Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Ish who wrote (169405)	6/10/2006 5:56:27 PM
From: pheilman_	Read Replies (3) of 793800

<<You must be a city boy living on a coast.>> An ad hominem attack. No, I am an engineer. <<Adding 10% ethanol to gasoline burns 60% of the gas that wouldn't normally be burned during combustion.>> There is no measurable unburned hydrocarbons out the back of the exhaust pipe, that is taken care of by the catalytic converter. << That makes the exhaust cleaner. It also boosts the octane so no lead has to be burned.>> No lead has been in gasoline in the US for decades. I agree that ethanol boosts octane. <<As far as mileage our electric co-op ran a test, over a million members so it was a large test, the meter readers ran straight gas and then E10. Now this is a rural co-op so they did a lot of driving. The E10 got 3% better mileage than the straight gas did.>> These results are anomolous. Ethanol has 3% less energy per unit volume. Every other test I have seen reported shows reduced mileage when ethanol is added. Even the American Coalition for Ethanol's study* shows the expected reduction in fuel mileage. Was this test performed before the introduction of catalytic converters? Or perhaps by biased parties? The other possibility is that the calculations are made strictly on the gasoline usage. Don't laugh, that is what the federal government is doing in their calculations on fuel mileage of E85 vehicles. <<Mandating it for cleaner air. Subsidizing it? You must be a democrat, not taxing is not subsidizing.>> "After the second energy crisis in 1979, an income tax credit of 40 cents per gallon of 190-proof ethanol produced was instituted as an incentive for refiners of ethanol to blend this product into gasoline." <<Now if you want to subsidize something, with 2 billion bushels more corn in storage than can be used, have the government pay me $150 per acre NOT to grow corn like in the former programs of the 60s.>> I have no desire to subsidize anything. If the product you grow has no utility, let me suggest you cease producing it. Rather than expect the government to find some use for it. It is a boondoggle. A waste. ADM and other large processors have lobbied the government to mandate ethanol be added to gasoline. The US automakers go along with their E85 vehicles to game the fuel efficiency requirements. The bottom line is that ethanol exists solely for the benefit of the environmental, agricultural and automotive lobbies. Taxpayers are just left holding the bill. detnews.com *http://www.ethanol.org/documents/ACEFuelEconomyStudy.pdf

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next