Category Archives: Biofuel

E15 AKA: The EPA wants to kill your old car

E15 Warning Label Picture

The non-elected officials at Obama’s EPA are again trying to mandate the use of  E15 gasoline. This means that instead of 10% ethanol they will now start selling  gasoline that will contain 15% ethanol. While this sounds green we feel the reality is there are many bad issues in doing this and no good ones. We also strongly suspicion the outcome the EPA really wants is nefarious and is entirely different from what they appear to claim.

The EPA’s goals appear on the surface to merely be a) reduce pollution and b) reduce dependence on oil via using more ethanol. As ethanol is made from crops such as corn, they consider it a renewable (aka green) resource. They claim that E15 is safe in cars manufactured after 2001 and that it’s the most tested fuel…ever. On the face of it, this sounds just terrific. A green win-win situation if there ever was one. In our opinion the reality of using E15 may be far different from claimed.

Like global warming, it appears to us that the EPA and Obama administration are using some good old-fashioned faux science to arrive at pre-conceived conclusions. They then put them out to the general public, who, for the most part, seem eager soak up any green BS the government spouts, true or not.

According to the article from The Hill, the automakers and AAA (the American Auto Club) take issue with E15 being safe for vehicles not originally designed it like the ones you see running around with “Flex Fuel” on the body. Those are vehicles specifically designed to run on the regular gas we use or E15.

But automakers say EPA is only considering the fuel’s impact on emissions control systems while disregarding the impact on the rest of the vehicle.

“It is clear that millions of Americans are unfamiliar with E15, which means there is a strong possibility that many motorists may improperly fill up using this gasoline and damage their vehicle. Bringing E15 to the market without adequate safeguards does not responsibly meet the needs of consumers,” AAA President and CEO Robert Darbelnet said in a Friday statement.

In a nutshell, they’re claiming the EPA only cares that if it doesn’t whack a car’s emission control system it’s deemed “safe.” Never you mind if engine or other problems may arise from using it, we’re the government, we never lie!

It’s evident they could also care less if people in even older pre-2001 autos, unaware of the potential problems, inadvertently fill their cars up from an E15 pump and destroy their engines. You will note the article from The Hill also makes it known you may not have a warranty from the manufacturer on newer cars if any E15 related damage occurs. Knowing the auto manufacturers just ‘love’ to pay warranty claims, you can probably make a safe bet that many more problems will suddenly be deemed E15 related so they can make more profit at your expense by making you pay for the damage.

So, what can happen if an automobile is not specifically designed for E15 fuel?  Apparently quite a bit.  First, it can attack rubber hoses, gaskets, seals and o-rings that are not specifically designed to withstand it. This means hoses like the one that goes from the fuel filler to the tank and the ones that go to the engine from the tank. The fuel injection units have gaskets, seals and o-rings it could attack. They also have things made from plastic such as throttle position sensors, fuel temperature sensors and idle air control valves that may not be made to withstand E15. On even older cars using carburetors, it can attack all the seals and 0-rings inside the carburetor.

E15 can also cause corrosion problems with metals like aluminum. It can corrode the aluminum fuel lines to the fuel injectors on some cars and even corrode aluminum intake manifolds.  If you look at a flex-fuel car, it will have all fuel related parts made of materials designed to withstand the corrosion effects of the higher ethanol content. Got an older car with a carburetor? It’s most likely that the body of the carburetor is aluminum.

Can you imagine what will happen to an older car that starts leaking fuel into a hot engine compartment ? Most likely the fuel will spray out someplace and sooner or later leak on to the hot exhaust manifold and catch the car on fire. Same if the fuel line from the gas tank leaks onto the hot exhaust pipe or muffler. All possibilities using E15 in cars not designed for it. You can darn well bet that the government will find a way to deny any and all claims related to cars burning to the ground caused by using their mandated E15 gasoline. Same with auto manufacturers who will deny your claim due to you using E15 or tell you to sue the government because they mandated it, not us. Sounds like it will end up being circular to us.

All the aforementioned makes us question if this is exactly the intended effect of foisting E15 upon an unsuspecting public, many who are driving older cars due to Obama’s bad economy over the previous 4 years. The EPA rather obviously hates old cars. In their eyes they use too much gas, take up too much space and pollute too much. With the push for hybrid and full electric cars lately, it seems that in their eyes even driving a fuel-efficient car that uses gas is bad.

Just think about what’s gone on in the recent past four years. It appears to us to be a concerted effort by the government to get its citizens out of older cars, most gas fueled cars and perhaps out of cars all together. We feel there have been 3 plans and that we’re now starting up number 4.

Plan 1, known as jack up the price of fuel didn’t work to get everyone out of their older cars.

Plan 2, known as cash for clunkers didn’t work either. About all this did was ruin a lot of good parts vehicles that deliberately had their engines destroyed after trade-in and then were crushed. Let’s not forget it wasted a few billion of your tax-dollars, too.

Plan 3, subsidizing hybrids such as the Toyota Prius, full electric cars like the Nissan Leaf and the whatever it is Chevy Volt hasn’t gotten many people to leave gas fueled cars either. Chevy Volt sales (owned by GM aka: Government Motors) are sucking. Even subsiding any of them leaves them too expensive for the average person to buy.

Based upon all of this, it appears to us that the next step to be implemented is what we’ll call Plan 4. Plan 4 is the sneaky plan to increase the ethanol content of gasoline to the point where it will destroy many old cars and force people into buying new cars that the EPA considers green, such as the Chevy Volt, Toyota Prius, Nissan Leaf, or at the very least, more fuel-efficient gasoline powered cars that pollute less and will run on E15. Once they get this going, it’s an easy step for them to eliminate E10 totally, like they did leaded gas in the previous century. Then it will be all E15, and even if you have so far been able to avoid filling up your older car with E15, they’ll get you now.

Let’s not forget ethanol is made from food crops such as corn and right now there’s a drought in much of the Midwest, which is causing corn and other crop prices to rise. Throw in more competition for these same crops due to an increase in ethanol production and you have a recipe for higher gas prices, higher food prices and even possibly shortages of one, the other, or both.

This seems a rather nefarious and sneaky plan to us, meaning it fits perfectly with the Obama Administration’s modus operandi, referred by them as being ‘transparent’ for some strange reason.

Have a better sneaky way to get everyone out of their own cars and save us all from non-existent global warming? Call the EPA, they’ll love to hear from you.

Source: The Hill


Filed under Automobiles, Biofuel, Chevrolet Volt, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Electric Cars, Energy, EPA, Financial, Gas Prices, Global Warming, Green Energy, Green Tech, Obama, Politics, Renewable Energy

Global Warming Fraud Creates Third World Food Crisis

By: John O’Sullivan

How saving the planet causes famine: the climate crisis melts away but global food shortage is legacy of the foolish rush to biofuels.Evidence for dangerous, human-caused global warming was always slim, now it lies cruelly exposed both by a cruel blowback and it’s not just coming from within the science.A far more devastating catastrophe is unfolding and it is entirely the product of the mad rush to biofuels: third world famine. Today a whopping 6.5 percent of the world’s grain has been stripped from the global food supply. That’s the kind of catastrophic cut in food supply that triggers a tipping point so that Third World hunger explodes into mass starvation. Why did it happen?

Kyoto Protocol: The Trigger to Mass Starvation

What mechanism prompted mankind to instigate this genocide of the world’s poor?  The Kyoto Protocol. International governments signed up to the idea that biofuels were going to be the better, cleaner, greener source for mankind’s energy needs in a new utopia predicted for us by ‘expert’s inside the United Nations.

Canadian Geophysicist Norm Kalmanovitch is as concerned as many independent scientists at the alarming rate at which this international food crisis is now escalating.

Kalmanovitch is semi-retired now and not in fear of having his scientific career tarnished by blowback from speaking out. He argues that the facts easily demonstrate that the Kyoto Protocol is based entirely on fraudulent science.

Misguided Climate Scientist Primed the Politicians

Honest scientific inquiry serves the single purpose of advancing human knowledge and understanding free of any bias or ulterior motivation and it is clear that promoting “human caused global warming” a full nine years after the world had already started cooling serves no such lofty purpose.

Kalmanovitch accuses a small clique of self-serving climate researchers for violating the fundamental ethics of science protocol and propagating the false science that made the Kyoto Accord the international vehicle for crimes against humanity. Listening to his arguments you cannot help but see he has a point.

So what was the root catalyst for this cataclysm? Astonishingly, you can pin a lot of it on one well-intentioned but misguided do-gooder. His name: Professor James Hansen. Hansen was NASA’s bright-eyed scientist back in 1988. The eager climate modeler appeared before a Congressional Committee and prophesized that mankind would kill the planet if it continued to burn coal and gasoline at modern industrial rates.

Kalmanovich explains, “When you look closely at the climate change issue it is remarkable that the only actual evidence ever cited for a relationship between CO2 emissions and global warming is climate models.”

Hansen made unfounded and highly alarmist claims based on his computer forecasts. He predicted doomsday scenarios that panicked Congress and that wave of fear stampeded the world into believing in a non-existent crisis. Global temperatures have never rocketed as Hansen forecast. In fact all five global temperature datasets show zero net global warming over the past decade in spite of record increases in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels (climate scientists have now grudgingly conceded no statistically significant rise in temperatures has occurred since 1998 from their doomsaying). But once the stampede was launched it caused a rush to biofuels that stripped millions of crop acreage from the world’s food basket.

But more sickening is that many have made sizeable fortunes from trumpeting a short period of warming that lasted from (1975-1998); a vast international array of speculators in wind, solar, wave and biofuels alternatives are onboard the great global warming gravy train.

Hansen’s friends in the infant science of climatology have also fed well off government grants where the ‘climate change’ industry generates tens of billions annually in this self-perpetuating Ponzi scheme that symbiotically melded the interests of speculators with climate researchers.

In effect, those great riches and shining scientific careers were together built upon exploiting a 0.6 C rise in temperatures that all but vanished in the first decade of the 21st Century.

Alternative Scientific Views Now Come to the Fore

But since Hansen’s watershed moment in 1988 the science has moved on and many independent scientists, not on the government grant gravy train, have cast their eyes over the numbers for carbon dioxide (CO2), the prime bogeyman of climate alarmism.

From physical measurement of the Earth’s radiative spectrum impartial eyes saw that the 14.77 micron band of the Earth’s thermal radiation accessed by CO2, is so close to saturation that it is a physical impossibility for any increase in that trace gas to have anywhere near the effect claimed.

Analysts then looked back at the natural warming since the 1830’s that ushered in the end of the Little Ice Age, a time 100 years before any scientist claims humans had impact on the climate. They say natural warming in the order of 0.5°Centigrade per century. We can calculate this to show that the maximum possible effect from CO2 increases is just 0.1°C per century of the claimed 0.6°C per century of the observed temperature increase.

Hansen and his self-serving followers in climatology conveniently chose to ignore such inconvenient truths.  Kalmanovich seethes, “They falsely attributed the effect of CO2 to the full 0.6°C and incorporated a range of wavelengths from 7 to 14 microns when CO2 only has an effect over a range from 13.5 to 17 microns and the wavelength band is at least 80 percent saturated. Though never stated explicitly this formed the basis for the CO2 forcing parameter which Hansen used in his earlier climate models and is still used by the IPCC today with the basic formula of 5.35ln(2) = 3.71watts/m2 for a doubling of CO2.”

Like other independent scientists Kalmanovich saw that the fuss all stems from a 1981 paper by Hansen that was peer-reviewed and published in SCIENCE magazine. Here’s where Hansen’s alarmist and skewed climate models captivated scientific literature on the matter. It is by repeated reference to Hansen’s original paper and his 1988 modification of it that the current climate change issue was premised.

Global Warming Fraud Creates Third World Food Crisis

All the other evidence is either of warming or misrepresentations of the greenhouse effect but never of an actual relationship between the two other than a stated correlation stating that CO2 increased and global temperature increased and therefore CO2 caused the global temperature increase.

Kalmanovich’s findings have been corroborated by a group of independent scientists calling themselves the ‘Slayers’ who claim to have refuted the greenhouse gas effect.

They agree that correlation between temperatures and CO2 is easily refuted and they cite the same numbers used by the IPCC in the 2001 report.That report shows cyclic warming and cooling trends that are completely out of step with CO2 emissions as explained by Kalmanovich, “it shows rapid warming from 1910 to 1942 with only a trivial 14 per cent increase in CO2 emissions. That is followed by 33 years of a global cooling trend with a 500 percent increase in CO2 emissions from 1942 to 1975.”

Greenhouse Gas Theory Falls Apart

Kalmanovich argues that is more than enough physical evidence to completely destroy the greenhouse gas theory. But that requires the doomsayers to accept numbers and scientific arguments that they have not yet been prepared to do.

The irony of this travesty is that Hansen himself never claims in absolute terms that CO2 emissions cause global warming. Kalmanovich notes,  “Hansen instead uses the output from his climate models to make this claim absolving him of having his statements challenged.”

This technique was masterfully employed by Al Gore in his Inconvenient Truth in which he makes no claims directly but shows out of context snippets of evidence to make the claims for him.

Here is Kalmanovich in-depth reasoning:

The satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) demonstrate that OLR is responding strictly to the fourth power of the Earth’s absolute temperature in perfect accordance to basic physics theory, but is in no way responding to the 57.1% increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels since 1979. This completely refutes the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, which is based on an assumed “enhanced greenhouse effect” from increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but these satellite measurements demonstrate conclusively that this enhanced greenhouse effect from GHG emissions never actually existed!

This single physical observation makes the Kyoto Protocol completely fraudulent, and anyone promoting the concept of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels enhancing the greenhouse effect in support of this fraudulent Kyoto Accord, must be seen as complicit in this fraud.

Kalmanovich then reaches a devastating conclusion:

“This is not a trivial scientific error because over 6.5% of the world’s grain has been removed from the global food supply to serve as feedstock for the 85 billion litres of ethanol produced annually as fuel in accordance with the dictates of this fraudulent UN Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change.”

It is basic food staples that are being removed from the global food supply; the wealthier portion of the world’s 6.6 billion people end up paying substantially more for their food but the poor simply starve, making this Kyoto Accord a true “crime against humanity” and those who have fabricated the false science on which this crime is based are therefore guilty of being complicit in this “crime against humanity”.

Green Energy Promise Just a Pipe Dream

Americans are fast waking up to the harsh reality that this is all pain for no gain. There is stagnation in constructing conventional power generating sources in the wake of large government subsidies to wind and solar power generating facilities. That has dramatically increased power bills but has provided virtually zero additional peak power to consumers.

There is also a huge moral issue in the US. It removes more food from the global food supply than any other country in the manufacture of ethanol for fuel, making Americans key culprit in this crime against humanity. In the United States a staggering 39.7 percent of the world’s ethanol is created from crops that should be used as food.

The new moral question now to be posed is: if the US government was truly looking after the interests of the people then shouldn’t better investment ought to be made in natural gas and coal conversions to liquid fuels? That would bring the price of gas to under $2.50/gal. President Obama could then do away with subsidizing biofuels production, which only serves to raise the price of gas at the pumps and add to world hunger.

(The 85 billion litres of ethanol production comes from a compelling Marketwire article.

Why is 2011 the Critical Year?

Europe views 2011 as a critical year as member countries ramp up their production and use of ethanol to meet the European Union’s Renewable Energy Directive. In this year alone, Europe is expected to produce 5.4 billion liters of ethanol that is a 15 per cent increase over 2010 (see table).

World Ethanol Fuel Production in Million Liters

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Europe 1,627 1,882 2,814 3,683 4,615 5,467
Africa 0 49 72 108 165 170
Americas 35,625 45,467 60,393 66,368 77,800 79,005
Asia/Pacific 1,940 2,142 2,743 2,888 3,183 4,077
World 39,192 49,540 66,022 73,047 85,763 88,719

Source: F.O. Licht

The Global Renewable Fuels Alliance promotes “biofuels friendly policies internationally and represent over 65 per cent of the global biofuels production from 44 countries.” They predict only growth in this voracious business and if their numbers are correct, a death sentence is being issued on millions more in the future.

World Ethanol Production Forecast 2008-2012 by Country, Millions of Gallons

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 CAGR, %
Brazil 4,988 5,238 5,489 5,739 5,990 2.8%
U.S. 6,198 6,858 7,518 8,178 8,838 5.7%
China 1,075 1,101 1,128 1,154 1,181 1.4%
India 531 551 571 591 611 2.2%
France 285 301 317 333 349 3.2%
Spain 163 184 206 227 249 6.9%
Germany 319 381 444 506 569 9.7%
Canada 230 276 322 368 414 9.9%
Indonesia 76 84 92 100 108 5.6%
Italy 50 53 55 58 60 2.8%
ROW 2,302 2,548 2,794 3,040 3,286 5.7%
World 16,215 17,574 18,934 20,293 21,653 4.6%

(Note that these are imperial gallons and not U.S. gallons. This is why the 2010 value of 18,934 million gallons is 85,763 million liters and not 73,653 million liters as would be calculated for US gallons).

In this mad, bad crazy world western good intentions spawned a crime against humanity; the law of unintended consequences turned the Kyoto Accord into a perverse death sentence to millions. Now we must put an end to this genocide.

Source: John O’Sullivan


Filed under Biofood, Biofuel, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Energy, Food, Global Warming, Green Energy, IPCC, John O'Sullivan

EPA to allow 15% ethanol in cars

In what has to be one of the larger fits of CO2 Insanity we have the EPA approving 15% ethanol. Why? Well lots of reasons but the shortlist is that it’s a political payoff to their ethanol buddies and farmers who supply them with the crops to make ethanol. Read some more and you probably will get the distinct impression that money has been donated to the Democrats. We also have the EPA staffed with over-ripe greens who will stop at nothing to enforce their vision of how the rest of us should live, no matter how ridiculous it is, and this appears to be plenty ridiculous.

While they’re not going to make older cars that can’t handle this mix use it (yet), they will have the newer ones using it, which increases the money their ethanol refinery and farmer buddies will be making, thus the payoff. This also caused me to pause and wonder how they can be talking out of both sides of the EPA  mouth. If the EPA gets away with this one, I’ll be they may soon be mandating all cars use this, regardless of age and regardless whether they can handle ethanol or not.

If you think not, remember the 1970’s when lead was removed from gas? If you don’t, it wasn’t a problem for newer cars that were designed for it but had issues for older cars designed to run on leaded gas. To educate those not old enough to remember, the older cars didn’t have hardened valve seats that were necessary if you ran unleaded gas. The reason was that the lead deposits actually formed a cushion that prevented valve seat and valve wear. Remove that lead cushion and you have soft metal to metal mechanical problems, such as valves that won’t seal, bent valves, broken valves and holed pistons. Adjustments were made over time, but to you think the EPA gave a hoot if your ’65 GTO blew up because there was no lead in the gas? Nope! So, don’t be surprised if your 1996 car that can’t handle 15% ethanol has problems down the road if they mandate 15% for everything. Think the EPA is going to care?

You should also remember the EPA’s last fiasco designed to reduce auto pollution called MTBE. MTBE was supposed to be the big problem solver, but it turned out to be a big problem, period. MTBE, polluted ground water and corroded underground tanks and pipelines. It was eventually deemed to be so nasty they banned it. What’s MTBE? You can go here and read all about it. What’s the cost of removing this government mandated chemical? Oh,” MTBE removal from groundwater and soil contamination in the U.S. is estimated to cost from $1 billion[18] to $30 billion[19], including removing the compound from aquifers and municipal water supplies and replacing leaky underground oil tanks. There is some controversy centered around the question of who will pay the costs of this remediation.” Nice of the government to mandate something in an alarmist fit that is now costing a fortune. So who’s getting stuck with the tab?

Well, the government mandated it, the oil companies complied and put it into their gasoline, and now the government wants to stick them with the cost of removing it. If that doesn’t happen then guess what? The government will pay for it. Either way guess who gets screwed? Either you the gasoline consumer (guess who’s going to raise the price to pay for it), or you the taxpayer (guess whose taxes are going up to pay for it?).

Now we seem to be heading towards a new billion dollar plus faux pas by an overeager EPA, who  are giving the big payoff and are also bound and determined to get rid of pollution and save us from CO2, regardless of the cost or potential problems. Want to guess who’s going to get screwed in this new deal? It won’t be the government, the EPA, the ethanol producers or the oil companies, it will, as usual, be you the taxpayer or you the consumer. You may as well bend over now in preparation as you will either get stuck by the ethanol industry, the government or both, all in the name of being green. Or, should I say making green?

Another reason I’d surmise the rush is that the EPA, farmers and ethanol refiners probably figure the Democrats may not be in power after November, which will greatly reduce their chances of pushing this deal through. Better to get the new screwjob going now and better to make that payoff now in hopes they’ll get some badly needed Democrat votes from the midwest.

I have a long list of other issues over this boondoggle. We have the greens and EPA saying we need to do this and the ethanol refiners demanding it. Increasing ethanol production is actually contrary to what the warmers have been saying needs doing to reduce CO2. This is where we get to the talking out of both sides of their big fat EPA mouths.

First of all, much ethanol is mostly made from food crops. Corn, Milo, Soy Beans, Sugarcane, beets, etc. It can be made from wood products, but will that get us cutting down more trees at a time when everyone wants us to plant more to offset CO2? It can also be made from Kudzu and perhaps other non-food crops, but that’s not happening much right now. One can wonder if we start planting more Kudzu will it not replace food crops being grown and have the same net effect of reducing food availability. There’s only so much land and they aren’t making anymore, so something will have to give.

Remember the constant cries from the warmer crowd about looming major food shortages caused by global warming? Then tell me what sense it is to make more ethanol and use  of more food crops that could have been used to alleviate food shortages? Please note that the food shortages are not only caused by lack of food, they’re also caused by price increases.  If the demand for corn to make ethanol rises, then what do you think the market’s response will be? It will raise the price of corn and other food crops. When the price of corn is raised, guess what? Poor countries can’t afford to buy grain and we have instant food shortage. It’s already happened in Africa, so don’t think it’s impossible. You can read this at Chemically Green about corn prices going up due to ethanol production. It’s already happening and will only get worse if production is increased. Pure supply and demand. Basic economics 101, something that the Obama administration doesn’t seem to get.

Second, we have more crop silliness.  If you read much you should have noted that the EPA is now planing on also raising hell about dust created from farms. I don’t know how you’re supposed to plow without making dust, but that’s the latest idiocy. I have to ask, then why make more ethanol, which requires more corn, milo, beets, sugar cane, etc., to be grown, requiring more farming that ultimately will cause more dust? You could use water to keep the dust down, but water is a current and foreseen future problem, too. This is very idiotic indeed.

Third, we get into the CO2 emitted from the soil. We have the EPA  again complaining about plowing because it releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Yet, they’re totally convinced that CO2 is causing global warming, which is going to cause crop shortages.Why farm more to make more ethanol when all that plowing will create more CO2 that they claim is bad and should be reduced? Also, if global warming is going to cause crop shortages and famines, then do we really want to be diverting good growing land to make ethanol instead of food?

Fourth, we are also hearing the constant din about water shortages. Guess what folks? Growing more crops for ethanol will also require more water to be used, so we’ll supposedly reduce car pollution, but we’ll all die of thirst because they’ll use all that precious water up growing crops.  As an aside, making ethanol requires huge quantities of water, which exacerbates the situation even more. The more you make the more you use. Einstein couldn’t even get around that one.

Fifth, we hear the cries about pollution from fertilizer runoff causing things like dead zones in the oceans, more algae, dead fish and undrinkable water. More farming will increase the use of fertilizer. More fertilizer will runoff into creeks, then streams, then into lakes and bays and create more pollution. Fertilizer that may also get into ground water that is used for drinking. The EPA is against the runoff,  but they seem to have made a u-turn and now find it’s perfectly OK if we use more fertilizer to make ethanol. Want to bet what the next $30+ billion dollar cleanup will be and who’s going to get stuck paying for it? It won’t be the government, the ethanol refiners or the farmers it will be the good old taxpayers again via increased prices or increased taxes. Again, like the police say, assume the position.

Sixth, ethanol is inefficient to make. You use more energy to make it than it puts out. Kind of like perpetual motion in reverse. According to this article from Organic Consumers it takes 70% more energy to make ethanol than is in it when it’s finished. Again, you have more farming going on to make more crops to make more ethanol. Then you have more trucks transporting the crops to the plant, you have the plant (I’ve been to one I bet they use a lot of power), then you have to ship the ethanol to the refineries, have to truck it to the gas stations. As of now you can’t pipeline it, so is must go via rail or truck. It’s so caustic they don’t keep it in with the gas at the refineries, they add it as the tanker truck leaves. I wonder what it does to those underground tanks and pipes at the gas stations? There are supposedly improvements being made that will reduce the inefficiencies but they won’t happen overnight.

Gas mileage? That will drop some because ethanol is about 30% less efficient than gasoline is. I see figures all over the place so you can decide for yourself what the true effect of going from E10 to E15 will be. What I find seems to vary from about <1- to 2+ MPG less with the E15 than with the E10, which already reduced your supposedly about the same vs. straight gasoline with no ethanol. The figures seem to depend on whether the petroleum industry or the ethanol industry is putting them out. Frankly I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re both an exaggeration. Regardless, more gas used = more out the tailpipe and more refining needed to make more because you’re using more. There’s an estimated 144 million cars on the road in the United States, so even if they only lose 1 mile per gallon that’s a lot more gas they’re burning. You will hear that financially, the additional use will be offset by the ethanol reducing the price of gas, but that doesn’t change how much more is being consumed, does it?

Engine wear? OK remember this very caustic, cant’ be pipelined or stored with the gas at the refinery. It also absorbs impurities easier than gas and can cause engine problems, not to mention it will also absorb water. Cars with water in the gas don’t generally  get very far plus the cost of repairs. Think it’s any better for your engine? Just because it might be cleaner coming out the exhaust pipe doesn’t mean it’s better for your car. If you have a new car that is designed for it, it’s may not be much of a problem.  The claim is that 2007 up cars will be OK. As far as the 2001-2006 models, they don’t know because they haven’t completed testing. Have an older car than that? Who knows what it will destroy.

If  this eventually gets mandated for older cars as I suspicion it will, older car owners may have major problems with things like anything rubber like seals, o-rings, hoses, and perhaps even some aluminum parts like your carburetor (on older cars) the intake manifold and even fuel pump may eventually corrode costing you big bucks. Think the EPA cares? I’d doubt it. I’d assume ways will be developed to get around the problem, but at what cost?

I feel this is about the nuttiest thing since Almond Joy Bars were invented. It’s CO2 Insanity rearing its ugly head again, no doubt at the taxpayers expense to solve a non-existent problem and create a lot more problems instead. I guess in the government you call that job security as you always will be around because you create new problems to solve. This sounds to me like it’s probably the closest mankind has ever come to creating perpetual motion.

So why all the nuttiness? Well there’s that ultra-classic reason when dealing with industry and government that’s called follow the money. When they say it’s about being green it really means it’s about making green and plenty of it. Why the claim? Well, how about a well-connected retired General in the middle of all of this? Per the Wall Street Journal (WSJ)……..

The cause of boosting ethanol use in cars has been strongly championed by Growth Energy, an ethanol trade group led by Wesley Clark, the retired Army general and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate.

Gen. Clark’s group petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency last year to allow ethanol levels in gasoline blends to be as high as 15%, up from the current 10%.

So that’s what happened to General Clark after his giant belly flop running for President. Hmmm…..he’s even a Democrat. Coincidence? Nah, there’s money to be made and the Democrats aren’t above making it the old-fashioned way by screwing the taxpayers. Like almost all big industry money it doesn’t just talk, it screams and the government minions hear it loud and clear. Did I hear the word government subsidies echoing in the background? What? Large campaign donations? Huh? Cushy jobs after retirement from government service as delayed payoffs? Yes it sure screams loud! Sounds like General Clark has made his war plans and he’s following through with the initial attack.

From Z Facts here we get this tidbit of information……

Corn ethanol subsidies totaled $7.0 billion in 2006 for 4.9 billion gallons of ethanol. That’s $1.45 per gallon of ethanol (and $2.21 per gal of gas replaced).
Even with high gas prices in 2006, producing a gallon of ethanol cost 38¢ more than making gasoline with the same energy, so ethanol did need part of that subsidy. But what about the other $1.12. Not needed! So all of that became, $5.4 billion windfall of profits paid to real farmers, corporate farmers, and ethanol makers like multinational ADM. Why is it the farm states put up with this?!

Where did those subsidies come from:
1.  51¢ per gallon federal blenders credit for $2.5 billion = your tax dollars.
2.  $0.9 billion in corn subsidies for ethanol corn = your tax dollars.
3.  $3.6 billion extra paid at the pump.

That’s quite a bit when you figure it only made us 1.1% more energy independent and only reduced US greenhouse gases by 1/19 of 1%.

No wonder they want to increase the percentage of ethanol in the gas! Money! Money! Money! Subsidies! Profits! More Subsidies! More profits! A few new Lear Jets , Bently’s and a private vacation island may be looming in the background. Meanwhile, you, the lowly taxpayer, get your hard-earned tax dollars used (again) to make more people rich. What the hell, we already subsidize the solar and wind power, unions, giant pork barrel projects, Presidential vacations every other week and all sorts of other crap like Nancy Pelosi’s $100k bar tab for her big plane she has because the small one was too small for a person of her importance. So what’s a few more billions down the government toilet? Remember the taxpayers always have a lot of money for the government to enrich themselves and their good buddies in private industry. Pass some laws, mete out some subsidies and if it sounds green that’s even better. Why I wouldn’t be surprised if EPA Administrator (administraitor?) Lisa Jackson ends up with a cushy job on the board of directors at Growth Energy after her term is up (which can’t happen too fast!).

Want another reason? OK. Remember, we have big-time alarmist in charge at the EPA who appear to know no bounds and are evidently trying to ram through everything on the greentard list at the EPA before the Republicans control Congress or Obama is out of office, whatever comes first. They’re in a frantic mess trying to get as much done as possible, in what may end up being a short period of time, as the November election may be a bloodbath for the Democrats.

Remember their last alarmist flop known as “Cash for Clunkers?” That was the Obama administration’s effort to get perfectly good old cars taken off to the car crusher in the name of a) reducing pollution, b) getting people into more fuel-efficient cars (that conveniently can run on E15) and c) trying to jump-start a US auto industry that was in the toilet and about to be flushed. This was a double-screw as it took a lot of perfectly good used cars off the market, which as market’s work, had the effect of raising used car prices and screwing the lower and middle classes who can’t afford new cars and in the current screwed up financial climate, can’t get a loan from the bank because they won’t loan money or want interest rates and terms that the Mafia would be embarrassed over.

I don’t know about you , but what a better way to get these older cars they absolutely loathe off the road than dumping E15 they can’t handle into them and basically poisoning them? Put that E15 in your ’68 Camaro SS 396, or your old Ford Mustang and see what happens to it. It may start leaking from numerous hoses and seals, or it may just start to run like crap and then self-destruct. Perhaps slowly or perhaps in one large kaboom as you’re entering the freeway praying that Peterbuilt going 80 in the slow lane doesn’t run you over. At best, with 15% ethanol it’s not going to make as much power or get the mileage it used to, not to mention everyone else’s cars old or new.

They may just be salivating at the thought of eventually mandating E15 for ALL cars so that millions of older cars will self-destruct. I’m sure they’re all touchy-feely over the thought of you running out and replacing it with a new Toyota Prius Hybrid or a new Nissan Leaf full electric or some other green vehicle or junked your car and started taking public transit.

Depending upon what happens, this may or may not turn out to be big-time CO2 Insanity. I would bet that lawsuits may be flying over this, or that Congress will wake up and stop it before it gets out of hand. We’ll have to wait and see. I’m not taking any bets that they won’t succeed. You can get the rest of the story at the Wall Street Journal link below.

Source: Wall Street Journal

1 Comment

Filed under Biofuel, Co2 Insanity, Financial

The Future of US Energy Policy?

Want a look at what we’ll be facing if Congress and the President try to become USA-Eurotard? Read Christopher Booker’s column in the Telegraph titled “British energy policy is in crisis.”  Here’s  a hint of what’s going to come if people don’t wake up and start telling the greentards to start being more reasonable and quit living in la-la land, making unreasonable demands that result in overpriced, inefficient power.

  • £20,000 heat pumps that are basically worthless for the most part that will cost £13 billion by 2030, far more than they’re worth.
  • Overpriced solar plants that are heavily subsidised putting out about 1/1,000th of what ONE coal plant does.
  • Biomass plants that lose money
  • Overpriced electric cars that don’t go very far, again government subsidized, that will overtax and overtaxed electric grid when they all start getting plugged in.
  • Overpriced, subsidized, inefficient wind turbines that don’t generate enough power and generate no power when there is no wind, thus requiring coal or gas power plants to be online to take up the slack when there’s no wind.

It’s time to get realistic about what we’re doing in the United States because emulating the UK will only put us into bankruptcy faster than we’re already heading for it. We need clean power with a reasonable cost, a return on investment, no need for government subsidy, that is reliable and efficient.

But, every time you want to build  a nuclear power plant you get the greentards protesting, and no one seems enamored with natural gas even though it doesn’t pollute much.

More CO2 Insanity.

Source: The Telegraph

Comments Off on The Future of US Energy Policy?

Filed under Biofuel, Co2 Insanity, Financial, Global Warming, Politics, Science

Biofuel is good, except when it’s bad!

So we’ve been hearing about how wonderful bio-fuel is.  Per this article from this is not always true.  Based on the title “Biofuels cause four times more carbon emissions” it sounds to me like this is falling into the same category as AGW and we need to step back some and start looking before we’re leaping.

The European Union, including the UK, has set a goal of obtaining 10 per cent of its road fuels from renewable sources by 2020.

But a new report commissioned in Brussels found some biofuels can lead to four times more carbon dioxide polluting the atmosphere than equivalent fossil fuels.

Four more times CO2.  Well, I can’t say that really matters, but based on everyone’s mis-directed belief that CO2 is causing global warming I find it rather interesting that everyone’s been jumping on the biofuel bandwagon and now there are problems with it.  Seems we didn’t look before we leapt.

A more realistic problem is the cause and effect that biofuels can have on food prices and shortages.

Biofuels have already been criticised for causing food shortages in countries where land for rice or wheat has been displaced by fields of soy beans or sugarcane for fuel.

Let’s not forget good old corn and milo, that are used in many mid-west ethanol plants (I’ve actually been on a private tour of one and my brother-in-law is a Kansas farmer, so I know from whence I speak).  Both are used for cattle feed, so guess what happens when they start using it for ethanol? The feed prices go up, then your beef prices go up. So does the price of soybeans and corn.

Sounds like some people are getting on the bandwagon about this problem. Even if you don’t believe the CO2 issue is a problem the other issues are.

The worse example is soy beans in America. Because the land that used to grow soy beans for animal feed is now being used for biofuels, it means that more soy beans must be grown in the rainforests of Brazil to make up for the loss in the domestic market.

Soybeans grown in America therefore have an indirect carbon footprint of 340kg of CO2 per gigajoule, compared to just 85kg for conventional diesel or gasoline

My brother-in-law also grows soybeans.  I do wonder if they take into account the effects of things such as “no-till” farming?  A technique he uses that helps keep the dirt from blowing away ala Oklahoma in the 1930’s and also has the effect of reducing CO2 because you’re not disturbing the dirt as much?  I also wonder if this data takes into account emissions from bio-fuel plants?  Regardless, it’s obvious that it causes less CO2 when we use petroleum products. Sometimes being green isn’t always the hot setup.

There are also other issues with biofuels as per this.

By contrast, imports of bioethanol from Latin American sugar cane and palm oil from southeast Asia have relatively low indirect emissions at 82kg and 73kg per gigajoule respectively. But these biofuels have high direct emissions because although no land for food is being displaced, rainforest it being cut down to grow the crops in the first place.

OK, so we’re cutting down rainforest to grow crops.  There is a whole big issue over what’s going on with palm oil and the problems it’s causing with deforestation world-wide. Here’s an article titled “The Problem with Palm Oil” you can read.  While I’m not too worried about Polar Bears, I am concerned about what is going on with Orangutan habitat being mowed down.

The European Commission insisted that biofuels is a complex issue and further studies need to be done.

But Kenneth Richter, Friends of the Earth campaigner, said the report proves that biofuels are not the answer to tackling climate change.

“Most of the crops used for biofuels at the moment produce more emissions than fossil fuels therefore biofuel targets in Europe make no sense and are doing opposite of what they are supposed to be doing,” he said.

See, this is actually a case where what sounds good on the face of it, really isn’t. Even Friends of the Earth thinks this is bad.  While I normally don’t pay much attention to what they say, in this case it really is a good indication of what a large issue this is and what major problems it can cause.  The “greens” are even against a lot of it.

I always have felt that a lot of the green movement is more about being stylish than being green.  You see things like the Toyota Prius that I don’ t feel is such a great deal when you consider the carbon footprint of making one and the battery disposal issues when they finally die (not to mention the cost of replacement).  I see people touting pure electric vehicles, but they really aren’t zero emissions vehicles like people like to think, because every time you plug one in the power is probably coming from a coal power plant beyond the horizon.  Just because you can’t see it, doesn’t mean it isn’t there.  Just because it sounds green, doesn’t mean it really is either.

I hope this will prompt some people to really dig into the cause and effect of what they’re doing and really start researching things before they go off thinking they’re saving the Earth when they’re actually causing more problems.  This includes the CO2 Insanity we’ve been seeing.  The science isn’t “settled” on that either because much of the “science” is fraudulent.

How about some real science for a change?


Comments Off on Biofuel is good, except when it’s bad!

Filed under Biofuel, Co2 Insanity, Renewable Energy, Science