Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    9:12 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: All Things Ethanol > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: CEO Tom Buis discussing the importance of maintaining the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS Back to Topics
gamechanger2011

Champion Author
Wichita

Posts:1,868
Points:71,430
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Jun 3, 2013 12:43:21 PM

CEO Tom Buis discussing the importance of maintaining the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
WhiskeyBurner
Veteran Author Illinois

Posts:450
Points:15,855
Joined:May 2013
Message Posted: Jul 21, 2013 1:54:55 AM

Hmmmm, interesting link Shocky, although their estimates aren't quite right on, not to mention the pricing spread they're using.

I tend to get better than what they're claiming for "city" driving which is usually a best of high 16's (vs 20mpg on gas) depending on the brand and got much better mileage on the highway at a best of 25mpg (vs their estimate of 21mpg). Now for the spread, their estimates on $50 to fill on E85 vs $55 on pump regular, if my math is right, puts E85 at $2.96/gal vs $3.25/gal for 87 octane E10. When I topped the car off on Thursday, E85 at the Speedway I bought from was $2.73 and 87 was $4.13.....needless to say, their estimates don't jive with my reality.

Not only is their spread $.29/gal vs my $1.40/gal, but the spread between their and my E85 pricing is $.23.......$.06/gal less than their E85 vs 87 Octane E10 spread. Then 87 octane E10 spread are $.88/gal more for what it was going for there the other day. Now if you look at their 25 mile thing, it costs me $4.37 to go 25 miles vs their $5.16 while gas would cost me $5.16 vs their $4.14. Like I said before, their estimates on a computer screen don't jive with my reality as a motorist in Suburban Chicago. Then when I factor in the considerably better driveability in hot and/or humid weather vs 87 octane E10 and all around better power in any weather vs even 93 octane premium (which I saw for about $4.45 at one station earlier tonight), it's well worth the minor loss in gas mileage!

[Edited by: WhiskeyBurner at 7/21/2013 1:55:10 AM EST]
Profile Pic
beachguy46
Veteran Author Miami

Posts:332
Points:88,270
Joined:May 2010
Message Posted: Jul 20, 2013 6:53:33 PM

Unless you do a loot of drivi8ng, like 40,000 miles per year or more, the added expense of owning a hybrid isn't cost effective at all. The 30% extra gas mileage you may get is offset by the 30 to 50% increase in the cost of the car. additionally, when the car is out of warranty, the replacement parts for hybrids is considerably more than standard off the shell parts.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,350
Points:2,681,465
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jul 20, 2013 4:52:20 PM

2013 Chrysler 200 side by side comparison
Profile Pic
WhiskeyBurner
Veteran Author Illinois

Posts:450
Points:15,855
Joined:May 2013
Message Posted: Jul 17, 2013 11:09:53 AM

When I bought my 200, I paid over $1,000 more the flex fuel motor in it. But not only is it flex fuel, but it also makes 110 more horsepower than the non flex fuel motor. On straight pump gas it only got 2mpg less than the weaker engine, but I have a customer from work that has a comparably trimmed Dodge Avenger with the base motor, same trans, same size wheels with the exact same "tires" (and that's being generous as well as a whole other story). He has had trouble getting the same mileage out of that car than I can out of my 200 running E85 and dipping a little too deeply into that 110 more hp than I should while the roads are clear to do so.

[Edited by: WhiskeyBurner at 7/17/2013 11:11:03 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,350
Points:2,681,465
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jul 17, 2013 8:38:05 AM

"It costs merely $100 at the factory to make vehicles Flex"

So let those who want one burden the extra cost....

Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,350
Points:2,681,465
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jul 17, 2013 8:34:45 AM

"The only mandate out there is that cars must use gasoline made to an exact, government-mandated mixture"

Really?

Please provide a link to this mandate...

"You said it yourself! You don't like the government setting ethanol production quotas AND you'd like the free market to pull production. That can't be done until cars are REQUIRED to burn something other than gasoline made to exact federal standards."

There are already cars like this on the market. They are called Flex-fueled, and anyone who wants one can already buy one....

"The EPA forbids methanol from being used as an automotive fuel."

For the same reason that MTBE is forbidden. It mixes readily with water and (unlike MTBE) is highly toxic and it has an even lower energy content then ethanol...

Besides, I believe the corn/ethanol lobby have strongly opposed methanol as a fuel choice, which is probably the biggest reason it's not considered as a fuel choice...
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:956
Points:24,140
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Jul 17, 2013 8:28:24 AM

I burn E-40 lately in 2 of them FrankLee1, and have been burning excluseively E-20 or higher for 7 years!

I took the cars to the dealer for all scheduled maintenance and they never said anything because the cars checked out great :)

Because shockjock is so blind, he doesn't even realize his prius would do better on E-30 than what he's running LOL because he believes all the bull.

And Arby and GC are right, let us choose between alcohol or petroleum based. It costs very little and ought to be on all cars. If I had a FFV I'd be running E-100 in spring summer and fall, and E-85 in winter.

But Oh, that's unconstitutional! Big Brother at play because we can't buy E-100. The oilies can't keep using that BS argument in regards to ethanol free, until I can get E-100!!!!!!!!!! Until then that are nothing but lying oil industry shills.

[Edited by: Hannie59 at 7/17/2013 8:32:17 AM EST]
Profile Pic
FrankLee1
All-Star Author Minnesota

Posts:821
Points:35,000
Joined:Feb 2013
Message Posted: Jul 17, 2013 1:07:30 AM

We already have choice. You do not need a flex fuel vehicle to burn higher concentrations of ethanol.
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,868
Points:71,430
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Jul 16, 2013 11:28:01 PM

It costs merely $100 at the factory to make vehicles Flex. I think that all vehicles should be Flex so that consumers truly have a choice!
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,868
Points:71,430
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Jul 16, 2013 11:25:40 PM

aRBY...

"Please write your congressman and request they support the Open Fuel Standard bill. You can click the link below and hunt around the site for a link to support the bill. If you can't find it, let me know and I'll be glad to help you."
Will do!

[Edited by: gamechanger2011 at 7/16/2013 11:25:59 PM EST]
Profile Pic
aRBy
All-Star Author Grand Rapids

Posts:589
Points:356,290
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jul 16, 2013 10:41:47 PM

Gamechanger2011:

Please write your congressman and request they support the Open Fuel Standard bill. You can click the link below and hunt around the site for a link to support the bill. If you can't find it, let me know and I'll be glad to help you.
Profile Pic
aRBy
All-Star Author Grand Rapids

Posts:589
Points:356,290
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jul 16, 2013 10:38:59 PM

"Ah yes... Another Big Brother mandate...."

That's not true and you know it. The only mandate out there is that cars must use gasoline made to an exact, government-mandated mixture. Requiring flex fuel cars removes that "mandate".

You said it yourself! You don't like the government setting ethanol production quotas AND you'd like the free market to pull production. That can't be done until cars are REQUIRED to burn something other than gasoline made to exact federal standards.

The EPA forbids methanol from being used as an automotive fuel. There is no reason for this except to protect the oil cartel and the farm lobby. Methanol is the primary ingredient in windshield washer fluid. Apparently, it's not an environmental hazard.

You know all this, Shockjock. I don't know what you have to gain by lying about alcohol fuels, but it doesn't matter. Life becomes simple once consumers have fuel CHOICE. That doesn't happen without government requiring flex fuel cars.

It's going to happen eventually. If the United States doesn't show leadership on this issue, some other country will and their economy will surpass ours.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,350
Points:2,681,465
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jul 16, 2013 9:32:41 PM

Ah yes... Another Big Brother mandate....

There are Flex Fueled cars on the market and streets now, and the vast majority never use a drop of E85. So your solution is to force everyone to pay more for their automobiles for an option that few want?

[Edited by: Shockjock1961 at 7/16/2013 9:33:27 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:956
Points:24,140
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Jul 16, 2013 8:48:27 PM

Agreed. You want to dump the RFS, then give the end user a choice. FORGET THE BLEND REQUIREMENTS. But give every buyer the option to use either. The technology to make an FFV is cheap.

Ethanol should put market E-85 and FFVs.



[Edited by: Hannie59 at 7/16/2013 8:53:35 PM EST]
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,868
Points:71,430
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Jul 16, 2013 7:20:58 PM

aRBY said..."Rather than the government dictating supply of renewable fuels (market manipulation), we should mandate competition by requiring auto makers to manufacture flex fuel cars. Then, let the market take care of the rest."

That is music to my ears! That's exactly what needs to happen!
Profile Pic
tropicalmn
Veteran Author Minnesota

Posts:274
Points:251,980
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Jul 16, 2013 9:45:07 AM

Shockjock1961 wrote: :"Oil gets far less subsidies for the amount of energy they produce then the corn producers get...
So in order to compete on a level playing field the corn producers would have to loose all their government subsidies....
Of course if that happened the price of ethanol would far exceed that of gasoline..."


Of course you don't offer anything to support any of your ridiculous fictional claims. If you had attempted you would once again embarrass yourself revealing what little understanding you have of business & industry.
Profile Pic
aRBy
All-Star Author Grand Rapids

Posts:589
Points:356,290
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jul 16, 2013 9:11:22 AM

The renewable fuel standard is not nearly as important as the OPEN FUEL STANDARD

The Open Fuel Standard opens up the automotive fuel market to competition from ethanol, methanol, electricity, natural gas, even hydrogen. The real strength of the bill is that it costs little to make flex fuel cars that run on methanol. Methanol can be easily converted from natural gas; a resource in abundant domestic supply. Methanol, like ethanol, can be mixed with gasoline in any ratio and still run in modern EFI equipped motor vehicles.

Rather than the government dictating supply of renewable fuels (market manipulation), we should mandate competition by requiring auto makers to manufacture flex fuel cars. Then, let the market take care of the rest.
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:8,000
Points:1,227,035
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jul 16, 2013 8:23:49 AM

Shockjock1961 wrote: "Oil gets far less subsidies for the amount of energy they produce then the corn producers get..."

Please list all the federal tax subsidies for both oil and ethanol industries and let's compare them. Provide some proof to you claim.

Shockjock1961 wrote: "So in order to compete on a level playing field the corn producers would have to loose all their government subsidies....

Are we comparing oil and ethanol industries or oil and corn industries? Are you really that confused?
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,350
Points:2,681,465
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jul 16, 2013 8:17:31 AM

Oil gets far less subsidies for the amount of energy they produce then the corn producers get...

So in order to compete on a level playing field the corn producers would have to loose all their government subsidies....

Of course if that happened the price of ethanol would far exceed that of gasoline...
Profile Pic
FrankLee1
All-Star Author Minnesota

Posts:821
Points:35,000
Joined:Feb 2013
Message Posted: Jul 15, 2013 10:50:27 PM

Let oil truly compete. No subsidies or preferential treatments. Fair is fair.
Profile Pic
tdioiler
All-Star Author Detroit

Posts:995
Points:659,225
Joined:Jul 2011
Message Posted: Jul 15, 2013 10:15:57 PM

brerrabbit,

I think the ethanol lobby has been studying the RIAA book on dealing with the general buyer. You don't like them, they will do anything, including calling you stupid, that you don't believe everything they say and open your wallet for their support.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,350
Points:2,681,465
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jun 8, 2013 12:54:51 PM

I agree Tom, let ethanol compete. Take away the minimum usage mandate and let ethanol truly compete...

Why is it that he doesn't like that idea?
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,351
Points:23,865
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Jun 3, 2013 2:28:30 PM

He is not saying anything new, just the same talking points that ethanol has used since the outset. Again I have no problem with ethanol usage but at some point the RFA needs to address some issues. We are nearing the top of what the RFA allows to be produced from traditional corn based ethanol so what will happen next? He mentions next generation biomass ethanol and ethanol made from algae and the fact that several plants will come on line next year. (I am assuming he means 2014) What he does not address and I have not heard discussed for a while is, what is the cost of that ethanol stream? Last I heard the enzymes needed to break down the biomass to make ethanol were prohitabively costly. In otherwords the next large traunch of ethanol to hit the market place will be at a higher cost than corn based ethanol. Higher even that gasoline. While I understand all the good reasons for ethanol use and do not deny them, I do question what the marketing strategy and talking points will be from the ethanol lobby when the next batch of ethanol cost more than gasoline does today. In otherwords how inelastic is ethanol demand? Will drivers continue to prefer to use it when it's cost goes up signficantly? Or will we merely start importing a lot of ethanol to meet the RFA and will that hurt in the further development of biomass ethanol because manufacturers will not be able to compete with the imports and therefore not be able to continue operations.

I bring this issue up only because since the vast majority of ethanol used in the US today goes into E-10 blends and the oil companies are the ones buying it they will by default migrate to the cheapest source possible. Till the enzyme issue is resolved economically the imports will be where the incremental supplies come from.

Not saying this won't all be resolved just that as it stands today it is a realistic barrier to entry for biomass ethanol.
Profile Pic
GrumpyCat
Champion Author Alabama

Posts:5,075
Points:1,182,260
Joined:Jun 2009
Message Posted: Jun 3, 2013 1:13:44 PM

Its only important to maintain his job.

Prosperity would break out from all corners if the RFS was repealed.
Post a reply Back to Topics