Appleseed wrote:
Javelin? wrote:
spitfirebill wrote:
alfadriver wrote:
drainoil wrote:
What's the end game with the EPA's proposal?
Two things- more renewable fuel and corn industry selling more corn.
With the added side effect of driving up the prices of pork, beef and chicken prices. Again.
I'm vegetarian, so BRING ON THE E85!!!! 
Enjoy eating your fuel lines and carb gaskets.
given the time line, if you are still having problems, you need to find a new supplier. It's not as if ethanol is new by any measure.... And it's also not as if there are no materials that can deal with it....
spitfirebill wrote:
alfadriver wrote:
drainoil wrote:
What's the end game with the EPA's proposal?
Two things- more renewable fuel and corn industry selling more corn.
With the added side effect of driving up the prices of pork, beef and chicken prices. Again.
They did that and scapegoated ethanol.....despite that industry churning out massive amounts of ground feed for their animals which is sold to them at a discounted price.
I must admit, that was quite possibly one of the best uses of "Passing the Buck" to shift the general public's anger/outrage that I have ever witnessed. 
Best option is to throw the bums out come November. VOTE!
T.J. wrote:
Flynlow wrote:
As with most government regulations, it's very clear cut and easy to understand .
That's exactly how the lobbyists/industry insiders who will profit from this change want it to be. They wrote it that way on purpose in an effort to disguise their actual intent. The government drones are just the frontmen but not the instigators.
As a former real engineer in automotive and power train and now a government drone I can confirm this statement.
When you have approximately 25% of the population trained to blame the government for all their problems in their life and they scream louder than 70% of the remaining you get this. Throw in their own news channel put it on repeat for 19 years and poof! The government becomes evil.
Coming out of Lousiana, I can say this. The EPA doesn't need it's wings clipped it needs to be expanded but refocused. The EPA has had its budget essentially stagnate (with the exception of 2010) for twelve years.
Like most things in government it needs to be properly funded and have proper staff and resources to complete it's mission.
Remember Rule #1 in how to get rid of something in government. It's in four steps. Step 1, claim something doesn't work/bad/evil/not needed. Step 2 under-fund and remove resources Step 3 show how since you made your claim the something is now not needed/evil/bad/doesn't work and never mention how you cut it's funding and resources. Step 4 celebrate success of manipulating the public.
Rinse and repeat for whatever it is you don't like.
1988RedT2 wrote:
Best option is to throw the bums out come November. VOTE!
Granddaddy always said: "If you don't vote, don't bitch."
If they raise the food prices, then they should be able to raise the tariffs, to make it reasonable for companies to manufacturer products here.
trigun7469 wrote:
If they raise the food prices, then they should be able to raise the tariffs, to make it reasonable for companies to manufacturer products here.
A better option would be to lower the "tax" on ethanol from anything other than corn. That would go a long way.
Vigo
PowerDork
6/29/16 4:29 p.m.
What's the end game with the EPA's proposal?
Sell agrocorporatism as environmentalism.
With the added side effect of driving up the prices of pork, beef and chicken prices. Again.
Small potatoes unless your food prices are literally starving you as they are to the most impoverished people on the planet.
That's exactly how the lobbyists/industry insiders who will profit from this change want it to be. They wrote it that way on purpose in an effort to disguise their actual intent.
They ARE professionals!
I can't find the answer to the seemingly simple question: is ethanol net-positive?
It's hard to quantify human suffering. See: Capitalism.
since I don't have any vehicles running high ethanol fuel, in part because of availability of fuel and in part because of availability of tuners, I guess I don't have much input.
firstworldproblems #notpoorenoughtostarve #privilege #icanthearpovertyovermyturbo
Also #hashtagmakesthingsbigandred?
In reply to Vigo:
This thread just went from wandering out of it's lane, to upside down in the ditch.
Dumpster fire or Train wreck?
Is there an additive that you can use to negate some of the issues that people are having with ethanol.
Flight Service wrote:
Lots of employees left federal service because of the payouts for early retirement. The drop EPA saw from 2011 is the same drop other federal agencies have seen, about 15%.
dean1484 wrote:
Is there an additive that you can use to negate some of the issues that people are having with ethanol.
Not that I know of.
And besides older cars with older fuel lines, and boats with Fiberglass fuel tanks, I haven't seen anything other than "There's ethanol in fuel and it wrecks everything" as far as proof it's bad.
My 80s cars ran on it just fine, my lawn equipment ran on it just fine, even after leaving it the mower for 6 straights months, GASP THE HORROR!!?!?!
And during the warm months I run my BRZ on E85!
We just keep a 400gal tank of 90 octane ethanol free fuel here....for the sake of all the power equipment, '87 F-150, and my '63 International.
92dxman
SuperDork
6/30/16 10:24 a.m.
I've skimmed through the thread and not read everything...is there a push to increase the amount of ethanol you will find in regular pump gas?
1988RedT2 wrote:
Best option is to throw the bums out come November. VOTE!
To bad we don't vote for the EPA.
In reply to z31maniac: Same here. Both of my adult (over 21) mower and snow blower have shown no adverse effects from ethanol.
We seem to forget that for years, in the winter we added alcohol to our gas tanks in the form of "dry gas". Now we don't have to.
The biggest complaint against ethanol is that it is mandated and we have to use it. Ok, problem, blame it on the ethanol.
No, I am not in favor of it either, just not as terrible as many try to make out.
In reply to 92dxman:
Appears to just be a push towards more renewable diesel.
alfadriver wrote:
given the time line, if you are still having problems, you need to find a new supplier. It's not as if ethanol is new by any measure.... And it's also not as if there are no materials that can deal with it....
Somebody had to say it.
dean1484 wrote:
Is there an additive that you can use to negate some of the issues that people are having with ethanol.
What issues?
The best example I have for E85, is on the EvoX forums, a guy has put 60k miles on a brand new EvoX that has ran on E85 the whole time. He pulled everything apart (pump, lines, fuel tank, injectors) and guess what? Everything is mint.
Ethanol being corrosive is WAY blow out of proportion. Ethanol is no more corrosive than gasoline, it just works out that ethanol is better at being corrosive to aluminum than gas is. Having said that, if you don't let ethanol just sit in the system for months on end (like stored in winter) its honestly not a big deal and you shoud not have any issues.
Ethanol can also be hard on brass, which is why a lot of small motor people don't like it, lots of carbs use brass bushings.
I sell ethanol now. It is an amazing performance fuel. I'm going to run it in a 1990 Civic Si rally car I just picked up. Building a 14:1 motor for E36 M3s and giggles. Have sold to hundreds of people, not a single complaint yet.
kb58 wrote:
...For amusement I ask people filling their SUVs with E85 why they do it - any answer other than "to stick it to the Middle East" is wrong, and I've never heard it....
"Stick it to the Middle East" is essentially wrong also. The US only imports about 27% of its oil and the Middle East is only about 30% of that (Canada is about 50%). Stick it to the Canucks is a bit more correct but still probably overstating the situation.
dean1484 wrote:
Is there an additive that you can use to negate some of the issues that people are having with ethanol.
The issues people are having are psychological.
There are additives to address this but they require prescription 
iceracer wrote:
We seem to forget that for years, in the winter we added alcohol to our gas tanks in the form of "dry gas".
That is methanol, which is not ethanol. Different chemistry, different properties, different effects.
foxtrapper wrote:
iceracer wrote:
We seem to forget that for years, in the winter we added alcohol to our gas tanks in the form of "dry gas".
That is methanol, which is not ethanol. Different chemistry, different properties, different effects.
Methanol is far harder on fuel system parts than ethanol in most cases.
aircooled wrote:
kb58 wrote:
...For amusement I ask people filling their SUVs with E85 why they do it - any answer other than "to stick it to the Middle East" is wrong, and I've never heard it....
"Stick it to the Middle East" is essentially wrong also. The US only imports about 27% of its oil and the Middle East is only about 30% of that (Canada is about 50%). Stick it to the Canucks is a bit more correct but still probably overstating the situation.
Yep, the bulk of our oil is still domestic last I checked....
