EPA Just Declared War On Millions Of Car Owners
Describes how Govermnet Imperial idiocy will try to ruin your car, and already makes small engines run like crap. I have had to find a gas station that sells 92 octane unadulterated gas to try to keep mine running, I have had to take several to the shop where they do magic, and I pay 50-70 to get it back. All because of the Farm lobby...Rather than let business regulate itself by demand...
Technological Hierarchy for the Removal of Undesirables and the Subjugation of Humanity.
A pro-liberty candidate that pledges to close the EPA will gain 10% or more voters.
As I understand it, Ethanol cannot be conveyed through efficient pipelines. It is also fairly corrosive It must be shipped in trucks using, well, diesel.
Also, I did read this....That certain Latin "America" nations are up in arms because their main grain staple has gone UP in price due to the consumption of corn converted now into mandated fuel additives.
Do you think we could muster enough members of the National Guard to encircle DC, round the traitors up (Government anybody) and drive them into the sea? This will keep the EPA busy managing the pollution.
Enough educated if not indoctrinated people in the USA have become environmentally conscious enough to let the states handle that job.
I drove my Mustang all the way from Alabama.
Funny, right? Not so much. If irrational mandates based on faux science are allowed to prevail, the ultimate result will not only ruin cars, but also the industry that makes them. Besides gun ownership, there is no greater expression of freedom than owning a car. It means freedom to travel, and to be independent. And the left hates independent.
Would be nice to sue the EPA for damaging the environment by creating additional CO2 and consuming valuable water by this action, which it clearly does.
If any of these guys had any sense, they'd be pushing for vegetable oil based diesel, which is overwhelmingly the best form of solar energy available. I semi-support such initiatives (but prefer private versions), because the most effective means of defending against Middle Eastern threats of any kind is to take away their oil money supply. They'll be right back in the middle ages in a decade.
Should the volume of refined gasoline without ethanol rise in response to the market's rational response to the problems and resulting expense precipitated by ethanol, then I am sure the EPA will attempt to stop the making of ANY gasoline without ethanol. Meanwhile, since turbo-charging and electronic control, diesels are my choice.
The usual methods for butanol production involve the ABE process ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butanol... ) originally developed in 1916 to use coal as feedstock to produce acetone for cordite (smokeless gunpowder) when the UK was running out of the imported product. That can still be used, with any hydrocarbon feed, but new methods result in higher butanol content.
I tried a tank once in my 2015 Colorado crew/Z71, my Mpg fell like a rock, from around 17 on California normal/shitty blend to about 9. It drove 'normally' but the engine management was throwing a lot more fuel into the engine automatically. Dealer said that was normal for E85, pulling my trailer, I'd get like 4 or 5 I would guess... So obviously a lot more CO2 emission.
GM won't allow it in my wife's Chevy Volt, while it might be fine for something like that where the ICE/apu is only there to charge the battery if you exhaust the range, it also rarely needs to be filled, she might go 4 months without stopping at a gas station, so the corrosive E85 would eat through the fuel system.
Yeah, okay, like the DC folks will listen. They count on Farm Lobby for big campaign donations at election time. So, nothing will be done to change anything. As usual.
Who gains? The corn growers obviously, then the vehicle manufacturers who want to sell vehicles with ethanol resistant fuel systems, and an aftermarket fuel conversion industry.
Wait a mo ..
it increases, not decreases CO2 emissions.
So there is at least one positive!
I have never actually run the E-85 fuel (what for really ?).
But I was forced to pay for the ability to run it by, no doubt, some law the EPA forced on GM.
I say get rid of the EPA's ability to make these stupid rules.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9M8O...
(I have sold these products and have some in my car now.)
"A 2012 study by Auto Alliance found internal engine damage to cars built between 2001 and 2009 with the higher blend. And a report last year found that the vast majority of cars on the road were not built to handle higher ethanol levels"
That is 2 different reports, and no source was cited, so the reliability of the data is in question. The bigger impact is that small engines (lawnmowers, chainsaws, wee whackers) have never been able to tolerate any ethanol, and the 10% they have now screws them up. The move to more will make them unusable. The earlier cars will have more of an issue because they were made with non ethanol resistant parts, as well as some carburetors which are more susceptible to being eaten up by the ethanol. The main thrust of the article was that they wrote a crappy law (not a new thing) that mandates amount, not percentage, So as you use less gas, but have to add more ethanol, the ration (and thus percentage of ethanol to gasoline) has to go up. I would say this is more illustrative of the total lack of response, understanding and the impact of lobbyists on government, and the crap that results, than a plot to get rid of cars. There are many more ways they can do that, such as taxes and fees, which is already happening. Even the vaunted "clean cars" are now being taxed to the point you can't own them by states trying to squeeze as much as they can from us.
carb can't handle the alcohol in the gasoline.
don't yet know the cost -- for a new carb! -- j
.