I just read in the paper that the EPA has recommended less use of ethanol in gasoline. they cited that the effect in reducing polution did not occur as thought.
I just read in the paper that the EPA has recommended less use of ethanol in gasoline. they cited that the effect in reducing polution did not occur as thought.
I guess we can all breathe easier now
Wonder if/when this will actually change what we buy at the pump. I'm also irritated at my state's leadership that removed the E-XX labels from gas pumps, making it impossible to know* what you're buying.
What I've seen was a stay on the proposed increase to 15%, not a reduction of the current 10%. And it was a supply side limitation acknowledgement, not an acknowledgement of lack of emission reductions.
Must......try.......not.........to.....................
FLOUNDER THIS THREAD!
The federal government’s push for greater ethanol production, carried out in the name of saving the planet, has done great harm to the environment. What’s more, it has caused the release of far more carbon dioxide — the gas that is blamed for alleged global warming — into the atmosphere than the burning of ethanol could ever hope to save.
“The consequences are so severe that environmentalists and many scientists have now rejected corn-based ethanol as bad environmental policy,” the Associated Press wrote in a lengthy report. “But the Obama administration stands by it, highlighting its benefits to the farming industry rather than any negative impact.”
My apologies. There's simply too much at stake.
IIRC the push to ethanol was twofold - it allegedly reduced emissions because it's oxygenated, which isn't really relevant anymore, and it reduced our imports of oil, which it didn't, really.
I firmly don't believe that ethanol is hurting cars since we've used the stuff for literally decades with none of the horrible consequences that other people claim. But I don't see the point to it, either.
In reply to 1988RedT2:
I would put more validity in that article if that didn't blame the current President so much. Since it ignores the long history of ethanol in gasoline, and the roots of that legislation, and instead puts the blame on the current administration, I really wonder how valid it's agruments are. It would help if they actually cited the claims they are making, as opposed to just saying them.
The CORE of corn ethanol can be traced back to Bob Dole, Senator from the corn state of Kansas. And most of the support for ethanol comes from the corn producing states, most of which are far more red than blue.
Not identifying that undermineds all of their claims, I think.
The fact that it also puts a lot of blame on the EPA also misses a key part of the picture, that they wrote early rules just like the legislation told them to, which was promptly thrown out in court. Which, according to some insiders I know at the EPA, they were pleased with.
I'm not saying that the Democrats are not to blame, nor the green industry. But the reality is that BOTH sides, to some extremes, are supporting this. ADM loves making more money, green groups love the image of being enviornmental, Repulicans love helping their farmer constituents, and Democrats love helping their greenhouse gas constituents.
Bob Dole represented Kansas in the senate, not Iowa.
We've got our own problem senators-for-life, but at least one of them isn't running again...
Nothing to add here other than my bike is filled with 91 plus NO ETHANOL right now......
Suck that EPA.
Karacticus wrote: Bob Dole represented Kansas in the senate, not Iowa. We've got our own problem senators-for-life, but at least one of them isn't running again...
Shoot, I knew that. Still, corn state. And a red state.
And, yes, I did edit it.
yamaha wrote: Nothing to add here other than my bike is filled with 91 plus NO ETHANOL right now......
Mine has been partially filled with Ethanol. Kind of E.6 or so? 
Knurled wrote: I firmly don't believe that ethanol is hurting cars since we've used the stuff for literally decades with none of the horrible consequences that other people claim. But I don't see the point to it, either.
I think you're right that it doesn't seem to be hurting the cars .. small gas powered home yard equipment … possibly another story
and while there might not be any analytical "proof" … there's plenty of anecdotal "proof" that it puts a huge hurt on milage, which would tend to wipe out any/all of the supposed "good for the environment" that the ethanol was to provide … which is just one more reason to get away from … at least the corn ethanol
Yeah, the ethanol-in-gas thing is a bipartisan effort to screw the public. :)
Hopefully they get cellulose based ethanol up and running soon. Then, it will be the scraps that go to producing my 'shine, not food (not that they use food grade corn to make ethanol).
all i know is that i get better fuel mileage using straight gas than with the ethenol mix. i'd rather eat my corn and burn my fuel. 
on many issues there isn't much difference between the reds and the blues, and this is one of them.
regarding the EPA ruling: in the usual government fashion, it's a decrease in the amount of increase that is being played off as a decrease...
mistanfo wrote: Hopefully they get cellulose based ethanol up and running soon. Then, it will be the scraps that go to producing my 'shine, not food (not that they use food grade corn to make ethanol).
the corn that's used to make ethanol is feed corn that loses almost none of it's nutritional value in the process of extracting the ethanol and gets fed to the cows that make all those delicious steaks, hamburgers, and milk that we all love so very much... the only real downside to it is that they have to use energy to extract that ethanol, which falls under the parts of the laws of thermodynamics that deal with not being able to create more energy than you use...
that being said, we've had 10% ethanol in our gas here in MN for longer than the 23 years that i've been driving, and the few times that i've used non oxygenated gas has led to a decrease in power and fuel economy, and in fact my experimentation with a few of my cars has shown me that i get the same fuel economy with ethanol blends from 10%-50%, then it drops off after that.. blender pumps that let you choose your ethanol concentration are awesome for this. the lady at the local gas station with a blender pump says that most people wind up settling on 30% ethanol after a while- the rest of the station can be empty but there will be cars lined up 3 deep at that pump sometimes..
In reply to novaderrik:
That too......the livestock people threw their huge hissyfit even though the after product was being offered to them for rock bottom prices. The only thing taken out for ethanol production is some of the starch.
Heck, that's why even the ethanol plant local to me was refusing corn with low levels of vomitoxin that went through my area a few years ago.
novaderrik wrote: that being said, we've had 10% ethanol in our gas here in MN for longer than the 23 years that i've been driving, and the few times that i've used non oxygenated gas has led to a decrease in power and fuel economy, and in fact my experimentation with a few of my cars has shown me that i get the same fuel economy with ethanol blends from 10%-50%, then it drops off after that.. blender pumps that let you choose your ethanol concentration are awesome for this. the lady at the local gas station with a blender pump says that most people wind up settling on 30% ethanol after a while- the rest of the station can be empty but there will be cars lined up 3 deep at that pump sometimes..
happy for you …. it's not what I've run into .. (and yes, we've had oxygenated fuel in parts of NC for a long long time) my CRX (pulling a tire trailer) gets ~ 25mpg to and from an a-x (+the on course milage) with 10% … and right at 30mpg with non-ethanol … same drive and same site …
I see as much as 4 - 5 mpg difference with my Integra depending on the "quality" of gas I get (the pumps say "up to 10% ethanol … sometimes we obviously get less than 10%) …
pretty much no difference with the F150
Knurled wrote: IIRC the push to ethanol was twofold - it allegedly reduced emissions because it's oxygenated, which isn't really relevant anymore, and it reduced our imports of oil, which it didn't, really. I firmly don't believe that ethanol is hurting cars since we've used the stuff for literally decades with none of the horrible consequences that other people claim. But I don't see the point to it, either.
That said, it is not good for marine engines. In fact, many marinas (including the one my parents own) buy non-ethanol gas and it's a major selling point for boaters to come get gas at their marina. This is mostly because of ethanol's high water absorption properties (about 50 TIMES more than gasoline).
Since cars have pressurized fuel systems (at least modern cars) that isn't much of an issue - though for cars in high-humidity areas, it can result in more water in the fuel. And for vintage cars it can be an issue due to less fuel system sealing.
Predictable thread is predictable.
I work for a corn farmer...
Can we get our old style gas cans back as well?
Grtechguy wrote: Can we get our old style gas cans back as well?
No, because they can say that the new one puts out less VOC, even though in reality you put far more fuel into the air through all the spilling with the new ones. In its present state, the EPA is just a self perpetuating bureaucracy, and CARB's puppet. Put in that frame, it all makes a lot more sense.
Gas cans have nothing to do with hydrocarbons, that's a product of combustion. Has to do with VOC. The desire is for the can to stay sealed. All EPA mandated was the cans close automatically. That's it. Just like Jerry cans have always done.
Old style cans have never gone away. What we are suffering from is a free market. Whereby a company known as Blitz was able to sell cheap junk prolifically through Walmart and the like.
Other companies, like Eagle and such, who have always sold the old fashioned gas cans, continue to do so, but at a much higher price than Blitz trash. These quality cans are sold through more obscure retailers, like True-Value and the like.
Sorry, brainfart. You can't buy an externally vented can anymore. You're screwed if you don't like the Eagle safety cans. I don't think you can get the NATO spec camlock jerry cans anymore that don't have NOT FOR FUEL stamped on them. IDK why, those are fully sealed unless you leave the spout mounted.
You'll need to log in to post.
