More Stupidity

"WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency declined on Friday to relax its requirement on the use of corn ethanol in gasoline, rejecting a request from several states related to a steep decline in the nation’s corn production.

A summer drought that withered crops led to a spike in prices, hurting the livestock industry and others that depend on corn for food. Estimates indicate that as much as half of the nation’s crop will be used to produce ethanol this year to meet the federal renewable energy standard for transportation fuel.

“We recognize that this year’s drought has created hardship in some sectors of the economy, particularly for livestock producers,” Gina McCarthy, an E.P.A. assistant administrator, said in a statement. “But our extensive analysis makes clear that Congressional requirements for a waiver have not been met.”

To approve a change in the standard, the agency would have to conclude that the fuel rule would “severely harm” the economy. The E.P.A. said it had analyzed 500 potential market variations and that most of them showed no impact from the use of corn for ethanol; those that did showed an average impact of 7 cents a bushel, less than 1 percent of the price, it said.

A coalition of livestock groups expressed frustration with the decision, as did the National Council of Chain Restaurants, which says its costs have also risen because of the use of corn in ethanol production.

Several environmental groups are also opposed to the ethanol requirement, saying that corn ethanol production is not clean energy. “If the worst U.S. drought in more than 50 years and skyrocketing food prices are not enough to make E.P.A. act, it falls to Congress to provide relief from our senseless federal support for corn ethanol,” Michal Rosenoer, a biofuels specialist at Friends of the Earth, said in a statement. She said the mandate was “exacerbating our economic and environmental problems.”

That would put some environmentalists in rare alignment with the oil industry, which is required to use an increasing amount of ethanol in its fuel production but complains that its system is glutted with the substance."

(I love this part)

"Since Congress specified a year-by-year gallon quota for biofuels in 2007, total fuel demand in the United States has dropped, so the percentage of ethanol fuel in gasoline has reached unexpected highs."

Useless fucks.  Should all be tarred and feathered.  Let's start anew with a new slate.

Just another consequence of letting Iowa pick our presidential candidates.

What would happen if people and companies just started ignoring EPA rules?

mass fines and business failure.

I love the bonus of less mileage and power.  BONUS

It's not a bonus.  It costs extra.  

My guess:  lots and lots of massive fines.  The EPA doesn't take kindly to having their authority questioned, and has been given absurd levels of power to enforce their regulations.

Cool, more watered down expensive gas but it's for the children they say

While there's definitely a hit in mileage, generally cars can make more power on ethanol than gasoline.  While gasoline has a slightly higher energy content per gallon, the ideal stoichiometric mix for fuel/air ratios are much higher for ethanol and more than compensate.  Basically, you have to add so much more to get it to burn efficiently that you can't help but make more power.

Well, it's high time we had that level of power reduced.

I agree, but the Federal Government doesn't seem to.  I wish there was a mechanism in the USA where an effort to repeal (and only repeal) legislation could be put to a national popular vote by petition.

Oh, I forgot that added, added, added BONUS

That only works if EVERYONE refuses.

I await the day that Gore has to explain that ethanol exhaust causes health problems.

Don't hold your breath.  Wait, on second thought...

Citizens should ban the EPA.

How come I can buy ethanol free gas????

UMMM....

not if your vehicles arent designed to run the crap

yes,  a performance car with a turbo will benefit from ethanol, but not my 6.0L V8 built in 2002

this

If the engine was built for it with higher compression ratios

and the octane rating was up to the spec of ethanol



but without building for it and with it just being diluted gas no, you see less power



 

I think you over estimate how many people like ethanol in Iowa.

I question whether or not gasohol actually reduces pollution, the same way I question whether or not lowering speed limits actually reduces pollution.

Yes because us along with other corn producing states have so many electoral votes.  I also love how we make blanket statements about an entire states population even if the election in Iowa was won with 52% of the vote.

There are plenty of us in Iowa that don't support ethanol and it's subsidization on multiple levels.  Subsidized directly and the production of corn itself is subsidized to keep it's price down it's so far from viable it's sickening.  I don't have a problem with the production or use of ethanol itself, but it shouldn't be subsidized on any level and shouldn't have a mandatory requirement for its use.

It sure would be nice to own a business in which the government artificially keeps the price of the raw materials you need down.  At the same time they subsidize you directly to help make you profitable.  At the same time they pass laws forcing the people to buy your product.  If you are familiar with the family names of those involved in the business you find out real quick these are well connected, rich, and powerful families in this state.  So basically they have alot in common with all the other people in the country that government activities always seem to benefit.

It has nothing to do with pollution.  Modern engines produce almost none to begin with.  They had emissions testing here, for a while.  They stated up front that 1% of the vehicles produce over 90% of the pollution.  (You now who you are   )

Because they are still allowed to refine and sell non ethanol gas the epa just fines/"taxes" them a few cents for every non ethanol gallon they produce.

It has nothing to do with electoral votes, it's because of the tremendous importance of the Iowa caucuses in choosing the candidates.

It also has little to do with the realities of ethanol, just the optics/spin of things.  Like everything in politics it doesn't matter what it really does, just what it looks like or sounds like in sound bites, comedians jokes, and on left wing websites.

Bad fuel that decreases mileage... Yep!

Because alcohol can't be produced from other plant stuffs besides corn...?

Alcohol + gasoline = bad because the alcohol acts as an oxygenate and raises combustion temperatures.  So in addition to the lower energy density, the computer has to retard timing to keep spark knock in check.

Yes, but it's even more expensive.

Doesn't really matter.  If you grow other stuff, you can't grow corn.

Does everyone know why They have to mix gas with the alcohol, (E85 instead of E100)?

If only there were a magical plant that could grow in places where corn or other food crops don't.

Have you guys seen the news reports about the large hog problem we're having here in TX.

Wonder how that could benefit us?


TXL

It has to be high in sugar content, otherwise it won't be cost-effective.

As if any of this horseshit is cost-effective, anyways.  

Render the pigs for their fat.  Filter, thin with something else, and burn it in diesels.

Funny how it costs more than ethanol 'enhanced' fuel.

But that's BACON  

They don't really.

1, the alcohol has to be denatured with something.  They really don't want anyone to try to drink it, and some idiots otherwise would.

2, it's handled via the same equipment and dispensed though the same systems as gasoline, so will pick up some gasoline in the process of getting it into the consumer's tank.

The reports I've seen on pump E85 are that it's usually much less than 15% gasoline, just that it can be up to 15%.

WINNER

Sugar cane, sugar beets.
Others; potatoes (?), fruits (sugar) mixed with grains (starches) (?).
I bet there is a happy medium between feed and alcohol rather than the apparrent all or nothing approach being taken.

Still, if farmers had the land / equipment / time to grow more crops, it seems like they would.  Anything they grow means they cant grow something else.  At least, that's my guess.

I assume that while someone is growing corn, someone else is growing beets on another farm.
Maybe a poor assumption.
I see quite a variety in the supermarket.
I assumed they would just draw raw material from a different well.

If it's cost effective and market demanded, then it certainly doesn't need a mandate of use by the Federal government.


Supply and demand is a self-regulating framework.  Government mandates are just a declaration of what will happen... regardless of real world circumstance.

Bingo.

True, but the point is that you have to grow less of something.  Whatever it is will cost more.

Under Obama, we have more green energy than ever!
Yes, but we have no gas or electricity.