• 92
Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

The ethanol industry in the U.S. has gotten billions in farm subsidies and has been praised by politicians of both major parties, but the recent bad press has not only led to the end of 30 years of corn subsidies to make the biofuel, but also for the entire industry to now be "one of the most hated industries in the world."

That's how Todd Becker, president and CEO of Green Plains Renewable Energy, phrased it to CNBC recently. It can be easy to see why, since the ethanol has been very publicly blamed for affecting gas prices and hurting some engines. Green Plains Renewable Energy is feeling the criticism directly. Dealing with high corn prices, the company's stock recently hit a 52-week low, CNBC reports.

Even against this backdrop, Becker said he thinks ethanol will remain important in the U.S., since the biofuel's high octane rating can help bump up the the "84 octane subgrade gasoline" that refiners are currently making from petroleum, before blending it with 113-octane ethanol. "If you want to replace this octane, you're going to have to buy something much more expensive than ethanol today, and it's not in big supply," he said.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 92 Comments
      • 2 Years Ago
      Bill Clinton, Al Gore & Senator Obama supported the California 2006 Prop. 87, a GMO corn ethanol welfare program. Bill, Al, have changed opinion on the ethanol mandate, I wonder if California will make this the time for CHANGE? I support a waiver of the ethanol mandate, voluntary use of ethanol in my gas. Federal ethanol policy increases Government motors oil use and Big oil profit. It is reported that today California is using Brazil sugar cane ethanol at $0.16 per gal increase over using GMO corn fuel ethanol. In this game the cars and trucks get to pay and Big oil profits are the result that may be ready for change. We do NOT support AB 523 or SB 1396 unless the ethanol mandate is changed to voluntary ethanol in our gas. Folks that pay more at the pump for less from Cars, trucks, food, water & air need better, it is time. The car tax of AB 118 Nunez is just a simple Big oil welfare program, AAA questioned the policy and some folks still agree. AB 523 & SB 1326 are just a short put (waiver) from better results. GOOGLE: Prop 87 (510) 537-1796
      Marcopolo
      • 2 Years Ago
      PR, Actually, the smog reducing excuse for Ethanol, is no longer all that relevant with smaller, more fuel efficient cars equipped with better emission technology. Not only that, but smog is a problem localized to a few areas. LPG, CNG, Electric, Hybrid's create far less smog than E 10, 0r E15. So that argument is largely crap ! What else, oh yeah, all that corn rotting away ? Where ? Massive over-supply ? simply grow a different crop. Y' see unlike you, I am a farmer (on two continents) ! Farming's a tough business, but like any business you can't just continue to produce a product without a profitable return (or even a real market). The taxpayer can carry you through a few bad seasons, but not forever ! Change crops to a more profitable agricultural product! If you are so confidant that Ethanol is of economic value, remove the subsidies, remove the mandate, and sell it's virtues like any other product ! You can't, because like every other argument you extol, your motivation are always irrational due to your reliance on ideology, rather than reality and commonsense ! (BTW, using capitals, like shouting, doesn't make anything more valid )
      fred schumacher
      • 2 Years Ago
      Let's go through this once again. The ethanol subsidy was given to fuel blenders, not to farmers. Farmers got a small subsidy for growing corn, but it was not connected to the final use of the corn. Whether the corn went into pig feed, high fructose corn syrup for humans, corn flakes, or ethanol was irrelevant. Farmers got no subsidy to produce corn specifically for ethanol production. Here in Minnesota, we've been using E10 for decades, and cars are still running. My 2000 Dodge Caravan, averages 23 mpg, overall, on E10. Driving to the east coast this week, I've averaged 25.4 mpg on E10 and 25.7 on straight gas. Not a big diff. Minnesota State University- Mankato's Automotive Engineering Department ran a series of fuel tests on unmodified 2006 cars and found a synergistic effect for E20 and E30 blends that provided the same or better fuel economy than straight gas. The effect did not hold for E10 or blends higher than E30.
        Marcopolo
        • 2 Years Ago
        @fred schumacher
        fred schumacher You are correct, the fear that a small percentage of ethanol, will do irreparable damage to a car engine is absurd.
        Spec
        • 2 Years Ago
        @fred schumacher
        The mandate to add ethanol to gas is effectively a subsidy.
          PR
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Spec
          Spec -- You do realize that E10 is added to reduce smog, right? As a replacement for MTBE. Do you consider the MTBE mandate to have been a subsidy to MTBE manufacturers? Do you consider catalytic converters to be a subsidy to the manufactures who sell catalytic converters?
          EVnerdGene
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Spec
          backdoor (corrupt) subsidy - and so was moving from e10 to e15
      Allch Chcar
      • 2 Years Ago
      This is the first time I've heard of the blending of 84 octane Gasoline with Ethanol to get 87 octane regular from such an official source. But anyway it's no wonder that the Ethanol industry gets so much hate. They've managed to piss off plenty of the country with some help from the Livestock and Dairy industry. The point of the blend wall was to discourage mixing more and more Ethanol into the Gasoline supply. We've all heard of the engines that run like crap on E10 and somehow these engines still exist today. If they had given up on the E15 like they should have and focused on E85, Blender pumps, and mandating Flexfuel, I would bet they wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with this "hate."
        PR
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Allch Chcar
        Allch Chcar said "We've all heard of the engines that run like crap on E10 and somehow these engines still exist today." In fact, more cars have been running on E10 now than ever before, yet the average age of cars in the US fleet keeps getting older and older with more and more miles every year. So we have ethanol consumption going up, while cars keep going more and more miles for more and more years. I'm not saying there is a cause/effect relationship, but if all the gloom and doom about ethanol were true, you would expect to see the opposite relationship.
          Marcopolo
          • 2 Years Ago
          @PR
          @PR, On this we can agree, the idea that ethanol blend is somehow disastrous for cars engines is absurd and even if true is the fault of the engine maker not the ethanol.
        carney373
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Allch Chcar
        You know what? I actually agree that they should have focused on E85, blender pumps, and mandating flex fuel, especially the flex fuel mandate. Nobody really cares if his car is able to run on E85, that just expands his choices, choices he can reject if he wants. Some people might get riled up about the theoretical absence of the auto industry's choice of making gasoline-only cars, but since the price difference involved is negligible it won't be enough to matter. By contrast, the Renewable Fuels Standard (especially the cellulosic mandate), the subsidies, etc., helped make it easier for the villians to bamboozle the stupid about ethanol as something being "forced" on us. I'm still amazed at the BS about E15, which is not only proven harmless in any non-antique but also is only an OPTION for filling stations that WANT to sell it rather than being required.
      paulwesterberg
      • 2 Years Ago
      I wish people were as upset about the $4B per year in taxpayer money is wasted subsidizing the oil industry. And the oil companies need that money because sometimes they have to go months before recording another quarter of record profits.
        Marcopolo
        • 2 Years Ago
        @paulwesterberg
        paulwesterberg Paul, never-mind your exaggerated figures and distorted terminology, even if that were true, it wouldn't even represent 1cent per gallon on the price of gasoline. OTOH, the US oil industry is the largest US taxpayer, the single largest employer, and the highest ratio (tax bracket) tax payer ! The US oil industry are the only US capital funds currently in the black, these prop up the entire US retirement sector, thereby relieving the US taxpayer of an otherwise, crippling burden. The US Oil industry represents nearly 8% of the US economy,(directly) and 22% (indirectly). You may hate the US oil industry, but whether you like it or not, it's all that keeps America viable at the moment. The Oil industry is not 'evil' because it supplies the products that make modern life possible, just as no one forces you to get fat eating fast food ! These choices are your responsibility as adults. For those who hate to admit the truth, and want to live in an alternate universe, please feel free to record your view with a negative vote .
          PR
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Marcopolo
          holy logic fail, bat-Marco!! I put US PRODUCED NATURAL GAS right in my first sentence of things to replace gasoline. And you think that means I am "opposed" to natural gas? Utter idiocy. If you could read my posts the first time, I wouldn't have to put stuff in CAPS SO YOU CAN SEE IT. Natural gas extraction in the United States is done by companies like Chesapeake that have nothing to do with the major oil companies. Again, I'm sorry you don't know what is going on here in the States. But thanks for proving my point about getting off of burning oil for transportation. That long list of much better uses for oil is exactly why we should quit wasting it by burning it for transportation. you don't need 20 million barrels a day to produce all those other products. And these other products are not burned and released into the atmosphere. I'm glad you agree that we should keep reducing our burning of oil for transportation until oil is only used for these 3500 higher uses for oil. And only a fool would think any single alternative fuel source could replace oil all by itself, which is exactly why I listed off 5 out of many alternatives that all have to be pursued. WHY CAN'T MARCO READ ANYTHING THAT ISN'T IN CAPS? Oh, and in response to your Paine quote. Let me retort with another popular US saying -- "You are a fvcking idiot". Learn to read before you post again.
          PR
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Marcopolo
          Yawn. Replacing crude oil with US produced electricity, US produced biodiesel, US produced natural gas, and US produced cellulosic and crop ethanol would INCREASE the amount of employment in the US. At the same time it would end the largest single transfer of wealth ever in the history of the world. Our trade deficit problem would instantly plumet, and that wealth would instead recirculate ALL in the United States, On top of the direct economic benefits, the secondary healthcare savings of not breathing oil fumes (cancer, heart attacks, hypertension, asthma all connected to fossil fuels) will be massive savings, especially when productivity increases when these health problems are cut. If you want to claim economic benefit, you have to realize that the alternatives are even better than ******* up to big oil like a *****. But you know all of this. Yet you still re-post this same junk over and over even when you know better. This is basic "greenlings" stuff that you just don't seem to be able to comprehend.
          Marcopolo
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Marcopolo
          PR, "Either you are a Fool or a Knave" , [Tom Paine] The oil industry, can not be 'replaced' in the foreseeable future, by electricity, bio-diesel etc. Only Natural Gas (which you are opposed to, and is part of the oil industry) can make any real substitutions, and then only as fuel . Oil provides 3500 products apart from fuel, from medicine to ceramics. There is no magical 'celluosic' technology capable of production, no magical Bio-diesel capable of replacing 20 million barrels of oil per day ! Using current technology, this would require a greater arable area than all of North America ! Inventing a fantasy, is just that, a fantasy ! I quote reality, and you just peddle dreamland scenario's with vague childish wish lists.
      EVnerdGene
      • 2 Years Ago
      PR (the ethanol expert) in an earlier post says; "maybe you are just sick of being debunked with facts" referring to his posts. In the same post he says; " 4) Real experts all agree that ethanol production adds about 30% more energy in on top of the energy inputs." OK. So, that means if you use 100 units of energy from natural gas to process/distill the ethanol (let's say 100 BTUs); then you will get 130 BTUs of ethanol as the output. Most excellent output. Now add the diesel fuel to truck the corn to the processors/distillers, and then the diesel fuel to truck the ethanol to distribution centers, and then to gas stations. Oh, and don't forget the electric power for conveyors, lights, controls, etc. (mostly from coal - but I digress). Then, I put E10 in my car, and get 3% to 5% less gas mileage. Please, some moron or moron congressman (I'm being redundant) explain to me how ethanol wasn't one of the most corrupt boondoggles shoved up the hindside of the American taxpayer (or added to the national debt we're borrowing from China). Almost $200 Billion (that's a B) over a 30 year period.
        carney373
        • 1 Month Ago
        @EVnerdGene
        The 30% profit figure includes the energy inputs you mentioned. And the less than $10 billion per annum "spent" on ethanol all told (including tax breaks) is NOTHING. First of all, the (editorially anti ethanol) Wall Street Journal published a Merril Lynch study showing that in the 2008 oil price peak, biofuels kept ethanol from rising even higher, saving the USA more than $100 billion. Second, in 1999 oil was $10 a barrel while in 2008 it topped $140 a barrel. We import 5 billion barrels a year, so we went from spending $50 billion to around $700 billion, a more than $650 billion ANNUAL expense, a tax increase of more than $2,000 per man woman and child working or not, or more than $8,000 per family of four. Get a sense of perspective.
        Marco Polo
        • 1 Month Ago
        @EVnerdGene
        EVnerdGene It gets to a stage where rational debate becomes impossible with ranters like PR. In my experience, those who resort to shouting, personal attacks and name calling, have no interest in learning or increasing understanding, they are simply ideologues. Unfortunately their irrational beliefs are not born from a deep conviction about any given issue, but from a personality disorder Unfortunately, these people drive away more rational contributions, and contributors.
          Electron
          • 1 Month Ago
          @Marco Polo
          " those who resort to shouting, personal attacks and name calling"...if you weren't such a spectacular hypocrite you would realize you just described yourself....
          PR
          • 1 Month Ago
          @Marco Polo
          marco What part of me providing primary authoritative peer-reviewed source material threatens you so much that you can't even manage to address the facts in the source at all? The facts presented here are that when you take a little bit of electricity, a little bit of natural gas, and a little bit of oil and apply Power from the Sun you get 2.3 more units of energy than you put in. Ethanol is a process of running gas cars on electricity, natural gas, and a small percentage of diesel and a small percentage of gasoline, and getting more miles than if you would have just burned the diesel and gas directly. What problem do you have with using electricity to get cars to get more miles out of each gallon of gas, like the PHEV Prius does? What problem do hou have with using natural gas to get cars to get more miles out of each gallon of gas, you yourself called for increasing the use of natural gas for transportation right in this blog. You must just still be sore about you acknowledging through your own standards that the United States is a great place to produce ethanol because of the United State's historic surpluses of corn.
        PR
        • 1 Month Ago
        @EVnerdGene
        Nerd - You have failed right from the start of your premise. The 1.3 energy return that is widely accepted as the minimum energy return is already a well-to-wheel calculation. It already includes all the energy required for transportation, distilling, farming, even for the fertilizer. This 1.3 energy return number is already measured in units of energy, not in gallons. So it already accounts for the lower energy content (and thus your lower mpg) for ethanol. I'm sorry you are not at all informed about the topic at hand. Maybe you should find a Congressman who backs ethanol and he/she can explain to you why you are a moron for not knowing what you are talking about.
        PR
        • 1 Month Ago
        @EVnerdGene
        EVNerdGene I do have to thank you for forcing me to go back to primary sources to update my numbers. Here is the authoritative, peer-reviewed, USDA report from 2002 that states that "corn ethanol is energy efficient as indicated by an energy output:input ratio of 1.34" http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/aer-814.pdf But since then advances in ethanol production technology, farming, advantages in scale, and other improvements has improved that number. The evil USDA under that greenie Bush came up with new numbers in 2008: "the net energy balance of corn ethanol has increased ... to 2.3 BTUs of required energy". http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/2008Ethanol_June_final.pdf I humbly admit I was horribly out of date in my numbers, and that my error resulted in me giving you incorrect information. It is actually much worse for you than my previous posts. Because the return is now almost double what it was before at 2.3 units of energy output per unit of energy input (not counting the energy from the Sun itself) and there is no reason why it won't continue to improve.
        Electron
        • 1 Month Ago
        @EVnerdGene
        @ EVnerdGene, Please follow "marcopolo"'s advice. PR came with a well sourced argument why you were wrong so he must have some sort of personality disorder. It's this sort of well reasoned arguments with interesting links that drives away rational contributors so that must not be encouraged. It's far more interesting for contributors to be buried in lengthy rants without any back up links ever by people who resort to calling people crazy when they refute the arguments, so let's follow MP's example!
      Marcopolo
      • 2 Years Ago
      paulwesterberg That would be a very curious thing to do since some of the world largest bio-fuel producers are also the largest oil companies.?
      EVnerdGene
      • 2 Years Ago
      look at this webpage: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfuel/FFV2000.shtml Notice the first vehicle gets only 13 MPG combined driving on E85 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - but 18 MPG combined driving on E10
        carney373
        • 2 Years Ago
        @EVnerdGene
        I have patiently explained to you many times, that mileage is a MEANS, not an END. A means toward the goal of less pollution, a stronger economy, and a better national security situation. If a better means, a better tool, exists to get to those goals than better mileage, even if that means involves lower mileage, it's rational to support that better means. Mindlessly stupidly fixaiting on mileage is forgettng what you were trying to ACCOMPLISH with the lower mileage. Complaining thaht a superior way to clean the air, safeguard our economy, and improve our national security has lower milage is S-T-U-P-I-D.
      PR
      • 2 Years Ago
      Funny how when you don't actually have any way to contest the obvious and clear facts I present, that you always try to figure out a way to blame me for you running away with your tail betwen you legs. Just man up and admit that your claims have been defeated by actual facts, and walk away with your head up.
      goodoldgorr
      • 2 Years Ago
      My car and my motorcycle and my lawnmower need 100% regular grade gasoline, it's written in plain letter in the owner manual. The harvest of this year is low, so do foods with the harvest, stop this stupid hoax done with the help of steven harper from canada and bush family and obama. Since the prohibition, goverment is the mafia of alcool traders and steven harper from canada is collaborating and investing heavilly in this sector, he probably drink some without paying.
        PR
        • 2 Years Ago
        @goodoldgorr
        Yea, the corn harvest is so low this year, that we will only "still have the third largest crop of corn in our history, nearly 13 billion bushels". http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/richard-mills/food-report-one-harvest-away-from-a-catastrophe On other words, aside from 2 other years, we will still produce more corn this year (even with the drought) than every other year in history. Keep in mind that for the majority of modern years, we've had a massive OVERSUPPLY of corn each and every year. So only having the 3rd largest harvest ever would put us in massive oversupply in years past. I think we're going to survive. If you are really worried about the corn supply, put your money where your mouth is and cut out corn syrup foods from your diet, and only consume whole corn.
          PR
          • 2 Years Ago
          @PR
          gorr -- Do you live in the United States? If you don't, this is a story about ethnol in the United States. Your personal needs are off-topic if you don't live in the US. If you live in the US, you would have to own a pre-1985 car for it not to be compatible with E85. A pre-1985 car has very few of the emissions features compared to modern cars, and you likely fall into the category of a "Gross Polluter". If you care about green cars and green issues, and you live in an E10 mandate area, you should sell your pre-1985 car to a non E10 area and spend $2k or less to buy an early 2000's car. If you are in an E10 mandate area, it is mandated because what comes out of your tailpipe is causing other people to have heath problems. Take personal responsibility for your emissions. If yuu don't live in an E10 mandate area, what do you care? E10 has no impact on you. Keep living your life. Also if you really care about green cars and green issues, you should ditch your ancient gas mower and go electric. At the risk of being accused of working for Pepboys, let me tell you that you can go to your local Pepboys and they will take your three decade old stinky smoking gas mower and let you trade it in for a free push mower, a 75 dollar corded electric mower, or a 150 dollar 24V 20A battery powered mower. Gas mowers, especially mowers so old they predate the 1980's when ethanol was added to gas, are horrible polluters. Dollar-for-dollar, that $0 to $150 bucks will do more to reduce polution from the environment than nearly any other way you could spend that $0 to $150 bucks.
          goodoldgorr
          • 2 Years Ago
          @PR
          My car and my motorcycle and my lawnmower need 100% regular grade gasoline, it's written in plain letter in the owner manual. It was written before they decided to put corrosive ethanol into regular grade gasoline.
          goodoldgorr
          • 2 Years Ago
          @PR
          This has been decided by the same folks that had the 'idea' of the clash for clunkers hoax. They think that scrapping still good machineries is a green move. Do you know how cultivation pollute the water and soils and how ethanol scrapp faster even new machineries with water retention.
        paulwesterberg
        • 2 Years Ago
        @goodoldgorr
        gorr
        Rob J
        • 2 Years Ago
        @goodoldgorr
        That post made less and less sense as I read through it.
      Marcopolo
      • 2 Years Ago
      Here's my take on the bio-fuel industry. (for those interested). Like PR, and many others, my interest in alternate energy started with bio-fuel. however, after lengthy investigation, my initial enthusiasm evaporated when I witnessed the Australian bio-fuel industry collapse once subsidies were withdrawn. My analysis is without ideological concerns, and tries to treat the industry as a global, or generalized industry. I see the pro's and cons of Ethanol & Bio-fuel as follows: Pro : Blending assists with shortfalls of Oil supply. Reduces Oil imports Provides additional income for small rural communities Assists in reducing air pollution Useful for countries with a surplus of feedstock Virent process advances future bio-fuel technology. Crucial for Defense (PRC only) Cons; Insurmountable feedstock production logistics (currently). Production subject to agricultural variations Uneconomic without massive subsidies. Subject to the same problems as all 'broad acre' farming. (water, soil fertilizer etc) Uneconomic return on investment. With a few exceptions, most countries can obtain better results from Natural Gas derivatives. If the political, ideological, and just plain silly arguments, ( harms car engines, causes hair to fall out) are eliminated, the conclusion must be that unless you live in a country with a huge surplus of feedstock, (Brazil, Poland etc) or have a special reason (PRC) then the only justification for ethanol, is environmental or to eke out Oil supply deficiencies. Environmental objectives are legitimate, but it's questionable whether Ethanol, as such, actually achieves much gain for the pain. There are far more economic technologies able to achieve more for less. Eke out Oil. In most of the world, this is accomplished more efficiently by Natural Gas technology, Electric, or possibly H20. For the US, on a strictly economic basis, Ethanol is a loser. It's kept alive by political or ideological considerations. (which is fine as long as the majority of taxpayers agree) Since the US is rapidly developing it's vast reserves of Natural Gas, the Ethanol industry will come under increasing pressure to justify it's existence.. All this would change if Nestle, Shell, Comoco-Phillips, Cargill, Monosanto, etc suddenly develop a practical feedstock to satisfy all the dynamics of economic bio-fuel. My advice to PR, Carney and Paul Westerburg, is to forget your drought struck corn field, and start drilling for natural gas....(wait for explosion :) ( I absolutely agree with a more rigorous regulatory system of control extraction practices be developed, and strictly enforced, to prevent environmental harm.). [Disclaimer: My only current energy investment is my own Bio-mass generator, and solar panels. I do not work in the energy sector, apart from operating a specialist EV rental business. Between 2005 and 2010, I assisted in raising venture capital for 7 Bio-fuel ventures. I did not lose money on Bio-fuel.]
        PR
        • 1 Month Ago
        @Marcopolo
        Marco You say that ethanol makes sense if "you live in a country with a huge surplus of feedstock". This is a story about ethanol in the United States. The United States has historically has a huge surplus in corn feedstock. This is something that you are fully aware of. Since ethanol in the United States meets YOUR OWN CRITERIA for success, I'm looking forward to seeing your posts in full support of ethanol. And yes, I will absolutely be bookmarking this post of yours, and linking back to it to remind you over and over and over how ethanol in the US meets your own standards that you set.
          PR
          • 1 Month Ago
          @PR
          marco The United States certainly has had vast surpluses of corn feedstock for ethanol. That is why we have been able to successfully convert that vast surplus into ethanol. If we were to stop producing ethanol today, we would go right back to having massive surpluses of corn feedstock. Corn is doing just fine at 2.3 to 1 energy ratios, especially when you consider that all of that energy would literally be rotting away as surplus like it used to. Which is better, taking that unit of energy and wasting it by letting rot away doing nobody any good at all, or getting 2.3 units of energy out of it? How about responding with an intellectually honest response to one of my posts for once? Give me a straight up and honest answer on which is better: A) wasting energy into rotting oversupply like we used to do or B) getting 2.3 units of energy out of it instead? Just one intellectually honest answer to a simple questions is all I'm asking. A or B?
          Marcopolo
          • 1 Month Ago
          @PR
          @ PR, The US does not have a huge surplus of economic feedstock ! Sugar is an economic feedstock, corn is not. Nor does the US have the type of farming conditions that make agriculture suitable for Bio-fuel production due to US farming dynamics.
        PR
        • 1 Month Ago
        @Marcopolo
        Yawn. Finding a use for our long-term problem of massive corn surpluses makes corn ethanol a great solution in the United States. The fertilizer, the oil, and all the energy that was being put into growing corn was literally rotting away due to massive corn surpluses. Now instead of having all that go to waste, we are using it to fuel cars. It's an absolute winner all the way around. If we were to drop ethanol, we would just go back to massive oversupplies of corn rotting away like we had before corn ethanol. Additionally, you forgot that the largest volume of ethanol goes DIRECTLY towards reducing smog. That is because the E10 mandate replaces MTBE. If we were to get rid of E10, we would have to replace it with a some other oxygenator besided MTBE which is now banned. Without E10 we would have to pay more for some unnamed replacement, and/or choak in heavy smog like Beijing or Mexico City.
      Spec
      • 2 Years Ago
      Oh cry some more. You've got subsidies for more than 30 years, at some point the subsidies need to end or be cut down to be proportional to the public benefit gained. If EVs still have hefty subsidies 30 years from now, the plug should be pulled on them too.
        PR
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Spec
        Spec, you said something very odd. "at some point the subsidies need to end or be cut down". I'm absolutely certain you know that the blender's tax credit ended this year, so why aren't you happy that this has already happened? *confused*
    • Load More Comments