Why Ethanol Free Gas is More Popular than E85

Columnists

Weight Watchers Flex and SmartPoints System
From the account of the prohibition against gathering the manna on the Sabbath, it appears that cooking and baking were understood to be included under the head of work ib. The Book of Jubilees calls the Sabbath the great sign that work should be done during six days and dropped on the seventh ii. Further, rest assured that all products have passed every health department requirement. I wish you all the very best! But the exploding pork industry in China has a larger weight on the market than ethanol producers. There are exceptions—wear a high-waist pencil skirt if you are self conscious about wearing miniskirts or your workplace requires professional attire. The weights can also be used in combination with bar hanging, pull-ups, stretching and air kicks.

Navigation menu

Ethanol fuel in Brazil

A study by the Institute of Preventive and Clinical Medicine, and Institute of Physiological Chemistry looked at a group of 19 vegetarians lacto-ovo and used as a comparison a group of 19 omnivorous subjects recruited from the same region. The study found that this group of vegetarians lacto-ovo have a significantly higher amount of plasma carboxymethyllysine and advanced glycation endproducts AGEs compared to this group of non-vegetarians.

According to studies by the Permanente Journal and the National Institute for Health NIH , vegetarian diets are affordable and can help reduce health risks like high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, and cholesterol levels. A plant based diet has the potential to lower the risk of heart disease as well as reducing the amount of medications prescribed in instances of chronic illness. A change to a plant based diet, or vegetarianism, has had dramatic positive effects on the health of patients with chronic illnesses, significantly more than exercise alone [].

Vegetarian diets have been studied to see whether they are of benefit in treating arthritis , but no good supporting evidence has been found. Certain alternative medicines , such as Ayurveda and Siddha , prescribe a vegetarian diet as a normal procedure. Maya Tiwari notes that Ayurveda recommends small portions of meat for some people, though "the rules of hunting and killing the animal, practiced by the native peoples, were very specific and detailed".

Now that such methods of hunting and killing are not observed, she does not recommend the use of "any animal meat as food, not even for the Vata types". The human digestive system is omnivorous , capable of consuming a wide variety of plant and animal material.

The American Dietetic Association has presented evidence that vegetarian diets may be more common among adolescents with eating disorders.

At the same time the association cautions however, that the adoption of a vegetarian diet may not necessarily lead to eating disorders, rather that "vegetarian diets may be selected to camouflage an existing eating disorder". Vegetarianism is associated with increased risk of depression, anxiety, and somatoform disorder, although causality cannot be established. Various ethical reasons have been suggested for choosing vegetarianism, usually predicated on the interests of non-human animals.

In many societies, controversy and debate have arisen over the ethics of eating animals. Some people, while not vegetarians, refuse to eat the flesh of certain animals due to cultural taboo , such as cats, dogs, horses or rabbits.

Others support meat eating for scientific, nutritional and cultural reasons, including religious ones. Some meat eaters abstain from the meat of animals reared in particular ways, such as factory farms , or avoid certain meats, such as veal or foie gras.

Some people follow vegetarian or vegan diets not because of moral concerns involving the raising or consumption of animals in general, but because of concerns about the specific treatment and practises involved in the raising and slaughter of animals, i. Others still avoid meat because meat production is claimed to place a greater burden on the environment than production of an equivalent amount of plant protein. Ethical objections based on consideration for animals are generally divided into opposition to the act of killing in general, and opposition to certain agricultural practices surrounding the production of meat.

Princeton University professor and animal rights activist Peter Singer believes that if alternative means of survival exist, one ought to choose the option that does not cause unnecessary harm to animals. Most ethical vegetarians argue that the same reasons exist against killing animals in the flesh to eat as against killing humans to eat, especially humans with cognitive abilities equal or lesser than the animals in question. Singer, in his book Animal Liberation , listed possible qualities of sentience in non-human creatures that gave such creatures the scope to be considered under utilitarian ethics , and this has been widely referenced by animal rights campaigners and vegetarians.

Ethical vegetarians also believe that killing an animal, like killing a human, especially one who has equal or lesser cognitive abilities than the animals in question, can only be justified in extreme circumstances and that consuming a living creature for its enjoyable taste, convenience, or nutrition value is not a sufficient cause.

Another common view is that humans are morally conscious of their behaviour in a way other animals are not, and therefore subject to higher standards. McMahan stated that cognitively disabled human do not possess the same rights as non-disabled humans.

While mentally disabled people were in the past often treated with extreme brutality, with the progression of morality most people understand that the rights of the cognitively disabled still include a right to life and kind treatment.

Increasingly, as moral philosophy progresses further, people understand that, outside of survival situations, denying the right to life to animals with equal or greater cognitive abilities than mentally disabled humans is an arbitrary, discriminatory practice based on habit and desire as opposed to logic. Opponents of ethical vegetarianism argue that animals are not moral equals to humans and so consider the comparison of eating livestock with killing people to be fallacious. This view does not excuse cruelty, but maintains that animals do not possess the rights a human has.

One of the main differences between a vegan and a typical vegetarian diet is the avoidance of both eggs and dairy products such as milk, cheese, butter and yogurt. Ethical vegans do not consume dairy or eggs because they state that their production causes the animal suffering or a premature death.

To produce milk from dairy cattle , calves are separated from their mothers soon after birth and slaughtered or fed milk replacer in order to retain the cows milk for human consumption. A dairy cow's natural life expectancy is about twenty years. In battery cage and free-range egg production, unwanted male chicks are culled or discarded at birth during the process of securing a further generation of egg-laying hens. Ethical vegetarianism has become popular in developed countries particularly because of the spread of factory farming , faster communications, and environmental consciousness.

Some believe that the current mass demand for meat cannot be satisfied without a mass-production system that disregards the welfare of animals, while others believe that practices like well-managed free-ranging and consumption of game, particularly from species whose natural predators have been significantly eliminated, could substantially alleviate the demand for mass-produced meat.

Ancient Greek philosophy has a long tradition of vegetarianism. Pythagoras was reportedly vegetarian and studied at Mt. Carmel, where some historians say there was a vegetarian community , as his followers were expected to be. Roman writer Ovid concluded his magnum opus Metamorphoses , in part, with the impassioned argument uttered by the character of Pythagoras that in order for humanity to change, or metamorphose , into a better, more harmonious species, it must strive towards more humane tendencies.

He cited vegetarianism as the crucial decision in this metamorphosis, explaining his belief that human life and animal life are so entwined that to kill an animal is virtually the same as killing a fellow human. Everything changes; nothing dies; the soul roams to and fro, now here, now there, and takes what frame it will, passing from beast to man, from our own form to beast and never dies Therefore lest appetite and greed destroy the bonds of love and duty, heed my message!

Never by slaughter dispossess souls that are kin and nourish blood with blood! Jainism teaches vegetarianism as moral conduct as do some major [] sects of Hinduism. Buddhism in general does not prohibit meat eating, while Mahayana Buddhism encourages vegetarianism as beneficial for developing compassion.

Sikhism [] [] [] does not equate spirituality with diet and does not specify a vegetarian or meat diet. Theravadins in general eat meat. In the Theravada canon, Buddha did not make any comment discouraging them from eating meat except specific types, such as human, elephant meat , horse, dog, snake, lion, tiger, leopard, bear, and hyena flesh [] but he specifically refused to institute vegetarianism in his monastic code when a suggestion had been made.

In several Sanskrit texts of Mahayana Buddhism , Buddha instructs his followers to avoid meat. Christians have always been free to make their own decisions about what to eat; however, there are groups within Christianity that practice specific dietary restrictions for various reasons. Surviving fragments from their Gospel indicate their belief that — as Christ is the Passover sacrifice and eating the Passover lamb is no longer required — a vegetarian diet may or should be observed.

However, orthodox Christianity does not accept their teaching as authentic. Indeed, their specific injunction to strict vegetarianism was cited as one of the Ebionites' "errors". At a much later time, the Bible Christian Church founded by Reverend William Cowherd in followed a vegetarian diet. They have also sponsored and participated in many scientific studies exploring the impact of dietary decisions upon health outcomes.

Additionally, some monastic orders follow a vegetarian diet, and members of the Orthodox Church follow a vegan diet during fasts. The association grew in prominence during the 19th century, coupled with growing Quaker concerns in connection with alcohol consumption, anti-vivisection and social purity. The association between the Quaker tradition and vegetarianism, however, becomes most significant with the founding of the Friends' Vegetarian Society in "to spread a kindlier way of living amongst the Society of Friends.

According to Canon Law , Roman Catholics are required to abstain from meat defined as all animal flesh excluding water animals on Ash Wednesday and all Fridays of Lent including Good Friday. Canon Law also obliges Catholics to abstain from meat on the Fridays of the year outside of Lent excluding certain holy days unless, with the permission of the local conference of bishops, another penitential act is substituted.

The restrictions on eating meat on these days is solely as an act of penance and not because of a religious objection to eating meat. Since the formation of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the s when the church began, wholeness and health have been an emphasis of the Adventist church, and has been known as the "health message" belief of the church.

Obedience to these laws means abstinence from pork, shellfish, and other animals proscribed as " unclean ". The church discourages its members from consuming alcoholic beverages , tobacco or illegal drugs compare Christianity and alcohol. In addition, some Adventists avoid coffee , tea , cola , and other beverages containing caffeine. The pioneers of the Adventist Church had much to do with the common acceptance of breakfast cereals into the Western diet, and the "modern commercial concept of cereal food" originated among Adventists.

His development of breakfast cereals as a health food led to the founding of Kellogg's by his brother William. In both Australia and New Zealand , the church-owned Sanitarium Health and Wellbeing Company is a leading manufacturer of health and vegetarian-related products, most prominently Weet-Bix.

Research funded by the U. National Institutes of Health has shown that the average Adventist in California lives 4 to 10 years longer than the average Californian. The research , as cited by the cover story of the November issue of National Geographic , asserts that Adventists live longer because they do not smoke or drink alcohol, have a day of rest every week, and maintain a healthy, low-fat vegetarian diet that is rich in nuts and beans.

He cites the Adventist emphasis on health, diet, and Sabbath-keeping as primary factors for Adventist longevity. Though there is no strict rule on what to consume and what not to, paths of Hinduism hold vegetarianism as an ideal. However, the food habits of Hindus vary according to their community, location, custom and varying traditions. Historically and currently, those Hindus who eat meat prescribe Jhatka meat, [] while some Hindus believe that the cow is a holy animal whose slaughter for meat is forbidden.

Some followers of Islam, or Muslims, chose to be vegetarian for health, ethical, or personal reasons. However, the choice to become vegetarian for non-medical reasons can sometimes be controversial due to conflicting fatwas and differing interpretations of the Quran.

Though some more traditional Muslims may keep quiet about their vegetarian diet, the number of vegetarian Muslims is increasing. The former Indian president Dr. Abdul Kalam was also famously a vegetarian. Many non-vegetarian Muslims will select vegetarian or seafood options when dining in non- halal restaurants. However, this is a matter of not having the right kind of meat rather than preferring not to eat meat on the whole.

Followers of Jainism believe that all living organisms whether they are micro-organism are living and have a soul, and have one or more senses out of five senses and they go to great lengths to minimise any harm to any living organism. Most Jains are lacto-vegetarians but more devout Jains do not eat root vegetables because they believe that root vegetables contain a lot more micro-organisms as compared to other vegetables, and that, by eating them, violence of these micro-organisms is inevitable.

So they focus on eating beans and fruits, whose cultivation do not involve killing of a lot of micro-organisms. No products obtained from dead animals are allowed, because when a living beings dies, a lot of micro-organisms called as decomposers will reproduce in the body which decomposes the body, and in eating the dead bodies, violence of decomposers is inevitable.

Jain monks usually do a lot of fasting, and when they knew through spiritual powers that their life is very little, they start fasting until death. Some Jains do not consume plant parts that grow underground such as roots and bulbs, because the plants themselves and tiny animals may be killed when the plants are pulled up. While classical Jewish law neither requires nor prohibits the consumption of meat, Jewish vegetarians often cite Jewish principles regarding animal welfare , environmental ethics , moral character, and health as reasons for adopting a vegetarian or vegan diet.

A number of medieval rabbis e. Many modern rabbis, by contrast, advocate vegetarianism or veganism primarily because of concerns about animal welfare, especially in light of the traditional prohibition on causing unnecessary "pain to living creatures" tza'ar ba'alei hayyim. According to Genesis , consumption of meat was prohibited to human beings 1: Some advocates of Jewish vegetarianism, such as Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook , describe vegetarianism as an eschatological ideal to which all human beings must eventually return.

Jewish vegetarianism and veganism have become especially popular among Israeli Jews. In , Israel was described as "the most vegan country on Earth", as five percent of its population eschewed all animal products. Within the Afro-Caribbean community, a minority are Rastafari and follow the dietary regulations with varying degrees of strictness.

The most orthodox eat only " Ital " or natural foods, in which the matching of herbs or spices with vegetables is the result of long tradition originating from the African ancestry and cultural heritage of Rastafari.

Ital cooking in its strictest form prohibits the use of salt, meat especially pork , preservatives, colorings, flavorings and anything artificial. The tenets of Sikhism do not advocate a particular stance on either vegetarianism or the consumption of meat, [] [] [] [] but leave the decision of diet to the individual.

This is understood to have been for the political reason of maintaining independence from the then-new Muslim hegemony, as Muslims largely adhere to the ritualistic halal diet. Guru Nanak said that over-consumption of food Lobh , Greed involves a drain on the Earth's resources and thus on life. Who can define what is meat and what is not meat? Who knows where the sin lies, being a vegetarian or a non-vegetarian?

Environmental vegetarianism is based on the concern that the production of meat and animal products for mass consumption, especially through factory farming , is environmentally unsustainable. According to a United Nations initiative, the livestock industry is one of the largest contributors to environmental degradation worldwide, and modern practices of raising animals for food contribute on a "massive scale" to air and water pollution, land degradation , climate change, and loss of biodiversity.

The initiative concluded that "the livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.

In addition, animal agriculture is a large source of greenhouse gases. Livestock sources including enteric fermentation and manure account for about 3. Meat produced in a laboratory called in vitro meat may be more environmentally sustainable than regularly produced meat. In May , Ghent , Belgium, was reported to be "the first [city] in the world to go vegetarian at least once a week" for environmental reasons, when local authorities decided to implement a "weekly meatless day".

Civil servants would eat vegetarian meals one day per week, in recognition of the United Nations' report. Posters were put up by local authorities to encourage the population to take part on vegetarian days, and "veggie street maps" were printed to highlight vegetarian restaurants. In September , schools in Ghent are due to have a weekly veggiedag "vegetarian day" too. Some groups, such as PETA , promote vegetarianism as a way to offset poor treatment and working conditions of workers in the contemporary meat industry.

Similar to environmental vegetarianism is the concept of economic vegetarianism. An economic vegetarian is someone who practices vegetarianism from either the philosophical viewpoint concerning issues such as public health and curbing world starvation, the belief that the consumption of meat is economically unsound, part of a conscious simple living strategy or just out of necessity.

According to the Worldwatch Institute , "Massive reductions in meat consumption in industrial nations will ease their health care burden while improving public health; declining livestock herds will take pressure off rangelands and grainlands, allowing the agricultural resource base to rejuvenate.

As populations grow, lowering meat consumption worldwide will allow more efficient use of declining per capita land and water resources, while at the same time making grain more affordable to the world's chronically hungry.

Prejudice researcher Gordon Hodson observes that vegetarians and vegans frequently face discrimination where eating meat is held as a cultural norm. A market research study conducted by the Yankelovich research organisation concluded that "of the At least one study indicates that vegetarian women are more likely to have female babies.

Any fuel can go through those dispensers, not just an ethanol blend. Maybe you can help me understand something. It seems like the ethanol industry is more interested in getting an E15 mandate than they are in growing the E85 market. But if I was trying to grow the ethanol market, I would be putting a full court press on Midwestern governors to shift fuel taxes around and to do everything possible to make E85 more competitive. Because if E85 becomes a more attractive option in the Midwest, the potential market there is times current ethanol production in the U.

And it would be beneficial to those Midwestern states. Your historical opinion of ethanol is known, so I am sure I am just getting baited.

But, I will respond. I have no idea what has led you to believe the ethanol industry is pushing for an E15 mandate. We have certainly opened more E85 stations than E15 since the fuel debuted. Incentives in the Midwest would do nothing to fix this issue and reducing fuel taxes would be a tough endeavor considering the state of our road infrastructure.

Further, the fuel volume opportunities, along with the bulk of the vehicles, are not in the Midwest. The bulk of the new E85 stations are outside the Midwest and are proving to be very sustainable. Yes, I am aware that the ethanol industry has a comic book view of my ethanol views. That was never clearer than when I was listed as 5 on a ethanol enemies list, with the reasons cited as opinions I have never actually held nor stated. But my views a lot more objective than yours are.

Whereas it is your job to push ethanol, it is not my job to oppose it. I oppose policies that I think are counterproductive. And this is where my opinion really starts to diverge from yours.

The history of the ethanol industry has been one in which they try to force others to use their product. Now, if the ethanol industry is to be long-term sustainable, they should really focus closer to home where the costs to put ethanol at a station are a lot lower.

At this point in time, you exist because of the federal government. Note that I have made this argument for years. First environmental concerns not valued well at the checkout, advantage fossil fuel choice. Deep pockets of international corporations can easily eliminate small business competition as well as purchase more Capital Hill influence and convincing advertising. Deep pockets can afford more skeptical science per analysis of competition solutions as well as parley science support for purchases product.

Second I can see an advantage to maximizing effort within the ranks of ethanol producing states to showcase efficient use of their product, but that is going on as we post. The product must emerge from state boundaries to general public experience and benefit to gain any influence. E15 is just a step away from mass market, why not push that solution? They throw out Libertarian ideals of free market, but quiet upon free market ideals of offering competitive choice at the pump.

I think E15 is so dangerous to petrol, because the fuel would quickly be embraced per public scrutiny. They would quickly discover higher octane better performing fuel, better air quality, no mpg loss, and cost savings. They would realize a dime cheaper fuel with mid grade fuel performance.

They would ascertain per the experience, petrol benefactors just scare mongering and fooling them. Oh, the ethanol sign per vendor contract sits on ground with competing signage for beer and cigarettes. If I remember correctly, that was a list created by outside views looking in, not from the ethanol industry itself. With the exception of Chicago, I know of no discussion of an E15 mandate.

In my opinion, which I think would be normal for most, is much different from us forcing someone to buy it. No different than if some station owner wants to offer E0, go for it. Ethanol is produced in more than half the states, so assume you mean the Midwest? I also assume it is just a coincidence that this is also where we find the lower volume of flex-fuel vehicles and fuel potential? I am sure Big Oil would love this idea too. If we should only use local production, the stay close to home model, what fuel should those states push?

Ethanol is also currently cheaper than gasoline in every state, which is historically true more often than not. Your idea is to raise gas prices for those outside the Midwest? Granted, there is ethanol production in both states, so maybe not a valid point, but they are not what most would consider the heart of ethanol country. No damage to small engines. Consumers damage engine components due oxidative properties low ethanol content contends materials in components.

Proper, high ethanol content, along reservoir drain and purge result clean for next use. English is very poor. Talk to any small engine repair shop for weed eaters and chainsaws to know what damage is. No problem here with those engines.

Even the snow blower. I mix gas by the 5 gallons, so I do use them a lot. About two cords of hardwood a year. If anything the engines run cleaner and smell less.

They start easier and the out of season storage is a snap. I do nothing and they startup better than the old pure gasoline days. Lawn Boy had a terrible time with this and just about gave up the business. But, it is an easy excuse. RINs are provided at no cost to the entity that blends the renewable fuels with traditional fuels to create the ultimate marketplace fuel.

The only reason anyone would ever need to buy a RIN and this would be from another blender, not the government or taxpayers is if they are refusing to blend the renewable fuels.

Robert, what do you mean RINs are provided at no cost to the blenders? I thought RINs are generated by the biofuel producer for every gallon of biofuel produced. When the blenders buy biofuel, they are also buying the RIN. When the ethanol is blended with gasoline, the RIN is detached and can either be held for compliance or traded on a secondary market. You are correct that the biofuel producer generates and distributes, but not the economics. RINs are hard to explain, hopefully this helps.

The value of the RIN to the biofuel producer is zero, not factored into market pricing. The RIN only has value once blended, and to the blender. That value is totally dependent on when it is sold and how many they have to sell. More volume to sell, more value.

Only obligated parties gasoline producers and importers are required to turn-in RINs. If they are an obligated party, they need to turn them into EPA for compliance and they have no value unless they blend beyond their obligation , no cash is received. The intent of the RIN is to encourage blending, and infrastructure development to support more blending. Why is the blender not an obligated party? So lets break it down in the supply chain.

The compliance life of a RIN is two years and they are told what their obligation is for that year. Biofuel producers produce a gallon and generate a RIN.

It is available on the market. An obligated party can buy the RIN, or a non-obligated party. If they blend E85, they are capturing RINs that can therefore be sold to an obligated party.

The intent is to encourage investment. Ok that is a little more clear. Investment into biofuel production? So the RIN is basically pure-profit to a non-obligated party. But Kior is not a blender to my knowledge, only a producer. Also Kum and Go is a retail location that dispenses fuel. Larry, gas stations could, but not popular.

Think of a gas station with blender pump that could purchase ethanol and E10 and accumulate RINs for higher blends. One would think petrol behavior per the obligated party regs would naturally progress the sale of more ethanol to eliminate the cost of conformance. Not so upon reality. Is it per stubbornness?

No, that human attribute seldom developed per higher need of wealth generation. So, what is petrol strategy? My first guess they feel comfortable within the position to defy regulations. Probably per their political influence, wealth generation, and perceived value to public needs. They can hold steadfast to claim of inability to conform to regs and impose maximum negative advertising to value of competition.

Their strategy is to trip up the time table and investment dollars from progressing the fuel. They reach out to willing accomplices per shared benefit to do so. In any event the RFS protects the competition from savages they can impose. They would like to open the marketplace up to allow maximum international corporate power per bag of dirty tricks. Will this help the consumer? The public does need to wise up as they see the doors slowly closing around them.

It is very unlikely that they blend their own E10, but very likely they are the blender of record on their own E85, which they also use to create their E Investment from my perspective is in infrastructure. That would normally be retail, could be capital for more production, etc. But, only the blender receives this RIN value. Guessing the Kior statement was based on market opportunities and potential stock prices reflecting that, which would then encourage investment.

It was a subsidy provided to fuel blenders, not ethanol producers. But it has been replaced to a large extent by blender pump subsidies which are also paid to fuel blenders. Any thing paid or forgiven by the government regarding the use of ethanol as a fuel lowers the apparent cost to the consumer. Being as how there is no such thing as a free lunch the cost is paid by other means such as taxpayer money, raising the cost of foods such as corn and meats which depend on corn based feed and the consumer in terms of reduced fuel economy.

Price of corn is at or below when the RFS was implemented. If more ethanol raises corn prices, and then food, please explain? Only thing that is high in price now is food, simply because of greed. As for incentives for fuel blenders, it is more than just ethanol, they can offer any fuel they want, and why they are called multi-product dispensers. Seen more E0, diesel, E85 and premium because of new dispenser technology.

The market place determines the price of corn without subsidies. If you make gasoline out of methane, you have a renewable fuel that does not impact food cost and does not release formaldehyde when burned.

There is a commercial process for doing this but it is not widespread. There is also a commercial process for making gasoline from coal although coal is not a renewable source. It is called the Fischer Tropsch process. Yes, USDA did provide some funding for retail fueling infrastructure that went to retail fuel station owners could also be oil companies of varying levels. Fossil fuels subsidize the federal government and the U.

Shut them down, and our economy and government shut down. They also subsidize the economies of every petro-state. Economics dictates that one cannot subsidize a primary energy source by definition.

Energy is the currency of value creation that underpins the fiscal economy. Biofuels are subsidized by blending mandates and RINs that increase their price above their value. Ethanol sells at a premium to gasoline on an equal energy basis. DOE also publishes these relative prices quarterly.

The real first principle of subsidy is that only one of two interacting parties can be subsidized by the other — one takes a loss on a transaction to artificially prop up the return for the other. The ethanol industry can make no such claim. Fossil fuels energy subsizes our economy and fossil fuel margins subsidize our government. Comparing taxpayer investments is a challenge and depends on what is defined as a subsidy. For example the pro petrol group will conflate agriculture with biofuel.

You know the health of environment, citizen health, minimizing international warfare, job creation upon the dollar spent, domestic wealth production, small business growth, minimizing wealth concentration, rural job creation, farm income, stability of fuel costs, and most importantly; to stimulate competition and choice at the fuel pump.

Remember the national urgency to produce an alternative fuel as the Arabs and minor process glitches of petrol would work together to savage the consumer. Professor Metcalf economic analysis and what you post make a good case that any subsidy of petrol is a waste of taxpayer money.

You forget that petrol has formulated a sub-par and cheaper blend stock for ethanol with the blessing of the EPA. Nothing wrong with that, except we need to inform the public that ethanol is required to bring the fuel up to standard grade, so ethanol should receive the credit for utilizing a cheaper grade of fuel and saving motorist money per every gallon of fuel. First with the ability to motor on cheaper petrol fuel and second with the cheaper per gallon ethanol blend stock.

Oh, wait it does as the ethanol oxygenate fuel charter works to decrease the typical gasoline fuel emissions. Oh, the octane boost of ethanol and the fast burn character of the fuel works to maximize plain gasoline efficiency within a typically engine and double than with the modern engines designed for higher octane fuels.

The purity of ethanol is extreme and easy for combustion engineers to work within. The same for controlling emissions. Petrol has hundreds of compounds, chemicals, and all with vary proportions.

Not an easy task to work within. Yeah, who needs subsidies when there are mandates that actually force your product into the market? Lets say mandate a change to ethanol fuel some six years out. Place ethanol in the same circumstance that petrol fuel has historically enjoyed. No competition for years. Let the automotive, service sector and small engines tune and designs engines to maximize ethanol just like they did with petrol products.

Let the process centers have a hundred years to improve cost and quality. After that, sure, let the consumers decide. The country would be set on a course with a challenge of maximizing ethanol production. We may have to import some to start, but I think we would be flabbergasted upon the relatively quick production, low cost, and quality of the fuel and the gain from efficient engines running on the fuel.

We would own the technology to do so and improve the economy with a valuable fuel supply and supplier of equipment. By the way our petrol companies and resources still could be fully employed with the international markets. Suppliers still could be producing and exporting crude oil products.

So, we would essentially be an energy supplier above the Arab influence owning two fuel markets. Forrest, your lies are tiresome.

I am surprised Robert Rapier still tolerates your fountain of misinformation. Ethanol was around 5, years before gasoline. The earliest internal combustion engines were designed to run on biofuels. All steam engines and most tractors were designed to be multi-fuel, burning whatever the farmer had at hand.

The low-combustion engines of the Models T and A could run on ethanol. The historical fact is that gasoline arrived on the scene and immediately outcompeted ethanol — and kerosene, and steam engines, and batteries. There were showrooms for battery-powered cars before the gasoline engine was even invented. Folks here have enough education in science and history and economics to be immune to your propaganda. I was shocked on the support of ethanol fuel and the wise use per the founding industry leaders of automotive.

That often government stepped into make the fuel illegal or to expensive. First, most falsely think petrol saved the whales per providing a better fuel to illuminate lamps. Same during Prohibition, whereas the competition got waylaid by crony capitalism.

I do know the angst of the Great Depression farmer could have been mostly avoided if ethanol fuel choice rightly held on to its position. The history of ethanol is a history of being savaged by greed and wealth concentration of the few and powerful and the start of crony capitalism. After all, your PhD thesis on the the environmental disaster of leaded gasoline reveals what a balanced view you have of the subject.

Starting your authoritative history of ethanol in America in the s instead of Mesopotamia in 4, BC, and selectively omitting tons of history since really helps guide the reader to your foreordained conclusions. Of all of your omitted facts, I have one question you might be able to help me with.

Why did the Wright Brothers, way back in , when they decided to build their engine from scratch, choose to build a gasoline engine? I see you read the attachment for the earliest use and production of ethanol. Interesting that ethanol can be consumed, whereas gasoline is a poison to human health.

Is there some magic within the tail pipe that makes the poison into healthy air? The Wrights engine was a crude engine even for the time. The crank case was aluminum a first. No commercial engine available that could produce over 8 hp and weight less than It appears gasoline was able to do the job. Gasoline and hydrocarbons offers significantly superior energy density and power density versus ethanol and other alcohols.

Same advantage to cars, trucks, trains, ships, and rockets. The advantage is large enough that it was worth it to the Wright Brothers to add to the chore of designing and building a new aircraft, the additional challenge of designing and building a new engine from scratch. And they beat the specs by generating 12 hp out of lb.

People who understand physics and chemistry made America great. People who rewrite history and facts to suit their skewed worldviews and broadcast it as truth tear us all down. I bet the Energy Department has a good understanding of superior fuels. Did you read they have a BETO strategic plan to facilitate bio fuel development? They plan to become a force to speed the development and provide a strong foundation of accurate communication.

The idea is educate the public upon truth and science of the needs and benefits of bio fuel. This should stop the naysayers and kill the propagandist that attempt to thwart such actions. More of a continuous slow growth plan to ensure no miss steps and success.

It transforms hydrocarbons and air into water vapor and CO2 gas and lots of heat and pressure energy to move pistons and do useful work. Most of us learned about it in high school. How about an accurate chemical equation of the entire process.

Of course that can be accomplished, because no one knows for sure the full spectrum of chemicals involved. First the variations of chemical makeup of the fuel and the compounding effect of all the engine operating parameters.

Then the wear and failure of the system and components add to the complexity. Manufactures only guarantee a small portion of emissions will be controlled to acceptable limits for a specific lifetime of the vehicle. All bets are off on old vehicles.

Small engine manufactures rate conformance by the hour. The EPA inspected emissions mostly about the basics within environmental harm and not long term human health. We just discovered the diesel 2. Why are cities looking to increase ethanol blends as an improvement?

Yes, but the government must support the military according to a constitutional mandate. We have plenty of oil if the government would just get out of the way, we would not have to import. Those same anti nuke people wring their hands that we are polluting with fossil fuels. The issues regarding sustainable energy, climate change, and environmental pollution have been obfuscated by political agenda, misinformation and outright lies.

This is a globalist agenda and there is very little science involved. BTW CO2 is not a pollutant and there is no evidence that it contributes to warmer temperatures as it produces no energy.

The military secures our dependence on Walmart and iPhones and bananas more than it secures our dependence on oil.

We could easily satisfy all our oil needs with North American oil. We import from the gulf and OPEC simply because it is cheaper. Retail ethanol has never been cheaper than gasoline since DOE has been keeping records in The DOE tracks the retail prices and corrects them for equal energy content in table 3 of this quarterly publication http: The best comparison of retail products is E10 gasoline to E You can go look up historical prices as far back as It fails on volatility, energy density, lubricity, electrical conductivity, water affinity, corrosivity, stability, biological fouling, and other criteria.

As an additive it also increases the water and soil contamination potential of gasoline, the same as MTBE did. The EPA even had to give it a waiver for violating one of their own pollution limits Reid vapor pressure. It is a beverage additive, not a fuel additive.

It does not belong in any gasoline station or fuel tank. First btu rating is but one measure of fuel worth. Notice we do not use high btu bituminous for fuel. Nor has high btu diesel replaced gasoline. The fact that ethanol is diluted with liquid oxygen is a good thing as it makes combustion more efficient, cleaner, and promotes high torque efficient engines with less displacement.

Meaning a smaller lighter engine as compared to the petrol fueled engine. Cummings E85 engine was half the size of the diesel engine of comparable torque and operated on equivalent fuel cost per mile. It bested the gasoline engine comparison, even on a MPG measure. So, how did a lower BTU fuel beat plain gasoline? Ethanol has better fuel character that allows the design of a more efficient engine.

This is truly the measure of a good fuel. All the other data you post is basically rating ethanol in sub par position, either with engines designed for another fuel or with test data gamed per the petrol engineered test fuel that everyone knows was formulated to purposely put ethanol at a disadvantage. A test fuel that has no commercial equivalent.

Note, that the Cummings E85 engine met EPA regs with simple low cost converter as compared to the needed very expensive diesel pollution control equipment. I do notice since E10 fuel water problems have vanished. The boating industry had a horrible time with petrol and conked out boats with a water slug within fuel.

The solution would be to find the water slug and drain then pet ethanol fuel in the tank. That was a myth way back and never substantiated. Petrol does promote a varnish and gunk over time, but that is usually a demerit in fuel quality. Ethanol makes an excellent two cycle fuel given the need for improved oxygen breathing and lower metal part temperatures given the engine must be tuned properly for the fuel.

The vapor pressure, again, is just a measure of not using enough ethanol. Meaning ethanol can be utilized to both increase vapor pressure need such as in cold climates and used to decrease vapor pressure during summer season. This is actually a good thing. Also, one must understand the excellent fuel character of ethanol is most valuable to handicap gasoline. It can give gasoline a boost in combustion efficiency. I did notice that the Ford 1L Ecoboost engine can maximize the E15 benefit and does not lose any MPG as compared to conventional plain gasoline.

This is the future of modern high efficient engines that need more ethanol in the mix. This is a good thing for petrol, the consumer, and the environment.

Also there is a lot of small motor companies that require you to use ethanol free gas or they will not warranty them and in the old muscle cars and such as 60s and early 70s you run that stuff in them you will get engine damage so you have to run regular unleaded and add stuff in it to take care of it or redo a lot to motor and fuel system. And if you run unleaded gas in a 60s or early 70s car, you had better replace the valves and valve seats. The tetraethyl lead protected the older valves and seats from burning.

No joke but that is not the reason lead was put in gasoline it was put in because it was a cheap way to raise the octane in gas and now you can buy stuff to go in unleaded gas just like AMACO sold to use in there Gold brand gas that was a high test unleaded gas from the 60,s. There was another reason ethanol was added that most are not aware of and that is that it reduced the vapor pressure of gasoline in the tank.

The lead was taken out due to contamination of the catalyst. The alcohol was supposed to replace the lost octane. Yes, comparing low sales of E85 to low sales of ethanol free gas is a bit deceptive, meaning there both niche markets. The E85 is valuable per the ranking of alternative fuel and not just a blend agent. Flex fuel owners have an option when the crude oil supply goes haywire.

Also, the politics of EPA, petrol, ethanol, and auto manufacturers is very interesting to watch. Each player wants government to empower their side. Auto manufactures want big CAFE credits for flex fuel production to offset gas guzzlers as this class of car most popular to Flex Fuel. EPA upset upon the trick and pulling away credits. Also, manufacturers want subsidy for the production of Flex Fuel vehicles, because they can.

Their is no need for this certification other than to subsidize government agency. My response to this comment can be found here. Farmers grow what they think they can make money growing. The ethanol subsidies have driven many Midwest farmers to grow more corn, leaving less cropland for other staples. Overproduction this year is because of ideal weather. After some really dry years and some so-so years, weather was ideal throughout the Midwest.

Ironically, production was so good that the market price for corn is below production cost this year. I do not fear ethanol nor harbor ill will towards environmentalists. Ethanol is added to gasoline has only one benefit.

Therefore adding ethanol to gasoline will reduce mileage. Notice the increase is in what the climate change money grubbers say are greenhouse gasses. They only other benefit is that it has decreased the demand for oil. BUT has increased the sale of small engine parts. Many consumers are not aware of the need for better equipment and fuel care. Old stale fuel has destroyed a lot of two stroke equipment, and caused a lot of carburetor and fuel line replacement.

I have to disagree with Robert on this one. We have three vehicles in the family from and up. All of them state that use of fuel with ethanol will void the warranty.

Please share the makes and models, something is sure off. According to the auto manufacturers, all vehicles sold in the U. According to the Mercedes website http: According to BMW website http: Audi corporate confirmed to us late last year that all of their vehicles can use E10 which has been the case for years and they can ALSO use E End result, all of your vehicles can use E10 and it would be covered by warranty.

Your Mercedes and Audi can both also use E15, and it would be covered by warranty. You have warranty on vehicles older than that? Regardless, the automakers have confirmed that in order to deny warranty claims they would have to first prove that E15 was used and that E15 caused the damage. I am told that not a single dealership in the country has the ability to do the second.

Despite all the scare tactics, nothing has happened. No warranty claims and obviously, none denied. All manufacturers warrant the use of E10 and have since My Monte Carlo computer rejects E10 fuel as a choice: I could live with it if I like driving with my engine light on all the time, than what good is the engine light!

Every automaker genius forgot to ask the autos computer first to see if it would like alcohol in the gasoline before committing themselves to accepting and endorsing E10! The world is full of cons!

May it reject that as well? You have a issue with engine system. My first guess is intake or vacuum leak. That is quite common in cars and often times the result of mechanics missing the reattachment. Running with low vacuum and extra easy air intake without filter not to good for engine or gas mileage.

Ethanol is toxic to your small engine. It is an extender and gets less mileage because it does not burn as gas does but is incinerated by the gas. You pay less but you need to buy more to go the same distance. All the money spent on repairs adds up fast. Add the price to tax payers of the subsidies past and present and your taxes are a factor, nothing has been gained.

If you are right, how is that possible? Ethanol is not an extender for refiners, it is an octane source , the cheapest on the planet.

They make poor gas at octane and then blend with ethanol. Did your math include subsidies past and present for petroleum? They are well at over years and counting, yet everyone else is supposed to operate subsidy-free. What is the shelf life of ethanol gas? Also, premium gas utilized alcohol for octane boost and cleaning agent. Gasoline companies have always utilized alcohol to boost value of gasoline.

Most of them unhealthy and a few very cancerous. How much of that energy can be used to do mechanical work depends on the thermodynamic efficiency of the engine in question.

Some of these pumps have viable options of eligible fuel grades — all of them having a different price per BTU. This statistic might be low in my opinion. Your article mentions 5 reasons consumers may opt for non-ethanol fuel options. Do agendas have a price? In reality, I think they do in this case. I believe it happens at the pump on an everyday basis by most people i. I could probably argue both sides pretty effectively, if I had to. But, consumers concerned of quality of fuel and environmental concerns of their purchase.

Ethanol has many attributes that make gasoline better. It dries out moisture from fuel storage. Remember, the water puddling inside tanks? The slug of water from fueling stations? Gasoline has long utilized ethanol to dry out the fuel.

Ethanol is a natural detergent as well. Engines that burn E85 are shockingly clean of carbon deposits. The fuel cleans up the typical crud of petro, including injectors. Ethanol, despite claims of short shelf life per moisture retention has boosted ability of fuel to over winter. It will depend on your environment, but many including myself can a test to the benefit. Michigan had long ago been regulated to E10 regular.

Not much concern, fanfare, or notice. Forrest, I confine my study to relationships of physics and economics i. As my original post said: I support as many options as possible. I wish every pump was a blender pump and had 6 choices. My calculations do not factor in the decisions each individual has to make, independently, regarding considerations outside of economics of their fill, and the miles it get them at a given cost. You make good points. The place where the flex owners have a leg up on others if the government forces E15 on the consumers.

A lot of car manufactures do not want to warranty E15 in non-flex cars. Minnesota plans to force E20 on their consumers. The governments will be hard to find when consumers have trouble with their cars. Most standard performance vehicle engines today have an 87 octane requirement. So, if we can take octane out of the mileage discussion, go to this site by the Department of Energy http: If you are interested in the methods used to obtain this data go to: This represents a This relationship can generally be considered to hold true across all the fuel blends at the pump proportional to the respective energy-densities on a BTU basis.

See picture below to save you the work of doing the math. Octane is one of the primary drivers of efficient combustion to work preformed. They are not road testing mileage. You are really purchasing torque ability of engine and fuel capability.

Horsepower is good for grinding out power such as race cars that have no need of efficiency. But, consumers whom interested in cost per mile achieve it with high toque. One of the problems with ethanol in general is the typical car inability to exploit the fuel attribute.

Modern autos have or will have the ability to adjust operation parameters to maximum efficiency per ethanol octane. The higher octane, the earlier spark ignition, lower rpm shifts, higher compression per Atkinson cycle, and higher final drive ratio per ability of the higher torque fuel.

Cummings just announced a 2. Forrest, Thanks for your time and reply. That being said, 1 in a cost effective manner and 2 when based on usual cost spreads between these higher octane grades and 3 where a vehicle has an 87 octane requirement from the manufacture.

It would be great if you could steer me to this data. Thanks again — and most respectfully. See the link in my response to him above. Intuitively, this does not make sense.

Compression ratio is an engine design parameter and the higher the ratio the higher the octane rating that is required to prevent pre-ignition.

The highest compression ratios are found in race cars, high performance engines in which operating cost is not a concern. Thus, from your argument, ethanol fuel would be ideal for race cars and indeed many burn pure alcohol. But the reason is safety, alcohol is miscible, mixes with water which, unlike gasoline, is life saving in hosing down a burning wreck.

If so, the American fleet will not garner any advantage from ethanol until engines are redesigned. And the lower energy density issue would be the cost determinant. Yes, the idea is that with higher compression engines you could get more power per cubic inch. In this way you could make a slightly smaller engine, get the same horsepower, and increase your fuel mileage due to the lighter weight.

This is the basic idea of Fords Eco-Boost. More power from a lighter engine to increase fuel efficiency. Alex — Of course this is true engine energy mass and volume density. We knew this before WWII, with high compression, high octane aviation gasoline.

But those power plants had hour tear down requirements, wholly unsuitable for a family car. My point is that the American vehicle fleet can not use high octane fuel, with our current engine designs. What we discuss is the life cycle costs for a fixed fleet propulsion due to a changed fuel. If low energy dense ethanol provides a useless characteristic for my car, why buy it? It tears up small engines, requires constant overhauls.

It comes from corn. There are 38 states that grow corn and each one has two Senators. That explains it all. The US has an entirely worthless industry due to corn lobbyists. Well, if nothing less, ethanol saves your money. Octane, oxygenates, detergent, water absorption are expensive additives historically to fuel industry. Also, economist claim the ethanol competition per fuel cost dampening ability is powerful.

They put ethanol cost savings to consumer much higher. Remember the gasoline spikes in cost per any hiccup within supply chain? BTW, flex fuel vehicles a good device to ensure competition. If some international problem threatens gas supplies, flex vehicles can change refueling pumps.

Ethanol is being exported all over the world. E5 mandates are popping up in India and smaller Asian countries. Even countries in the middle east that have cheap access to oil are using it. Why is that engine fine? But I really struggle to believe its all due to ethanol.

I see old boats running all summer. And then I hear stories like yours. I will share one more anecdote. Take it for what it is; an anecdote. So I started putting E10 in my lawnmower. After using it for about half a season, it blew out a half dollar-sized hole in the engine block. Oil went everywhere and I could actually see inside the cylinder. Pieces of shrapnel went everywhere. Was ethanol the culprit? I have no idea. Even if I could prove that ethanol did it, do you know who is responsible financially?

So there are some hidden costs not necessarily in this case, but there are documented cases of problems and they were borne by consumers. Good point Robert, and I can appreciate that those are real costs. We had the same thing happen to a diesel semi. The chuck of the engine block shot out with such force it punched a hole in the hood of the truck. Of course this could not be blamed on ethanol, but if it had been a gas engine it may have been, consciously or not. At which point blame has been heaped upon the fuel for so long no one cares that the product was recalled.

Its all the fuels fault. I feel that ethanol gets the rap quite a bit. Everyone complains about having to change their fuel filters after switching to E10 for the first time after using E0 for years.

With all the special advertised additives that refiners talk about what is falling out of their fuel? Why is it considered a better idea to let water vapor pool at the bottom of your gas tank instead of getting it out of there as soon as it collects? I have the luxury of fixing all my equipment per my mechanical ability.

Sometimes I go to garage to get an estimate or receive free install. I catch so many many false claims. It is laughable how dishonest these shops are. They really flip to humble servant when discovering that I intimately know the car and auto mechanics. I caught a transmission shop, brake shop, battery install, front end repair, and gas pump installer. Robert, your problem is typical per rod breakage. Small engines need oil change more that seasonal. You will hear the tell tale sign of knocking before catastrophic failure.

Also, the oil level is important, since they use dipper splash lube system. Sometimes a mere fraction of cup of oil will be needed. Especially, if old engine that starts to burn oil. Double that if you have steep hill to mow. Best be protected with high pressure additive such as moly as the engine could go unlubed for short duration.

Moly Kote is a good product. Two cycle engines will seize typical from lack of lube or lean conditions. EPA hates two cycle engines per the high air emissions. Years ago they settled on not banning the engines if they could adapt Two cycles engines now have coatings to limit friction per the ability to run with minimum oil.

I wrecked a few engines before ethanol and discovered the problem. Bump up the oil mix to Of course the small engine mechanics complain of ethanol as the culprit.

I know some folks whom modified weed whacker and lawn movers to E85 and have had zero problems. Some have the four cycles running on high blends with no mods. Ethanol appears to have the ability per engine lean operating condition to not be as damaging as compared to gasoline. E85 would be a great fuel for small engines and double benefit for two cycle. Lower pollution, more oxygen, and cooler chamber temps. The world uses what it has.

Few nations have the oil, or money that we have. Brazil uses mostly ethanol because they have vast lands planted in sugar cane, the base fuel source. It was I am not current illegal to import it into the US, for two reasons. Our sugar monopoly, mostly in Florida, charges 3 — 4 times the world price due to this barrier, and our corn lobbyists keep it out. Unlike oil based products, alcohol absorbs water, particularity in hot humid conditions.

This is great at the race track as a hosing a wreck makes it not burn. But it is lousy in an engine, if left for any length of time. Constant use and replenishment works but long term storage days or weeks force an overhaul. I am told it has ruined boating in the Chesapeake Bay. The tanks must be constantly drained. It is possible to design a pure ethanol engine. Henry Ford first thought that was the future as every farmer had a still. The octane ratings are different anti knocking.

Next year there is a lobbying effort to subsidize fuel pump mixers, via the FDA farm program. My main objection is that government giveaways created an industry because private investment walked. That is not the America I once knew. It was a mix of the fact that Standard Oil had so much sway, as well as prohibition that lead to the disuse of ethanol as a fuel. There are even some theories that Rockefeller helped bring about prohibition to end the use of ethanol as a fuel and only agreed to help end it once Ford agreed to not make ethanol engines anymore Check out this timeline from Wikipedia, it handily shows that the fuel of favor was ethanol in the early stages of internal combustion engines.

Even some of the same benefits were touted clean burning, anti knock, renewable so its not like this is a new debate. This has been ongoing since the beginning of engines. I direct you to your Wikipedia link and the talk link. Bill Kovarik, PhD, who wrote his thesis on the industrial history of ethanol. He writes that this Wiki link contains significant errors. I find this is normal among controversial topics, particularity on energy. Competing commercial interests rewrite historical facts.

We are being buried with lies. I do not accept it but it is what it is. What level of mixture can a vehicle tolerate? I have not found information from SAE type experts, just cheer leaders. I do know that boating, in the Chesapeake bay, is being destroyed due to massive, frequent engine overhauls.

I do know that in the Johnson, Sam Rayburn, John Connally era, that Texas oil men favored themselves for tens of billions from giveaways.

The corn industry followed suit with massive subsidies. All of it came out of our back pocket. I see, I was unaware of the errors. I simply know that ethanol was around, and fell out of favor due to lower priced petroleum and found the link interesting in that regard. As to looking for un-biased facts about ethanol, good luck. The only way to get research done on the topic is to fund it.

Once you fund it the results at looked upon with skepticism depending on what side of the issue the funding party sits on. The rebuttal to that was posted by Robert R not long after which debunks it.

Further information