Ethanol leaves consumers stranded

[ALS]

Some members of Congress introduced legislation that would protect fuel retailers, engine manufacturers and fuel producers from lawsuits stemming from the use of E15.

Jim Sensenbrenner - CHICAGOTRIBUNE - June 2, 2012

Ready or not, here it comes. At least that is the message from the ethanol lobby about E15, gasoline with 15 percent ethanol. Ethanol producers are in the process of clearing the final requirements to increase the amount of ethanol in our gas.

Because the Environmental Protection Agency is willing to rush the approval of E15 without considering its full effect on American drivers, we could soon experience a significant and potentially harmful change to our mainstream fuel supply without first resolving questions about how vehicles will be affected.

In 2010, at the request of the ethanol lobby, the EPA issued a partial waiver to allow E15 in cars model year 2001 and later. In reaching this decision, the EPA relied on a single Department of Energy study that was never intended to be comprehensive.... [Read More]

[bestmapman]

Lets hope this does not happen.

[diamondlarry]

Originally Posted by bestmapman

Lets hope this does not happen.

Agreed Jud. Even though I live in the heart of the farming community and this has the potential to benefit a lot of people around here, it is a bad idea; forced to use a fuel that will undoubtedly cause damage and nobody will be responsible for the repairs.

[Jay]

Because oil companies are under a government mandate to sell more ethanol in our gasoline, despite the likelihood E15 could end up damaging their customers' vehicles, some members of Congress introduced legislation that would protect fuel retailers, engine manufacturers and fuel producers from lawsuits stemming from the use of E15.

This is the type of crony capitalism that infuriates me. Car manufacturers specifically warn against any ethanol content greater than E10 and the ag lobby doesn't care. They own your congressman and they're going to mandate the use of this watered down fuel that nobody wants. So if you use this fuel in your vehicle and suffer damage you can't even sue anybody.

[50 mpg by 2012]

Originally Posted by Jay

This is the type of crony capitalism that infuriates me. Car manufacturers specifically warn against any ethanol content greater than E10 and the ag lobby doesn't care. They own your congressman and they're going to mandate the use of this watered down fuel that nobody wants. So if you use this fuel in your vehicle and suffer damage you can't even sue anybody.

How does the Volt do with E15? Premium only? No ethanol ever?

How about Ford's hybrids?

How about any hybrid rated over 35 mpg(US) combined?

How about any ICE powered vehicles EPA rated ≥30 mpg(US) combined?

Guess what ... there are only 3 Focus variations rated FlexFuel between >30~<34 mpg combined with gasoline. And that is it!
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/powerSearch.jsp

Are the small displacement FUEL FRUGAL Euro type diesels the only alternative to avoid problems with E15?

... or higher? ... as soon as agri business can produce the volume???



And a suggestion ... OUR ... Congressmen/women and Senators.

I am beginning to think WE ... NEED to figure out how to get OUR elected representative in Washington to represent the citizens again ... maybe ... replacing them every term until they get the message!

[diamondlarry]

Originally Posted by 50 mpg by 2012

I am beginning to think WE ... NEED to figure out how to get OUR elected representative in Washington to represent the citizens again ... maybe ... replacing them every term until they get the message!

[ALS]

I am beginning to think WE ... NEED to figure out how to get OUR elected representative in Washington to represent the citizens again ... maybe ... replacing them every term until they get the message!

It has already started back in 2010. We had a turn over of something like 660-680 elected state and federal officials across the country in November 2010. 2012 is looking like another bloodbath for the we're better than the mushrooms we represent crowd. Look at the long term Congressmen and Senators that are fighting for their political lives in their own parties primary's this year.

I'm betting November 2012 is going to be as ugly as it was in 2010 for the political class.

Someone didn't listen in 2006 and 2008 and their party was run out of town. Well this year it isn't going to matter which side of the aisle your on, you're not representing the people you're history in November.

[diamondlarry]

Originally Posted by ALS

It has already started back in 2010. We had a turn over of something like 660-680 elected state and federal officials across the country in November 2010. 2012 is looking like another bloodbath for the we're better than the mushrooms we represent crowd. Look at the long term Congressmen and Senators that are fighting for their political lives in their own parties primary's this year.

I'm betting November 2012 is going to be as ugly as it was in 2010 for the political class.

Someone didn't listen in 2006 and 2008 and their party was run out of town. Well this year it isn't going to matter which side of the aisle your on, you're not representing the people you're history in November.

Dick Lugar here in IN: First elected in 1976, lost the primary, done.

I'm glad that-at least for now-I have a source of no-booze-gas just a few blocks from where I was getting gas.

[Chuck]

Originally Posted by Jay

This is the type of crony capitalism that infuriates me. Car manufacturers specifically warn against any ethanol content greater than E10 and the ag lobby doesn't care. They own your congressman and they're going to mandate the use of this watered down fuel that nobody wants. So if you use this fuel in your vehicle and suffer damage you can't even sue anybody.

I could not agree more strongly.

Biting my tongue on a long political rant, but special interests have bought both parties and driven them to adopt policies that don't give a damn about Main Street. At all.

[Ophbalance]

Send them all packing> I had an interesting conversation with a co-worker about this in the last few weeks, and I pointed out that I'll be voting AGAINST every incumbent as I felt they all needed to go.

He answered with "I have a friend that used to be head of the GOP group in the area. And that's EXACTLY what they (the GOP) want you to do."

It turns out, the thought behind this is that since most of the die hard conservatives will always vote straight party, it doesn't really matter how much their side mucks up the world. However, the Democrats would be more likely to oust there own. Thus, ending with the GOP in an even better position.

Keeping in mind this is as hearsay as you can get, it's really not a bad theory and makes a lot of sense to me.