Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    8:29 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: All Things Ethanol > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Another oped that rings very true, but the oilers don't get it, they just keep saying "mandate" . Back to Topics
Hannie59

All-Star Author
Appleton

Posts:914
Points:23,245
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: May 14, 2013 3:45:14 PM

The oil industry hopes to protect its control over America’s fuel supply by undermining renewable fuels. By confusing us with misleading claims and outright falsehoods, oil companies hopeCongress will overlook the real dangers caused by our almost complete dependence on oil for transportation fuels. For our economy and our environment, we cannot allow them to succeed.

The oil industry would like you to ignore the inconvenient fact that oil is both limited and disappearing fast. In the race to drill ourselves into “Saudi America” by increasing domestic oil production, we will be going after oil reserves that are harder and harder to access. And those oil reserves will cost us a lot more, both economically and environmentally.

According to the IEA, even with all that drilling at home, oil is still expected to top $200 per barrel by 2035. That’s a far cry from the $20/barrel price most of us baby-boomers grew up with. We won’t have lower oil prices until we have real alternatives to oil at the pump – and the oil companies know it.

Some in the oil industry have tried to create a stir over Renewable Identification Numbers, or RINs, claiming that these free credits will somehow bring the economy to a grinding halt. The facts tell a different story. First, the oil refiners insisted on the creation of RINs when the current RFS was negotiated back in 2007 – a fact they are now loathe to recall since they’re using RINs to attack the RFS. After an unexplained spike in RIN prices earlier this year, many in the refining sector predicted a huge gas price spike. That spike has not occurred – indeed, gas prices have fallen in recent weeks. And since oil refiners essentially control the RINs trading market, it is not difficult to conclude that if there is a RINs “bubble,” the refiners themselves just might be responsible for it.

Read more here about how they are buying legislation that will hurt all americans!


[Edited by: Hannie59 at 5/14/2013 3:49:33 PM EST]
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
Banjoe
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:6,936
Points:942,850
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jun 9, 2013 7:59:40 AM

borsht - you're absolutely right on this one. These are the good old days!
Profile Pic
borsht
Champion Author Oakland

Posts:2,369
Points:514,820
Joined:Aug 2012
Message Posted: Jun 8, 2013 9:20:36 PM

When my dad was a kid in the 1880's until I was a kid in the 1930's domestic oil was less than about $1/barrel. Then in the 1950. It started to climb into about $2/barrel. It remained under $3. /barrel until about 1970.
We enjoyed gasoline for about $0.30/gallon.
And could see the USA in our Chevrolet...
So from 1970 till now it has gone from $3/barrel to about $100/barrel. A 30x increase.
So if it indeed holds to a mere $200/ barrel by 2035, we will be fine. A 2x increase.
In fact the reality is I doubt that it will be that low, let's hope it is only $200/barrel.
Remember the FED is pumping $85billion/month into the economic bubble thru bond and treasury purchases.
Where will the cash to bankroll the $85 billion-a-month bond-buying binge come from? The Fed plans to expand its $2.8 trillion balance sheet.

So with the numbers the FED is playing with, we indeed will be fortunate if oil is only $200/barrel.
And by the time it gets to the pump, with all the new taxes that will be added you will only dream about the good old days when gas was only $4/gallon.
Profile Pic
borsht
Champion Author Oakland

Posts:2,369
Points:514,820
Joined:Aug 2012
Message Posted: Jun 8, 2013 9:19:01 PM

I sincerely hope you are correct in that oil will be $200/ barrel in 2035.
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,266
Points:22,225
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: May 18, 2013 10:01:07 PM

"You are really stretching it with that claim that FFVs remove choice from car buyers."

This is where I have to apply pure logic and not a commitment to ethanol or non ethanol blends.

Pure logic would say if I can buy something today however next year after the implementation of regulatory rules I cannot buy that same thing then I have lost freedom of choice.

That is no stretch, that is a fact. If you can buy non FFV today and after the implementation of what you would like to see you cannot buy a non FFV then buyers have lost that choice.

We can talk back and forth all we want on what might or might not happen with the future of gas and ethanol into the future and possibly stretch beliefs or opinions, however available today, not available tomorrow is a loss of choice no matter how good the product produced tomorrow is.

That's not a stretch, that's a fact.
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:914
Points:23,245
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: May 17, 2013 2:16:37 PM

brerrabbitTX, I refrained answering your first comment about FFV meaning non choice. Probably good since you further clarified the statement. I would also like to clarify what I'd like in terms of a "requirement". Honda, Toyota, Hyundai etc ought to be required to certify 50% of their fleets as FFVs, not 100%. But your statement is a stretch nonetheless. The buyer, we are talking, is the fuel buyer. If all vehicles can handle an infinite range of two blended fuels, there is no removal of choice to the car buyer. Just an increase in options once the vehicle is in their hands and they use it day in and day out. They have far more choice than gas only. You are really stretching it with that claim that FFVs remove choice from car buyers.

Many claim that FFVs are optimized for gas anyway, so if that is true, again your point is a stretch.

Most OEM use the same basic engine designs in many models. Just make a two or three engines in your lineup FFVs. Cost is negligible, consumers have fuel choice.

GM, Ford, and Chrysler are doing pretty well, if you ask me.

Asians and euros... only Audi/VW is stepping up to the plate on ethanol for now. Like to see more FFVs there, as I will never buy a non FFV again.

[Edited by: Hannie59 at 5/17/2013 2:23:45 PM EST]
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,266
Points:22,225
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: May 17, 2013 1:16:05 PM

Don't disagree for a minute that flex fuel vehicles give their owners a choice, but if regulations say the only kind of vehicle you can buy is flex fuel then you have removed the choice to buy a non flex fuel vehicle.

Personally I don't care one way or another, I am just pointing out that which others will say and is the fact that it is a removal of choice on the part of the buyer.
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,838
Points:69,430
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: May 17, 2013 11:04:48 AM

brrerabbitTX....flex vehicles give you a choice of which fuel to use. Flex vehicles give consumers more options at the pump.
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,266
Points:22,225
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: May 16, 2013 11:20:32 PM

"how do you feel about this? Dump the RFS, dump the RINS too. Require vehicles to be flex fuel. Require the consumer to buy no specific fuel type or blend. STOP the oil companies from selling E-85. Let the ethanol industry buy gas for blending to sell their E-85 product and let the refiners buy ethanol to make their E-10."

Dump RFS and RINs, no problem. Require the purchase of flex fuel vehicles, not so sure on that one as it eliminates choice one of the very things you are advocating when it comes to fuels. As far as the last two go that happens today.

The flex fuel requirement takes away consumer choice. Based on where we are today they would continue to sell E-10 because in many areas for reasons other that the RFS they use it to meet oxiginated blend and RFG fuel requirements so ethanol would still be sold in large amounts. Ethanol growth would happen, but it would be painfully slow. For a variety of reasons I don't think E-85 sales would go through the roof overnight.
Profile Pic
tdioiler
All-Star Author Detroit

Posts:980
Points:559,450
Joined:Jul 2011
Message Posted: May 16, 2013 11:15:11 PM

Interesting side bit. Had dinner with a guy who has been trying to get a small ethanol plant running along side a power plant to recover heat generated to assist in the ethanol plant.

But seems like the deal has run into snags because the govt subsidies (tax payers) are 'reviewing' the request for new funds.

So I like the idea of heat recovery but why do I have to pay to make it a good business deal? The guy shut up.

Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,838
Points:69,430
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: May 16, 2013 4:37:08 PM


"brerrabbittx, how do you feel about this? Dump the RFS, dump the RINS too. Require vehicles to be flex fuel. Require the consumer to buy no specific fuel type or blend. STOP the oil companies from selling E-85. Let the ethanol industry buy gas for blending to sell their E-85 product and let the refiners buy ethanol to make their E-10."

Amen to that Hannie59!

The car companies could also make cars that run more efficiently on E85 then they do. Cars today are made to run more efficiently on gas. We bought a 2012 flex Cadillac crossover. The car companies are almost hiding the "Flex" emblem now. It's merely a small sticker on the back window and a yellow gas cap. No love from the car companies either. I did hear that Mercedes is making a new car that will run on E30...which many feel is the optimum blend for gas mileage.
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:914
Points:23,245
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: May 16, 2013 3:23:24 PM

So that common ground brer, is what? That there is an RFS? In that case we have the common ground. If it's common ground you seek, maybe there is hope for the current monopoly situation we find ourselves in.

Ethanol's problems are in part their own fault because of the angle they have taken in their effort to obtain market share through their inclusion in the "fuel supply" to increasing percentages. The problem we have here is that we can only see one "fuel supply" and that it shouldn't be segmented.

The Flex Fuel Vehicle is the key. It isn't increased blending. Remember, the role of governmant isn't to control the fuel supply, but a clearly designed role of government is to prevent monopolies. And also they may need to facilitate the dissolution of monopolies. And we have a serious monopoly here. So serious that it has led us into wars for the sake of its contuance. But whether you agree on that is not the solution to the problem. Now how the government has handled ethanol so far, maybe not the best in retrospect.

brerrabbittx, how do you feel about this? Dump the RFS, dump the RINS too. Require vehicles to be flex fuel. Require the consumer to buy no specific fuel type or blend. STOP the oil companies from selling E-85. Let the ethanol industry buy gas for blending to sell their E-85 product and let the refiners buy ethanol to make their E-10.

Do this and watch what happens. Our country and all if its vehicle owners will be happy and amazed at what happens to our economy. Nol limitations. Every car owner can drive to anywhere they want and be sure to find fuel that fits their vehicle but w/o the oil monopoly. Truly, a market driven solution. So what do you think of my idea?

[Edited by: Hannie59 at 5/16/2013 3:31:12 PM EST]
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,266
Points:22,225
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: May 16, 2013 2:48:01 PM

While mandate may not be the exact technical terminolgy for the practice, what would you call a federal law/ regulation that says US fuel sellers must sell x number of gallons of ethanol blended with the gas they sell or face financial penalties for nit doing so?

Regardless of your views on ethanol or who said what when, you me or anyone else would have a hard time denying the fact that the RFA has an amount of renewable fuels that have to be sold into the US market each year.

To move to any solution with this situation we have to find some common ground regardless of how small a point it may be that we can agree on.

Profile Pic
Banjoe
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:6,936
Points:942,850
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: May 16, 2013 8:26:43 AM

Thanks for the numbers SoylentGrain.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
All-Star Author Illinois

Posts:931
Points:16,760
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: May 15, 2013 11:12:01 AM

"The ethanol industry doesn't want you to know they are dependent upon cheap natural gas to run their distilleries."

And the production of gasoline doesn't require fossil fuel?

" And diesel to power the farms and trucks to haul corn to market and ethanol to fuel depots. "

It takes five gallons of diesel fuel to plant and harvest one acre of corn. That one acre produces enough corn to make 600 gallons of ethanol AND almost two tons of animal feed.

It takes 6 gallons of diesel fuel to power a semi 30 miles loaded with almost on thousand bushels of corn. That one thousand bushels makes almost 3,000 gallons of ethanol and 5 tons of animal feed.

It takes 0.0006 gallons of diesel fuel to move each gallon of fuel grade ethanol one mile.

Now, tell me how much fuel it takes to move a tanker loaded with crude oil half way around the world.
Profile Pic
GrumpyCat
Champion Author Alabama

Posts:4,258
Points:1,046,160
Joined:Jun 2009
Message Posted: May 14, 2013 9:05:11 PM

The ethanol industry doesn't want you to know they are dependent upon cheap natural gas to run their distilleries. And diesel to power the farms and trucks to haul corn to market and ethanol to fuel depots.
Post a reply Back to Topics