If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Hot Air)   AAA joins the vast right wing conspiracy and comes out publicly against the EPA's new gas standard. Because 228 million of the 240 million cars on the road's engines aren't compatible, will void warranties and blow up cars   (hotair.com) divider line 226
    More: Asinine, EPA, Ted Strickland, National Association of Convenience Stores, right-wing, conspiracy  
•       •       •

4001 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Dec 2012 at 2:37 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



226 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-02 08:54:21 AM
228 million cars need to be replaced? What a boost for the economy - in the countries where cars are made...
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2012-12-02 09:07:19 AM

jasonvatch: 228 million cars need to be replaced? What a boost for the economy - in the countries where cars are made...


I have a friend whose entire repair business is built on the damage caused by alcohol fuel. He openly states that while he hates E-10, it has made him a huge amount of money.
 
2012-12-02 09:46:50 AM
Interestingly enough, in Australia, the push for Ethanol in petrol (gas) came from the conservative party here. Allegedly due to the large donations provided by the largest Ethanol producer and sugar cane farmers.

While most car manufacturers say that E-10 is okay with their engines, smart consumers have realised the discount provided over non-ethanol fuel doesn't add up once the poorer fuel consumption is factored in.

Personally I think Ethanol is rubbish, bio-diesel I believe is more effective, but being a car enthusiast it hasn't bothered me as my cars have only ever accepted the high-octane fuels.
 
2012-12-02 10:14:23 AM

Tahs4Evar: Interestingly enough, in Australia, the push for Ethanol in petrol (gas) came from the conservative party here. Allegedly due to the large donations provided by the largest Ethanol producer and sugar cane farmers.


True here also for several of our midwestern states, where growing corn is Big Business.
 
2012-12-02 10:29:07 AM
Are they still refining ethanol with petroleum and natural gas?
 
2012-12-02 10:54:54 AM
Even 10% ethanol will kill most 2 cycle engines. You can't get all the water out of it and the power density sucks.

You can take your E85 and shove it right up your ass.
 
2012-12-02 11:07:42 AM
FFS, it's not like you're going to be forced to use it
 
2012-12-02 11:17:15 AM
Yeah, E85 is a pretty bad idea, compounded by the idiocy of corn ethanol.
 
2012-12-02 11:42:13 AM
We need to stop wasting ethanol in cars. That way there will be more to drink.
 
2012-12-02 11:42:17 AM
It's getting harder to find real gas, but I have places lined up in several cities I visit.
 
2012-12-02 11:55:53 AM
FTFA"It is clear that millions of Americans are unfamiliar with E15, which means there is a strong possibility that many may improperly fill up using this gasoline and damage their vehicle," AAA President and CEO Robert Darbelnet tells USA TODAY. "Bringing E15 to the market without adequate safeguards does not responsibly meet the needs of consumers."

You can't really safeguard against stupid, people still put gasoline in diesel engines. Also while ethanol fuels do not have the same energy density as pure gasoline, they do raise the octane rating (E85 is in the neighborhood of 104) of the fuel meaning you can get more horse power out of your car by advancing ignition timing.
 
2012-12-02 12:07:06 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: FFS, it's not like you're going to be forced to use it


Yeah, that's exactly what it means. You can't get any gas within 100 miles of my house that isn't 10% ethanol. It ruins farm equipment and small, two-cycle engines.

Environmentalists don't understand the consequences of "saving the environment." If they did, they wouldn't push for this nonsense. They also wouldn't make stupid-ass comments like "it's not like you're going to be forced to use it."
 
2012-12-02 12:18:03 PM

Lsherm: Yeah, that's exactly what it means. You can't get any gas within 100 miles of my house that isn't 10% ethanol. It ruins farm equipment and small, two-cycle engines.


Remember when they switched from leaded to unleaded gas. Those silly environmentalists.

/it's actually a good read
 
2012-12-02 12:24:47 PM

Lsherm: Environmentalists don't understand the consequences of "saving the environment." If they did, they wouldn't push for this nonsense


Hell yeah! We need to return to Real Murica, before the environmentalists ruined everything!

jchatoff.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-02 12:31:56 PM

Lsherm: MaudlinMutantMollusk: FFS, it's not like you're going to be forced to use it

Yeah, that's exactly what it means. You can't get any gas within 100 miles of my house that isn't 10% ethanol. It ruins farm equipment and small, two-cycle engines.

Environmentalists don't understand the consequences of "saving the environment." If they did, they wouldn't push for this nonsense. They also wouldn't make stupid-ass comments like "it's not like you're going to be forced to use it."


I was referring to the E-15. I went and found another article that said only about a dozen stations currently sell it. I doubt it's going to be the only kind of gasoline you can buy. I don't know WTF it says in TFA here.

/stop whining before you're hit
 
2012-12-02 12:41:51 PM

basemetal: It's getting harder to find real gas, but I have places lined up in several cities I visit.


Shiat yeah. Why waste money on that rubbish. I got the same point touring your - lovely - country this year. I got to know the places that you provide non-ethanol fuel and also did Direct Debit, as my Credit Cards failed your insular ZIP code rules. Try living with that shait.

/Actually I had to drive away from a place after offering to leave a $50 cash deposit (that I would then pay for the gas later with credit) and they refused. It only happened once. In California, outside of San Diego.
 
2012-12-02 02:41:30 PM

GAT_00: Lsherm: Environmentalists don't understand the consequences of "saving the environment." If they did, they wouldn't push for this nonsense

Hell yeah! We need to return to Real Murica, before the environmentalists ruined everything!

[jchatoff.files.wordpress.com image 590x300]


That's not what he said or implied, asshole.
 
2012-12-02 02:44:34 PM

JohnAnnArbor: GAT_00: Lsherm: Environmentalists don't understand the consequences of "saving the environment." If they did, they wouldn't push for this nonsense

Hell yeah! We need to return to Real Murica, before the environmentalists ruined everything!

[jchatoff.files.wordpress.com image 590x300]

That's not what he said or implied, asshole.


Actually, he did in fact imply it. GAT just beat me to my reply: "And therefore, we should put lead back into our gasoline."
 
2012-12-02 02:49:26 PM

jasonvatch: 228 million cars need to be replaced? What a boost for the economy - in the countries where cars are made...


I know we joke about getting rid of the red states, but at this point Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, and South Carolina are still part of the US.
 
2012-12-02 02:50:31 PM
antidisestablishmentarianism:

FTFA"It is clear that millions of Americans are unfamiliar with E15, which means there is a strong possibility that many may improperly fill up using this gasoline and damage their vehicle," AAA President and CEO Robert Darbelnet tells USA TODAY. "Bringing E15 to the market without adequate safeguards does not responsibly meet the needs of consumers."

You can't really safeguard against stupid, people still put gasoline in diesel engines. Also while ethanol fuels do not have the same energy density as pure gasoline, they do raise the octane rating (E85 is in the neighborhood of 104) of the fuel meaning you can get more horse power out of your car by advancing ignition timing.


Which would be great if you have an old pre-OBD, pre-EFI car with a distributor. How many of those have you seen lately? Otherwise you have to re-chip, which means a recall trip to the dealer for most people.
 
2012-12-02 02:52:14 PM
Ethanol in gasoline has nothing to do with environmentalism and everything to do with subsidies. At best, ethanol breaks even in CO2 emissions, but it usually doesn't. It consumes 40% of the corn crop. Jesus. Corn ethanol is gasoline is stupid from every angle.
 
2012-12-02 02:53:20 PM

Tahs4Evar: in Australia, the push for Ethanol in petrol (gas) came from the conservative party


In the US it's a farm state issue.

It's not a right-left issue.

Which never prevents US conservatives from having a ragegasm over some non-existent outrage.
 
2012-12-02 02:53:25 PM

Lsherm: Environmentalists don't understand the consequences of "saving the environment." If they did, they wouldn't push for this nonsense. They also wouldn't make stupid-ass comments like "it's not like you're going to be forced to use it."


It's more that they absolutely DO understand the consequences, and think all that farm equipment and small two-cycle engines need to be shiatcanned and replaced with more environmentally friendly alternatives.

No environmentalist thinks the process will be without consequences. Just necessary for long-term sustainability.

Kind of like how you're not allowed to insulate with asbestos, any more, despite it being cheap, and expensive to rip out of places which had installed it. It doesn't matter if it was "okay" or the industry standard when you got it. If it's a long-term risk now, you're on the hook for replacing it.


Really, we need to be shifting to an environment with zero gasoline usage whatsoever, where fuels are either 100% ethanol or some other sustainable fuel source. The oil supply won't last forever and we haven't figured out how to create it from scratch for cheap. There's better uses for that stuff than burning it.
 
2012-12-02 02:55:55 PM

Lsherm: MaudlinMutantMollusk: FFS, it's not like you're going to be forced to use it

Yeah, that's exactly what it means.


[citation needed]

In response to a request by Growth Energy and 54 ethanol manufacturers under the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) granted two partial waivers that taken together allow but do not require the introduction into commerce of gasoline that contains greater than 10 volume percent (vol%) ethanol and up to 15 vol% ethanol (E15) for use in model year (MY) 2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles, subject to certain conditions.

Link
 
2012-12-02 02:56:20 PM
Meh, they should just use this.
 
2012-12-02 03:00:24 PM
Ironically, Hot Air is arguing that the EPA should use its power to eliminate consumer choice.
 
2012-12-02 03:00:55 PM

Thorak: Lsherm: Environmentalists don't understand the consequences of "saving the environment." If they did, they wouldn't push for this nonsense. They also wouldn't make stupid-ass comments like "it's not like you're going to be forced to use it."

It's more that they absolutely DO understand the consequences, and think all that farm equipment and small two-cycle engines need to be shiatcanned and replaced with more environmentally friendly alternatives.

No environmentalist thinks the process will be without consequences. Just necessary for long-term sustainability.

Kind of like how you're not allowed to insulate with asbestos, any more, despite it being cheap, and expensive to rip out of places which had installed it. It doesn't matter if it was "okay" or the industry standard when you got it. If it's a long-term risk now, you're on the hook for replacing it.


Really, we need to be shifting to an environment with zero gasoline usage whatsoever, where fuels are either 100% ethanol or some other sustainable fuel source. The oil supply won't last forever and we haven't figured out how to create it from scratch for cheap. There's better uses for that stuff than burning it.


replace ALL farm equipment? That would put lots of farmers out of work.

And I like my two cycle engines. weed eaters, edgers, leave blowers, chainsaws and all the others are great.


Besides, the sky looks nice and clean to me.
 
2012-12-02 03:01:17 PM
Oil's getting cheap, so let's spike the gas with corn ethanol so meat can cost more.

Pack of farking dicks.
 
2012-12-02 03:03:24 PM
Thorak:

Lsherm: Environmentalists don't understand the consequences of "saving the environment." If they did, they wouldn't push for this nonsense. They also wouldn't make stupid-ass comments like "it's not like you're going to be forced to use it."

It's more that they absolutely DO understand the consequences, and think all that farm equipment and small two-cycle engines need to be shiatcanned and replaced with more environmentally friendly alternatives.

No environmentalist thinks the process will be without consequences. Just necessary for long-term sustainability.

Kind of like how you're not allowed to insulate with asbestos, any more, despite it being cheap, and expensive to rip out of places which had installed it. It doesn't matter if it was "okay" or the industry standard when you got it. If it's a long-term risk now, you're on the hook for replacing it.


Really, we need to be shifting to an environment with zero gasoline usage whatsoever, where fuels are either 100% ethanol or some other sustainable fuel source. The oil supply won't last forever and we haven't figured out how to create it from scratch for cheap. There's better uses for that stuff than burning it.


Or better yet, move towards electric cars which separates power generation from the individual car and allows us to generate using whatever is cheapest and cleanest for that region at that time.
 
2012-12-02 03:04:05 PM

wildcardjack: Oil's getting cheap, so let's spike the gas with corn ethanol so meat can cost more.

Pack of farking dicks.


the green weenies will not be happy until we are all thin as a rail and walking everywhere.
 
2012-12-02 03:06:46 PM

wildcardjack: Oil's getting cheap, so let's spike the gas with corn ethanol so meat can cost more.

Pack of farking dicks.


Yeah, I think we need to be heading to alternative fuels as well, but ethanol is not the answer, at least corn based ethanol.
 
2012-12-02 03:07:35 PM

chuckufarlie: replace ALL farm equipment? That would put lots of farmers out of work.

And I like my two cycle engines. weed eaters, edgers, leave blowers, chainsaws and all the others are great.


Besides, the sky looks nice and clean to me.


chuckufarlie: the green weenies will not be happy until we are all thin as a rail and walking everywhere.


One sign you may be on the losing side of an debate is a heavy reliance on straw man arguments.
 
2012-12-02 03:11:00 PM
Not that it has much to do with the issue, but the AAA is, in fact, pretty right wing in their lobbying positions.
 
2012-12-02 03:14:31 PM

chuckufarlie:
Besides, the sky looks nice and clean to me.



you're kidding, right? Do you even remember Los Angeles in the 1970's and 80's? Children with lead poisoning, smog everywhere...

Do you know why they don't talk so much about the smog anymore? (of course you're most likely born in the 80's or 90's so you CAN'T rememeber what you didn't experience)

From a recent Forbes article: "vehicle-related pollutants in Los Angeles have dropped by 98% since the 1960s" and "factors in the VOC decline cited by the NOAA include catalytic converters, improved engine efficiency, and reformatted fuels".

Link
 
2012-12-02 03:17:03 PM

krelborne: Ironically, Hot Air is arguing that the EPA should use its power to eliminate consumer choice.


If people wanted ethanol in their gas tanks you wouldn't need the government to mandate it.
 
2012-12-02 03:18:53 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Even 10% ethanol will kill most 2 cycle engines. You can't get all the water out of it and the power density sucks.

You can take your E85 and shove it right up your ass.


Yeah, we finally gave up and bought a battery powered lawn mower, because we were tired of the engine repairs 3 times a summer. It actually worked better than I expected.
 
2012-12-02 03:19:18 PM
Thorak:
Kind of like how you're not allowed to insulate with asbestos, any more, despite it being cheap, and expensive to rip out of places which had installed it.

The funny thing is that there are different types of asbestos - with different risks. Under current standards, chrysotile (the most common type used in the US) has a very low risk when using standard dust masks during production, and even lower when installed or used normally in buildings. Effectively no risk.

Other types, like crocidolite, have much higher risks, especially when combined with cigarette smoking. A lot of the risk factors are linked to fiber size and shape. The EPA, however, treats all asbestos the same.
 
2012-12-02 03:19:56 PM

Lsherm: MaudlinMutantMollusk: FFS, it's not like you're going to be forced to use it

Yeah, that's exactly what it means. You can't get any gas within 100 miles of my house that isn't 10% ethanol. It ruins farm equipment and small, two-cycle engines.

Environmentalists don't understand the consequences of "saving the environment." If they did, they wouldn't push for this nonsense. They also wouldn't make stupid-ass comments like "it's not like you're going to be forced to use it."


VERY FEW environmentalist support E10/E15, a few stupid ones sure.
"Not only is the corn ethanol tax credit wasteful, but continuing to use scarce taxpayer
dollars to support a mature, mainstream and polluting technology like corn ethanol will impede our ability to transition to the new, better-performing advanced biofuels we need." Greenpeace's statement against ethanol tax credit
http://www.motherjones.com/files/oppose-tax-bill-12.10.pdf
 
2012-12-02 03:20:00 PM
chuckufarlie:


replace ALL farm equipment? That would put lots of farmers out of work.

And I like my two cycle engines. weed eaters, edgers, leave blowers, chainsaws and all the others are great.


Besides, the sky looks nice and clean to me.


Setting aside the fact that you're one of Fark's most famous anti-environmental paid shills, Nicky...

For one thing, farm equipment of any size isn't two-stroke OR four-stroke, it's diesel.

For 90% of small two-strokes there's a battery powered equivalent now. The energy density of power-tool batteries has gotten amazing lately. Certainly not for professional landscapers, but for Harry Homeowner's edging, leaf-blowing, (well, ok, maybe not chainsawing) there is an 18v battery-powered device for each that does just as well. And there are a lot more Harry Homeowners than there are professional landscapers.
 
2012-12-02 03:21:01 PM
My main problem is using land that could be used for food, for ethanol. I am not against development of ethanol from "waste" materials.
 
2012-12-02 03:21:49 PM

jigger: Ethanol in gasoline has nothing to do with environmentalism and everything to do with subsidies. At best, ethanol breaks even in CO2 emissions, but it usually doesn't. It consumes 40% of the corn crop. Jesus. Corn ethanol is gasoline is stupid from every angle.


I'm wondering if now that we have legalized pot in Washington State we can start pushing to use some of the farmland in Eastern WA to start growing hemp ethanol. WIth the legalization advocates pushing it for so long, I'm kind of curious if it would work as a replacement for corn ethanol.
 
2012-12-02 03:22:14 PM
And right now we're literally running out of place to store all the natural gas we a producing. Instead of ethanol subsidies, why don't we subsidize exiting filling stations adding CNG pumps?
 
2012-12-02 03:23:15 PM
"hemp FOR ethanol" I should have said.
 
2012-12-02 03:23:21 PM
King Corn? Isn't that the Mayan God that's coming back in a couple of weeks?

Besides, AAA? Who's gonna listen to a bunch of drunks?
 
2012-12-02 03:24:17 PM
chuckufarlie:

wildcardjack: Oil's getting cheap, so let's spike the gas with corn ethanol so meat can cost more.

Pack of farking dicks.

the green weenies will not be happy until we are all thin as a rail and walking everywhere.


And living in caves and eating cold gruel... Don't forget that. That's exactly what the imaginary greenies in your head keep shouting for.
 
2012-12-02 03:26:18 PM

jigger: krelborne: Ironically, Hot Air is arguing that the EPA should use its power to eliminate consumer choice.

If people wanted ethanol in their gas tanks you wouldn't need the government to mandate it.


Technically the government doesn't "mandate" E10, they just allow it and the filling stations switched to it because.. I don't know why. But not all filling stations use it.
 
2012-12-02 03:26:28 PM

dforkus: And right now we're literally running out of place to store all the natural gas we a producing. Instead of ethanol subsidies, why don't we subsidize exiting filling stations adding CNG pumps?


I think the issue with that is that cars would need a new engine to process CNG.

I could be wrong though.
 
2012-12-02 03:28:28 PM

GardenWeasel: Marcus Aurelius: Even 10% ethanol will kill most 2 cycle engines. You can't get all the water out of it and the power density sucks.

You can take your E85 and shove it right up your ass.

Yeah, we finally gave up and bought a battery powered lawn mower, because we were tired of the engine repairs 3 times a summer. It actually worked better than I expected.


What kind of lawn mower? I've got one with a Briggs-Straton motor that's low tech enough that it's gone 20 years of Texas summers without much maintenance. Heck, I doubt the oil got changed more than twice a decade.

Now, 2-stroke gardening toys I've killed plenty of over the years. Consumer models tend to have a short service life, 150 - 200 hours.
 
2012-12-02 03:32:54 PM

Mrtraveler01: dforkus: And right now we're literally running out of place to store all the natural gas we a producing. Instead of ethanol subsidies, why don't we subsidize exiting filling stations adding CNG pumps?

I think the issue with that is that cars would need a new engine to process CNG.

I could be wrong though.


You can modify an existing gas engine to run CNG, although generally not worth the money.

But even if we could get 10 to 20 percent of the gas stations out there would offer it,it would be a very legitimate option going forward. much cleaner than gasoline, cheaper, domestic, and easy on engines.
 
2012-12-02 03:37:58 PM

jigger: Ethanol in gasoline has nothing to do with environmentalism and everything to do with subsidies. At best, ethanol breaks even in CO2 emissions, but it usually doesn't. It consumes 40% of the corn crop. Jesus. Corn ethanol is gasoline is stupid from every angle.


It's stupid in every angle but one. The God-damned Iowa caucuses every 2007 2011 2015 etc. Every politician running for president can see it's asinine. But they succumb to self-important Iowa county bumpkin officials and say they love it. So Iowa corn keeps getting massive subsidies at the expense of your tax dollars and car engines.
 
Displayed 50 of 226 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report