Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SST

Uncle Chuck Schumer reponds to Ethanol

Recommended Posts

While I'm surprised that this reply shows a negative narrative towards Ethanol, it clearly doesn't say what he's going to do about it.  Another local politician, Brian Higgins, also electronically responded a while ago but it was so generalized you couldn't tell if he was for it or against it. 
 
The corn holers ASSociation  clearly has Washington by the husk!  I wonder when Alexandria Cortez will receive her "grant" and what she'll do with it.  
 
 
Read on:
 
"     Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). I share your concerns about the potential negative effects ethanol and the RFS could have on our environment.
 
     The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2005 created the RFS, which mandated biofuels be blended into gasoline.  This was an attempt to promote a shift toward energy independence and the use of alternative fuels and under the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) management, greater amounts of ethanol have been required to be added to gasoline over time.
 
     Ethanol has been sold to the public as a panacea — as a “green” source of energy, and one that will secure America’s future by finally making us “energy independent.”  Unfortunately, the rosy picture painted of corn ethanol by Midwestern corn conglomerates is not accurate.  Rather than being environmentally friendly, the production of corn ethanol releases as much carbon into the atmosphere as traditional petroleum fuels. Furthermore, ethanol is far from promoting energy independence, as the shipping and manufacturing requires as much petroleum as it takes to make the ethanol itself.  Additionally, higher ethanol blends are not compatible with all motor vehicles and, finally, our rush to produce ethanol has diverted corn away from other important uses.  The unfortunate truth is that corn ethanol provides no environmental, economic, or security benefit over petroleum, and it raises serious ethical concerns about our obligations towards our neighbors.
 
     Again, thank you for contacting me.  Please keep in touch with your thoughts and opinions."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not …. I try not to do political garbage on a help forum .  I try to help Chap owners.  Not constant political hacks.  Your support in this matter is REQUIRED.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SST said:

Rather than being environmentally friendly, the production of corn ethanol releases as much carbon into the atmosphere as traditional petroleum fuels.

Is there any reliable & published data to support this claim?  I doubt Uncle Chuck is pulling this info out of thin air, but it would be nice to see the data behind this.

2 hours ago, SST said:

Furthermore, ethanol is far from promoting energy independence, as the shipping and manufacturing requires as much petroleum as it takes to make the ethanol itself.

Except if 100% ethanol is used for all aspects of production, it would be considered a path towards energy independence and need to start somewhere to get there.

2 hours ago, SST said:

The unfortunate truth is that corn ethanol provides no environmental, economic, or security benefit over petroleum,

And that might be the political bias that fuels (no pun intended) the opposition to ethanol and any type of biofuel, simply because OPEC and the Saudis and all petroleum giant conglomerates are just way too rich and powerful that they have a huge, global say and influence.  The only heavyweight that can, will and actually is challenging these petroleum giants is whomever is successfully taping into the electric field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting topic.  Just a couple weeks ago the corporate aviation industry held a "green day" (my words) where they shipped some ethanol laden jet fuel out to Los Angeles and "proved" it's viability as an alternative jet fuel.  It is (at this point) a very minimal corn-based fuel blended with traditional jet fuel.  If the greenies get their way, it will become more and more prolific throughout the aviation industry.  My biggest concern (aside from the ill effects ethanol has on equipment) is the over-farming that will occur.  They call it "sustainable" but what happens when farmers deplete the nutrients in the soil?  They make far more money selling corn to fuel producers than to supermarkets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hatem said:

Is there any reliable & published data to support this claim?  I doubt Uncle Chuck is pulling this info out of thin air, but it would be nice to see the data behind this.

I cannot point to any scientific data pertaining to carbon release. However, ethanol blended fuel does have a lower BTU. SO to maintain the same level of performance as 100% gasoline, it requires more throttle. More fuel is burned, fill ups are more frequent, mileage is reduced. Plausible that tailpipe emissions are not reduced at all, with the use of ethanol blended. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wall street owns corn industry. Burn corn / food. 

 " Then they can not eat cake. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Was_Wylie_Tunes said:

I cannot point to any scientific data pertaining to carbon release. However, ethanol blended fuel does have a lower BTU. SO to maintain the same level of performance as 100% gasoline, it requires more throttle. More fuel is burned, fill ups are more frequent, mileage is reduced. Plausible that tailpipe emissions are not reduced at all, with the use of ethanol blended. 

^^^ #1

Did the calculations, based on BTU output, some time ago and the conclusions were that:  Ethanol based E90 actually provided zero (0) improvement in tailpipe emissions, due to the lower BTU rating, during a 1000 mile drive. This was caused by: 1. Lowered MPG from lower BTU ratings, resulting in higher fuel consumption to maintain equal speeds.  (I personally saw this when my truck increased MPG by 3.9 mpg (21.7% increase) on non-Ethanol fuel, purchased down South, compared to E90 in NY).  2. To make up for the lower MPG, more fuel is used to complete the 1000 mile drive. 3. The increased fuel use actually consumed equal, or more, petroleum based fuel to drive the same distance.

In all, it proved the Ethanol fuel actually cost more per mile than straight petroleum based fuels with no real world emissions benefit. I do suppose some clever researcher can "prove" it is better, but that is hypothetical, not a "Real World" application.  Just like the crazy hockey stick AGW argument.

When the baseline is upped to E15, it gets a lot bleaker, plus does the fuel systems / engines damage, if not specifically designed for the E85.

Only winners are the Ethanol sellers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 10:29 AM, cyclops2 said:

I do not …. I try not to do political garbage on a help forum .  I try to help Chap owners.  Not constant political hacks.  Your support in this matter is REQUIRED.

This was not meant to be a political attack......well, maybe a little bit. But, "his" response is merely an electronic response to the electronic letter created by BoatUS to send to your congressmen about the negative effects of Ethanol. The same with Higgins....just an electronic response. Somebody in the back office probably sat down one evening and created this general response and everybody gets one via email who sent the BoatUS letter in the first place.  Won't likely have any effect on the outcome. 

How many of you actually sent the BoatUS electronic letter late last year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

               The whole evolution and infiltration of ethanol into our motor fuels went back to the early 70’s. I began in the refineries in 1973, and after 35 years in the industry lived through the nightmare. EPA says reduce oxides of nitrogen, and the auto makers threw smog pumps and EGR valves at the problem as that is where the technology was at the time. I was a GM master technician in the early 70’s so I watched as the muscle car era ended and Detroit attempted to stay in compliance. Performance and economy both suffered, and up until that time those two criteria never followed each other. You want better performance, mileage will suffer. Are you willing to drive a lack luster ride? We can give you a few more MPG.

               The fuels industry too felt the pressure and the quick fix for them was MTBE (Methyl tert-butyl ether). Cheap fix to reduce NOx and easily injected into finished product gasoline at the fuels terminal, just before the consumer product entered the delivery tanker. The problem was it is totally water soluble, and before long it showed up in high concentration in our rivers, bays, and even our drinking water. The EPA set a date to remove it from all formulations and our industry scrambled for an alternative. MTBE was blended in at a drop or two per gallon, and the other readily available alternatives would need to be a much higher percentage of the finished product in order to have the desired effect.

               Enter the Corn Lobby. At 10% the farm lobby demonstrated that tail pipe real time emissions were reduced to the new EPA limits, and the race was on. No mention then or even now as to how it lowers MPG. New tanks, pumps, proportional blenders, rail delivery network, and the like had to appear overnight and handling ethanol has as many challenges in the terminal environment as it does in a marine fuel system. Drive by any domestic terminal and when you see the white storage tank that is black around the vapor space vents, with black streaks running down the side. That’s the ethanol storage tank. Another issue is shelf life as once raw gasoline has the alcohol added, it must be marketed, delivered, and consumed within a much shorter window.

               So many years of experience gained and evidence recorded began to show that there are better ways to reduce NOx, but all are more expensive. Trouble is the farm lobby is huge and powerful. Refiners will resist change too as they have the infrastructure now in place to handle the ethanol and no one is putting pressure on them to change. The one thing I learned in 35 years with big oil, they are in the energy business and will do whatever makes them more money and whatever they are forced to do by government. Enter alternative energy.

               Going back to the gas lines in the early 70’s, congress passed legislation prohibiting sale of domestic crude oil to foreign countries. Oil companies are more than happy to ship domestic crude to China, or India if it helps their bottom line, even if inventories here are low. Enter the Bakken formation, running from Alberta Canada down into North Dakoda. Estimated reserves which rival Saudi Arabia but which are locked into hard shale making it harder to acquire. Fracking cured that at the cost of hundreds of million gallons of chemically contaminated process water, and a higher price tag.

               Some good news here as the North Dakoda raw crude makes great motor fuel, and looks like Prestone anti-freeze right out of the ground. No major pipelines to either the east coast or the Gulf coast, so rail car transfer became the inefficient and some would say dangerous norm. Now we hear about the Keystone Pipeline, which sounded like it would transit Pennsylvania and bring domestic crude to the major population centers of New York, and New Jersey metro. Drill down a bit and you will find that most of the pipeline is built, and the missing sections through the most environmentally sensitive areas are “needed” to bring the nasty Canadian tar sand crude down to the Gulf Coast refineries in Beaumont and Port Arthur Texas.

               Unlike the North Dakoda crude, the Alberta Bakken material is low quality and full of unwanted particulate. Presently, it gets shipped by rail to Vancouver and shipped westward. If they can get it down to Texas, they can clean it up and convert it to “Hydrate” which is raw crude with much of the salt, water, and sulfur removed. What it also does is allow the majors to sell it to foreign countries and at a premium as it is no longer considered to be crude oil, circumventing federal law on exports. I bring all this into the conversation as we are now the biggest exporter of petroleum in the world, so I don’t think energy independence belongs anywhere in the ethanol discussion any longer. I was the engineering field construction manager on a major crude unloading facility in North Jersey a few short years ago which could handle up to 300/33,000 gallon tank cars daily, and a few short years later the facility is barely utilized as imported crude is cheaper. It’s all about the money not domestic security or energy independence.

               Lastly, alternative energy. Case harvesters market their combines as renewable as they are designed to run on Bio-Diesel, and even the plastic body panels are made from a plastic derived from corn. We are burning our food now and to put it all into perspective we all need to comprehend how much fuel we actually consume here in the US. Take every acre of available farmland in the US and plant what you can. Tear down the schools, industry, homes, and shopping malls as we won’t have room for them. Grow corn, Soy Bean, even sugar cane and convert it all into bio diesel, ethanol, and the like and if you are successful you will be able to produce up to 10% of our total domestic demand for liquid hydrocarbon fuels. Jet fuel, home heating oil, marine diesel, gasoline, kerosene, highway ULS diesel, and off road diesel all in. Yea, we use that much. At the moment of 911, there were 5,700 commercial aircraft over the continental US. That average number is 30% higher today.

               I read about Brazil and how they are 100% energy self-sufficient converting sugar cane to ethanol. Yes, but they have 1,000,000 cars in total and I swear there are that many here at the mall at Christmas time. Keep in mind too that Corn is referred to as the Humvee of plants as it really depletes the soil. Replenishment comes in the form of petroleum based fertilizers. Ethanol production comes at the cost of trucks on the road to transport the raw feed stock, and if you spend any time in the industry you come to learn quickly that there is no better transport method than a pipe and a pump. The standard is all about boiling oil and taking the low grade unmarketable end products and upgrading them utilizing advanced catalyst technologies. Corn in my opinion has no place here as ethanol plants use a tremendous amount of fresh water, which is also a finite resource. Let’s tell Congress that it is beyond time to stop burning our food.  Rant Complete…   W

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corn is a PERFECT CROP to make better gasoline ?   No way from a growing efficiency point of view.

Beef  is a PERFECT meat to eat ?...………………………….NO WAY !  The animal is the LEAST EFFICIENT animal at converting feed into meat.

Large monopolies are now impossible to change...……….. Too big to fail or change.  More of my negativism.

Oh well   

We have large companies destroying our health & lands.  Tax them for the increased national health plans needed...…….. After all...…… It is just money to be spread around.  To keep the country running.

 

I will be running in 2020.  Please start sending me money.      :haha-7383:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2019 at 9:32 AM, Wingnut said:

               The whole evolution and infiltration of ethanol into our motor fuels went back to the early 70’s. I began in the refineries in 1973, and after 35 years in the industry lived through the nightmare. EPA says reduce oxides of nitrogen, and the auto makers threw smog pumps and EGR valves at the problem as that is where the technology was at the time. I was a GM master technician in the early 70’s so I watched as the muscle car era ended and Detroit attempted to stay in compliance. Performance and economy both suffered, and up until that time those two criteria never followed each other. You want better performance, mileage will suffer. Are you willing to drive a lack luster ride? We can give you a few more MPG.

               The fuels industry too felt the pressure and the quick fix for them was MTBE (Methyl tert-butyl ether). Cheap fix to reduce NOx and easily injected into finished product gasoline at the fuels terminal, just before the consumer product entered the delivery tanker. The problem was it is totally water soluble, and before long it showed up in high concentration in our rivers, bays, and even our drinking water. The EPA set a date to remove it from all formulations and our industry scrambled for an alternative. MTBE was blended in at a drop or two per gallon, and the other readily available alternatives would need to be a much higher percentage of the finished product in order to have the desired effect.

               Enter the Corn Lobby. At 10% the farm lobby demonstrated that tail pipe real time emissions were reduced to the new EPA limits, and the race was on. No mention then or even now as to how it lowers MPG. New tanks, pumps, proportional blenders, rail delivery network, and the like had to appear overnight and handling ethanol has as many challenges in the terminal environment as it does in a marine fuel system. Drive by any domestic terminal and when you see the white storage tank that is black around the vapor space vents, with black streaks running down the side. That’s the ethanol storage tank. Another issue is shelf life as once raw gasoline has the alcohol added, it must be marketed, delivered, and consumed within a much shorter window.

               So many years of experience gained and evidence recorded began to show that there are better ways to reduce NOx, but all are more expensive. Trouble is the farm lobby is huge and powerful. Refiners will resist change too as they have the infrastructure now in place to handle the ethanol and no one is putting pressure on them to change. The one thing I learned in 35 years with big oil, they are in the energy business and will do whatever makes them more money and whatever they are forced to do by government. Enter alternative energy.

               Going back to the gas lines in the early 70’s, congress passed legislation prohibiting sale of domestic crude oil to foreign countries. Oil companies are more than happy to ship domestic crude to China, or India if it helps their bottom line, even if inventories here are low. Enter the Bakken formation, running from Alberta Canada down into North Dakoda. Estimated reserves which rival Saudi Arabia but which are locked into hard shale making it harder to acquire. Fracking cured that at the cost of hundreds of million gallons of chemically contaminated process water, and a higher price tag.

               Some good news here as the North Dakoda raw crude makes great motor fuel, and looks like Prestone anti-freeze right out of the ground. No major pipelines to either the east coast or the Gulf coast, so rail car transfer became the inefficient and some would say dangerous norm. Now we hear about the Keystone Pipeline, which sounded like it would transit Pennsylvania and bring domestic crude to the major population centers of New York, and New Jersey metro. Drill down a bit and you will find that most of the pipeline is built, and the missing sections through the most environmentally sensitive areas are “needed” to bring the nasty Canadian tar sand crude down to the Gulf Coast refineries in Beaumont and Port Arthur Texas.

               Unlike the North Dakoda crude, the Alberta Bakken material is low quality and full of unwanted particulate. Presently, it gets shipped by rail to Vancouver and shipped westward. If they can get it down to Texas, they can clean it up and convert it to “Hydrate” which is raw crude with much of the salt, water, and sulfur removed. What it also does is allow the majors to sell it to foreign countries and at a premium as it is no longer considered to be crude oil, circumventing federal law on exports. I bring all this into the conversation as we are now the biggest exporter of petroleum in the world, so I don’t think energy independence belongs anywhere in the ethanol discussion any longer. I was the engineering field construction manager on a major crude unloading facility in North Jersey a few short years ago which could handle up to 300/33,000 gallon tank cars daily, and a few short years later the facility is barely utilized as imported crude is cheaper. It’s all about the money not domestic security or energy independence.

               Lastly, alternative energy. Case harvesters market their combines as renewable as they are designed to run on Bio-Diesel, and even the plastic body panels are made from a plastic derived from corn. We are burning our food now and to put it all into perspective we all need to comprehend how much fuel we actually consume here in the US. Take every acre of available farmland in the US and plant what you can. Tear down the schools, industry, homes, and shopping malls as we won’t have room for them. Grow corn, Soy Bean, even sugar cane and convert it all into bio diesel, ethanol, and the like and if you are successful you will be able to produce up to 10% of our total domestic demand for liquid hydrocarbon fuels. Jet fuel, home heating oil, marine diesel, gasoline, kerosene, highway ULS diesel, and off road diesel all in. Yea, we use that much. At the moment of 911, there were 5,700 commercial aircraft over the continental US. That average number is 30% higher today.

               I read about Brazil and how they are 100% energy self-sufficient converting sugar cane to ethanol. Yes, but they have 1,000,000 cars in total and I swear there are that many here at the mall at Christmas time. Keep in mind too that Corn is referred to as the Humvee of plants as it really depletes the soil. Replenishment comes in the form of petroleum based fertilizers. Ethanol production comes at the cost of trucks on the road to transport the raw feed stock, and if you spend any time in the industry you come to learn quickly that there is no better transport method than a pipe and a pump. The standard is all about boiling oil and taking the low grade unmarketable end products and upgrading them utilizing advanced catalyst technologies. Corn in my opinion has no place here as ethanol plants use a tremendous amount of fresh water, which is also a finite resource. Let’s tell Congress that it is beyond time to stop burning our food.  Rant Complete…   W

The same thing transpired when industry was forced to go to Ultra Low Sulfur diesel fuel. No room for home heating oil anymore in the distribution chain so now home owners were forced to burn off-road diesel which burns cleaner, but heats less. Sulfur has a lot of bad properties, but it is a good lubricant and I spent the better part of a year visiting 76 terminals throughout the US to help design lubricity additive injection systems. Action, reaction and in the end the price keeps getting higher, and less BTU's are available from the same gallon. W

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 12:29 PM, TexasPilot71 said:

Interesting topic.  Just a couple weeks ago the corporate aviation industry held a "green day" (my words) where they shipped some ethanol laden jet fuel out to Los Angeles and "proved" it's viability as an alternative jet fuel.  It is (at this point) a very minimal corn-based fuel blended with traditional jet fuel.  If the greenies get their way, it will become more and more prolific throughout the aviation industry.  My biggest concern (aside from the ill effects ethanol has on equipment) is the over-farming that will occur.  They call it "sustainable" but what happens when farmers deplete the nutrients in the soil?  They make far more money selling corn to fuel producers than to supermarkets.

With your comment, I'm wondering if ethanol in jet fuel will have the same effect as autogas.  50,000lbs of regular kerosene to fly to Japan or 60,000lbs with ethanol to get to Japan. 10,000lb increase will either eliminate a percentage of passengers carried or reduced cargo down below. Kill the profit and you kill the route let alone the airline.

The corn growers got the auto industry to capitulate.....will the jet engine manufacturers do the same?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, SST said:

With your comment, I'm wondering if ethanol in jet fuel will have the same effect as autogas.  50,000lbs of regular kerosene to fly to Japan or 60,000lbs with ethanol to get to Japan. 10,000lb increase will either eliminate a percentage of passengers carried or reduced cargo down below. Kill the profit and you kill the route let alone the airline.

The corn growers got the auto industry to capitulate.....will the jet engine manufacturers do the same?  

From a marketing perspective Jet A is almost a lost litre as the airlines want it for next to nothing and refineries have too much of that fraction.  it's almost a waste product that cost a bunch to upgrade to something more marketable. The newest technology is GTL or gas to liquid that takes natural gas and converts it to a high base number lubricant stock and zero sulfur diesel fuel.   Not much research going into civilian jet fuel. Now the military arena is a whole different animal.    W

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big money always rules in the USA.  The toxic waste chemicals have been mixed in with home heating oils.  Started years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, cyclops2 said:

Big money always rules in the USA.  The toxic waste chemicals have been mixed in with home heating oils.  Started years ago.

Why would a refinery choose to distribute "Toxic Waste" out into the end user consumer stream when they have a Delayed Coking Unit sitting smack in the middle of their facility? Zero incentive for them with huge potential liability. Every unsaleable commingled waste product ends up going to the coker to include even human waste and all is converted to petroleum coke, which is sold in bulk to power plants and foundries to sweeten their burn. I fear you may have been miss-informed.  In the US, there is no such thing as home heating oil any longer, as that historical tank-age and distribution chain is now utilized for off-road low sulfur diesel (LSD), which has a higher sulfur content than Ultra Low Sulfur diesel (ULSD), but otherwise is the same product. It does have a dye added to identify it as off-road motor fuel which is not taxed at the same rate as over the road fuel. Just don't get caught on a highway with dyed diesel.     W

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to see Particulate in action.....check out this video and watch the older planes depart. Cough!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SST said:

If you want to see Particulate in action.....check out this video and watch the older planes depart. Cough!

 

Noise back then did not seem to be an issue either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those L1011’s made a lot of noise and smoke. The 07’s and ‘27’s did as well. Very different than today’s technology for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Curt said:

Those L1011’s made a lot of noise and smoke. The 07’s and ‘27’s did as well. Very different than today’s technology for sure.

The new Airbus A-380 is so quiet it's almost unbelievable. Composite everything and can transport people on less fuel per mile than a car. We are talking a lot of people though at 853 max in economy configuration. Yikes.   I never liked the L-1011, but the DC-10 was one of my favorites, until the engines started falling off of them.  W

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the DC10. Comfortable ride. If I recall correctly, it’s not that the engines fell off but rather had that nasty tendancy to grenade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Curt said:

Love the DC10. Comfortable ride. If I recall correctly, it’s not that the engines fell off but rather had that nasty tendancy to grenade.

'Specially that #2 engine over Iowa!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, TexasPilot71 said:

'Specially that #2 engine over Iowa!

Pretty sure there was an engine pylon failure that grounded the fleet for a time also. W

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×