http://www.investors.com/politics/editor...ar-owners/

Quote:The EPA’s proposal to increase the amount of ethanol that must be blended into gasoline is a trifecta of regulatory abuse. It will do nothing for the environment, it will do nothing for energy security, and it could wreck millions of car engines.

The decision stems from a misbegotten 2007 energy bill signed by President Bush that requires ever-increasing amounts of ethanol to be included in gasoline. Not an increasing percentage, but an actual amount.

The EPA’s proposal would require refineries to blend in almost 19 billion gallons of ethanol and other “biofuels” by 2017, which is 700,000 gallons more than they do now.

But there’s a problem. Americans aren’t consuming enough gasoline. In fact, consumption this year is well below the 2007 forecast, both because cars are more efficient and because people are driving less than expected.

So, if oil refiners are to pump 19 billion gallons of ethanol into their gasoline supplies, they won’t be able to keep ethanol ratio below 10%.

Why does that matter? Because ethanol is corrosive and can degrade plastic, rubber and metal parts. And the more ethanol in gasoline, the most likely this damage will occur. So going above 10% can wreak havoc with car engines — as well as those in motorcycles, lawnmowers, power boats, you name it — that aren’t built to handle the higher ethanol levels.

Quote:So why is the EPA pushing ethanol? Does it help fight global warming? Does it help cities fight smog? Does it help the U.S. become more energy independent?

The answer is: None of the above.

A 2011 study by the National Research Council found that ethanol use could boost overall CO2 emissions. An earlier study published in Science also found that, when you consider the impact of converting forests and grasslands to cornfields, ethanol sharply increases carbon emissions.

Meanwhile, a 2007 study by a Stanford University environmental engineer found that increasing ethanol levels in gasoline can lead to more smog.

The idea that we need ethanol to become energy independent might have made sense in 2007. But the fracking boom since then has unleashed massive new domestic supplies of oil and natural gas, rendering this argument entirely moot.

Here’s an idea. Rather than requiring oil refiners to pump more of this dirty and expensive fuel into gasoline supplies, the federal government should abandon the ethanol requirement altogether.

Big Corn might not like it, but millions of car owners will be grateful.

I pay for non eth out of spite....

Trump is gonna fk that world up too....

(05-25-2016 05:33 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  I pay for non eth out of spite....

Trump is gonna fk that world up too....

I don't in my personal vehicle unless I am going on a trip. I learned that back when the truck I drove for work was still gas. We used to use regular gas in it too until one day my boss, who listens pretty much only to talk radio, heard a guy on a show talk about how much better the mileage was on long trips with pure gas vs blended and decided to give it a try, keeping up with the mileage and cost breakdown. It actually saved him a few dollars each tank on the longer trips, but the difference was negligible when the gas was primarily consumed locally. Since then when we take road trips in our personal vehicles we fill up with non-ethanol gas.

As for the work truck, the one I use now is diesel for the towing power.

(05-25-2016 05:46 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 05:33 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  I pay for non eth out of spite....

Trump is gonna fk that world up too....

I don't in my personal vehicle unless I am going on a trip. I learned that back when the truck I drove for work was still gas. We used to use regular gas in it too until one day my boss, who listens pretty much only to talk radio, heard a guy on a show talk about how much better the mileage was on long trips with pure gas vs blended and decided to give it a try, keeping up with the mileage and cost breakdown. It actually saved him a few dollars each tank on the longer trips, but the difference was negligible when the gas was primarily consumed locally. Since then when we take road trips in our personal vehicles we fill up with non-ethanol gas.

As for the work truck, the one I use now is diesel for the towing power.

no question to either (the locally point and diesel)....

like I mentioned in many a frame, I refuse that refuse that is subsidized (spite)....

I have no problem paying for subsidies that promote technological advancement....ethanol is just a fk'n joke.....

A slow version of Cash for Clunkers but without the rebate. Another Obamanation for the American people. Thanks EPA , Soon only Obama cars will be allowed.

So much stupidity in this thread, however, there are some hidden jewels. Maybe some of you have forgotten your third grade civics lessons. The EPA is a regulatory executive branch. They enforce rules. If you are going to ***** about ethanol get the lazy Do Nothing Congress to pass a law about it. Who controls both branches of congress? Hmmmm

Yes, ethanol is an absolute boondoggle shim sham a flim flam, but the Hawkeye Cauci is a powerful force. Cruz did pull it out this year even with talking against the ethanol subsidy but how many friends does Cruz have within the beltway? Big Farm is gonna Big Farm.

Your complaints are directed at the wrong people. Typical, but your complaint is correct.

Congress (not the EPA) created the renewable fuel standard (RFS) program in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and expand the nation’s renewable fuels sector while reducing reliance on imported oil.
The RFS program was authorized under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and expanded under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

(05-26-2016 07:19 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  A slow version of Cash for Clunkers but without the rebate. Another Obamanation for the American people. Thanks EPA , Soon only Obama cars will be allowed.

I think you missed something here hoss:

"The decision stems from a misbegotten 2007 energy bill signed by President Bush"

Calling foul on this one. Obama has actually eased the required amounts of ethanol created in recent years.

This is a problem made by Reid/Pelosi/Bush

"The mandate that the EPA set on Monday calls for mixing 18.11 billion gallons of biofuels into the nation’s fuel market next year. That figure, which includes corn ethanol, biodiesel and next-generation "cellulosic" ethanol, is well below the 22.3 billion gallons required under a 2007 law." - From late 2015

(05-26-2016 07:50 AM)boroeagle2 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 07:19 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  A slow version of Cash for Clunkers but without the rebate. Another Obamanation for the American people. Thanks EPA , Soon only Obama cars will be allowed.

I think you missed something here hoss:

"The decision stems from a misbegotten 2007 energy bill signed by President Bush"

Pathetic attempt to try to lay this on Bush. The Bill was passed by the Congress with both houses controlled by the Democrats and despite strong Republican opposition.

But I do believe that Bush should have issued a veto.

(05-26-2016 08:36 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 07:50 AM)boroeagle2 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 07:19 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  A slow version of Cash for Clunkers but without the rebate. Another Obamanation for the American people. Thanks EPA , Soon only Obama cars will be allowed.

I think you missed something here hoss:

"The decision stems from a misbegotten 2007 energy bill signed by President Bush"

Pathetic attempt to try to lay this on Bush. The Bill was passed by the Congress with both houses controlled by the Democrats and despite strong Republican opposition.

But I do believe that Bush should have issued a veto.

And...8 years later Obama didn't stop it either. He still has time to act though. But will He ?

(05-26-2016 08:36 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 07:50 AM)boroeagle2 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 07:19 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  A slow version of Cash for Clunkers but without the rebate. Another Obamanation for the American people. Thanks EPA , Soon only Obama cars will be allowed.

I think you missed something here hoss:

"The decision stems from a misbegotten 2007 energy bill signed by President Bush"

Pathetic attempt to try to lay this on Bush. The Bill was passed by the Congress with both houses controlled by the Democrats and despite strong Republican opposition.

But I do believe that Bush should have issued a veto.

I'm not trying to "lay this on Bush" just pointing out that it was wrong to blame it on Obama as he did in the post I quoted.

If anything it goes to show you how dysfunctional our govt. is.

(05-26-2016 09:21 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  If anything it goes to show you how dysfunctional our govt. is.

You got That Right !!!!!

Who cares, I trade my cars in every three years anyway.

I buy 100% gasoline for my car. Ethanol in really any amount is not great for any car with a forced induction system.

(05-26-2016 09:37 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I buy 100% gasoline for my car. Ethanol in really any amount is not great for any car with a forced induction system.

I'm more concerned why Marathon Oil that controls much of Central and Northern Kentucky has been gouging it's customers in the Louisville area for Years and Our Democrat AG's never actually go after Them. Our Current price for 87 octane in Louisville is $2.59 a gallon. I just got back this week from Alabama where there I paid $1.95 a gallon at Walmart. Even all through Tenn it was at the most 2.09. Crossing into Kentucky it was $2.25 up to $2.35 closer to Louisville them like Lightning striking as soon as You got into the Louisville Metro it was $2.59....Everywhere in Jefferson county. This happens nearly every week. They claim reformulated Gas but that went away years ago but the Myth remains. How come Nashville which is a larger city was $2.02 the same day ? This is from a Lack of competition for petroleum distribution sales, period .

(05-26-2016 09:52 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:37 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I buy 100% gasoline for my car. Ethanol in really any amount is not great for any car with a forced induction system.

I'm more concerned why Marathon Oil that controls much of Central and Northern Kentucky has been gouging it's customers in the Louisville area for Years and Our Democrat AG's never actually go after Them. Our Current price for 87 octane in Louisville is $2.59 a gallon. I just got back this week from Alabama where there I paid $1.95 a gallon at Walmart. Even all through Tenn it was at the most 2.09. Crossing into Kentucky it was $2.25 up to $2.35 closer to Louisville them like Lightning striking as soon as You got into the Louisville Metro it was $2.59....Everywhere in Jefferson county. This happens nearly every week. They claim reformulated Gas but that went away years ago but the Myth remains. How come Nashville which is a larger city was $2.02 the same day ? This is from a Lack of competition for petroleum distribution sales, period .

That would be Marathon Petroleum you'd want to have that discussion with.

In all honesty it sounds like your tax situation is different.

(05-26-2016 09:36 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Who cares, I trade my cars in every three years anyway.

And the man who complains about greed does not care that some people might not do that... I buy 1 yr old cars and run them into the ground.

This does nothing for the environment, but is a boost to this nation's war against corn tortillas. And, if you like genuine Mexican food or Tex Mex, corn is the way to go (not flour), making this an absolute travesty.