backtop


Print 45 comment(s) - last by Jeff7181.. on Jul 6 at 1:30 PM


Associated Press
This marks the third year in a row the mandated levels have been reduced

All across the country today, most of the gasoline that is sold at the pumps by all major fueling stations has 10 percent ethanol in it. Some station may sell fuel that has no ethanol, but 10 percent is usually the norm. Some automakers feel that ethanol needs to be eliminated to hit future fuel economy standards.

Supporters point to the claims that the use of ethanol reduces the amount of fuel we need from imported crude oil and creates jobs for farmers who grow corn. It’s estimated that about 40 percent of the corn grown in the U.S. goes into ethanol production. Corn, however, isn't the only plant material that we can get ethanol from.

Cellulosic ethanol comes from non-food crops and the EPA had expected the use of this sort of ethanol produced from plants like switchgrass, waste products, and woody pulp to increase significantly. The problem is that the mass production of cellulosic ethanol hasn’t happened the way the EPA envisioned. An energy law passed in 2007 mandated that the U.S. was to use 500 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol in fuel by 2012. The fuel hasn’t been made in significant enough quantities to meet that goal and the EPA is now proposing a cut back on the goal. 

The EPA wants to cut the goal back to no more than 12.9 million gallons of the cellulosic ethanol in fuel next year and based on market availability of the fuel that number could be far less. The Detroit News reports that this is the third year in a row that estimates for cellulosic ethanol use have been slashed. Previously the target for 2012 and 2011 for cellulosic ethanol use were 100 million gallons each year, which was cut to 6.5 million gallons for each year.

The EPA said, "[We will] continue to evaluate the market as it works to finalize the cellulosic standard in the coming months. The agency remains optimistic that the commercial availability of cellulosic biofuel will continue to grow in the years ahead."

To reach the future goals for cellulosic ethanol production, the government is looking to help companies break ground on new refineries to produce cellulosic ethanol. President Obama said in March, "Over the next two years, we'll help entrepreneurs break ground for four next-generation biorefineries — each with a capacity of more than 20 million gallons per year."

The reason for the big push to move from corn-based ethanol to cellulosic ethanol is that some claim the high use of corn for fuel is driving up the price of some food products.

The U.S. Senate recently voted to repeal the subsidy on ethanol of $0.45 cents per gallon.



Comments     Threshold


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

It's about time...
By Pandamonium on 6/22/2011 12:23:12 PM , Rating: 2
It's about time politicians started listening to their constituents instead of their lobbyists.




RE: It's about time...
By fishman on 6/22/2011 12:29:16 PM , Rating: 5
They are still listening to lobbists - just different ones this time.


RE: It's about time...
By IcePickFreak on 6/22/2011 12:45:58 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah, cellulosic ethanol lobbyists finally got enough funding to become a viable alternative in DC.


RE: It's about time...
By knutjb on 6/22/2011 5:17:44 PM , Rating: 2
yeah $6B worth every year to distort/destroy the world food market for ideological demands.


RE: It's about time...
By wiz220 on 6/23/2011 1:58:08 PM , Rating: 2
The poster above you specifically said cellulosic ethanol, which comes from non-food crops, right?


RE: It's about time...
By YashBudini on 6/22/2011 7:04:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
They are still listening to lobbists - just different ones this time.

You just stated why voting within the entrenched 2 party system always results in failure for the citizens of this country.


RE: It's about time...
By toyotabedzrock on 6/24/2011 1:21:24 PM , Rating: 2
That is why primaries exist.


RE: It's about time...
By 91TTZ on 6/22/2011 12:43:46 PM , Rating: 5
Did you even read the article? It sounds like the lobbyists won this battle. The corn lobby is the big one at work here, and they've succeeded in getting the government to reduce the requirement for cellulosic (non-corn based) ethanol.


RE: It's about time...
By kattanna on 6/22/2011 12:49:41 PM , Rating: 2
im just interested to see if the repeal of the ethanol subsidy will actually make it all the way through


RE: It's about time...
By HrilL on 6/22/2011 1:44:34 PM , Rating: 3
We can only hope. Seems like the states with more Reps in the house shouldn't be supporting it. Really though the subsidy should only be cut for ethanol produced by food products and not other ways of making it. This would allow the price of food go down and still keep the incentive up for producers of other types of ethanol.


RE: It's about time...
By omnicronx on 6/22/2011 1:27:34 PM , Rating: 2
I was just about to post the same thing.

If there was ever a choice between the two, we would want cellulosic based ethanol, not the other way around..

Using a food source like corn as an energy source makes absolutely no sense.

If anything this is a step backwards, if cellulosic based ethanol levels are going to drop, what source do you think will take its place? (as if you noticed, there is no mention of ethanol levels in petrol dropping)


RE: It's about time...
By inperfectdarkness on 6/22/2011 9:49:52 PM , Rating: 2
if it's just a reduction in corn-ethanol...i approve.
if it's a unilateral reduction in ethanol production, i object.

how about we enact different MPG standards for different types of combustion engines? sure, every complains that ethanol gets less MPG; but those are all based off flex-fuel vehicle figures.

consider for a moment if a 1.8L e85 only engine made the same 200 hp as a 2.5L gasoline engine--and got the same MPG. would you consider the e85 only engine "inferior"?

my point is, let's look at MPG as a function of power-output, not as an isolated statistic. because ethanol burns differently, more completely, and produces less waste heat in the process--it shouldn't be treated identically to gasoline.

i've seen countless cars modified to run on e85 tunes which has increased power output by 25-35% while increasing fuel consumption by 30%. my conjecture is simply that if you maintain that tuning/burn efficiency/compression ratio/boost, and DOWNSIZE the displacement--you can achieve relative parity with gasoline engines in power output AND mpg.

if we regulate that MPG is looked at in conjunction with power output, ethanol becomes a BOON to meeting standards, not a "roadblock" as is the misconception clearly present in this article.


RE: It's about time...
By 91TTZ on 6/23/2011 9:57:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
consider for a moment if a 1.8L e85 only engine made the same 200 hp as a 2.5L gasoline engine--and got the same MPG. would you consider the e85 only engine "inferior"?


No, it would be a superior engine since it would be operating at a higher efficiency. But it isn't going to happen since ethanol doesn't have the same energy content as gasoline.

Gasoline- 114,000 BTU/gallon
Ethanol- 81,800 BTU/gallon
Diesel- 129,500 BTU/gallon

quote:
i've seen countless cars modified to run on e85 tunes which has increased power output by 25-35% while increasing fuel consumption by 30%. my conjecture is simply that if you maintain that tuning/burn efficiency/compression ratio/boost, and DOWNSIZE the displacement--you can achieve relative parity with gasoline engines in power output AND mpg.


I doubt that. The fuel you're burning has less energy content compared to gasoline so you're going to have to make a tradeoff. You can either have less power or less MPG. But unless you somehow come up with an engine design that's more efficient than the type we use now, it's just not going to happen as long as you can apply those same tricks to a gasoline engine.


RE: It's about time...
By Jeff7181 on 7/6/2011 1:30:36 PM , Rating: 2
Stoichometric ratio for gasoline is 14.7:1 and for E85 it's about 9.7:1.

This means, for the SAME volume of air, you can burn more E85 than pure gasoline. However, gasoline has more energy than E85 as you pointed out, and if you do the math it's pretty much a wash - you have about the same BTU with each assuming the stoichiometric ratio is maintained. Where the benefits of E85 (or pure ethanol) become more obvious is when you build an engine specifically for it with a higher compression ratio. 13:1 is at the high end for a gasoline engine... a performance engine designed to run on E85 or pure ethanol could have a compression ratio as high as 20:1. This is where you start to see an increase in efficiency (in both power and mpg) over gasoline.

That said, E85 has no business in cars on the road today.


RE: It's about time...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/22/2011 1:59:14 PM , Rating: 2
Democrats won. Blaming Lobbyists is the easy out. What happened to integrity? So because someone offers you money that means you HAVE to take it?

Republicans tried to kill this absurdity, and as usual, the Democrats played partisan politics and shot it down. It's funny, Democrats slammed the Republicans for being the "Party of No". Looks like saying NO is exactly what this country needs more of.

If you have integrity and morals and a conscious, you should be able to say NO to lobbyists. Stop blaming lobbyists, they are just doing their job. It's our elected officials who dropped the ball, yet again.


RE: It's about time...
By 91TTZ on 6/22/2011 2:18:31 PM , Rating: 3
It's not about Democrats vs. Republicans, it's about the influential farm lobby.

When any presidential candidate runs for the nomination of his party, the first state to vote is Iowa. Iowa sets the tone for the entire election season so they have a disproportionate influence on the outcome of the elections. Farming is very important in Iowa so all presidential hopefuls need to appease the Iowa farmers and voters.

It's doubtful that you'll find a candidate who opposes what the farmer stands for.


RE: It's about time...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/22/2011 2:24:18 PM , Rating: 2
But if someone offers you money for something that you know deep down is wrong, and you take it, what does that make you?

Lobbyist aren't part of Congress, they don't make policy. I'm blaming those who are and do.

I agree with you about Iowa though, and you're right. But sooner or later someone, somewhere, is going to have to make a tough decision and piss off a ton of voters somewhere. We just can't go on as a country with these unsustainable subsidies and spending levels.


RE: It's about time...
By ClownPuncher on 6/22/2011 3:17:23 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
But if someone offers you money for something that you know deep down is wrong, and you take it, what does that make you?


U.S. Politician.


RE: It's about time...
By axias41 on 6/23/2011 3:54:14 AM , Rating: 2
Just politician. Everywhere is the same sh|t.


RE: It's about time...
By YashBudini on 6/22/2011 6:57:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It sounds like the lobbyists won this battle.

Can anybody name a time and place they didn't? If not on the first round then the second or third?


RE: It's about time...
By shabodah on 6/22/2011 12:54:26 PM , Rating: 1
The article should read "only" in place of "no more than".

Oil Lobbyists control most of DC. Constituents have been mislead by the oil, beef, and corn industries. All three products are bad for our population when used excessively, yet they dominate their perspective markets for no good reason (besides the money already behind them).


Direct Injection
By btc909 on 6/22/2011 1:33:38 PM , Rating: 2
Don't think you will see less than 10% Ethanol in your fuel per gallon at the pump. Ethanol will continue to gum up your injectors which does wonders for direct injected engines.




RE: Direct Injection
By geddarkstorm on 6/22/2011 2:05:27 PM , Rating: 2
You know, I was wondering why about a year ago or so my little Kia (yes, cheap plastic car, not everyone has enough money for cool things :P) stopped being able to process normal grade gasoline without randomly losing engine power at times. Injectors were cleaned, engine was serviced, belts replaced, spark plugs replaced, better oil used... and still the problem persisted the same. Even medium grade gas (which I am forced to use now) sometimes doesn't deliver enough power to the car like it used to back two or three years ago, but at least I don't have complete engine shut down while slowing to do a turn.

Now I see that 10% ethanol has been put in pretty much all major pump stations? That would certainly explain it.

I now have to spend a whole lot more money than I used to for less quality fuel. Wow. Count me out from being a supporter of ethanol.


RE: Direct Injection
By FITCamaro on 6/22/2011 2:45:43 PM , Rating: 2
Midgrade gas vs Regular does nothing to produce more power unless your engine is designed to run on midgrade vs. regular.

The octane rating of the gas you need is determined by the compression of your motor. Putting premium in a Civic isn't going to make it make more power. In some engines, higher octane gas will make the car produce less power and get lower fuel economy.


RE: Direct Injection
By geddarkstorm on 6/22/2011 4:17:30 PM , Rating: 2
That is very interesting information, thank you.

Regular definitely doesn't work right though, as the engine can literally shut down while driving when using regular, but not with premium. Considering it's had a full 60k engine service by the dealership after the issue, I'm not sure what is up.


RE: Direct Injection
By inperfectdarkness on 6/22/2011 9:58:59 PM , Rating: 2
if your car is designed for premium, you should always use premium. if it's designed for regular, you shouldn't see a benefit from switching to premium.

if you do see a difference, consider the source of your gasoline--crappy stations may have crappy gas. i wouldn't put it past some stations to deliberately have sub-par regular gas...just so that people will buy the premium.

all EFI cars since 1990 should detect knock. if there's not enough fuel to prevent knock, it should be telling the injectors to add more. worst case, even if ethanol was "leaning out" you engine, EFI would compensate for it. ethanol is NOT the problem.


RE: Direct Injection
By YashBudini on 6/22/2011 6:55:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Midgrade gas vs Regular does nothing to produce more power unless your engine is designed to run on midgrade vs. regular.

Engines that can adapt the advance curve to best utilize whatever fuel comes along are not designed for any particular fuel.

quote:
The octane rating of the gas you need is determined by the compression of your motor.

That's only 1 factor. As long as you mitigate pre-ignition you can keep increasing it, which is what you've seen over the last few years.

quote:
In some engines, higher octane gas will make the car produce less power and get lower fuel economy.

And in engines with knock sensors spark advance may be greater, leading to better mileage, though not necessarily enough to augment the added cost. In addition Amoco Ultra is clear, pretty much has eliminated all gums and varnishes through an extra refining step, which leads to a cleaner engine.


RE: Direct Injection
By FITCamaro on 6/23/2011 12:04:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Engines that can adapt the advance curve to best utilize whatever fuel comes along are not designed for any particular fuel.


A car that recommends 87 octane will not make any more power running 93. Period.

quote:
That's only 1 factor. As long as you mitigate pre-ignition you can keep increasing it, which is what you've seen over the last few years.


Pre-ignition only occurs when running too low of an octane fuel in an engine with higher compression designed for higher octane fuel. Yes these days this is largely mitigated with the use of knock sensors and adjusting spark timing in the computer. But you will have less power and lower fuel economy as a result.

In some vehicles, namely older ones, if the engine calls for 87 octane, running 93 octane will result in the burn taking too long. Resulting in unburnt fuel being ejected from the chamber when the exhaust valves open. This means you used the same amount of fuel, didn't burn it all, resulting in a smaller bang, resulting in less power, and resulting in poorer fuel efficiency.

From a guy who builds engines I was told you want to run the lowest octane that doesn't ping. Anything higher and you're wasting your money. Running higher grade fuel than the recommended octane is nothing but that, a waste of money.

Now start modding the engine, and that changes things.


RE: Direct Injection
By TimboG on 6/23/2011 1:17:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Resulting in unburnt fuel being ejected from the chamber when the exhaust valves open.


All of the last 20 years worth of engines have camshafts that are designed to "scavenge" unburnt fuel back into the cylinder to be re-burnt.

The fact is that since the burn does not happen prematurely when using a higher octane fuel without ethanol gives an overall increase in torque, not horsepower.
With the gear ratios reaching above 1.4 to 1 in all new cars that increase in torque yields an overall increase in MPG. Everyone keeps screaming power/horsepower, neither of those mean squat while running the gear ratios we do now requires more torque to maintain any real advantage of an increase in MPG.

Yes, I know everyone wants to blow their horn about ethanol but the truth is that with the decrease in torque lowering overall MPG we still end up burning the same amount of petroleum to go the same distance with today’s engines and electronics.
Why a decrease in torque with ethanol while ethanol prevents spark knock?
Simple. Ethanol has a lower BTU than petroleum fuels. With a lower BTU neither torque nor horsepower can be mathematically equivelent at the peak ignition timing. The higher the pressure at the time of ignition the higher the available torque and horsepower. That is taking into account the available BTU to extract the “power”or"torque" from.

Most engines, even the non-E85 engines are seeing a 10% decrease in MPG with the addition of the 10% ethanol. So that the 10% ethanol in your tank did nothing but prevent spark knock. Since the knock sensor did not see a problem the ECM allowed the spark curve and injector pulse width to remain at the normal, preprogrammed parameters so the engine would produce the maximum power/torque available from the specific engine design.

If this does not prompt you to study basic physics in relation to burn timing vs. BTU and to only start typing, I can’t help you.

My English sucks, good thing I studied physics.
Thanks


RE: Direct Injection
By YashBudini on 6/23/2011 7:17:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Pre-ignition only occurs when running too low of an octane fuel in an engine with higher compression designed for higher octane fuel.

My point was and is today's engines have techniques like squirting oil onto the underside of the piston to cool it, which allows more compression on regular gas without detonation.

(Preignition can also occur when carbon deposits build up. )

Compare typical compression ratios today versus 10 years ago, they are still climbing.

quote:
with the use of knock sensors and adjusting spark timing in the computer. But you will have less power and lower fuel economy as a result.


With this scenario a company can claim the car runs on regular fine (and it does relatively) while still offering something more with better gas, which is what I initially stated. Dive through the last decade of car reviews in Car & Driver, quite a few cars "required" regular gas, but also stated (premium is recommended) by the manufacturer.

Yeah I get zippo from going from mid grade to premium, but going from regular to mid grade my engine has less hestitation.

Also consider - If a company like Amoco filtered out all the resins and varnishes out of their premium how could they dispose of the gunk? Dropping it into their lower grade gas is one option.


RE: Direct Injection
By Gzus666 on 6/22/2011 3:11:47 PM , Rating: 1
Thanks for making random assumptions. The reason you have to raise your octane is likely due to carbon deposits on the valves and/or pistons. Effectively this raises the compression ratio and carbon causes hot spots which can cause detonation. If you have a cleaning done either on your own or by a shop, the problem would go away. This has nothing to do with ethanol.


RE: Direct Injection
By geddarkstorm on 6/22/2011 4:23:49 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, it was a random correlation assumption. Mainly because the engine has been serviced by the dealership, more than once, since the start of this, including a major overhaul.

I know higher octane prevents knocking, which has to do with the carbon deposits you mention, and is a particular issue with an older car (this is an '04), but knocking isn't what's going on here. The engine losing power and literally shutting down while driving is the issue; but only on regular and not premium gasoline (there are still moments where it tries to stall on premium, but won't actually).

Since it has been majorly serviced (I doubt they cleaned the engine so thoroughly though), and since I used cleaners for the injectors and chambers myself to try to fix the issue (with no effect except while the cleaner was in the fuel tank, increasing power for the duration, but neither increasing or decreasing it once the next refill occurred), I'm not sure what is up. Ethanol does have a lower energy density, so it would decrease the energy content of the gasoline it's added to. That's why I made the assumption since it seems to be a power issue.

Anyways, thanks for the info.


RE: Direct Injection
By Gzus666 on 6/22/2011 4:48:53 PM , Rating: 1
The reason it loses power is because modern cars have knock sensors. You don't hear the knock because the second the knock starts, the computer starts forwarding timing to compensate for the issue. I haven't heard a modern vehicle knock because it is compensated for so quickly, but you can tell when the power drops out, much like what you describe. The other thing is the computer will usually richen up the fuel mixture, which can add to the problem. Curious, did you have an actual shop look at this problem? If they didn't figure it out, I would complain for my money back, cause this is basic engine troubleshooting. They should be able to see this with basic computer diagnostics.

I'd be willing to bet a good clean with Seafoam would clear it up. The other way is to heat the engine up real hot, take a vacuum line and suck small amounts of cold water in the intake, this can loosen up the deposits, but this is dangerous if you don't know what you are doing and sort of shade tree, so the Seafoam is probably your best bet.

It could be something else and I obviously would have a hard time accurately diagnosing it over the Internet, but since so much has already been changed, you are most likely looking at carbon deposits. A lot of the time you can pull a spark plug and put the piston at TDC and check the top with a flashlight. Worst case you can rent a bore scope and check things out that way to verify. Honestly though, with things running better as octane goes up, it immediately makes me think carbon.


RE: Direct Injection
By geddarkstorm on 6/22/2011 5:03:32 PM , Rating: 2
This is great info, thanks a bunch. I'll be looking into this more for sure! And apologizing to Ethanol for the quick judgment.


details details details.
By Smilin on 6/22/2011 1:47:10 PM , Rating: 2
(auto -1 for the upcoming curse word...many more for my opinion I'm sure)
The discussions on this spiral down into these little silos about economics, politics, lobbying, technology etc.. All are legitimate discussions of course but back waaaaay up..

You're burning your fucking food.

but smilin you say.....but..NO! Stop your internal mental dialog. Stop it, shoosh. Say it again:

You're burning your fucking food.

How did you get here? Is this where you want to be?




RE: details details details.
By -Nibs- on 6/22/2011 2:50:06 PM , Rating: 4
Unfortunately that decision was made decades ago and it isn't going to change. Almost all corn grown in the USA is inedible for humans. Well, you COULD eat it but it would taste like chalk. It's just a raw material at this point. It's used for ethanol, livestock feed (mostly beef in feed lots), and the rest (a very small slice of the total) gets made into high fructose corn syrup and other highly processed products.

This goes all the way back to the Nixon administration. The pros: Much less % of our income is spent on food. The cons... too many to list.


Heh...
By mmatis on 6/22/2011 3:24:49 PM , Rating: 2
And it turns out that Dr. James Hansen is a thief and misused his government office for personal gain, in addition to being a liar:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/22/nasa-sc...

Quelle surprise!




RE: Heh...
By YashBudini on 6/22/2011 7:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
? What surprise ?


Refund please
By Lord 666 on 6/22/2011 1:31:12 PM , Rating: 3
For all of the years, mileage, and dollars that were wasted on my expense for this failed project.




This just goes to show..
By MrBungle123 on 6/22/2011 12:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
You can't legislate the advancement of technology.




If you want to...
By Motoman on 6/22/2011 1:37:35 PM , Rating: 2
...encourage the growth of the cellulosic ethanol industry, you have to start by dropping any and all subsidies for corn ethanol.

People will produce what gives the best return...and if you're giving handouts for corn ethanol, you'd have to be a moron to produce anything else.

Ultimately, we need to get away from dedicated-crop ethanol of any kind...maybe using switchgrass is better than using corn, because it's less obviously tied to the food supply - but the fact of the matter is that any arable soil used to grow a crop for fuel is soil that wasn't used to grow food - and that is true whether the crop is corn, grass, or anything else.

Show me processes that use ditchweed or other truly-useless-but-there-anyway plant matter, and then I'll be excited. Or bring back that thing that was processing offal from a turkey plant. That looked promising...




Market
By Danger D on 6/22/2011 4:13:46 PM , Rating: 2
Ethanol is 10% of the fuel right now. Cars can only use 10% ethanol. The market's tapped out. There's no room for cellulosic ethanol.

You can't get the money to build a plant today. Go to a bank with this business plan: "Well, there's really no way anyone can buy the product from my brand new $100 million technology."

If there's a market, if there's money to be made, plants will get built. Flex Fuel Vehicles and E85 pumps would be the place to start.




You forgot the truer side?
By superstition on 6/22/2011 5:24:36 PM , Rating: 2
"Supporters point to the claims that the use of ethanol reduces the amount of fuel we need from imported crude oil and creates jobs for farmers who grow corn. It’s estimated that about 40 percent of the corn grown in the U.S. goes into ethanol production. Corn, however, isn't the only plant material that we can get ethanol from."

And ethanol's critics claim what? That it's an energy-negative product? That it causes water collection and corrosion? That burning crops is pretty crazy, given that it increases water pollution from runoff, uses some of the world's best soils -- not for food, causes soil depletion, et cetera? Photosynthesis is very inefficient at capturing solar energy and alcohols like ethanol are not good molecules to be used for fuel due to the alcohol group.

Ethanol from corn is a losing proposition. It only makes sense for politicians since they can use it to get the big farming vote and support companies like Monsanto.

It would be a lot better to get more efficient diesel vehicles here, as are available elsewhere like in the UK, and create biodiesel. Biodiesel, when blending with USLD, improves its lubricity to meet the standard of Bosch and an engine manufacturer's association (wear scar of no more than 460). Our current fuel standard, with a maximum wear scar of 520, is not adequate for modern passenger car diesel usage. Further, our cetane standard of a minimum of 40 isn't good enough. So, we need to improve the quality of our diesel and biodiesel in small amounts (1-2%) will really help with that -- without placing too heavy a burden on our cropland.

There are diesels in all sizes available in the UK that make our "fuel efficient" gasoline vehicles look rather ridiculous:

http://forums.tdiclub.com/showpost.php?p=3443649&p...




What was Shane thinking?
By YashBudini on 6/22/2011 7:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
Is there really a story here? Suppose your original goal was to lose 100 pounds and now you decided to lose 20 pounds. So far you've lost 5 pounds. Uhhhh, yeah, so?

BFD




By Beenthere on 6/22/2011 8:05:14 PM , Rating: 2
With ethanol offering a relatively cheap means to raise fuel octane, gas suppliers are using more ethanol at the expense to consumers with the cost of fuel, lower mpg and fuel system corrosion/damage from the use of ethanol.

The U.S. in it's wildest dreams could not produce enough ethanol to reduce crude imports by 5% a year. Ethanol was a lie from the very beginning and nothing has changed other than consumers are being duped by talking heads even more each week.




"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton














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