Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Non-Tech : Farming -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (1406)	6/20/2008 2:42:19 AM
From: pheilman_	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4448

I think we're all aware ethanol has a lower energy content than an equivalent volume of gasoline. It is much worse than that. E85 in special flex fuel vehicles gets 27% lower mileage. Worse than the expected reduction due to the lower energy content of the ethanol. E10 in "normal" cars delivers 10% lower mileage. It serves no purpose. Other than to give money to ADM and to the state governments on taxes on the increased volume of fuel sold. By doing the calculations for energy balance on the BTU content of the liquids the promoters avoid the real question: Does the car move farther when the ethanol is added to the gasoline? (And I sure don't trust the results from the Ethanol Council that show mileage actually increasing with E10) Go look at the results by people who actually track their mileage closely. I am in passionate agreement that the ethanol mandate is a disaster.