60 more days to comment on ethanol 15

Discussion in 'Laws, Legislation & Emissions' started by bamabikeguy, May 24, 2009.

  1. bamabikeguy

    bamabikeguy Active Member

    I watch US Farm Report every weekend, agree with their stances on most agricultural ideas, like ending ag-subsidization for corporations and hobby millionaires, making foreign aid in the form of small tractors & flatbed trucks instead of jets and bombs, and STOPPING the corn corporations from increasing the alcohol content of fuel to 15%.

    It was announced that the comment period to the EPA has been extended till July 20. Public outcry, about how sugar and switchgrasses have been ignored in favor of corn, how economically false the corn subsidy is, and especially to we small engine users, the damage MORE alcohol will do to carburators, linings and hoses.

    If the program was based on truth, that sugar is the key, instead of Con-Agra, Montsanto and Archer Daniels Midland subsidized fraud, (it costs fuel to grow corn), public outcry would probably be less. Corn is a lot better agricultural feed than a fuel source. Period.

    But right now is the first chance to kill this bogey-man before it even hits Congress.

    The Official EPA Ethanol comment page


    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2015

  2. bamabikeguy

    bamabikeguy Active Member

    At the same time, with all the talk of PROTEST, it would be a good thing to start talking up a BOYCOTT of E-15% right about now.

    Family, friends and neighbors should be informed early and often that IF our payola based Congress enacts E-15%, without ending the Big Sugar tariff, without research and development of alcohol burning plugs and wires, and R&D for alcohol resistant gaskets and linings, or without fully legalizing home based fuel distilleries, that a Boycott will commence.

    Remember New Coke, the Edsel and Quadraphonic sound !!

    The best way to fight misguided ideas is on the marketplace, punish the companies quick and fast if they take the bait.

    We've adjusted to E-10%, and if they would come up with a fully alcohol burning plug and cylinder, we would be the first to jump on E-100%, boiled in our own back yards from yard clippings.

    But this E-15% is just a ploy, to pay for the mistaken gamble the Big Corn folks made in overbuilding the corn refineries, not accounting for transport, and trying to get the price per bushel up in the $8-10 range as a guarantee.
  3. bamabikeguy

    bamabikeguy Active Member

    MORE fudging of the facts by corn-bought Congressmen !!


    Getting Ethanol Right
    Published: May 23, 2009

    Representative Collin Peterson is furious that the Environmental Protection Agency is doing its job. The Minnesota Democrat says the agency is trying to kill off the biofuels industry - to the dismay of the corn farmers and ethanol producers he represents. He has vowed to vote against any bill, including climate change legislation, that might require the involvement of the E.P.A.

    What inspired this tirade was an E.P.A. draft proposal showing how it intended to measure the greenhouse gas emissions from corn ethanol and other renewable fuels. The agency said it will not make any final rules until it completes further research, but its preliminary findings were not flattering to corn ethanol.

    The E.P.A. was only doing what Congress ordered in the 2007 energy bill, which required a quadrupling of annual ethanol production to 36 billion gallons by 2022. In practical terms, this meant more traditional corn ethanol, until other more advanced forms of ethanol could make their way out of the labs. Scientists believe that various grasses and scrub trees that do not compete with food crops can someday be turned into fuel.

    Congress hoped the ethanol mandate would produce a more climate-friendly fuel that could help reduce oil imports. But just to make sure, it stipulated that ethanol from any source be cleaner than conventional gasoline. It handed the job of measuring emissions to the E.P.A., and told it to consider the fuel's entire life cycle.

    This included counting the greenhouse gases released when forests or grasslands are plowed under and planted to make up for the crops used to make ethanol. When the E.P.A.'s scientists counted these indirect effects, corn ethanol emitted more greenhouse gases than gasoline over a 30-year period.

    The E.P.A. says its analysis needs refinement, and in any case the 2007 bill grandfathers in existing corn ethanol plants or those under construction. That means there will not be any reduction in corn ethanol production; indeed, there could be more. Mr. Peterson and his farm bill colleagues are still steamed, because any adverse finding diminishes corn ethanol's appeal.

    Lisa Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator, can expect heavy pressure in the months ahead. The ethanol industry and its Congressional champions will argue that the science is unclear, that indirect effects cannot be measured accurately, and so on.

    Ms. Jackson should stand her ground. Biofuels have an important role to play, and some will eventually be produced without pushing up food prices or increasing emissions. It is the E.P.A.'s duty to give the most unbiased accounting it can of their strengths and defects.
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2015
  4. kitcarguy

    kitcarguy Member

    I really do not know much about whats going on here. Is there a condensed version of all of this somewhere that I can read?
  5. Happy Valley

    Happy Valley Active Member

    I think bama's done a pretty good job already of condensing the salient points
    of this issue, particularly in the OP.

    The public comment period has been extended to July 20, 2009.
    E15 will be bad for most existing vehicles but particularly devastating for small engines.
    Burning food as fuel is stupid but good for Big Agra.
  6. bamabikeguy

    bamabikeguy Active Member

    Business Week 5/14: The Great Ethanol Scam


    2 more pages of the article follow......
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2015