dpb wrote:
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.

The ban on MTBE was after most of the states had outlawed its use.
And oxygenates doesn't explain why the 98% of the country
that isn't required to use oxygenates are selling nothing but
E10 fuel.


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.



That is your propaganda story but it doesn't
hold up top scrutiny.


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.

As Henry Ford pointed out in the 1920's ethanol is and
always has been the only alternative. All the political
posturing and lying for 90 years have been desperate attempts
to avoid that reality.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com