The Environmental Protection Agency is going to require all consumers to buy at least four gallons of gasoline from certain gas pumps after the new E15 ethanol-gasoline blend is introduced into the market.
The new regulation was revealed in an Aug. 1 letter to the American Motorcyclist Association, which expressed concern that the vast majority of motorcycles and ATVs in use today aren’t designed to operate on E15 fuel and residual fuel from a pump that serves multiple blends might harm these tanks.
“The use of E15 will lower fuel efficiency and possibly cause premature engine failure,” Wayne Allard, AMA vice president for government relations, wrote in a June 20 letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. “Use of E15 fuel voids many manufacturer warranties. In off-road engines, the effects can even be dangerous for users.”
The EPA responded that it requires that retail stations with blender pumps either dispense E15 from a dedicated hose and nozzle if able or, in the case of E15 and E10 being dispensed from the same hose, require that at least four gallons of fuel be purchased to prevent vehicles and engines with smaller fuel tanks from being exposed to gasoline-ethanol blended fuels containing greater than 10 percent ethanol.
This minimum mandate attempts to dilute residual amounts of E15 that will be left in the shared hose.
“Not only do we find it unacceptable for the EPA to mandate that everyone — including our members — buy minimum amounts of gas, but the EPA answer simply won’t work because of the sizes of many motorcycle and ATV gas tanks and the fact that off-highway riders take containers of gas with them on their trips, and most times those containers are much smaller than four gallons,” Allard said.
“The EPA has no business mandating how much gasoline Americans have to buy when filling up at the pump. What if a rider doesn’t have a motorcycle with a four gallon tank? Or if someone wants to fill a canister for their lawnmower or outboard boat engine, but it only holds 2 or 3 gallons?” Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) said today.
“Or what if an American, struggling in this economy, just can’t afford 4 gallons of gas?” Sensenbrenner added. “This is just one more example of how problematic the EPA’s E15 partial waiver is. This is not a solution to misfueling risks — it’s a ridiculous and unworkable mandate.”
Grouchomarxists.
Yeah! Really! — The problem is, however, that we can’t laugh this off, even if it is utterly ridiculous. These “nerds of the bureau” operate with gubmint power to back them. — They are incredibly stuck on stoooopid, yet they believe they have a perfectly framed solution to every problem, even to problems that didn’t exist until they got busy with them. Their total incompetence is absolutely dazzling, yet we are required to “obey”, and to pay! Who benefits? As far as I can see, they’re the only ones; at our expense.
Disband the EPA, just liquidate them. Stick the overly activist civil service tenured in a large warehouse with cubicles where they can play all day with their laptops while causing no further damage, and require the remainder –reconstituted as the FEAC, Federal Environment Advisory Commission– to spin every ruling they contemplate first past Congress for a vote. Plus, a 20 year ban on promotions and salary increases except for documented merit, merit to be defined as fixing real problems witout creating new ones, including unwarranted costs. My guess is that this will “persuade” most of them to leave. The rest will actually keep their noses to the grindstone to produce real solutions in the comparatively few cases where such are actually required.
And, to send letters to “Lisa, Son-of-Jack” is about as effective as letters to the man-in-the-moon. Better to help Romney get elected. Then run the heaviest bulldozer you can find over the EPA and finally get a really “level playing field”, just to use their terminology for the last time, a field upon which real things will actually once again be able to “grow”. Have some real hope, for a change!
“Roger: These “nerds of the bureau” operate with gubmint power to back them.”
I respectfully disagree that nonelected federal bureaucrats have government power to tell anybody what to do. More specifically, the Founding States made Sections 1-3 of Article I of the Constitution to clarify that ALL federal legislative powers are vested in the ELECTED members of Congress. So Congress has a monopoly on federal legislative powers whether it wants it or not. And by establishing so-called “independent federal regulatory agencies,” corrupt Congress is wrongly protecting federal legislative powers from the wrath of the voters in defiance of the previously referenced clauses imo.
And probably the only reason that citizens and companies reluctantly say, “how high?,” when non-elected federal bureaucrats shout, “Jump!,” is because public schools do not teach about constitutional limits on federal government powers.
Well, yes and no. Yes, the Constitution places ALL legislative authority n Congress. But no, federal agencies do issue “rulings” and “findings” and “mandates” that are enforced just as if Congress had passed them. Any law that COngress passes that includes language such as “the secretary will determine”, or the “agency will determine” effectively delegate legislative authority to an entity outside Congress. This should be considered unconstitutional: the legislative authority is nontransferable, so nothing can be enforced unless it is was explicitly passed by Congress. Agencies should issue recommendations for Congressional action, but should never be able to have any discretion of any kind to issue enforceable regulations (other than regulations that apply to the federal workforce itself). For example, if the EPA wants to change the allowable levels of CO2 emissions, they should submit a request to Congress for approval rather than just issue a “ruling” by fiat.
>>Stick the overly activist civil service tenured in a large warehouse<<
Perhaps we've found a use for those FEMA camps that the tinfoil-hat folks have been raving about.
there is one candidate for persiednt who has the answer to this sort of problem.. he has pledged ti END the EPA, dismantle it, take it apart, make it disappear. ALong with half a dozen other such illegal and unconstitutional federal agencies.(DEA, Ed, Ag, FDA, and the Federal Reserve)Oh, but HE is “unelectable”. Really, now? A guy with such a great plan to turn things about, and he is ‘unelectable”? Tired of wars everywhere that serve no real defensive purpose? Tired of supporting the UN and their workldwide tyranny? Tired of illegals swarming acrouss our southern border? Tired of FedGov intruding into every aspect of our lives on a constant basis? And you think Romney will change anything? Sure, we need to toss the kinyun. But to replace him with Romney will only take our foot off the throttle of the bus just a little bit as we continue to hurtle toward the cliff at ninety miles an hour. What we need is someone to grab the steering wheel and turn this insanity around, back onto a good direction. Romney ain’t that guy. His track record proves it. Oh, but the guy who has a real plan is “unelectable”.
Sorry, but I think I will write him in anyway. I can’t in good conscience vote for Romney, any more than Obama. Don’t blame the future on ME, blame it on those who ahve determined a certain candidate is “unelectable”, and the stoopid people who let them. Wake up, America.
There are a bunch of us out here who would love to see Paul in there, but he isn’t the candidate and we remember what voting for Ross Perot got us. As pitiful as it may seem, a vote for Paul is a vote for Barry.
DrRonPaul, the Tinfoil Hat Tinhorn, has gone back to the Mother Ship, dude; it’s either Romney or 0baMao-period
Ethanol is different from gasoline. Combining them is folly.
True, but that doesn’t matter to the politicians and lobbyists in Iowa, Illinois and other corn-producing states. All they care about is creating a captive market for their product. Rent-seeking at its “finest.”
If ethanol is 10% of the fuel that we put into our tanks when we gas up, what do you think would happen to the price you pay at the gas station if 10% of the fuel went away?
Here’s a hint: What happened to the price of gasoline when MTBE (which was approximately 11% of the volume of gasoline at the time) was taken off the market?
Ethanol in low percentages as an oxygenator & octane booster (and replacement for MTBE, which is a very real problem for groundwater drinking water supplies), makes perfect sense.
OTOH corn ethanol in a 10% or 15% blend is dumb as a box of rocks. It has been well-known since the early days of that folly of corn ethanol as fuel that it takes more BTU’s to produce than it yields. When compared to petroleum from the wellhead to delivery corn ethanol is harder on the environment than gasoline.
As an added “benefit” the crap draws water and corrodes critical components of older engines.
Ethanol from cane sugar works in South America because the climate is warmer, and the energy yield vs. energy investment is positive. As a matter of fact, if our gubmint in its infinite wisdom didn’t handicap imported sugar and related products to protect domestic producers, I suspect imported ethanol would drive corn out of the business.
Heaven forbid that gov’t subsidies and mandates might actually dry up and blow away. We could actually see lower food prices at the supermarket since feedstock wouldn’t be so blamed expensive (i.e. no feed vs fuel competition).
Ethanol? Gasoline? Why, what for, drive Electric, eat Corn flakes and dont pollute the air you breath with lousy combustion
gas is combusted completely and efficiently in one place only: Your 750 megawatt utility. Electric will give you 3.9 seconds 0-60, silently.
Unfortunately, electric won’t get me to work and back in a single charge. Nor will it pull a horse trailer. So your argument makes no sense. Perhaps you were assuming that everyone has the same usage patterns as you.
Actually it takes as much energy to produce ethanol than it does to use it as fuel. So where is the gain? Plus it increases the cost of any food products that have a relationship to corn. Add in all the negatives and there is no advantage to using ethanol as an additive to gasoline. Also there is a slight loss of fuel efficiency using ethanol in gasoline because it doesn’t contain as much energy on a per gallon basis as gasoline does.
Seems to fit with the plan of getting Americans out of their cars and into public transportation. They can do it simply by forcing Americans to use a fuel that will kill off older, and likely many newer, cars forcing them to either buy expensive new cars or use public transit.
What’s really amusing though is that we are in a severe drought that is running the price of corn up and shortening food supplies, but instead of cutting back on ethanol, they want more. Why not use Methanol instead? It comes from trees and won’t compete with the food supply. Hmm, maybe it has something to do with the EPA gutting methanol production in the US over the last 10 years or so.
Methanol is actually corrosive to some metals used in many, particularly older, cars.
I personally think that Robert Zubrin’s idea to require that all new cars be capable of operating on any combination of ethanol, methanol and gasoline is a good one and would cost less than seat belts to implement on new cars but I also understand that it would make older cars react like those cash for clunkers cars when they poured the nasty stuff into the engines.
Sadly, this has become what now passes for legal. Since they can make you buy one product, they can dictate how you buy another. It’s all commerce (or tazxes, or mandates…hard to tell the difference)
It is not the job of Americans to make EPA dreams come true.
One more reason to defund the radical EPA
I can forgive Nixon for Watergate, but not for the EPA.
All he ended up doing was to hand the marxists one more tool to hammer us with.
Speaking as one who has fought EPA for 25 years, and would love to abolish it and start over, I have to respectfully disagree. I’m old enough to remember how we handled waste and air pollution in the 50′s and 60′s, and NOBODY should want to return to that. The problem is Nixon’s creation has been hijacked by radical enviro-whackos who don’t know when to stop.
How clean is clean enough? Well, I can answer that question. When EPA is setting limits that are lower than today’s sophisticated instruments can detect (as in the current mercury limits for power plants) they have definitely lost their frickin’ minds.
Defund the EPA and let the states decide how much to regulate. That creates a balance between environmental protection and capitalism.
Well, the last time I looked, Senator Sensenbrenner and his 99 closest friends can pass a law to stop this EPA madness. Of course, 0 would veto it, but, stop whining and get moving Senator!
Yes, Harry Reid would allow that to come for a vote, right behind the vote on the budget. Oh wait…
“it’s a ridiculous and unworkable mandate”
Of course it is, because Ethanol is a reduculous and unworkable fuel.
Its inefficient in every way.
Its true cost is ghastly expensive but for the criminal manipulation/subsidy games that hide those costs from the light of day.
Its horridly, ridiculously SLOW and WASTEFUL to ever have to sit and watch and wait for fuel to GROW in a field. Thousands of acres tied up all season for a single “harvest”, verses a flowing pipeline that runs 24/7, 365, so much so FAST you worry about SPILLING it all over.
All that extra time, cost, and effort to produce a “fuel” who’s “power factor” of conversion into energy/motion is far less than standard gasoline?
So much so, that 80 to 90% of the “real fuel” needs to stay, so we may camoflage this useless placebo that only waters down the good stuff? That actually DECREASES mileage? While causing damage to the engine?
No person in their right mind would ever CHOOSE to use it.
No engineer in his right mind would CHOOSE to fuel an engine of his design with it.
It is a terribly inefficient, costly, and low performance, utterly VALUELESS “fuel”, that is nothing but an enourmous step BACKWARDS in technology.
Only the Institution of Perpetual Failure called “Government” could ever possibly believe it is worthwhile.
WHich is why its now mandatory to use.
Failure, ENFORCED.
I had a 2003 Mustang Cobra for many years. It was modified to around 500HP and the more emissions restrictions I removed, the more my fuel economy improved. For the first few years, I used ethanol blended gasoline and managed about 18/25MPG, which is still slightly better than the window sticker average (16/22). After a few years, I found a lone gas station that still sold 100% gasoline. In the 6 months after I started filling up there, my averages were about 21/28. That station eventually shifted to an ethanol blend and my numbers went back to ‘normal’.
All I did was install a less restrictive air intake, removed 2 of my 4 catalytic converters (I still had cats, the car wasn’t smelly and smoking), and increase the boost along with a custom tune for the modifications. The result was an 13% increase in fuel economy and I was making an additional 100HP more than stock. Changing to 100% gasoline resulted in an additional 14% increase in MPG.
It’s not conclusive scientific evidence, but in my experience, the ethanol blend is wasteful piss.
Shawn,
Nice logical evaluation, based on (as best as you can) faithful, honestly collected data.
Congrats on your achievements and your astute analysis of how they were obtained. No offense, it aint Rocket Science to make a smooth running powerful AND efficient gasoline engine…all you have to do is, let the SCIENCE dictate the design decisions, and get the POLITICS out of the equation.
If the Government would simply allow designers to build THE BEST engines they could, using THE BEST fuel that can be made, we would see regular large decreases in pollution year by year because of the efficiencies gained in horsepower and fuel economy.
Basically, if you can maximize horsepower gains, you can have SMALLER engines that burn LESS FUEL to get you from the same point A to point B than you did before. Everybody wins.
Obviously, horsepower junkies like us would muddy the air a bit, but the gains that could be applied to “economy/average/soccermom” drivers by the millions from such (already available!) technology and know-how, would more than offset whatever extra fuel guys like us would be cooking -off having fun with our hot-rods.
Ethanol is utter CRAP, and for small engine Vintage Bike Racers (my Moto Guzzi’s and Ducati’s are two cylinders) its beyond terrible. Dealing with your idle wandering around, and some (unpredictable!) cough and spit “coming back on” right when you’re knee down at the apex is frustrating AND dangerous.
And for what?
So some commie leftists who don’t know a wrench from a hairbrush can feel good about themselves?
When did we decide the nerds and band-geeks should be dictating the football program?
Ethanol raises the octane rating of gasoline when it is blended in. E85 is about 105 octane. If you increased your compression ratio you could take advantage of that improvement. Back in the 1970s when they took the lead out of gasoline, auto makers reduced the compression ratios of their engines to run on the lower octane unleaded.
The total amount of energy in the blend would be a deciding factor if your engine were 100% efficient. Sadly it is not. A lot of that extra energy in gasoline is turned into heat which you get rid of with your car’s radiator. It does you no good. Ethanol burns cooler, wasting less energy on useless heat.
Ethanol also results in a more spread out power curve. Instead of the short spike during part of the power stroke, the energy curve for ethanol is more spread out – which is why you advance the spark (a lot) to take advantage of it. The nice thing about that energy curve is that it puts less strain on your rods and crankshaft – allowing you to generate more power in an engine without reducing the reliability of those components.
I had a 2001 Audi S4 and after the ECU was tuned I was getting 40 more HP, 50+ more torque and better gas miliage. The European S4 was detuned, but the American version were even more so, due to insurance and EPA regulations. It’s sick, and I don’t mean that how my 14 year old son would use it.
Yes, its such a “sick” idea to blend destructive and worthless ethanol with gasoline, its ILLEGAL to do so with Aviation Fuel.
The risk of death by using such an inferior fuel in aircraft is known, and rules to prevent it are enforced.
The risk of mere incovenience and ruin to those of us engaged in “surface level” transportaion, is acceptable collateral damage to the profiteers and ideologs.
Sick indeed
It’s okay, it’s a “tax” too.
Countermeasures.. counter everything this illegal government and it’s nazi agencies comes up with. Defy and Resist..
So, if I only pump two or three gallons, I don’t have to pay?
More likely once you pull the “trigger” on the nozzle, it will lock, and only release after 4 gallons have been pumped. The most likely outcome of this will be 4 gallon or larger gas cans and gas tanks replacing the smaller ones in use today.
Either that, or a lot of gasoline being spilled. But I’m sure the EPA is looking forward to that, as it will provide them with an excuse to shut down gas stations as an environmental hazard.
Scott Adams (Dilbert) once said that there is nothing more dangerous than an ingenious idiot. He was wrong.
Ingenious fanatics with utterly no conscience, who are convinced that they are on a holy mission to create a perfect world, are infinitely more dangerous than any idiot.
clear ether
eon
More likely, you’ll get charged for 4 gallons of gas immediately. If you pump less, too damn bad. If you pump more, your bill will be proportional to the gasoline pumped as is the normal practice today.
Reminds me of the movie Popeye with Robin Williams. The little tax man on the bicycle. “That’ll be $10 not filling up with four gallons tax.”
If your tank or container won’t hold the entire 4 gallons, just pump the remainder onto the ground.
It’s the EPA’s rule, so it will be OK !
When you cannot govern by legislation, you must rule by regulation… just another perfect example of the EPA’s over-reach, another federal agancy that needs to be shut downn and scrapped. The corruption and over-reach has become such a part of the culture of the EPA that the only way to stem it is to scrap the entire agency and policies and start over.
to produce a gallon of ethanol in the USA it require burning of more then one gallon of diesel fuel.
this results in much more pollution as the ethanol has less energy added to the abject waste of fuel to produce it..
yeah congress is ruled by the GOP so this must have been fixed by now and the ethanol subsidies remove ..major sarc!
Ethanol mandates were caused by one thing, only: the Iowa caucuses. To win in Iowa and become a presidential nominee, Republican OR Democrat, you must support ethanol mandates. It’s that simple. So it is very unlikely that they will ever be removed, based on why they’re here in the first place.
We now know no one at the EPA mows their own lawn, if indeed they have a lawn. Maybe those who don’t live in urban apartments keep goats. It goes without saying EPA policymakers don’t own redneck machines like ATVs, snowmobiles, jet skis or outboard motors. At the enlightened EPA everyone hikes, cross country skis and sails, although I have to wonder. Are they all expert enough sailors to get in and out of a crowded boat basin on sail power?
A while back a former general counsel of the EPA under a Democrat president tore the current EPA apart for not considering costs and for keeping stupid regulations on the book. One example he used was a distiller client of his that was prevented from using its scrapped materials to heat the place under an old rule prohibiting the burning manufacturing waste. Of course if the cleint had wanted to buy the CH3CH2OH someone else had made the EPA probably would have given them a subsidy.
Tar and feathers is too good for these morons.
The EPA needs to be reduced to an advisory outfit only that publishes pamphlets. The fact that it can create laws, close and control industry, dictate every aspect of human life and do this without accountability, consequences is unconscionable. It along with other government agencies need to have their ability to create law removed if this country wants any chance to rollback this liberal mess and get back to freedom and prosperity. The boot on the neck of we the people continues to choke us.
If the government can force us to buy a certain amount of gas, then they might be able to force us to buy health care!
If you could see what’s left of the corn crop this year, after the worst drought in fifty years, you wouldn’t be worrying much about ethanol. There’s not going to be enough left to feed us, much less make alcohol.
There’s always enough left to make alcohol — just ask any Russian immigrant.
“Starnesville”, here we come. — Defund EPA and ENJOY your next Martini, or “Old No. 7″!
It’s time they stop mandating ethanol, period. The corn crop has suffered from the drought, feed and food prices will be sharply higher next year, yet the government continues to mandate a large portion of the corn crop be used for ethanol. If consumers wanted it in their tanks it would be one thing, but for the government to mandate it is unethical. We should not be straining fertile land to grow fuel instead of food. There are other sources of fuel that are untapped, we just have to break the environmentalist and Islamist oil cartel stronghold.
Published on Aug 9, 2012 Sen. Rand Paul discusses Americans’ continuous loss of liberty through the lens of Ray Bradbury’s dystopian classic “Fahrenheit 451.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ9jBWjZWvI&feature=player_embedded
It’s not a mandate. It’s a tax.
Last time I willingly put alcohol in the gas tank was about fify years ago, while living in a distinctly cooler clime. During the worst of the Winter months when temperatures ranged in the minus 10 to plus 25 degree zone, a shot of denatured alcohol in the tank prevented fuel line freeze up, mixing with any fluid water.
However, this did require a greater attention to detail, as not enough was totally inefective, and too much was extremely damaging to engine parts.
In those days the safety slogan was “Alcohol and Gasoline DON’T MIX!!!”
Today, in the midst of a drought and depression worthy of the 1930s, the all-knowing Federal Ivory Tower gang has drecreed that it is wise to divert corn from the family table to the gas tank, via subsidized farmers, subsidized traders, subsidized distillers and federal kickbacks. ‘New and improved’ is never what it is puffed up to be.
Diesel, baby! Screw corn-juiced gasoline.
Can you show me where I can get a diesel motorcycle? Maybe someone is shoehorning a 400 hp Detroit Diesel into a m/c frame. Talk about torque!
My emergency in the wallet bill is $10. Which buys 3 gallons of gas. Are they trying to outlaw poverty and thrift?
Yeah, when I was in college I could only afford $10 of gas at a time, which was about 3 gallons. On a good day. The dems are always sooo concerned about the “poor”, and then come up with brilliant schemes like this. So if I were in the same situation, I couldn’t afford to drive anymore. But that’s okay, because the city’s public transportation was free. And by “free”, I mean you payed for a semester-long pass in your tuition, like it or not.
Yeah, I’m with you there. We live on a bus line– 1/2 a mile away to a bus. With three kids. It takes…..a long time…..to get home at the end of a day, with three tired children, and only one stroller. which I did, for years.
My car’s engine burned up. Why not? It was over 200,000 miles on it. It cost $3,500 dollars. That’s with registration. It was a Volvo station wagon with no air conditioning. I had a family. The people who sold it to me had a family. They were switching to the next size up, since they had a new infant. Without mandated car-seats, they could have kept driving their car.
My new car cost $1,000, and then $600 for registration. It’s 12 years old. It’s beautiful. Right now, the last week of the month, we don’t drive it anywhere. I can choose gas or food.
I get that gov’t workers want to regulate us into paradise, but I wish they’d get it through their heads that blocking people from the market doesn’t make them disappear. It just makes things ratchety and inconvenient. I can see pooling with my next door neighbor, to buy 4 gallons at the end of the month, and pouring it from a plastic container, rather than the elegant sealed delivery system at the gas station. I can see choosing to store up gas in winter, in vast unsafety, against summer expenses, possibly buried in the ground. Or only going to the off-brand gas station with the un-well-maintained pumps, if they’ll let me get $10 of gas.
or, I don’t know, getting crazed with bitterness at the jack-monkeys who are screwing us up and you know, voting in a tea party majority, so they could, you know, shut the whole regulatory apparatus down.
It is the basic regulatory law axiom: push the limit of the law until a court orders you to stop. When Congress drafts do-good laws, the bureaucrats have no hard limit. Thus they create limits, such as “best achievable practice” , which means it may not yet exist, but hopefully may some nice day. What is ignored is the cost burden on society. EPA has, and will, destroy industries, millions of jobs, to achieve some boss’ quest for “clean”.
I once know an government economist, a PhD, who tried to get EPA to study the real costs of their regulations. He lasted one week. Like a blind giant, they simply do not know what damage they do. The worst, IMHO, is the destruction of professional practice in the private sector. No technical expert can withstand ignorant EPA dictatorial positions, e.g. you must buy four gallons.
The end result is the lost of freedom, dictatorial bureaucratic government. The problem is Congress; they draft feel good laws, without meaning, and rely on K street lobbyists, who you will never know. Until Congress is routinely voted out of power, on one issue, cost, it will only get worse. “If ethanol destroys your engine, you can always buy another one. Eat it.” is EPA’s de facto position on E15.
In the Unoted Kingdom we have another name for that regulatory practice: we call it “gold-plating”. Time your lawmakers(as well as many in my own country) recognised the wisdom enshrined in this sayong one of its greatest legal minds, Sir Edward Coke, 400 years ago: “IF IT BE AGAINST REASON, IT CANNOT BE THE LAW”.
I have to be concerned this new blend could harm my ’89 Honda Prelude. If it damages my engine, can I sue the EPA? (Silly question. They never have to deal with the consequences of their actions.) I haven’t broken 40,000 miles yet and it’s in great shape, which is why I’m in no hurry to replace it.
I hope President Romney tells the EPA not to enforce these laws by Executive Order. (I can think of a few other laws I don’t like which can also be unenforced by Executive Order.)
I wonder how all the Obama supporters will like Executive Orders if that happens. Anyone taking bets?
Were I a betting man I would make two surefire bets. First, that our Republican majority House of Representatives will try to pass a law reversing this EPA decision. Of course as has been already stated above, Obama will not sign it.
The other bet is that the Republican majority House of Representatives will NOT use their power of the purse to sever the jugular of the EPA and defund it. No, that would be extreme.
They have no guts for the style of politics the Democrats are at home with. Unfortunately, in order to fight fire with fire we need some radicals leading the R camp in the House. Dainty John must go.
We MUST get rid of Obama and the insane power-mad bureaucrats in his administration – or we will all become slaves to government, one regulation, one law at a time. And dammit the Republicans had better start standing up for our freedoms – or do they too just want to have bigger and bigger and more oppressive government?
Better vote for Ron Paul, if you don’t want Obama, because Romney is a clone of Obama on just about every major issue…
That logic is so utterly and irredeemably asinine and false so as to make Ron Paul’s followers the pariahs of politics. People with half a brain are utterly repulsed by the absurdity of such balderdash. To suggest that Romney and Obama are the same on “every major issue” is about like saying that a sparrow and a jetliner are the same because they both have wings. I know many more similarities between Obama’s policy positions and Ron Paul’s.
Ron Paul is a personality cult, not a candidacy! That king of reasoning confirms it!
Sorry NCL. You might get rid of Obama but the corruption goes much deeper and the bureaucrats are entrenched right up to the Fall of our nation,the Decline started long ago.
They told us we had to have Big Brother care, now they will tell us this.
Well, I for one will SPILL the rest of the 4 gallons I dont need on the ground of any gas station that attempts to enforce this.
I’m done, its over. I am not following any more nanny state rules.
Let them eat cake! 4 gallons at time.
The hose at the pump only holds about .6 gallons. Just pump the first 1/2 gallon out on the pavement, and fill up with the good stuff. If anyone objects, tell them the EPA mad you do it.
Not to excuse the devils but read the EPA statement carefully- this only applies to pumps that dispense E10 and E15 from one hose . If you are concerned do not buy gas from one of these pumps- in fact why not spend your money at stations that do not sell E15 at all!
The EPA is also, at this moment, fining oil companies for not using pollution-reduction additives that do not even exist yet, as no one has succeeded in synthesizing them. But since they “theoretically” can be made, EPA will continue punishing the industry for not using them… somehow.
With this sort of mindset, and a regulatory structure which allows it, do you seriously believe that EPA will not mandate that every gallon of gas sold in the U.S. be E10 or E15 within five years?
I don’t. I believe it is far more likely that we will be using even higher-percentage ethanol “blends” soon, and the vehicles whose engines are destroyed by same will be written off as “sacrifices to Holy Mother Gaia”.
You’re dealing with what amounts to a fanatic pseudo-religious cult at EPA. Keep that firmly in mind at all times.
In fact, “fanatic pseudo-religious cult” is a good definition of “progressiveism” in general.
clear ether
eon
do they know they can make fuel out of hemp,yep,fuel and some other things too like,paper,oil,they are even building houses up in canada out of hemp.hemp is not marijuna you can’t catch a buzz from it he only reason it is ilegal ie you can’t tell the differnce between the two
did you know that the production of hemp was stopped in the 1950s.i don’t think that fuel from hemp is harnful to engins
The AMA letter expressed concern E15 could be inadvertently put into motorcycles. E15 shouldn’t be used in small engines and the 4 gallon minimum would help prevent that. This isn’t corrupt it is sensible.
Brutus, my motorcycle has a 4.7 gallon gas tank. I re-fill at about 1/2 a tank. So you are saying that I can no longer re-fill my tank. The bike is fuel injected, so it is very costly to run out of gas. For What? Global warming IS NOT Man made. Climate change is natural and will happen regardless of what humans do. The earth is currently on it’s 3rd atmosphere.
What we need to do is eliminate the EPA. That will save about 15 Billion in direct costs. Not a lot but every little bit helps. Replace the EPA with a small unit under Interior. No regulatory power, just a dozen people or so to create a valid data base so real scientists can see if there is a problem.
The AGW nutters haven’t even proven yet that CO2 causes warming. The data indicates that warming causes CO2.
Check the links and read the letter from the EPA. What they are saying is that in order to prevent cross contamination between E10 and E15 in dual use pumps, they would be limited to 4 gallons. Read through it, it actually makes sense.
As for the rest of your diatribe about the EPA, I hear your perspective, but think you need to understand what the EPA does. Seriously, have a dozen people in the EPA who follow the science, but despite the views of the overwhelming number of scientists, man made climate change isn’t real? If you don’t want clean air, clean water, clean soils, the “market” will take care of it, well god bless and go forward. Nothing for us to agree on there.
Brutus
Think of the EPA like another failed government program like Prohibition. There is no question that many people drink too much and that they ruin their lives and damage others by drinking too much. It is also true that per capita alcohol consumption did decrease somewhat during the years that Prohibition was the law of the land. However, whatever good was achieved generated an enormous cost, not only in promoting the growth of organized crime, corruption of police and government, widespread death and maiming from consumption of bad booze but more important in the destruction of social capital through widespread law breaking, contempt for the law and lack of respect for a government that would pass and enforce a law that was at such variance with the wishes of the citizens.
The EPA, while it initially accomplished some good things, has now become a bureaucratic monster that does more harm than good. Any cost benefit analysis of the EPA will show that it costs more in terms of economic activity thwarted and wealth created than any benefits that result from its actions. Perhaps the EPA can be reigned in and reformed but it may just be necessary to shut down the agency and fire everybody who works there. Perhaps some of the good that it did can be transferred to state agencies or some other federal agency but nobody who ever worked for the EPA should ever be allowed to work for any government, whether federal, state or local ever again. The culture at the EPA is just too toxic.
……despite the views of the overwhelming number of scientists……
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
Marcus Aurelius
“E15 shouldn’t be used in small engines and the 4 gallon minimum would help prevent that. This isn’t corrupt it is sensible”
Come again?
Brutus,
If its bad for millions of consumers vehicles, yet its MANDATORY to use, how is that not “corrupt”
If its bad for millions of consumers machines, yet MANDATORY to purchase a MINIMUM quantity, such that that might not fit their schedule, tank, priorities, desires or budget (and to do so under some form of threat, I’m sure), then please Dear Brutus, articulate a resonable defense….
That such heavy-handedness against the citizenry as they simply go about their lives, from a unelected agency we cannot control or influence, IS NOT CORRUPT.
But, is as you claim, “sensible”
The mechanics around here say the burned remnants ethanol is slipping past the rings into the lower parts of the engine, gumming up oil and oil pumps causing failure prematurely to the motors.
Four gallons? What if I want to fill my 2 gallon gas can?
Pour the other 2 gallons on the ground pay for 4 gallons and take 2 or give it to the guy behind you.
A better idea is to get rid of the pathictic excuse we now have for a president.
Enough is enough! When will people stop just stop geting angry and shrugging their shoulders and taking all this top down central control from these elected officials and agencies?
My understanding has gasoline containing 9x the amount of convertible chemical energy compared to ethanol. This means that even if you could burn ethanol fuel at 100% efficiency (which the second and third laws of thermodynamics say is impossible (meaning a frictionless engine and an absolute-zero heat sink are impossible)) a gasoline engine that could beat 11% efficiency would get better mileage.
Because of this, adding ANY ethanol to gasoline intended for use as fuel lowers its fuel economy. The effect is precisely that of low-nicotine cigarettes: each one contains less poison than the normal cigs, but as nicotine is the source of the addiction it causes the smoker to smoke many more cigarettes than he would have otherwise, potentially vastly increasing his cancer risk.
Lower fuel economy means more fuel-ups for the same journey, more total money spent (because ethanol is NOT cheaper than gasoline), and thus the cost of virtually everything goes up. Any given tank of E15 will produce less total emissions than the same tank of E10, but much more E15 will be burned and thus eliminate what little advantage it has.
This is a case where we say to the people at the EPA “What the hell are you doing? You’re missing the targets by a mile! It’s like you aren’t even aiming at the target!” And of course, they aren’t. Not the target we are supposed to believe they are aiming at. This is the road to Steven Chu and Obama’s desire for European-level energy prices. THIS is their target: the otherwise unstoppable dynamo of the American economy. But this isn’t just one more monkey wrench thrown into the gears, this is punching a hole in the lubricant tank and watching the machine grind to a halt.
Can we just vote on the issue of whether or not we allow the USEPA to exist? Indeed, all of the agencies should be vetted through the voting process. Will that ever happen? No. The frustration level is becoming more and more unbearable! When do I get my country back?
“My understanding has gasoline containing 9x the amount of convertible chemical energy compared to ethanol. ”
Your understanding is wrong. Gasoline has approximately 30% more energy content than ethanol not 900% more. Please don’t post things like this on the internet. It makes you look stupid.
Much of the extra energy content of gasoline is wasted as heat and serves no purpose except to exercise your radiator. Ethanol has a number of nice qualities as a fuel. It burns cooler. It raises the octane so it can be burned in an engine with a higher compression ratio which makes the engine more efficient. It can generate more power without putting as much stress on engine components. And there is also the nice feature that it comes from the Midwest instead of the Mideast. When you throw in the other factor that it is made from grain that would otherwise go to feed reporter raping, Copt killing Islamists who hate us, what is there not to like?
How about, ethanol production having first call on corn production in a f**king drought that is reducing the available amount of corn for food here in the U.S. Including animal feed.
Thanks to EPA’s demands that ethanol production come first, if you like a nice T-bone, be prepared to pay more for it.
By the way, EPA’s administrators seem absolutely dumbfounded by the concept that agriculture cannot guarantee the same amount of foodstuffs will be available every year. They like Five Year Plans, like most socialists, and can’t seem to wrap their miniscule brains (two or less working synapses apiece) around the idea that harvests depend on the weather.
To them, “weather” is merely an abstract concept they use to frighten people with the boogeyman of “climate change”. As to how it actually works outside of one of their computer simulations, and how it affects things like, well, how much food farmers can produce, they know exactly jack s#it and could not care less. In their mental parallel universe, if they can’t use it for propaganda, it is irrelevant.
And if people wind up starving because the corn that should have fed them went to an ethanol producer instead, hey, so what? That producer is an important contributor to the DNC, and besides, deep-eco dogma states that there are too damned many human parasites on Holy Mother Gaia anyway. The more who die, the better for the elite’, like their own perfect, post-modern selves.
These are not rational people, and they don’t care about human beings. All that matters to them is power, and their dreamed-of Utopia.
Expecting someone with that mindset to act rationally is expecting too much.
clear ether
eon
I think that I can say with some confidence that nobody in the United States is going to starve because corn is being made into ethanol. If anybody starves it will be Muslims in third world theocracies where the rulers have been buying complacency from their populations with subsidized food prices made possible by agricultural dumping by the United States and European Union. Now that there is less dumping going on, those third world dictators are being outbid by Chinese pig farmers buying feed for the meat animals that China’s newly prosperous population can afford to eat more regularly. Bug or feature?
In the United States a very small proportion of the corn that is grown is consumed by human beings as corn flakes or corn bread. Much more of it is made into high fructose corn syrup which is then used to adulterate most of the processed food that is available in stores or restaurants. Given the current obesity epidemic in the United States, we would probably be a lot healthier if the corn used to produce this “food” were used to fuel our cars instead.
That doesn’t explain why we are now importing corn from Brazil to make up shortfalls due to drought conditions. Whether the corn is being used for foodstuffs or ethanol, it’s still being imported. BTW, this is the first time in U.S. history that we’ve been a net importer of corn rather than a net exporter.
Saying that “using corn for fuel=less obesity” is the sort of statement I’d expect from the social engineers of the left. Who have a tendency to be as wrong factually as they are certain philosophically.
As for people starving in the Muslim Crescent, if they’re not part of the power structure, they do that anyway, rendering that a moot point.
If ethanol is a reasonable fuel additive at all (which is dubious at best), making it from non-food sources like switchgrass would be a more logical procedure. The reason we use corn is that (a) it makes certain constituencies happy (because they haven’t thought it through), and (b) it looks good to progressive political types (who can’t think it through because they lack the necessary scientific background, as well as probably lacking the necessary intelligence).
Making it from corn, and ending up with either shortfalls, increased imports, or both, can only be defined as an Epic Fail.
clear ether
eon
We import corn from Brazil to feed animals and make into ethanol because there is currently a drought in this country. The drought is a temporary not permanent condition. One of the nice things about importing corn is that there is no cartel of corn exporting countries to artificially jack up the price of corn and mulct our economy for unearned wealth. If Brazilians manipulated their corn prices too high, we would import corn from other nations.
I am not the one making the touchy feely argument that it is immoral to convert food into fuel. If farmers stop growing corn that is made into ethanol on an acre and grow switchgrass on that acre instead, that is still an acre that is not being used to produce food. American farmers are very good at producing corn. Except in unusual conditions such as the ones we have this year, they can produce enough corn to make into corn flakes, make into High Fructose Corn Syrup, feed US livestock, feed Chinese livestock, supply ~10% of our gasoline by volume and dump some overseas as part of the various gummint agricultural programs. When I point out that High Fructose Corn Syrup has been implicated by a number of researchers as being at least partially responsible for the current obesity epidemic and that almost nobody believes that it is particularly good for you that deserves as much respect as your “making food into fuel is immoral” argument.
Ethanol is being added to our gasoline because MTBE, the only alternative that the EPA allows, was effectively forced off the market a few years ago when Nancy Pelosi led an effort my trial lawyers and local municipalities to make producers of MTBE liable in court suits for gasoline stations that had leaky underground tanks. Petrochemical plants stopped producing MTBE and gasoline terminals stopped mixing it into gasoline to raise octane and to satisfy EPA oxygenate requirements. Go ahead and yell at the EPA and the trial lawyers if you like.
Why is it no one ever mentions that our mileage will suffer markedly when we burn E85 ethanol?
Well, that depends. Back in the early 1970s when gasoline makers stopped adding lead to gasoline, that dropped the octane and car makers had to reduce the compression ratio of their engines so that they would not knock and misfire on the low octane unleaded gasoline. Reducing the compression ratio reduced the efficiency of the engines so they had less power and got much worse mileage.
Adding ethanol to the gasoline blend increases the octane rating. If car makers took advantage of this, they could greatly improve performance and/or mileage. For example it ought to be possible to make an E85 only Dodge Charger that increases the compression ratio of existing engines to 15 or 20 to 1 in order to get 500 to 600 horsepower and pretty similar mileage. Or you could go in the other direction and go with a smaller E85 only high compression ratio engine to get vastly improved mileage with the same horsepower and less engine weight.
I personally think that there would be a market for cars like this, particularly in the Northern Midwest where there is a lot of E85 available but for some unfathomable reason, auto makers so far have not paid me big bucks for marketing and product development advice.
If your tank only holds 3 gallons, dump the other gallon on the ground! I am sure that won’t bother the EPA any! What a bunch of losers. MAybe we can soon be rid of them.
I guess if that happens i’ll just go back to the old west ways and ride one of my Horses EVERYWHERE! The EPA can kiss my Horses Butt then!
EPA can go straight to Hell. Ignore the bastards and then let them come after us.