kholmes

OK, just a few more thoughts.

Does anyone know what E-85 is?? I dont understand why some are saying it would be hard to implement. Why?? It is alcohol made from corn which could be supplied by farmers here in the States thus boosting the economy. Ask Tom Daschle and the voters of South Dakota (one of the largest corn suppliers for the US) , well ask Thune now. I live in Mississippi and I would bet that I know enough farmers to supply plenty of corn for e85. At least for the state. No more worrying about the quality of the corn or whether it has some parasites, pesticides, etc... Not for human consumption. This would also increase their profit margin, lower deductables for insurance in time (for the crops), etc.... The majority of the 200,000 fords that are e85 are gov and state vehicles to cut the cost of fuel for local govs.

Car Enth. I understand that you dont want to lose power or performance but you dont in an e85 car. You can use gas or eth or any combo of the 2. You also said the US doesnt grow enough grains to support a bio fuel. How do you figure?? What is the number ingredient in most dog food? What have native amer. and mexicans lived on for centuries? Corn and we produce alot of it, luckily it is cheap as well. Ethanol is made mainly from corn, methynol is made from wood (this is what fuels racing cars) but they both are diff forms of alcohol. Have you ever got water in you tank? You can buy water remover stuff or put rubbing alcohol in it (the higher percentage the better) and run it thru. Ethanol is also an octane booster, not just a water remover. Check out this site for more info on e85.
http://www.e85fuel.com/
Also
http://www.ethanolmt.org/switch.html

Did anyone notice a while back that methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) was banned in several states. That now is being replaced with ethanol or E10. 10% eth and 90% alcohol which all current car fuel systems can run on. Think of it like a tank full of premium with small amounts of inj cleaner or octane booster.

Incentives are in place in some midwest states like rebates for purchasing e85 cars, a 54 cent subsidy on a gallon of it, and I dont like Bush but Im not blaming him. Actually his energy leg. includes a 5 billion gallon e85 mandate to use in fleet vechicles by 2012. Wow!! He finally did something I agree with. But why drill in ANWR , why not push for e85 biodeisel etc?? He wants to have his cake and eat it 2. He wants both. Here is the Qoute from ethanolmt.org:
"MTBE is on the way out -- sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, the oxygenate requirement for reformulated gasoline is staying put, and it is even being enhanced if things continue as expected. The Bush energy policy legislation that has been bouncing around Washington for the past couple of years includes a five-billion-gallon ethanol mandate for use in transportation fuels in the United States by the year 2012. In all likelihood, marketers across the United States who may not be familiar with ethanol are going to have to get used to the new fuel formulation in the near future."

And Speigs you said:
"They do not have the power to impede on private buisness. Everyone would be hissy fitting claiming intrusion of gov't."
Hhmmmm?? Arent they already doing that in the Shiavo case?? I know this is another post, and I havent read it but thats what they are doing regardless of what side you are on. Bush is proposing leg. to use e85 in fleet and trans vehicle which is good but I hope this catches on. Its my luck they will drill in ANWR and remove the ethanol lang. And the gov already gives tax credits in some states to corp and individuals. Another example would be encrochment, like the man making you sell your house to let the highway come in. What about the mandate for all public broadcasts to be in High-Def by 2009( or 2012 or whenever). This list could go on forever. Post your examples of gov intrusion. Maybe a new thread.

Either way, I know this a long post but I have been keeping up with the ANWR issue and E85 and MTBE for awhile and I see some connections. And this is not a really a partisan issue. I know they have voted for this at least 50 times and it has not passed yet. I have personally sent automated (of course emails to my Congressmen at least 20 times on this issue alone. Why keep voting on something that Congress has repeatedly defeated? The voters have spoken on this issue with great numbers. NRDC has sent hundreds of thousands of register user emails in grassroots efforts to raise concern on this. Alot of Republicans have voted it down in the past because of their constiuents. Keep in mind this was a vote on a provision to remove the ANWR language from the energy bill that was voted down 51-49 not whether or not to drill. While this is clear indication on how they will vote and is not good news for ANWR it doesnt mean they will allow drilling in the final version. Elections are coming up in 2006 and Social Security along with Allowing drilling in ANWR could come back to bite the Republicans in the butt. If they dont lose at least a few seats I would be suprised. This issue is so large with conservationists and enviromentalists because they feel it is a turning point that would lead to more widespread drilling in more areas like off the coast of Florida in the Gulf or the Cali coast (which would really hit major resistance esp. in Cali) They have off shore rigs in the Gulf and Pacific but very few more are allowed due to resistance from local people. Well I want to know what you guys think. I know it was a book but I am trying to push E85. Look into it let me know your suggestions. . .

lastexit

Nice post. They use these vehicles at my university so I've seen them before. They run really well and if they pass by you don't smell the exhaust. Now I don't know if that has to do with the fuel or what, but this is a good idea for a way to start preparing for an alternative energy source.

jskateboard9

HAHAHA...this environment shit is really quite funny if you ask me. First of all have you seen gas prices lately. I wouldn't be againt killing off a few fucking penguins for that oilif we had to. Secondly, drilling for oil will not harm the environment. The Caribou dont feed on oil do they. Its not going to be spewed forth all over the ground or anything like that . My neighbor, who happens to be a geology professor and used to work for exon in alaska said that in the 8 years he worked there, there was never any damage done to the environment. Thiss is all just anti-Bush bullshit spewed forth from a group of people who lack any issues of their own so the only thing they can do is prevent Bush from building a better tomorrow.

CD

Raise your hand if you believe an Exxon employee would ever say that an oil company harms the environment. I would excuse myself now to count hands but yours was the only one raised. Back on topic sooner then I thought...
I have issues with Bush AND a few of them involve the fact that he is the worst President EVER as far as environmental issues are concerned. First of all, this drilling will not affect gas prices one cent during Bush's presidency. To think otherwise is to think incorrectly. Secondly, "a better tomorrow" in my opinion is the future and not literally tomorrow. With that said, if Bush was in office another 20 years straight, you would be offering up your first born child to get him out of office. I know I'm digressing from the original topic, but my feelings toward Bush (which change from time to time depending on what he is currently doing) have nothing to do with some larger agenda. All I ask for is a President that can keep me safe, provide a strong economy for me to live in, think not only for my future but also my children's future, AND to keep America as the greatest country in the world... Hmm... 2 out of 4 isn't bad I guess.

___________________________________________

lastexit

Ozzoatmealking

The thing that really bothers me about this whole debate is that people think that drilling for oil in Alaska solve oil dependency. Thats actually not true. For all of you who have taken basic economics and know about supply and demand, this should make some sense. The reason we import oil is because the world price is cheaper than what the market price for oil would be if only american corporations supplied oil to american buyers. When prices are lower the demand is higher. Domestic corporations are not as willing or possibly not able to produce oil at such low prices so a fewer number of companies go into oil drilling. So then what happens when you open ANWR for drilling? American companies now start drilling and producing oil so the overall supply of oil increases. Well one basic principle of economics is that when supply increases price falls. THink about it, there are now more people competing for your dollar, so these extravegent prices drop to reasonable levels. But then what happens, when price falls consumers are now more willing to buy oil because its cheaper. American coporations dont make enough to supply all that oil and we still import oil from the Middle East and South America. It would have a marginal impact on dependancy if any. Dont think Congress doesnt know this, this whole dependency debate is just a ploy to open up ANWR. Open ANWR prices go down in the short term but now we consume oil at a higher rate and were still screwed when ANWR runs out and when we have devoted so much time and energy to oil drilling instead of alternative fuel research.

GreenandCars

It seems like this is a common topic on my posts but oh well. Biodiesel. The first diesel engine was designed to run on straight vegetable oil. Biodiesel can be used in our existing infrastructure on cars we already make! Biggest issue is getting cost down below price of petroleum diesel but if petroleum keeps going up, then it will be lower anyway. A huge amount of land goes unused each year by farmers to keep supply down on crops so prices will stay level. If we planted oil producing crops on this land we could supply a huge percentage of our current consumption. Emmisions are lower with bio and CO2 is put into a closed loop since the fuel only releases what the plant took in. Veg oil can also be produced using algae with ten times the yeild per acre. If the US got seriously behind this we could be completely independent of petroleum oil. Also, Economy of scale shows that the more we make the cheaper it will get so prices can only go down!

The facts:
Infiniately renewable
Low emmisions
Domesticaly produced
Price will go down the more we use
Existing infrastructure
Existing vehicles
Completely safe for the enviroment since spilled fuel is biodegradable
If you want to, you can switch today!
Look for a post in the General Auto forum in the next day or so.