Bad news.........
10-14-2010, 01:41 PM
#1
Bad news.........
http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...ol14_ST2_N.htm
Ethanol has only 65.8% as much energy as gasoline. A car that gets 25 miles per gallon on gasoline would get 24.1 mpg on E10 and 23.7 on E15.
Ethanol has only 65.8% as much energy as gasoline. A car that gets 25 miles per gallon on gasoline would get 24.1 mpg on E10 and 23.7 on E15.
Reply
0
0
10-14-2010, 01:58 PM
#3
So that's 1 mpg less. Say you have a 10gal gas tank, you fill about every week. That's 10 miles you lose per week. 10 miles from a 25mpg car is 2/5ths of a gallon of gas you lose per week. Multiply .4gal and 52weeks and that's 20 gallons of extra gas you have to buy per year. Big deal.
Plus, I assume it will bring gas prices down a little bit, so it probably evens out.
Plus, I assume it will bring gas prices down a little bit, so it probably evens out.
Reply
0
0
10-14-2010, 02:00 PM
#4
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
no, it increases costs. there's zero benefit to this gov't forced intervention. the cost of corn went up. the cost of gas went up. the gov't forced food to be used for gas production and not food. the CO benefits are negated.
Reply
0
0
10-14-2010, 02:08 PM
#7
Elite Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 2,910
Total Cats: 51
So, what your telling me OP is that you finally can explain why you need 30-40% more fuel?
Thanks, you cleared it up! Energy potential of gas /= energy potential of E85
Thanks, you cleared it up! Energy potential of gas /= energy potential of E85
Reply
0
0
10-14-2010, 02:09 PM
#8
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
Every time the gov't passes an economic interventionist law, they are redistributing wealth from the majority to a small group. Because it reduces overall productivity, it's a net negative. A negative-sum game.
The majority of the public do not know the word "CORPORATISM". It is when Big Biz and Gov't get in bed together. "Regulations" are passed, sold as "good for energy independence" or what-have-you, which in reality are written by the Big Players, often at the expense of the smaller players - because the big boyz have the big budgets for lobbying.
Corporatism is against the basic principles of Free Market Capitalism. Corporatism distorts the free market. Because the word Corporatism is not in the Newspeak Dictionary, many are misled to believe that lobbying is part of the "free market" and thus more gov't is needed to control the "evil corporations" who want "more free market". This plays into the hands of Big Biz. The solution is not more gov't - the solution is to neuter the gov'ts ability to write economic interventionist laws. The power to write economic interventionist laws is the power to dole out economic favors. This it NOT to say that the gov't should not prosecute fraud or violation of other basic laws, those are proper roles for gov't.
Being pro free market is NOT the same as being pro Big Biz. The reason Big Biz loves regulation, is because they have the budget for it, and can influence it to smother their smaller competitors, by writing regulations which are disproportionately more expensive for the little players. Here is the phenomenon of "Regulatory Capture":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
Regulatory capture occurs when a state regulatory agency created to act in the public interest instead acts in favor of the commercial or special interests that dominate in the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure, as it can act as an encouragement for large firms to produce negative externalities. The agencies are called Captured Agencies.
For public choice theorists, regulatory capture occurs because groups or individuals with a high-stakes interest in the outcome of policy or regulatory decisions can be expected to focus their resources and energies in attempting to gain the policy outcomes they prefer, while members of the public, each with only a tiny individual stake in the outcome, will ignore it altogether. Regulatory capture refers to when this imbalance of focused resources devoted to a particular policy outcome is successful at "capturing" influence with the staff or commission members of the regulatory agency, so that the preferred policy outcomes of the special interest are implemented.
Regulatory capture theory is a core focus of the branch of public choice referred to as the economics of regulation; economists in this specialty are critical of conceptualizations of governmental regulatory intervention as being motivated to protect public good. Often cited articles include Bernstein (1955), Huntington (1952), Laffont & Tirole (1991), and Levine & Forrence (1990). The theory of regulatory capture is associated with Nobel laureate economist George Stigler, one of its main developers.
The risk of regulatory capture suggests that regulatory agencies should be protected from outside influence as much as possible, or else not created at all. A captured regulatory agency that serves the interests of its invested patrons with the power of the government behind it is often worse than no regulation whatsoever.
For public choice theorists, regulatory capture occurs because groups or individuals with a high-stakes interest in the outcome of policy or regulatory decisions can be expected to focus their resources and energies in attempting to gain the policy outcomes they prefer, while members of the public, each with only a tiny individual stake in the outcome, will ignore it altogether. Regulatory capture refers to when this imbalance of focused resources devoted to a particular policy outcome is successful at "capturing" influence with the staff or commission members of the regulatory agency, so that the preferred policy outcomes of the special interest are implemented.
Regulatory capture theory is a core focus of the branch of public choice referred to as the economics of regulation; economists in this specialty are critical of conceptualizations of governmental regulatory intervention as being motivated to protect public good. Often cited articles include Bernstein (1955), Huntington (1952), Laffont & Tirole (1991), and Levine & Forrence (1990). The theory of regulatory capture is associated with Nobel laureate economist George Stigler, one of its main developers.
The risk of regulatory capture suggests that regulatory agencies should be protected from outside influence as much as possible, or else not created at all. A captured regulatory agency that serves the interests of its invested patrons with the power of the government behind it is often worse than no regulation whatsoever.
Reply
0
0
10-14-2010, 02:14 PM
#10
So that's 1 mpg less. Say you have a 10gal gas tank, you fill about every week. That's 10 miles you lose per week. 10 miles from a 25mpg car is 2/5ths of a gallon of gas you lose per week. Multiply .4gal and 52weeks and that's 20 gallons of extra gas you have to buy per year. Big deal.
Plus, I assume it will bring gas prices down a little bit, so it probably evens out.
Plus, I assume it will bring gas prices down a little bit, so it probably evens out.
do some math...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_s...el_consumption
Reply
0
0
10-14-2010, 02:15 PM
#11
Everything the gov't does benefits a special interest group. In this case, supposedly "the family farm", which in reality, are the likes of ADM and Cargill, behemoth Corn corporations. The first step was Bush's Ethanol bill. This is the next step.
Every time the gov't passes an economic interventionist law, they are redistributing wealth from the majority to a small group. Because it reduces overall productivity, it's a net negative. A negative-sum game.
Every time the gov't passes an economic interventionist law, they are redistributing wealth from the majority to a small group. Because it reduces overall productivity, it's a net negative. A negative-sum game.
Reply
0
0
10-14-2010, 02:17 PM
#12
Point I'm making is gas miliage(efficiency) is directly related to power/engine output. The less efficient the gas the less power we make and the slower we go and possibily the more likely we are to blow engines. ALL BAD
do some math...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_s...el_consumption
do some math...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_s...el_consumption
Reply
0
0
10-14-2010, 02:17 PM
#14
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
Are you trying to suggest that the nature of the individual is to be sovereign within the bounds of the natural law and that Socialistic law (or any posited law for that matter) violates individual sovereignty, no matter its promised or realized benefits, which never advantage one individual without disadvantaging another through some degree of violence?
Reply
0
0
10-14-2010, 02:23 PM
#15
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Warrington/Birmingham
Posts: 2,642
Total Cats: 42
A few 'if's' and 'maybes' granted, but I do see the OP's point.
Reply
0
0
10-14-2010, 02:28 PM
#17
OP has a point though, sure what you say is true 100% but what about the poor saps with OEM cars who have EXXX forced upon them and their dumb ECU's can't tell the difference between that and EXXX they may end up in a heap of trouble.
A few 'if's' and 'maybes' granted, but I do see the OP's point.
A few 'if's' and 'maybes' granted, but I do see the OP's point.
Reply
0
0
10-14-2010, 02:59 PM
#19
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the stability if e85? like on a scale for gas is the octane rating, what would e85 be equivilant to? I can see where dopelgagnger make sense by just adding volumes of it to make more power but it also has to be stable for timing advance and low detonation.....to make power.
Reply
0
0
