dpb wrote:
On 4/26/2014 3:05 PM, jim wrote:
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.

How is "outlawed" different than "banned" in practice? And, the EPA
action was contemporaneous, actually...being a four-year phaseout period.

The EPA banned it after most of the states already had
passed laws making it illegal.



The point is that the combination of removing the only two widespread
octane-enhancing/emission reducing additives in common use in
combination with the implementation of RFS was _the_ driving force in
shifting that demand to ethanol. Plain and simple...

And oxygenates doesn't explain why the 98% of the country
that isn't required to use oxygenates are selling nothing but
E10 fuel.

No, that's explained by the fact that all refiners are using ethanol as
the replacement for MTBE so there's no other product on the market
wholesale for the retailers _to_ sell.

There never has been anything else safe or effective as an
octane booster. MTBE was far more damaging to fuel limes and
engines and yet the EPA allowed the oil companies to add as much
as they wanted to without giving any warnings to buyers. That
was all done to block ethanol. None of the other products can
compete with ethanol on a level playing field. The only way
MTBE made it to market was by gross deception by the EPA and
oil companies.

MTBE was far more damaging to vehicles than ethanol, it reduced
gas mileage more than ethanol and it was extremely harmful to
human health and yet it was favored over ethanol. How did
that happen - by lying and deception and because
the oil companies wanted MTBE and not ethanol.



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.
...

I don't know that Henry ever actually said that--in fact, I'd rather
doubt that he did. He, in fact, as we just finished noting actually
went the tetra-ethyl lead route.


Ford promoted the use of ethanol over lead all his
life. But Ford built cars - he didn't sell fuel. Lead
was more profitable for the oil companies and the oil
companies bought and paid Congress to allow them to
spew poison all over the country.
-


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