Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    11:56 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: All Things Ethanol > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: AAA says ethanol fuels provide motorists with a choice at the pump that promotes US energy independ Back to Topics
gamechanger2011

Champion Author
Wichita

Posts:1,863
Points:70,730
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Jul 18, 2013 11:15:20 AM


"The American Petroleum Institute is going after the ethanol industry.

The organization began running TV commercials in South Dakota criticizing the use of ethanol.

AAA says it is caught in the middle of the competition. According to the auto club, the 30-second commercials mention AAA, misrepresenting their position on E-15.

AAA says ethanol fuels provide motorists with a choice at the pump that promotes US energy independence".
AAA says ethanol fuels provide motorists with a choice at the pump that promotes US energy independence.
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
barryo62
Rookie Author Iowa

Posts:72
Points:1,890
Joined:Oct 2012
Message Posted: May 11, 2014 3:48:52 PM

goldseeker you have a very good point thank you.
Profile Pic
goldseeker
Champion Author West Virginia

Posts:22,490
Points:3,178,115
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: May 10, 2014 4:04:11 AM

Ethanol is cheaper in the long run.

If you think gasoline is cheaper, then please ask a mother who has lost a son or daughter guarding those precious oil fields in the Persian Gulf.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,164
Points:2,641,665
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: May 9, 2014 10:35:46 PM

Actually, "Shocky" is doing nothing more then posting an interesting editorial...
Profile Pic
SilverStreaker
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:13,808
Points:2,657,200
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: May 9, 2014 11:48:40 AM

Shocky is using opinion articles to substantiate his claims! How desperate!
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,164
Points:2,641,665
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: May 9, 2014 8:43:20 AM

How ethanol boosts the price of your hamburger

"uncertainty about EPA ethanol policy has left the motor-fuel industry hanging. By making it difficult for the industry to plan and budget effectively, that uncertainty raises costs for oil refiners, and, ultimately, for motorists, as the U.S. Government Accountability Office highlighted in a recent study.

No way should the EPA let vested interests in the corn and ethanol businesses prevent it from mitigating the impact of a bad policy. The agency should stand by the cut it has proposed, and keep cutting more, until the RFS is eliminated altogether."
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,877
Points:1,187,235
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: May 6, 2014 11:05:10 AM

Shockjock1961 wrote: "$5/bu is not real cheap..."

If you believe so, then buy land, harvest your own, sell it and get rich. Is it possible you simply do not have a clue? This would not be the first time.

[Edited by: krzysiek_ck at 5/6/2014 11:06:04 AM EST]
Profile Pic
ethfreegas
Rookie Author Florida

Posts:5
Points:26,575
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: May 4, 2014 8:29:52 PM

Shockjock1961 has somewhat of a handle on the ethanol problem.....
Profile Pic
SilverStreaker
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:13,808
Points:2,657,200
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: May 4, 2014 2:44:20 PM

I have not seen any significant change in mileage at any ethanol blend in my non-FFVs and have never had an ethanol related performance or maintenance issue. I save money every time I add ethanol to my tank.
Profile Pic
scrossi
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:6,053
Points:1,503,415
Joined:Dec 2008
Message Posted: May 4, 2014 9:27:53 AM

Ethanol is more expensive in the long run.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,164
Points:2,641,665
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: May 4, 2014 9:27:06 AM

"Corn is real cheap price"

$5/bu is not real cheap...
Profile Pic
merlinCO
Champion Author Colorado

Posts:3,805
Points:794,685
Joined:Mar 2012
Message Posted: May 4, 2014 8:51:45 AM

Stay away from premium.
Profile Pic
barryo62
Rookie Author Iowa

Posts:72
Points:1,890
Joined:Oct 2012
Message Posted: May 3, 2014 9:13:07 AM

Hey JohnofGB do you ever check corn futures prices on CBOT?
Corn is real cheap price how does that make food and feed higher priced?
Profile Pic
jeff95519
Champion Author California

Posts:4,572
Points:1,811,440
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: May 3, 2014 5:47:55 AM

bull shit
Profile Pic
Wanderer417
All-Star Author Ottawa

Posts:785
Points:184,475
Joined:Feb 2014
Message Posted: May 3, 2014 12:13:27 AM

Say what?
Profile Pic
JohnofGB
Champion Author Flint

Posts:7,596
Points:1,553,170
Joined:Feb 2010
Message Posted: May 3, 2014 12:04:44 AM

Hey AAA, it increases food cost by higher feed and food corn costs.
Profile Pic
tklsr
All-Star Author Akron

Posts:917
Points:856,525
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 2, 2014 8:49:13 PM

so?
Profile Pic
PrototypeDevil
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:2,158
Points:658,995
Joined:Sep 2012
Message Posted: May 2, 2014 10:51:25 AM

k
Profile Pic
borsht
Champion Author Oakland

Posts:2,899
Points:645,885
Joined:Aug 2012
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2014 5:48:50 PM

Great Post shockjock,
It is indeed sad when government and research guys join the crowd to promote known false information.
A quote that is oft credited to Mark Twain, but actually predates him
and more accurately credited to Carroll Wright , at least for practical application of the quote.
From quote investigators we see the following:
"Quote Investigator: The saying has been credited to Mark Twain for more than ninety-five years, but the first citation for Twain located by QI is dated 1913. This is after Twain’s death and there is no corroborating evidence for the attribution in Twain’s own writings.

Carroll D. Wright was a prominent statistician employed by the U.S. government, and he did use the expression in 1889 while addressing the Convention of Commissioners of Bureaus of Statistics of Labor. But Wright did not claim that he coined the expression [CDW1]:The old saying is that “figures will not lie,” but a new saying is “liars will figure.” It is our duty, as practical statisticians, to prevent the liar from figuring; in other words, to prevent him from perverting the truth, in the interest of some theory he wishes to establish.

Again I want to thank you for bringing this lie to the light.

It's unfortunate that our media doesn't have the sense to see that what they are promoting and stating is impossibly true.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,164
Points:2,641,665
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2014 9:17:02 AM

It is well-documented that the average energy return on energy invested (EROEI) for crude oil production is around 10/1

"OK, so Argonne originated the calculation. But are they really at fault here? Yes, they are. Not only did they promote the efficiency calculation for petroleum products with their GREET model, but they have proceeded to make apples and oranges comparisons in order to show ethanol in a positive light. They have themselves muddied the waters. Michael Wang, from Argonne, (and author of the GREET model) made a remarkable claim last September at The 15th Annual Symposium on Alcohol Fuels in San Diego (5). On his 4th slide , he claimed that it takes 0.74 MMBTU to make 1 MMBTU of ethanol, but 1.23 MMBTU to make 1 MMBTU of gasoline. That simply can’t be correct, as the calculations in the preceding paragraphs have shown.
Not only is his claim incorrect, but it is terribly irresponsible for someone from a government agency to make such a claim. I don’t know whether he is being intentionally misleading, but it certainly looks that way. Wang is also the co-author of the earlier USDA studies that I have critiqued and shown to be full of errors and misleading arguments. These people are publishing articles that bypass the peer review process designed to ferret out these kinds of blatant errors. I suspect a politically driven agenda in which they are putting out intentionally misleading information."

[Edited by: Shockjock1961 at 1/30/2014 9:17:18 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,164
Points:2,641,665
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2014 9:13:13 AM

"You tried to fool us by confusing fossil fuel with energy"

Where do you think most of the energy comes from? Fossil fuels...

"You also totally, and purposely, ignore the energy gains from corn ethanol waste products."

No more then I "purposely" ignored the energy gains from the petroleum "waste products"...

"Those aren't trivial, because your waste products are protein and corn oil — two commonly used goods. The benefits are significant."

Neither are the remaining petroleum by-products insignificant. Diesel, Heating oil, asphalt, porpane, etc. What's your point?

"n the January 27 2006 issue of Science, Farrell et al. examined six studies of ethanol.
It takes 1.1 joules of petroleum (and an additional 0.09 joules of other fossil fuels) to produce 1 joules of gasoline."

It takes 11,400 to 22,800 BTUs to include pumping transporting and processing, to create 114,000 BTU's of gasoline. If it took more energy to produce gasoline then gasoline had, then there would be no point to making it...
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,136
Points:3,821,930
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2014 11:35:54 PM

Way to obfuscate Shocky.
You tried to fool us by confusing fossil fuel with energy.
You also totally, and purposely, ignore the energy gains from corn ethanol waste products.
Those aren't trivial, because your waste products are protein and corn oil — two commonly used goods. The benefits are significant.
If that is really your concern, you should know electricity contains less than 40% of the energy of coal that is burned to generate it.
For every unit of energy delivered at the pump, corn ethanol requires 0.76 units of fossil energy, and gasoline requires 1.22 units.

In the January 27 2006 issue of Science, Farrell et al. examined six studies of ethanol.
It takes 1.1 joules of petroleum (and an additional 0.09 joules of other fossil fuels) to produce 1 joules of gasoline.
It takes 0.05 joules of petroleum, and 0.7 joules of coal and natural gas (both of which are abundant in the United States) to make 1 joule of ethanol.
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,320
Points:23,245
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2014 9:23:49 PM

Railroads are are a great example. Yes there are mandates that railroads offer services to all but guess what? You have to pay for the priveledge. Check out the price of putting a tank car under lease pre and post the Baken oil development. Oil producers are paying huge amounts for the priveledge of using the rails to move their product. Ethanol on the other hand wants to use the exsisting infrastructure to move their product to market, but does not want to pay for their use.

Why do they need to force the access and not pay for it? Because then the cost of the product is not competative and people won't want to buy it without the msndste to do so.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,164
Points:2,641,665
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2014 3:41:51 PM

"Not only is ethanol a net energy gain, producing a gallon of RENEWABLE ethanol takes less fossil fuel than producing a gallon of NON-RENEWABLE gasoline"

gasoline:
input energy: 11,400 to 22,800 BTU's/gallon
Finished Product: 114,000 BTU's/gallon

ethanol:
input energy: 30,000 to 44,000 BTU's/gallon
Finished Product: 76,100 BTU's/gallon.

This clearly shows that you get much larger return on your investment with gasoline then you do with ethanol...
Profile Pic
darwinfinch
Veteran Author Gasbuddy

Posts:457
Points:6,860
Joined:May 2013
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2014 10:33:37 AM

Fossil fuels took root in our country during a time when resources were cheap, labor was cheap, and infrastructure was a clean slate. The same can be said for the railroads in our country.

Now that our infrastructure is basically locked in, we are doomed to a slower pace of progress.

Government mandates can aid growth and change where none would otherwise be possible. Imagine trying to build a new railroad from New York to Oregon today. Isn't it fair to say that it would be almost impossible, and that you'd face challenges not present at the dawn of the American railroad industry? Even a superior technology will shrivel in the shadow of traditional railroads, simply because the roots have established themselves.

This is what we face with alternative fuels. A viable, affordable, and clean-burning alternative could die under the boot of the old fashioned, entrenched status quo. That's what the oil industry wants, but is it good for the nation? The economy? The environment? Our future?

Today, railroads are bound by government mandates to offer shipping opportunities to competing companies. They are mandated to treat their services as communal properties. Do you cry about this? It's good for our country.

Mandating the liquid fuel industry to wiggle on 100+ year old infrastructure is not only fair, it's WISE. Any resistance demonstrates a financial bias or an unwillingness to embrace change/progress.
Profile Pic
SilverStreaker
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:13,808
Points:2,657,200
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2014 5:59:15 PM

Why does the government mandate 15-30% gasoline in ethanol fuel?
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,320
Points:23,245
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2014 3:25:36 PM

borsht makes an interesting observation that sometimes gets lost in all the back and forth that goes on here all the time.

Of course the API will support gasoline usage just as the ethanol groups will support it's usage. The interesting part comes from the fact that government is forcing the use of ethanol.

Take other competing technologies dating back to beta vs VHS and beyond. Competing technologies and products have exsisted since Rockafeller challenged the use of whale oil for lamps with kerosene. The interesting part of the current arguement is and always has been how far can the government force one competitor to go when it comes to the use and acceptance of the competing technology.

Why should the petroleum industry be force to use ethanol at all? Why shouldn't ethanol be forced to pay for their own infrastructure and distribution channels? Ehtanol supporters will say the government makes these decisions in the best interest of the country all the time but why ethanol? Why doesn't the government force big oil to install charging stations for electric cars, or hydrogen pumps, or CNG fueling sites? Why one alternative fuel over the other?

Does the government mandate that Pepsi sell 10% coke product at their exclusive outlets? If in fact the ethanol lobby truly believes that it is the best alternative to fossil fuels then why can it not stand on it's own? VHS wound up beating beta, and all that was conquered by DVD's and now digital technology.

Why must the government pick and mandate a winner?

Yes I know the ethanol supporters will tell the story of the big oil companies and their unfair practices in marketing, etc. but did all the other competing technologies over the years not face the same barriers to entry and acceptance?

I don't refute any of the facts and figures presented. That's not the issue. The issue is why did the government choose the winner in this particular marketing contest?

To me that's the much more interesting discussion.

By the way kerosene won out over whale oil because it was cheaper and more abundent not because the government intervened.
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,877
Points:1,187,235
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2014 11:58:11 AM

borsht wrote: "Of course the API is going to promote petroleum. Just as the ethanol industry promotes ethanol!
Pepsi promotes Pepsi cola. But no one has mandated that I must drink Pepsi cola. I can drink 7-up the un-cola."

Nobody is forcing you to use gasoline neither. Why are you?
Profile Pic
borsht
Champion Author Oakland

Posts:2,899
Points:645,885
Joined:Aug 2012
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2014 10:09:34 AM

That is a bogus statement. when it comes to gasoline, in California we cannot chose E0.
For all practical purposes, one cannot even get E0.

Since when does a government mandated use of something promote free choice?

Of course the API is going to promote petroleum. Just as the ethanol industry promotes ethanol!
Pepsi promotes Pepsi cola. But no one has mandated that I must drink Pepsi cola. I can drink 7-up the un-cola.

Isn't it terrible Pepsi will run ads at the Super Bowl.
So will Budweiser run ads.

We eliminated prohibition a long time ago. Let's eliminate the ethanol mandates now!!!
Profile Pic
goldseeker
Champion Author West Virginia

Posts:22,490
Points:3,178,115
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2014 3:20:27 AM

sounds good to me.
Profile Pic
namzza6310
Champion Author Milwaukee

Posts:1,232
Points:1,056,090
Joined:Sep 2010
Message Posted: Nov 18, 2013 8:18:58 AM

Go Ethanol!
Profile Pic
goldseeker
Champion Author West Virginia

Posts:22,490
Points:3,178,115
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Nov 18, 2013 1:33:09 AM

My 35 year old pickup works just fine with ethanol fuels.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,136
Points:3,821,930
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Nov 17, 2013 5:55:33 PM

"I'd scour the internet myself but"

Guess it isn't very important to you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``````````
"believes it takes more energy to make E10 than we get out of it, a net loss of energy"

That BS has been disproved by many studies, going back many years, yet people are still blinded to the truth.
Not only is ethanol a net energy gain, producing a gallon of RENEWABLE ethanol takes less fossil fuel than producing a gallon of NON-RENEWABLE gasoline.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,136
Points:3,821,930
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Nov 17, 2013 5:50:30 PM

"Ethanol will take the older cars off the road."

Once again, I submit we have been using E10 since 1981, in vehicles as old as 1974 and 1976.
If people are going to continue to make stupid statements like that, I demand an answer to the question I have been asking for a long time.
When can I expect this to happen?
We have had E10 in every regular pump in the province for years. We have a LOT of older cars, this area is full of collectors. We see everything from 60s T-Birds and 50s Chevies, to 40s pick-me-up trucks, and even a Trabant. They all run well on E10.
So, again, I ask, when can I expect to see the damage that OPEC and BIG OIL supporters keep posting about?
Profile Pic
ItisAJeepThing
Champion Author Tucson

Posts:29,077
Points:2,610,825
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Nov 17, 2013 5:16:21 PM

We should be promoting clean American natural gas in the forms of CNG and LNG to replace all oil based fuels.
Profile Pic
SilverStreaker
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:13,808
Points:2,657,200
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Nov 8, 2013 10:36:24 AM

theonlyjody, start with The Mother Earth News, 1980 Mother’s Alcohol Fuel Seminar. Even though it is several decades old, it has the basics and debunks those claiming that it doesn't work with old vehicles.

I started adding extra ethanol to the gasoline in my vehicles several years ago and have never had an ethanol related performance or maintenance issue. The were several years old at the time, so I added ethanol in slowly increasing blends to prevent any accumulations in the tank from clogging the filters. I have not needed to replace the gas filters.
Profile Pic
borsht
Champion Author Oakland

Posts:2,899
Points:645,885
Joined:Aug 2012
Message Posted: Nov 8, 2013 9:42:45 AM

One feature of ethanol in gasoline, is that the government won't need to have a cash for clunker program again. Ethanol will take the older cars off the road.
Profile Pic
theonlyjody
Rookie Author New Hampshire

Posts:50
Points:137,670
Joined:Sep 2013
Message Posted: Nov 8, 2013 8:34:22 AM

I have my opinion on ethanol additives. For now, I would like to keep them to myself. What I do want is data, research papers and explanations from an independent (read: not hired by one camp or the other) source that explores the benefit - and detriment - of ethanol in gasoline. If you have some links please share them. Otherwise it is a bunch of "well I read once..." or "my neighbors' girlfriends' brothers' mechanic said..."

I'd scour the internet myself but I have more pressing obligations.

Thanks in advance.
Profile Pic
goldseeker
Champion Author West Virginia

Posts:22,490
Points:3,178,115
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Nov 8, 2013 2:48:19 AM

"Someone who's judgement and analytical skills I respect had looked into it and believes it takes more energy to make E10 than we get out of it, a net loss of energy though it is a more "independent" source."

What a bogus statement. It takes far less energy to produce ethanol than it does gasoline. It just goes to show that over 100 years worth of oil propaganda has succeeded in brain washing a lot of people.
Profile Pic
snoopy49
Rookie Author Maryland

Posts:22
Points:182,870
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Nov 7, 2013 8:17:13 PM

It may promote choice and energy independence, but at what cost? Has anyone done a dollars/mile cost comparison between straight gasoline, E10, E15, E85, etc.? I'd love to see one. Someone who's judgement and analytical skills I respect had looked into it and believes it takes more energy to make E10 than we get out of it, a net loss of energy though it is a more "independent" source.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,164
Points:2,641,665
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Nov 4, 2013 3:53:36 PM

You and a whole lot of other people, derFeierabend. That's why the ethanol and corn industry are making sure, through the Feds, that you don't have that choice...
Profile Pic
derFeierabend
Rookie Author Phoenix

Posts:18
Points:123,800
Joined:Aug 2012
Message Posted: Nov 4, 2013 3:00:15 PM

If there was a single station in my town that sold gasoline without ethanol added I would purchase all of my gasoline there exclusively. Seems the feds have legislated E0 almost entirely out of existence. The only E0 in the state that I know of is marine fuel sold near our lakes. Too far away unfortunately!
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,164
Points:2,641,665
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Nov 4, 2013 9:36:52 AM

"You got to be kidding. Ethanol is a lousy alternative fuel and certainly not my choice at the pump"

That's why the Feds don't want you to have a choice, because too many people would choose not to use it...
Profile Pic
FieroGT
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:16,241
Points:2,845,120
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Nov 4, 2013 3:57:52 AM

You got to be kidding. Ethanol is a lousy alternative fuel and certainly not my choice at the pump.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,136
Points:3,821,930
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Nov 2, 2013 10:47:27 AM

"Ethanol promotes higher food costs, ruins engines, lowers gas mileage and puts out more pollutants. Ethanol should be band from use as a fuel. AAA must be getting paid off by the ethanol industry."

I have this to say about that:
Horse-pucky!
Bovine excrement!
Profile Pic
darwinfinch
Veteran Author Gasbuddy

Posts:457
Points:6,860
Joined:May 2013
Message Posted: Nov 1, 2013 9:43:25 AM

I'm shocked by the number of people who still believe the ethanol industry receives subsidies.

The ethanol industry itself lobbied to end the subsidies, and no longer receives any. The oil industry still gets billions in handouts, FYI, while complaining that alternative fuels should have to play in the "free market".
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,877
Points:1,187,235
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Nov 1, 2013 9:13:45 AM

FieroGT wrote: "Ethanol is a lousy alternative fuel. And I think it is disgusting I have to pay a subsidy to keep it alive."

What subsidy are you talking about? Gasoline gets about 4 billion in tax subsidies every year, are you disgusted about it as well? Does it make the gasoline the lousy fuel?
Profile Pic
FieroGT
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:16,241
Points:2,845,120
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Nov 1, 2013 4:54:32 AM

Ethanol is a lousy alternative fuel. And I think it is disgusting I have to pay a subsidy to keep it alive.
Profile Pic
gamechanger2011
Champion Author Wichita

Posts:1,863
Points:70,730
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Jul 20, 2013 8:33:36 PM

The local chapter can't make a statement like that without the approval from AAA Reb4 and you know it. Nice try!

[Edited by: gamechanger2011 at 7/20/2013 8:34:30 PM EST]
Profile Pic
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,251
Points:2,282,475
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Jul 20, 2013 8:15:03 PM

It's the local chapter of AAA that made this statement...

Local chapter of AAA is making this statement. Interesting omission...



A state chapter of North America’s largest motor club is accusing the oil and gas industry’s largest trade group of misrepresenting its position on ethanol in a new ad campaign seeking repeal of the renewable fuel standard.
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,877
Points:1,187,235
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jul 20, 2013 10:43:37 AM

Shockjock1961 wrote: "Forcing the public to use a fuel is far from the definition of "competition". Ethanol is not competitive, which is the whole reason the corn and ethanol lobbies have paid off the legislature to force people to use it..."

How exactly are you forced to use Ethanol? I have asked you to explain this on multiple occasions and so far you have failed to do so. Why is that?

[Edited by: krzysiek_ck at 7/20/2013 10:45:50 AM EST]
Post a reply Back to Topics