 |
Re: Oil cans over OSL/Blues? Where did you pick that up?
Author: HUTCH 7.62
Date: 01-27-2020 - 10:23
BOB2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wrong... on the states, per an easy google search.
> Actually even state mandates in those states.
>
> And, wrong, CA ozone exceedance air basins, and in
> many other states have urbanized areas with ozone
> exceedance, use ethanol because EPA requires it
> for seasonal blends that reduce ozone producing
> hydrocarbon emissions... going back at least 20+
> years. But, CA itself has had no "mandate" like a
> number of other states (and many the "ethanol"
> producing states...).
>
> EPA, under the current administration, has
> recently called for new rules to increase bio-fuel
> requirements, maybe to prop up corn prices, weak
> ethanol demand, and over production in states like
> Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, that might just have
> some vague political dimension to it.
>
> The ethanol EPA biofuel rules and ozone mandate
> certainly has nothing to do with the traditional
> conservative free market economics I learned, nor
> with any significant or even "real" environmental
> or "energy independence" benefits (especially when
> you look at all the energy used and emissions
> produced to harvest, distill, and distribute it).
>
>
> I'm no friend of the ethanol lobby, it's an
> expensive energy source, and a poor additive, and
> CA does have plenty of goofy ideas. But, this
> isn't one of them. And, you're lacking in good or
> complete information on this one.
>
> This is good old fashioned "equal opportunity"
> "bi-partisan" corn belt political slop, that
> anybody in their right mind, regardless of party,
> supports in Iowa. All politics is "local" on
> "ethanol/biofuels", if they want to be elected to
> any office in the "ethanol/biofuel" "belt", even
> to dog catcher.
>
> This is just as with the Orange Man's EPA
> proposing rulemaking to increase the "bio-fuel"
> mandate in an election year, affecting how much
> ethanal/biofuel the rest of us will be forced, by
> a "gubmint" imposed mandate, to consume and pay
> for, in order to prop up political support swing
> states like these.... Go figure?
>
> It would probably be better for the environment,
> although not highway safety, if we were drinking
> the ethanol...
Just came back froM Oklahoma and Colorado where you can buy ethanol free gas. Available at any Sinclair or Kum and Go, it cheaper and the MPG’s is Phenomenal
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wrong... on the states, per an easy google search.
> Actually even state mandates in those states.
>
> And, wrong, CA ozone exceedance air basins, and in
> many other states have urbanized areas with ozone
> exceedance, use ethanol because EPA requires it
> for seasonal blends that reduce ozone producing
> hydrocarbon emissions... going back at least 20+
> years. But, CA itself has had no "mandate" like a
> number of other states (and many the "ethanol"
> producing states...).
>
> EPA, under the current administration, has
> recently called for new rules to increase bio-fuel
> requirements, maybe to prop up corn prices, weak
> ethanol demand, and over production in states like
> Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, that might just have
> some vague political dimension to it.
>
> The ethanol EPA biofuel rules and ozone mandate
> certainly has nothing to do with the traditional
> conservative free market economics I learned, nor
> with any significant or even "real" environmental
> or "energy independence" benefits (especially when
> you look at all the energy used and emissions
> produced to harvest, distill, and distribute it).
>
>
> I'm no friend of the ethanol lobby, it's an
> expensive energy source, and a poor additive, and
> CA does have plenty of goofy ideas. But, this
> isn't one of them. And, you're lacking in good or
> complete information on this one.
>
> This is good old fashioned "equal opportunity"
> "bi-partisan" corn belt political slop, that
> anybody in their right mind, regardless of party,
> supports in Iowa. All politics is "local" on
> "ethanol/biofuels", if they want to be elected to
> any office in the "ethanol/biofuel" "belt", even
> to dog catcher.
>
> This is just as with the Orange Man's EPA
> proposing rulemaking to increase the "bio-fuel"
> mandate in an election year, affecting how much
> ethanal/biofuel the rest of us will be forced, by
> a "gubmint" imposed mandate, to consume and pay
> for, in order to prop up political support swing
> states like these.... Go figure?
>
> It would probably be better for the environment,
> although not highway safety, if we were drinking
> the ethanol...
Just came back froM Oklahoma and Colorado where you can buy ethanol free gas. Available at any Sinclair or Kum and Go, it cheaper and the MPG’s is Phenomenal
