Last post on Nov 12, 2013 at 6:13 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views
What is this discussion about?
Oct 04, 2012 (5:20 am)
Six gas stations in and around Kansas are now offering E15 (15% ethanol 85% gasoline). This is a 50% increase in the amount of ethanol added to gasoline. This forum has aired a lot of opinion and information in the past; I think its time to reactivate it and take another hard look at this development and why this is a very bad thing for American motorists.
#1050 of 1068 Re: Uh Oh! [newdavidq]
Oct 04, 2012 (5:37 am)
I would be curious as to the mileage difference in a FFV. I would NOT run that stuff in a vehicle not rated as FFV. I can tell a big difference in my Sequoia on the highway, when I run RUG with no ethanol vs the crap we get here in CA. If it costs 15% less it is probably a wash. I still contend ethanol is a net negative on the environment using Corn. The farm subsidies are just too much for the big ag companies to ignore. Corporate welfare to the max.
#1051 of 1068 Re: Uh Oh! [gagrice]
Oct 04, 2012 (5:40 am)
Ah! You're up early!
As always completely agree on corn ethanol. Only there because Iowa is a perpetual swing state.
#1052 of 1068 Re: Uh Oh! [fezo]
Oct 04, 2012 (5:57 am)
good point. I think I read over 90% of the land in Iowa is farmed. Mostly corn. Both parties protect those stinking farm subsidies for their rich constituents.
I am always up at 5 AM old habits are tough to break.
#1053 of 1068 Time to cut the EPA off at the knees.
Nov 17, 2012 (8:32 pm)
EPA OWNED BY SPECIAL INTERESTS like ADM...Screw the Consumers...
EPA rejects bid to relax ethanol mandate
2012 drought prompted request over corn fuel use
Washington — The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday rejected a request from eight governors and nearly 200 members of Congress to waive requirements for the use of corn-based ethanol in gasoline, after last summer's severe drought wilted much of the nation's corn crop.
The move is a victory for corn farmers who have seen corn prices jump 400 percent in recent years. But it is a loss for pork and beef producers who say the diversion of corn to ethanol raises feed prices and ultimately prices at the supermarket.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121117/AUTO01/211170359/EPA-rejects-bid-to-- - relax-ethanol-mandate
Wanted a pound of bacon the other day, $7 a pound. I can live without it.
#1054 of 1068 Re: Time to cut the EPA off at the knees. [gagrice]
Nov 18, 2012 (7:48 am)
I can understand preferences when alternative energy is being started and the fuel situation was different when ethanol was first brought on, but there comes a time when these things need to either be able to stand on their own merits or fade away. Same goes with wind energy. Personally, I've always been skeptical that ethanol may actually use more resources and energy than it provides. As for wind, I don't think people factor in the operation and maintenance costs over time to operate those gigantic windmills. I'm thinking we'll see a lot of them abandoned and rusted out a decade from now.
#1055 of 1068 Re: Time to cut the EPA off at the knees. [berri]
Nov 18, 2012 (1:25 pm)
Right on with both. I cannot think of any thing positive to say about Ethanol. Many windmills are being torn down. Worn out and too expensive to maintain. The subsidies are gone which makes them no longer profitable to the operators. Time will tell with home solar. If they do in fact last 20-25 years they will pay for themselves.
#1056 of 1068 Re: From Mr Inconvenient Truth himself [gagrice]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Nov 18, 2012 (5:19 pm)
Well it's the intelligent man who can change his mind once new data presents itself.
Haven't you ever supported something and lived to regret it? I sure have.
It's also admirable to confess in public to choosing political ambition over common sense. I have no problem with politicians confessing their sins. Few do you know.
It's the people who never change their mind about anything that worry me the most.
Science is, after all, the process of science disproving itself. That's what science does.
#1057 of 1068 Re: From Mr Inconvenient Truth himself [Mr_Shiftright]
Nov 18, 2012 (7:12 pm)
In the case of Corn ethanol science refuted its viability from the start. Politicians pushed it as a payoff to big Ag. Yes Gore admitted his error. Too bad the President and the wonks in the EPA refuse to be honest.
#1058 of 1068 Re: From Mr Inconvenient Truth himself [gagrice]
Nov 18, 2012 (7:45 pm)
Well, the corn belt is pretty much a mix of red and blue states, so I guess we'll be stuck with ethanol regardless of its merits. What galls me even more than this decision is the EPA wanting to stick us with 15% ethanol when the industry tries to tell them it will mess up many engines. I think that agency is run by zealots that are out of control and devoid of impartiality or common sense. Of course agriculture is really big business these days, so besides the electoral votes there is probably plenty of lobbyist payola to go along with it.