Western Railroad Discussion > Ethanol ruling will stand, good for the railroads

The Trump Administration has chosen not to appeal an Appeals Court decision which requires many more small refiners to blend ethanol into their refined products.  The Environmental Protection Agency had issued widespread waivers to small refiners which some observers believed violated the law. These waivers will largely be set aside, requiring more refiners to purchase ethanol for blending

The result for railroads is more ethanol will be carried to refineries for blending. Farmers will also have more buyers for their products.

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/03/25/us/25reuters-usa-biofuels-waivers.html

Not only ethanol but DDG products as well.  Good news for the railroads and the ag industry.  Thanks for posting.  

Nick Tharalson,
Marion, IA

I will continue to avoid using ethanol blends, too many negatives attached.  If corn ethanol is so darn terrific, why must the US government mandate its use?  If the oil companies don't want it, the corn ethanol producers should buy gasoline on the open market and blend and sell it themselves.  Let the market then dictate whether corn ethanol is a success or failure.

ntharalson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not only ethanol but DDG products as well.  Good
> news for the railroads and the ag industry. 
> Thanks for posting.  
>
> Nick Tharalson,
> Marion, IA

Bad news for those forced to use those products.

Bad news for taxpayers having to support ethonal production and use.

As usual good for big business and bad for the consumer. Wouldn't expect anything less from our current administration though.

brighteyes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I will continue to avoid using ethanol blends, too
> many negatives attached. 
Too many negatives is an understatement. 

Ethanol as an "energy saving" fuel additive, at least in the US, is a hoax, a bone thrown to corn farmers to buy their votes.  Folks, we are burning desperately needed FOOD and FEED in our cars and other engines unnecessarily.  I live near the Chesapeake Bay, and can testify that hundreds of marine engines' fuel systems have been destroyed by the damned stuff. Some countries have gone to switch grass as an alternate feed-stock; I have no idea if it's any better on fuel systems, but at least it's not robbing the food/feed chains.

DevalDragon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As usual good for big business and bad for the
> consumer. Wouldn't expect anything less from our
> current administration though.

Ethanol requirements started way before the "current administration", you can't blame ethanol on Trump.

Cole42 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DevalDragon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > As usual good for big business and bad for the
> > consumer. Wouldn't expect anything less from
> our
> > current administration though.
>
> Ethanol requirements started way before the
> "current administration", you can't blame ethanol
> on Trump.

Oh come on,  You know that to some people everything is "Trump's Fault".

His administration at least tried to lessen the ethanol requirement.  They got slapped down in court and declined to fight it out.  They've got bigger problems to deal with at this time.

the corn used in ethanol IS NOT the same corn as we human's eat.  It is a different corn.  The distillers corn is helping the feed lots.  Not only is it higher in protien, but the feed lots do not have to spend time grinding or flaking the corn.  yes, the ethanol does hurt marine motors, but does not hurt vehicles.  The hurt to vechicles, is over 20% ethonal, that damages the rubbers and plastices in fuel tanks and lines and etc.  some vehicles get a little less mpg, but is not that much.

People have short memories. If it wasn't for the pitfalls of using MTBE (leaching out of gas station fuel tanks) there might not have been such a demand for ethanol...


Allen

Posted from Android



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/20 13:06 by bradleymckay.

Geez, the only rubber on a car is in the tires, the elastomers in the fuel system are all capable of higher than 20% ethanol. Guys run E85 as hot
street fuel on the same systems sold for use with gasoline. And as said the corn used is not edible by humans and the DDG byproduct has totally
revolutionized the livestock feed industry allowing feed with grass and grains, saving the more edible products for human consumption. All this
negative crap is getting old.

Out 

callum_out Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Geez, the only rubber on a car is in the tires,
> the elastomers in the fuel system are all capable
> of higher than 20% ethanol.


Then why have many of the automobile manufacturers flatly stated NOT to use ANY gasoline fuel that exceeds 10% ethanol? Companies like GM, Mercedes Benz, BMW, etc. strongly recommend against using that 20% crap.

Guys run E85 as hot
> street fuel on the same systems sold for use with
> gasoline. And as said the corn used is not edible
> by humans and the DDG byproduct has totally
> revolutionized the livestock feed industry
> allowing feed with grass and grains, saving the
> more edible products for human consumption. All
> this
> negative crap is getting old.
>
> Out 

jst3751 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Bad news for those forced to use those products.
>
> Bad news for taxpayers having to support ethonal
> production and use.

I know many folks involved in climate change activism who have fallen for the propaganda hook, line, and sinker. It's called "clean fuel." That's what they fall for. The current ethanol mix with gasoline is 10%. 15% is being promoted as "clean fuel." The emissions of ethanol are less per gallon so the promoters say it's all good. The untold part is that that gallon contains less energy than a gallon of gasoline, so more of the 15% mixture is needed than of 10% mixture to achieve the same result. Working from there, the greenhouse gas produced by 15% ethanol is greater than the greenhouse gas produced by the amount of 10% ethanol for the same work. This calculation also does not include the fuel consumption of farming the corn.

There is a "clean" part in that particulates, smog stuff, are fewer. However, the main problem is the invisible stuff called greenhouse gasses. Corn ethanol is being sold as a solution to that problem.

The also untold reason is that corn is the worst source of ethanol. Other feed stocks get better results...but don't sell corn. (However, other feed stocks would still generate rail traffic.)

Lobbying and propaganda work.

TAW



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/20 14:17 by TAW.

PRR1361 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some countries have
> gone to switch grass as an alternate feed-stock; I
> have no idea if it's any better on fuel systems,
> but at least it's not robbing the food/feed
> chains.

...and switchgrass-derived ethanol contains more energy per gallon than corn-derived ethanol and does not require as much carbon-fuel-intensive farming. (see mine of a few minutes ago about 15% corn-derived ethanol actually generates more greenhouse gasses than 10% corn-derived ethanol)

TAW

It's still a classic political boondoggle no matter how you look at it.
If I were 10 years younger I would buy an all-electric car, which is where we're going.

Bill Deaver
Tehachapi, CA

TAW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PRR1361 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Some countries have
> > gone to switch grass as an alternate feed-stock;
> I
> > have no idea if it's any better on fuel
> systems,
> > but at least it's not robbing the food/feed
> > chains.
>
> ...and switchgrass-derived ethanol contains more
> energy per gallon than corn-derived ethanol and
> does not require as much carbon-fuel-intensive
> farming. (see mine of a few minutes ago about 15%
> corn-derived ethanol actually generates more
> greenhouse gasses than 10% corn-derived ethanol)
>

Are you sure about that... surely ethanol is ethanol...?

Greyhounds Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Oh come on,  You know that to some people
> everything is "Trump's Fault".
>

There is little difference in to whom either party answers. It's folks who have more bucks than all of us put together.

Washington State governor and environmental hero (just ask him) former Democratic presidential candidate Inslee is a big time advocate of corn-derived 85% ethanol as a "clean fuel."

He would be the same one that advocates a brand new 250 mph high speed rail line between Vancouver BC and Seattle (which the engineering study folks have expanded in their first "report" to be Vancouver BC - Portland, Seattle - Spokane, and future Portland - San Francisco expansion - it's an impressive report...and it's all "feasible").

If one uses as a basis for climate change action the UN report that says 50% reduction in emissions in 10 years, his toy train set will do less than nothing. The EIS won't be finished in 10 years, let alone construction as implied. However, Bill Gates is apparently an advocate, making the governor a bigger advocate. Should his toy train be built, it will be an alternative to flying, not driving (where the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions occur). I haven't worked out the north-south traffic, but the report says the east-west line will cost something like 25 Gigabucks. For that, there are 55 planes a day between Seattle and Spokane. When I did the research, I booked every one of them in order to get the aircraft type and seating chart. Total seat count is 1,914. That is eight Cascades Talgo sets, four ICE or TGV sets, or two Shinkansen sets...for 100% of the current traffic. The railroad they propose building would be good for 180 trains a day, not 2, 4, or 8. The report says that the Seattle - Spokane service will be "feasible" drawing 12% of the travel market (basically, the folks who fly). However, that's what the Donor Class wants and is thus what the environmental hero governor wants.

Meanwhile, the plan to build a 110mph service between Vancouver and BC and Portland that would be an alternative to automobile traffic at a small fraction of the cost and in service vastly sooner generates approximately zero interest in Olympia.

Oh, by the way, the Cascades program was developed by a Republican. I have no party loyalty, just respect for the folks in either party who do right.

TAW

exhaustED Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Are you sure about that... surely ethanol is
> ethanol...?

I several tables (various sources) of the energy content of the various feed stocks and worked in conjunction with someone I know who is employed in ecological science who has done similar work. I used the most optimistic figures for the work in order to not be cited as using the worst result to make corn look bad (since there are a lot of Big Bucks behind corn).

TAW

TAW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> exhaustED Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Are you sure about that... surely ethanol is
> > ethanol...?
>
> I several tables (various sources) of the energy
> content of the various feed stocks and worked in
> conjunction with someone I know who is employed in
> ecological science who has done similar work. I
> used the most optimistic figures for the work in
> order to not be cited as using the worst result to
> make corn look bad (since there are a lot of Big
> Bucks behind corn).
>
> TAW

If using switchgrass, scrap wood/trimmings/leaves, corncobs,ect. were economical for the ethanol production process then you would see ethanol production facilities change their feedstocks away from corn. Unfortunately production facilities built to use just so called "other" feedstocks generally have higher operating costs. Some of those built are now sitting idle...they cannot compete against production facilities using corn. In addition using corn as the feedstock allows for more production of byproducts, especially in new facilities, which are much more efficient than the older ethanol production facilities.

Allen

Posted from Android



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/20 15:26 by bradleymckay.