| [GMCnet] NON GMC-Ethanol repeal [message #133675] |
Thu, 07 July 2011 14:44  |
peabody
Messages: 126
Registered: May 2011
Location: steamboat springs, co
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
To all:
Senators push deal to end ethanol subsidies this month
By Rosalind S. Helderman
A bipartisan trio of senators announced Thursday that
they have reached an agreement on a way to end ethanol subsidies
immediately.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and John
Thune (R-S.D.) told Senate leaders that their proposal would repeal the
45-cent ethanol blender credit at the end of July, saving $2 billion
through the end of the year.
It would also end a tariff of 54 cents a gallon on foreign
ethanol this month. But it would extend a tax credit for green biofuels
production for three years, expanding it to include fuels made from
algae.Bill
William S. Schurman
P.O. 773325
Steamboat Springs, CO (Ski Town USA)
at the foot of Rabbit Ears Pass
970-846-4212
'78 Palm Beach TZE 168V100258
'90 SHO
'66 912
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] NON GMC-Ethanol repeal [message #133681 is a reply to message #133676] |
Thu, 07 July 2011 15:33  |
Ken Henderson
Messages: 8726
Registered: March 2004
Location: Americus, GA
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
That's exactly what I expect -- the requirements for ethanol in gasoline
have not changed and are not expected to do so. I still want to stop
spending tax dollars to subsidize fuel of any kind.
Ken H.
Americus, GA
'76 X-Birchaven w/Cad500/Howell EFI+ & EBL
www.gmcwipersetc.com
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Jay Rabe wrote:
>
> Don't know all the intricacies of how this system works, but could it
> happen this way? subsidies to ethanol producers ends; their profits drop;
> requirements to put ethanol in gasoline continue; ethanol producers raise
> prices to maintain their profits; gasoline prices go through the roof...
>
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Ken Henderson
Americus, GA
www.gmcwipersetc.com
Large Wiring Diagrams
76 X-Birchaven
76 X-Palm Beach
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] NON GMC-Ethanol repeal [message #133751 is a reply to message #133675] |
Thu, 07 July 2011 22:06 |
GeorgeRud
Messages: 1380
Registered: February 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I agree with ending the subsidies for ethanol, but wish the EPA would back off of the ethanol requirements. It seems that it is damaging many small engines, boat motors, etc. as all of these were designed and used fuels that did not have the alcohol added.
I wonder how many engine fires will occur because of the damage caused to the fuel system by ethanol?
George Rudawsky
Chicago, IL
75 Palm Beach
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] NON GMC-Ethanol repeal [message #133760 is a reply to message #133751] |
Thu, 07 July 2011 22:53 |
Ken Burton
Messages: 10030
Registered: January 2004
Location: Hebron, Indiana
Karma: 10
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ethanol is only required by the EPA in certain non-attainment areas and the entire state of California. A few corn growing states have passed their own requirements. If you live on one of those states that forced it on you then go to your state and complain to them when you fuel cost goes up for that crap fuel. In my state it is only required by the EPA in 3 out of 94 counties but is sold in 2/3 of the counties because it is cheaper for the stations due to the subsidies. If the subsidies go away then the ethanol can stand on it's own as a fuel. If it make economic sense then let the consumer decide if he wants it or not. It is interesting, around here we pay more for e10 with it's government subsidy than 100% gasoline without subsidy.
Ken Burton - N9KB
76 Palm Beach
Hebron, Indiana
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] NON GMC-Ethanol repeal [message #133786 is a reply to message #133778] |
Fri, 08 July 2011 09:16 |
Ken Henderson
Messages: 8726
Registered: March 2004
Location: Americus, GA
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bob,
Very interesting, if a slow read, especially the second reference. I won't
pretend to understand a large part of it, but came away with 3 points:
1. All up, no down side?
2. Maybe I should re-evaluate my position on whether SS lines are needed
for ethanol -- I hadn't heard about the stress corrosion of carbon steel
pipelines.
3. The $1.00 per gallon tax credit for aviation applications is appalling.
How can we stop the gov't from social engineering with taxes -- they taketh
away with one hand, nominally to support the infrastructure, and giveth with
the other to achieve what are perceived by bureaucrats to be "social goods".
Thanks for the information.
Ken H.
Americus, GA
'76 X-Birchaven w/Cad500/Howell EFI+ & EBL
www.gmcwipersetc.com
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Bob Drewes wrote:
> Here is some info that will get you up to speed on what is happening to the
> biofuels industry. The Luverne, MN plant is 30 miles from us. There are
> several ethanol plants in our area that are in the process of changing over
> to this technology.
>
> http://www.gevo.com/our-business/isobutanol/
>
> Here is some good reading and facts about isobutanol.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3vayflx
>
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Ken Henderson
Americus, GA
www.gmcwipersetc.com
Large Wiring Diagrams
76 X-Birchaven
76 X-Palm Beach
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] NON GMC-Ethanol repeal (just the subsidy) [message #133789 is a reply to message #133765] |
Fri, 08 July 2011 09:36 |
Larry C
Messages: 1168
Registered: July 2004
Location: NE Illinois by the Illino...
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I was just thinking...........
and I don't know the economics of this but.......
Wasn't part of the Ethonal goal to lower the amount of oil imported...and wouldn't that be by 10%??????
if so, if the Ethonal was deleted, the fuel import would increase by 10% and if so wouldn't the price of gas go up?? My thought was the crap Ethonal was less expensive than the import oil...
Just trying to understand
Gatsbys' CRUISER  08-18-04
74 GLACIER X, 260/455-APC-4 Bagg'r
Remflex Manifold gaskets
CampGrounds needed, Add yours to "PLACES" />
http://www.gmceast.com/travel
_
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] NON GMC-Ethanol repeal (just the subsidy) [message #133819 is a reply to message #133789] |
Fri, 08 July 2011 15:12 |
Ken Burton
Messages: 10030
Registered: January 2004
Location: Hebron, Indiana
Karma: 10
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Larry C wrote on Fri, 08 July 2011 09:36 |
I was just thinking...........
and I don't know the economics of this but.......
Wasn't part of the Ethonal goal to lower the amount of oil imported...and wouldn't that be by 10%??????
if so, if the Ethonal was deleted, the fuel import would increase by 10% and if so wouldn't the price of gas go up?? My thought was the crap Ethonal was less expensive than the import oil...
Just trying to understand
|
We have had Ethanol (dictated by the EPA) gasoline here for 18 or 19 years now. We got all of the BS when it went years ago. We were told to expect a slight reduction in fuel economy and a slight increase in price. We were also told that if gas ever reached $1.50 per gallon that the two fuels would be the same cost. Well now at $3.50 to $4.00 per gallon we still pay MORE for E-10 than real 100% gasoline. For many years I drove SE 300 miles every Sunday Night to work using E-10 purchased up here and returned 300 miles NW on Friday night using real gasoline. The predominant wind was behind me going southeast and on my nose coming back. It is all flat land country around here. I had a consistent 11% loss in mileage using E10 crap fuel. This was using 2 different GM vehicles both with on board mileage computers.
I could have gotten 1% better mileage it they just handed me the 10% Ethanol separately and I poured in on the ground. I have many other similar examples going from here using E-10 to Ohio and return on real gasoline. I'm lucky here in that I can go to the next county and get real gasoline. I do not always do it but when we are headed that way we fill up everything that is empty on the trip.
Any one coming to the Goshen / Elkhart county rally this fall should, plan on filling up while you are there. They do not sell E10 in that area. There is no mixing and transport facility for e-10 feeding that area.
Get rid of the subsidies and let Ethanol stand on it's own. The market can decide from there.
Ken Burton - N9KB
76 Palm Beach
Hebron, Indiana
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] NON GMC-Ethanol repeal [message #133822 is a reply to message #133778] |
Fri, 08 July 2011 15:43 |
Ken Burton
Messages: 10030
Registered: January 2004
Location: Hebron, Indiana
Karma: 10
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Surbo wrote on Fri, 08 July 2011 08:33 |
| peabody wrote on Thu, 07 July 2011 14:44 |
To all:
Senators push deal to end ethanol subsidies this month
William S. Schurman
P.O. 773325
Steamboat Springs, CO (Ski Town USA)
at the foot of Rabbit Ears Pass
970-846-4212
'78 Palm Beach TZE 168V100258
'90 SHO
'66 912
|
Here is some good reading and facts about isobutanol.
http://tinyurl.com/3vayflx
Bob Drewes in SESD
|
People sometimes ask where are the EPA Non-Attainment areas. Look at the last page of this report. It has an excellent map showing the counties required by the EPA to sell E-10 crap fuel due to non-attainment.
Ken Burton - N9KB
76 Palm Beach
Hebron, Indiana
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] NON GMC-Ethanol repeal [message #133827 is a reply to message #133675] |
Fri, 08 July 2011 16:50 |
JohnL455
Messages: 4447
Registered: October 2006
Location: Woodstock, IL
Karma: 12
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I equate it to cereal filler in food product. The volume in the box gives you the impression you are gettng more, but you are not. AND it takes energy to make it. Corn might be better used for eatin' purposes. I don't fully understand the ramifications of this legislation, but I hope they are moving in the right direction and not the inverse.
John Lebetski
Woodstock, IL
77 Eleganza II
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] NON GMC-Ethanol repeal (just the subsidy) [message #133831 is a reply to message #133826] |
Fri, 08 July 2011 17:11 |
Ken Burton
Messages: 10030
Registered: January 2004
Location: Hebron, Indiana
Karma: 10
|
Senior Member |
|
|
There are a few stations around here handling E-85. I know a few people that have E-85 capable cars. I have never seen anyone around the E-85 pumps. I have one friend that had an E-85 car but he told the fuel economy was so bad on E-85 that he quit buying it after three fill-ups. It was costing him more per mile than driving on E-10 was. He drives about 110 commuting miles per day.
Ken Burton - N9KB
76 Palm Beach
Hebron, Indiana
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] NON GMC-Ethanol repeal [message #133833 is a reply to message #133828] |
Fri, 08 July 2011 17:15 |
Ken Burton
Messages: 10030
Registered: January 2004
Location: Hebron, Indiana
Karma: 10
|
Senior Member |
|
|
It is not required in all of Michigan. We get our pure gasoline out of the Niles, Michigan terminal. They do not do not have any Ethanol mixing capability there.
Ken Burton - N9KB
76 Palm Beach
Hebron, Indiana
|
|
|
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
