"May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"

indeed again.

diesels are usually very good on pollution except for NOx. but that's
why we have catalysts.

 

no, see below.

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.

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.

but none of those are really necessary if using a decent catalyzed
refinery and if you remove sulfur.

no, the tax payer takes care of that...

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.

 

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.

 

Apparently not. The polls all show the race very close.

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.)

And we produce far more than Europe,justifying that consumption.

what's incredibly dumb is not looking at the entire picture.

 

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.

 

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.

see above.

 

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.

 

not to the fundamental math of wrongly thinking 90% reduction in
pollutants is negated by 200% increase in usage it doesn't!

eh? what are you talking about??? it's ubiquitous across every state.
it's federal!!!

no, you need to get an update on that!

you're working with 1970's data.

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.

 

Down to 10 units; up to 20 units.

Easy come, easy go.

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.

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.

 

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?

 

no, it's down 90, up 10. net 80 decrease.

but ethanol is federally mandated for every state.

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.

 

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?

 

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=%22archer+daniels+midland%22+political+contributions&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

I can. The one that existed in the US prior to 1914.
That one doesn't exist anymore.