Good Ethanol-free Gas Now Available in Oregon
Pressure from consumers (voters) caused Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski to change Oregon law in order to sell premium gasoline with ethanol blended with it, as outraged consumers rebel against the horrid fuel as it destroys their expensive small engine products.
Now Oregonians will have good gas available for their machines as before only a few scattered stations sold ethanol free gas, and it was prohibitive to get it for many in the state.
All gas stations across the state can now sell good gas, and hopefully this will encourage other states to follow, and get rid of this worthless, tax payer-financed boondoggle that, while promoting some political careers, is devastating to consumers and the environment, in name of, of course, the environment.
This is nothing new, as boat motor owners, chainsaw owners, snowmobile owners, law mower owners, and any small engine machinery owner of any kind have discovered: ethanol is bad gas, and the sooner we get rid of the misguided policy, the better.
What this does is confirm what was always known - but stubbornly and criminally neglected - that ethanol is damaging, and needs to be completely rejected, as the industry can't survive unless as another socialist industry that people simply have no desire to underwrite, and in an alleged free market like the united States, shouldn't have to.
Incredibly, federal authorities and regulators are actually thinking about increasing ethanol blends to 15 percent, which many fear would start to damage some automobiles as well.
Antique autos already suffer from having to use the gas, although in Oregon, that has now changed.
How about some class action lawsuits to destroy this industry forever. Nobody but politicians and greed big business farmers want this to continue, and that's not a good enough reason to destroy poor people through higer food prices because of the artificial industry, and that includes many of the poorest countries in the world, which resulted in food riots because of high prices from the ethanol nonsense.
Good Ethanol-free Gas Now Available in Oregon
Showing posts with label Ethanol Damage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ethanol Damage. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Friday, June 5, 2009
Ethanol News | House for E-trading Agriculture and Ethanol Extended by CME
Ethanol News
CME Group Inc announced on Friday it would expand electronic trading of agricultural contracts by 75 minutes, effective July 1, in a move aimed at further boosting business on that platform.
"It allows customers based in Europe more time to trade during trading hours that are most convenient for them," said CME Group spokesperson Mary Haffenberg.
CME said it would extend electronic trading on July 1 by one hour and 15 minutes to 7:15 a.m. CDT (1215 GMT). Electronic trading currently begins at 6 p.m. (2300 GMT) and ends at 6 a.m. (1100 GMT).
The longer hours will be for contracts including corn, wheat, soybeans and ethanol.
"They're trying to capture more business. There are markets open that time of the day and they are meeting the competition," a trader said.
A number of traders said it was another step by the CME, the world's largest derivatives exchange, to eventually offer electronic trading 24 hours a day.
"The exchange thinks it will expand volume, and it might, but I don't think by a lot. But it's another step in their quest toward 24-hour trading," another trader said.
A CME trading floor source said the reason the CME will stop trading at 7:15 a.m. is because of the monthly release of sensitive U.S. Department of Agriculture crop information at 7:30 a.m. CDT.
Ethanol News
CME Group Inc announced on Friday it would expand electronic trading of agricultural contracts by 75 minutes, effective July 1, in a move aimed at further boosting business on that platform.
"It allows customers based in Europe more time to trade during trading hours that are most convenient for them," said CME Group spokesperson Mary Haffenberg.
CME said it would extend electronic trading on July 1 by one hour and 15 minutes to 7:15 a.m. CDT (1215 GMT). Electronic trading currently begins at 6 p.m. (2300 GMT) and ends at 6 a.m. (1100 GMT).
The longer hours will be for contracts including corn, wheat, soybeans and ethanol.
"They're trying to capture more business. There are markets open that time of the day and they are meeting the competition," a trader said.
A number of traders said it was another step by the CME, the world's largest derivatives exchange, to eventually offer electronic trading 24 hours a day.
"The exchange thinks it will expand volume, and it might, but I don't think by a lot. But it's another step in their quest toward 24-hour trading," another trader said.
A CME trading floor source said the reason the CME will stop trading at 7:15 a.m. is because of the monthly release of sensitive U.S. Department of Agriculture crop information at 7:30 a.m. CDT.
Ethanol News
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Ethanol News | EPA Report Says Ethanol Harder on Climate than Gasoline - Politicians Throw Fit
Ethanol News
There is so much proof that the ethanol debacle needs to end, that even the report by the EPA that ethanol is worse on the environment than gasoline hasn't stopped politicians trying to get taxpayer dollars into their states from thowing a tantrum.
We’ve entered another ugly battle in the ethanol wars. The EPA released an analysis last month purporting that corn-based ethanol is actually worse for the climate than gasoline on a lifecycle basis, and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) released a ruling that will effectively exclude corn-based ethanol from California’s Renewable Fuels Standard for that reason.
The ethanol industry and its supporters are livid (who cares). House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN), a longtime ethanol supporter, threw a fit during a recent hearing and now is threatening to block climate legislation over the new rules. "I don't care,” he exclaimed during a hearing over EPA’s draft rule, “Even if you fix this. I don't trust anybody anymore -- I’ve had it." Ethanol opponents are cheering the agencies' decisions and urging them to look at ethanol under worst-case scenarios.
What is sad about this spat is that while everyone is arguing over whether ethanol is bad, no one is talking about how to make it better. The worst impacts of ethanol occur far from Iowa or Washington in the forests that are burned down to respond to added demand for cropland.
Deforestation results in almost 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and it will not be solved through tired finger pointing. This problem is hard but solvable if we focus on the systemic drivers of slash-and-burn agriculture.
A quick primer on the latest wrinkle from the EPA and CARB: Both reached damning conclusions about the impact of ethanol based on complex economic modeling, but the basic logic behind their analysis is simple:
• Using farmland for ethanol diverts land from being used for food production, driving up price and demand
• Higher prices and demand encourage farmers in the developing world to plant more crops
• Developing world farmers clear and burn forests so they can plant more crops
• Clearing forest for cropland releases a tremendous amount of greenhouse gas
• Thus, devoting cropland to ethanol production leads to increases in greenhouse gas emissions
The ethanol industry and its supporters don’t dispute this logic, but claim two problems with the agencies’ approach: (1) The science behind this economic modeling is too new and imprecise, and (2) biofuels are being held to a much tougher standard than other climate solutions. Their opponents hold that the science is sound, and that other low-carbon technologies simply don't have these massive "indirect land-use" problems.
Yet this debate is just so much fiddling while Rome (or maybe Indonesia) burns. The crux of the problem is not in how we measure the impact of ethanol, it is that developing world farmers clear and burn forests so they can plant more crops. Ethanol is just one of the pressures that speed the disastrous destruction of these forests. The rest is just an accounting exercise.
Farmers in the developing world burn forests because it is the most economical, and often only, choice they have. They often can’t afford fertilizers, equipment or high-yield seeds. They have limited access to informational tools like education, soil tests and precision agriculture technology that would allow them to produce more crops in the same place. Without these resources, the only choice is to find new land.
Moreover, there is little or no barrier to slash-and-burn agriculture. Logging roads often give farmers access to virgin forests. Not enough forests are protected, and where they are, many governments lack the resources or the will to enforce conservation laws.
The solutions to these problems are not easy, but models exist. Technology transfer and economic development programs can increase crop yields and reduce the real costs of agricultural technology. A global agreement on REDD (reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation) could protect forests and provide payments from a global trust fund as an alternative to chopping trees down.
In order to reduce the lifecycle impact of ethanol, the industry needs to do more than cry foul on these regulations. It needs to be engaged in finding solutions to reduce the pressure to clear land for agriculture. A forward-thinking producer would be lobbying for global forest protection and working with partners in the agricultural industry to support technology transfer to the rural poor.
Meanwhile, ethanol's detractors need to admit that producers can't bear this burden alone, and that failing to compromise with such a politically powerful industry will lead only to delay and more poorly designed policies.
Here's a modest proposal: Congress lets the ethanol industry off the hook for its indirect upstream effects, and the industry agrees that some of its massive subsidies be diverted to programs that protect forests and give farmers options beyond burning them down. Putting more resources toward these programs will not only protect forests from the indirect effects of ethanol, but also the threats of logging, development or other future pressures on agricultural growth.
We will see many more of these fights in the coming years as industries, activists and policymakers argue over who has to bear the burden for indirect, unanticipated environmental and social damages. We need a systemic approach that tackles the problems on the ground, instead of shifting the blame around.
Noam Ross is a senior analyst at GreenOrder, an LRN Company. GreenOrder is a strategy and management consulting firm that has helped leading companies turn sustainability into business value since 2000.
Of course there aren't any climate problems in the first place, and to listen to Ross attempt to apply logic, confusion and reason to the made-up crisis, just shows how far many will go when decisions and conclusions take money out of their greedy pockets.
Ethanol News
There is so much proof that the ethanol debacle needs to end, that even the report by the EPA that ethanol is worse on the environment than gasoline hasn't stopped politicians trying to get taxpayer dollars into their states from thowing a tantrum.
We’ve entered another ugly battle in the ethanol wars. The EPA released an analysis last month purporting that corn-based ethanol is actually worse for the climate than gasoline on a lifecycle basis, and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) released a ruling that will effectively exclude corn-based ethanol from California’s Renewable Fuels Standard for that reason.
The ethanol industry and its supporters are livid (who cares). House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN), a longtime ethanol supporter, threw a fit during a recent hearing and now is threatening to block climate legislation over the new rules. "I don't care,” he exclaimed during a hearing over EPA’s draft rule, “Even if you fix this. I don't trust anybody anymore -- I’ve had it." Ethanol opponents are cheering the agencies' decisions and urging them to look at ethanol under worst-case scenarios.
What is sad about this spat is that while everyone is arguing over whether ethanol is bad, no one is talking about how to make it better. The worst impacts of ethanol occur far from Iowa or Washington in the forests that are burned down to respond to added demand for cropland.
Deforestation results in almost 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and it will not be solved through tired finger pointing. This problem is hard but solvable if we focus on the systemic drivers of slash-and-burn agriculture.
A quick primer on the latest wrinkle from the EPA and CARB: Both reached damning conclusions about the impact of ethanol based on complex economic modeling, but the basic logic behind their analysis is simple:
• Using farmland for ethanol diverts land from being used for food production, driving up price and demand
• Higher prices and demand encourage farmers in the developing world to plant more crops
• Developing world farmers clear and burn forests so they can plant more crops
• Clearing forest for cropland releases a tremendous amount of greenhouse gas
• Thus, devoting cropland to ethanol production leads to increases in greenhouse gas emissions
The ethanol industry and its supporters don’t dispute this logic, but claim two problems with the agencies’ approach: (1) The science behind this economic modeling is too new and imprecise, and (2) biofuels are being held to a much tougher standard than other climate solutions. Their opponents hold that the science is sound, and that other low-carbon technologies simply don't have these massive "indirect land-use" problems.
Yet this debate is just so much fiddling while Rome (or maybe Indonesia) burns. The crux of the problem is not in how we measure the impact of ethanol, it is that developing world farmers clear and burn forests so they can plant more crops. Ethanol is just one of the pressures that speed the disastrous destruction of these forests. The rest is just an accounting exercise.
Farmers in the developing world burn forests because it is the most economical, and often only, choice they have. They often can’t afford fertilizers, equipment or high-yield seeds. They have limited access to informational tools like education, soil tests and precision agriculture technology that would allow them to produce more crops in the same place. Without these resources, the only choice is to find new land.
Moreover, there is little or no barrier to slash-and-burn agriculture. Logging roads often give farmers access to virgin forests. Not enough forests are protected, and where they are, many governments lack the resources or the will to enforce conservation laws.
The solutions to these problems are not easy, but models exist. Technology transfer and economic development programs can increase crop yields and reduce the real costs of agricultural technology. A global agreement on REDD (reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation) could protect forests and provide payments from a global trust fund as an alternative to chopping trees down.
In order to reduce the lifecycle impact of ethanol, the industry needs to do more than cry foul on these regulations. It needs to be engaged in finding solutions to reduce the pressure to clear land for agriculture. A forward-thinking producer would be lobbying for global forest protection and working with partners in the agricultural industry to support technology transfer to the rural poor.
Meanwhile, ethanol's detractors need to admit that producers can't bear this burden alone, and that failing to compromise with such a politically powerful industry will lead only to delay and more poorly designed policies.
Here's a modest proposal: Congress lets the ethanol industry off the hook for its indirect upstream effects, and the industry agrees that some of its massive subsidies be diverted to programs that protect forests and give farmers options beyond burning them down. Putting more resources toward these programs will not only protect forests from the indirect effects of ethanol, but also the threats of logging, development or other future pressures on agricultural growth.
We will see many more of these fights in the coming years as industries, activists and policymakers argue over who has to bear the burden for indirect, unanticipated environmental and social damages. We need a systemic approach that tackles the problems on the ground, instead of shifting the blame around.
Noam Ross is a senior analyst at GreenOrder, an LRN Company. GreenOrder is a strategy and management consulting firm that has helped leading companies turn sustainability into business value since 2000.
Of course there aren't any climate problems in the first place, and to listen to Ross attempt to apply logic, confusion and reason to the made-up crisis, just shows how far many will go when decisions and conclusions take money out of their greedy pockets.
Ethanol News
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Ethanol Destroying Most Types of Power Equipment
At the end of last month the growing grass roots opposition to ethanol received a boost as a state legislature, David Campbell, introduced a bill that would ban ethanol from being blended with gasoline in the state of New Hampshire.
One report said, "Equipment repair shops all over the Northeast report growing problems with engines caused by gasoline containing the current EPA-mandated 10 percent ethanol, or “E-10” gas. The engines, many of which are two-cycle, weren’t engineered to accommodate the differing characteristics of E-10 fuel, leading to an array of problems, including hard starting, erratic running, internal damage and eventual failure."
If this is happening in the northeast, it's happening everywhere this type of equipment is being used. It's either being underreported, neglected, or equipment users aren't aware of the cause behind their equipment failures.
This is similar to bad gas in a car which has damaged the device which measures how much gas is in the tank. You don't know it until a number of people discover they've been victims of the same problem, and figure out it has come from the same cause.
With all this being done at the "E-10" level, think of what will happen at the "E-15" or "E-20" level, which is being pushed unethically by the ethanol industry.
"There’s lots more of that to come if EPA allows E-15, E-20 or higher ethanol blends to come to market," says Kris Kiser of OEPI (Outdoor Power Equipment Institute), a Washington trade group.
So why is this outrage being perpetrated upon people?
Kiser says this:
“We’re now using less gasoline across the country, so the ethanol lobby is trying to force more ethanol onto the market."
If that were to happen, Kiser says most “'legacy equipment'-outdoor equipment engines made before 2008" will break down.
Some state bureaucrats form the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services are discouraging Cambell in his fight saying the state won't receive gas under the current federal ethanol mandates if he pursues this course.
But as Cambell said, "if New Hampshire bans it we’ll be the first state to do it, but if 10, 20 or 30 states eventually come along I say it will stop the idiocy."
I think he's right. That many states banning it will undermine the completely misguided, and in some cases, unethical, foisting of ethanol upon the public.
Many of the supporters behind the legislation are owners of snowmobiles, weed whackers, chainsaws and outboard boat motors, or any other similar equipment. Once word gets out on the terrible damage to users' equipment, it shouldn't take long before the ethanol debacle is finally and thankfully buried.
One report said, "Equipment repair shops all over the Northeast report growing problems with engines caused by gasoline containing the current EPA-mandated 10 percent ethanol, or “E-10” gas. The engines, many of which are two-cycle, weren’t engineered to accommodate the differing characteristics of E-10 fuel, leading to an array of problems, including hard starting, erratic running, internal damage and eventual failure."
If this is happening in the northeast, it's happening everywhere this type of equipment is being used. It's either being underreported, neglected, or equipment users aren't aware of the cause behind their equipment failures.
This is similar to bad gas in a car which has damaged the device which measures how much gas is in the tank. You don't know it until a number of people discover they've been victims of the same problem, and figure out it has come from the same cause.
With all this being done at the "E-10" level, think of what will happen at the "E-15" or "E-20" level, which is being pushed unethically by the ethanol industry.
"There’s lots more of that to come if EPA allows E-15, E-20 or higher ethanol blends to come to market," says Kris Kiser of OEPI (Outdoor Power Equipment Institute), a Washington trade group.
So why is this outrage being perpetrated upon people?
Kiser says this:
“We’re now using less gasoline across the country, so the ethanol lobby is trying to force more ethanol onto the market."
If that were to happen, Kiser says most “'legacy equipment'-outdoor equipment engines made before 2008" will break down.
Some state bureaucrats form the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services are discouraging Cambell in his fight saying the state won't receive gas under the current federal ethanol mandates if he pursues this course.
But as Cambell said, "if New Hampshire bans it we’ll be the first state to do it, but if 10, 20 or 30 states eventually come along I say it will stop the idiocy."
I think he's right. That many states banning it will undermine the completely misguided, and in some cases, unethical, foisting of ethanol upon the public.
Many of the supporters behind the legislation are owners of snowmobiles, weed whackers, chainsaws and outboard boat motors, or any other similar equipment. Once word gets out on the terrible damage to users' equipment, it shouldn't take long before the ethanol debacle is finally and thankfully buried.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Ethanol Gas Destroying Snowmobile Engines
In more grim news concerning the ethanol industry, snowmobilers are reporting a new gas, E10, which is a mixture including 10 percent ethanol, is ruining engines of their machines.
Snowmobiles and ethanol simply do not mix, and it's best to just get rid of the combination before the machine is destroyed completely.
"There's a major issue with ethanol in that in as little as ten days ethanol will separate from gas and if you burn straight ethanol in a snowmobile or a lawnmower or something like that you're going to cook the engine on it," said Lt. Pat Dorian with the Maine Warden Service.
If that's not enough, condensation can be a huge problem too, as water can absorb ethanol, which can also destroy the snowmobile engines.
Now the solution to the problem of condensation is to put an additive in with your gas which prevents the ethanol from separating from the gasoline.
I have a better idea: get rid of ethanol permanently. This is getting more ludicrous by the moment. You put ethanol in your machines, although they'll get ruined, then you have to go out and get an additive to prevent the engine from getting ruined by putting ethanol in in the first place. Just use the normal gasoline you have always used, that will keep all this nonsense from happening.
This just shows the corn-based ethanol isn't the only issue, it's ethanol itself that's the issue.
Ethanol Fix continues to call for the complete abandonment of the pursuit of ethanol as a viable biofuel.
It doesn't matter which piece of power equipment run by small engines you have, it's going to end up being ruined by the use of ethanol mixed gas in it.
When you consider you're riding a snowmobile in many cases far away from home, it can become a potential danger and hazard to run it with ethanol, similar to running an outboard motor in the summer far away from where you put it in the water. It's becoming dangerous to use the mixed fuel, as it could result in harm to the user.
Now with calls for a higher mixture of ethanol in gas used for snowmobiles and other power equipment, it's going to get worse if this outrage continues, as not only is it unsafe, but it's getting costly to owners as small engine mechanics confirm they've never seen so many small engine equipment in their shops.
To me, snowmobiles, generators, chainsaws, boat motors, among many, can pose a danger to those using them with ethanol when the chances of them malfunctioning or not functioning could end up being a physical danger to the user.
Taking everything into consideration, snowmobiles aren't a good fit for ethanol, and neither are chainsaws, generators and boat motors. It's time to drop the usage, as the current bitterly cold winter shows, it could be a matter of life and death if your snowmobile malfunctions far away from safety because ethanaol messed up the engine.
We need to communicate with our lawmakers and let them know the damage and safety hazard ethanol is when used in snowmobiles and other power equipment we own. That way we can get rid of the misguided strategy and drill for more oil that already exists and put our research money into something that works.
Snowmobiles using ethanol isn't one of those areas that we should be even thinking about considering, as experience has proven.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
