Quote:
Originally Posted by brucepick
MPG and power output are both down with E10. Simply because a gallon of alcohol contains less energy than a gallon of gasoline.
Growers of corn, and their state governments and trade organizations, think that E10 fuel is great stuff, and E15 even better. They're entitled to their opinion.
Now, where are the free-market Republicans and the Libertarians when we need them? I'm essentially a liberal but this ethanol legislation is just a way to sell corn and drive up it's market price. I say "No fair!".
|
Well, as one of those Republican/Libertarians I agree with you. I was not a huge fan of Bush as he was too big government for my taste. Then again, while this mandate may not be one of them, many of these mandates are handed down by unelected bureaucrats by decree and not voted on in the legislature at all. Agencies like the EPA have broad powers to enact laws via regulation without oversight by the electorate. If memory serves, that is how we got oxygenated fuels in the first place. As MTBEs were proven to be detrimental to the ground water supply they needed to be replaced by something that wasn't. Hello ethanol and the corn lobby. Is it a good idea? Well... yes and no. It's a solution to a contrived problem but it also creates more problems with food production and cost. I am sure I am not the only one who is feeling the pinch at the grocery store.
__________________
No green technology will ever make a substantive environmental impact until it is economically viable for most people to use it. This must be from a reduction in net cost of the new technology, not an increase in the cost of the old technology through taxation
(Note: the car sees 100% city driving and is EPA rated at 37 mpg city)