More ethanol

[arrow]

. Currently most ethanol blended gas is E10 or 10% ethanol. We are now headed for E85 or a 15% blend that some areas already have. I had to laugh when I read about an interview of a Jeff Broin who is of the ceo of the largest ethanol producing plant in America. He stated he'd like to see gas at a 20% blend. When asked what will millions of small engine owners who are having trouble with E10 do with E85 0r E80 gas, he stated that he sees ethanol blends being chosen by the consumer much like octane rates are. Really. If you had a "choice" of ethanol blend, which would you regularly choose? The added cost of the special pumps with blending capabilities will add another $20K for the pumps. All of which will be borne by the consumer of course. To think, we have ethanol because George B the second passed an energy independence bill in 2007 and every senator and congressman in the corn belt conferred and agreed with. (what else would they do?). A few questions: If we get less mpg with ethanol blended gas, does the extra burning of more fuel offset advantages of less air pollution and fuel usage? 2.If primarily we have this stuff because one of its attributes was lessening of air pollution in big cities, why is the stuff all over the country? 3. With cars becoming more fuel efficient which means burn efficient, why are we continuing to bother with anything added to gas? 4. How much has our energy dependence on oil been reduced with ethanol? This just sounds like another good ole boy back room deal that has more of an economic impact than an actual one. I'm jaded and prejudiced to ethanol because of the political aspect and question its viability because of its performance or lack thereof characteristics. To me, it lies in the same bed as that other woefully inadequate No Child Left Behind government edict. How do we reduce our dependance by adding a substance that gets us as much as a 10%-20% decline in mpg?

 

[k0ua]

Not to mention, raises the price of corn both as human and animal food. Which causes the price of meat to go up, Not to mention uses lots of water to produce.

 

[orezok]

Well there is the advantage of the improvement of the economy of the congressmen due to the thousands of dollars the ethanol lobbyist are pushing into their hands. Certainly that must count for something! :confused2: :confused2: :confused2:

 

[creekbend]

In retrospect, I wish that the ENTIRE Ethanol Program would be abolished or reduced. Although the EPA, most certainly wouldn't adopt such measures, why not leave the Choice up to the Consumer? Anyone out there remember when pumps had and sold "High Test Gas"?

 

[sam5570]

In retrospect, I wish that the ENTIRE Ethanol Program would be abolished or reduced. Although the EPA, most certainly wouldn't adopt such measures, why not leave the Choice up to the Consumer? Anyone out there remember when pumps had and sold "High Test Gas"?

yealp when i was in the station business i sold high test and regular and to and a little more we also checked the oil and cleaned your windshield, now you know i'm old

 

[sam5570]

. Currently most ethanol blended gas is E10 or 10% ethanol. We are now headed for E85 or a 15% blend that some areas already have. I had to laugh when I read about an interview of a Jeff Broin who is of the ceo of the largest ethanol producing plant in America. He stated he'd like to see gas at a 20% blend. When asked what will millions of small engine owners who are having trouble with E10 do with E85 0r E80 gas, he stated that he sees ethanol blends being chosen by the consumer much like octane rates are. Really. If you had a "choice" of ethanol blend, which would you regularly choose? The added cost of the special pumps with blending capabilities will add another $20K for the pumps. All of which will be borne by the consumer of course. To think, we have ethanol because George B the second passed an energy independence bill in 2007 and every senator and congressman in the corn belt conferred and agreed with. (what else would they do?). A few questions: If we get less mpg with ethanol blended gas, does the extra burning of more fuel offset advantages of less air pollution and fuel usage? 2.If primarily we have this stuff because one of its attributes was lessening of air pollution in big cities, why is the stuff all over the country? 3. With cars becoming more fuel efficient which means burn efficient, why are we continuing to bother with anything added to gas? 4. How much has our energy dependence on oil been reduced with ethanol? This just sounds like another good ole boy back room deal that has more of an economic impact than an actual one. I'm jaded and prejudiced to ethanol because of the political aspect and question its viability because of its performance or lack thereof characteristics. To me, it lies in the same bed as that other woefully inadequate No Child Left Behind government edict. How do we reduce our dependance by adding a substance that gets us as much as a 10%-20% decline in mpg?

as the old saying goes they cut there nose off to spite there face. some friends and i were talking about vehicles and fuel millage. in the mid 70's to the mid 80's there were several 4 cylinder and in line 6 cylinder engines that wold get well above 25 mpg. then here come epa with all this air quality garabge and now the same engines with all the stuff they got to pull to clen the exaust there down to 15 to 19 mpg, witch makes no sence before hand they were burning alot less fuel and now with all the so called improvments they burnning alot more.

 

[arrow]

Well there is the advantage of the improvement of the economy of the congressmen due to the thousands of dollars the ethanol lobbyist are pushing into their hands. Certainly that must count for something! :confused2: :confused2: :confused2:

That's the nail on the head. Our fuel injection systems in cars these days are considered a "closed loop". Fuel is atomized in such a way as to be the most efficient in its use in automotive history. We need ethanol like we need fluoride and yet its perpetrated on us as if we were puppets or pawns or elitists. I wrote all the clowns that represent us in this state explaining how this stuff makes no sense and received nothing but thanks for writing in. This has nothing to do with "reduction" on dependence but everything to do with what orezok posted. We have one rep who is in a wheel chair so naturally he got the sympathy vote. He has no other job. Has one rental property and has become a multi millionaire while in congress.

 

[MHarryE]

Oxygenated fuels were intended to reduce carbon monoxide emissions. Ethanol and methanol do not harm the environment like MTBE but little, if any, benefit has been proven. There are very important lobbyists - Archer-Daniels-Midland, the corn, wheat and sugar producers, who have the power. Minnesota, major ag economy, we must have 10% ethanol. Iowa, the corn state, gives a significant price discount to run the higher octane ethanol. And the energy used in growing and processing may be more than the energy produced, but that's America.

 

[arrow]

Oxygenated fuels were intended to reduce carbon monoxide emissions. Ethanol and methanol do not harm the environment like MTBE but little, if any, benefit has been proven. There are very important lobbyists - Archer-Daniels-Midland, the corn, wheat and sugar producers, who have the power. Minnesota, major ag economy, we must have 10% ethanol. Iowa, the corn state, gives a significant price discount to run the higher octane ethanol. And the energy used in growing and processing may be more than the energy produced, but that's America.

The ole David vs. Goliath thing eh? I don't mind someone making a buck but it should not come at anyone's expense. We just sit here like lemmings and take it up the… Henie Youngman: "my doctor had to check my prostate, he put both his hands on my shoulders and said "bend over"

 

[TomSeller]

.. To think, we have ethanol because George B the second passed an energy independence bill in 2007 and every senator and congressman in the corn belt conferred and agreed with.

We should continue to vote out of office the Republican party mostly responsible for this.

 

[TomSeller]

as the old saying goes they cut there nose off to spite there face. some friends and i were talking about vehicles and fuel millage. in the mid 70's to the mid 80's there were several 4 cylinder and in line 6 cylinder engines that wold get well above 25 mpg. then here come epa with all this air quality garabge and now the same engines with all the stuff they got to pull to clen the exaust there down to 15 to 19 mpg, witch makes no sence before hand they were burning alot less fuel and now with all the so called improvments they burnning alot more.

Now that size engine is getting 30 to 40 mpg with cleaner air. Who would want to go back to worse mileage and dirty air?

 

[MHarryE]

Now that size engine is getting 30 to 40 mpg with cleaner air. Who would want to go back to worse mileage and dirty air?

Need to send them to Mexico. When I got out of the Cancun airport to where the taxis were standing, I started to choke. My lungs just weren't capable of handling that pollution anymore. And Mexico is clean compared to China. Do I miss changing plugs and points every 8,000 miles, getting 9 mpg on the highway with my unloaded pickup? Not a bit. Up here in the frozen north we used to add a bottle of alcohol with every fill up 8 months of the year to prevent gas line freeze. Now can you even find Heet on the shelf anymore?

 

[arrow]

Now that size engine is getting 30 to 40 mpg with cleaner air. Who would want to go back to worse mileage and dirty air?

My point here exactly. Engines are not getting this kind of mileage because of ethanol. They are getting this kind of mileage because cars are lighter, more aerodynamic, and deceased frictional properties of engines along with more efficient transmissions. If ethanol has been shown to decrease mileage, more volatiles have to be burned. The question remains: does ethanol really produce cleaner air if there is more combustion necessitated to go the same miles? 2. Conglomerations of cars within large cities produce more pollution. To what extent has ethanol reduced this pollution? 3. Does the energy needed to produce ethanol, offset any parameter of any other alleged savings measurement? What also must be examined is that if indeed any studies have been done, who did them and is there a connection to the ethanol industry?

 

[arrow]

Now can you even find Heet on the shelf anymore?

I'd much rather be able to regulate my own gas tank moisture than have someone do it for me at the cost of ruining everyone's chainsaws, weed wackers, motor cycles and every other small engine items we have. I'd also appreciated paying $8.99 for a 50lb bag of feed instead of $18.99 for 40lbs for the same feed. Ethanol has been a goldmine for only a selected few and has certainly come at our expense.

 

[DEWFPO]

We should continue to vote out of office the Republican party mostly responsible for this.

Why only the Republicans....? What about the Democrats. Did the current administration not approve E20 for use?

DEWPFO

 

[piller]

Ethanol blends reduce fuel economy compared to 100% gas. This results in consumers purchasing more gallons of fuel. Fuel is taxed by the gallon so consumers end up paying more in taxes.

 

[Diamondpilot]

We should continue to vote out of office the Republican party mostly responsible for this.

Are you kidding me?

Libral Dems have ruined this country and continue to. The feed the sheep Kool-Aid and they line up.

Too funny.

Chris

 

[wyeguy]

Luckily here in the middle of corn country, REAL gas is still readily available. Even with the socialists subsidized price, the better gas mileage I get more than pays for the higher cost of the REAL gas.

Don't understand how using more gas to go the same distance leads to cleaner air. The ethanol solution is a joke, all the way around, even environmentally. The tree huggers need to take a look at what the increased demand for corn does to increase rain forest decimation. SOMEBODY ought to be ashamed!

 

[k0ua]

Luckily here in the middle of corn country, REAL gas is still readily available. Even with the socialists subsidized price, the better gas mileage I get more than pays for the higher cost of the REAL gas.

Don't understand how using more gas to go the same distance leads to cleaner air. The ethanol solution is a joke, all the way around, even environmentally. The tree huggers need to take a look at what the increased demand for corn does to increase rain forest decimation. SOMEBODY ought to be ashamed!

Yeah, I pretty much agree, I bought into the idea at first, years ago, but now that ethanol fuel is a reality with all the problem we have with it, and all the other unintended consequences, I am thinking it is time for it to go. If there was a vote today, by the people, stay or go.. I would vote go.

James K0UA

 

[jcummins]

I want to know who the h*ll is going to pay for my ruined tiller motor when all I can get is E85?