Minnesota's BioDiesel Requirements

BirchBarlow

I love KW 680s
I do not care so long as their are no tax breaks for blending the fuel.

If it is a viable option to replace oil based diesel then let it be sold on it's merits.

Kinda like all these people buying "non-ethanol" gas for $.30-$.40 more per gallon. Knuckleheads they are. I had a Great Uncle never bought a gallon of gasoline in his life.

Always had plenty of fuel though ;)
Uh Tazz Tazz that PURE GASOLINE is actually CHEAPER to produce than Ethanol Blended

Why stations charge 30 cents MORE is because they CAN because there are people who will go out of their way to find it

While some older cars and small engines need ethanol free gas most stuff made today is designed with ETHANOL FUEL in mind and the blended fuel wont hurt stuff made from late 90's on.
 

Tazz

Infidel
OK except there is no such animal anymore. There is no ethanol free gas anymore. Has not been for a few years now. So regardless of cost of manufacture, people are paying for a product that does not exist:bonk:

That may change if the EPA rolls back the mandates. Now the envirowhacko's are po'ed that whenbthe demand for corn went up, everybody and his brother plowed every piece of acreage they could find to cash in. So we get the teeth gnashing of " They are plowing pristine virgin fields releasing trapped CO2 into the atmosphere"

Same fruit loops blame cow farts. Surprisingly it is a lot of "conservatives" pounding that particular drum. Probably hurting their oil futures investment.
 

Duck

My other car is a POS too
Supporter
While some older cars and small engines need ethanol free gas most stuff made today is designed with ETHANOL FUEL in mind and the blended fuel wont hurt stuff made from late 90's on.
I run that 10% ethanol crap in my 1946 Ford tractor all the time & it runs just fine. The tractor was designed to run on gasoline that had lead added.

Lead was originally added to gasoline to reduce knocking from pre-ignition. I don't know why they couldn't just delay the ignition timing, but that's what the purpose of leaded gas was for. At first, they were adding ethyl alcohol to the gas. But big business got in the way & decided to use lead instead so some billionaires could make even more money selling lead. General Motors, Standard Oil, and DuPont partnered to produce the lead additive, which they decided to call "Ethyl" in spite of the fact it was NOT ethyl alcohol.

There are layers of compacted snow/ice type stuff in the arctic. Each winter's snow doesn't melt but it hardens & the next year's snow forms another layer. So digging down into that stuff measures time the same way the rings on a tree do. They've dug back to those years & found there were layers of atmospheric lead oxide in the snow beginning at the time the widestream use of leaded gasoline began. So the tree huggers decided to phase out leaded gas.

After lots of court battles with the billionaires & the congressmen they owned, they got it phased out. By then, better engine technology & refinery method improvements were enough that a substitute wasn't needed, and in fact, the government wanted the gasoline to ignite & burn more completely (the opposite of wanting to slow down the combustion with octane boosters) so they started requiring oxygenated gasoline.

Ethanol is what they decided to use today to oxygenate the gas. In the 90's they were using methyl tert-butyl ether, but California decided it was a no-no because it was showing up in drinking water. So they decided to phase that out & the farm lobby convinced them to use Ethanol instead.

Ethanol has a tendency to dry-rot older rubber fuel lines. But my tractor has steel fuel lines so there's no problem. Some older vehicles' carbs & ignition timing may need to be adjusted for it though.

OK except there is no such animal anymore. There is no ethanol free gas anymore. Has not been for a few years now. So regardless of cost of manufacture, people are paying for a product that does not exist:bonk:
You can still buy gasoline without ethanol. It's still sold as "MOGAS" at some airports for aircraft that are jetted to burn regular gasoline instead of the 80 or 100 octane aviation fuel, and some other things like antique cars.

http://www.buyrealgas.com/

There are two places in Tullahoma where you can (according to that site) buy ethanol-free gasoline.
 

Injun

Rabid Squaw
Staff member
Supporter
I run that 10% ethanol crap in my 1946 Ford tractor all the time & it runs just fine. The tractor was designed to run on gasoline that had lead added.

Lead was originally added to gasoline to reduce knocking from pre-ignition. I don't know why they couldn't just delay the ignition timing, but that's what the purpose of leaded gas was for. At first, they were adding ethyl alcohol to the gas. But big business got in the way & decided to use lead instead so some billionaires could make even more money selling lead. General Motors, Standard Oil, and DuPont partnered to produce the lead additive, which they decided to call "Ethyl" in spite of the fact it was NOT ethyl alcohol.

There are layers of compacted snow/ice type stuff in the arctic. Each winter's snow doesn't melt but it hardens & the next year's snow forms another layer. So digging down into that stuff measures time the same way the rings on a tree do. They've dug back to those years & found there were layers of atmospheric lead oxide in the snow beginning at the time the widestream use of leaded gasoline began. So the tree huggers decided to phase out leaded gas.

After lots of court battles with the billionaires & the congressmen they owned, they got it phased out. By then, better engine technology & refinery method improvements were enough that a substitute wasn't needed, and in fact, the government wanted the gasoline to ignite & burn more completely (the opposite of wanting to slow down the combustion with octane boosters) so they started requiring oxygenated gasoline.

Ethanol is what they decided to use today to oxygenate the gas. In the 90's they were using methyl tert-butyl ether, but California decided it was a no-no because it was showing up in drinking water. So they decided to phase that out & the farm lobby convinced them to use Ethanol instead.

Ethanol has a tendency to dry-rot older rubber fuel lines. But my tractor has steel fuel lines so there's no problem. Some older vehicles' carbs & ignition timing may need to be adjusted for it though.

You can still buy gasoline without ethanol. It's still sold as "MOGAS" at some airports for aircraft that are jetted to burn regular gasoline instead of the 80 or 100 octane aviation fuel, and some other things like antique cars.

http://www.buyrealgas.com/

There are two places in Tullahoma where you can (according to that site) buy ethanol-free gasoline.
awww.redorbit.com_media_uploads_2013_06_ComputerNerd_062513_617x416.jpg
 

Tazz

Infidel
I was under the impression the security energy act (see what they did there?) Of 2007(?) Mandated a 10% blend. It was based off predicted fuel sales and a minimum amount of ethanol being used.......

Like I said ethanol does not bother me.
 

Kiwi303

Not a fruit
Ethanol-free is the standard petrol here, some places sold a special ethanol blend, marked as ethanol blend, for a while, but it didn't sell well. I think Gull fuel is the only one still stocking ethanol blended petrol and that is only for the 98 octane sports gas as a means of reducing detonation.
 

Tazz

Infidel
Ethanol-free is the standard petrol here, some places sold a special ethanol blend, marked as ethanol blend, for a while, but it didn't sell well. I think Gull fuel is the only one still stocking ethanol blended petrol and that is only for the 98 octane sports gas as a means of reducing detonation.
Isn't that sugar based down there?
 

Kiwi303

Not a fruit
Dinosaur based...

Oh, you mean the Ethanol? Nah, sugar cane has to be imported from Australia or Malaysia, cellulose based is more common, maize, beet or weed.
 

Copperhead

Well-Known Member
I do not care so long as their are no tax breaks for blending the fuel.
I am for tax breaks for everyone! All they are is a reduction in the amount of tax you have to pay. Now subsidies are quite another thing. That is money going from one pocket (taxpayer) to some group or business. That is morally wrong. But, a reduction is tax liability, what is morally wrong about that? You think the government is not getting enough already? Then by all means, give up your per diem tax deduction, your health care premium tax exemption, any mortgage tax deduction, etc, etc. After all, you shouldn't be getting those tax breaks, right?
 

Tazz

Infidel
I am for tax breaks for everyone! All they are is a reduction in the amount of tax you have to pay. Now subsidies are quite another thing. That is money going from one pocket (taxpayer) to some group or business. That is morally wrong. But, a reduction is tax liability, what is morally wrong about that? You think the government is not getting enough already? Then by all means, give up your per diem tax deduction, your health care premium tax exemption, any mortgage tax deduction, etc, etc. After all, you shouldn't be getting those tax breaks, right?
Agree on less taxes, however I am reffering to the "tax breaks" that are actually subsidies.
 

Kiwi303

Not a fruit
I think you need to look at an atlas. Brazil is on the Atlantic side. The Andes are on the Pacific side in Peru and Chile.
Well, yes, I am on the Pacific side, the WEST pacific, If I was to go to Brazil, I would have to swim across the pacific, crawl ashore in Chile, cross the Andes and raft down the amazon.

To reach Brazil without the Andes in the way, I would have to first cross the Tasman sea, cross Australia without meeting one of the venomous locals, swim across the south Indian ocean, drag myself across South Africa, swim the Atlantic and THEN finally reach the beaches of Rio...
 

Duck

My other car is a POS too
Supporter
Well, yes, I am on the Pacific side, the WEST pacific, If I was to go to Brazil, I would have to swim across the pacific, crawl ashore in Chile, cross the Andes and raft down the amazon.

To reach Brazil without the Andes in the way, I would have to first cross the Tasman sea, cross Australia without meeting one of the venomous locals, swim across the south Indian ocean, drag myself across South Africa, swim the Atlantic and THEN finally reach the beaches of Rio...
Seriously. Get an airline ticket, it would be SO much easier. o_O
 

Copperhead

Well-Known Member
Agree on less taxes, however I am reffering to the "tax breaks" that are actually subsidies.
This is why the politicians can play all the games they do to demonize things that they want to take advantage of.

Tax breaks are nothing more than allowances to reduce taxable income.

Subsidies are actually transfer of payments from one group to another. I agree that subsidies are morally wrong, but many confuse, as you have, tax breaks with subsidies. They are not the same thing. And Subsidies are what you are referring to, so at least call it what it is. The politicians use "tax break" interchangeably with money transfer subsidies so they can pit groups against each other and demonize people and businesses. And the majority of Americans fall for it. The government has played the game great in convincing that all money belongs to government and it is criminal for anyone to keep any of their own money, so "tax breaks" have become some sort of a negative thing.

If I get a tax break via a per diem allowance, which I do, I receive no subsidy or money transfer from the government. I only get to reduce the amount of taxable income that the tax rates are applied to. If I still had children, and got a tax break for child care expenses, which I would, the government is not paying for child care, they are only agreeing to not tax the money I made that went to child care. Same thing for mortgage interest, business loan interest, and a host of other things.

A blender tax credit for biofuels is not a money transfer, but an allowance per gallon that they can write off, and therefore reduce the taxable income on the business. That is not a bad thing. There have been no actual payments, or subsidies on many biofuels for some time. Just the wording has changed to make it look like they are getting subsidies because they are getting "tax breaks".

I agree, that this whole renewable fuel stuff has become quite a mess, but lets blame who needs to be blamed.... the federal and state governments. They are the one who have mandated this stuff. I am for renewable fuels, if they are a market driven thing that people want to buy. But that is not what is totally going on. And the government has done a great job of deflecting the outrage onto the renewable fuels folks and they get to sit back and let the public be distracted and not yell at the politicians.

Wow, is it any reason you can make more as a politician than playing poker. The hand is stacked in your favor as a politician and the public goes right along with it.
 
Last edited:
Top