+1 for T.H.R.U.S.H. analogy!

Declared war? Nah. They just keep upping the ante. They declared war a long time ago.

At this rate, cars will run on ethanol and Soylent Green.
Funny, right? Not so much. If irrational mandates based on faux science are allowed to prevail, the ultimate result will not only ruin cars, but also the industry that makes them. Besides gun ownership, there is no greater expression of freedom than owning a car. It means freedom to travel, and to be independent. And the left hates independent.

Very bad Government intrusion. Bad for consumers, taxpayers AND the environment.

Would be nice to sue the EPA for damaging the environment by creating additional CO2 and consuming valuable water by this action, which it clearly does.

If any of these guys had any sense, they'd be pushing for vegetable oil based diesel, which is overwhelmingly the best form of solar energy available. I semi-support such initiatives (but prefer private versions), because the most effective means of defending against Middle Eastern threats of any kind is to take away their oil money supply. They'll be right back in the middle ages in a decade.

yeah, I agree with that one. if the government gets into it, it CANT be efficient or effective, not to mention the violation of our rights

and inflation is zero too...

Your mistake is looking at the "unexpected consequences" of a policy. Which are actually fully expected by anyone with a brain and rudimentary knowledge of economics and markets. Which excludes the EPA and almost all of government...

I have a Stihl chainsaw in the shop because its
carb can't handle the alcohol in the gasoline.
don't yet know the cost -- for a new carb! -- j
.

5 of my 6 road vehicles are diesel - Ford 7.3, Benz 05 CDI (last of the "dirty" diesels), 2 pre emissions test deceiving VW's, and a Cat. I have located ethanol-free stations for my only gasoline-powered vehicle.

Should the volume of refined gasoline without ethanol rise in response to the market's rational response to the problems and resulting expense precipitated by ethanol, then I am sure the EPA will attempt to stop the making of ANY gasoline without ethanol. Meanwhile, since turbo-charging and electronic control, diesels are my choice.

A better alcohol fuel would be butanol ( http://www.biobutanol.com/ ). It has nearly the same energy density as gasoline, with a higher octane rating, and a high cetane rating, which makes it a good diesel supplement as well. Butanol also has a lower volatility than gasoline, making it a safer fuel, and it doesn't have the affinity for water adsorption like the lower weight alcohols (methanol, ethanol, isopropyl alcohol, e.g.), so it can be pumped through existing gasoline and diesel pipelines.

The usual methods for butanol production involve the ABE process ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butanol... ) originally developed in 1916 to use coal as feedstock to produce acetone for cordite (smokeless gunpowder) when the UK was running out of the imported product. That can still be used, with any hydrocarbon feed, but new methods result in higher butanol content.

Well, it's all about the carrot and stick approach when it comes to dealing with the EPA. They write their rules basically forcing you to commit fraud. Take Flex Fuel cars, for instance. The EPA rates the fuel economy of a car designed to run on E85 by the amount of gasoline that it burns, not the total amount of fuel it burns. So a car that gets 15 mpg running on E85 is actually credited with getting 84 mpg because only 15% of the fuel it burns is gasoline. Never mind the fact that few people ever run their cars on E85, that's the way that the EPA credits the mileage toward the CAFE requirement.

How about eliminating the EPA altogether?

Read this last paragraph aloud to my wife who is on the other side of the room at her computer. I think now she is going to have to wipe saliva off her keyboard.

The EPA was enacted against the articles of the ratified constitution. The president should have vetoed it. If the EPA was his baby, congress should have thrown it out.

Back in 1976, I'll never forget the awful smog in LA as I (choke! choke!) descended from the desert to visit a brother who used to live there.
I drove my Mustang all the way from Alabama.

California got a handle on the automobile smog ok without the EPA. It was really BAD in the 60's, but is better now.

I'd like to get rid of the EPA altogether.
Enough educated if not indoctrinated people in the USA have become environmentally conscious enough to let the states handle that job.

I have a 2008 chevrolet truck which is supposedly set up for E-85 OR regular gasoline.

I have never actually run the E-85 fuel (what for really ?).

But I was forced to pay for the ability to run it by, no doubt, some law the EPA forced on GM.

I say get rid of the EPA's ability to make these stupid rules.

The other problem with ethanol is its very low BTUs, I have an E85 capable engine, most GM vehicles do actually - odds are if you have a GM truck that does not have a yellow gas cap, but has a tow package, it is still probably a flex fuel vehicle but they don't want you using ethanol and towing something.

I tried a tank once in my 2015 Colorado crew/Z71, my Mpg fell like a rock, from around 17 on California normal/shitty blend to about 9. It drove 'normally' but the engine management was throwing a lot more fuel into the engine automatically. Dealer said that was normal for E85, pulling my trailer, I'd get like 4 or 5 I would guess... So obviously a lot more CO2 emission.

GM won't allow it in my wife's Chevy Volt, while it might be fine for something like that where the ICE/apu is only there to charge the battery if you exhaust the range, it also rarely needs to be filled, she might go 4 months without stopping at a gas station, so the corrosive E85 would eat through the fuel system.

Maybe my opinion is from being dropped on my head as a baby, but how is the cultivation of corn to extend fuel supplies cost effective?
As I understand it, Ethanol cannot be conveyed through efficient pipelines. It is also fairly corrosive It must be shipped in trucks using, well, diesel.
Also, I did read this....That certain Latin "America" nations are up in arms because their main grain staple has gone UP in price due to the consumption of corn converted now into mandated fuel additives.
Do you think we could muster enough members of the National Guard to encircle DC, round the traitors up (Government anybody) and drive them into the sea? This will keep the EPA busy managing the pollution.

How about a really unique proposal- that the EPA be scaled back 50% immediately, and get out of specifying fuels altogether.

There needs to be a letter/fax/email/phone campaign to get the ethanol subsidy stopped.
Yeah, okay, like the DC folks will listen. They count on Farm Lobby for big campaign donations at election time. So, nothing will be done to change anything. As usual.

The EPA has really never been about protecting the environment. Its purpose is to bring subsidies and jobs to its allies, and take them away from its foes.

big deal. when you realize that the weather pattern is getting colder that will mean that the growth of crops to include corn will diminish so we will see less ethanol made. the law will not therefore have an effect.

7.3 Powerstroke diesel......... Ahhhhhh............