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.

(Fox News)   The new "environmentally friendly" high-octane E15 fuel that Obama is about to mandate for all cars may damage your fuel lines, destroy your engine, void your warranty, and possibly -- who can say for sure? -- kill you dead   (foxnews.com) divider line 273
    More: Scary, obama, Renewable Fuels Association, individual mandate, ethanol  
•       •       •

9540 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 May 2013 at 5:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-08 08:25:41 AM

Great_Milenko: They are huge multinational companies with the potential to owe billions in taxes. They build factories in the US based solely on anti-union labor laws and massive tax giveaways. What could they possibly be but sympathetic to the vast right wing status quo?


Subaru explicitly stated that using E15 in my 2012 Impreza will void the warranty.  They have one factory in the US, the majority of their cars are made elsewhere.

The current ethanol subsidies are completely and utterly stupid, but politicians have to buy off the mid-western states to win elections and have little incentive to upset the status quo.
 
2013-05-08 08:26:14 AM

Raharu: DubtodaIll: We shouldn't be using food as fuel for our vehicles. Isn't this push partly responsible for the jump in grocery bills the past few years?


Fun Facts: Corn is one of the least efficient ethanol producers, and is only used because of the corn lobby... Cat tails, the kind you see growing in ditches and at waste water treatment plants are far better producers of ethanol. There are tons of plants that don't use existing farm land as well that are great ethanol producers, kelp for example is a great producer of ethanol.


Well are we using those instead of the edible plants?
 
2013-05-08 08:28:00 AM

computerguyUT: Obama....is there anything he can do...right.


I invented a car that ran on snot, and he went and cured the common cold.
 
2013-05-08 08:28:32 AM
"We just feel that it is not safe for the consumer. It's not safe for their engines," said Charles Drevna, executive president of American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers.

I thought petroleum refining was a science. Since when is it good policy to make decisions based on feelings?
 
2013-05-08 08:32:22 AM

Marcintosh: ALSO-  http://pure-gas.org/?stateprov=OR  In most states there are places that sell "Off Road" fuel that has no Alcohol in it.  It's more costly than that usual but how long do you want that $7k John Deere in the shop?  I have prior to now contacted Sunoco and was informed that it would be perfectly fine to run racing fuel in small engines so if you have no off road fuel available but there is a race track near by you can buy some alcohol free fuel there.


I recommend Sunoco 260 GTX. It's 98 octane and has no ethanol. After cleaning out all the carbs and lines on small equipment around here, filling up with that made them run better than new. I now keep 5-15 gallons on hand at all times, especially since it's stable for a long time.
 
2013-05-08 08:32:55 AM

DubtodaIll: Raharu: DubtodaIll: We shouldn't be using food as fuel for our vehicles. Isn't this push partly responsible for the jump in grocery bills the past few years?


Fun Facts: Corn is one of the least efficient ethanol producers, and is only used because of the corn lobby... Cat tails, the kind you see growing in ditches and at waste water treatment plants are far better producers of ethanol. There are tons of plants that don't use existing farm land as well that are great ethanol producers, kelp for example is a great producer of ethanol.

Well are we using those instead of the edible plants?


We are not, but we really farking should be.
 
2013-05-08 08:33:16 AM

StrangeQ: Ethanol is farking stupid.  It has been from the beginning.

Setting aside the fuel line corrosion and engine deterioration issues, it is just plain inefficient.  There is less energy in a gallon of ethanol than a gallon of gasoline, and it costs more.  So you're paying more and getting less, and that's someone somehow supposed to be a good thing?


ftfm
 
2013-05-08 08:33:55 AM
ITT: North Americans are very scared and confused by adopting a practice that has been in use in South American for many years.

If Pablo's 1969 VW bus is working fine I think you guys might be able to figure out how to use it in your 2013 SUVs without the world ending.
 
2013-05-08 08:35:16 AM

Egoy3k: ITT: North Americans are very scared and confused by adopting a practice that has been in use in South American for many years.


You don't appear to know a whole lot about internal combusiton engines and how they have changed thru the years. You should probably keep quiet and try to learn something.
 
2013-05-08 08:35:40 AM

Erebus1954: I think the corn lobby makes the gun lobby look like amateurs.

Nat gas is the best transportation fuel right now and should be used as a bridge fuel until other technologies mature.


That's actually an option in certain South American countries. It's the same engines from the same automakers that we get here in the US too. Slightly different kit in the fuel delivery department, but that's the only difference. Your engine doesn't care what you put in it as long as it explodes nicely when a spark is applied.

The issue with ethanol is mainly the fuel lines and associated seals. If they were not manufactured with ethanol use in mind they may react badly to the mix. This shortens their life and may result in leaks. The good news is that the replacement parts should be ethanol compatible so it's a problem you'll only have once.
 
2013-05-08 08:38:47 AM

Psylence: I recommend Sunoco 260 GTX. It's 98 octane and has no ethanol. After cleaning out all the carbs and lines on small equipment around here, filling up with that made them run better than new. I now keep 5-15 gallons on hand at all times, especially since it's stable for a long time.


You must be running pretty high compression ratios on your lawn mowers and weed whackers if you need 98 octane fuel for them.

Granted higher octane fuel usually has more detergent and stabilizers in it but it still seems like a waste for a small engine. If you are keeping your fuel so long that you need stabilizers in it I would imagine you are buying enough at one time to add your own stabilizer and save a bunch of money.
 
2013-05-08 08:39:59 AM

Psylence: Egoy3k: ITT: North Americans are very scared and confused by adopting a practice that has been in use in South American for many years.

You don't appear to know a whole lot about internal combusiton engines and how they have changed thru the years. You should probably keep quiet and try to learn something.


Says the guy who uses 98 octane fuel in small engines.....
 
2013-05-08 08:42:14 AM
Ethanol does not contain as much energy per unit of volume as gasoline. This is dilution of a superior product with an inferior product for the benefit of makers of the inferior product.
 
2013-05-08 08:43:24 AM
So, has fox news come out against the ridiculous corn subsidies as well? I'm for renewable fuel, but as I'm sure many have said corn ethanol is not it.
 
2013-05-08 08:44:06 AM
thermodynamics? energy density? why should i care when i'm a rich republican lobbyist / congressman / business owner getting a kickback from the corn growers of america? what's best for america, nahlbrah, WHAT'S BEST FOR MY PORTFOLIO! YAY!
 
2013-05-08 08:44:52 AM

log_jammin: remus: The whole thing is a fraud led by the massively funded ethanol companies

what is the fraud exactly?


That using ethanol provides any benefits at all.  The canard is that it reduces emissions, but that was just a side effect of the lower energy content per gallon in carbureted cars.  A computer-controlled fuel-injected car will just increase the amount of fuel used to compensate.

The only people who benefit from ethanol use are the ones selling it.
 
2013-05-08 08:45:28 AM
I don't think engine corrosion is really the key flaw when it comes to ethanol.  You can improve the materials of construction to reduce the corrosion to the same levels as you would get with gasoline.  Of course this increases cost, but as the supply of oil drops and/or environmental externalities become clearer, it will become cost competitive.

The real problem comes down to the logistics and the subsequent impact on other markets:

the surface area footprint required per gallon of ethanol is far more than that of the same energy equivalent gallon of oil.  and on top of this, the area needed for ethanol requires fertile land, so it competes heavily with agriculture not only in terms of land area, but water use as well.  now in the USA this may not be as fierce of a competition because we have such a surplus of food and drinking water.  but you can look at other less developed countries and realize that for starters ethanol is not a globally viable or competitive solution.  and this becomes a problem because automakers are global entities, selling their vehicles to all countries, not just ones that can or want to mix large quantities of ethanol in with their conventional fuels.

similar problems apply to algae synthesized biofuels, with the impact being on fresh water supply instead of arable land.

any organic chemists out there know if there is a reasonable process to convert ethanol into the paraffin/olefin subset that composes gasoline?  requires more energy input, but if the ethanol could be made into gasoline molecules 1) similar degree of carbon neutrality is maintained (with the exception of any additional energy input)  2) automakers do not need to further modify engine design, thus ethanol converted to gasoline could be exported to other countries who do not have engine standards requiring design around x% ethanol
 
2013-05-08 08:47:19 AM
Ive had the same problema in my small engines....water pumps,chain saws, chop saws, welding machines, outboard motors, etc.....

Anyone remember the mandated ethanol/oxygenated gas from the 90s that was totally safe for the environment and had a byproduct called MTBE that showed up in peoples drinking water and caused cancer?

Anyone remember how the air at ground zero was safe to breathe?


Fark the EPA. They lie.
 
2013-05-08 08:50:08 AM
Why?  What do we gain as a nation by using that much ethanol and at what cost?
 
2013-05-08 08:51:49 AM
98 octane is the only fuel around with zero ethanol content here. Ergo, if I want my shiat to last more than a season, thats what I have to use. I'd gladly run 89 octane in my lawn equipment and generator if it were available without ethanol.
It's not. I can't.

And getting stranded on your motorcycle miles from home because your carb floats straight up dissolved to mush due to ethanol is not fun at all. I don't recommend it.
 
2013-05-08 08:54:01 AM

vpb: I guess I should add that alcohol breaks down many plastics used in things like fuel lines.  That's probably where your fibrous sludge came from.

Also, gasoline breaks down over time.


Engine parts aren't the only thing that alcohol can break down...

http://acidcow.com/pics/9109-the-life-of-russian-alcoholics-20-pics. ht ml

http://www.rxlist.com/alcohol_abuse_health_risks_slideshow_pictures/ ar ticle.htm
 
2013-05-08 08:54:41 AM

Coastalgrl: I have had my car for 12 out of its 13 years and I remember when $20 would fill the tank, now its $40.

I do worry what other components I'm going to need to replace to keep her running on this new gasoline.

I don't think I should be forced to buy a new car when mine suits my needs and has fewer problems than most of the newer cars on the road. Very few electronic components to break. Except the blasted windows....

It is fraud if the gas is sold at the same (or higher) price to the consumer when it provides less energy. Ripping off the consumer as usual.


I'm the same.  I drive a 12 year old vehicle that gets the same or better average mileage than the 2012/13 version of it.  Nothing is broken on it, it's paid for of course and I don't particularly want to be forced into buying a newer vehicle that I don't want to have to budget for.  However, I will need to look into this further as I know I've been burning ethanol blend fuel in it for years with no ill effects.  Until I'm sure what exactly this E15 means for me, I'm not running out pricing new cars, nor am I blaming Obama for anything.
 
2013-05-08 08:55:15 AM

Enemabag Jones: I have read studies that by the time the already inefficient corn breads down into ethanol, add in the energy to grow the corn and move it around, you use nearly that much energy as you have created.

Save $.10 on a $3.50 gallon for 3-4mpg less on 10% ethanol, it just isn't worth it.  Might as well build a battleship and blow it up if we want people employed for reasons of employment.   Still probably has more to do with ADM.

Maybe it works for Brazil with sugar cane, but not for corn.


Most of the gas stations around where I live, sell E85. Its normally closer to $1/Gal cheaper. I wish my truck was able to burn it. Especially for long highway drives.
 
2013-05-08 08:55:32 AM

farkmedown: Since when is it good policy to make decisions based on feelings?


if you try to tell me that Jesus didn't ride dinosaurs one more time i'm going to send you to California!
 
2013-05-08 08:56:10 AM
it would make sense for a larger plan to mandate a new fuel which in essence destroys any older cars, making them unusuable and unsellable. then, auto makers bend you over for a new car that can run on the new fuel instead. economy stimulated, new mpg minima reached on all cars.

/you just ignore that oil boom in nodak, ok citizen?
 
2013-05-08 08:56:39 AM

Raharu: CPennypacker: I don't take science advice from a news source that doesn't accept evolution as scientific fact.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


It is for obstructionist, "party before country", refuse to see both sides of the story, reasons exactly like this that conservatives can't sit down at the table with un-budging libs at a table and work out solutions the vast array of problems in our country.
 
2013-05-08 09:00:03 AM

italie: Dufus: Strange isn't it that back in the eighties we ran gas-o-hol in everything from lawnmowers to motorcycles and never noticed a problem. I actually ran nearly pure ethanol a couple of times with no problem.

Today's alcohol based fuels will destroy a small engine in no time if not treated with extra fuel stabilizers and additives. What are they mandating be formulated into that stuff that makes it so corrosive? I've already had two chainsaws, two generators, and a riding lawnmower nearly junked because of that nasty stuff.

I went to start my generator after Hurricane Issac and found white fibrous sludge clogging the fuel bowl and carburetor even though I ran it several times a month..What are they adding to the mix that we don't know about?


Salt.

You live near the ocean. Moisture got into your tank. The alcohol aided in drying that moisture as the gas sat. Happens with regular gas too, only not at as fast a pace, and with more sludgy results.


Nope, I am inland well away from salt water. Moisture i can understand, but E10 is no where near as stable as the original formulas using alcohol. Just to be clear, the mix back in the 80's didn't contain lead as someone mentioned; that was after the removal of lead from gas. I stand by my theory that it is some of the additives mandated by bureaucrats rather than chemists.

I do have a station nearby that sells none alcohol fuel and try to buy from there as much as possible, but the owner does not take credit/debit cards and I don't always have cash. I have checked my mileage and I get 10 - 15% better on non-EtOH (that's shorthand for ethanol, BTW) gas.in both my vehicles.I also do my best to use nothing but the non-EtOH stuff in my small engines. Mistakes do happen and sometimes I get some of the E10 in one of the small engines accidentally. That's when I pay for my mistake. replacing fuel lines, carb parts, and downtime makes it very costly.
 
2013-05-08 09:01:03 AM

Outlaw2097: it would make sense for a larger plan to mandate a new fuel which in essence destroys any older cars, making them unusuable and unsellable. then, auto makers bend you over for a new car that can run on the new fuel instead. economy stimulated, new mpg minima reached on all cars.

/you just ignore that oil boom in nodak, ok citizen?


Cash for clunkers was such a fiscally sound program.....
 
2013-05-08 09:02:32 AM
I'm still waiting to see photos of that giant platinum coin!
 
2013-05-08 09:07:21 AM
DNRTFA, because reading an article that is tailored to make Obama look bad on a Fox News website is just as pointless as reading an article that tries to defame the NRA on Slate or Puffhost.
 
2013-05-08 09:07:29 AM
It's so annoying to bring a chainsaw in on a refund period they always go with the excuse that the gas is farking up the engine. This type of gas has been around now for a long time, why can't they just make an engine that doesn't suck. I don't know what parallel universe these companies exist where you don't have to address changing needs for your product.
 
2013-05-08 09:07:51 AM

chocolate covered poop: I don't think engine corrosion is really the key flaw when it comes to ethanol.  You can improve the materials of construction to reduce the corrosion to the same levels as you would get with gasoline.  Of course this increases cost, but as the supply of oil drops and/or environmental externalities become clearer, it will become cost competitive.

The real problem comes down to the logistics and the subsequent impact on other markets:

the surface area footprint required per gallon of ethanol is far more than that of the same energy equivalent gallon of oil.  and on top of this, the area needed for ethanol requires fertile land, so it competes heavily with agriculture not only in terms of land area, but water use as well.  now in the USA this may not be as fierce of a competition because we have such a surplus of food and drinking water.  but you can look at other less developed countries and realize that for starters ethanol is not a globally viable or competitive solution.  and this becomes a problem because automakers are global entities, selling their vehicles to all countries, not just ones that can or want to mix large quantities of ethanol in with their conventional fuels.

similar problems apply to algae synthesized biofuels, with the impact being on fresh water supply instead of arable land.

any organic chemists out there know if there is a reasonable process to convert ethanol into the paraffin/olefin subset that composes gasoline?  requires more energy input, but if the ethanol could be made into gasoline molecules 1) similar degree of carbon neutrality is maintained (with the exception of any additional energy input)  2) automakers do not need to further modify engine design, thus ethanol converted to gasoline could be exported to other countries who do not have engine standards requiring design around x% ethanol


We should just be burning vegetable oil directly.  Doesn't take much processing to extract vegetable oil and an engine that burns that is also not a big deal.
 
2013-05-08 09:09:41 AM

mrshowrules: chocolate covered poop: I don't think engine corrosion is really the key flaw when it comes to ethanol.  You can improve the materials of construction to reduce the corrosion to the same levels as you would get with gasoline.  Of course this increases cost, but as the supply of oil drops and/or environmental externalities become clearer, it will become cost competitive.

The real problem comes down to the logistics and the subsequent impact on other markets:

the surface area footprint required per gallon of ethanol is far more than that of the same energy equivalent gallon of oil.  and on top of this, the area needed for ethanol requires fertile land, so it competes heavily with agriculture not only in terms of land area, but water use as well.  now in the USA this may not be as fierce of a competition because we have such a surplus of food and drinking water.  but you can look at other less developed countries and realize that for starters ethanol is not a globally viable or competitive solution.  and this becomes a problem because automakers are global entities, selling their vehicles to all countries, not just ones that can or want to mix large quantities of ethanol in with their conventional fuels.

similar problems apply to algae synthesized biofuels, with the impact being on fresh water supply instead of arable land.

any organic chemists out there know if there is a reasonable process to convert ethanol into the paraffin/olefin subset that composes gasoline?  requires more energy input, but if the ethanol could be made into gasoline molecules 1) similar degree of carbon neutrality is maintained (with the exception of any additional energy input)  2) automakers do not need to further modify engine design, thus ethanol converted to gasoline could be exported to other countries who do not have engine standards requiring design around x% ethanol

We should just be burning vegetable oil directly.  Doesn't take much processing to extract vegetable oil and an engin ...


Which is exactly what Rudolf Diesel envisioned when he invented his engine. It was MADE to run on peanut oil...
 
2013-05-08 09:10:26 AM
I'm so sick of ethanol.  I'm not going to buy a fancy dancy new vehicle that is 100% compatible anytime soon and it causes a noticeable loss of mpg in the vehicles I do drive.  Which it does in any vehicle, compatible or not, which causes one to need to purchase more fuel to go the same number of miles.

We'd be better off mandating a dual fuel system of gas/compressed natural gas if we wanted to do some about pollution.  Not to mention it's not that hard to do and we have tons of the stuff available.
 
2013-05-08 09:11:08 AM

Animatronik: This is classic example of liberals doubling down on a bad idea because they think it must be right.
Science is of no value to them unless it supports their idea of how the universe ought to be.

If that sounds familiar, its because this is a religious fervor that drives these things

Ethanol as fuel is too costly, does not add to energy independence, does not reduce CO2, and takes away from food production and exports.

There is no logical reason I can see for EPA to do this except to create the impression of doing something worthwhile while adding to the problem.


i5.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-08 09:11:46 AM

RedPhoenix122: cman: I wonder how much resources it would take to get us off of oil completely.

Electric cars are here but it is not economically feasible for most. Until the prices come down those kinds of vehicles will find little success.

One of the big issues is the cost of the battery.  If there was a way to make a low cost, high charge battery, they might be able to drive down the price point.


Batteries are horrible to make for the environment and too heavy to be really practical. What we need are flash-charge capacitors with a slow bleed - something that can charge to full in half an hour, have enough amperage to run a car, and can store enough watts to run it for 200+ miles. That's the holy grail in my book.

If we can get one to charge fast enough, we could even harvest lightning but that's science fiction for the foreseeable future.
 
2013-05-08 09:15:21 AM

Nem Wan: Ethanol does not contain as much energy per unit of volume as gasoline. This is dilution of a superior product with an inferior product for the benefit of makers of the inferior product.


THIS too.
 
2013-05-08 09:16:55 AM
Psylence: Marcintosh: ALSO-  http://pure-gas.org/?stateprov=OR  In most states there are places that sell "Off Road" fuel that has no Alcohol in it.  It's more costly than that usual but how long do you want that $7k John Deere in the shop?  I have prior to now contacted Sunoco and was informed that it would be perfectly fine to run racing fuel in small engines so if you have no off road fuel available but there is a race track near by you can buy some alcohol free fuel there.

I recommend Sunoco 260 GTX. It's 98 octane and has no ethanol. After cleaning out all the carbs and lines on small equipment around here, filling up with that made them run better than new. I now keep 5-15 gallons on hand at all times, especially since it's stable for a long time.

That's exactly what the return email from Sunoco recommended.  It's also a sizable investment.
It never ceases to confound me about the people that will spend $500 - $1000 on a chainsaw with out battin' an eye or $4-$13k on a Zero Turn and then fill it with the cheapest crap at the pump.  Makes no sense to me.
 
2013-05-08 09:18:36 AM

stirfrybry: log_jammin: remus: The whole thing is a fraud led by the massively funded ethanol companies

what is the fraud exactly?

That it helps save the planet


Except it does no such thing.
 
2013-05-08 09:20:16 AM

Enemabag Jones: jaytkay ,
TFA: Ethanol supporters..claim,,Ethanol blends of 25 percent have been used for years in Brazil with no ill effects on the same cars sold in the U.S.
Seems like an easy claim to verify.

I believe that engines there, at least sometimes, are made to cope with that.
Also this is based from sugar cane, is sugar cane ethanol same as corn ethanol?


One season of the Amazing Race they squeezed some sugar can through a press, boiled the juice until they separated the water and then dumped the ethanol into their old school style but probably recently built VW Beetle and drove off.

The fuel system metals are usually what's important for compatibility.  But if it was that easy here, I wouldn't be biatching about lower fuel economy on the E-whatever.
 
2013-05-08 09:21:15 AM

filter: I moved to Europe where we live in a rainy fog all winter--- and ended up with water in my gas tank for the first time in my life--- because we do NOT use ethanol here.


I have no idea how you got water in the fuel tank but it has bog all to do with no ethanol being used.

I could really give a furk, I now run diesel.  It is cheaper and more efficient, and with a turbo, plenty of low end power.  The issue is the govt. here promoted diesel as being environmentally friendly, and now we all run diesels and it creates local pollution (which is allegedly better than causing climate change).

Which bit of Europe as I can't remember any UK goverment pushing diesel. I will go as far as too say it is only in recent years that diesel has started to loose the filthy, dirty image...
 
2013-05-08 09:27:52 AM

Dufus: Strange isn't it that back in the eighties we ran gas-o-hol in everything from lawnmowers to motorcycles and never noticed a problem. I actually ran nearly pure ethanol a couple of times with no problem.

Today's alcohol based fuels will destroy a small engine in no time if not treated with extra fuel stabilizers and additives. What are they mandating be formulated into that stuff that makes it so corrosive? I've already had two chainsaws, two generators, and a riding lawnmower nearly junked because of that nasty stuff.

I went to start my generator after Hurricane Issac and found white fibrous sludge clogging the fuel bowl and carburetor even though I ran it several times a month..What are they adding to the mix that we don't know about?


I remember having to rebuild several carbs over ethanol, which you couldn't get away from in the welfare queen capital of America, Nebraska. I saw an ass kicking over a man refusing it at the Co-Op once. It doesn't make sense, it takes almost as much energy to produce this as it yields.
 
2013-05-08 09:28:35 AM

Psylence: Abacus9: Crap article is crap. All gasoline at the pump already contains at least 10% ethanol and has for years. Up to 20% can easily be used without damaging the engine. More anti-Obama fearmongering from Fox propaganda.

It's Fox news fearmongering, true... but tell my racing motorcycles that they can run ethanol tainted fuel. I've already had to rebuild multiple carbs because the floats dissolved from the ethanol.

Ethanol washes oil off of cylinder walls... ergo, if you have a rotary engine or 2strokes you are farked. Go find some leaded fuel. And most regular cars would need some degree of modifications to be AS RELIABLE as they currently are if the content of ethanol gets boosted. Injectors resized, computers remapped...  fuel system parts replaced.

It's farking bullshiat and a handout to very well connected and lobbied interests.


If you own a rotary and you aren't premixing, you're a chump no matter what fuel you use.

/Have a CSB about mazda 12a running Cali fuel
//Too tired to post it
 
2013-05-08 09:31:01 AM

jaayjones: The amount of bull regarding the problems with ethanol are astounding.  So many in the pay of the big oil companies and so many incompetent mechanics who denounce ethanol either for political reasons or profit.

So many down right lies.

We've used it for years in mowers, cars, tractors, trucks and chain saws without any problems.  I have a couple of vehicles that have run 150,000 miles with no fuel related problems.  I've taken 5000 mile trips and alternated between ethanol blended fuel and regular because people claimed better mileage.  Wasn't true.  Mileage remained the same, probably because ethanol reduced the "ping" factor that lower octane fuel caused.


Different experiences or manufacturers doesn't make other's experiences lies.
 
2013-05-08 09:34:40 AM
You can take my gas guzzling SUV from my cold, dead hands.
 
2013-05-08 09:35:14 AM

DougTaupe: Psylence: Abacus9: Crap article is crap. All gasoline at the pump already contains at least 10% ethanol and has for years. Up to 20% can easily be used without damaging the engine. More anti-Obama fearmongering from Fox propaganda.

It's Fox news fearmongering, true... but tell my racing motorcycles that they can run ethanol tainted fuel. I've already had to rebuild multiple carbs because the floats dissolved from the ethanol.

Ethanol washes oil off of cylinder walls... ergo, if you have a rotary engine or 2strokes you are farked. Go find some leaded fuel. And most regular cars would need some degree of modifications to be AS RELIABLE as they currently are if the content of ethanol gets boosted. Injectors resized, computers remapped...  fuel system parts replaced.

It's farking bullshiat and a handout to very well connected and lobbied interests.

If you own a rotary and you aren't premixing, you're a chump no matter what fuel you use.

/Have a CSB about mazda 12a running Cali fuel
//Too tired to post it


Premixing with Idemitsu, of course. From day one. Although apparently thats not as good as a mixer with ethanol fuels. If you've got a better recommendation, I'm all ears.
 
2013-05-08 09:41:16 AM

cman: I wonder how much resources it would take to get us off of oil completely.

Electric cars are here but it is not economically feasible for most. Until the prices come down those kinds of vehicles will find little success.


WALL OF TEXT WARNING:

The real problem is infrastructure. The cost of conversion of any vehicle to a dry gas like natural gas or propane is pretty minimal (last i read it was only like $400). The current infrastructure has been rooting itself in place for decades and big oil isn't going to just roll over and let their roots be dug up...

For those who are interested, I have some thoughts on this (please excuse any grammatical errors and the simplicity of the narration):

Methane Nation: How America Can Become Energy Independent AND Environmentally More Responsible

Part 1: Why Methane
First, methane is naturally occurring and abundant. There are numerous methane deposits in the land, under ocean floors, and in places we already dig such as coal mines.

Second, methane is renewable. Methane is a byproduct of decaying organic matter and thus can be produced by organic waste including feces of all animals and humans.

Third, using methane is more environmentally friendly. By itself, methane released into the atmosphere is actually 20x more powerful of a greenhouse gas than CO2, but when burned or used, produces LESS CO2 than Gasoline. Thus switching to methane would reduce (though not eliminate) atmospheric CO2.

Fourth, it's cheaper to produce and more profitable. Methane can be obtained numerous ways, but harvesting from organic and biological waste is cheaper and thus yielding a larger opportunity for profit than producing gasoline.

Fifth, it's compatible with all gasoline burning engines. All gasoline engines are able to use methane with a conversion kit. The average cost to convert a fuel injected car is $400 and converting a carborated engine conversion is less than that.

Sixth, methane is more fuel efficient than Gasoline. Studies show that cars converted to methane gain an average of 5 more miles per liquid gallon over gasoline thus making consumer costs lower still.

Seventh, methane extends the life of the IC engine. The biggest reason engine oil must be replaced is because it is tainted with impurities from liquid gasoline. Dry gas such as methane extend the life of engine oil by thousands of miles. Converted car owners report going 10K miles between oil changes and longer, and report that the oil that is used is translucent and "cleaner" than oil changed from gasoline. Dry gas such as methane also produces less engine noise and less engine vibration, thus reducing wear on some mechanical parts as well. This also means lower maintenance cost to the consumer as well.

The downside: To be honest, there is a downside to using pure methane. Because methane does not contain hydrocarbons as long as gasoline, it does mean a reduction in horsepower in vehicles. When using purified methane, the reduction is around 20% less than gasoline, while "homemade" methane which contains more impurities can have as much as a 40% reduction in power. This can be a deal breaker for those who want faster acceleration and more horsepower out of their vehicles, but for many, the benefits outweigh the drawback. In hybrid vehicles, there is no change in horsepower.

Part 2: Making the Switch - How to prevent Big Oil from Stonewalling Independence
The easy answer is this: include them in the project. As we all know, Big Oil spends millions (if not billions) influencing our government in order to keep the American consumer dependent upon oil for their profit gains. Oil companies report record breaking profits every year, despite the increased cost to procure and produce oil. Their business model works BECAUSE they have enough money and weight to keep us dependent as long as there is oil left to procure.

You could think idealistically and say things like "then we should vote out the people who pander to Big Oil" but the reality is, that by the time a newly elected official takes office, Big Oil already has them under thumb. At this point in history, Big Oil is synonymous with Government. Any independent company that would attempt to come along and dethrone the Big Oil empire would find themselves chew toys by their shills in the government and subject to crippling new regulations or legislation that would stop independent development in its tracks. The only possible way in today's big oil controlled economic stage to convert would be to cut big oil in on the deal, and not a small cut either.

My proposal would be to offer bid contracts among the Big Oil companies production and distribution rights of methane. This serves multiple purposes: 1, it promotes "capitalism" because it's not taxpayers/government paying for the development and implementation of the infrastructure needed to make the switch. 2, it allows Big Oil to maintain profitability and thus prevents Big Oil from throwing their influence against the switch. 3, by giving the contracts to Big Oil, it puts the weight of research and development onto the shoulders of companies well versed in these kinds of matters. 4, it allows Big Oil to use its influence to cause a global paradigm shift that is mutually beneficial to them and the consumer.

Part 3: Flipping the Switch - How Methane will boost the economy from bottom up
So as discussed before, the cheapest method of producing methane is simply letting nature take its course and collecting methane from waste. And as long as humans produce waste, there will never be a shortage of material to produce methane. Simply put, by converting waste water treatment plants in cities and towns across the nation into methane digesters for harvesting the gas, local economies will directly benefit from making the switch.
By boosting economic growth locally, economic growth nationally will quickly rise. By reducing the cost of our energy, it means more money in the hands of the consumers, and thus more money being spent on other economic endeavors. I call this economic growth "Acorn Growth" economics. Unlike "trickle down" economics, Acorn Growth starts by planting small seeds of economic benefits like making energy locally and keeping the cost of energy down, a policy that takes economic root and grows the economy from the bottom up because it effects the lower income brackets first and most and when it reaches the top income, it is stronger and greater with deeper roots (accepted and supported from across all consumer levels).

Then there is the other side of the monopoly board to consider: Car companies. Once Big Oil is on board and in the drivers seat of change, car companies will quickly fall in line. R&D will move from making IC engines more fuel efficient to finding ways to counter the horsepower reductions of methane and making methane combustion more powerful by finding more efficient ways to combust the gas. Perhaps it may mean more powerful hybrids, or redeveloping ICEs to be Dry Gas engines rather than conversions. Within 5-10 years there won't be any concerns about lower horsepower.

Sorry for the huge wall of text here, but this is something i've researched independently over the last 10 years (ever since gas prices skyrocketed after 9/11). I submitted this to some website that popped up a couple of years ago that had TV commercials challenging Americans to come up with alternative energy ideas. The reply i got back from them was that it was a good idea, but working with Big Oil was the exact opposite of the purpose of the challenge...
 
2013-05-08 09:46:48 AM
The new "environmentally friendly" high-octane E15 fuel that Obama is about to mandate for all cars may damage your fuel lines, destroy your engine, void your warranty, and possibly -- who can say for sure? -- kill you dead

It will also rape your mother, cheat on your sister, borrow money and never pay it back, kick your dog, key your car, clog your toilet, drink all of your beer, never say 'thank you', buy pay-per-view services late at night on your credit card without telling you, scratch its balls at the dinner table, love movies you hate, get barbecue sauce on your couch, lose the remote, make your house reek of weed, refuse to look for a job, leave the air conditioning and lights on when leaving for the day, break your pool cue while pretending to be a ninja, break the screen on your phone, use AXE body spray as a substitution for showering, and convince your nine-year-old son to call his teacher a 'coont'.
 
2013-05-08 09:52:52 AM

CeroX: The real problem is infrastructure.


the real problem is the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. you can't change the fundamental laws of the universe. energy density is a physical property.

FTFY.
 
2013-05-08 09:54:43 AM

utah dude: CeroX: The real problem is infrastructure.

the real problem is the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. you can't change the fundamental laws of the universe. energy density is a physical property.

FTFY.


No, that really isn't the problem.
 
Displayed 50 of 273 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report