|
"May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
Over the last few months, all the gas stations in my area have quit selling
pure gas-- just the adulterated stuff. You can't find 100% petrol any more. As the percentage of alcohol in my tank ('07 Accord V6 EX-L sedan) increased, my mileage decreased-- consistently 10%-12% less than it used to be on the same 400 mile round trip I make on the interstate 2-3 times a month. Used to get in the low 30's-- now get in high 20's.... Is this the great "fool the public" scam or what-- paying for adulterated fuel that doesn't give you full value?? |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
Runtime Error wrote:
> Over the last few months, all the gas stations in my area have quit selling > pure gas-- just the adulterated stuff. You can't find 100% petrol any more. > > As the percentage of alcohol in my tank ('07 Accord V6 EX-L sedan) > increased, my mileage decreased-- consistently 10%-12% less than it used to > be on the same 400 mile round trip I make on the interstate 2-3 times a > month. Used to get in the low 30's-- now get in high 20's.... > > Is this the great "fool the public" scam or what-- paying for adulterated > fuel that doesn't give you full value?? the bit i like is actually paying /more/ for the privilege of this lower energy/lower mileage gasoline! |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message news:vuudnX1efKcVZC7VnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... > Runtime Error wrote: >> Over the last few months, all the gas stations in my area have quit >> selling pure gas-- just the adulterated stuff. You can't find 100% petrol >> any more. >> >> As the percentage of alcohol in my tank ('07 Accord V6 EX-L sedan) >> increased, my mileage decreased-- consistently 10%-12% less than it used >> to be on the same 400 mile round trip I make on the interstate 2-3 times >> a month. Used to get in the low 30's-- now get in high 20's.... >> >> Is this the great "fool the public" scam or what-- paying for adulterated >> fuel that doesn't give you full value?? > > the bit i like is actually paying /more/ for the privilege of this lower > energy/lower mileage gasoline! Don't worry Obama is going to change all that. Or at least that's what I thought I heard him say in a commercial. And we all know that politicians always tell the truth. |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
"Runtime Error" <bsod@nospam> wrote in message news:HbidnRBln-oTdC7VnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@comcast.com... > Over the last few months, all the gas stations in my area have quit > selling pure gas-- just the adulterated stuff. You can't find 100% petrol > any more. > > As the percentage of alcohol in my tank ('07 Accord V6 EX-L sedan) > increased, my mileage decreased-- consistently 10%-12% less than it used > to be on the same 400 mile round trip I make on the interstate 2-3 times a > month. Used to get in the low 30's-- now get in high 20's.... > > Is this the great "fool the public" scam or what-- paying for adulterated > fuel that doesn't give you full value?? I don't know where you live, but the addition of ethanol may be a government mandate. It is also possible the price of the fuel is lower than it would have been for 100% gasoline (but I don't know how you would tell, since the price of gasoline fluctuates on a daily basis). I am surprised you are claiming a 10%+ reduction in fuel economy. A small reduction is usual. Theoretically ethanol has about 85% of the energy in gasoline. So a 90% gasoline/10% ethanol blend should have about 98.5% as much energy as 100% gasoline. Assuming your car is operating properly, the fuel economy should only go down by at most 3%. Older, carbureted cars, can have real problems with 10% ethanol fuels, but modern fuel injected cars as new as your should handle it easily with a minimal effect on fuel economy. In some cases the reduction is even less that would be predicted by the reduction in energy content because the ethanol tainted fuel sometimes has a higher octane rating than 100% regular gasoline, which allows the engines PCM to advance the timing and partially compensate for the lower energy content by increasing the engine's efficiency slightly. At any rate, the fuel is what it is. It is not "adulterated." If the addition of ethanol is mandated by the government, you can't blame the fuel dealers. If it isn't, then you need to shop around for 100% gasoline (whatever that is - since gasoline itself is a blend of numerous compounds). I suspect if you keep careful records, you will find you mileage has not decreased by 10%. As for the price, unless you can find 100% gasoline in your area, how do you know that they aren't charging less for the E10 than for 100% gasoline? Ed |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
Runtime Error wrote:
> Over the last few months, all the gas stations in my area have quit selling > pure gas-- just the adulterated stuff. You can't find 100% petrol any more. > > As the percentage of alcohol in my tank ('07 Accord V6 EX-L sedan) > increased, my mileage decreased-- consistently 10%-12% less than it used to > be on the same 400 mile round trip I make on the interstate 2-3 times a > month. Used to get in the low 30's-- now get in high 20's.... > > Is this the great "fool the public" scam or what-- paying for adulterated > fuel that doesn't give you full value?? No one ever tried to market the 10% Ethanol fuel as better than pure petrol. It's only because of the federal tax credit that it's being used as an octane enhancer (other than in states where it's being used as an alternative to MTBE). |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
On Aug 26, 4:18 pm, "Just Me" <Jus...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote in message > > news:vuudnX1efKcVZC7VnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... > > > Runtime Error wrote: > >> Over the last few months, all the gas stations in my area have quit > >> selling pure gas-- just the adulterated stuff. You can't find 100% petrol > >> any more. > > >> As the percentage of alcohol in my tank ('07 Accord V6 EX-L sedan) > >> increased, my mileage decreased-- consistently 10%-12% less than it used > >> to be on the same 400 mile round trip I make on the interstate 2-3 times > >> a month. Used to get in the low 30's-- now get in high 20's.... > > >> Is this the great "fool the public" scam or what-- paying for adulterated > >> fuel that doesn't give you full value?? > > > the bit i like is actually paying /more/ for the privilege of this lower > > energy/lower mileage gasoline! > > Don't worry Obama is going to change all that. Or at least that's whatI > thought I heard him say in a commercial. And we all know that politicians > always tell the truth. Middle America and Southern Democrats are not going to vote for a black guy. |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
Rocinante wrote:
> Middle America and Southern Democrats are not going to vote for a > black guy. They vote for black guys all the time. The Dixiecrats aren't voting for Obama, but they didn't vote for a white Catholic North easterner either. It'll all come down to Ohio and Florida again. Obama probably needs one of them to win, while McCain needs both. However this time there are a lot more formerly red states as toss-ups than in the past, so it's conceivable that Obama could win without Ohio and Florida. As of now, without toss-up states, and Ohio and Florida going to McCain, Obama is barely ahead at 273-265. "http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10" With toss up states it's Obama 228, McCain 174, and 136 toss up. "http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=5" Obama should have chosen a Jewish Cuban woman from Florida as his running mate. Maybe McCain will do just that. Hopefully people will begin to get mad at what the Republicans are doing to the U.S.. |
Re:
Obama is going to fix that too? We will be lucky to have cars if that
jack-ass gets elected. Scott -- Message posted using http://www.talkaboutautos.com/group/alt.autos.honda/ More information at http://www.talkaboutautos.com/faq.html |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
SMS wrote:
> Runtime Error wrote: >> Over the last few months, all the gas stations in my area have quit >> selling pure gas-- just the adulterated stuff. You can't find 100% >> petrol any more. >> >> As the percentage of alcohol in my tank ('07 Accord V6 EX-L sedan) >> increased, my mileage decreased-- consistently 10%-12% less than it >> used to be on the same 400 mile round trip I make on the interstate >> 2-3 times a month. Used to get in the low 30's-- now get in high 20's.... >> >> Is this the great "fool the public" scam or what-- paying for >> adulterated fuel that doesn't give you full value?? > > No one ever tried to market the 10% Ethanol fuel as better than pure > petrol. that's not true. when ethanol mix first came out, the oilco propaganda was all about "higher octane", which is technically true, but highly misleading since octane != energy content. > It's only because of the federal tax credit that it's being used > as an octane enhancer (other than in states where it's being used as an > alternative to MTBE). it's not being used for that - it's being used to lower energy content, and thus decrease mileage, all while being subsidized to do so courtesy of the tax payer. you can bet your sweet a$$ the oilco's would be up in arms if ethanol was somehow to their disadvantage. |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message news:rN%sk.11051$L_.10117@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com... > Rocinante wrote: > >> Middle America and Southern Democrats are not going to vote for a >> black guy. > > They vote for black guys all the time. The Dixiecrats aren't voting for > Obama, but they didn't vote for a white Catholic North easterner either. > > It'll all come down to Ohio and Florida again. Obama probably needs one of > them to win, while McCain needs both. However this time there are a lot > more formerly red states as toss-ups than in the past, so it's conceivable > that Obama could win without Ohio and Florida. > > As of now, without toss-up states, and Ohio and Florida going to McCain, > Obama is barely ahead at 273-265. > > "http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10" > > With toss up states it's Obama 228, McCain 174, and 136 toss up. > > "http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=5" > > Obama should have chosen a Jewish Cuban woman from Florida as his running > mate. Maybe McCain will do just that. > > Hopefully people will begin to get mad at what the Republicans are doing > to the U.S.. I am convinced unhappily that after the last few years of our economy being looted by both Dems and Reps, bankers, real estate speculators, oil cos, oil speculators, various mobsters (domestic and international), lunatic terrorists and the military/industrial complex, that our prospects as free citizens are not so good right now. We have voted for and elected crooks and morons since 1968. Ron Paul is my Congressman so I'm hoping we'll be OK for a time, while the rest of of the USA circles the drain. There is a good chance that we Texans are just as naive as the rest of the flock. Bless us all............. |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in
news:_vSdnUeZVd56QynVnZ2dnUVZ_t7inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t: > SMS wrote: >> Runtime Error wrote: >>> Over the last few months, all the gas stations in my area have quit >>> selling pure gas-- just the adulterated stuff. You can't find 100% >>> petrol any more. >>> >>> As the percentage of alcohol in my tank ('07 Accord V6 EX-L sedan) >>> increased, my mileage decreased-- consistently 10%-12% less than it >>> used to be on the same 400 mile round trip I make on the interstate >>> 2-3 times a month. Used to get in the low 30's-- now get in high >>> 20's.... >>> >>> Is this the great "fool the public" scam or what-- paying for >>> adulterated fuel that doesn't give you full value?? >> >> No one ever tried to market the 10% Ethanol fuel as better than pure >> petrol. > > that's not true. when ethanol mix first came out, the oilco > propaganda was all about "higher octane", which is technically true, > but highly misleading since octane != energy content. > > >> It's only because of the federal tax credit that it's being used >> as an octane enhancer (other than in states where it's being used as >> an alternative to MTBE). > > it's not being used for that - it's being used to lower energy > content, and thus decrease mileage, all while being subsidized to do > so courtesy of the tax payer. you can bet your sweet a$$ the oilco's > would be up in arms if ethanol was somehow to their disadvantage. That there's an mileage hit is incidental to everything else surrounding ethanol. As a general rule, refiners and retailers refused to use ethanol until it was forced on them, and until the government made ethanol cheaper for the oil companies to buy by taking money out of your pocket to give to them. It was forced on the refiners originally by environmental lobby group pressure, and very lately, by the farm lobby and by companies that benefit from the consequences of government regulations (think ADM). Now it's national security that's also supposed to be a reason for ethanol mandates. The refiners and retailers can't use TEL, MMT or MTBE anymore. There's not much left after that, at least not at an acceptable price. Ethanol is extremely expensive both as an additive and a fuel, in addition to the storage problems its corrosiveness causes. With considerable price pressure having driven most of the margin out of motor fuels, refiners and retailers usually wait until everybody is pushed into the same boat, so they all face the same costs. TEL and MMT have little effect on the energy content of gasoline because they're added in such small amounts. MTBE and ethanol, on the other hand, are added in very large amounts, displacing gasoline in the mix. Add to that the fact that ethanol is partially oxidized to begin with, and you lose lots of usable energy. -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
"Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote
> [Ethanol etc.] was forced on the refiners > originally by environmental lobby group > pressure, Congress and the then President passed the law ultimately requiring a certain amount of ethanol in some parts of the U.S., all in an effort to reduce air pollution, which it does. One can blame only one's own choices in voting. Those unhappy with having to buy an ethanol blend of gasoline need to read reports of how awful the air was in certain parts of the country prior to the Clean Air Act. |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
"Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote in news:pDetk.10640$Ks1.8749
@newsfe02.iad: > "Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote >> [Ethanol etc.] was forced on the refiners >> originally by environmental lobby group >> pressure, > > Congress and the then President passed the law ultimately > requiring a certain amount of ethanol in some parts of the > U.S., Yes, that's how lobby groups act; they get laws and regulations passed, thereby using the power of the state to effect their desired changes. > all in an effort to reduce air pollution, which it > does. One can blame only one's own choices in voting. I always liked H. L. Mencken's famous quote, "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." > > Those unhappy with having to buy an ethanol blend of > gasoline need to read reports of how awful the air was in > certain parts of the country prior to the Clean Air Act. > The thing is, all three monitored pollutants were already drastically reduced (~90%) well before ethanol became common. Oxygenates (as MTBE) were originally intended to lower carbon monoxide emissions, and were first added in Colorado in the '70s or '80s. Ethanol is just another oxygenate, and a damned difficult one at that. MTBE was at first mandated, then prohibited on the basis of groundwater contamination. Since just about all underground tanks are (by law) now double-hulled, have very elaborate leak detection systems, and are now non- metallic, maybe it's time to phase MTBE back in. The corn lobby and ADM won't be happy, but just watch food prices fall. -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
"Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote
> Yes, that's how lobby groups act; they get laws and > regulations passed, > thereby using the power of the state to effect their > desired changes. You see lobbyists making laws. I see members of Congress, the President, and those who elect them doing so. > The thing is, all three monitored pollutants were already > drastically > reduced (~90%) well before ethanol became common. We disagree. |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
So i skipped all the politics, and to answer the question.
My friends civic use to get 400+ miles to teh tank its first few weeks and it slowly went down as it wore in. after a year he was doing mid 300s and it stayed there ever since. that might be ur case too, or maybe not. |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
> Hopefully people will begin to get mad at what the Republicans are doing
> to the U.S.. Begin? They're not upset yet? If they voted for this moron, they got what they asked for. If McCain wins and gets his way we may get all we want for $6-7 per gallon. |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
Elle wrote: > "Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote > >>Yes, that's how lobby groups act; they get laws and >>regulations passed, >>thereby using the power of the state to effect their >>desired changes. > > > You see lobbyists making laws. I see members of Congress, > the President, and those who elect them doing so. > After they have been paid off by lobbyists. > >>The thing is, all three monitored pollutants were already >>drastically >>reduced (~90%) well before ethanol became common. > He's right except in a very few pollution prone cities. So the politicos just throw out the baby(s) with the bath water and make us all pay... JT |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
nadeem.ajmeri@gmail.com wrote: > So i skipped all the politics, and to answer the question. > > My friends civic use to get 400+ miles to teh tank its first few weeks > and it slowly went down as it wore in. after a year he was doing mid > 300s and it stayed there ever since. that might be ur case too, or > maybe not. Uh, if it was a new car, the mileage should go up as the car "wears in." JT (Who's turdbox '83 Civic goes over 400 miles in mixed driving on a 10.6 gallon tank) |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
howard wrote: >> Hopefully people will begin to get mad at what the Republicans are >> doing to the U.S.. > > > Begin? They're not upset yet? If they voted for this moron, they got > what they asked for. > If McCain wins and gets his way we may get all we want for $6-7 per gallon. <giggle> I can promise you if O'bammy 'n gang get in, insane Al Gore 'n company will have firm footholds in the new admin and higher gas prices will be a certainty. After all, it is the dems that have fiercely resisted new oil exploration, nuclear plants etc. Yep, youse got you doo doo together awright... |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in news:D7ntk.185026
$102.3536@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: > > > Elle wrote: >> "Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote >> >>>Yes, that's how lobby groups act; they get laws and >>>regulations passed, >>>thereby using the power of the state to effect their >>>desired changes. >> >> >> You see lobbyists making laws. I see members of Congress, >> the President, and those who elect them doing so. >> > > After they have been paid off by lobbyists. Yep. If there's a governmental to suck on, the lobbyists will be right in there like little piglets attacking a sow. ADM didn't get all the spoils they did by sitting on their hands. > > > >> >>>The thing is, all three monitored pollutants were already >>>drastically >>>reduced (~90%) well before ethanol became common. >> > > He's right except in a very few pollution prone cities. Even pollution-prone cities experienced significant reductions in monitored pollutants prior to ethanol. Computerized fuel injection, oxygen sensors and 3-way cats did all that. OBD-II and ethanol have created only very small gains compared to the major advances already achieved by 1991. And remember that gasoline-powered automobiles are only one source of pollution. Other major sources with at least as great an effect on pollutant levels (if not greater) are coal and oil fired electricity generating plants and diesel engines. -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
Tegger wrote:
> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in news:D7ntk.185026 > $102.3536@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: > >> >> Elle wrote: >>> "Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote >>> >>>> Yes, that's how lobby groups act; they get laws and >>>> regulations passed, >>>> thereby using the power of the state to effect their >>>> desired changes. >>> >>> You see lobbyists making laws. I see members of Congress, >>> the President, and those who elect them doing so. >>> >> After they have been paid off by lobbyists. > > > Yep. If there's a governmental to suck on, the lobbyists will be right > in there like little piglets attacking a sow. ADM didn't get all the spoils > they did by sitting on their hands. > > >> >> >>>> The thing is, all three monitored pollutants were already >>>> drastically >>>> reduced (~90%) well before ethanol became common. >> He's right except in a very few pollution prone cities. > > > Even pollution-prone cities experienced significant reductions in monitored > pollutants prior to ethanol. Computerized fuel injection, oxygen sensors > and 3-way cats did all that. indeed. > > OBD-II and ethanol have created only very small gains compared to the major > advances already achieved by 1991. indeed again. > > And remember that gasoline-powered automobiles are only one source of > pollution. Other major sources with at least as great an effect on > pollutant levels (if not greater) are coal and oil fired electricity > generating plants and diesel engines. diesels are usually very good on pollution except for NOx. but that's why we have catalysts. |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
Tegger wrote:
> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in > news:_vSdnUeZVd56QynVnZ2dnUVZ_t7inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t: > >> SMS wrote: >>> Runtime Error wrote: >>>> Over the last few months, all the gas stations in my area have quit >>>> selling pure gas-- just the adulterated stuff. You can't find 100% >>>> petrol any more. >>>> >>>> As the percentage of alcohol in my tank ('07 Accord V6 EX-L sedan) >>>> increased, my mileage decreased-- consistently 10%-12% less than it >>>> used to be on the same 400 mile round trip I make on the interstate >>>> 2-3 times a month. Used to get in the low 30's-- now get in high >>>> 20's.... >>>> >>>> Is this the great "fool the public" scam or what-- paying for >>>> adulterated fuel that doesn't give you full value?? >>> No one ever tried to market the 10% Ethanol fuel as better than pure >>> petrol. >> that's not true. when ethanol mix first came out, the oilco >> propaganda was all about "higher octane", which is technically true, >> but highly misleading since octane != energy content. >> >> >>> It's only because of the federal tax credit that it's being used >>> as an octane enhancer (other than in states where it's being used as >>> an alternative to MTBE). >> it's not being used for that - it's being used to lower energy >> content, and thus decrease mileage, all while being subsidized to do >> so courtesy of the tax payer. you can bet your sweet a$$ the oilco's >> would be up in arms if ethanol was somehow to their disadvantage. > > > > > That there's an mileage hit is incidental to everything else surrounding > ethanol. > > As a general rule, refiners and retailers refused to use ethanol until > it was forced on them, no, see below. > and until the government made ethanol cheaper for > the oil companies to buy by taking money out of your pocket to give to > them. that's the real story. oilco's aren't going to miss an opportunity to sell more gasoline. mtbe was the industry's own "solution" to the "oxygenation problem". except that there was no oxygenation problem and mtbe decreased calorific content thus selling more gas using a refinery bye-product. > > It was forced on the refiners originally by environmental lobby group > pressure, and very lately, by the farm lobby and by companies that > benefit from the consequences of government regulations (think ADM). i think that's somewhat lop-sided. enviro's are not stupid and see that there's no net environmental benefit from ethanol in northern climates. ethanol only entered the equation when agribusiness got behind it. > Now > it's national security that's also supposed to be a reason for ethanol > mandates. > > The refiners and retailers can't use TEL, MMT or MTBE anymore. There's > not much left after that, at least not at an acceptable price. but none of those are really necessary if using a decent catalyzed refinery and if you remove sulfur. > > Ethanol is extremely expensive both as an additive and a fuel, in > addition to the storage problems its corrosiveness causes. With > considerable price pressure having driven most of the margin out of > motor fuels, refiners and retailers usually wait until everybody is > pushed into the same boat, so they all face the same costs. no, the tax payer takes care of that... > > TEL and MMT have little effect on the energy content of gasoline because > they're added in such small amounts. MTBE and ethanol, on the other > hand, are added in very large amounts, displacing gasoline in the mix. > Add to that the fact that ethanol is partially oxidized to begin with, > and you lose lots of usable energy. > and density - ethanol is much lighter and thus for a commodity sold by volume, not only are you getting fewer calories by energy, you're getting fewer calories per gallon volume. a brilliant three-way strategy that benefits not just one, but /two/ major donor groups if you think about it. the third party of course is getting rammed. |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
If we had paid more for gas when it was a buck a gallon and the extra money
had been used for alterative fuel research we would not be in the fix we are in now. Handling billions of bucks over to our enemies every year. "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message news:Hcntk.185034$102.39754@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > > howard wrote: > >>> Hopefully people will begin to get mad at what the Republicans are doing >>> to the U.S.. >> >> >> Begin? They're not upset yet? If they voted for this moron, they got what >> they asked for. >> If McCain wins and gets his way we may get all we want for $6-7 per >> gallon. > > > <giggle> > > I can promise you if O'bammy 'n gang get in, insane Al Gore 'n company > will have firm footholds in the new admin and higher gas prices will be a > certainty. > > After all, it is the dems that have fiercely resisted new oil exploration, > nuclear plants etc. > > Yep, youse got you doo doo together awright... |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
Art wrote:
> If we had paid more for gas when it was a buck a gallon and the extra money > had been used for alterative fuel research we would not be in the fix we are > in now. Handling billions of bucks over to our enemies every year. it's gross consumption that's the biggest problem, not where we get it from. last time i looked, and feel free to correct me on this, per capita energy consumption in the usa was twice that of other highly developed places in europe. we're supposed to have some of the brightest and best minds in the world here - man on the moon and all that - but do we apply them to energy consumption? it's like we take pleasure in balancing our best achievements in one department with a perverse desire to be incredibly dumb in others. > > > "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message > news:Hcntk.185034$102.39754@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... >> >> howard wrote: >> >>>> Hopefully people will begin to get mad at what the Republicans are doing >>>> to the U.S.. >>> >>> Begin? They're not upset yet? If they voted for this moron, they got what >>> they asked for. >>> If McCain wins and gets his way we may get all we want for $6-7 per >>> gallon. >> >> <giggle> >> >> I can promise you if O'bammy 'n gang get in, insane Al Gore 'n company >> will have firm footholds in the new admin and higher gas prices will be a >> certainty. >> >> After all, it is the dems that have fiercely resisted new oil exploration, >> nuclear plants etc. >> >> Yep, youse got you doo doo together awright... > > |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
howard wrote:
>> Hopefully people will begin to get mad at what the Republicans are >> doing to the U.S.. > > Begin? They're not upset yet? Apparently not. The polls all show the race very close. > If they voted for this moron, they got > what they asked for. > If McCain wins and gets his way we may get all we want for $6-7 per gallon. Very possible, not just because of his energy policies, but because he'll continue to weaken the U.S. economy and the U.S. dollar. |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
"Grumpy" wrote
> Elle wrote: >> "Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote >> >>>Yes, that's how lobby groups act; they get laws and >>>regulations passed, >>>thereby using the power of the state to effect their >>>desired changes. >> You see lobbyists making laws. I see members of Congress, >> the President, and those who elect them doing so. >> > > After they have been paid off by lobbyists. I love a good dose of cynicism. :-) Those not drunk with the fun of venting on Usenet will remember that our system of laws is pretty good at catching instances of bribery. Else we would not have such a high standard of living here in the good ol' US of A. Otherwise, terrible system. Can't think of a better one though. >>>The thing is, all three monitored pollutants were already >>>drastically >>>reduced (~90%) well before ethanol became common. >> > > He's right except in a very few pollution prone cities. First, he fails to consider whether whatever reduction has occurred is sufficient. In certain cities, it most certainly is not. In cities where ethanol became mandatory, the difference is noticeable. Second, he overlooks that only three of fifty states and only a few cities currently require ethanol to be blended with gasoline. We get one poster most likely residing in a city with a serious air pollution problem kvetching about less polluting gas, and it attracts whiners like flies. Oh that nasty gubmint. That gubmint you elect. > So the politicos just throw out the baby(s) with the bath > water and make us all pay... The people you elect are making a tiny portion of the country pay so that the air they breathe is better and safer. At times during the year the bad air quality is quite noticeable without fancy equipment to test it. I imagine how worse it would be without the ethanol requirements. Fact is EPA requirements re ethanol have made a difference in the few areas that still at times during the year exceed EPA limits. |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
"Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote
> all three monitored pollutants were already drastically > reduced (~90%) well before ethanol became common. The EPA states that, since 1970, new cars are more than 90% cleaner. Unfortunately, over the same time period vehicle use has increased by 200%. Easy come, easy go. |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
"Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote in news:0mAtk.599$3A4.540
@newsfe04.iad: > "Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote >> all three monitored pollutants were already drastically >> reduced (~90%) well before ethanol became common. > > The EPA states that, since 1970, new cars are more than 90% > cleaner. Unfortunately, over the same time period vehicle > use has increased by 200%. > > Easy come, easy go. > > > There's more to it than that. The federal EPA also states that the air is, 57% cleaner now than it was in 1970, and that's in absolute terms. This in spite of a 153% (not 200%) increase in vehicular traffic during that time. -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in
news:Mr-dndVU6ekNPSvVnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@speakeasy.net: > Art wrote: >> If we had paid more for gas when it was a buck a gallon and the extra >> money had been used for alterative fuel research we would not be in >> the fix we are in now. Handling billions of bucks over to our >> enemies every year. after Carter's Windfall Profits taxes(*after* OPEC formed and put their squeeze(embargo) on the US),FOREIGN oil imports shot up tremendously,US oil production steadily dropped. The exact opposite of what was needed. BTW,more oil imported means more risk of oil SPILLS,as tankers are the greatest risk for oil spills,not offshore oil platforms. (as demonstrated by the Gulf platforms,especially after Katrina.Ocean life TEEMS around those platforms.) > > it's gross consumption that's the biggest problem, not where we get it > from. last time i looked, and feel free to correct me on this, per > capita energy consumption in the usa was twice that of other highly > developed places in europe. And we produce far more than Europe,justifying that consumption. > we're supposed to have some of the > brightest and best minds in the world here - man on the moon and all > that - but do we apply them to energy consumption? it's like we take > pleasure in balancing our best achievements in one department with a > perverse desire to be incredibly dumb in others. what's incredibly dumb is not looking at the entire picture. > > >> >> >> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message >> news:Hcntk.185034$102.39754@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... >>> >>> howard wrote: >>> >>>>> Hopefully people will begin to get mad at what the Republicans are >>>>> doing to the U.S.. >>>> >>>> Begin? They're not upset yet? If they voted for this moron, they >>>> got what they asked for. >>>> If McCain wins and gets his way we may get all we want for $6-7 per >>>> gallon. >>> >>> <giggle> >>> >>> I can promise you if O'bammy 'n gang get in, insane Al Gore 'n >>> company will have firm footholds in the new admin and higher gas >>> prices will be a certainty. >>> >>> After all, it is the dems that have fiercely resisted new oil >>> exploration, nuclear plants etc. >>> >>> Yep, youse got you doo doo together awright... >> >> > -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
"Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote
> "Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote >> "Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote >>> all three monitored pollutants were already drastically >>> reduced (~90%) well before ethanol became common. >> >> The EPA states that, since 1970, new cars are more than >> 90% >> cleaner. Unfortunately, over the same time period vehicle >> use has increased by 200%. > > The federal EPA also states that the air is, 57% cleaner > now than it was in > 1970, and that's in absolute terms. This in spite of a > 153% (not 200%) > increase in vehicular traffic during that time. http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/peg/peg.pdf , dated 2007, says "Since 1970... vehicle use has increased by 200%." Fifty-seven percent cleaner since 1970 is not saying much. It also still grossly ignores areas that are particularly hard-hit and so need mandates on gasoline. |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
Jim Yanik wrote:
> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in > news:Mr-dndVU6ekNPSvVnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@speakeasy.net: > >> Art wrote: >>> If we had paid more for gas when it was a buck a gallon and the extra >>> money had been used for alterative fuel research we would not be in >>> the fix we are in now. Handling billions of bucks over to our >>> enemies every year. > > after Carter's Windfall Profits taxes(*after* OPEC formed and put their > squeeze(embargo) on the US),FOREIGN oil imports shot up tremendously,US oil > production steadily dropped. > > The exact opposite of what was needed. > BTW,more oil imported means more risk of oil SPILLS,as tankers are the > greatest risk for oil spills,not offshore oil platforms. > (as demonstrated by the Gulf platforms,especially after Katrina.Ocean life > TEEMS around those platforms.) > >> it's gross consumption that's the biggest problem, not where we get it >> from. last time i looked, and feel free to correct me on this, per >> capita energy consumption in the usa was twice that of other highly >> developed places in europe. > > And we produce far more than Europe,justifying that consumption. no. per capita means per person. an island with two people will consume twice that of an island with one person of the same per capita consumption. but in our case, we're an island with one person consuming as much as an island with two people. it makes no sense for what is supposed to be the most technologically advanced nation on earth. > >> we're supposed to have some of the >> brightest and best minds in the world here - man on the moon and all >> that - but do we apply them to energy consumption? it's like we take >> pleasure in balancing our best achievements in one department with a >> perverse desire to be incredibly dumb in others. > > what's incredibly dumb is not looking at the entire picture. see above. >> >>> >>> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message >>> news:Hcntk.185034$102.39754@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... >>>> howard wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Hopefully people will begin to get mad at what the Republicans are >>>>>> doing to the U.S.. >>>>> Begin? They're not upset yet? If they voted for this moron, they >>>>> got what they asked for. >>>>> If McCain wins and gets his way we may get all we want for $6-7 per >>>>> gallon. >>>> <giggle> >>>> >>>> I can promise you if O'bammy 'n gang get in, insane Al Gore 'n >>>> company will have firm footholds in the new admin and higher gas >>>> prices will be a certainty. >>>> >>>> After all, it is the dems that have fiercely resisted new oil >>>> exploration, nuclear plants etc. >>>> >>>> Yep, youse got you doo doo together awright... >>> > > > |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
Elle wrote:
> "Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote >> all three monitored pollutants were already drastically >> reduced (~90%) well before ethanol became common. > > The EPA states that, since 1970, new cars are more than 90% > cleaner. Unfortunately, over the same time period vehicle > use has increased by 200%. > > Easy come, easy go. > > no, that's bad math. if a 1970 car produces 100 pollution units and a 2008 car produces 90% less, that's 10 pollution units. twice as many cars means twice as much 2008 pollution units, i.e. 20 pollution units, so you're still 80 units ahead. |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote
> Elle wrote: >> "Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote >>> all three monitored pollutants were already drastically >>> reduced (~90%) well before ethanol became common. >> >> The EPA states that, since 1970, new cars are more than >> 90% cleaner. Unfortunately, over the same time period >> vehicle use has increased by 200%. >> >> Easy come, easy go. > > no, that's bad math. if a 1970 car produces 100 pollution > units and a 2008 car produces 90% less, that's 10 > pollution units. twice as many cars means twice as much > 2008 pollution units, i.e. 20 pollution units, so you're > still 80 units ahead. Depends on whether 20 pollution units is still a problem; depends on how many cars are new. Plus the premise is fallacious, because ethanol is not common. It is required in only a few parts of the country where the pollution problems are either (1) so serious that EPA limits are exceeded; or (2) so undesirable that the locals, through a voting process, choose to mandate ethanol. It's been a long haul in LA and other cities getting the pollution down to something bearable. It's simply not for you or anyone else who did not live through the heavily air-polluted years of LA and cities like it to spout off your issues with gubmint's imposition of ethanol. |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
Elle wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote >> Elle wrote: >>> "Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote >>>> all three monitored pollutants were already drastically >>>> reduced (~90%) well before ethanol became common. >>> The EPA states that, since 1970, new cars are more than >>> 90% cleaner. Unfortunately, over the same time period >>> vehicle use has increased by 200%. >>> >>> Easy come, easy go. >> no, that's bad math. if a 1970 car produces 100 pollution >> units and a 2008 car produces 90% less, that's 10 >> pollution units. twice as many cars means twice as much >> 2008 pollution units, i.e. 20 pollution units, so you're >> still 80 units ahead. > > Depends on whether 20 pollution units is still a problem; not to the fundamental math of wrongly thinking 90% reduction in pollutants is negated by 200% increase in usage it doesn't! > depends on how many cars are new. Plus the premise is > fallacious, because ethanol is not common. eh? what are you talking about??? it's ubiquitous across every state. it's federal!!! > It is required in > only a few parts of the country where the pollution problems > are either (1) so serious that EPA limits are exceeded; or > (2) so undesirable that the locals, through a voting > process, choose to mandate ethanol. no, you need to get an update on that! > It's been a long haul in > LA and other cities getting the pollution down to something > bearable. you're working with 1970's data. > It's simply not for you or anyone else who did not > live through the heavily air-polluted years of LA and cities > like it to spout off your issues with gubmint's imposition > of ethanol. 1. ethanol is not required to make clean burning fuel. 2. ethanol /is/ required to subsidize farmers and oilcos when it's imposed on the public, at /twice/ their expense - once from tax subsidy, and twice from lower mpg's. see point 1. again for emphasis. |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote
> Elle wrote: >> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote >>> Elle wrote: >>>> "Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote >>>>> all three monitored pollutants were already >>>>> drastically >>>>> reduced (~90%) well before ethanol became common. >>>> The EPA states that, since 1970, new cars are more than >>>> 90% cleaner. Unfortunately, over the same time period >>>> vehicle use has increased by 200%. > not to the fundamental math of wrongly thinking 90% > reduction in pollutants is negated by 200% increase in > usage it doesn't! Down to 10 units; up to 20 units. Easy come, easy go. >> depends on how many cars are new. Plus the premise is >> fallacious, because ethanol is not common. > > eh? what are you talking about??? it's ubiquitous across > every state. it's federal!!! EPA rules apply to every place in the U.S. But not all areas of the U.S. exceed pollution limits the EPA sets, hence not all areas of the U.S. need to use oxygenated fuels. >> It is required in only a few parts of the country where >> the pollution problems are either (1) so serious that EPA >> limits are exceeded; or (2) so undesirable that the >> locals, through a voting process, choose to mandate >> ethanol. > > no, you need to get an update on that! All this is readily available on the net. My statements above are accurate, though I guess you want to quibble over alternatives to ethanol for oxygenating. |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote
>>> it's gross consumption that's the biggest problem, > it makes no sense for what is supposed to be the most > technologically advanced nation on earth. Hyper-consumption of oil helped the U.S. grow to become the most technologically advanced. It makes complete sense. |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:15:06 -0700, "Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote: >"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote >>>> it's gross consumption that's the biggest problem, >> it makes no sense for what is supposed to be the most >> technologically advanced nation on earth. > >Hyper-consumption of oil helped the U.S. grow to become the >most technologically advanced. It makes complete sense. > Only an American would think that. If the US is so technologically advanced how come their autos are so deplorably inefficient in today's climate of high fuel prices? Is it because you are no quite as smart as you seem to think you are? |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
Elle wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote >> Elle wrote: >>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote >>>> Elle wrote: >>>>> "Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote >>>>>> all three monitored pollutants were already >>>>>> drastically >>>>>> reduced (~90%) well before ethanol became common. >>>>> The EPA states that, since 1970, new cars are more than >>>>> 90% cleaner. Unfortunately, over the same time period >>>>> vehicle use has increased by 200%. > >> not to the fundamental math of wrongly thinking 90% >> reduction in pollutants is negated by 200% increase in >> usage it doesn't! > > Down to 10 units; up to 20 units. no, it's down 90, up 10. net 80 decrease. > > Easy come, easy go. > >>> depends on how many cars are new. Plus the premise is >>> fallacious, because ethanol is not common. >> eh? what are you talking about??? it's ubiquitous across >> every state. it's federal!!! > > EPA rules apply to every place in the U.S. But not all areas > of the U.S. exceed pollution limits the EPA sets, hence not > all areas of the U.S. need to use oxygenated fuels. but ethanol is federally mandated for every state. > >>> It is required in only a few parts of the country where >>> the pollution problems are either (1) so serious that EPA >>> limits are exceeded; or (2) so undesirable that the >>> locals, through a voting process, choose to mandate >>> ethanol. >> no, you need to get an update on that! > > All this is readily available on the net. My statements > above are accurate, though I guess you want to quibble over > alternatives to ethanol for oxygenating. > > no, i want to contest the validity of "oxygenating". it's b.s. to claim increasing oxygen in exhaust means better combustion when the oxygen is pre-combined and hasn't participated in the reaction, as is the case here. if you want to "oxygenate", add it in a form that /can/ participate. but that would improve mpg's and thus decrease fuel sales, so that's not going to happen. |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
Elle wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote >>>> it's gross consumption that's the biggest problem, >> it makes no sense for what is supposed to be the most >> technologically advanced nation on earth. > > Hyper-consumption of oil helped the U.S. grow to become the > most technologically advanced. It makes complete sense. eh? europe's not technologically advanced? why are their cars better than ours? why are their planes fly-by-wire and ours aren't? why can they launch 10 [civil] tons geosynchronous, and we can't? |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
"Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote in news:bfAtk.589$3A4.395@newsfe04.iad:
> "Grumpy" wrote >> Elle wrote: >>> "Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote >>> >>>>Yes, that's how lobby groups act; they get laws and >>>>regulations passed, >>>>thereby using the power of the state to effect their >>>>desired changes. > >>> You see lobbyists making laws. I see members of Congress, >>> the President, and those who elect them doing so. >>> >> >> After they have been paid off by lobbyists. > > I love a good dose of cynicism. :-) Those not drunk with the > fun of venting on Usenet will remember that our system of > laws is pretty good at catching instances of bribery. It's not considered bribery if you give the money to the party rather than individual politicians, which is how bribes, uh, contributions are done today. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...earch&aq=f&oq= > Else > we would not have such a high standard of living here in the > good ol' US of A. > > Otherwise, terrible system. Can't think of a better one > though. I can. The one that existed in the US prior to 1914. That one doesn't exist anymore. -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:04 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands