Think 10% Ethanol sucks? try 15% !
10-13-2010, 03:45 PM
#1
Think 10% Ethanol sucks? try 15% !
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-Sai...&asset=&ccode=
Corn-based Ethanol is garbage. it doesn't even make sense to make them with Corn.
Most of us already hate that 10% junk in our gas and now they want 15% ?
man, I hate this place.
update : 1/22/2011
too late, gotta love morons and lobbyist and idiots in the government
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2011...-in-auto-fuel/
*sigh*
Update : 2/10/2011
Please "Like" This page ! SAY NO TO ETHANOL !!!!!
Corn-based Ethanol is garbage. it doesn't even make sense to make them with Corn.
Most of us already hate that 10% junk in our gas and now they want 15% ?
man, I hate this place.
update : 1/22/2011
too late, gotta love morons and lobbyist and idiots in the government
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2011...-in-auto-fuel/
*sigh*
Update : 2/10/2011
Please "Like" This page ! SAY NO TO ETHANOL !!!!!
Last edited by nycgps; 02-10-2011 at 08:12 AM.
10-13-2010, 05:07 PM
#5
Registered
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really don't mind using ethanol for all those dull people who drive corollas and such, but they should maintain a parallel supply of gasoline with no ethanol for those who don't want it or drive cars with high performance engines.
Well it is safe. Not like those EPA suckers will swim there so yea its safe for them. lol
10-15-2010, 11:01 AM
#9
"Ethanol producers such as Archer Daniels Midland Co. have pressed the EPA to raise the limit. Opponents, including a coalition of oil companies, automakers and advocacy groups, say adding more ethanol may damage car engines, boost food prices and hurt the environment."
Never thought oil companies would be on the "good" side. Bloody hell, it's the EPA, it's their job to figure out if we NEED more ethanol, not satisfy the ethanol producers.
Never thought oil companies would be on the "good" side. Bloody hell, it's the EPA, it's their job to figure out if we NEED more ethanol, not satisfy the ethanol producers.
10-16-2010, 12:02 AM
#11
"Ethanol producers such as Archer Daniels Midland Co. have pressed the EPA to raise the limit. Opponents, including a coalition of oil companies, automakers and advocacy groups, say adding more ethanol may damage car engines, boost food prices and hurt the environment."
Never thought oil companies would be on the "good" side. Bloody hell, it's the EPA, it's their job to figure out if we NEED more ethanol, not satisfy the ethanol producers.
Never thought oil companies would be on the "good" side. Bloody hell, it's the EPA, it's their job to figure out if we NEED more ethanol, not satisfy the ethanol producers.
We don't like no f-ing Ethanol. It decrease mpg = longer trips = more gas wasted. So how does this help the environment ?
but sadly this is how this country works now, Government just decide everything for us. Where is our rights?
Of course those oil companies gonna say no, cuz the more Ethanol in the mix, the less oil they use = less money goes into their pockets.
As for Auto markers, they do concern that more Ethanol might harm their stuff + its hard to "proof" that its the Ethanol that cause all those problems = in the end they might have to take all the warranty claim cost.
mind u, NONE of them gives a **** about food prices nor the environment. They just want money.
Just like MMO with their Genetically modified seeds. Nobody knows they're a big *** monopoly and they actually suing farmers that never even use their seeds. Their reason is the farm next to them use their seeds and somehow some of them "transferred" to their farm so their corps contains their "patented" technology. Use our seed or we will sue your *** till u drop. sad.
10-16-2010, 12:28 AM
#12
heres what doesn't make sense to me. They put that in the gas to reduce pollution, because they figure well your burning less fuel. In order to go the same distance though we have to burn more fuel because our fuel mileage has gone down. So there way of reducing pollution is adding something to the fuel that reduces fuel mileage so we have to burn even more fuel to get there?
and on a side note vashgs are you comming on the 24th:P https://www.rx8club.com/gulf-rx-8-forum-32/dfw-cruise-october-24-a-205185/
and on a side note vashgs are you comming on the 24th:P https://www.rx8club.com/gulf-rx-8-forum-32/dfw-cruise-october-24-a-205185/
10-16-2010, 01:10 AM
#13
heres what doesn't make sense to me. They put that in the gas to reduce pollution, because they figure well your burning less fuel. In order to go the same distance though we have to burn more fuel because our fuel mileage has gone down. So there way of reducing pollution is adding something to the fuel that reduces fuel mileage so we have to burn even more fuel to get there?
[/url]
[/url]
First is Lobbyist that works for ADM
Second is tree huggers
I don't think I need to explain the lobbyist part.
Tree huggers, they love whatever that "looks good on paper" oh my god it drops emission by 10 % oh yes thats all we cared. they never looked at the part that to reach the same distance the car has to burn another gallon or 2 of fuel which increase the consumption by another 10%. and the report stops there, cuz if the report have "it also increase green house gas emission by X% " those ******* will be pissed and start printing **** on top of IBM/HP roofs again.
10-16-2010, 09:02 AM
#14
What am I doing here?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: 2017 Miata RF Launch Edition
Posts: 3,606
Received 649 Likes
on
510 Posts
Admittedly, ethanol is better than MTBE. However, it's focus is being shifted from oxygenate additive to primary fuel source which is just... retarded.
ADM Exec: "Hang on! I've got a way to save the farms AND make us money! We'll burn our food in our gasoline!"
ADM Exec: "Hang on! I've got a way to save the farms AND make us money! We'll burn our food in our gasoline!"
10-16-2010, 01:31 PM
#15
Registered
So how does this help the environment ?
Not a plan that stands up to moral scrutiny, but at the top level that's how it works.
Ken
01-18-2011, 05:00 PM
#16
SARX Legend
iTrader: (46)
I am bumping this because I just read this:
http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyl...514_058678.htm
Older article but now that they are bumping it to 15% WTF are we supposed to do?
http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyl...514_058678.htm
Older article but now that they are bumping it to 15% WTF are we supposed to do?
01-18-2011, 05:35 PM
#21
Don't let anybody mislead you: The new push to get a 15% ethanol mandate out of Washington is simply to restore profitability to a failed industry. Only this time around those promoting more ethanol in our gas say there's no scientific proof that adding more ethanol will damage vehicles or small gas-powered engines. With that statement they've gone from shilling the public to outright falsehoods, because ethanol-laced gasoline is already destroying engines across the country in ever larger numbers.
but anyway, NY is a "go green wannabe" state and idiots running the NY government been pushing all these stupid Ethanol crap. I guess the Ethanol lobbyist gave them a lot of money ... I mean err donations ?
Its all 10% here and I hate it a lot. if they go 15% and my car dies or something funky happens. Im so gonna sue.
on the original article.
The agency said Wednesday that government testing found the blend would not damage the engines in cars with a model year of 2007 or later — about one in seven cars on the road — and would not cause unacceptable increases in air pollution. The agency is still testing cars for the 2001 to 2006 model years and expects to issue a ruling on those as soon as next month.
what a bunch of bs.
The federal government would like to see Americans use 36 billion gallons of alternative fuels by 2022, including 21 billion from advanced biofuels beyond the corn-based ethanol that is prevalent now. Currently, the industry says it can produce about six billion gallons of corn ethanol a year.
*sigh*
Last edited by nycgps; 01-18-2011 at 05:42 PM.
01-18-2011, 07:44 PM
#22
3-wheeler
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 2,734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are three things the federal government can do to prop up a particular product or market.
1. Mandate a product be used
2. Impose tariffs on importation of the same product.
3. Subsidize products.
To my understanding, ethanol is the ONLY product on the market that had all 3 conditions. If ethanol was truly a worthwhile product then it would not need these conditions to survive.
1. Mandate a product be used
2. Impose tariffs on importation of the same product.
3. Subsidize products.
To my understanding, ethanol is the ONLY product on the market that had all 3 conditions. If ethanol was truly a worthwhile product then it would not need these conditions to survive.
01-18-2011, 10:06 PM
#23
Hmm, let's see...
Only 60% of the energy content of gasoline, takes more energy to produce than it produces (therefore, makes more pollution that it abates), can - at best - only replace 12% of the demand for gasoline (and only if all corn production is diverted to ethanol production), forces the entire food market to readjust, driving up the cost of all goods, is hydrophillic, so it destroys anything it comes in contact with that can corrode, has been a primary driving force in the deforestation of the Amazon, etc.
Lets throw tax money at it so that Iowa is happy so that my presidential bid has legs since that is where the primary is held...
Only 60% of the energy content of gasoline, takes more energy to produce than it produces (therefore, makes more pollution that it abates), can - at best - only replace 12% of the demand for gasoline (and only if all corn production is diverted to ethanol production), forces the entire food market to readjust, driving up the cost of all goods, is hydrophillic, so it destroys anything it comes in contact with that can corrode, has been a primary driving force in the deforestation of the Amazon, etc.
Lets throw tax money at it so that Iowa is happy so that my presidential bid has legs since that is where the primary is held...
01-18-2011, 11:26 PM
#25
Super Moderator
2 groups of ppl are happy about Ethanols.
First is Lobbyist that works for ADM
Second is tree huggers
I don't think I need to explain the lobbyist part.
Tree huggers, they love whatever that "looks good on paper" oh my god it drops emission by 10 % oh yes thats all we cared. they never looked at the part that to reach the same distance the car has to burn another gallon or 2 of fuel which increase the consumption by another 10%. and the report stops there, cuz if the report have "it also increase green house gas emission by X% " those ******* will be pissed and start printing **** on top of IBM/HP roofs again.
First is Lobbyist that works for ADM
Second is tree huggers
I don't think I need to explain the lobbyist part.
Tree huggers, they love whatever that "looks good on paper" oh my god it drops emission by 10 % oh yes thats all we cared. they never looked at the part that to reach the same distance the car has to burn another gallon or 2 of fuel which increase the consumption by another 10%. and the report stops there, cuz if the report have "it also increase green house gas emission by X% " those ******* will be pissed and start printing **** on top of IBM/HP roofs again.
I tried 20 bucks in my late fathers 323, did not like it, really, it felt like the tyres needed air...that feeling.
Never tried it on my 8, only use highest RON here, Now $1.40 a litre or $5.50 a gallon!!
The 10% E Crap they have here is like 2 cents a litre cheaper or 9 cents a gallon.