poor refiners crying about 15% ethanol fuel

Schadenfreude

Schadenfreude

patriot and widower
do you think that the oil companies have our best interests at heart, not i

Oil refineries sue EPA over ethanol plan​

Associated Press/AP Online

By KEN THOMAS WASHINGTON - A ruling by the Obama administration allowing the sale of gasoline containing 15 percent ethanol is running into legal hurdles from trade groups opposing the plan.

The National Petrochemical and Refiners Association sued the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday over the decision to allow the sale of gasoline containing higher blends of corn-based ethanol, the second major group to protest the ruling.

The Obama administration said in October that gas stations could start selling the ethanol blend for vehicles built since the 2007 model year, increasing it from the current blend of 10 percent ethanol. The decision has been criticized by boosters of ethanol who say it doesn't go far enough and by engine manufacturers who contend it could damage engines in vehicles, boats, snowmobiles and outdoor power equipment such as lawnmowers and chainsaws.

The refiners group asked a federal appeals court to overturn the decision, arguing that the EPA does not have the authority under the Clean Air Act to approve a plan for fuels used in some engines but not others. The trade association also said EPA based its decision on new data submitted shortly before the ruling, failing to give the public a chance to review it.

Charles T. Drevna, the NPRA's president, said Monday the EPA had "acted unlawfully in its rush to allow a 50 percent increase in the amount of ethanol in gasoline without adequate testing and without following proper procedures." His group was joined in the lawsuit by the International Liquid Terminals Association and the Western States Petroleum Association.

EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan said the agency had not reviewed the lawsuit. The EPA "based its decision on allowing E15 in newer cars - and will base whatever decision we make on model year 2001-2006 cars - on a comprehensive review of extensive testing data and on the law," he said.

"We are confident it will withstand legal challenge."

The EPA is expected to consider the higher ethanol blends for vehicles built from 2001-2006 this year.

EPA has said a congressional mandate requiring increased ethanol cannot be met without the higher blends. Congress has required refiners to blend 36 billion gallons of biofuels, mostly ethanol, in automotive fuel by 2022.

Last month, trade groups for the auto industry and engine manufacturers sued EPA over the ruling, citing concerns it would lead to motorists unknowingly filling up their older cars and trucks with E15 and damaging the vehicles' engines. Opponents say the problem, called misfueling, could intensify if E15 fuels are cheaper than more conventional blends, prompting owners of older vehicles to use the fuel despite future engine problems.

The ethanol industry says the EPA should have approved the ethanol blend for more vehicles. They say there is enough evidence to show that a 15 percent ethanol blend in motor fuel will not harm engine performance.

Matt Hartwig, a spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association, said the lawsuits "only serve to delay the inevitable" and that increased ethanol use "is the only proven and abundantly available tool to reduce our reliance on imported oil today."

The lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

A service of YellowBrix, Inc. .
 
Any energy plan involving ethanol probably sucks, because ethanol sucks. My guess is the companies don't want to waste a fortune on growing corn for the privilege of getting nothing out of it in return.

Didn't we already experiment with ethanol during the Bush era, and discover it to be a failure? Why does Obama want to flirt with the definition of insanity?

At least the farmers will be happy...
 
Gasoline 114,000 BTU/gal
Ethanol 76,100 BTU/gal

It takes 1.5 gallons of ethanol to equal 1 gallon of gasoline.

Wake the fuck up, idiots!
 
Are you gay, do you need a hug from your mommy.
NO COMPANY HAS YOUR BEST INTEREST AT HEART, MORON
 
Schadenfreude said:
do you think that the oil companies have our best interests at heart, not i

Oil refineries sue EPA over ethanol plan​

Associated Press/AP Online

By KEN THOMAS WASHINGTON - A ruling by the Obama administration allowing the sale of gasoline containing 15 percent ethanol is running into legal hurdles from trade groups opposing the plan.

The National Petrochemical and Refiners Association sued the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday over the decision to allow the sale of gasoline containing higher blends of corn-based ethanol, the second major group to protest the ruling.

The Obama administration said in October that gas stations could start selling the ethanol blend for vehicles built since the 2007 model year, increasing it from the current blend of 10 percent ethanol. The decision has been criticized by boosters of ethanol who say it doesn't go far enough and by engine manufacturers who contend it could damage engines in vehicles, boats, snowmobiles and outdoor power equipment such as lawnmowers and chainsaws.

The refiners group asked a federal appeals court to overturn the decision, arguing that the EPA does not have the authority under the Clean Air Act to approve a plan for fuels used in some engines but not others. The trade association also said EPA based its decision on new data submitted shortly before the ruling, failing to give the public a chance to review it.

Charles T. Drevna, the NPRA's president, said Monday the EPA had "acted unlawfully in its rush to allow a 50 percent increase in the amount of ethanol in gasoline without adequate testing and without following proper procedures." His group was joined in the lawsuit by the International Liquid Terminals Association and the Western States Petroleum Association.

EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan said the agency had not reviewed the lawsuit. The EPA "based its decision on allowing E15 in newer cars - and will base whatever decision we make on model year 2001-2006 cars - on a comprehensive review of extensive testing data and on the law," he said.

"We are confident it will withstand legal challenge."

The EPA is expected to consider the higher ethanol blends for vehicles built from 2001-2006 this year.

EPA has said a congressional mandate requiring increased ethanol cannot be met without the higher blends. Congress has required refiners to blend 36 billion gallons of biofuels, mostly ethanol, in automotive fuel by 2022.

Last month, trade groups for the auto industry and engine manufacturers sued EPA over the ruling, citing concerns it would lead to motorists unknowingly filling up their older cars and trucks with E15 and damaging the vehicles' engines. Opponents say the problem, called misfueling, could intensify if E15 fuels are cheaper than more conventional blends, prompting owners of older vehicles to use the fuel despite future engine problems.

The ethanol industry says the EPA should have approved the ethanol blend for more vehicles. They say there is enough evidence to show that a 15 percent ethanol blend in motor fuel will not harm engine performance.

Matt Hartwig, a spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association, said the lawsuits "only serve to delay the inevitable" and that increased ethanol use "is the only proven and abundantly available tool to reduce our reliance on imported oil today."

The lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

A service of YellowBrix, Inc. .
Click to expand...

The use of grain based ethanol is moronic. Using a food supply for fuel when it isn't necessary is one of the dumbest ideas the idiots in DC have come up with. The fact that Obama is continuing this is yet another example of his failed leadership.
 
Superfreak said:
The use of grain based ethanol is moronic. Using a food supply for fuel when it isn't necessary is one of the dumbest ideas the idiots in DC have come up with. The fact that Obama is continuing this is yet another example of his failed leadership.
Click to expand...


(1) Subsidizing the shit out of corn in the first instance is moronic.

(2) There isn't any shortage of corn (what with it being subsidized so much) such that using it for fuel is problematic from a food supply perspective.

(3) You seemingly do not know the difference between allowing something to happen and requiring something to happen.
 
NigelTufnel said:
(1) Subsidizing the shit out of corn in the first instance is moronic.

(2) There isn't any shortage of corn (what with it being subsidized so much) such that using it for fuel is problematic from a food supply perspective.

(3) You seemingly do not know the difference between allowing something to happen and requiring something to happen.
Click to expand...

1) Yes, farm subsidies (as well as oil) are moronic

2) Tell that to the people who starve to death each year. For the world to use grain for fuel when it is not needed AND people are starving is nothing short of moronic.

3) what are you talking about? Do explain further....
 
Oil subsidies allowed the nation to reap billions of barrells of domestic supply that would not have been sought in the abscense.
a little bit of knowledge weilded wildly can be dangerous.
 
FYI: Classic Car Owners

Ethanol is a no-no for classic cars. Besides wrecking carburetor gaskets it tends to separate and the resulting precipitate blocks carb jets, fuel pumps, etc.

Either use gas stabilizer or check out fuel at a marina. Boats and small aircraft have to use petroleum based fuels.
 
Superfreak said:
The use of grain based ethanol is moronic. Using a food supply for fuel when it isn't necessary is one of the dumbest ideas the idiots in DC have come up with. The fact that Obama is continuing this is yet another example of his failed leadership.
Click to expand...

actually, the food supply issue has no merit....approximately 1% of corn grown is used for human consumption as food.....a large percentage is used as animal feed, however, since cattle cannot digest sugars, the brewer's mash which is a byproduct of ethanol production is as good a food source for them as the corn used in the process.....the remaining use of corn by humans is in corn syrup, primarily in the beverage industry...since the cost of the corn syrup in one can of Coke is around 1 cent, if the cost of corn triples it should raise the cost of your Coke by 3 cents......

so, unless your addicted to cornbread or cornflakes there is no reason you should even notice the increased cost of corn......

if you want to raise a logical argument against corn based ethanol, argue on the basis of efficiency.......there are other crops that produce ethanol more efficiently.....however, unless you pick one that can't be raised on land that food crops are grown on you still have the same result....farmers would switch to that crop instead of corn......

we need to look to something that grows where no one else wants the land......like Detroit......the best result would be to subsidize the production of ethanol taken from algae grown in salt water....the Japanese were working on that ten years ago.....not sure where it stands......
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
actually, the food supply issue has no merit....approximately 1% of corn grown is used for human consumption as food.....a large percentage is used as animal feed, however, since cattle cannot digest sugars, the brewer's mash which is a byproduct of ethanol production is as good a food source for them as the corn used in the process.....the remaining use of corn by humans is in corn syrup, primarily in the beverage industry...since the cost of the corn syrup in one can of Coke is around 1 cent, if the cost of corn triples it should raise the cost of your Coke by 3 cents......

so, unless your addicted to cornbread or cornflakes there is no reason you should even notice the increased cost of corn......

if you want to raise a logical argument against corn based ethanol, argue on the basis of efficiency.......there are other crops that produce ethanol more efficiently.....however, unless you pick one that can't be raised on land that food crops are grown on you still have the same result....farmers would switch to that crop instead of corn......

we need to look to something that grows where no one else wants the land......like Detroit......the best result would be to subsidize the production of ethanol taken from algae grown in salt water....the Japanese were working on that ten years ago.....not sure where it stands......
Click to expand...

I have been a proponent of algae based biofuels for years. Take a look at Solix.

http://www.solixbiofuels.com/

Algae is a win win win for biofuel consumption. It uses about 1% of the water to produce, the algae feed off of pollutants in the air (thus reducing emissions), the algae plants can be put anywhere, thus not detracting from farm land, the waste product is a high carb food source for livestock, which means the grain (typically corn) or sugar cane etc... can be used for other more important needs.

that said, you are wrong on the use of corn. While about 80% is used for livestock, about 12% goes into other food sources... not 1% as you proclaimed. The remainder is used for a massive variety of products that we all use every day. Any use of grain for ethanol is moronic. There are far better sources.

So next time you wish to assault the 'logic' of another poster or wish to proclaim judgment the 'merit' of their argument, at least do the rest of us a favor and at a minimum know what you are talking about.


(side note... that livestock is generally also used for food)
 
To you libtards who think we can switch over to ethanol:

David Pimental, a leading Cornell University agricultural expert, has calculated that powering the average U.S. automobile for one year on ethanol (blended with gasoline) derived from corn would require 11 acres of farmland, the same space needed to grow a year's supply of food for seven people. Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion into ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make one gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTUS. Thus, 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in it. Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs.

Mr. Pimentel concluded that "abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuels amounts to unsustainable subsidized food burning".
Click to expand...
http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm
 
Superfreak said:
I have been a proponent of algae based biofuels for years. Take a look at Solix.

http://www.solixbiofuels.com/

Algae is a win win win for biofuel consumption. It uses about 1% of the water to produce, the algae feed off of pollutants in the air (thus reducing emissions), the algae plants can be put anywhere, thus not detracting from farm land, the waste product is a high carb food source for livestock, which means the grain (typically corn) or sugar cane etc... can be used for other more important needs.

that said, you are wrong on the use of corn. While about 80% is used for livestock, about 12% goes into other food sources... not 1% as you proclaimed. The remainder is used for a massive variety of products that we all use every day. Any use of grain for ethanol is moronic. There are far better sources.

So next time you wish to assault the 'logic' of another poster or wish to proclaim judgment the 'merit' of their argument, at least do the rest of us a favor and at a minimum know what you are talking about.


(side note... that livestock is generally also used for food)
Click to expand...

the 1% refers to that consumed fresh, which would be canned, frozen or corn on the cob....apart from corn flakes or cornmeal, very little other corn is consumed directly.....a small amount of corn starch is consumed in baked goods, corn oil is used in cooking and baking and corn syrup is consumed primarily in beverages, as I said.....apart from the 1% consumed directly, corn products do not play a significant part in the cost of corn consumed by humans.....

as I pointed out, since the by product of ethanol production serves equally well as a feed for cattle, there should be no impact on the cost of corn used as livestock feed.....[shucks, since it's easier for them to digest once the sugar is removed it even cuts down on the methane that cows expel, thus reducing the risk of global warming).......

since you have done nothing to refute what I posted your claims of "assaulting" your logic are exaggerated.....
 
Last edited:
Damn Yankee said:
"Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs."
Click to expand...
so we use cheaper electricity (maybe even generated by solar or wind power) or natural gas to produce a gallon of ethanol which will substitute for a gallon of gasoline which we import.......

there is one argument you are never going to be able to refute......every gallon of gasoline you pump into your car earns money for Venezuela and Saudi Arabia....every gallon of ethanol you pump into your car earns money for Iowa or Kansas......
 
Last edited:
I have been a proponent of algae based biofuels for years.
Click to expand...

you want to consider a win-win situation.....massive fish/algae farms floating across the ocean......fish feed on the algae while growing......fish and algae harvested at same time, fish for human consumption processed on one end, algae for ethanol processed on the other.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the 1% refers to that consumed fresh, which would be canned, frozen or corn on the cob....apart from corn flakes or cornmeal, very little other corn is consumed directly.....a small amount of corn starch is consumed in baked goods, corn oil is used in cooking and baking and corn syrup is consumed primarily in beverages, as I said.....apart from the 1% consumed directly, corn products do not play a significant part in the cost of corn consumed by humans.....

as I pointed out, since the by product of ethanol production serves equally well as a feed for cattle, there should be no impact on the cost of corn used as livestock feed.....[shucks, since it's easier for them to digest once the sugar is removed it even cuts down on the methane that cows expel, thus reducing the risk of global warming).......

since you have done nothing to refute what I posted your claims of "assaulting" your logic are exaggerated.....
Click to expand...

Again, you can try and limit your previous comment to 'fresh' corn, which is quite ridiculous. Because when you look at the use of corn... 12% (as I stated) goes into FOOD. It doesn't have to be 'fresh' corn to be consumed as a food source.

Again, the byproduct of ethanol is NOT equal to the byproduct of algae based biofuel. It takes far more water to create, the corn does not absorb pollutants as algae does and ANY corn used in ethanol production takes away a FOOD source. If everyone in the world was well fed, then fine. Use food for fuel. But you and I both know that is not the case. Hence the stupidity of using food as a fuel when it is not necessary given a BETTER alternative exists.

Also, you ignore the fact that the grain IS consumed by fish and livestock to FEED them to get them to the point where they are a FOOD SOURCE.

There is NO legitimate reason to be using corn or sugar cane for biofuels. NONE. A better alternative exists.

As for your 'assault' on my original post.... I mentioned that grain was used as a food source. YOU twisted that into your 'humans only use 1%' argument. Again, the ACTUAL number is 12% for humans as a food source. The second point to refute your straw man attempt is that I did not limit the use of corn as a food source to humans. YOU did.

So again, if you don't know what you are talking about, you should probably refrain from telling others their points are without merit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top