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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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?
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
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.
Earlier in the day, Daschle made known his support of the bill in an interview with a Yankton, S.D., radio station, WNAX, in which he said that while the legislation wasn't perfect, it was good news for ethanol and other renewable fuels.