backtop


Print 104 comment(s) - last by BluntForceTram.. on Jun 26 at 7:55 PM

The fight over E15 is not over yet

The Environmental Protection Agency has given the approval for retailers to sell 15% ethanol blended fuel. The fuel we purchase at most gas stations around the country today already has 10% ethanol mixed in. The EPA and other supporters of the plan have wanted to add an additional 5% ethanol to the fuel mix for cars built after 2001.
 
"Today, the last significant federal hurdle has been cleared to allow consumers to buy fuel containing up to 15 percent ethanol (E15)," said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. "This gets us one step closer to giving the American consumer a real choice at the pump. The public has a right to choose between imported oil and home-grown energy and today’s action by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) advances that goal."
 
The goal of the plan is to help reduce the dependence on foreign oil by using ethanol derived from corn.
 
“In the eyes of the federal government, E15 is a legal fuel for sale to cars, pickups, and SUVs made since 2001,” said RFA President and CEO Bob Dinneen. “With all i’s dotted and t’s crossed as far as EPA is concerned, our undivided focus will turn to addressing state regulatory issues, identifying retailers wishing to offer E15, and paving the way to greater use of domestically produced ethanol."
 
There are still other issues that have to be overcome before E15 makes it to pumps. These issues include pending litigation and threats from Washington. The U.S. House of Representatives has previously threatened to block the EPA's plans to force E15 sales at stations around the country. Many still argue that the use of E15 could cause millions of dollars in damage to engines in vehicles around the country.
 
One of the organizations opposing the rollout of E15 is the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute or OPEI. According to OPEI, government tests show that E15 is harmful to outdoor power equipment, boats, marine engines, and other non-road engine products. Adding an additional option at the pump could confuse consumers leading to misfueling and damage of engines according to OPEI.
 
"For the first time in American history, fuel used for some automobiles may no longer safe for any non-road products. It may, in fact, destroy or damage generators, chain saws, utility vehicles, lawn mowers, boats and marine engines, snowmobiles, motorcycles, ATVs, and more," says Kris Kiser, President and CEO of the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, one of the industry groups who have been sending warnings to the federal government about E15.
 
Keiser added, "[The] EPA purports to educate tens of millions of Americans using hundreds of millions of engine products, asserting it will educate these users with a 3 inch by 3 inch pump label. It's frighteningly inadequate."
 
Some major automakers also argue E15 could harm engines in cars and trucks as well.

Sources: Autoblog, Wisconsin Ag Connection



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

retarded
By mattclary on 6/19/2012 10:03:44 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
"This gets us one step closer to giving the American consumer a real choice at the pump. The public has a right to choose between imported oil and home-grown energy and today’s action by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) advances that goal."


This is retarded on so many levels. The only people this is helping are Archer, Daniels, Midland and their ilk who sell corn.




RE: retarded
By knutjb on 6/19/2012 10:22:06 AM , Rating: 3
You missed the point where car manufacturers are against it too. Most cars, even those designed for 10%, are at great risk for premature fuel system failure. Also are your fuel injectors capable of flowing enough volume to hadle E15?

This is that little "nudge" Obama and co believe you need to choose what they've determined to be the right car. Look what cash for clunkers did, it proved supply and demand economics. The supply of used cars fell dramatically, along with the spare parts they contained were all destroyed. Fewer cars higher prices.

Then think of the taxes you'll have to pay. Gas vs 10%, now gas w10% vs gas w/15%. Ethanol has a fuel air of 9:1, methanol 6.4:1, straight gas 14.7:1. http://www.brighthub.com/engineering/mechanical/ar... MPGs will fall, you buy more gallons, and they rake in more of your money.


RE: retarded
By gamerk2 on 6/19/12, Rating: -1
RE: retarded
By 91TTZ on 6/19/2012 11:47:41 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Which then forced car companies to create more cars to fill the gap in supply (in order to maximize total profit), creating several hundred thousand jobs in the process (both direct and indirect).

As such, the fix is obvious: Start tearing down vacant houses to reduce supply, then sell the left over material back to home builders and other industry for a tidy profit.


I think that this concept is a bit misunderstood. A few of the fundamentals are there to make it work but the logic is messed up. I think that this reasoning benefits those looking to make a profit while hurting the public that's trying to buy affordable housing. It favors the wealthy who own multiple homes and those who already own homes.

I already own a house. If my house is worth $300k and I sell it tomorrow and get $300k for it, I can buy a similar house for a similar price. If we tore down a bunch of old houses to reduce supply and it raised the value of my house to $600k, it doesn't really hurt me since I can sell my house for $600k and then buy a similar house for $600k.

However it hurts those who are looking to buy their first house. If they're having trouble securing a loan to buy a $300k house, how in the world will they afford a $600k house?

By the same reasoning, I can create jobs and improve my local economy by littering. Since someone needs to clean up the mess, I can create jobs by dumping my trash on the ground. If I dump enough trash on the ground, everyone in my town can be employed picking up my garbage.

But trying to create jobs like that is like trying to generate electricity using perpetual motion. You're always going to lose out somewhere. Jobs like landscaping that needed to be done previously will go unfulfilled because everyone will be picking up my trash- something else that otherwise wouldn't be needed. Trying to improve the housing market by demolishing houses is much the same way. You're raising prices by reducing supply, but the consequence is that you're pricing people out of the market. The same thing goes for Cash for Clunkers- people that couldn't afford a new car but could afford a cheaper used car were suddenly priced out of that market, too, since the price of used cars went up.


RE: retarded
By NellyFromMA on 6/19/2012 12:44:29 PM , Rating: 2
economics will ALWAYS favor those who have amassed wealth. You have to scrutinize the means with which they ammassed said wealth to decide whether it was appropriate or 'fair' depending on how you wish to define that, but simply saying a scenario favors someone with more wealth than those without is simply stating something obvious that could apply to 99.9% of reality. It's like a car with more HP is going to make it up a hill faster and work less to do so.


RE: retarded
By 91TTZ on 6/19/2012 1:34:30 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
economics will ALWAYS favor those who have amassed wealth. You have to scrutinize the means with which they ammassed said wealth to decide whether it was appropriate or 'fair' depending on how you wish to define that, but simply saying a scenario favors someone with more wealth than those without is simply stating something obvious that could apply to 99.9% of reality. It's like a car with more HP is going to make it up a hill faster and work less to do so.


I'm not arguing against the basic fact that economics favor those who have amassed wealth, I'm arguing against taking drastic steps such as bulldozing functioning houses in order to artificially reduce supply, inflating the value of the houses left standing. Basically those with money/power are lobbying the government to take action to manipulate the market to give those special interests more money/power.

Just about any system will have an upside and a downside. You have to take the good with the bad. But they're privatizing the gains and then socializing the losses. The auto industry wants to sell more new cars? Get the government to crush old cars to remove that option from the public. By making used cars more expensive that makes people more likely to buy new cars.

I'm surprised that they don't just ban the sale of used items altogether. I'm sure they can make the argument that allowing the public to purchase used, working items harms the manufacturers profits, reduces tax income, threatens jobs, is bad for the economy and therefore threatens national security. Really it's just a subsidy for the rich.


RE: retarded
By polishvendetta on 6/19/12, Rating: 0
RE: retarded
By gamerk2 on 6/19/12, Rating: -1
RE: retarded
By Ringold on 6/19/2012 6:29:06 PM , Rating: 2
Huh? That's exactly what happened; the government and Fed-inflated bubble burst, and the market corrected itself. People like the ride up but never the ride down, but we should think of that as a society before we create conditions conducive to asset bubbles, even if the ideas behind those policies are seemingly well-intended.

In the long run, markets always self correct, be it in the form of the housing crash, or in the form of the USSR falling apart, or the fall of Rome. The more the manipulation, the bigger the implosion.


RE: retarded
By 91TTZ on 6/19/2012 3:47:54 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If a family cant afford a $300k then maybe they should look at $200k homes, hell you can get a pretty decent house for around $150k in my area. And if after all that they still cant get a house then... just wait longer?


But if they bulldoze houses, then the price of ALL houses goes up. A pretty decent house in your area for $150k would no longer be $150k since bulldozing houses limits options and artificially raises prices.


RE: retarded
By gamerk2 on 6/19/12, Rating: -1
RE: retarded
By Lerianis on 6/19/2012 2:50:38 PM , Rating: 2
Little problem there: The free market economics you mention only work the way that they are supposed to in a perfect world.

In the real world, with mechanization and robotization of industries, it's more like "supply decreases, prices go up, business sticks that money into their pockets, does not use it to hire but to build more cheaper robots, takes more money out of the economy and socks it into a bank account where it does NOTHING for the economy". NOW, rinse and repeat.


RE: retarded
By Ringold on 6/19/2012 6:31:55 PM , Rating: 1
That wouldn't at all be profit-maximizing behavior, not that you'd understand that.

Furthermore, if you think money deposited in bank accounts does nothing for the economy, then you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about economics. Bank deposits are like the plankton or sunlight of the economy, the base or central part upon which almost all other economic activity is built upon or ultimately supported by. Go back to school.


RE: retarded
By 91TTZ on 6/19/2012 4:11:16 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Heres where you analogy falls apart: A ~$500k house in NY equates to about ~$250k in Florida, due to cost of living adjustments. So you sell your house in NY for ~$500k, purchase a ~$250k house in Florida, and boom, sunny beaches, no income tax, and +$250k in your bank account.


My argument doesn't fall apart there. If the government instituted a policy of bulldozing houses to reduce supply, then the effects would be felt everywhere that they do it. It's not like they're only going to bulldoze houses in Detroit while leaving unsold houses standing everywhere else. Sure, some areas will always be more expensive than others, that won't change. And selling your house in an expensive area and then buying a house in a cheaper area isn't really an option for most people, since that's a one-time profit that leaves your family living in a cheaper area that pays proportionately less.

quote:
That's free market economics in a nutshell. Demand goes up, supply decreases, price spikes, business hires, production increases, demand settles down, new equilebrium reached, with a slightly higher employment rate. Rinse and repeat as needed.


That isn't the free market in a nutshell. That's a best-case scenario of the free market in a nutshell. More realistically, what happens is this: Demand goes up, supply decreases, price spikes, business hires cheapest labor available, money invested in production robots, production increases, demand settles down, business lays people off, new equilibrium reached, with a slightly lower employment rate. We're trying to achieve that best case scenario by artificially manipulating the market. The problem is that the manipulation has unintended consequences which then must be fixed.

It really is like a sub-par engineer trying to create a perpetual motion machine. In a futile effort to override the fundamentals of physics, the engineer makes the system more and more complicated until it confuses him into thinking it will work.


RE: retarded
By Ringold on 6/19/2012 6:36:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It really is like a sub-par engineer trying to create a perpetual motion machine. In a futile effort to override the fundamentals of physics, the engineer makes the system more and more complicated until it confuses him into thinking it will work.


And that right there is Marxism in a nutshell. It never works and it never will but, by god, they'll want to try until it does or until they fool themselves in to thinking it does, like this great myth of the Scandinavian socialist economies (which in some aspects is more free market then the US).


RE: retarded
By Lerianis on 6/19/2012 2:46:25 PM , Rating: 2
With all due respect, demand DOESN'T always create it's own supply in a 'free market' economy. Many businesses will cut down on supply for essentials (of which gasoline in the real world is one) so that they can price-gouge people.

It's time to realize that a free market doesn't work without proper regulation. Now, that said, I think that going to E15 fuel shouldn't be done. There are too many vehicles out there that just cannot use that fuel, even ones bought in the last 5 years.


RE: retarded
By bah12 on 6/19/2012 3:48:42 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It's time to realize that a free market doesn't work without proper regulation.
You do realize what a colossal oxymoron that sentence is right? How can a regulated market be...free?


RE: retarded
By BluntForceTrama on 6/26/2012 7:55:23 PM , Rating: 2
You're confusing free markets with anarchy.


RE: retarded
By Samus on 6/19/12, Rating: -1
RE: retarded
By FITCamaro on 6/19/2012 11:41:48 AM , Rating: 4
The fuel additive argument is bogus because they're not running it all the time. And that little can compared to a 10-15-20 gallon tank doesn't even come close to 10% of the total volume.


RE: retarded
By 91TTZ on 6/19/2012 11:52:46 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
In many cases, injectors and fuel filters last longer with ethanol fuels due to its natural cleaning agent, alcohol, cleaning metalic parts.


Why would it last longer with alcohol? Gasoline is a very good cleaning agent also, and it seems to prevent corrosion of parts bathed in it.

quote:
There are ways to match and exceed even pure-petrol fuel using E85 if an engine has high compression, forced induction and a tuned fuel program.


While I'm sure you can optimize an engine to get the most out of ethanol vs. gasoline, the simple fundamental fact is that ethanol contains less energy than gasoline. Since the fuel source contains less energy is going to be on the losing side of that fight.


RE: retarded
By geddarkstorm on 6/19/2012 1:15:03 PM , Rating: 4
Err, actually, ethanol is -corrosive- to metal.

quote:
Corrosion: because the alcohol in ethanol corrodes aluminum, FFV components are made of stainless steel and E85 pumps must be modified or manufactured with stainless steel to prevent corrosion. Repeated exposure to E85 also corrodes the metal and rubber parts in older engines (pre-1988) designed primarily for gasoline.
http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/re_ethanol.htm

At 15% ethanol, you are already melting aluminum metal, rubber, and most plastics. At higher amounts of ethanol, you'll even corrode steel. And it gets worst:

quote:
Ethanol at temperatures up to 200 °F (93 °C) is corrosive to nearly all the known engineering materials.


If you want to learn more about the corrosive nature of ethanol, read http://www.gie.com/about_us/images_for_the_news/Ra... .

But no, ethanol is -nasty- stuff to metals, rubbers, and plastics. Isopropanol on the other hand is usually safe to store stainless steel and rubbers in. But ethanol will just eat through anything. Some of that is because of the trace amounts of acetic acid that ethanol always contains, and which can't be fully separated from it.


RE: retarded
By NovoRei on 6/19/12, Rating: -1
RE: retarded
By inperfectdarkness on 6/20/2012 2:49:56 AM , Rating: 2
Did you also miss the point that "pure" gasoline (93 octane) has a substantially lower octane rating than ethanol (e85)? Or did you intentionally overlook this fact because all fuels are supposedly used in identical engines? (In which case I can only assume you'd choose to run gasoline in a diesel engine).

I know that DT has a history of hating on ethanol-based fuels...but please let's be clear. Just because it's ethanol-based doesn't mean it's corn-based. Furthermore, so long as we pay subsidies to farmers for unused farmland--we have PLENTY of room to expand production of crop-based ethanol production. And that's not to mention the potential for decomposition-based ethanol production (sewage plants, etc).

Finally, I'd also like to point out the lack of other viable non-gasoline options. Vehicles with compressed fuel tanks (CNG, Hydrogen) are extremely dangerous in the event of a serious accident. Battery technology is not far enough along to present a viable alternative to liquid-based fuels (long charge times, short charge duration, limited amounts of power, lack of universal battery-swapping at service stations). Additionally, there's a lack of sufficient power-generation infrastructure.

Additional drilling for new fossil-fuels will come with diminishing returns. Even if we faced no political qualms about importing from middle-eastern countries, we will eventually need a fuel source besides gasoline. I'm open to whatever that fuel source might be--however, I do feel that the process of migration ("weening" ourselves, if you will) needs to happen now.

Flex-fuel vehicles have completely pulled the wool over the public's eyes. I could design an E-95 only vehicle that gets the same HP/TQ as your current vehicle--weighing less--and having virtually identical MPG. It's not even that difficult of a proposition, but logic isn't that common.


RE: retarded
By 96suzuki on 6/19/12, Rating: 0
RE: retarded
By gamerk2 on 6/19/2012 11:48:02 AM , Rating: 4
Umm...that happened LONG before Obama took office. Its not like E10 is new...


RE: retarded
By StormyKnight on 6/19/2012 9:38:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All pumps contain ethanol!!!!!!

This is not true. There are gas stations across the United States and Canada that provide pure gasoline without a drop of ethanol in them. If only I lived near one of these stations.

Just google "pure gasoline". The spam filter doesn't like the link I provided.


RE: retarded
By Dr of crap on 6/19/2012 12:26:42 PM , Rating: 3
Yea, I like that "gives the consumer a REAL choice at the pump" bit.
I REAL choice?
So here's how it might go down.

You have choices between E10 and E15.
There will be those to STUPID to understand and fill up the 2000 Mercury with E15 and have to pony up REAL CASH for what they did.

The small engines will NEED E10, so no E15 for them.

MOST people will fill their car with E10.

E15 won't get used as much as THEY want it to be, so money will be thrown at it to make it cheaper to use.

And the ethaniol boys get what they wanted all along, more ethanol use.


RE: retarded
By Solandri on 6/19/2012 4:18:59 PM , Rating: 2
If they were smart, they'd key the gas pump nozzles so you couldn't fit an E15 pump into a car which can't take E15. Like they did when they phased out leaded gasoline (cars which only took unleaded has a smaller fuel tank hole, and you couldn't fit a leaded gas nozzle into it).

But I'm guessing those behind this change don't really care if you destroy your engine, and just want to sell more ethanol.


RE: retarded
By Reclaimer77 on 6/19/2012 4:47:02 PM , Rating: 2
I guess he doesn't understand that businesses are "consumers" as well. We DID have a choice, and guess what? We chose to NOT use ethanol in our vehicles.

If there was a demand for it, someone would have brought it to the market on their own, without the Government mandating it.

That's why you know his statement is pure rhetoric and feel-good BS. If you really think about it, it just doesn't even make sense.


RE: retarded
By km9v on 6/21/2012 11:16:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"[The] EPA purports to educate tens of millions of Americans using hundreds of millions of engine products, asserting it will educate these users with a 3 inch by 3 inch pump label. It's frighteningly inadequate ."


at least we don't have corn subsidies anymore
By bjacobson on 6/19/2012 10:01:05 AM , Rating: 2
I mind this a lot less now that the corn subsidy has expired. If the price of ethanol gets high enough, it'll make more sense to move to other sources like cellulose ethanol.

Still the problem of hurting engines and seals due to not having any of the natural oils and lubrication that gasoline has. Perhaps all vehicles will support e85?




RE: at least we don't have corn subsidies anymore
By bjacobson on 6/19/2012 10:03:40 AM , Rating: 5
I wish we could get this level of intrusive government in other areas that the liberals hate, like micromanaging people on welfare.


By mattclary on 6/19/2012 10:04:12 AM , Rating: 2
Absolutely.


By ebakke on 6/19/2012 12:24:47 PM , Rating: 2
Good lord, yes!


By Dr of crap on 6/19/2012 12:30:25 PM , Rating: 2
Surely you jest!

NO WAY they could mess with the handouts without some do gooder screaming about how it's not fair to single out those that NEED the handouts!

But I'd like to see it too!!!


By zaraleth on 6/20/2012 6:53:56 PM , Rating: 2
If they were smart...welfare recipients would receive debit cards instead of cheques. All purchases made on the debit card can then be monitored and flagged when suspicious transactions are made. Sure, maybe not all places take debit cards...but beggars can't be choosers right? :)


RE: at least we don't have corn subsidies anymore
By name99 on 6/19/2012 2:38:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I wish we could get this level of intrusive government in other areas that the liberals hate, like micromanaging people on welfare.


And in this comment we see why America has such broken politics.

]You do realize that the group you call liberals, for the most part hate ethanol as much as or more than you do?
It is agricultural interests (both large agriculture and small farms) that support this stuff --- good Republican constituencies both of them.


RE: at least we don't have corn subsidies anymore
By ebakke on 6/19/12, Rating: 0
RE: at least we don't have corn subsidies anymore
By name99 on 6/19/2012 9:38:13 PM , Rating: 3
I have no idea WTF you are trying to say.
It is no secret that farmers vote Republican. A recent example:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Farmers-Republica...

summary: Almost 75 percent of farmers and ranchers intend to vote for a Republican as president


RE: at least we don't have corn subsidies anymore
By ebakke on 6/19/2012 10:14:59 PM , Rating: 2
Farmers, just like everyone else, vote for those who will continue to give them a handout. My point is that this has historically been a bipartisan affair.


By name99 on 6/19/2012 11:47:16 PM , Rating: 2
And historically the Republican party was the pro-African-American party.
This is interesting history but of little relevance to understanding today's politics.


By Spuke on 6/19/2012 10:19:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I mind this a lot less now that the corn subsidy has expired.
No way!! Really? That's awesome! Of course, gas prices will go up but I don't mind at all.


By Concillian on 6/19/2012 12:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
And what's funny is that the subsidies expired and E85 prices spiked up, but now have settled lower than ever.


Option is the key word
By dbeers on 6/19/2012 10:22:07 AM , Rating: 2
It would be one thing if it was truly an option - I see this as the EPA ramming it's agenda down our collective throats. In NY it used to be up to the station what fuel they sold - they are now REQUIRED to sell only E10. Fortunately there is an Indian reservation nearby that gets it's fuel out of Canada, and I can still buy REAL 100% gasoline, and I consistently get 2.5-3 MPG better in my '12 escape running non-ethanol laced fuel. This is Ethanol's dirty little secret; you will get lower fuel mileage as it doesn't contain the energy of gasoline, so it takes more to get the job done. It does not benefit consumers in any way.




RE: Option is the key word
By smackababy on 6/19/2012 11:16:38 AM , Rating: 3
This is where technology and pricing make a huge difference. If I could get something similar to gasoline, with half the energy, but at a quarter of the cost, I'd be fine with that.

E15 will be the same cost and deliver less energy. Not a good deal.


RE: Option is the key word
By Masospaghetti on 6/19/2012 11:25:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can still buy REAL 100% gasoline, and I consistently get 2.5-3 MPG better in my '12 escape


Sorry, have to call you out on this one. 2.5-3 MPG less is about a 10% decrease. You will not see a 10% reduction in economy from running E10 - ethanol is not a filler with zero energy content.

Since ethanol has about 75% of the energy content of gasoline, a mix of 90% gas and 10% ethanol has 97.5% as much energy as pure gasoline.


RE: Option is the key word
By Nutzo on 6/19/2012 1:32:50 PM , Rating: 2
That's not how it works. The ethanol causes changes how efficently the gasoline burns, and results in WORSE milage than expected using simple math. The actual milage loss depends on the type of driving (highway/city) and how efficently the car works with ethanol.

I just got back from a week long driving vacation where I tracked my mileage. Some states had 10% ethanol in the gas and some have no ethanol. My milage using 10% was around 20MPG, using gas with no ethanol I averaged between 23 and 25 MPG, even though I was driving 5-10% faster (75-80 MPH) due to the higher speed limits. This was in a 2006 Toyota Sienne V6.

If you don't believe me, look up the old test done by consumer reports when they tested E85 (15% ethanol) against gas only.

Quote: Overall fuel economy on the Tahoe dropped from an already low 14 mpg overall to 10. In highway driving, gas mileage decreased from 21 to 15 mpg; in city driving, it dropped from 9 mpg to 7.

That's a 29% drop in milage on the highway and 22% for city driving for 15% ethanol, worse than the 15-25% I saw on my trip.


RE: Option is the key word
By FITCamaro on 6/19/2012 1:58:45 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure you realize the mistake you made but E85 is 85% ethanol...


RE: Option is the key word
By Nutzo on 6/19/2012 3:55:30 PM , Rating: 2
My bad on the E85, although the study still shows that even cars designed specifically for 85% ethanol will still have much worse milage.

Still doesn't change the drop in milage I see in my own cars (which like most cars, are obviously are not optimized for Ethanol)


RE: Option is the key word
By FITCamaro on 6/20/2012 9:55:54 AM , Rating: 2
Cars designed for ethanol will always get worse mileage since there's less energy. So you need more fuel. About 30% more with E85. Even with higher compression you can't get back all the efficiency.


RE: Option is the key word
By PaFromFL on 6/19/2012 1:48:28 PM , Rating: 3
Not true. Based on long trips on I-95 back in 2008, I discovered that E-10 reduced my gas mileage around 10% with my 300C Hemi and around 7% with my 330i. Around town, my Saturn Astras suffered about a 10% loss (with a larger margin of error). This is much worse than the expected the energy density loss. Perhaps highly optimized modern engines are very sensitive to fuel quality.

No one seems to include the energy wasted when ethanol gas destroys equipment. E10 clogged my 2005 boat engine carburetor. The fuel filter was pristine, but the carburetor was clogged with grit that precipitated out when the fuel evaporated. E10 dissolved the fuel lines in my three Ryobi weed wackers, spilling gasoline in my garage. E10 split the gas tank in my lawnmower. E10 has destroyed older boats with internal gas tanks.

But a least I can take comfort that the corn bastards are getting rich off our misery.


RE: Option is the key word
By Lerianis on 6/19/2012 2:54:51 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, send those instances to your Congressmen with photographic proof and threaten to sue the government if they don't rethink this.

What people miss is that MANY of these 'mandates' by the government are illegal because they try to intervene and interfere in the free market, something that courts numerous times have told them that they cannot do.


RE: Option is the key word
By dbeers on 6/19/2012 4:17:36 PM , Rating: 2
You can do all the theoretical calculations all you want, but I've regularly tracked mileage on every tank for the past 8 years, and saw the same thing with my '04 Ranger (both veihcles efficient DOHC all aluminum 4-cylinder engines). It's consistently about 2 MPG better with real gas than E10. I'd gladly pay more for better fuel than E10/E15 any day (but it actually costs $.22-$.33/gal less on the res!). unfortunately with the state mandates, most people don't have much of choice anymore.

Your results with a larger displacement & heavier vehicle may vary, I'm just reporting what I have personally experienced over a long period of time already.


And once again
By FITCamaro on 6/19/2012 10:08:29 AM , Rating: 4
Unelected bureaucrats make bad decisions that will negatively impact millions.

Between the administration's unconstitutional immigration fiat and this, they're just on a week of fail aren't they.




RE: And once again
By Spuke on 6/19/2012 10:25:20 AM , Rating: 2
I thought you would be for this subsidy expiring. I am.


RE: And once again
By FITCamaro on 6/19/2012 11:25:34 AM , Rating: 2
What does the subsidy expiring have to do with approving E15? I'm all for the subsidy expiring. I'm not for creating greater demand for a failed product at the public's expense. All ethanol does is drive up food prices and lower our fuel economy. As well as potentially ruining some cars engines and many small engines for lawn equipment and what not.


RE: And once again
By FITCamaro on 6/19/2012 11:27:11 AM , Rating: 2
There's also the issue of car warranty's. My owners manual states running over E10 voids my powertrain warranty.


RE: And once again
By Reclaimer77 on 6/19/2012 1:51:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I thought you would be for this subsidy expiring. I am.


What's the difference? By forcing E15 onto the market whereas the market would normally not provide it, this IS a subsidy for all intents and purposes. Through direct Government action and interfering legislation, a product that would normally not be offered now is. Call it what you want, but the end result is just as damaging and immoral.


RE: And once again
By Nutzo on 6/19/2012 3:59:27 PM , Rating: 1
Don't worry, I'm sure the subsidies will be renewed as soon as they donate enough to Obama. Just needs sign another executive order (who needs congress)


RE: And once again
By Reclaimer77 on 6/19/12, Rating: 0
RE: And once again
By name99 on 6/19/2012 2:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
Uhh, it is a bit rich to complain about "unelected bureaucrats" in the same week that the Supreme Court is doing its best to try to find an excuse to declare ACA unconstitutional. Just saying...


RE: And once again
By Lerianis on 6/19/2012 3:17:19 PM , Rating: 1
True. From what I have, the Supreme Court is looking for any reason to declare the ACA (a totally constitutional law) unconstitutional, no matter how far they have to reach.


RE: And once again
By Reclaimer77 on 6/19/12, Rating: -1
RE: And once again
By FITCamaro on 6/20/2012 9:58:04 AM , Rating: 1
One of whom should have recused herself because she helped craft the very defense, as piss poor as it was, that the government used in defense of the law in court. She didn't even have a single shred of objectivity in the case. And Congress should impeach her for that. Which, yes, they have the authority to do.


RE: And once again
By FITCamaro on 6/20/2012 9:54:13 AM , Rating: 1
That's because there is nothing constitutional about it. The Commerce Clause does not give the federal government the power to compel individuals to take place in commerce that they otherwise would not. And that is at the very center of the law. Without the individual mandate, the entire law crumbles even more than it already will since its completely unaffordable even with the mandate.

No matter what your liberal college professor told you. The authority is not there. And we don't know yet what the courts decision is. But when the case was being heard, did you even listen to or read the arguments? The federal governments argument was so poor and disjointed, the liberal members of the court were having to hand feed them answers. Along the lines of "blah blah blah, this is what you meant right?" "Uh. YES!"

Yup, totally unbiased members they are...

It is the Supreme Courts JOB AND AUTHORITY to determine whether or not a law is constitutional when it is brought before them. They didn't just decide to have a case on it. It was brought before them and they accepted it because it is such a huge issue.

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution or originalist writings that indicates the federal government has this kind of power. Even Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, or any other of these massive government entities are unconstitutional at the federal level. A state has the power to have them for its state. But not the federal government. But that's not whats on trial right now.

Social Security was the start of it all though. And it was only accepted because of FDR pulling the same shit Obama is. Telling the American people its not a tax. While telling the court it is a tax. Except Obama didn't then threaten to pack the court with more justices as FDR did and the Congress rebuked.

Our founders never envisioned this powerful and big of a federal government. This kind of power is exactly what they fought against. And what they wrote the Constitution to try and prevent.


So it's bad for 2-stroke motor
By kensiko on 6/19/2012 9:51:12 AM , Rating: 2
I understand it can be bad for 2 stroke motors, but 4 stroke? Is it because some 4 stroke motors are less lubricated than some others?




RE: So it's bad for 2-stroke motor
By bobsmith1492 on 6/19/2012 11:14:53 AM , Rating: 2
It's because ethanol is more corrosive on seals and gaskets, requires different fuel/air ratios and flow rates for proper combustion, and it breaks down into water over time to clog up occasional use items (snowblowers, mowers, weedwackers).


RE: So it's bad for 2-stroke motor
By C'DaleRider on 6/19/2012 1:18:45 PM , Rating: 2
Ethanol does NOT break down into water, dunce. It cannot do that. Guess you skipped your high school chemistry class, eh?

The water problem with ethanol is that it attracts and bonds with water much more readily than pure gasoline does. That's the problem, not ethanol breaking down into water.

Who teaches you kids these days?


RE: So it's bad for 2-stroke motor
By geddarkstorm on 6/19/2012 1:27:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, that's a pretty hilarious error. Oh the educational system.

As for ethanol, it gets worst. Not only does it attract a high degree of moisture unlike other alcohols such as isopropanol or menthol, or gasoline, but also liquid ethanol always has a trace amount of dissolved acetic acid in it. Anyone care to guess what happens when all that ethanol attracted water interacts with the acetic acid?


RE: So it's bad for 2-stroke motor
By Nutzo on 6/19/2012 1:36:41 PM , Rating: 2
That's why the gas line on my old lawn mower gradually desolved from the inside out. Hate to see this happen on a car. (wonder how much of an increase in car fires we will see)


By DT_Reader on 6/19/2012 5:24:04 PM , Rating: 2
It has to do with seals and other "rubber" bits in places like fuel pumps and carburetors -- and the fact that with more alcohol you need more fuel for a given amount of air, which your carburetor or fuel injection system may not be able to compensate; you will definitely get worse mileage from a gallon of E15. The DOT says their tests show no significant performance loss, but their tests do not contradict the auto makers, who report not significant performance loss but rather significant economy loss and significant engine life loss. Apples and Oranges.


By Mathos on 6/19/2012 12:37:10 PM , Rating: 3
I work at a garden center at a major retailer. As well as doing small engine and boat motor repairs on the side as a hobby. I can tell you first hand the effects of even 10% Ethanol on said small motors. The motors themselves by their nature are air heatsink cooled, yes thats what those fins on the sides of most small motors are for. Those motors are designed to dissipate the heat generated from the combustion of regular E0 gas. It's a given fact, that Ethanol burns hotter than standard Gas. So, even E10 will burn a fair amount hatter than E0. Due to the extra heat output, and compression requirements it causes cylinder fouling, it puts much more stress on the cast aluminum engine blocks. It causes the motor oil to foul faster due to the extra heat. I can count at least 10 times where I've seen lawn mowers with the sides of the cylinder walls having been blown out since e10 was mandated in Texas.

The EPA approving it isn't the problem. The problem happens when the states decide to mandate that % of ethanol in the fuel. At that point it doesn't matter where you go, there is no choice of what you get. For example, in Texas e10 is a state mandate. Doesn't matter where you go in Texas now, you can't find a gas station that still sells e0. One of the last ones I knew of was right down the road from me, and they forced him to shut down and wouldn't sell fuel to him until he started selling e10 only. Which is sad, because I'm right next to a lake. And, it was one of the few places boaters could go to get gas for their boats.

Also, if e15 gets mandated, I can no longer drive my main 4wd vehicle, because it's a 97 Blazer. Which means, in order to get back and forth to work, I have to buy a new car, which I don't have the credit for.

And at the guy saying Ethanol has cleaning properties, you're confusing Ethanol with Isopropanol Which would be rubbing alcohol or the kind you use to clean things. Ethanol is more or less grain alcohol, the kind you find in Whiskey for example.




By Jeff7181 on 6/19/2012 3:42:13 PM , Rating: 2
Please explain how fuel mix with a higher percentage of ethanol burns hotter, given that pure ethanol has less energy than pure gasoline.

In other words, if I put 5 pounds of gasoline through an engine, that's worth about 100,000 BTU's. If I put 4 pounds of gasoline and 1 pound of ethanol through an engine, that's worth about 92,000 BTU's.

Physics would seem to contradict your claimed "fact" that ethanol burns hotter than gasoline.


By chromal on 6/19/2012 4:46:46 PM , Rating: 3
I saw the 'burns hotter' statement and was kinda confused as well. Performance modders routinely add methanol injection to COOL their engines.

Rather than 'burns hotter,' it would be more correct to say 'burns leaner.' In a fuel-injected engine with a closed-loop oxygen sensor, the fuel injection computer can compensate for this effect somewhat by reading a lean condition on the front heated O2 sensor and pulsing the injectors longer, thereby injecting a larger volume of fuel+ethanol per combustion cycle in a given cylinder.

Engines with carburetors, however, must be manually tuned specifically for the fuel (and altitude) that they run. At a certain point, larger carb jets must be retrofitted, or in the case of an EFI engine, larger injectors, as the ethanol content goes up in order to keep the combustion mixture stoichiometric, e.g.: the air-fuel ratio is neither lean (too hot, hard on engine) nor rich (inefficient, hard on catalytic converter).

The stoichiometric air:fuel ratio for E0 is 14.64:1, for E10 it drops to 14.08:1, and for E15, it is 13.79:1. E85 is 9.85:1. As the ethanol content rises, you want proportionally less air in the mexture, or you will run lean and too hot.

Different fuel-injected cars have different margins of adjustment before their fuel computers can no longer maintain a stoichiometric air:fuel mixture while operating in closed loop as the ethanol content goes up.


By Jeff7181 on 6/19/2012 3:45:47 PM , Rating: 2
I think I see how you thought ethanol burns hotter now...

Ethanol will wash the oil off the cylinder walls and allow more metal to metal contact, increase friction and thus heat. So you see heat related damage to cylinder walls, but it's not because ethanol burns hotter. It's because it doesn't allow the oil to do its job of reducing friction and heat.


Off with their heads
By Motoman on 6/19/2012 10:03:45 AM , Rating: 4
Proof positive that the EPA is a purely political organization, without the slightest intent to do anything based on rational analysis.




RE: Off with their heads
By Motoman on 6/19/2012 10:08:40 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, and:

quote:
The public has a right to choose between imported oil and home-grown energy and today’s action by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) advances that goal.


...that is a flawed statement, because by having the government promote such concepts as E15, the public gets the notion that it's a *good idea* to use E15. It's not...it's a travesty, and the public is categorically NOT being served here, in any way, shape, or form.


RE: Off with their heads
By rdhood on 6/19/2012 2:54:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The public has a right to choose between imported oil and home-grown energy and today’s action by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) advances that goal.


There is no choice. Gas stations do not carry 0% and E10 now. Gas stations are NOT going to carry a pump of E10 and a pump of E15 in the future. If you are nearly out of gas and you pull into the station, you will pump whatever they have. If you are on vacation and stop for gas at the next exit, you will pump whatever they have. The idea that you will have a "choice" is an unsubstantiated lie. The EPA has no idea which stations will carry what kind of gas, or if there will be enough choice in a local area so as to avoid destroying engines.


Ethanol
By 96suzuki on 6/19/2012 11:06:17 AM , Rating: 4
The problem with ethanol is that it is very corrosive. It will eat away seals, lines and gas tanks made of metal, copper, plastic and fiberglass. In order to use ethanol fuel lines would have to be made of stainless steel. Fuel tanks made of plastic will eventually swell causing the tank to leak. Ducati has already recalled and replaced many fuel tanks on their brand of motorcycles from the effects of ethanol. Ethanol also has the ability to whisk moisture right out of the air. This is you they tell you not to use it in boats or any kind of marine applications. This is the same as dry gas you would place in your tank to disperse the water in your fuel. The shelf life of ethanol based gas is also allot less than regular gas and you have to be careful about phase separation. Phase separation is when the moisture overcomes the ethanol and starts to separation from the fuel causing it to cloud and eventually rust your fuel system. Small engines are not made to dissipate the heat generated from the ethanol. This is why you SHOULD NOT use this shit in small engines. Read your user manual in your car... I bet under the fuel section it says not to use gasohol!!! And most automobile manufactures will tell you if you use ethanol it will void your warranty. Ethanol is also way more expensive to produce than gasoline. It cannot be transported by pipeline because of its corrosiveness so it needs to be transported by rail tanker and trucks. I urge everyone to read as much as you can on the effects of ethanol. I have been a mechanic for over 20 years and have seen the effects. YouTube is a great source for info in ethanol as one mechanic place a jar of gasoline in front of a fan and you can see the moisture collect inside the jar just from the fan blowing on it. It can also collect moisture from filling up in the winter or in the summer. Filling up in the winter, the gasoline is warmer since it is under ground and the air temperature is colder. This causes the moisture to condense in your tank and the ethanol pulls it in. Same effect in the summer, the gas is cooler under ground and the air is warmer. I can go on for hours on the effects of ethanol, this is why I urge everyone to educate your self about this crap!!!! Ethanol is also less efficient than gasoline and studies shown it produces less power that gasoline and decreases your fuel economy by as much as 40%!!! So is it really decreasing foreign oil dependency????Why is the EPA forcing Ethanol based gas on us when they know of the problems???? BECAUSE THEY DON'T CARE!!!!
Take a look at the proposed E15 Label. Notice the part on the bottom about small engines?
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/additive/e15/e1...
This will show the effect of ethanol on a carburetor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtqWT8ZfG5Y
Ethanol collecting water in a jar
http://youtu.be/YeCyFxoWPpo
Google effects of ethanol
http://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=3&s...
Ethanol decreases mileage
http://www.google.com/search?aq=0&oq=ethanol+decre...




RE: Ethanol
By C'DaleRider on 6/19/12, Rating: -1
RE: Ethanol
By 96suzuki on 6/19/12, Rating: 0
RE: Ethanol
By superflex on 6/20/2012 10:34:34 AM , Rating: 1
'86 LeBaron. Somebody's getting laid tonight.


RE: Ethanol
By Nutzo on 6/19/2012 1:43:39 PM , Rating: 2
But just think of all the extra gas that will be sold and all the extra taxes they will collect due to the much lower milage cars get with ethanol.


Bad Ethanol
By anartik on 6/19/2012 11:09:51 AM , Rating: 4
The biggest sham with ethanol is what it's increased use will do to food prices. It's already caused significant increases in everything including dairy and beef with a ripple effect across the board. The world can barely feed itself as is and conversion of food production to energy is a bad thing. Aside from that it's use is just not good for several significant reasons...
Produces less energy causing lowered gas mileage
Alcohol dries out and damages rubber seals
The byproduct of alcohol combustion is water which is never good for any engine.
If they can't destroy your body with high fructose corn syrup their going to destroy your cars, boats, lawn mowers etc. with ethanol.




RE: Bad Ethanol
By TSS on 6/19/2012 6:20:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yknow what i wonder?

How many petroleum based pesticides and fertilizers are used to actually grow crop that can be produced into ethanol. Wouldn't it be funny if we put more oil into the ground then we use as fuel, trying to grow a replacement for taking oil out of the ground in the first place?


WTH EPA?
By drkicker on 6/19/2012 11:28:43 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
"This gets us one step closer to giving the American consumer a real choice at the pump. The public has a right to choose between imported oil and home-grown energy and today’s action by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) advances that goal."

Real choice at the pump would mean an option to buy gas without ethanol so we can get decent mileage again.




RE: WTH EPA?
By Ringold on 6/19/2012 7:06:17 PM , Rating: 2
I've got a couple stations around my metro area I've noticed that advertise having ethanol-free fuel.. but they price a good bit extra for it, 30 cents a gallon if I remember. Probably because it's such a niche market now, if I had to guess.


Time for some appropriate lawsuits
By Beenthere on 6/19/2012 12:09:37 PM , Rating: 4
It's time for consumers and car makers to file class action lawsuits against the EPA for fraud, damage to motor vehicles and technical ignorance. Oh wait you can't sue politicians for being liars and braindead... OK well then sue to stop the insanity of E15.

No one has ever proven that E85 is good for autos, the economy or air polution but it has been very financially profitable for a few companies and a few politicians.

Forcing E15 on U.S. consumers is illegal and immoral. FYI- Germany tried to force E10 on consumers and only the technically illiterate will buy this - for their Trabants. No one else buys it so it's a burden for retailers in addition to refineries.




By geddarkstorm on 6/19/2012 1:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
Here here. The EPA has gone mad. Stark raving mad. Not just on this, but on so many issues (like the particulate matter one). They aren't protecting the environment anymore, they're trying to screw over our economy to their vision.


As long as...
By Masospaghetti on 6/19/2012 10:06:17 AM , Rating: 2
...they provide E15 as an additional pump option, not as a replacement to E10, then sure, why not.

What I really worry about is E10 being phased out entirely, forcing users to use E15 in engines not designed to do so. I am not convinced though that fuel station operators will find it economically viable to install additional storage tanks and additional pumps just for E15.




RE: As long as...
By knutjb on 6/19/2012 10:29:40 AM , Rating: 2
The fuel supply system will have to sell it. The EPA, Browner, and Obama know this. They also know the structure of the system and that selling it along side E10 means replacing E10. Which fuel will have to be bumped? Regular, Mid or Premium. Retailers will not add to their three handle pumps.

Plus there maybe infrastructure upgrades for suppliers to handle the higher Ethanol content.


Looks like the Diesel Incentive went up
By Michaelquerty on 6/19/2012 11:24:23 AM , Rating: 2
Looks like the Diesel Incentive went up a bit. I currently have a Jetta diesel and was going to get a gasoline car next time because of the price/savings, but things like this make me rethink my position on changing over to gasoline again. It would also make me rethink buying a preowned car that has run this type of gasoline through it's engine for several thousand miles.

Has anyone ever done research into the lost resale value of vehicles because of the impact of ethanol prematurely wearing out engines?




By FITCamaro on 6/19/2012 11:44:53 AM , Rating: 2
The Chevy Cruze Diesel is looking good. I have an Eco and its a nice car. Hope I don't regret not waiting for the diesel because of this crap.


Spin
By Gunbuster on 6/19/2012 1:30:03 PM , Rating: 4
They failed at mandating E15 over the already bad E10 so now the spin doctors get their turn: "approval" "allow consumers" "The public has a right to choose" "legal fuel for sale to cars"

I have some addition suggestions: "destroys poor people’s cars so they can’t make it to your rich white neighborhood" “Think of the children” and “E15 kills terrorists”




More choice?
By 91TTZ on 6/19/2012 12:11:52 PM , Rating: 3
I doubt that this will mean more choice.

Since gas stations are not likely to install another pump, one of your previous options will be replaced with this E15. Also, from what I hear there are only 2 tanks underground- 1 filled with regular and 1 filled with premium. It then mixes them to give you the mid grade. If they put E15 in one of the tanks, they're probably going to put regular in the other one, meaning that you'll no longer have premium at that gas station.

Larger stations (like Wawas) with multiple pumps could devote one of the islands to E15 like they do for diesel, but since the demand for it won't be as high as it will be for either gas or diesel I don't know why they'd waste their money doing that instead of installing another gas pump.




that's just great...
By chromal on 6/19/2012 1:15:31 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
“In the eyes of the federal government, E15 is a legal fuel for sale to cars, pickups, and SUVs made since 2001,”

So, what about my 1996 SAAB 900 SE turbo? What about my 1998 Honda Civic? When they were produced, E10 was uncommon and E>10 was a pipe dream. What about my 2010 Mazda mazda3, whose owner's manual goes out of its way to say unambiguously that fuel containing more than 10% ethanol MUST NOT BE USED.

According to EIA.GOV, 45% of oil consumed in the US is imported. Here's how that 45% breaks down:

29% Canada (US ally)
14% Saudi Arabia (US ally)
11% Venezuela
10% Nigeria
8% Mexico (US Ally)

If I really gave a damn about Canadian oil, yes, I could run E85 already, or create any blend of E10 and E85 I thought was appropriate by mixing the two.




Food as Fuel??
By mandoman on 6/19/2012 10:20:23 AM , Rating: 2
What a nightmare. Can you say "Special Interests" ?? This is the worst idea to come out of the Obama administration yet. Using food for fuel when it's really not necessary is ridiculous. It makes far more sense to use fuels we have in abundance (such as natural gas - we have more of it than the Arabs have crude!!) by providing governmental support for building the infrastructure. Who are these numb skulls in Washington anyway? Apparently they don't get out much...




This is ridiculous
By Jeff7181 on 6/19/2012 11:31:27 AM , Rating: 2
Someone needs to punch these morons in the face.

"I'm going to significantly decrease our dependence on foreign oil by using fuel with 5% less gasoline... derp!"

There's already an option to fuel your car with less foreign oil, it's the disaster of a product called E85. Buy a new card and use that crap if you're so inclined.




There never was a choice
By Slaimus on 6/19/2012 1:07:15 PM , Rating: 2
They said the same thing for E10 fuel, that it gives consumers a choice. We have lost that choice now.

Obviously the corn lobby wants this.
Oil companies also want this because they can use a lower grade gasoline since ethanol is an octane booster.
Car companies may not push back too hard since the failures are not going to occur within the 3-5 year warranty period.
Heck even the powersports companies may want you to buy the new E15 compatible model or at least a replacement engine.




Extend the ethanol mandate
By PaFromFL on 6/19/2012 1:38:14 PM , Rating: 2
Let's require all members of the EPA to fly in airplanes with corn ethanol added to the fuel.




EPA?
By name99 on 6/19/2012 2:33:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The EPA and other supporters of the plan have wanted to add an additional 5% ethanol to the fuel mix for cars built after 2001.

"Today, the last significant federal hurdle has been cleared to allow consumers to buy fuel containing up to 15 percent ethanol (E15)," said [b]Agriculture Secretary[/b] Tom Vilsack.
The goal of the plan is to help reduce the dependence on foreign oil by using ethanol derived from corn.

“In the eyes of the federal government, E15 is a legal fuel for sale to cars, pickups, and SUVs made since 2001,” said [b]RFA President and CEO[/b] Bob Dinneen.


Let's not blame the EPA for this. As far as I can tell, all they are saying is that "yeah, this stuff does not cause excess pollution over existing gasoline".

It is AGRICULTURE and the RFA (ie the ethanol lobby) who are pushing this.
Remember that when you want to get angry about this --- directing your anger at an agency that has nothing to do with the real problem is unlikely to actually SOLVE the problem.




warranty void
By DockScience on 6/19/2012 5:58:14 PM , Rating: 2
My 2011 vehicle warranty specifically says it is VOID if I use anything higher than 10% ethanol.

At the EPA, ideology ALWAYS trumps reality.




Food as Fuel??
By mandoman on 6/19/2012 10:20:53 AM , Rating: 1
What a nightmare . Can you say "Special Interests" ?? This is the worst idea to come out of the Obama administration yet. Using food for fuel when it's really not necessary is ridiculous. It makes far more sense to use fuels we have in abundance (such as natural gas - we have more of it than the Arabs have crude!!) by providing governmental support for building the infrastructure. Who are these numb skulls in Washington anyway? Apparently they don't get out much...




"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki