Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Varchild2008 (83.80)

Ethynol in your Drinking Water



January 31, 2011 – Comments (13)

The Good Ole EPA wants to force 15% Ethynol into your Car's gas tank even if you drive an early 2003, 2002, 2001 model vehicle (like I currently do).

Well?  Why stop there?  As long as the EPA believes that it is ALMIGHTY GOD and can issue FATWAS against the American People then why not issue these FATWAS:

4)  Mandate Ethynol be added to TAP water.....  If it's safe for your Car to drink then it is safe for you to drink as well!   Then make sure to FORCE everyone to drink 8 glasses of TAP water per day.

3) Mandate that all Gas Tanks must have 10% Vitamin A,  5% Vitamin B6, 12% ZINC, and
50 grams of Phosphates in their fuel.

2)  Mandate that Fuel Filters should be built using Organic Vegetables.

1)  Mandate that all Catalytic Converters shall be able to convert Straw into Gold.   And all GOLD should be given to the Federal Govenment DEBT Relief Program.

What do you think?

Well... I think in the spirit of Dictatorships one should buy (CBOU) off the pull back... Cause we may need a ton of Caffeine just to COPE with all of the relentless Governmental Mandates.

13 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On January 31, 2011 at 5:46 PM, devoish (71.47) wrote:

In other news, the EPA has granted a waiver allowing refiners a 15% blend of ethanol into gasoline, rather than enforcing the current restiction of 10% for sale in 2001 -2006 model year vehicles.


Report this comment
#2) On January 31, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Varchild2008 (83.80) wrote:

And that 15% blend for refiners doesn't mean BLISS for all..

Not when gas station systems, pumps, etc. begin to break and corrode a-part from the extra heat invovled as Ethynol burns hotter than pure gasoline.

But? Nevermind that.... Let's just ignore the FATWA system we put into place when we decided that America needed a Dictatorship by EPA.

Report this comment
#3) On January 31, 2011 at 7:06 PM, devoish (71.47) wrote:

The EPA, I am certain, still discourages the burning of ethanol in gasoline pumps.

Report this comment
#4) On January 31, 2011 at 7:23 PM, ChrisGraley (28.65) wrote:

1) Ethanol would not exist if it wasn't subsidized.

2) The same amount on energy is needed to produce ethanol as you get out of it.

3) Ethanol degrades too much to be transported in pipelines, you have to haul it in diesel drinking trucks.

4) If ethanol does have any success at all, it leads to growing even more corn which means burning even more fossil fuels.

5) If we turned all our corn into ethanol, we could satisfy about 12% of our energy needs. For the US to get enough ethanol to totally displace gasoline, we would need to devote all of our crop land to growing just corn and we woul need to find about 20% more crop land as well.

6) Ethanol pollutes more than gasoline, not less

7) Archer Daniels Midland really loves the subsidy money.

8) Hillary Clinton voted against ethanol 17 times before she had a quick turn around right before the Presidential election. It seems that principles can be bought.

9) Even we managed to totally switch to ethanol, we would be burning even more fuel, and dependendent on another country for our food instead of our energy.

10) I'm so glad the EPA is such a caring institution that they don't let little things like the facts and end results get in the way of tax supported un-needed regulation. I can't wait to get my fuel from english muffin lobby started, so I can bribe the government, and get rich too!

Report this comment
#5) On January 31, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Imperial1964 (94.02) wrote:


While they are at it they should mandate that all Coca Cola contain 15% ethanol.  I would get on board with that.


Report this comment
#6) On January 31, 2011 at 8:24 PM, OneLegged (< 20) wrote:

Ethanol is currently subsidized at a rate of 45 cents for EVERY SINGLE GALLON produced.

 The taxpayer gets reamed from the subsidy.  They get reamed at the pump due to lower MPG with ethanol blended fuels vs. straight gasoline.  They get reamed yet again in the gorcery store.  Once again corporate America laughs it collective ass off all the way to the nearest branch of their undercapitalized, tottering mess of a Too Big To Fail bank.  Its the same old story with a slightly different script.  We, the people. are to blame for allowing this kind of crap to manifest itself everywhere we look.

Report this comment
#7) On January 31, 2011 at 8:31 PM, ChrisGraley (28.65) wrote:

Onelegged, you forgot about getting reamed by the damage done to your engine.

Report this comment
#8) On January 31, 2011 at 10:30 PM, ikkyu2 (98.18) wrote:

True dat.  Ethanol broke the heck out of my BMW turbo engine.  Turns out the seals on the high pressure fuel pump weren't designed to cope with ethanol - it was corroding them.  Required repeated replacements, then a recall and a redesign.  The fourth pump I got seems OK.

Report this comment
#9) On January 31, 2011 at 11:07 PM, OneLegged (< 20) wrote:

CG, you are correct. 


Ethanol also absorbs water from the surrounding air.  Water in your fuel system can cause corrosion is some parts on some vehicles.

Report this comment
#10) On January 31, 2011 at 11:21 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

Even Al Gore realizes that ethanol mandates were a mistake.

Report this comment
#11) On February 01, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Gemini846 (34.82) wrote:

There is a station near us that offers "Ethanol Free" gas because apparently it really tears up small engine motors like 2 cycles and lawnmowers. (And outboard boat motors which is why the station is near a big marina). They charge about $0.35 extra a gallon I guess because it's hard to find and bring in.

My dad got tired of replacing the seals on his lawn tractor.

As I understand, sugar based ethanol is actually net energy positive where corn based is not. I don't think it would really hurt us too bad if Coke and Candy went up $1 a bottle (considering our obesity epidemic) but corn into fuel is just aweful.  Bio-deisel has more promise than corn based ethanol.

Report this comment
#12) On February 01, 2011 at 2:15 PM, ChrisGraley (28.65) wrote:

Report this comment
#13) On February 02, 2011 at 10:48 AM, devoish (71.47) wrote:


Your information is outdated.

This is the conclusion from a report that absolutely trashes the EPA for reporting what seems like energy output improvements that are more due to accounting changes of how outputs and imputs are measured. The point being that the energy outputs have not improved from 1.0 btu's in to 1.09btu's out in 2002, all the way up to 2.34 btu's out in 2010 as a quick glance at the EPA reports would suggest, but instead, using consistant accounting inputs with the 2002 report, the actual 2010 improvement is 1.0 btu's in, gets you 1.42 btu's out.

For that reason, when I consider ethanol as a replacement contender for gasoline, I am more interested in the expenditure of energy to produce ethanol, and less interested in how creative we can get with allocating energy inputs to byproducts. In any case, what was approximately one BTU of ethanol output for one BTU of fossil fuel input in 2002 is now 1.4 BTUs of ethanol out for 1 BTU in, with the caveat that secondary inputs have not been considered.

Including the energy value of byproducts is one of the "accounting'' changes that make it appear that ethanol efficiency has made greater improvements than it actually has.

Primary inputs are fertilizer and pesticides and fuel costs and such. Secondary inputs which have not been considered are things like the energy cost of a combine if the farm bought an additional combine to harvest increased acreage, instead of making more efficient use of the one they already had.


Ethanol did not destroy all of BMW's products, only a small percentage, so obviously it was typical automobile design/manufacturing issues, not ethanol.

Best regards,


PS. Right now - even as we type - the ethanol subsidy is $.45 cents/gallon of produced ethanol, and the price of E85 at the pump is more than $.45 cents cheaper than gasoline - Then the US government showed considerable forsight in their investment in ethanol and gets to do a happy dance.

Another way to look at it, is with a .42 percent better energy output from ethanol over the gasoline input it is like finding that much more oil growing in the US midwest. Additional thanks go out to photosynthesis and the sun.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners