Razz1

You forgot the worst part. It rapes the land of ground soil. Our top soil is disappearing so fast that it won't be able to sustain growing crops in 40 years.

nycgps

iTrader: (1)

Those people not gonna care.

Cuz all they see now is $$$$$$$$$$

I seriously don't get this whole thing.

It takes more energy to create Ethanol.
It gives you pos mpg.
It takes away your food, yea the stuff u need to survive.
It actually pollutes more.
It create problems in the long run.

the government STILL trying to push this **** ... *sigh*

ASH8

Could not agree more, the cost of and to produce this fuel.

We are doing it here on a much smaller scale, using sugar cane leftovers etc.

Have not started to specifically grow crops to feed the e-plant...yet...probably because we have never subsidized agriculture with taxpayers $$$$'s like the US or Europe.

Total Bullshit to pay a farmer to produce something that no one actually wants, particularly Europe.

Crikey, the "EU" will reject (for sale) a perfectly good eating Tomato or Cucumber if it is too large or not the correct shape FFS!!.

THE issue we in Australia are grappling with is "FOOD Security", don't know about you guys, but that large Asian country above us want to import their 'Fresh Food' down under at a bargain basement price!..we have some of the toughest pest and disease controls out there, but, No China wants it relaxed.

So we will kill off our farmers, import all our fresh food from a nation which uses very questionable practices for growing food, like using DTD (Pesticide) and Human Waste (****) as a soil fertilizer.

Bloody madness, why we even consider this...all for the mighty dollar and CONTROL by stealth....who needs Wars?

DocBeech

iTrader: (1)

The EPA and the Agriculture divisions of the gov are trying to push it. In the short run its big money. They have increased the profit on corn by 300%.(The corn ethanol industry also benefits from a 45 cent per gallon of ethanol tax credit — the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit — that is provided for every gallon of ethanol blended with gasoline.) Now thats a lot of money they stand to loose if the project is scrapped. They are doing what most large companies would do, protect thier stock. The EPA is making a ton of money by the testing debate. They are "In Need" at this point since "No laboratory testing has found any conclusive evidence for or against ethanol based fuels." The truth of the matter is and can be found in that letter I posted for you to read. The lab results have been skewed to keep the testing on going.

With the non conclusive evidence they have decided to increase the ethanol content in some areas. The epa tested less than 45 cars. Even the director of the tests posted in his notes "There were not enough vehicles tested to come to a conclusion." Its win win for both of those agencies even though all the other agencies are telling them nothing good can come from this. In the short term its big money.

Heres some more facts for you to think about:

"The DOE research has not yet addressed the lifetime effect of ethanol fuels on vehicle performance and emissions, leaving a data gap that must be addressed to know the extent to which ethanol blends are incompatible with the current vehicle fleet. Moreover, there has been no testing of the impact of ethanol on vehicle engines and emissions systems for vehicles that have run more than their estimated full life (120 thousand miles) (American Lung Association 2009)."

"The study also noted that ethanol transportation would produce significant CO2 emissions and thus lead to larger total life cycle effects. Researchers concluded that long-distance transport of ethanol, whatever the means of delivery from production sites to distribution locations, would likely negate any potential economic and environmental benefits of ethanol relative to gasoline (Wakeley 2009)."

"In addition to infrastructure gaps, fire safety concerns are also an issue with ethanol, since transporting and blending ethanol fuels could pose a significant fire hazard (DOT 2008; Niles 2007). Due to ethanol's high solubility in water, the use of water spray may be inefficient when fighting fire involving ethanol-gasoline blends mix (Missouri Department of Natural Resources 2008). Ethanol blend fuel fires cannot be readily smothered with standard fire fighting foam (Associated Press 2008; Missouri Department of Natural Resources 2008). As a result, distribution and dispensation of ethanol fuels above E10 could pose a significant fire hazard that requires specialized training and custom-made fire-fighting foams (DOT 2008; TRANSCAER 2009)."

Heres the worst part of it all.:

In a study paid for by the DOE and conducted by Bechtold in 2007 and Drevna in 2009 43% of vehicles on the road will experience premature failure of mechanical parts related to the engine and fuel system if Ethanol blends higher than 8% are used. This is mainly due to the inability of the vehicles to compensate properly during open loop cycles or wide open throttle. This is also due to the fact that ethanol based fuel causes fuel filter clogs and premature degradation of plastics commonly used in fuel systems. The RX8 runs open loop after about 75mph. Here in Texas its not uncommon to be going 80mph or more on a highway(some highway speed limits are set to 85). This study included multiple vehicles that were model year 2007 or newer which failed to stand up during testing to fuels above 8% ethanol.





I would like a scientific response from Allch Chcar. I was going to touch up on your posts but other members beat me to it. Just to help you out a little bit though:

"The EPA is not a Cabinet department"(White House Staff)

"Since its inception the EPA has begun to rely less and less on its scientists and more on non-science personnel. New policies will minimize scientist interaction with the agency and rely more on policy makers who have minimal scientific knowledge." (CNN)

"The agency is led by its Administrator, who is appointed by the president and approved by Congress."(White House Staff)

"Conflicting political powers The White House maintains direct control over the EPA, and its enforcements are subject to the political agenda of who is in power. Republicans and Democrats differ in their approaches to, and perceived concerns of, environmental justice."(Cambridge: MIT)

"Authority of the EPA Under different circumstances, the EPA faces many limitations to enforcing environmental justice. It does not have the authority or resources to address injustices without an increase in federal mandates requiring private industries to consider the environmental ramifications of their activities."

Because the EPA is more of a company and less of a federal agency its one of the more corrupt agencies. The EPA is not elected in, they are chosen. They pick and choose what is "safe" based on personal gain. There really aren't any checks and balances as of right now to say what they are doin is right or wrong. So before we start making claims of the DOE vs the EPA lets make sure we get the facts straight.

The EPA is rated as the most corrupt agency in the government. The science panels for the EPA have been under investigation for two years now after 40 nobel laureate's(Nobel Peace Prize Winners) stated they found falsified results in EPA studies. Those results were purposely skewed to benefit the EPA and companies they were working with. When the Nobel Peace Prize Community says your lieing its time for all of us to take a good hard look at whats going on. By the way those same 40 Nobel Laureate's are the ones who called for that investigation. I am willing to bet if you can win a Nobel Peace Prize you might know a thing or two about falsified lab data.

And most recently? Well this came out yesterday: http://biggovernment.com/mlewis/2011...und-democracy/

This is the question congress intends to impose on the EPA at the upcomming hearing: "The real issue facing Congress is very simple. Who shall determine the content and direction of national policy — elected representatives accountable to the people at the ballot box, or non-elected bureaucrats? Our Constitution permits only one answer to that question."U.S. Congress

How can you argue when so many different agencies say its not worth the damage done? The only reason this is an issue is because the EPA is an unregulated department thanks to the simple fact that its not an elected agency. It has no one to answer to except big corporations.

DocBeech

iTrader: (1)

I know most people wont read that but at least I got to vent :P

Flashwing

Doc I have to say that's a fantastic writeup of the issue from start to finish. Your analysis of the EPA is spot on. There is some great information there and I'm interested to hear any counter-arguments.

REDRX3RX8

While we've all been venting about ethanol, there was a train derailment in Ohio that burned up 240k gallons of ethanol over 2 days.

Gasoline is shipped long distances by pipeline, then, loaded at terminals for short trips to stations.

Ethanol has to be mixed later at the terminal so it has to shipped on something dedicated to one product like rail (pipelines can ship different grades of gas and diesel at different times).

So the whole ethanol program as administered is fail!

bse50

There can't be a counter argument! Doc covered the issue perfectly and completely without complexity (i mean, i understood it so it was rather easy lol).

Going practical: our 10:1 combustion engine, when tuned, still sees less performance and mpg with ethanol in any significant percentage.
Everything can be made to work but is it really worth it? It would make WAY more sense to use vegetable oils as diesel fuels at this point. You could mix different seeds and plants to make the same fuel. It smells like french fries too!

Flashwing

Of course there is a counter argument. That argument is that we should all put our blinders on and pretend that anything is better than using oil. The argument is if we get rid of ethanol subsidies and mandates that it will cost American jobs and possibly put farmers out of work.

The problem is people being put out of work is the consequence of creating a product that people won't buy. No one is going to pay the $4+ a gallon true cost of ethanol when it gets less mileage than gasoline and requires a specialized vehicle to use. 99% of the public are not interested in the performance benefits of ethanol. So you're left with a niche crowd of gear heads that use it. Sorry but that's not enough to keep the industry afloat.

The EPA's overall behavior extends beyond this one situation. We have other examples of environmental regulation put into place in such a way that it keeps the debate alive, the science pumping out bogus facts and people at work. Without a crisis there would be no need to give out millions of dollars in research grants or to employ a whole government agency.

Frankly, I hope the current congress finds a way to gut the EPA's funding. The long history of profiting from fear and seizing private property has got to come to an end.

Mark my words, the debate over ethanol subsidies will end up like the debate over clean water.

I mean honestly, have you met a single person that isn't for clean water?

nycgps

iTrader: (1)

Now this makes me think is this the reason why we always see crap on our fuel filters ? ... hmmm cuz no other country seems to have this problem, at least not as bad as us !

(I read the whole thing, btw nice writeup ! )



Keep American Jobs ... I agree with that part

BUT

if the cost of that is we have to pay for overpriced garbage (government is paying these dumb ***** to make Ethanol) that will slowly poison us to death when burn then no thanks. f your job, go find something else to do.

nycgps

iTrader: (1)

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Say-No...38324189544485

Tell all your friends about it. Say NO to Ethanol !!!!!

zoom44

that's what i said: with "regular" compression the only way is FI

Razz1

Email your Congressmen.

Tell them to start with the EPA.

Weed need to cut costs. The government spends too much.

Lets, this this part of the budget.

DocBeech

iTrader: (1)

It would take a community of emails, so maybe we need to start an outreach program(im sure the corn industry that is hovering around loves this thread lol)

nycgps

iTrader: (1)

join the facebook page.

I will try to go other forums and see if I can get them to agreed with me

DocBeech

iTrader: (1)

Ill hit it up when I get home in the morning. I am eager to see how the congressional hearing turns out. After day one the EPA has tried to turn the focus onto big oil and coal companies and the clean air act. They are driving the discussion away from what its really about. heres a synopsis of day ones attacks: http://fuelfix.com/blog/2011/02/09/l...ouse-gas-regs/

I really hope they get back on track on monday and start answering the questions they were originally called in for!


TEXAS AG ABBOTT TAKES ON THE EPA IN CONGRESSIONAL HEARING TODAY
Read more: http://www.americansforprosperity.or...#ixzz1DnOC6OhY

“In its zeal to regulate greenhouse gases, the EPA has ignored the plain language of the Clean Air Act, violated notice and comment requirements and attempted to rewrite congressionally enacted federal laws by administrative rule-making” Abbott is prepared to say.

I have also read through about 20 articles on this so I will post important notes

First: "For instance, GOP representatives peppered their first witness, Sen. Jim Inhofe, with questions about the science of global warming. Not only is the Oklahoma Republican the Senate's most outspoken climate change denier, but he also trained as an economist and is on the verge of releasing a book titled "The Hoax."

Basically the whole Al Gore Climate Change beliefs has been found to be a hoax with no scientific backings. Thats one of the issues they are required to answer for at this meeting.

Second:"Jackson bore the brunt of the Republicans' venting as they questioned the validity of the 5-4 decision in the Massachusetts v. EPA Supreme Court case. They doubted that the ruling gave the agency authority to regulate carbon emissions, and blamed the ensuing endangerment finding for ruining the economy, killing jobs, raising food prices and lowering the nation's standard of living."

Basically they have been working outside the jurisdiction they were afforded and it has been one of the causes of the recent recession. So they also have to answer for the damages it has caused over the last two years (since obama took office)

Third:"Cap and trade failed in the last Congress, but now we face the threat of Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats imposing the same agenda through a series of regulations," Upton said.

"Like cap and trade, these regulations would boost the cost of energy, not just for homeowners and car owners, but for businesses both large and small. EPA may be starting by regulating only the largest power plants and factories, but we will all feel the impact of higher prices and fewer jobs."

Here they are going at it about a tax that would raise the cost of living. They want to know why the EPA feels it deserves the extra money. Being the EPA is not a cabinet or elected office they get funds elsewhere. They are trying to make up for money they lost in the recession by passing it onto us. They actually did about two weeks ago when they increased the cost of electricity in Texas from 60 dollars a mwh to 3000 dollars a mwh during an energy crisis. Now they have to answer for why they did it. They are pushing a new bill during this hearing through congress called the "Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011." which would prevent them from ever raising taxes again without the approval of the house/senate/congress/and president. So basically good luck doing that again. They do however still have to answer for why they did it without asking anyone or even trying to get permission.

Fourth: This one is kinda funny! "At today’s hearing, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson will likely claim that the Energy Tax Prevention Act would weaken EPA’s ability to protect asthmatic children. Nonsense! Carbon dioxide is plant food, not an asthma-triggering air pollutant."

Here they were saying you can't call carbon dioxide, something that is produced by all forms of life a pollutant. According to research studies they found that livestock(farm animals) alone create more pollution than all of our attempts combined. They stated we don't even come close to producing the amount of carbon dioxide produced simply by cows during our industrial process. So they are calling for an end to the claims on CO2 and asking for real scientific evidence.

Fifth: They are calling for a cut in 2 billion dollars that are wasted annually by the EPA and other agencies that hold no real scientific value. Remember the EPA is run by politicians not scientists. They are asking congress that if the EPA can't be run more like the FDA with real scientists that have real world lab/research experience that they need to be replaced or have the budget cut out until they can come up with true scientific results.9(New York Times0

$1.6 billion EPA cut would be eliminations to specific EPA projects: $9 million from EPA's greenhouse gas reporting registry, $25 million from EPA state and local air quality management and $5 million from EPA's cap-and-trade technical assistance program.

Sixth: In a separate attack on EPA's climate regulations yesterday, Republican lawmakers grilled agency Administrator Lisa Jackson for more than two hours, bouncing from questions about the economic impacts of the agency's greenhouse gas rules to blasting EPA for sidestepping Congress to alter the Clean Air Act.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who testified at the hearing, and Republican committee members cast the session as being about jobs, but the discussion on a draft bill designed to strip EPA of its regulatory authority over greenhouse gases, kept drifting back to the status of climate science and potential public health risks. The hearing was geared toward discussing legislation sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and subcommittee chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.)

Basically here they want the EPA to answer for making changes and laws that were never approved by congress or the house/senate. They want the EPA to follow the same rules all law makers have to follow and to stop comming up with rules and laws without approval. The EPA was caught enforcing rules they created that were never approved and now they have to answer for it! Thank god, its about time they were put in check

Seventh: Where are the scientists: It was the first Republican-led hearing in the 112th House to take on the agency's greenhouse gas regulations, but Whitfield promised it would not be the last. The ranking member of the full committee, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), argued that if lawmakers are going to discuss climate issues, the panel should hear from experts.

"Do you find it strange that at this hearing of this importance we have no scientists?" asked Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), the subcommittee's ranking member.

Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) swept aside such critiques, telling ClimateWire, "This is about jobs. This isn't about science. The science committee may turn it into that and get into these issues, but we want to address how this affects jobs."

EPA administrator Jackson, held her ground, pointing out, "Chairman Upton's bill would, in its own words, 'repeal' the scientific finding regarding greenhouse gas emissions." (^New York Times^ Provided most of the testimony)

This is the most important part of all The EPA was asked when it brought 15 of its top representitives to the hearing why no one there was a scientist. They were asked why no scientists were present to back the data the EPA presented over the last two days.

The response they tried to impose that this was an attack on the EPA and it was about job cutting and not about science. Congress was furious about this. They told the EPA that the "scientific" testimony they brought is repealed from the hearing until they can bring a scientist in to argue the "facts".

They were basically told every arguement they made had no validity. When the response they gave was that this was an attack on the EPA and not about science Congress kicked out most of thier testimony. They were told bring us back research and scientists that understand it, not politicians that are out for gain.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Now its my turn lol. Its about damn time they had to answer for this stuff. I am glad to see that this Congress isn't taking any ****. They were told bring us evidence not your beliefs. They were also scoulded and reprimanded for trying to play games. This Congress doesn't seem to be buying into (being a yes man) to the EPA this time around. They want answers, and they want scientists. They don't want what ifs or excuses anymore.

The best part is that the EPA is having to answer for the large amounts of taxes, money spent, and laws created without approval. I am really excited to see how this turns out. It looks like all the right questions are being asked!!!

nycgps

iTrader: (1)

yep, this is the MOST important part.

Everything was just "he said/she said", with no back up. hmm. EPA has turned into Enterprise Protection Agency I guess ?

I really wonder what kind of BS they gonna pull on Monday.

and I wonder if they will ban the Ethanol bullshit ?

bse50

I find it strange that you even have an environmental protection agency when you refused to take part in the kyoto protocol in the first part!
Collaboration and a common goal in this matter would also help reinforce any opinion given the quantity of studies and subjects treated around the world.
Truth is, the environment isn't so important in the end for the big boys

zoom44

This article was on the first page of Friday's USATODAY Money section

Ethanol pumping up fuel prices

Razz1

"Here they were saying you can't call carbon dioxide, something that is produced by all forms of life a pollutant. According to research studies they found that livestock(farm animals) alone create more pollution than all of our attempts combined."

That's it!

We need to slaughter all the cows to save planet Earth.

Doc, you found the solution to global warming!

bse50

I'm scared...

zoom44

actually Razz there are an abundance of people who think that exact way. every one turn vegan because then we wouldnt make as many cows and pigs and chickens. save the planet

nycgps

iTrader: (1)

hahaha,

yum, I just had steak last night. oh man That steak was big, not very juicy/tasty. but it was big, like 16 or 24 oz or something.


We could've grown some "REAL FOOD", but nope we grow feed corn, then we either burn them or we just make them into artificial sweeteners

DocBeech

iTrader: (1)

Good news guys!

February 16, 2011

WASHINGTON, DC – This evening on the House Floor, Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY) engaged in a colloquy with Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Mike Simpson (R-ID) to discuss provisions in the Continuing Resolution government funding package that would temporarily block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. This temporary halt on the EPA’s overreaching regulatory efforts will happen in conjunction with efforts to permanently make clear that such regulations were never envisioned by Congress under current law.

Whitfield joined Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) earlier this month in unveiling a discussion draft of the Energy Tax Prevention Act, a proposal to permanently clarify that the EPA is not authorized to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The House is currently debating a Continuing Resolution to fund the federal government for the rest of FY 2011. Included in the funding measure is a provision that would block the EPA from taking further action in this area for the rest of this year. The funding limitation will allow Congress to carefully and thoroughly debate a permanent clarification to the Clean Air Act to ensure it remains a strong tool for protecting public health by regulating and mitigating air pollutants, and that it is not transformed into a vehicle to impose a national energy tax.

"Congressman Simpson:
I commend the gentleman for his leadership in addressing EPA’s regulatory onslaught head on. I hope that section 1746’s brief timeout will give you the time you need to get a strong bill enacted into law."

"Chairman Whitfield:
It is simply a bill to stop the agency from issuing climate change regulations absent Congressional approval, avoiding the “glorious mess” that Congressman Dingell has referred to, because the Clean Air Act was never designed to regulate greenhouse gases.
As it is, EPA’s global warming regulatory agenda, which it is just beginning to roll out, is so open ended that it is already having a chilling effect on investment and job creation.
And the longer it moves forward, the more domestic manufacturing jobs will be forced overseas to countries not similarly burdened."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethanol is one of the tools they are using in the clean air act, so hopefully this opens up the opportunity to allow the purchase of ethanol free fuel. It should be a choice not a forced decision! Apparently the EPA was never authorized to enforce air cleaning laws.

nycgps

iTrader: (1)

^^wow ! that is a good news ! way to go dude !

damn EPA I hope they all burn in hell ! jeeze !

Now give us Garbage-Free AKA Ethanol-Free gas !