Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ethanol would be fine if there was a engine to burn it.. There isn't and that ethanol doesn't do a thing to help any part of get up and go a bit. it IS a 10% waste of pounds and storage of them in the gas tank, costs us 10% miles per gallon and robs us of 10% power, and increases chances of getting water in the gas because it attracts moisture.
It is better to park with a full tank than 1/2 tank since there is less surface area to attract water from thin air. This is what causes gas to go bad in small engine like lawnmowers.
Ethanol is terrible on 2 stokes like chain saws and other engines where oil must be added to the fuel by one means or another.
If the EPA does come out with laws for 15% ethanol we the people will be engine less. There are no engines that can pass that fuel and do anything but break up.
At this point there are no engines and no one is working on making any that I am aware of, and if the 15% does come out any engines you have will be junk if you try to run them on 15%.
The EPA should be disbanded, those people need to go get jobs in the real world and stop trying to beat the laws of nature.
They are about as good at engineering as a bunch of 4 year olds, but probably the 4 years olds would do a better job of it.
Ethanol would be fine if there was a engine to burn it.. There isn't and that ethanol doesn't do a thing to help any part of get up and go a bit. it IS a 10% waste of pounds and storage of them in the gas tank, costs us 10% miles per gallon and robs us of 10% power, and increases chances of getting water in the gas because it attracts moisture.
It is better to park with a full tank than 1/2 tank since there is less surface area to attract water from thin air. This is what causes gas to go bad in small engine like lawnmowers.
Ethanol is terrible on 2 stokes like chain saws and other engines where oil must be added to the fuel by one means or another.
If the EPA does come out with laws for 15% ethanol we the people will be engine less. There are no engines that can pass that fuel and do anything but break up.
At this point there are no engines and no one is working on making any that I am aware of, and if the 15% does come out any engines you have will be junk if you try to run them on 15%.
The EPA should be disbanded, those people need to go get jobs in the real world and stop trying to beat the laws of nature.
They are about as good at engineering as a bunch of 4 year olds, but probably the 4 years olds would do a better job of it.
Just remember, corn makes our gas prices cheaper so imagine how high they would be if there was no corn in the gas.
No it does not, ethanol is more per galllon and has less BTU's per gallon to boot. The only reason it's used is becsue it's mandated by law it has to be used.
What? Are you out of your gourd? Why wouldn't the EPA employ engineers? Have you ever met an engineer before? Do you know engineers come in all sorts of flavors, fields, and varieties?
Why arent you taking into consideration the cost of the subsidies or rising food prices?
This is money taken right out of taxpayers pockets.
I think it is taken into consideration by various branches/peoples within the government and they've made rulings based on those considerations which may or may not prove to be good. On the side of corn ethanol, I'm of the opinion that the regulations are wrong since even with heavily GMO'd corn (another hairy issue of its own) tailored towards producing corn ethanol, the conversion simply isn't very efficient. It would only make some sense if gasoline prices were to spike uncontrollably and yet our fertilizer and farming practices require little in petrochemicals which is simply untrue. Corn ethanol is mostly giant corporate lobbying for these things, and while I'm not against the concept of subsidies, I think this subsidy is not the way to go given our current and potential returns.
Why arent you taking into consideration the cost of the subsidies or rising food prices?
This is money taken right out of taxpayers pockets.
Like I said, we pay farmers about 2 billion dollars a year not to farm perfectly good farm land.
Let them farm it, save the taxpayer money, and let them sale that corn at profit. Puts more corn out of that 34 million acres, keeps food prices down, and has enough ethanol for keeping gasoline prices down.
Win/Win
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Disingenuous
