On 4/26/2014 11:42 AM, dpb wrote:
On 4/26/2014 11:02 AM, jim wrote:
...
....

It's (like virtually everything in real world, particularly those that
are part of public policy) complicated. The mandate really isn't
ethanol per se, it's "renewable fuel" that's mandated. It just so
happens that current technology, the existence of a large fleet of
gasoline engine vehicles such that whatever fuel alternative used had to
be compatible and feed stocks available for renewable fuels in the US
favor corn ethanol at the moment.


The market place determined that outcome.

Strongly influenced by national policy and technology limitations as well.

That is, w/o the widespread outright ban on MTBE and the EPA withdrawal
of the oxygenate rule and phaseout of MTBE that occurred in conjunction
with the 2005 passage of the RFS in the Energy Policy Act ensured that
ethanol would be the choice replacement by default, there being no
viable alternative.

So, you can say that having a single product is a marketplace decision,
but that puts the explanation in place of the reality that there was no
choice in the marketplace for any alternative to have won compared against.

It isn't possible to go back and recreate the experiment to see what
would have happened if RFS hadn't been passed but it's likely other
alternatives than essentially sole reliance upon ethanol would have evolved.

--