- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Its time: end ethanol requirements in our gasoline
Posted on 1/27/25 at 10:24 am to scottydoesntknow
Posted on 1/27/25 at 10:24 am to scottydoesntknow
quote:
I realize the farmers who supply the corn for ethanol are for the most part GOP...but im sorry this is an artificial industry and needs to go
The biggest mistake this country ever made was using corn over sugar as the ethanol additive.
When ethanol first started being a thing it was done primarily in island nations that paid a premium for importing gasoline. They used sugar as cane crops were plentiful and grew year round.
This country decided to use our tier one food supply because unlike the island nations that first started adding ethanol to gas, we had powerful Midwest legislators who advocated for boosting corn prices.
Regardless, agree to end ethanol blending.
2
Posted on 1/27/25 at 10:28 am to Victor R Franko
quote:
2. Ethanol lowers octane. Lower octane requires lower compression ratios. Lower compression equals less power and additional fuel consumption.
This is simply not true. Ethanol has a very high octane rating. You can increase performance of cars by adding components optimized to burn E85 because of the high octane rating.
Pure ethanol has an octane rating of around 114. Ethanol is often added to gasoline to increase its octane rating and prevent knocking.
E15: A blend of 15% ethanol and 85% gasoline, with an octane rating of around 88
E85: A blend of 51–83% ethanol, with an octane rating in the upper 90s to 110
Fuel consumption goes up because Ethanol has 30% less energy than an equivalent measure of gasoline.
All of your other points are correct.
This post was edited on 1/27/25 at 10:32 am
Posted on 1/27/25 at 10:34 am to scottydoesntknow
The reason why some farmers can buy those tricked out tractors and combines is because they raise corn and soybeans and milo that can be used for ethanol. It is a money maker for them. It's won't go away because it is now a political hot potato. All those corn fields in Kansas or Nebraska or Illinois or Iowa are mainly for ethanol production.
Posted on 1/27/25 at 10:34 am to RolltidePA
Indy cars run on 100% ethanol now.
Used to be E85.
Thats why ricky bobby was running around like he was on fire, you cant see the flames.
Used to be E85.
Thats why ricky bobby was running around like he was on fire, you cant see the flames.
Posted on 1/27/25 at 10:37 am to scottydoesntknow
quote:
I realize the farmers who supply the corn for ethanol are for the most part GOP...but im sorry this is an artificial industry and needs to go
The ethanol mandate (and subsequent increases in it) warped the production of lots of crops as corn became far more valuable to grow. To paraphrase Bill Clinton from a decade(ish) ago, "there's a world food shortage and here we are burning food".
Because the demand for corn grew so much due to the mandate, many farmers moved to it. This meant the crops they used to farm ended up costing the consumers more as supply for them dropped (but not really enough to draw many corn farmers back).
Removing the mandate would, therefore, bring many food prices down as the market began to balance back out (this is before you figure in the difference in prices due to the lower cost of fuel).
Along with this, ethanol hampers MPG (so you're having to spend more to drive fewer miles).
Posted on 1/27/25 at 10:38 am to scottydoesntknow
There is not one good thing about ethanol gas....
Posted on 1/27/25 at 10:44 am to R11
quote:
And as far as subsides they aren't any.
you sure about that?
https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/primer-agriculture-subsidies-and-their-influence-on-the-composition-of-u-s-food-supply-and-consumption/
quote:
Subsidies for corn—the most abundant crop in the United States—have far surpassed those for any other crop, estimated to have totaled more than $116 billion since 1995. This is followed by subsidies for wheat at $48.4 billion and for soybeans at $44.9 billion over that same period.[6] (Subsidies for certain crops are also provided through other means besides the Farm Bill, not accounted for here. For example, corn is further subsidized and production encouraged through the Department of Energy’s biofuel programs and the Renewable Fuel Standard mandates, both of which support the production of corn for ethanol.)
Posted on 1/27/25 at 10:47 am to scottydoesntknow
My sense is that we have mostly solved the problems on running with ethanol blends, at least in automobiles, but there is otherwise nothing good to say about the subsidies requiring ethanol blends.
It makes food more expensive, brings no net environmental benefit, and now exists just as a payoff to relatively small interest groups (some farmers and processors). It's a classic example of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. The costs are high but are borne in small, almost invisible amounts by our entire country of 330 million people. The benefits are relatively small but the relatively few people who benefit from them benefit in a big way. It would be a good thing to see this indefensible subsidy go by the wayside, but I would not bet on it!
It makes food more expensive, brings no net environmental benefit, and now exists just as a payoff to relatively small interest groups (some farmers and processors). It's a classic example of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. The costs are high but are borne in small, almost invisible amounts by our entire country of 330 million people. The benefits are relatively small but the relatively few people who benefit from them benefit in a big way. It would be a good thing to see this indefensible subsidy go by the wayside, but I would not bet on it!
Posted on 1/27/25 at 10:59 am to rltiger
quote:
Indy cars run on 100% ethanol now.
Used to be E85.
Thats why ricky bobby was running around like he was on fire, you cant see the flames.
Back in the day they used to run Methanol. Pure clear flames and no immediate way to tell if something is on fire. Not dangerous at all .
Posted on 1/27/25 at 10:59 am to Pezzo
"And as far as subsides they aren't any."
The poster who made this comment said he farms corn, and I can see why he would not think he was receiving a subsidy because it is not like he is getting a check. Instead, it is an industry being subsidized by a federal mandate that requires most gasoline be blended with ethanol. This creates a market for ethanol that would not exist. Anyway, I perhaps should have responded to the farmer, but as you pointed out, it's really beyond argument that the ethanol market is subsidized. I suspect it would go to near zero if the mandate were lifted.
The poster who made this comment said he farms corn, and I can see why he would not think he was receiving a subsidy because it is not like he is getting a check. Instead, it is an industry being subsidized by a federal mandate that requires most gasoline be blended with ethanol. This creates a market for ethanol that would not exist. Anyway, I perhaps should have responded to the farmer, but as you pointed out, it's really beyond argument that the ethanol market is subsidized. I suspect it would go to near zero if the mandate were lifted.
Posted on 1/27/25 at 11:09 am to HoustonTigerNKaty
quote:
corn over sugar as the ethanol additive
The easy answer is to look at the what federal price floors for sugar vs. corn were that decade, and there's probably the answer. If corn was cheaper, it would become the default.
Posted on 1/27/25 at 11:50 am to Victor R Franko
quote:
2. Ethanol lowers octane. Lower octane requires lower compression ratios. Lower compression equals less power and additional fuel consumption.
False. Ethanol is an oxygenate...it boosts octane.
The overwhelming majority of gasline is blended at sub-octane levels (RUL is 87 at the pump...so in a storage terminal it is blended to, and stored at, say 82-84 octane when the neat blend is complete).
When it is loaded onto a tanker truck at a truck rack, the sub-octane gasoline is blended with ethanol (which boosts the octane up to whatever spec..RUL or PUL) as well as the detergent additive (Techron if you're into branded gasoline or a generic additive if you're smart and buy what's cheapest and busiest).
Posted on 1/27/25 at 11:52 am to scottydoesntknow
Wait until they kill high fructose corn syrup!
Iowa and Nebraska will be mad!
Iowa and Nebraska will be mad!
Posted on 1/27/25 at 12:36 pm to R11
quote:
I farm 1500 acres of corn.
quote:
And as far as subsides they aren't any.
You are a fricking idiot then because you are getting prop payments and government subsides for something or you are one stupid motherfricker...
quote:
Try knowing what you're talking
I do know what I am talking about... Must hurt for someone to call you out for being a conservative welfare whore...
Posted on 1/27/25 at 12:52 pm to dewster
quote:
Both of our cars get far better fuel economy on fuel with 0% ethanol than on E-10. It's not even close either - it's a 3-4 mpg difference.
I don't know if they have less ethanol in the gas bought in the Georgia/North Carolina area. But I get 2 mpg better gas mileage there than when I buy gas in Louisiana.
Posted on 1/27/25 at 12:58 pm to scottydoesntknow
quote:
Was talking to a buddy of mine that works in a refinery. He was talking about how much faster and cheaper it is to make just PURE GAS without all the additives required and ethanol. Our vehicles would run much better(though some may need adjustments) on pure gasoline, the price would be cheaper and people would get better gas mileage.
Agree.......
quote:
realize the farmers who supply the corn for ethanol are for the most part GOP...but im sorry this is an artificial industry and needs to go
We would have to pry those corn subsidies out of Republicans cold dead hands...the real problem with spending is both sides do it but blame the others. So we can't get to the convo of what should we as a country collectively pay for vs individually...
Posted on 1/27/25 at 1:14 pm to CitizenK
quote:
A friend in the international grain biz for 40 years told me last year that nations don't have any money to buy with, not China, not Russia, not any of them.
Give them corn instead of money.
Posted on 1/27/25 at 1:28 pm to Victor R Franko
quote:
3. Higher octane pure gasoline will support higher compression ratios. Higher compression ratios equals more power and less fuel consumption.
You sure about that baw?
Posted on 1/27/25 at 1:34 pm to CitizenK
quote:
It was small farmers who went bankrupt in the 1980's when Reagan got rid of US direct purchase of grain to give to other nations. The price of grain dropped like a rock.
I like the idea of the “small farmer”. I just don’t know that it’s something that should be maintained via massive manipulation of the market.
Larger, more innovative farming is better for almost all people AS LONG AS there are proper protocols in place to ensure food safety.
I could probably argue for some sort quality control also, given that very few consumer decisions are made with any knowledge of the producer. I just don’t know how that would work.
Posted on 1/27/25 at 1:37 pm to scottydoesntknow
Right, ethanol makes -20% the amount of energy vs. gasoline. In actuality, there is no net financial or environmental benefit to burning ethanol vs gasoline. The efficiency numbers for diesel are even more desirable than pure gasoline or gas+ethanol.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News