http://ethanolrfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Ethanol-Industry-Outlook-2017.pdf Thought some would want to take a look. I've just skimmed it myself.
ethanol industry my come to a screeching halt in the US if pruitt (EPA) and perry (DOE) want it to. Both have allegiances to oil, and with oil around $50/bbl oil and north american production of oil high, higher ethanol mandates make little economic, environmental, or security sense. My guess is unless ethanol costs go down, or oil costs go up, mandates will be pulled back. They are up for 2017 and 2018, but my guess is 2018's mandate will get rolled back, and that may be a good thing. EPA Increases The Federal Ethanol Mandate | The Daily Caller
I haven't heard otherwise, but oil companies don't have legal protections against lawsuits if high ethanol levels damaged a car. another reason for them to be against the mandate. I'm alright with the mandate getting rolled back if it doesn't allow for other alcohols. Really, if we are going to go ethanol, we should stop pussy footing around it and just do it. E30 is the point at which phase separation is no longer a concern, and it might have better efficiency per energy content(btu) in current flex fuel engines than straight gas. I think engine generations are on a ten year cycle, so let's give everybody ten years before switching. The manufacturers aren't starting from scratch if they sell in Brazil. In the mean time, let's switch to RON for octane, and bump the regular limit up a bit.
NAFTA crushed Mexico's local corn farmers; the embargo is them not buying US corn. So if farmers stick to growing the same amount of corn, there will be more for domestic consumption. Then some ethanol plants are already using other crops. Winter barley is one, and sorghum is another, but the Chinese might have bought all that up already. I don't think switching from corn is a technical hurdle, but more a financial one. The answer to that will likely be for the plants to start making products more valuable than animal feed from the leftovers of ethanol production.
It could make ethanol cheaper and give the current administration a reason to go against their free market principals, and do a corn protectionist mandate. Trump did campaign in iowa in favor of big mandates, but in other states for froe markets for fossil fuels. I Think administration is on every side of the issue and has no principals. My guess is a trade war with mexico will hurt tens of thousands of american jobs and congress won't let it happen. I am in favor of an open fuel standard where new cars are made to be able to burn methanol and ethanol blends safely. That is quite different from a mandate for this year where most cars can not safely burn these higher levels, and economically and environmentally much higher ethanol blends are likely worse for america in general.
Our ethanol mandate is half assed. There is no incentive to make engines actually take advantage of ethanol's higher octane.
The EPA in recent years has been tone deaf to industry concerns about reaching the 10% blend wall etc. "Damn the torpedos full speed ahead" has been EPA strategy when their plans seemed impossible to achieve. Basially EPA has been strongly favoring ethanol lobby position. So I think we can at least expect a moderation of approach. Many years ago there was a lot of R&D activity on other alcohols and ethers etc. for gasoline. Many things can be used, but that goes against King Corn and we can see MTBE had issues. There is no fundamental advantage for oxygenates in gasoline. It does not burn cleaner, etc. It is just a policy choice matter. 100% Gasoline is generally cheaper, cleaner, better for environment overall. We have to make-up political policy rationale to promote anything other than gasoline. and of course many do feel mandated alternate energy is the correct policy.
And by 2020 many will seek BEV car's ...At least I will be 100% electric ...and move my pump time to my garage and enjoy my family time Posted via the PriusChat mobile app.
Oxygenates date back to when carburetors where what most cars on the road had, and they helped then, but don't have the same benefit with fuel injection. While there are still some of these cars on the road, they generally aren't driven the miles a daily commuter car is driven. Taking lead out of gasoline wasn't good for cars with soft metal valves, but there we did it anyway. We should focus on gasoline standards that improve emissions and efficiency in cars being sold now; not the dwindling numbers of leisure automobiles out there. Pure gasoline is still a fossil fuel, and direct renewable replacements for it aren't as along as they are for diesel. Since diesels cost more, and many people have negative opinions of them, we need to keep an open mind on possible fuel replacements for spark ignition engines. I'd like to have an open fuel mandate, but I also would like to see the US switch to RON for octane ratings and bump regular up a little on that front.
I agree ! That would be SUV and Pickup in the US. I shouldn't add GMO to this old convers, and if GMO were only used as a fuel source than no worries about how it's produced. So than it should be a non issue.
