dpb wrote:
On 5/1/2014 6:58 PM, jim wrote:
dpb wrote:
On 5/1/2014 4:06 PM, jim wrote:
dpb wrote:
On 4/30/2014 5:50 PM, jim wrote:
...

By 2012 ethanol sales had grown to 10% of market.
The EPA regulations do not allow it to grow any larger.
...

Now you're really making stuff up...

No it is well documented fact.

http://www.granitefallsnews.com/arti...NEWS/312029964

Not pertinent and out of date--hardly "documented fact". Of some
validity at the time, but that history, now.


You are lying. The ceiling exists. It is referred to as the blend
wall. The EPA just lowered the ethanol mandate because fuel
consumption dropped and mandates were above the blend.

"An attorney for EPA defended the delays, saying the agency had to weigh
how to handle the looming "blend wall," the point when the law would
require more ethanol to be blended into gasoline supplies than the 10
percent level that dominates U.S. fueling infrastructure, such as
equipment at gas stations."

...

It also goes on to point out that...


We all know what the EPA propaganda is - you have repeated
The EPA story fifty times. That doesn't make it the truth.

More Ethanol would be sold than is mandated if the EPA was
not actively sabotaging the expansion of ethanol.

From 2005 to 2012 the sales of ethanol far exceeded the renewable
fuel mandates. Then in 2012 growth stopped because EPA rules did
not permit more to be blended. Sales of ethanol would still be
far ahead of the mandates if the EPA had not created the "blend
wall".

"The Renewable Fuel Standard requires increasing amounts of biofuels to
be blended into U.S. gasoline and diesel supplies each year through 2022
and was designed at a time fuel demand was also expected to rise.

Instead, gas and diesel demand has been limited by rising fuel economy
and slow economic growth."

So that, in fact, the point at which the "wall" would actually be hit
has been pushed back plus the theoretical wall has risen as shown
earlier by the E15 rule.

You are lying and so is the EPA. E15 for all practical
purposes is not permitted to be sold.

Back in the 90's oil companies were adding as much as 20%
MTBE to gasoline. 20% MTBE is far more damaging to engines
and fuel systems than E20 gasoline. It also is damaging to
the environment and human health. And 20% MTBE cuts fuel e
economy far more than E20.

And no warnings about all these harmful effects
were ever given to motorists. In fact back in the 90's
and early 2000's many of the pumps that carried high
doses of MTBE was sold n markets where pumps carried
warning labels saying "this gasoline may contain up
to 10% ethanol". The gas often contained no ethanolo but
the harmful effects that some motorists noticed would be
blamed on ethanol. This was a purposeful and deliberate
sabotage of ethanol by the oil companies and the EPA.



In fact, federal gas tax revenues have
flattened/dropped to the point they're now talking of instituting
widespread tolls on interstates to keep up the highway fund--heard it
just yesterday.

Motor fuel consumption has been dropping for the last 5 years.



The limit isn't actually one of limitation on the amount allowed, it's
more the existing infrastructure and that there's not enough demand for
the product where the higher blends are available that the retailers see
sufficient reason to invest in the required upgrades in any real rush.

The infrastructure is owned mostly by the oil companies. The EPA and
oil companies have colluded to make blends greater than 10% for
all practical purposes not permitted.



Unless, of course, you want a forced, mandatory outlay from the Fed's to
make that happen.

All the Fed's need to do is get out of the way.
They should scrap all the mandates and permit blenders
to add as much ethanol as long as the fuel meets performance
standards such as octane and volatility. That is what they
did with MTBE. The reason the EPA did it for MTBE and
not ethanol is because the EPA is working for the oil
cos and not for the public.




And, there will be no magic jump in mileage when the testing rules are
modified in a few years -- thermodynamics doesn't know anything about
those rules and the energy density is still what it is.

Thermodynamics tells you that if you take a 25%
efficient engine and make it 40% efficient you can easily
afford to run on a fuel with 10% less energy content.
When the nation is throwing away 75% of the energy in every
gallon used it is laughable to be worried about whether
the energy content of the fuel will change a little.

The thing that has made the gasoline engine such an inefficient
engine is the gasoline. That can and will be changed with
higher ethanol blends. The energy savings will come from
higher compression which makes much higher thermal
efficiency possible and from much smaller lighter engines
producing the same amount of power as big engines that are
designed for current fuels.


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