temporary suspension. He says if EPA does this it is next year.

Midwest Drought: Is It the Cause of Higher Gasoline Prices? | Daily Ticker - Yahoo! Finance

 

Let me translate from vilsack to english. These rich guys that pay many memebers in congress lots in bribes, might not be as rich if we do what is right for the country. We have to support corporate agriculture and the ethanol lobby Or he can do what is right for the 99.9% of the country and suspend the mandate except in place the EPA deems it necessary for pollution control - which may be nowhere. Isn't Vilsack supposed to be neutral on agricultural issues between livestock - who are hurt by the mandate, and big corn?

Suspending the mandate won't lower gas prices much, but they could help food importers and ranchers.

 

Great translation... I very much appreciate the use of the term bribes... Some people think that's too harsh, but in truth it's what too often has set policy/giveaways windfall profits in this country for the past 225 years! If this country is going to have a future we need to end these shenanigans ASAP!

 

I'm not really unfavorable to ethanol, altough its production in America is not so efficient at all. Many agricultural residues such as straw from rice, soybean, wheat and even from corn can be used to make cellulosic ethanol, the so-called 2nd-generation ethanol, for example, reducing the impact on food production.

 

Many of that are against the ethanol mandate are not against ethanol, first or second generation. The problem with the mandate is it forces new land to be converted to ethanol production and shifts crops. The EPA even wants to potentially cause massive auto repair bills by forcing higher concentrations of ethanol. The mandate costs us money with no environmental benefit. If cellonistic can avoid these problems fine, but it is too expensive now, and is not helped by the mandate.

Remove the mandate, and less will be used for fuel, and farmers and ranchers can operate in a better manner.

 

ADM, big backer of corn based ethanol and huge political pull within the D.C. beltway bandits. It is good that the U.N. is calling on this country to stop corn based ethanol production. Grow corn to feed the global populace, not to fill our gas tanks.

Time to move to non-corn based ethanol production.

DBCassidy

AMA is fighting to stop the 15% ethanol that the EPA is trying to force in us. Motorcycles, boats, lawn mowers, etc could see damage from the E15. Manufacturers are concerned with warranty issues due to E15.

What is needed is a extensive study on the harmful effects E15 on various motors. DBCassidy

 

Celullosic ethanol can, at least, reduce the impact on the usage of arable land for fuel production. Regarding EPA, needless to say I hate them, since they're more focused on how they can mess the economy instead of really getting concerned about environmental quality improvements. A cheap trick to reduce the risk of damages from ethanol is to blend 2-stroke engine oil at 5% of the ethanol concentration (for E15, 0.75% 2-stroke oil), preferably either synthetic due to the lower carbon deposit buildups or Castor oil because of its solubility with the ethanol.

 

The EPA isn't fully to blame for this. Ethanol producers pushed the mandate in order to expand the use of E85. When the expansion of E85 stations didn't happen, the EPA had its hands tied by congressial law to increase ethanol content of the fuel supply in some way. Celullosic ethanol isn't cost effective, and the law doesn't allow the use of other alcohols like methanol or butanol. Butanol has nearly the energy content of gasoline and virtually none of ethanol's drawbacks, while methanol can be made cheaply from our growing NG supply.

I'll remember the two stroke oil trick for occasional use. Long term use just moves the costly repairs from the fuel system to the catalytic convertor. Many of those oils use compounds that will 'poison' it.

 

Sounds like good 'ole ADM at work with politicking within the D.C. Beltway. Hmmm.

DBCassidy