EPA proposes reducing biofuel mandate
Source: Associated Press
The Obama administration on Friday proposed to reduce the amount of ethanol in the nation's fuel supply for the first time, acknowledging that the biofuel law championed by both parties in 2007 is not working as well as expected.
While the proposal highlights the government's struggle to ramp up production of homegrown biofuels that are cleaner-burning than gasoline, it is unlikely to mean much for consumers at the pump.
The change would reduce by almost 3 billion gallons the amounts of ethanol and other biofuels blended into gasoline in 2014 than the law requires.
The 2007 law tried to address global warming, reduce dependence on foreign oil and prop up the rural economy by requiring oil companies to blend billions of gallons of biofuels into their gasoline each year. But politicians who wrote the law didn't anticipate fuel economy to improve as much as it has in recent years, which reduced demand for gasoline.
Read more: http://m.startribune.com/business/?id=232090341&c=y
Owl
(3,638 posts)docgee
(870 posts)And fuck Monsanto too!
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)reduces gas mileage 5%. So, we get to pay more for gas and buy more of it. Then we get hit again when we go to the grocery store to buy beef. Corn based ethanol is a racket.
paleotn
(17,876 posts)the amount of fossil fuels required to grow the corn to fuel our vehicles in the misguided hope that ethanol will reduce fossil fuel usage and green house gas emissions. Why anyone other than big Agra thought this made sense, I'll never know.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)to the bank accounts of politicians.
RC
(25,592 posts)I pay more per gallon for it, but the better gas mileage I get, costs me less per mile of driving. The last time I figured it out, I save about $250 a year. And I am not a high mileage driver. If I were, I'd be saving even more.
Also ethanol does not pollute less. It just pollutes differently and the effects are just as bad. Ethanol is a government backed racket in favor of the corn farmers and Monsanto, who supplies the seed corn for the ethanol.
yellowwoodII
(616 posts)I live near a cornfield. If you could see how many passes the tractors have to make to process the land for corn and then treat it with fertilizer and pesticides, you would never think that it conserves oil. This includes aerial spraying. I have not seen one butterfly in my yard this year.
7962
(11,841 posts)I remember that was supposed to be a big advance that would do away with corn-based. And sugar cane, like Brazil?
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)The corn lobby has way too much power.
Archaic
(273 posts)Dwindling freshwater and topsoil shouldn't be turned into a caloric intake for a car. It should be in a food bank.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)I agree ...water should not be exchanged for fuel.
pothos
(154 posts)the report only addresses ethanol blends in gasoline. biodiesel is still viable in many ways that ethanol will never be, especially the algae technologies going forward. the truly industrious can even process raw or waste oils into biodiesel at home.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)variety of algae, process it into a biofuel. You have diesel for 200 mile round trips, diesel you can trade in a crunch, your own renewable fuel supply, perhaps for heating or running a generator...
I've been following that a bit.
they had an algae biodiesel blend here at a self service pump as a trial run for about a month. it was only a b20 blend but i filled up with it and didn't notice any performance issues at all.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)groundloop
(11,513 posts)I've searched but haven't yet found the answer (maybe I'm not persistent enough). Does this announcement meant that the 10% ethanol added into most gasoline will be reduced or eliminated?
Conium
(119 posts)Ethanol causes water to accumulate in the fuel tank. Many cars will not run on the stuff.
Also, its use makes the price of food (and animal feed) increase.