Talk:Ethanol fuel in the United States

Environment: Green vehicle Mid‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Green vehicle task force.

Energy Mid‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Common ethanol fuel mixtures#E10|E10]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Needs Criticism Section

Concerns that should be addressed: Driving up Food Prices Potentially Causes More Global Warming than it Eliminates (once you consider what is required to produce it) Subsidies many consider wasteful Increases Erosion Encourages Deforestation etc. --RedHouse18 17:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The author of this article writes: "Pimentel's study was disputed by a number of researchers, forcing him to revise his figures", however I'm not aware of any peer reviewed studies that dispute Pimentel's findings to any significant degree. If the author is aware of such studies, he/she should cite them. The USDA study, on the other hand, has been criticized by academics (see Patzek (2005) for a detailed discussion of the USDA study). For instance, among other very optimistic assumptions, the USDA study’s findings rest on an “energy credit” the researchers give to ethanol. The credit is argued to reflect the fact that amount of energy it would have taken to produce some co-products (mostly animal feed) that are sold to farmers. The problem is that if ethanol is produce in quantities large enough to actually offset gasoline use, then there would be more co-product than demanders of it, meaning we would have to use energy to dispose of it. Removing this co-product from the USDA’s accounting and the net-energy balance becomes about even.

The fact that Brazillian experience with ethanol is never mentioned in the article reflects the general lack of scientifical neutrality related to this kind of fuel research in the US. The big companies simple dont want to stop using gasoline and will create any counter-propaganda needed to do this. And combined by the general alienation of the US citizen looks like they will manage to keep ethanol (and any other alternative fuel for that matter) out of the market.

We (Brazil) have a very sucessfull ethanol and biodiesel industry, and this is not even mentioned in the article...

Moving Information from Ethanol fuel - Work in progress Rifleman 82 06:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The FUTURE of CORN ETHANOL for the forseeable future

Distiller's Grain is a byproduct of corn ethanol production. It is a dark yellow substance that can be fed to cattle. The debate about energy balance with respect to corn ethanol production overlooks the fact that the feed value of corn is not lost. It simply becomes better suited for cattle consumption (as opposed to hogs). Furthermore, it seems highly doubtful that one could estimate with great accuracy the amount of diesel fuel and gasoline needed to manage all of the corn acres in the country. Not only does the number of corn acres planted vary considerably from year to year, but the study implies that corn farmers do not also farm other crops: soybeans, alfalfa, etc. Inevitably, the amount of fuel used to plant at least some of these non-corn acres will be included. One must also consider the ever-consolidating and increasingly energy-efficient nature of American agriculture. One might reasonably infer that ag subsidies, in their current form, slow this process down, hampering efforts to move the energy balance in ethanol's direction.

--Dualcor Dave 05:24, 8 March 2008 (UT)

Please read the Article. Corn to Ethanol has been proven INEFFECTIVE as TOO MUCH ENERGY required to produce less Ethanol than Sugarcane to Ethanol. Sugarcane to Ethanol requires less Energy to produce than Corn to Ethanol. See the Wikipedia Article Ethanol Fuel in Brazil.

Regarding the amount of corn produced, today's computer assisted, GPS assisted, semi automated farming is pretty accurate as determining yields. The biggest problem is another matter pertaining to patented GMO seeds; and patent violations due to things like "cross pollination" and other things that independent farmers cannot control be get lawsuits routinely filed against them by the Big Agri Businesses.

The largest problem with Highly Effective Sugarcane to Ethanol was the Politics. As Demorat President Obama's Illinois Corn to Ethanol Lobby Versus at that time Republican Louisiana's and Florida's Sugarcane to Ethanol Industry. This is why the U.S. Sugar Industry's Federal Subsidizes ended up being Diverted from the U.S. Sugarcane to Ethanol Industry to the U.S. Corn to Ethanol Industry, resulting in the Democrat U.S. Island State of Hawaii's Sugar Industry being killed off. The other Politically motivated diversion was the Federal Subsidizes to GE Lousisiana to design, build, Safer Nuclear Power, Generation 3 with Nuclear Waste Recycling to replace the 104 Obsolete Unsafe U.S. Nuclear Reactors of the same design as the Nuclear Reactors involved in the Fukishima Disaster; the current unsafe U.S. Nuclear Reactors were originally design to produce lots of Weapons Grade Uranium and Plutonium, that now must be put into secure vaults as nuclear waste, this is an example of just how much U.S. Politicians really don't care. (Yes, I have the Newspaper Articles...too many, that back up what I just posted). Nakamuradavid (talk) 02:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Future developments

Personally, I think corn ethanol currently is viable. But while the short term remanes debatable. I really have to disagree about the long term. Corn Ethanol will become a viable and energy eficant comodity in the future.

Currently it takes about 1 unit of petroleum to grow and process 1.5 units of corn ethanol but I’m pretty sure that with the

Advent and promotion of cheaper non-petroleum fertilizers and herbicides.
Increased corn acreage from new methods of farming.
Farming equipment and machinery that runs on E85.
Renewable sources of electricity for power.
New more efficient and coast effective production processes and manufacturing methods being developed.
The discovery of new and better Enzymes for chemical processing,

The creation of corn ethanol will become a much more energy efficant and coast effective process leaving a greatly reduced environmental footprint.

All these technologies are curently being developed and progressing, and corn ethanol will become a much more viable product, and a great boon to our economy, our environment and our society.
With all these technologies under development, in just 30 years it will take just 1 unit of petroleum to grow and process at least 5 units of corn ethanol.
Making corn ethanol in the furture a truly environmentally friendly and energy efficiant alternative to petroleum and gasoline, and turning corn ethanol into truly an energy sorce and not just an alternative means of procecing or storing oil energy.

Besides it beats being a puppet to the oil companies. --J intela 05:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corn to Ethanol should have been stopped, with all Federal Subsidizes ended.

The Federal Subsidizes would then be returned to the original intended Sugarcane to Ethanol, as PROVEN many times more effective than Corn To Ethanol. See Wikipedia "Ethanol in Brazil" Article.

All those Conditionals (as might in the Future have) things you listed do not matter in the SIMPLE Sugarcane to Ethanol Process, READ THE ARTICLE.

The other terrible thing that the U.S. Corn Industry did is pushed Bio Engineered High Fructose Corn Syrup to replace Natural Sugar. High Fructose Corn Syrup is used to Rapidly Fatten up Chickens, Pigs, Cattle, etc. After the Defeats of Most of the U.S. Sugar Industry, the costs of Sugar went sky high, with the U.S. Tarrifs against Foreign (Brazil) Sugar still in effect, the result was most U.S. Food Processing switched to High Fructose Corn Syrup, in EVERYTHING, including those things not Sweet like Breads, Canned Vegetables, Soda Crackers, Peanut Butter, Ketchup, Tomato Paste, etc., the immediate effects were the U.S. Obesity Epidemic, followed by the obesity related Heart Diseases, Cardovascular Diesases, High Blood Pressure, etc..

At Europe, they Banned U.S. Products with High Fructose Corn Syrup, and their Obesity Rates decreased along with all the related diseases. U.S. Fast Food at Europe had to change the (Hundreds of Millions of)Buns, Torillas, etc. that they routinely used, that contained High Fructose Corn Syrup. Unlike the ignorance of the U.S. at European Nations if your product has High Fructose Corn Syrup, GMOs, Hormones, etc. YOU ARE PENALIZED by having to spend more money putting Warning Labels on your Products, instead of at the U.S. those that do not use High Fructose Corn Syrup, GMOs, Hormones are Penalized by having to spend more money putting labels on their products saying NO GMOs, NO HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, etc.. See the difference?...Our unconcerned U.S. Politicians could care less. Nakamuradavid (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a lot of work

I will keep coming back to this, but it seems very POV toward Pimentel and Pitzek. They really aren't very highly regarded by anyone but detractors. For a tiny bit more credibility, you might look at the Earth policy Institute, but when I spoke to Lester Brown he explained the coming war between the coasts and the Midwest. I got off the phone before he used the word "Thunderdome." Anyway, I will try and help clean this up as I have time. Menkatopia 16:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Issues?

Is there any reason why everyone is considering only the energy efficiency of Ethanol? There are other benefits to using E85 and even E10:

Crude oil is a limited resource. There is a certain amount of it and the Earth won't be making any more for a long time. We can grow more corn or whatever other vegetable matter we'd like to make ethanol from. If (unrealistically) everyone started using E85 tomorrow instead of gasoline, the existing world supply of crude oil would last close to twice as long, possibly many decades or even centuries longer.
The use of E85 decreases the US reliance on crude oil from foreign sources. The US capacity to harvest crude oil pales in comparison to its demand for it. We give away loads of wheat and corn to foreign countries. We could instead use the wheat and corn to produce ethanol and reduce our trade imbalance.
The argument has been made that production of gasoline from crude oil is 100% efficient because it's the only thing we do with crude oil. That's an argument to maintain the status quo. If we re-tooled our production capacity for ethanol, we may find ways to improve the efficiency of the process and make it better to produce than oil. Over time, we could come to consider production of ethanol 100% efficient because that's the way we're used to looking at things.

Maybe it's not all about the numbers.64.81.103.70 02:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Maybe it's not all about the numbers." If you knew about the Politics (U.S. Politicians given HUGE Campaign Contributions) you would get really angry. Nakamuradavid (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improperly placed section

I think the Debate section should be placed in a more general article on "ethanol as a fuel" or maybe for the sustainability of ethanol fuel production.

Patzek and Pimentel

Since Pimentel seems to be about the only still pushing this concept of a negative energy balance with ethanol (with the assistance of Patzek) perhaps it would be in our best interests to have full disclosure here.

Patzek worked for Shell Oil Company as a researcher, consultant, and expert witness. He founded and directs the UC Oil Consortium, which is mainly funded by the oil industry at the rate of US$60,000-120,000 per company per year.

Pimentel has been basing his numerous studies on corn yeilds from 1980 with a refusal to admit yeilds have increased a great deal in the last 25 years. He also bases his studies on other figures from the late 80s and early 90s and even when pointed out he refused to update them and instead uses the same debunked figures in study after study.

Clearly this guy has a chip on his shoulder, and I suspect that chip is being funded by the oil companies.

Here is one interesting quote I found: "This [Pimentel's] report was debunked by, among others, Michael Wang and Dan Santini of the Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory, who conducted a series of detailed analyses on energy and emission impacts of corn ethanol from 1997 through 1999. [...]Only Dr. Pimentel disagrees with this analysis. But his outdated work has been refuted by experts from entities as diverse as the USDA, DOE, Argonne National Laboratory, Michigan State University, and the Colorado School of Mines."

If we are going to tell the whole story, there should be at least some reference to the perceived bias of Pimentel and Patzek especially when so many studies have refuted their claims. This isn't as if the USDA study is the only one out there....and it should be disclosed.

Costner (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

picture

here is a picture of an ethanol station of US Ethanol's in case it would prove useful. --Emesee (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future in doubt

This site: [Nuw] has a critic against ethanol as a fuel in America.Agre22 (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)agre22[reply]

Blender Pumps

These are problematic because of poor labeling. Specifically the labeling on the pump. The article I referenced[1] had the misconception that people were putting in the wrong type of fuel because they didn't realize that their vehicle wouldn't run with high ethanol fuels. This is wrong. People are putting in the wrong fuel because the pumps are so poorly labelled, they can't figure out which selection dispenses the zero percent or the 10 percent blends.

The pump I encountered had no selections labelled 'regular unleaded', 'no ethanol', or '10% ethanol', as one would have expected. Plus the E85 selection was set apart from the rest, making it appear that it was the proper selection for usual, non-flex-fuel vehicles, not the others. Really bad human factors engineering. I was only able to deduce which selection to choose by reading the fine print on the pumps AND using a process of elimination (its not this one, not this one, etc).

The referenced article[2] references their solution to the problem was to put yellow caps on flex fuel vehicles. This is not a solution. The the people who don't have flex fuel vehicles are the ones that need know which selections have high ethanol blends. But they also don't have the yellow on their gas caps. The yellow has no particular meaning to these people. Only people with flex-fuel vehicles would be associating the yellow with high ethanol blends, but for them, any selection would work. The problem of people dispensing the wrong fuel in blender pumps is NOT solved. --Aflafla1 (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, these article is not about blender pumps, so such edit, if supported by reliable sources, belong elsewhere. Second, any notable issue has room in Wikipedia, but such notability has to be supported by WP:Reliable sources, please check the policy. Anecdotal content or personal experience does not meet the notability criteria, Wiki is not a blog. As an example, if drivers confused the gasoline pump with the diesel pump, this incident is no material for Wikipedia. I also know of a friend that filled the tank with E85 instead of regular gasoline, but again this is no material for Wikipedia. This is the reason for reversing your edit. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

metric units

I've just reverted an edit that wasted a heap of changes that bring the article into compliance with WP:MOSNUM on the provision of metric conversions. Please note that non-Americans need access to articles on US-related topics too, and shouldn't be expected to look up rates of conversion and get out their calculators. If there are issues with this, please let's discuss it here. I do believe liters should be added, but let's do that without removing the improvements that have already been made. $Tony (talk)$ 09:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 I do disagree with the changes because the article already had a lot of conversions from US gallons to liters which is also metric system. Cubic meters, as Lightmouse and his bot User:Lightbot did here and a bunch of other ethanol fuel related articles, introduced a metric that is not customary in the ethanol fuel/petrol industry, nor in the automotive: the customary unit is liters! Countries with the metric system sell their fuel in liters no m3 (Brazil for example), fuel economy is expressed in miles per gallon or liter per 100 km, engine sizes are expressed in liters too (not anymore in cc). So the bot and Lightmouse are introducing a unit that is not familiar to most readers. Also, the conversion in the table are really unnecessary and only crowded the content making it difficult to read. This is the main issue, and I will request he stops running the bot for such conversions until the issue is settle here, or at least the conversion to m3.

There is also the issue of delinking non-obscure units, which is a few cases is appropriate but the bot is delinking technical terms and words such as switchgrass, hydrolysis, flexible-fuel vehicle, oxygenate, e85, e100, ILUC, etc. Most of our readers are not engineers nor specialist to understand of all these terms and words. The bot should be more selective and only delink unnecessary words (i.e California). Finally, the undo in some cases covered much than justified because the bot made so many changes that it is painstakingly to revert one by one. In the articles which there are few errors I left most of the fixes. I do not have a bot do it . --Mariordo (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasoning, but I suspect LM will say that in some parts of the world and some fields readers would use cubic meters (even though I don't like it). Let's see whether LM would be willing to have one or two cubic-meter conversions plus liters at the outset, then liters only. But he is an acknowledged expert in such things, I have to say. The other thing is that all of his improvements aside from this issue have been undone in a single sweep: did you really intend that?

Tony (talk)

00:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is that the article should have metric units. Not everybody understands gallons and some of those that do, think of a different one. Almost all the editing was by hand and it was a lot of work. It was done with a lot of thought and in good faith to improve the article and bring it closer to the Manual of Style. I specified 'US' for 'gallons'. I reduced duplicate links but I don't care if you want those. If you want liters as has been suggested in edit summaries and on this page, that's fine by me. I add liters to lots of articles myself and I'd be happy to have people help make articles more accessible to metric readers. Instead of removing metric units and making it less accessible, all you have to do is a single search and replace 'm3' by 'L'. That's one of the great features of the template. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 09:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Mariordo, can we revert and you modify as you please from there?

Tony (talk)

10:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK go ahead, I will do individual fixes later (as time permits). But I don't think Lightmouse biased against non metric units in healthy. There are more than 300 million Americans who used the very old system, and Wikipedia is supposed to be universal. Using US gallons and liters satisfies most audiences, and we engineers and people from other countries have to understand that.--Mariordo (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll revert, and hopefully the article can be brought to a consensus version. I don't think LM is against non-metric units; just their inclusion. Thanks.

Tony (talk)

08:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of a statement needs examples

From the trends section of the article.... "These states, particularly Minnesota, have had substantially more success in promoting ethanol usage, and have accumulated substantial environmental and economic benefits as a result.[32]" This is a hanging inuendo...it needs to be supported by examples. The article looks promising from the first page, but I dont have time to read it to see if the assertion is true. The person who inserted this sentence and reference should have given an example from the article rather than making the assertion that the article might say something useful. After all, this is an encyclopedia that contains facts, not references to where facts might be found.

Thank you in advance.

Avram Primack (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference states that Minnesota's "remarkable benefits" are the amount of ethanol produced, the amount of ethanol-blended fuel, and a footnote says one city is compliant with a basic CO pollution standard. (Minnesota will require E20 at all stations by August 2013, so the ethanol numbers shouldn't be remarkable -- but maybe I'm biased since my 2009 & 2012 cars can't use more than E10). 66.87.7.56 (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check the article Common ethanol fuel mixtures, the sections E15, and the end of E20, E25 provide a better explanation. Cars manufactured for E10 are being tested for higher ethanol blends. E15 was approved by EPA for models 2001 and newer, and there is controversy around this issue (the article is not updated though).--Mariordo (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it doesn't explain why warranties like mine require using blends containing no more than 10% ethanol. I see the tests in the articles and their references, but I can't find results of any durability testing with the higher ethanol blends. One report claims to have done engine durability testing, but states it only put 100 to 200 miles on each car. The EPA has standard tests for 150,000 mile emission systems durability -- hasn't anyone tested with E20/etc? 66.87.2.29 (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that is all there is from reliable sources. IMHO carmakers do not want to take any chances and are sticking with the old E10 maximum, even despite EPA more extensive testing with E15. As for E20/E25 I can tell you about my personal experience. I have a 2004 Volvo S40 I bought in the US (made in Canada) and have used in Brazil since mid 2006 with Brazilian E25 (for around 50,000 miles now) without any problem other than a bit lower fuel economy as compared with the MPG the car was delivering in the US. When I just imported the car the Brazilian dealer's advice was not to make any adjustments, and has been working just fine. Also, did you know that there are more than 30 million light vehicles in Brazil running on E25 for decades with no problem (E20 since last year), and my understanding is that only flex-fuel need some minor adjustments, but in Brazil the purchase price of a regular gasoline-only vehicle is the same as their E100 flex-fuel vehicles (like in the US now). This is just anecdotal evidence to satisfy your curiosity, please by no means take it as valid technical/scientific conclusion.--Mariordo (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expert tag

Ethanol fuel in the United States#Effects of land use change had an incomprehensible sentence. I fixed it - I think - but would appreciate it if someone knowledgeable would double check. Lfstevens (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Actually you are doing a great job of copyedit here. The article Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels has been tag for some time for requiring copyedit. Since this is a GA I would appreciate if you can give us a hand there, and I will accompany you for technical content. English is a second language for me, so the required improvement is difficult for me. I already fixed the same paragraph you improve here. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Did some more copyedits, but my large recommendation is that you move the enviro and social stuff into the feedstocks section because that's how they divide. I'll take a look at the landuse article. Lfstevens (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you did a great work here.--Mariordo (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ILUC

The article does not define 'ILUC'. It links to the Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels article, and the table in the Low-carbon fuel standards section uses the term International Land Use Emissions. Should 'international' be 'indirect'? 66.87.7.139 (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, ILUC stands for Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels.--Mariordo (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated Article

Should the outdated templte be used here? Most of the data seems to be from about 2007, that is almost a decade ago. The efficiency of ethanol production has improved quite significantly since then and I was hoping to learn more about the current state of the fuel. 174.101.99.191 (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ethanol fuel in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Ethanol fuel in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ethanol fuel in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Ethanol fuel in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Ethanol fuel in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928131808/http://www.ethanolrfa.org/page/-/2011%20RFA%20Ethanol%20Industry%20Outlook.pdf?nocdn=1 to http://www.ethanolrfa.org/page/-/2011%20RFA%20Ethanol%20Industry%20Outlook.pdf?nocdn=1
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120818032725/http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120817/AUTO01/208170431 to http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120817/AUTO01/208170431
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217073219/http://feerc.ornl.gov/publications/Int_blends_Rpt_1.pdf to http://feerc.ornl.gov/publications/Int_blends_Rpt_1.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/Energy_Security_Issue_Brief.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/Science_Journal_January_2006.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eia.doe.gov/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eia.doe.gov/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://revistaepoca.globo.com/Revista/Epoca/0%2C%2CEMI5865-15273.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anfavea.com.br/cartas/Carta308.pdf
Added archive https://archive.is/20121205031059/http://unica.com.br/noticias/show.asp?nwsCode=4771CECF-FDB8-43B5-9CF9-E342B99F5C23 to http://unica.com.br/noticias/show.asp?nwsCode=4771CECF-FDB8-43B5-9CF9-E342B99F5C23
Corrected formatting/usage for http://br.invertia.com/noticias/noticia.aspx?idNoticia=200807152306_ABR_77211977
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111010140245/http://www.princeton.edu/~tsearchi/writings/SupportingMaterials.pdf to http://www.princeton.edu/~tsearchi/writings/SupportingMaterials.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://world-wire.com/news/0904230003.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090911202522/http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2009/04/24/carb-votes-9-1-for-california-low-carbon-fuel-standard-moves-up-indirect-land-use-review-to-jan-2011-in-response-to-outcry-on-iluc to http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2009/04/24/carb-votes-9-1-for-california-low-carbon-fuel-standard-moves-up-indirect-land-use-review-to-jan-2011-in-response-to-outcry-on-iluc/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1808713.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/23/news/economy/california.reut/index.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090506233214/http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Announces-Steps-to-Support-Sustainable-Energy-Options/ to http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Announces-Steps-to-Support-Sustainable-Energy-Options/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.future-science.com/doi/pdf/10.4155/bfs.09.20
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080718170926/http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/19/62/41007840.pdf to http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/19/62/41007840.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/EXTWDRS/EXTWDR2008/0%2C%2CcontentMDK%3A21501336~pagePK%3A64167689~piPK%3A64167673~theSitePK%3A2795143%2C00.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/patzek/CRPS416-Patzek-Web.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Ethanol fuel in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ethanol fuel in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]