"Small government" GOP takes a break from all-nighter to screw taxpayers, consumers.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: Corn
There is a government mandate that says MTBE producers must pollute ground water?
SuperTool, why are you arguing a point you are obviously ignorant about? "MTBE producers" didn't directly pollute ground water: reformulated gasoline using MTBE did. Gasoline companies were forced by the Clean Air Act to use this refomulated gasoline. Only a liberal would penalize a company for complying with a federal mandate.
OK, let's go on that assumption that MTBE reformulated gas pollutes the ground water.
What should the government do about it in the energy bill?
A) Drop the requirement for reformulated gas that ultimately results in this pollution.
B) Nothing. Let states deal with it.
C) Provide immunity to MTBE producers so this pollution can continue with impunity.

That the GOP chose C is very telling about their approach to business and environment, and where their priorities lie. They chose to protect business instead of addressing the issue that results in carcinogens being in drinking water.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Alcohol - either Ethanol or Methanol used as a fuel does not have the energy capacity that gasoline has.
A gasoline powered vehicle needs a air-fuel ratio at 15:1 to acheive a burn that provides enough energy
to operate the mechanisms that are a recripicating engine.
The alcohol air-fuel ratio is 8:1, so right off the bat it takes 2 gallons of alcohol to provide the power
that would have been acheived with 1 gallon of gasoline. This is fine as long as the alcohol is for sale
at 1/2 the price of gasoline - or less, that's the economic side.

Alcohol - methanol especially and ethanol to a slightly lesser degree, are classified as corrosive liquids,
and with their nature being as such, they damage many metals, steel, aluminum, magnesium are
attacked by liquid alcohol, and since both are hygroscopic in nature, they absorb water in vapor form directly
from the atmosphere, diluting their potential energy level and adding another corrosive element into the mixture -
water, which will increase the damage especially to the above mentioned metals.
The racing industry which commonly uses alcohol for fuel, drains their fuel cells nightly and after each
event - as they have learned the hard way what happens with alcohol and it's appetite for parts.

The 10% Oxygenization enrichment that is allowed in some states, used to come with the risk of
voiding the warranty of the vehicle, as the alcohol would attack the seals and rubber materials
that were used to connect fuel lines, and the internal contraptions that make up the metering
devices for carburators and fuel injectors where elastomers were used.
There are advanced fluro-polomers that are resistant to the attack of alcohol, but resistant is not 'Proof".

Although the burned fuel vapors are less overall damaging to the environment per se, they are
extremely discomforting to the eyes, nose and throats of living animals. Not quite as noxious
as Nitromethane fumes or tear gas, but almost as intolerable.

As CAD did point out, the best solution for a viable and renewable fuel source would be the
fuels derived from organic products that are classified as Bio-Diesel. That is where we should
be concentrating to make a break from petroleum fuels - but it would be at least a 20 year plan to
phase in bio-diesel burning vehicles as the gasoline burners are phased out.
Any power plant or vehicle that is now capable of burning fuel oils or diesel fuel is almost there
now, and only small modifications would be needed to make that change.
However the other 95% of the vehicles would be the ones that either would have to be replaced
by technology, or a engine replacement would be needed to make that happen.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: SuperTool
OK, let's go on that assumption that MTBE reformulated gas pollutes the ground water.
What should the government do about it in the energy bill?
A) Drop the requirement for reformulated gas that ultimately results in this pollution.
B) Nothing. Let states deal with it.
C) Provide immunity to MTBE producers so this pollution can continue with impunity.

That the GOP chose C is very telling about their approach to business and environment, and where their priorities lie. They chose to protect business instead of addressing the issue that results in carcinogens being in drinking water.
If they chose A - you would have bashed them for rolling back envirnmental regulations
If they chose B - you'd say they don't care about and ignore the environment and also bash Bush for causing state's budget problems.

So do YOU have any suggestions that won't end up being used as bashing points?

CkG
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: Corn
Only a conservative would call anyone who doesn't agree with him a "liberal".
So, are you trying to say that SuperTool isn't a liberal? LOL, Tool and I have been arguing for years, I know where he's coming from.
If caring about not having carcinogens in the water supply over energy supplier profits makes me a liberal, I am one, and proud of it.
If being conservative means protecting energy companies over protecting people's health, are you proud of being one?
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: SuperTool
OK, let's go on that assumption that MTBE reformulated gas pollutes the ground water.
What should the government do about it in the energy bill?
A) Drop the requirement for reformulated gas that ultimately results in this pollution.
B) Nothing. Let states deal with it.
C) Provide immunity to MTBE producers so this pollution can continue with impunity.

That the GOP chose C is very telling about their approach to business and environment, and where their priorities lie. They chose to protect business instead of addressing the issue that results in carcinogens being in drinking water.
If they chose A - you would have bashed them for rolling back envirnmental regulations
If they chose B - you'd say they don't care about and ignore the environment and also bash Bush because of causing state's budget problems.

So do YOU have any suggestions that won't end up being used as bashing points?

CkG
If they chose A, I would be very happy about it. I posted previously on this oxygenation requirement.
In case you haven't noticed
If they chose B, it would be status quo.
Instead they chose C. Now if republicans believe there is no pollution problem, why is there a need to provide an immunity for pollution related lawsuits. If they believe there is a pollution problem, why aren't they addressing the problem instead of the lawsuits resulting from people being hurt by the problem.
It's not hard to spot a hypocrite. Just ask him if he is a republican.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
I don't see how providing legal immunity "fixes" the problem. I think they should fix it. I would choose "A." Offsetting one environmental problem with another is NO solution in my book. :)
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
So you two are in favor of rolling back EPA requirements? Why did they put the oxygenate requirment in there? Was it to reduce smog? Wouldn't rolling it back be trading one problem for another? I'm curious what the environmentalists would say about such a rollback.

I'm not sure the ratio of MTBE in gas, but here in Iowa we have gas that is 10% ethanol. That helps reduce our dependance on foreign oil, no?

CkG
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Alcohol - either Ethanol or Methanol used as a fuel does not have the energy capacity that gasoline has.
A gasoline powered vehicle needs a air-fuel ratio at 15:1 to acheive a burn that provides enough energy
to operate the mechanisms that are a recripicating engine.
The alcohol air-fuel ratio is 8:1, so right off the bat it takes 2 gallons of alcohol to provide the power
that would have been acheived with 1 gallon of gasoline. This is fine as long as the alcohol is for sale
at 1/2 the price of gasoline - or less, that's the economic side.

Alcohol - methanol especially and ethanol to a slightly lesser degree, are classified as corrosive liquids,
and with their nature being as such, they damage many metals, steel, aluminum, magnesium are
attacked by liquid alcohol, and since both are hygroscopic in nature, they absorb water in vapor form directly
from the atmosphere, diluting their potential energy level and adding another corrosive element into the mixture -
water, which will increase the damage especially to the above mentioned metals.
The racing industry which commonly uses alcohol for fuel, drains their fuel cells nightly and after each
event - as they have learned the hard way what happens with alcohol and it's appetite for parts.

The 10% Oxygenization enrichment that is allowed in some states, used to come with the risk of
voiding the warranty of the vehicle, as the alcohol would attack the seals and rubber materials
that were used to connect fuel lines, and the internal contraptions that make up the metering
devices for carburators and fuel injectors where elastomers were used.
There are advanced fluro-polomers that are resistant to the attack of alcohol, but resistant is not 'Proof".

Although the burned fuel vapors are less overall damaging to the environment per se, they are
extremely discomforting to the eyes, nose and throats of living animals. Not quite as noxious
as Nitromethane fumes or tear gas, but almost as intolerable.

As CAD did point out, the best solution for a viable and renewable fuel source would be the
fuels derived from organic products that are classified as Bio-Diesel. That is where we should
be concentrating to make a break from petroleum fuels - but it would be at least a 20 year plan to
phase in bio-diesel burning vehicles as the gasoline burners are phased out.
Any power plant or vehicle that is now capable of burning fuel oils or diesel fuel is almost there
now, and only small modifications would be needed to make that change.
However the other 95% of the vehicles would be the ones that either would have to be replaced
by technology, or a engine replacement would be needed to make that happen.
I don't think Ethanol is a "fix-all" but since it is a renewable source or energy and helps fuel burn cleaner, I don't think it should be overlooked as a viable alternative. Now Bio-diesel is another story. Currently you can get B-2 which is 2% Bio. I've read that Normal diesel engines seem to be fine with this fuel and almost no modifications upto 20% blend. Ofcourse there is the problem of rubber components the higher blend you use but those would be the "mods" that would be needed.
Some fleets have switched to 100% bio - like some school districts and even some municipalities. They are leading this drive and I tip my hat to them for taking the initiative.

CkG
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
So you two are in favor of rolling back EPA requirements? Why did they put the oxygenate requirment in there? Was it to reduce smog? Wouldn't rolling it back be trading one problem for another? I'm curious what the environmentalists would say about such a rollback.

I'm not sure the ratio of MTBE in gas, but here in Iowa we have gas that is 10% ethanol. That helps reduce our dependance on foreign oil, no?

CkG
Oxygenation requirement has not been successful in reducing fog, it puts additional financial burden on consumer to subsidize MBTE and ethanol manufacturer, and it results in ground water pollution by cancer causing MBTE. Yes, I am in favor of rolling back this EPA requirement. I am not an environmentalist, but I do care what's in the air I breathe and water I drink.
The reduction in foreign oil dependence is miniscule, can be achieved by improving fuel economy and removing tax subsidies for large SUV purchases, and in my mind secondary to water quality.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
So you two are in favor of rolling back EPA requirements? Why did they put the oxygenate requirment in there? Was it to reduce smog? Wouldn't rolling it back be trading one problem for another? I'm curious what the environmentalists would say about such a rollback.

I'm not sure the ratio of MTBE in gas, but here in Iowa we have gas that is 10% ethanol. That helps reduce our dependance on foreign oil, no?

CkG
There are far better ways to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. For starters, giving out the same kind of SUV tax breaks (i.e. "business equipment" loophole) to Hybrid vehicles would go a tremendous way towards convincing consumers to gravitate towards vehicles that get 50+ MPG. Yes, there's a small tax break already for hybrids but nothing like the one for large vehicles over 6,000#.

Whatever MBTE's effects on smog, they're not worth polluting the ground water over. Trading one problem for another - right?
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Yep - that's the environmental left for you...bashing cleaner(and renewable) fuel incentives. I guess we should just go back to MTBE, or better yet - just go to plain gas.

I guess we should just abandon Bio-diesel incentives since it too can be turned into a 100% renewable fuel source. Bah...but yeah those nasty Rs just want all your money to go to big oil or new alternative fuel energys.
While several have already argued the value (merit) of alleged pro-environment incentives, it is clear that very little money goes to TRUE alternatives to burning fossil fuels. The most misleading element is the notion that investment in clean coal has a positive environmental impact. My understanding is that some companies merely treated their coal, collected their government cheese, and then forgot about it until the next payment is due from Uncle Sam.

clean coal Wabash gasification

Unlike the project above most of the "clean coal" was smoke and mirrors. Unfortunately even this project uses the common misleading methodology of using variable assessments to make all outcomes look good . . . it's kinda like a car commercial where they compare one feature of their car to one feature of five other cars but it's a different feature in every comparison.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
So you two are in favor of rolling back EPA requirements? Why did they put the oxygenate requirment in there? Was it to reduce smog? Wouldn't rolling it back be trading one problem for another? I'm curious what the environmentalists would say about such a rollback.

I'm not sure the ratio of MTBE in gas, but here in Iowa we have gas that is 10% ethanol. That helps reduce our dependance on foreign oil, no?

CkG
There are far better ways to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. For starters, giving out the same kind of SUV tax breaks (i.e. "business equipment" loophole) to Hybrid vehicles would go a tremendous way towards convincing consumers to gravitate towards vehicles that get 50+ MPG. Yes, there's a small tax break already for hybrids but nothing like the one for large vehicles over 6,000#.

Whatever MBTE's effects on smog, they're not worth polluting the ground water over. Trading one problem for another - right?
I don't think I was defending MTBE - just stating that the oxygenate requirment was put in place to help with smog(etc). Now SuperTool says that it didn't help with smog...but I haven't read that data. MTBE needs to be done away with, and ethanol allows the EPA requirement to stand while also being a renewable source of energy. 10% additive would most definately have an effect on foreign dependance especially if coupled with hybrids and other efficient fuel burning processes. It would be interesting to see what Brazil's "envirnomental" and "health" effect from ethanol is, as it would provide a better argument for or against it's effects. I understand that ethanol has shown up in a water well somewhere...but so? If there is a spill or leak...wouldn't any substance show up in the ground water? IMO the fight should be against the leakers and spillers - not the substance that was leaked.

CkG
 

Wolfdog

Member
Aug 25, 2001
187
0
0
You know I saw an article six months back of a group of school kids reengineered a school bus. It ran on recycled fat from fast food places. Sure your exhaust smells like Mcnuggets, but it runs cleaner and off a waste product that would be otherwise not useful for much. I believe it was on cnn or the like. I do wish that both the senate and congress could put aside the "republican vs democrat" feces and start doing things that will benefit everyone in the nation. Like providing top notch healthcare for people that who have served. The VA system in the here and now sucks when it comes to health care. Is this any way we should be treating people that have given everything upto and including limbs? There have also been quite a few technological leaps in solar power, why not start giving them a try? I certainly would like creating housing power grids where you sell your excess power to the grid. You know that, that would be too easy for them to look forward and make positive change though.


This is the government here folks. You could replace them with the "machine that goes beep" and thier jobs would be replicated to the T.

 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
There was a time where they were looking at the use of turbine engines to power autos
Chrysler had 50 of their turbine cars out for testing during the mid 60's.

Turbines will burn almost anything, if it's a flamable liquid - from white gas to corn oil,
Jack in the Box deep fryer shortening waste (Filtered) to reclaimed crankcase drippings.
They are basically a jet engine without all the special fixtures for flight safety.
RollsRoyce made a variant of their RB211 Gas Turbine (Jet Turbine for the L-1011)
for use in developing countries that had access to cheap oil, like Saudi Arabia to
supply electrical power close to the fuel source.

There's always something, just the motivation to do it.
 

wirelessenabled

Platinum Member
Feb 5, 2001
2,190
41
91
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
"it would dramatically increase the use of ethanol, biodiesel and wind generation and deliver natural gas from Alaska to the Midwest, both of which would have important economic benefits for our state and lower prices for consumers. I worked hard to pass this bill, because I believe that we need a national energy policy that accomplishes those goals."
...
"However, I am not willing to accept a national energy policy that does not take advantage of ethanol and other renewable fuels."
...
"The tax incentive for ethanol and biodiesel will ensure continued growth of the renewable fuels industry and provide an additional $4 billion for the Highway Trust Fund that funds our nation's roads, bridges, and other transportation needs."

Guess who?

;)

CkG

Better read up on the natural gas pipeline from Alaska that is being promoted. Another huge subsidy for the energy powers. I believe in Capitalism with a capital C. If building the 2500 mile natural gas pipeline through Canada to Montana makes so much economic sense why are there not any companies willing to step up to the plate to finance it?

Energy bill is mostly about subsidy for the large hydrocarbon producers with a small bone thrown to the renewable sources.
 

Genesys

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2003
1,536
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Corn
I think we should return to taxation levels of the Clinton administration.
LOL. You chastise me for "assuming", yet you immediately prove my assumption was correct!
Returning taxes to Clinton levels would increase taxes on both poor and rich. Again, the rich did fine under Clinton administration, even though they bitched every second of it.


the poor have nothing to tax.
 

Ferocious

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2000
4,584
2
71
Only the blind and naive could ever think the modern GOP wants smaller government.

They love to spend too much.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS