On Saturday, April 26, 2014 8:35:25 AM UTC-4, jim wrote:
T. Keating wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 21:24:22 -0500, jim " wrote:


No you are lying again. The energy cost of producing

higher octane blends without ethanol more than offset

the energy content difference. That is why middle east oil

producing nations buy tankers full of ethanol from the US to

blend with their gasoline.



Please explain if that is true , why Congress has to mandate ethanal useage.
If it were really cheaper the oil companies would do it so they would make more money.






Yes that is how it saves money. It costs money and energy

to boost octane by converting low octane petroleum

fractions to higher octane fractions.


Cite?


Dan

wrote:
On Saturday, April 26, 2014 8:35:25 AM UTC-4, jim wrote:
T. Keating wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 21:24:22 -0500, jim " wrote:


No you are lying again. The energy cost of producing

higher octane blends without ethanol more than offset

the energy content difference. That is why middle east oil

producing nations buy tankers full of ethanol from the US to

blend with their gasoline.



Please explain if that is true , why Congress has to mandate ethanal useage.

Congress doesn't have to mandate ethanol usage. If the EPA removed the
upper limits on Ethanol even more than the mandated amount would be sold.

But, that implies Congress people and the EPA have
deceived you, and we all know that is utterly impossible.


If it were really cheaper the oil companies would do it so they would make more money.

They would do what? Blend ethanol to the maximum extent the
law allows? That is what the oil companies are doing.

The mandated amount was just recently lowered because the
mandated amount was higher than the amount permitted by
EPA regulation. When the mandates were enacted it was expected
that gasoline usage would go up and by now ethanol usage
would be about 3 or 4 percent of the supply. But gasoline
usage went down and ethanol usage is at about 10% of the
supply and it can't go any higher until the EPA lifts the
limits.

If they had not lowered the mandate it would have
revealed how meaningless the mandates are.







Yes that is how it saves money. It costs money and energy

to boost octane by converting low octane petroleum

fractions to higher octane fractions.


Cite?

Look at a gas pump and see the difference in
price 3 or 4 octane points make in the cost.
Then double the price differential (per gallon) to
reflect the extra burden on refineries to boost the
octane on 20 million gallons a day up 3 octane points.

I already gave a cite, and somebody else did too, but
you are too lazy to educate yourself.

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

On Saturday, April 26, 2014 11:05:12 AM UTC-4, jim wrote:

Please explain if that is true , why Congress has to mandate ethanal useage.



Congress doesn't have to mandate ethanol usage. If the EPA removed the

upper limits on Ethanol even more than the mandated amount would be sold.


If they do not have to mandate the use of ethanol , why do they mandate it?

Probably because they do not believe that if they did not mandate the use, it would not get used.


But, that implies Congress people and the EPA have

deceived you, and we all know that is utterly impossible.





If it were really cheaper the oil companies would do it so they would make more money.



They would do what? Blend ethanol to the maximum extent the

law allows? That is what the oil companies are doing.


Actualy they blend ethanol to the minimum extent the law allows.


The mandated amount was just recently lowered because the

mandated amount was higher than the amount permitted by

EPA regulation. When the mandates were enacted it was expected

that gasoline usage would go up and by now ethanol usage

would be about 3 or 4 percent of the supply. But gasoline

usage went down and ethanol usage is at about 10% of the

supply and it can't go any higher until the EPA lifts the

limits.


And the EPA does not raise the limits because higher levels of ethanal harm the engines unless the engines are changed to work with higher ethanol amounts.


If they had not lowered the mandate it would have

revealed how meaningless the mandates are.















Yes that is how it saves money. It costs money and energy



to boost octane by converting low octane petroleum



fractions to higher octane fractions.





Cite?



Look at a gas pump and see the difference in

price 3 or 4 octane points make in the cost.

Then double the price differential (per gallon) to

reflect the extra burden on refineries to boost the

octane on 20 million gallons a day up 3 octane points.



I already gave a cite, and somebody else did too, but

you are too lazy to educate yourself.

I did not see any such cite.

Dan



---

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

http://www.avast.com

wrote:
On Saturday, April 26, 2014 11:05:12 AM UTC-4, jim wrote:

Please explain if that is true , why Congress has to mandate ethanal useage.



Congress doesn't have to mandate ethanol usage. If the EPA removed the

upper limits on Ethanol even more than the mandated amount would be sold.


If they do not have to mandate the use of ethanol , why do they mandate it?

Probably because they do not believe that if they did not mandate the use, it would not get used.


But, that implies Congress people and the EPA have

deceived you, and we all know that is utterly impossible.





If it were really cheaper the oil companies would do it so they would make more money.



They would do what? Blend ethanol to the maximum extent the

law allows? That is what the oil companies are doing.


Actualy they blend ethanol to the minimum extent the law allows.

You invent lies at the drop of a hat. If
the EPA regulations allowed more ethanol to be sold it
would be.


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

On 4/26/2014 8:42 AM, wrote:
....

Please explain if that is true , why Congress has to mandate ethanal useage.
If it were really cheaper the oil companies would do it so they would make more money.


From the EIA site...

"U.S. corn ethanol production grew considerably from 2006 through 2012,
boosted by the phase-out of the use of Methyl tertiary-butyl ether
(MTBE) as an oxygenate and octane enhancer, the availability of blender
tax credits, and rising oil prices. Ethanol production and use grew
beyond levels called for by the RFS as early as 2006. U.S. ethanol
production and use continued at rates beyond the RFS-mandated level
through mid-2012. ..."

Hence, in fact, they _are_ using more than the mandate calls for.

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.

Biodiesel and all are included as well; they just don't get the
attention ethanol does as soybeans aren't as cute, apparently.

Yes that is how it saves money. It costs money and energy
to boost octane by converting low octane petroleum
fractions to higher octane fractions.

Cite?
....

That's easily found and well-known and has been in the earlier
subthreads in this thread as well. I wouldn't say it in precisely those
terms but increased refining to build octane from crude oil itself
definitely hurts yield. Refiners used additives for the purpose from
the very beginning; the widespread use of tetraethyl lead began in the
early 20s or thereabouts to allow for increased compression that was
needed for higher performance and thus needed higher octane-rated fuels
to inhibit knocking. MTBE was the primary substitute of choice when
unleaded was mandated owing to lead's deleterious health effects and
contamination until it was determined to be as bad or worse for it's
propensity to contaminate water supplies when spilled and carcinogenic
nature. Hence, it also went the way of the dodo bird and ethanol has
the facility to raise octane and meet RFIS as well as lower emissions of
nitrous oxides, etc., ... So, at the moment it's the deal.

When and if something better comes along, it'll surely take it's moment
in the sun as well...

--

dpb wrote:
On 4/26/2014 8:42 AM, wrote:
...

Please explain if that is true , why Congress has to mandate ethanal
useage.
If it were really cheaper the oil companies would do it so they would
make more money.


From the EIA site...

"U.S. corn ethanol production grew considerably from 2006 through 2012,
boosted by the phase-out of the use of Methyl tertiary-butyl ether
(MTBE) as an oxygenate and octane enhancer, the availability of blender
tax credits, and rising oil prices. Ethanol production and use grew
beyond levels called for by the RFS as early as 2006. U.S. ethanol
production and use continued at rates beyond the RFS-mandated level
through mid-2012. ..."

Hence, in fact, they _are_ using more than the mandate calls for.

There was more ethanol used than the mandate called
for before mid 2012. At that point usage reached the 10%
ceiling that is the maximum allowed. Ethanol usage would be
higher today if the EPA allowed it to be.



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.


Biodiesel and all are included as well; they just don't get the
attention ethanol does as soybeans aren't as cute, apparently.

Yes that is how it saves money. It costs money and energy
to boost octane by converting low octane petroleum
fractions to higher octane fractions.

Cite?
...

That's easily found and well-known and has been in the earlier
subthreads in this thread as well. I wouldn't say it in precisely those
terms but increased refining to build octane from crude oil itself
definitely hurts yield. Refiners used additives for the purpose from
the very beginning; the widespread use of tetraethyl lead began in the
early 20s or thereabouts to allow for increased compression that was
needed for higher performance and thus needed higher octane-rated fuels
to inhibit knocking.

Higher compression is not just about performance. It
is also necessary for efficiency. And it is not just about
thermal efficiency. Higher compression means you can get
more power from a lighter engine. That means the chassis and
suspension can be lighter also.


MTBE was the primary substitute of choice when
unleaded was mandated owing to lead's deleterious health effects and
contamination until it was determined to be as bad or worse for it's
propensity to contaminate water supplies when spilled and carcinogenic
nature. Hence, it also went the way of the dodo bird and ethanol has
the facility to raise octane and meet RFIS as well as lower emissions of
nitrous oxides, etc., ... So, at the moment it's the deal.



When and if something better comes along, it'll surely take it's moment
in the sun as well...


Henry Fords first car ran on ethanol. It has been
used as fuel longer than gasoline.


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

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

From the EIA site...

"U.S. corn ethanol production grew considerably from 2006 through 2012,
boosted by the phase-out of the use of Methyl tertiary-butyl ether
(MTBE) as an oxygenate and octane enhancer, the availability of blender
tax credits, and rising oil prices. Ethanol production and use grew
beyond levels called for by the RFS as early as 2006. U.S. ethanol
production and use continued at rates beyond the RFS-mandated level
through mid-2012. ..."

Hence, in fact, they _are_ using more than the mandate calls for.

There was more ethanol used than the mandate called
for before mid 2012. At that point usage reached the 10%
ceiling that is the maximum allowed. Ethanol usage would be
higher today if the EPA allowed it to be.

As the above says, "... use grew beyond levels called for by the RFS as
early as 2006...". Perhaps conversations would go more smoothly if you
would actually read first, write second.

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

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.

Biodiesel and all are included as well; they just don't get the
attention ethanol does as soybeans aren't as cute, apparently.

Yes that is how it saves money. It costs money and energy
to boost octane by converting low octane petroleum
fractions to higher octane fractions.

Cite?
...

That's easily found and well-known and has been in the earlier
subthreads in this thread as well. I wouldn't say it in precisely those
terms but increased refining to build octane from crude oil itself
definitely hurts yield. Refiners used additives for the purpose from
the very beginning; the widespread use of tetraethyl lead began in the
early 20s or thereabouts to allow for increased compression that was
needed for higher performance and thus needed higher octane-rated fuels
to inhibit knocking.

Higher compression is not just about performance. It
is also necessary for efficiency. And it is not just about
thermal efficiency. Higher compression means you can get
more power from a lighter engine. That means the chassis and
suspension can be lighter also.

"Performance" is a generic term which includes all of the above and more...

MTBE was the primary substitute of choice when
unleaded was mandated owing to lead's deleterious health effects and
contamination until it was determined to be as bad or worse for it's
propensity to contaminate water supplies when spilled and carcinogenic
nature. Hence, it also went the way of the dodo bird and ethanol has
the facility to raise octane and meet RFIS as well as lower emissions of
nitrous oxides, etc., ... So, at the moment it's the deal.

When and if something better comes along, it'll surely take it's moment
in the sun as well...


Henry Fords first car ran on ethanol. It has been
used as fuel longer than gasoline.

While true, of little relevance to the present discussion. Sperm oil
was used before crude, too, but hasn't any bearing.

--

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.

--

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

dpb wrote:

There was more ethanol used than the mandate called
for before mid 2012. At that point usage reached the 10%
ceiling that is the maximum allowed. Ethanol usage would be
higher today if the EPA allowed it to be.

As the above says, "... use grew beyond levels called for by the RFS as
early as 2006...". Perhaps conversations would go more smoothly if you
would actually read first, write second.

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


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.



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.


There are no technology limitations
and
National policy has been to oppose ethanol usage. That
policy has not been able to overcome market forces
completely but it has reduced market share. There
would be a lot more ethanol sold without that opposition.


Biodiesel and all are included as well; they just don't get the
attention ethanol does as soybeans aren't as cute, apparently.

Yes that is how it saves money. It costs money and energy
to boost octane by converting low octane petroleum
fractions to higher octane fractions.

Cite?
...

That's easily found and well-known and has been in the earlier
subthreads in this thread as well. I wouldn't say it in precisely those
terms but increased refining to build octane from crude oil itself
definitely hurts yield. Refiners used additives for the purpose from
the very beginning; the widespread use of tetraethyl lead began in the
early 20s or thereabouts to allow for increased compression that was
needed for higher performance and thus needed higher octane-rated fuels
to inhibit knocking.

Higher compression is not just about performance. It
is also necessary for efficiency. And it is not just about
thermal efficiency. Higher compression means you can get
more power from a lighter engine. That means the chassis and
suspension can be lighter also.

"Performance" is a generic term which includes all of the above and more...

Not in the automobile industry. "Performance" is a marketing term
that means the direct opposite of fuel efficiency.


MTBE was the primary substitute of choice when
unleaded was mandated owing to lead's deleterious health effects and
contamination until it was determined to be as bad or worse for it's
propensity to contaminate water supplies when spilled and carcinogenic
nature. Hence, it also went the way of the dodo bird and ethanol has
the facility to raise octane and meet RFIS as well as lower emissions of
nitrous oxides, etc., ... So, at the moment it's the deal.

When and if something better comes along, it'll surely take it's moment
in the sun as well...


Henry Fords first car ran on ethanol. It has been
used as fuel longer than gasoline.

While true, of little relevance to the present discussion.

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


--


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

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.

--