AAA Asks EPA To Stop Sales Of New Ethanol Blend

[Reality]

Progress from the "progressives.

"E15 has been pushed hard by biofuel groups in the recent past, mainly because the industry needs to hit aggressive blending targets as outlined by the renewable fuel standards.

Vehicles that permit the use of E15 include General Motors vehicles model years 2012 and newer and 2013 model-year Ford vehicles. Imagine that?

However, GM spokeswoman Sharon Basel said the automaker agrees with the AAA warning, according to The Hill. Basel said that the EPA was being "irresponsible" by permitting the use of E15 without undergoing comprehensive testing of the fuel's effects on vehicles.

BMW, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota and Volkswagen do not cover damage from E15 under their warranties and Ford, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz and Volvo have said E15 damage may void warranties, according to AAA."

http://autos.aol.com/article/ethanol-EP ... d%3D240234

[Reality]

Care to back up your response. Can a republican be a progressive?

[O Really]

Care to back up your response. Can a republican be a progressive?

Only if s/he stays in the closet. Of course, Republicans have some pretty large closets.

[Reality]

No Vred, you ran away as you always do but of course your running away technique is the "twist"....oh not so brave veteran of multiple civil unrest campaigns who has done nothing for this country but find fault with anything and everything that doesn't fit your MO.

Checked your gas mileage lately? 15% ethanol will make it worse?

[Crock Hunter]

Can a republican be a progressive?

Sure. However a Conservative can't.

[Stinger]

No Vred, you ran away as you always do but of course your running away technique is the "twist"....oh not so brave veteran of multiple civil unrest campaigns who has done nothing for this country but find fault with anything and everything that doesn't fit your MO.

Checked your gas mileage lately? 15% ethanol will make it worse?

No one's running from reality but Realdumbassity.

You challenged Vrede's assertion that there are Republicans in favor of ethanol subsidies because you're ignorant and because you again make the mistake of "thinking" that whatever you imagine is correct because it sounds good to you.

Vrede was correct, as usual.

Where senators stand on ethanol tax subsidies often has more to do with which state they're from than which party they belong to.

"This is a very controversial subject," says Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). "We have members in our conference on both sides of this issue."

There's the head Republican in the Senate saying that there are Republicans for ethanol subsidies. But what you "think sounds good" is supposed to trump reality. You know more about Republican lawmakers than Republican lawmakers.

Budget-conscious GOP Senators are pushing to eliminate a $6 billion federal ethanol subsidy that is cherished by farm-state Republicans, exposing an intraparty schism that could muddy the party’s message on fiscal discipline.
The GOP ethanol opponents see an opportunity to use their party’s emphasis on cutting federal spending as leverage to support Sen. Tom Coburn’s amendment that would eliminate a tax credit that oil companies receive for blending ethanol into gasoline. But they face formidable opposition from a band of farm-state lawmakers — led by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) — who have long championed ethanol and say any attempt to limit federal support of the corn-based fuel should be part of a broader debate over national energy policy, rather than an ethanol-specific rifle shot.

...

Other GOP Senators said they too would fight to keep the subsidy in place, at least for now.
Sen. Mike Johanns, who served as Agriculture secretary under President George W. Bush, said he opposed isolating ethanol.
“Taking one piece out and saying, ‘We’re going to attack this,’ I think is the wrong strategy,” the Nebraska Republican said. “I really believe you have to put it together in one big effort because you pick out these things one at a time, eventually you’ll just get nowhere.”
Freshman Sen. Mark Kirk said eliminating the ethanol subsidy would have “a tremendous impact on the central and southern Illinois economy” and that he could only consider supporting a cut to the federal subsidy if it was part of broader, across-the-board spending cuts.
“All federal accounts should be cut in general to reduce the common danger of the deficit, but some sort of unique singling out should not be done,” the Illinois Republican said.
The proposal even divides members of the GOP leadership, with Minority Whip Jon Kyl (Ariz.) among the supporters of doing away with the subsidy and Republican Policy Committee Chairman John Thune (S.D.) among those who are arguing to keep it in place.
“I think that the issue of economic certainty and — when you put policies in place — at least leaving them there until the end of the year when the current law would expire — makes a lot of sense,” Thune said. “We can’t put businesses in the position of trying to plan and then pulling the rug out from under them as this would do.”

Republicans are and always have been key to protecting farm subsidies for their states.

The only one running from anything is Reality running from reality. Again.

[Leo Lyons]

Can't even start a decent information thread without the being attacked by the dickheads.
Back to the subject.

Reality wrote:

"E15 has been pushed hard by biofuel groups in the recent past, mainly because the industry needs to hit aggressive blending targets as outlined by the renewable fuel standards.

Vehicles that permit the use of E15 include General Motors vehicles model years 2012 and newer and 2013 model-year Ford vehicles. Imagine that?

However, GM spokeswoman Sharon Basel said the automaker agrees with the AAA warning, according to The Hill. Basel said that the EPA was being "irresponsible" by permitting the use of E15 without undergoing comprehensive testing of the fuel's effects on vehicles.

BMW, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota and Volkswagen do not cover damage from E15 under their warranties and Ford, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz and Volvo have said E15 damage may void warranties, according to AAA."


In addition:
Some groups, such as The Renewable Fuels Association, scrutinized AAA's warning, claiming that the group has been working in the interest of the oil companies.

"If AAA weren't so deep in the 'Big Oil' politics, they would stop manufacturing concern about the efficacy of ethanol blend use and report enthusiastically about ethanol's consumer gasoline price savings," Bob Dinneen, the association's CEO, said in a statement.

E15 has been pushed hard by biofuel groups in the recent past, mainly because the industry needs to hit aggressive blending targets as outlined by the renewable fuel standards.

"Progress from the "progressives".....who bitches the loudest about 'renewable resources', clean air, and 'Big Oil'? If you want to dump lard and water in your fuel tank, have at it. Maybe some "ignorant, closet, Realdumbassity" will be kind enough to stop and offer to help when your car is stalled on the side of the road.

[O Really]

So - this E15 would be marked as such at the pump, yes? A person could/would make a choice, just like "regular" or "premium" right? You're entitled to take your own chances with your own car, right? I don't know anything about the stuff, but I'm pretty sure I look to see what I'm putting into my car when I fill up. Can't believe if it were a left/right political issue that "Reality" would opt for greater federal regulation by the EPA.

I'd be interested in seeing other studies on it, but heck, just because something is one of several choices at the pump doesn't mean everybody would put it in their car, particularly if it (and the car) were clearly labeled.

[Stinger]

"Progress from the "progressives".....who bitches the loudest about 'renewable resources', clean air, and 'Big Oil'? If you want to dump lard and water in your fuel tank, have at it. Maybe some "ignorant, closet, Realdumbassity" will be kind enough to stop and offer to help when your car is stalled on the side of the road.

Dickhead can't even follow a short, simple thread. Progressives / liberals / whatever support clean renewable resources, but ethanol is not a clean renewable resource. It's environmentally disastrous, carbon negative, and nothing more than a government handout to corporate farms and companies like Archer Daniels Midland.

We're all against ethanol. No progressive / liberal / whatever here has said anything in support of ethanol, so your comment about lard and water is that same kind of stupid, wrong assumption that Realdumbassity made.

[Reality]

Mr. B, If I get this wrong I'm sure someone will correct me but here goes.

E15 means 15% of the gasoline is ethanol. E85 means 85% of the gasoline is ethanol.

I think the coercion for GM to produce ethnol friendly engines came from the USG since GM has functioned on USG dollars for several years and yes I think the consumer is being "squeezed" to buy E15 friendly autos since, over time, serious damage can occur to a non frienfly (older vehicles) engine

[O Really]

Mr. B, If I get this wrong I'm sure someone will correct me but here goes.

E15 means 15% of the gasoline is ethanol. E85 means 85% of the gasoline is ethanol.

I think the coercion for GM to produce ethnol friendly engines came from the USG since GM has functioned on USG dollars for several years and yes I think the consumer is being "squeezed" to buy E15 friendly autos since, over time, serious damage can occur to a non frienfly (older vehicles) engine

So apparently everyone knows that they can use E85 only if their vehicle is specifically designated "Flexfuel" right? And everybody can theoretically burn E10 without damage? So a 5% difference in ethanol means the difference in cruising along with no problems and blowing your engine? I don't know, but it sounds more like politics than science to me.

[bannination]

So apparently everyone knows that they can use E85 only if their vehicle is specifically designated "Flexfuel" right? And everybody can theoretically burn E10 without damage? So a 5% difference in ethanol means the difference in cruising along with no problems and blowing your engine? I don't know, but it sounds more like politics than science to me.

This!

Plus auto dealerships love to sell you a "cleanup" plan from this horrible fuel. It's a racket.

[Reality]

Mr B, there's a welath of info on "google" and my interpreation of that info is as stated above.

So where's the flub Vred? The article and info is straight forward. 10E supposedly will not hurt the engine in your auto but it does affect the mpg. 15E obviously can do damage to your engine otherwiae why would the auto manufacturers make a special engine to accomodate it ..and samller engines are a totally different story.

The "ethanol" debacle is a perfect example of a knee jerk reaction to clean the environment w/o runing the traps on the consequences.

[bannination]

Mr B, there's a welath of info on "google" and my interpreation of that info is as stated above.

So where's the flub Vred? The article and info is straight forward. 10E supposedly will not hurt the engine in your auto but it does affect the mpg. 15E obviously can do damage to your engine otherwiae why would the auto manufacturers make a special engine to accomodate it ..and samller engines are a totally different story.

The "ethanol" debacle is a perfect example of a knee jerk reaction to clean the environment w/o runing the traps on the consequences.

The ethanol debacle is a perfect example of NOT cleaning the environment.... wtf?? Where do you get this bullcrap?

[bannination]

Let's not forget who signed it into law.... George Bush. Yup.

[Reality]

The 1963 Clean Air Act established a basic research program, which was expanded in 1967. The major amendments to the law, requiring regulatory controls for air pollution, were enacted in 1970, 1977 and 1990.

That "progressive" daddy Bush signed the amendment in 1990 that adressed the gasoline issue.

My initial post still stands Vred. "Progress from Progressives". Yeah right.

Vred, you can knock of the brave Veteran crap. Your obvious intent was to insult me and all other Vets and you have done a good job of doing so. The next time you see a Vet, don't thank him/her. Just kick him in the nuts, slap the female, or invite them to this forum where you can do the same thing while taking cover behnd your keyboard.

[neoplacebo]

My car has a high performance engine so I must use high octane fuel. I try to only use stations that do not have the infamous "may contain up to 10% ethanol" stickers on the pumps. And I never shove corncobs into either of my exhaust pipes. Thanks.

[Colonel Taylor]

So - this E15 would be marked as such at the pump, yes? A person could/would make a choice, just like "regular" or "premium" right? You're entitled to take your own chances with your own car, right? I don't know anything about the stuff, but I'm pretty sure I look to see what I'm putting into my car when I fill up. Can't believe if it were a left/right political issue that "Reality" would opt for greater federal regulation by the EPA.

I'd be interested in seeing other studies on it, but heck, just because something is one of several choices at the pump doesn't mean everybody would put it in their car, particularly if it (and the car) were clearly labeled.

I have lots of gas powered toys. Chain saws, weed trimmers, log splitters and such. Don't use it or use additives. I have become an expert on rebuilding carburetors and cleaning gas tanks the last few years.
Even the rebuilding kits for the carbs specifically say not for use in ethanol gas carburetors.

[Colonel Taylor]

I wonder how much this stuff has cost the consumers in repairs? Cars, mowers, chain saws and the list goes on.

[Supsalemgr]

And they were wrong.