Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    12:25 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: All Things Ethanol > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: 88 cars, 120,000 miles on each, all on e-15. No Damage. Priceless Back to Topics
Hannie59

All-Star Author
Appleton

Posts:964
Points:24,300
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 6:08:41 PM

Thus, the American Petroleum Institute, the LARGEST propaganda machine in the world, cooks the books. With competition of renewable fuel, their 200% inflated $90 a barrel oil, if competion comes in, may come down to $50 a barrel. What a consumer choice that would be! They don't want choice, and they don't want that oil price, it cannot sustain their continued monopoly.

The subject of this post refers to the massive testing perfomed by the EPA that has proven more extensive than any API bogus studym that E-15 works great.


[Edited by: Hannie59 at 2/2/2013 6:13:49 PM EST]
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
RamJammer
Rookie Author South Carolina

Posts:6
Points:215,000
Joined:Mar 2013
Message Posted: Apr 10, 2013 3:00:25 AM

Modern engines easily achieve 250,000 miles with required maintenance, in spite of running E-10. But they are designed to tolerate E-10 unlike older vehicles.
Profile Pic
tdioiler
Champion Author Detroit

Posts:1,014
Points:725,500
Joined:Jul 2011
Message Posted: Mar 7, 2013 9:42:38 PM

So what is worse? Oil companies acting like monopolies using up our tax dollars with credits,
or ethanol co-ops that use govt mandates to force people to pay higher prices on cheaper products that reduce efficiency and use up govt tax breaks?

Other that having to deal with the greedy oil companies for ages, now we have a bunch of greedy new money grabs.

And the EPA is just a wonderful govt. operation as well.... right.
Profile Pic
Edpap
Champion Author Pennsylvania

Posts:7,506
Points:1,072,450
Joined:Oct 2011
Message Posted: Mar 7, 2013 9:15:20 AM

Feds should not be subsidizing any fuel or energy sources. it ruins the competitive nature of real business. the Fed should be removing the monopolies...thats their only job, to keep it fair.
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:8,289
Points:1,331,505
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Mar 7, 2013 8:44:34 AM

billybopWI wrote: "But government subsidies should not be part of the equation."

Can you list Federal Ethanol subsidies? Are you simply repeating misinformation without any validation?
Profile Pic
billybopWI
Champion Author Wisconsin

Posts:3,017
Points:1,107,555
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Mar 7, 2013 6:25:53 AM

I would never use an ethanol blend in a 2 cycle engine, otherwise ethanol does help some vehicules. But government subsidies should not be part of the equation.
Profile Pic
goldseeker
Champion Author West Virginia

Posts:23,008
Points:3,324,375
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2013 6:42:16 AM

I wouldn't worry too much about oiler, his name speaks volumes.
Profile Pic
SilverStreaker
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:14,132
Points:2,796,495
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2013 11:46:03 PM

tdioiler asks "how much of my tax dollars are going into Ethanol production"?
Why don't you do the research to find out. Also find out how much of your tax dollars are going into petroleum product production.
Profile Pic
tdioiler
Champion Author Detroit

Posts:1,014
Points:725,500
Joined:Jul 2011
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2013 10:41:54 PM

So how much of my tax dollars are going into Ethanol production so that I have to pay more for my gallon of fuel that has been watered down? I don't mind the E10. But higher mixes don't make sense that my MPG goes down faster than the price drops.

Does that make sense to anyone other than Hannie? I already know he only believes his info.
Profile Pic
DSL987
Rookie Author San Antonio

Posts:30
Points:750
Joined:Sep 2012
Message Posted: Mar 3, 2013 1:16:09 PM

My personal experience with E10 is this

Honda 150 dirtbike - carb rebuild
Yamaha 125 dirtbike - carb rebuilt twice
Ducati 1100 - new fuel tank
Chainsaw - will no longer operate
2 weedeaters with trashed carbs
Ford 150 - gets 10% less mileage than with E0
Acura MDX - gets 10% less mileage than with E0

If it's this bad with E10, you can keep your E15
Profile Pic
EvergreenON
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:2,301
Points:885,805
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Mar 3, 2013 7:52:35 AM

They said....let see with the time
Profile Pic
nurdco
Champion Author Colorado Springs

Posts:12,831
Points:2,300,590
Joined:Apr 2008
Message Posted: Mar 3, 2013 1:23:12 AM

iI drive w e-30 since 2005...

Better mpg and no engine issues.... good on the wallet
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:8,289
Points:1,331,505
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Mar 2, 2013 6:11:50 PM

tdioiler, Where is it?
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:8,289
Points:1,331,505
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2013 9:43:44 AM

tdioiler, I'm still waiting.
Profile Pic
goldseeker
Champion Author West Virginia

Posts:23,008
Points:3,324,375
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 23, 2013 4:04:20 AM

"Working in an EPA testing facility for over 10 years." Yikes! Another worthless government bureaucrat.
Profile Pic
thebrohta167
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:2,482
Points:509,950
Joined:Nov 2010
Message Posted: Feb 18, 2013 2:39:27 PM

ok
Profile Pic
Banjoe
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:8,422
Points:1,218,030
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Feb 16, 2013 7:34:30 AM

hypoxia - I see that you're a Rookie Author and have just 3 posts so far. I have to congratulate you on your complete grasp of the situation after such a short time with us. You'll find that what you think is going on is actually much worse than you can fathom at this point, but the silver lining is that there are some exceptionally brilliant folks here who, in spite of the silliness and name calling, keep giving us solid facts and real life results to help us understand the situation.

You're biggest challenge is to wading through the 'don't burn food' and the 'ethanol ate my tractor' goofiness to find the pearls that have been cast before us. Please acknowledge the hard work that is going on, challenge our wise folks to help & guide your understanding, and ignore the other 95% that are just space fillers. You will learn an amazing amount and, through you own research, experience, and education, will get to the point where you become one of that learned 5% that advance this site to even better heights.

I look forward to watching your learning curve and your future contributions - but please stay away from the 95% crowd unless you enjoy getting very muddy.
Profile Pic
hypoxia
Rookie Author Connecticut

Posts:3
Points:160
Joined:Feb 2013
Message Posted: Feb 14, 2013 4:10:09 PM

A lot of uneducated, non-sense foolery in this thread.
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:8,289
Points:1,331,505
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Feb 13, 2013 8:34:50 AM

oops, Sorry about that. You are 100% correct, I was referencing tdioiler's post.

Here is what is should be.

tdioiler wrote: "Working in an EPA testing facility for over 10 years, I saw more damage to vehicles running E85 or more on over 200 vehicles from over a dozen OEM's."

Prove it. Start with taking a picture of your check, blank out your name, and post it here. Start taking pictures of the ethanol damaged engines and show us how exactly they were damaged.

[Edited by: krzysiek_ck at 2/13/2013 8:35:37 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:964
Points:24,300
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Feb 13, 2013 8:25:38 AM

Thanks for the credit kryziek_ck, but I didn't write that! tdioiler did LOL :)
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:8,289
Points:1,331,505
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Feb 13, 2013 8:20:43 AM

tdioiler wrote: "And like Shockjock said, where's the link??"

Are you for real? Look two posts down from yours.

Hannie59 wrote: "Working in an EPA testing facility for over 10 years, I saw more damage to vehicles running E85 or more on over 200 vehicles from over a dozen OEM's."

Prove it. Start with taking a picture of your check, blank out your name, and post it here. Start taking pictures of the ethanol damaged engines and show us how exactly they were damaged.
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:964
Points:24,300
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Feb 13, 2013 7:24:34 AM

tdioler, you don't get it. You are wrong about ethanol damaging engines if the vehicle is newer than 2001 model year. Prove it. All you do is spread untrue generalizations. You generalize what you have "seen" to the point of it being pure fabrication. I have personally run a 2006 Hyundai elantra now 110,000 miles on mixtures well above E-20, sometimes as high as E-40. Never an issue. Not a single mile driven below E-20 ecxept for the tank the dealer filled when I bought it new off the lot in 2006. Never a fuel line, fuel tank, engine issue or any other issue other than regular maintenance. Ethanol does no damage.

Now if I ran E-85 without a converter, I am not claiming that is a good idea. But I don't do that, I run E-20 to E-40. And you know darn well, that 10% ethanol is not a magical number that dare not be crossed. It is not a "maximum" that "Oh my God, go to 11% and you ruin your car". That is utter nonense.

NO CAR NOR THE MATERIALS IN A CAR CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN E-10 and E-20. EVERY FUEL INJECTED CAR WILL RUN GREAT, AND SOME DO BETTER MILEAGE WISE ON E-20 OR E30 than on E-10. This has also been proven.

And the EPA proved, in COURT that their data was correct and the APIs is pure lies!!!!! How many times does this have to be proven before you stop believing the LIES tdioiler??? Please get your head out of the oil companies clouds. They are very filthy.

And you know what. I don't care what you use to make alcohol! As long as it's everyones choice to choose between pure liquid SOLAR RENEWABLE energe (alcohol) or their old planet ruining standby , petroleum. Nop agenda for corn here, ever.


[Edited by: Hannie59 at 2/13/2013 7:29:54 AM EST]
Profile Pic
tdioiler
Champion Author Detroit

Posts:1,014
Points:725,500
Joined:Jul 2011
Message Posted: Feb 12, 2013 11:51:02 PM

Hannie59

I have a very difficult time thinking your agenda is only one thing; more waste for crops-to-fuel.

Working in an EPA testing facility for over 10 years, I saw more damage to vehicles running E85 or more on over 200 vehicles from over a dozen OEM's.

Just read any of the manuals to note the warning. They don't make any more money in selling flex engines, so why would they make a strong stand on voiding a warranty for using the wrong fuel???

And like Shockjock said, where's the link??
Profile Pic
skh150
Sophomore Author Denver

Posts:114
Points:339,005
Joined:Jan 2007
Message Posted: Feb 11, 2013 8:12:19 PM

UUUGGGHHH!!!
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:8,289
Points:1,331,505
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Feb 11, 2013 8:10:08 PM

Shockjock1961 caught lying, what a surprise.

Shockjock1961 wrote: "Why no link Hannie?"

As you wish - http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2012/08/02/
petroleum-refiners-get-out-the-old-fear-mongering-playbook-
for-attack-on-renewable-fuel-standard/


[Edited by: krzysiek_ck at 2/11/2013 8:12:56 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,751
Points:2,786,215
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Feb 11, 2013 2:04:36 PM

Why no link Hannie?
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,751
Points:2,786,215
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Feb 11, 2013 2:03:36 PM

Please count down one more to see the numerous articles (nd their links) which dispute Hannies propaganda...
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:964
Points:24,300
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Feb 11, 2013 12:58:11 PM

Shock has attempted to bury the truth. Please count down 5 spaces, and read, for the real story.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,751
Points:2,786,215
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Feb 11, 2013 12:47:15 PM

Why have you not posted a link to your article Hannie?

I've posted several...
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,751
Points:2,786,215
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Feb 11, 2013 12:37:25 PM

"How is the production of Cellulosic Biofuel and Cellulosic Diesel going? Well, look at the table at the bottom of the EPA pages for EPA Moderated Transaction System (EMTS) for 2011 and 2012. Absolutely zero gallons were produced, either domestically or by foreigners. I guess Lisa Jackson, being too busy imposing fines, could not find time to read these pages.
President Bush, and then President Obama, provided $1.5 billion in grants and loan guarantees for the manufacture of cellulosic ethanol, ethanol produced from non-food or livestock feed products. POET, the world's largest ethanol producer, received a $105-million loan guarantee. Abengoa Energy (a Spanish company, no less) got a $134-million loan to build a cellulosic factory in Kansas. Abengoa says its Hugoton, Kansas plant is expected to begin operations in June 2013. But back in 2010, Cello Energy Corporation of Bay Minette, Alabama was supposed to produce 70 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol. Cello received $12.5 million from Vinod Khosla's Khosla Ventures. Cello went bankrupt in October 2010 and supplied not one drop of cellulosic ethanol."
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,751
Points:2,786,215
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Feb 11, 2013 12:35:32 PM

"The EPA fined refiners a $6.8-million penalty for not following its edict. The American Petroleum Institute (API) and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) in February 2011, and, in January 2012, appealed the fine and asked Jackson to review her decision. She refused to reverse her decision, then had the gall (and bad taste) to close her refusal letter with "We thank you for your interest in these issues.""
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,751
Points:2,786,215
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Feb 11, 2013 12:32:25 PM

"Nearly 50 percent of the refining capacity on the East Coast has either shut down or is in danger of doing so."

What does this have to do with fines being levied for NOT using a non-existent fuel?
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:964
Points:24,300
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Feb 11, 2013 12:16:20 PM

Shockjock that article is a absolutely false! OMG can the lies ever stop?

Petroleum refiners get out the old fear-mongering playbook for attack on Renewable Fuel Standard
August 2, 2012 Despite oil industry claims of “$10 million in fines for non-existent fuels” – they paid exactly $19,010.16 for cellulosic ethanol waivers in 2010, costing US consumers 14 millionths of one penny per gallon.

So why exactly are refiners and their surrogates investing millions in an all-out effort to disable the RFS?It’s an election year with all of its hoopla, hyperbole and exaggerations. Not surprisingly, the Renewable Fuel Standard has become the main whipping boy for some environmentalists, livestock producers, some oil state politicians and the petroleum refiners’ trade groups. Despite the overblown rhetoric, the RFS is indeed working – it is increasing domestic energy security, reducing reliance on foreign oil, and contributing to a cleaner environment. Moreover, it’s working according to the rules that everyone agreed on when the policy was adopted. In a tough economic environment, advanced biofuel companies are making herculean efforts to get new plants up and running. What opponents – the petroleum refiners in particular – seek is to undermine the policy and keep the playing field tilted in their favor.

The petroleum refiners are following an old playbook. Does anyone recall how long it took to “get the lead out” of gasoline? From passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970, it was 25 years before the sale of leaded gasoline stopped in the United States. The petroleum refining industry first denied that air pollution from lead was a problem, stoked fear that it would impact car engines and raise prices at the pump, then sought to ease regulations (particularly as gas prices rose during the Arab embargo), and finally sued the EPA to block or delay implementation of the rules.

These tactics have a strangely familiar ring today. As ethanol has gained market share and CAFE standards have kicked in, the sharp elbows have come out. You can’t blame incumbents for wanting to protect market share, except when it is not in the consumer’s or the national interest. To use a basketball analogy, it is critically important for the biofuels world to deflect those sharp elbows and to keep driving to the basket.

Nearly 50 percent of the refining capacity on the East Coast has either shut down or is in danger of doing so. Why? Older refineries are losing money. Sunoco closed its Philadelphia-area refinery in late 2011 because had been losing millions of dollars. ConocoPhillips also closed its Trainer refinery near Philadelphia. Why are they really losing money? Simple, they are getting old and can’t refine the heavier oil coming into the market from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Canada’s oil sand. While some oil refiners are shutting down old plants and laying off workers, the advanced biofuels industry is working hard and building new biorefineries and creating jobs.

Biorefineries use industrial biotechnology and the fact is new technological innovation is disruptive for incumbents in the marketplace. We see this not only in the biofuels space but in other areas where industrial biotech companies are developing biobased plastics and renewable chemicals that are now competing with petroleum-based counterparts. Critics of the RFS say, “Let the market work.”

Well we could do that, and advanced biofuels would eventually be commercialized – decades later than we need them. We can’t afford to wait! Look at the timeline for the evolution of the oil refinery. It took over one hundred years for the technologies to evolve from early distillation of kerosene to modern refineries and to be incorporated in our current refining infrastructure. In today’s world we need to compress the timeframe for advanced biofuels and “hurry the future.” And that is why we can’t afford to have the RFS undermined at this current juncture.

The Petroleum Refiners’ Arguments Don’t Hold Water

The petroleum refiners have spun a story that the EPA is forcing them to pay “fines” even though there is no cellulosic biofuel to meet the RFS (they made similar claims about unleaded gasoline). Further, they’re claiming this is a hidden “tax” on American consumers. This nonsense is a distortion of the Cellulosic Waiver Credit, which provides the refiners an alternative to purchasing or trading Renewable Identification Numbers (RIN).

But even the waiver credits were not needed for 2010, despite the shrill wails from the refiners that they were being forced to pay EPA up to $10 million for them. Petroleum refiners were able to purchase biofuels to meet nearly the entire RFS cellulosic requirement of 6.5 million gallons that year.

How is that possible? Under the 2005 Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS1), “cellulosic biomass ethanol” (ethanol produced in a facility that utilizes biomass for heat and energy) qualified for a cellulosic biofuel RIN. RFS1 was in effect until July 2010, when the 2007 Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) came into force. But even under RFS2, refiners were permitted to use cellulosic biomass ethanol RINs to satisfy the 2010 and 2011 obligations for cellulosic biofuels – and they did.


[Edited by: Hannie59 at 2/11/2013 12:21:44 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,751
Points:2,786,215
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Feb 11, 2013 11:42:05 AM

"Banjoe, Shockjock is lying"

Actually, you Hannie, are the one who is misinforming people...

Oil Companies Fined for Not Buying Nonexistent Cellulosic Ethanol

"In 2007, Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). In keeping with Bush’s 2006 State of the Union pledge to make ethanol “not just from corn but from wood chips and stalks of switch grass … practical and competitive within six years,” the law included subsidies for ethanol production and mandates for its use. By 2011, oil companies were required to blend 250 million gallons of this cellulosic ethanol into their gasoline. The mandate doubled for 2012, and by 2022 it will be 16 billion gallons.

There’s just one problem: “Outside a handful of laboratories and workshops,” the New York Times reports, cellulosic ethanol “does not exist.”

This has not, however, prevented the Environmental Protection Agency from levying penalties on petroleum companies for failing to purchase this nonexistent fuel. The EPA engages in verbal sleight of hand. Instead of being fined for failing to make the agency’s pipe dreams come true, “refiners are required to purchase ‘credits’ from the EPA,” explains Brian McGraw of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “Essentially, the EPA is requiring them to send them money in lieu of meeting the cellulosic ethanol mandate. The product they are required to use does not exist, and rather than giving them a pass, the EPA requires that they pay for phantom credits, despite not getting anything out of it.”

These fines — er, credit purchases — are, of course, passed on to consumers in the form of higher gas prices; and when gas prices go up, so do the prices of most other products."

The Environmental Protection Agency has slapped a $6.8 million penalty on oil refiners for not blending cellulosic ethanol into gasoline, jet fuel and other products. These dastardly petroleum mongers are being so intransigent because cellulosic ethanol does not exist. It remains a fantasy fuel. The EPA might as well mandate that Exxon hire Leprechauns.

By contrast, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined oil refiners $6.8 million last year for not incorporating cellulosic ethanol in gasoline — even though the product doesn’t exist.

Oil companies will pay $6.8 million in fines for not meeting federal quotas for blending in cellulosic biofuels – those produced from grasses, wood and plants – even though there weren't enough of those biofuels available for use

[Edited by: Shockjock1961 at 2/11/2013 11:42:53 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:964
Points:24,300
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Feb 11, 2013 11:17:52 AM

Banjoe, Shockjock is lying.

They originally wrote the RFS based on speculation. IMO not very good. But they did at first attempt to define how much corn ethanol vs. non food feedstocks would be used for the ethanol in the fuel supply.

They change those guidelines however. If it's not annually it's semi annually. And no oil company has ever been fined for not using a fuel supplement that they cannot get!

Every time I think Shockjock may have just a hint of truth in what he posts, he lies even bigger.

[Edited by: Hannie59 at 2/11/2013 11:24:51 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Banjoe
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:8,422
Points:1,218,030
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Feb 11, 2013 8:59:24 AM

Shockjock1961 - excellent point on the non-existent fuel supplement mandated by the EPA. I'm still trying to figure that one out myself.
Profile Pic
borsht
Champion Author Oakland

Posts:3,309
Points:785,620
Joined:Aug 2012
Message Posted: Feb 10, 2013 8:37:35 PM

Your car is hardly broken in yet, I have a 2000 Regal over 300000 miles, an saturn SL1 and Toyota pickup, all with over 300,000 miles mostly on non-leaded gasoline. Now I'm forced to use E10. My gasoline mpg dropped on all of them when switching to E10.
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:8,289
Points:1,331,505
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Feb 8, 2013 8:50:12 PM

Shockjock1961 wrote: "And if ethanol is non-corrosive then why do they have to provide a FFV Engine's internal parts with a nitride coating and have to change the fuel system to materials not affected by ethanol?"

You put ethanol in the gas tank of your Toyota Prius while the engine does not have a nitride coating and your vehicle is using "regular" fuel system. Why is your car's engine still running? Why is your vehicle's "regular" fuel system not failing? How come your car did not catch fire even though the not-FFV fuel pump is submerged in ethanol?

Maybe your are simply an armchair expert that knows jack. This gets my vote.

[Edited by: krzysiek_ck at 2/8/2013 8:53:29 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,751
Points:2,786,215
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Feb 8, 2013 8:30:54 PM

If the EPA is non-biased then why do they fine oil companies for failing to use a non-existent fuel?

[Edited by: Shockjock1961 at 2/8/2013 8:31:18 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,751
Points:2,786,215
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Feb 8, 2013 8:25:05 PM

"Thank goodness there is the EPA to provide true unbiased testing"

As I said before, this simpy proves how much you are in ACE's pocket if you believe the EPA is unbiased.

"Shockjock falsely uses the term "diluted" when in reality the poor fuel gasoline is enhanced and supercharged by ethanol."

Once again, if ethanol is so great, why does the EPA have to force (that's what mandate means) people to use it?

And if ethanol is non-corrosive then why do they have to provide a FFV Engine's internal parts with a nitride coating and have to change the fuel system to materials not affected by ethanol?

[Edited by: Shockjock1961 at 2/8/2013 8:29:54 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:964
Points:24,300
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Feb 8, 2013 5:09:26 PM

Thank goodness there is the EPA to provide true unbiased testing. Could you imagine Shockjock having any authority? You'd be hostage forever if he had his way.

Shockjock falsely uses the term "diluted" when in reality the poor fuel gasoline is enhanced and supercharged by ethanol. "Diluted" is blatantly inappropriate in the context which he uses it.

Shock, why divert attention away from the fact the the EPA blew big oil away in court because oil falsified the study and the EPA study was unflawed?


[Edited by: Hannie59 at 2/8/2013 5:12:50 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,751
Points:2,786,215
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Feb 8, 2013 5:05:54 PM

"This is the testing that the EPA did, no bias there"

LOL!!

You didn't say that with a straight face did you?

The same EPA that mandates that the gasoline sold in this country this year be diluted by 8 billion gallons of ethanol, that mandates a billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol, a non-existent fuel, be used and oil companies fined for not meeting this quota, this EPA you claim is UNBIASED???

wow! Talk about drinking the Kool-aid!
Profile Pic
itaz
Rookie Author Ontario

Posts:71
Points:847,130
Joined:Nov 2011
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2013 11:57:54 AM

This is true the oil prices are inflated the consumer has no choice. There is no regulatory authority to challenge the price hike.
Profile Pic
Banjoe
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:8,422
Points:1,218,030
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2013 8:27:48 AM

SilverStreaker - thanks for setting that up. Unfortunately I can only link into the accurate testing article but keep getting blank stares when requesting the Getting It Right discusion.

Still, batting .500 is pretty darn good.
Profile Pic
RecklessFire
Sophomore Author Dallas

Posts:207
Points:341,475
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2013 2:12:10 AM

It'd be interesting to get a by-model breakdown of these testaments we have from people on both sides who swear by their presence/lack of damage.
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:964
Points:24,300
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Feb 6, 2013 9:35:54 PM

The study sponsored by the oil patch has been overturned with facts by a properly done study. The oil patch has the money and power. Beyond that, allthey have are false scare tactics. E-15 is safe for all cars. Proven .
Profile Pic
SilverStreaker
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:14,132
Points:2,796,495
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Feb 6, 2013 6:38:15 PM

Getting It Right: Accurate Testing and Assessments Critical to Deploying the Next Generation of Auto Fuels

http://energy.gov/search/site/
getting%20it%20right

http://energy.gov/articles/
getting-it-right-accurate-testing-and-assessments-critical-deploying-
next-generation-auto

[Edited by: SilverStreaker at 2/6/2013 6:39:14 PM EST]
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,640
Points:331,910
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Feb 6, 2013 2:37:31 PM

Break up the link
into 2 or 3 lines of text
like this.

Any one interested can copy and past the lines together in their address bar.

[Edited by: oilpan4 at 2/6/2013 2:38:30 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:964
Points:24,300
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Feb 6, 2013 2:22:08 PM

I don't know why I am having trouble with this link. Somebody send me a message, I will reply to you the link to post here.


[Edited by: Hannie59 at 2/6/2013 2:25:26 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:964
Points:24,300
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Feb 6, 2013 2:15:36 PM

Here is my link Banjoe... sorry it took so long. The bogus oil study floods the search engines.
[L=http://energy.gov/articles/text deleted Information[/L]

[Edited by: Hannie59 at 2/6/2013 2:21:11 PM EST]
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:8,289
Points:1,331,505
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Feb 6, 2013 11:03:22 AM

RecklessFire wrote: "It would seem Hannie59 does not read the news posts on the front page."

It seams you don't have the clue who is the originator of so called "news".
Post a reply Back to Topics