|
|
Post by FrankenMech on Nov 14, 2018 3:36:16 GMT -5
We went to Colorado in the Mercedes, using ethanol dorked our mileage 20% easily. That is consistent with the lower amount of energy in the alcohol fuel. The subsidized price differential does not make up for the decrease in mileage. |
|
|
|
Post by jackrides on Nov 14, 2018 14:25:21 GMT -5
Here's a theory on how we got the gloryus (spell check says this is right?) benefits of ethanol laced gas. The previous administration knew that (1)reducing foreign oil imports is a great idea; (2)global warming is very real and very bad; (2)CO2 and methane are major contributors to global warming; (3)2 major contributors to methane are tundra (permafrost) melting, and waste gas from beef production (cow farts); (4)tundra melting is a self multiplying symptom as well as cause; (5)beef caused methane is a root cause; (6)reduction in beef production will reduce methane production; (7)increased consumer cost of beef will reduce demand. Let's take a breath.
Ethanol, mixed with gasoline, is a useable vehicle fuel. Ethanol is easily made from corn. Corn is a major feed product for finishing beef cow production. The more corn that is bought for ethanol production, the higher the price will be for the remaining corn. End result: higher beef prices, less beef purchases, less methane, less warming.
Winners: the environment (hopefully), corn farmers (mostly corporate, likely political contributors), American economy (as more money stays on this side of the ocean). Losers: beef eaters, corn eaters, people who like pure (?) gasoline.
The sales pitch: Reduce foreign oil and keep our money here.
Well, they succeeded. Looking forward to the discussion. Looking forward more to independent testing, confirmed by video, of the flammability of cow gas. However, harming the cows, not counting embarrassing them, is not acceptable.
|
|
|
|
Post by peascreek on Nov 21, 2018 0:15:06 GMT -5
Actually it wasn't the previous administration, it was the previous administrations, and the sole purpose of ethanol is to provide a mandated market for welfare driven over production of corn and soybeans, just as subsidized sales to China are. Most Americans don;t realize our $500 billion trade deficit with China is largely there to appease the ag industrial complex in America and that money doesn't spread as far or as much as they want you to think.
|
|
|
|
Post by peascreek on Nov 21, 2018 0:20:35 GMT -5
We went to Colorado in the Mercedes, using ethanol dorked our mileage 20% easily. That is consistent with the lower amount of energy in the alcohol fuel. The subsidized price differential does not make up for the decrease in mileage. I burned one tank of 87 E10 in my GMC, eco avg ran 11.3 getting 13 or better on 87 pure. Price differential is now so off kilter it's cheaper to burn ethanol by a penny or two, worth it to me to not support the "farmer" in my neighborhood, $450,000 house on an exclusive cul de sac, averages more in farm welfare each year than a combat soldier earns. |
|
