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.