On 4/26/2014 3:08 PM, jim wrote:
....

I wasn't disagreeing - I was add context to what you said.

It wasn't what I said--it was a quote verbatim from the EIA.

Actually, EPA sets no limits; E15 and E85 are approved for use so
there's no 10% limit at all.

That I will disagree with. The EPA set up the rules so
that effectively the limit is still 10%. E15 is still
in effect outlawed. If you want proof look around, you
won't find any place to buy E15. It is only in a few states that
local laws level the playing field so that it is not prohibitively
expensive to sell E15.

The simple fact is that E15 would take over the market if
it were made legal just as E10 did. That's because people
would not tell any difference but would see the price is
10 to 20 cents cheaper.

The politicians, the oil companies and the auto makers have for
decades been doing all they can to block further expansion of ethanol, but
it is just a matter of time and market forces will prevail.

....

Well, for the first time I _think_ I finally begin to see where you're
coming from.

I think you're totally wrong in reading consumer sentiment. I mentioned
this in the other subthread before I saw this but there I didn't yet
have this take so I'll add a little more before I withdraw.

People currently by E10 because that's what is on the market. It is on
the market owing to the removal of the two former alternative additives
and there's nothing at least as yet that does the same job as cheaply.
If somebody came up with that magic elixir at a breakthrough price
relative to ethanol, ethanol demand would drop drastically overnight
excepting for the RFS that require renewables of a given overall level.
Being as how diesel doesn't have the volume to make it all up to meet
that mandate, refiners have to use whatever is the renewable alternative
for gasoline and that alternative is ethanol. It's as simple as there's
a forced market being as there's no alternative that meets the mandate.

As for E15, I'll agree that EPA has seemingly drug their feet
excessively on approval but it's approved for an ever-increasing fleet
year-by-year and Flex-fuel vehicles can accept up to E85. That
distributors haven't flocked to implement blender pumps is owing to
their being expensive and there is no overriding consumer demand beating
down their doors demanding it.

Even here in ag country where there's quite a lot of corn producers and
an ethanol plant 10 mi up the road from the house here, there're only
two E85 pumps in the county that I'm aware of and they're far from
popular--there's no line waiting at the pump for them.

It just is not popular demand-driven; given their choice folks would
revert to the olden days in a heartbeat I'd guess. That, of course,
isn't going to happen.

Of course, one of the prime problems is that there is no infrastructure
to deal with large quantities of ethanol for retail distribution with
E15 concentrations--it just can't go down a regular, existing pipeline
even if there were excess capacity in existence for it to take up.
That's where the other infrastructure support that somebody upthread was
railing about would have to come in to play if ever going to get there
in any near term.

Where we go on RFS is anybody's guess for the future...

While true, of little relevance to the present discussion.

Henry Ford recommended to Congress to outlaw lead
and use ethanol instead to boost octane.
....

When was that? I'd be interested to see those remarks in context...

I'm aware of his idea in terms of trying to build markets for depressed
farm products in the 30s in particular and in competing against GM as
competitive edge potential. I suppose, being who he was, he did testify
at some point before Congress...

Still, while an interesting historical sidelight it has no real bearing
on the current state of affairs.

--