Comments on: E85 Boondoggle of the Day: CA to Subsidize E85 Stations http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/e85-boondoggle-of-the-day-ca-to-subsidize-e85-stations/ The Truth About Cars is dedicated to providing candid, unbiased automobile reviews and the latest in auto industry news. Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:46:46 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Engineer http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/e85-boondoggle-of-the-day-ca-to-subsidize-e85-stations/comment-page-1/#comment-176012 Engineer Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:17:58 +0000 http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/news-blog/e85-boondoggle-of-the-day-ca-to-subsidize-e85-stations/#comment-176012 <i>E85 couldn’t begin to reach that level of subsidation in a hundred years.</i> Hang in there, Martin, ethanol may get there rather quickly... <i>So, over time more biofuel will be adopted in California, probably mostly blended as E10 in regular gasoline.</i> Considering some basic, scientific facts (such as ethanol's properties), that no amount of federal subsidies ("your tax dollars at work") or research, will change, it is highly unlikely that the eventual workable biofuel will be ethanol. So, enough subsidies already. E85 couldn’t begin to reach that level of subsidation in a hundred years.
Hang in there, Martin, ethanol may get there rather quickly…

So, over time more biofuel will be adopted in California, probably mostly blended as E10 in regular gasoline.
Considering some basic, scientific facts (such as ethanol’s properties), that no amount of federal subsidies (”your tax dollars at work”) or research, will change, it is highly unlikely that the eventual workable biofuel will be ethanol. So, enough subsidies already.

]]> By: Martin Albright http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/e85-boondoggle-of-the-day-ca-to-subsidize-e85-stations/comment-page-1/#comment-175302 Martin Albright Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:22:26 +0000 http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/news-blog/e85-boondoggle-of-the-day-ca-to-subsidize-e85-stations/#comment-175302 My gripe with this type of article is that it seems to imply that E85 is not a practical alternative because it is "government subsidized." Do you honestly think the petroleum industry is <em><strong>not</strong></em> government subsidized? The fact that the subsidy may not be paid directly to the industry doesn't mean the industry isn't being subsidized. How much of our trillion dollar military spending is dedicated to protecting the world's oil supply or fighting the secondary effects thereof? E85 couldn't <em>begin</em> to reach that level of subsidation in a hundred years. My gripe with this type of article is that it seems to imply that E85 is not a practical alternative because it is “government subsidized.”

Do you honestly think the petroleum industry is not government subsidized? The fact that the subsidy may not be paid directly to the industry doesn’t mean the industry isn’t being subsidized. How much of our trillion dollar military spending is dedicated to protecting the world’s oil supply or fighting the secondary effects thereof? E85 couldn’t begin to reach that level of subsidation in a hundred years.

]]> By: Cavendel http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/e85-boondoggle-of-the-day-ca-to-subsidize-e85-stations/comment-page-1/#comment-174792 Cavendel Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:14:56 +0000 http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/news-blog/e85-boondoggle-of-the-day-ca-to-subsidize-e85-stations/#comment-174792 I like some of Hollywood's movies. If California slips away, can I still watch Batman 6? I like some of Hollywood’s movies. If California slips away, can I still watch Batman 6?

]]> By: Banned User http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/e85-boondoggle-of-the-day-ca-to-subsidize-e85-stations/comment-page-1/#comment-174412 Banned User Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:35:36 +0000 http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/news-blog/e85-boondoggle-of-the-day-ca-to-subsidize-e85-stations/#comment-174412 There is much evidence that burning ethanol in your vehicle will increase certain pollutants, and it does increase smog over gas. Plus a whole nother level of industry is added and all that diesel farm equipment pollutes like what, a hundred times the level of a modern car not to mention the product must be trucked in and out and large amounts of energy are required to produce it which produces more pollution. Then the taxpayer subsidizes ethanol at 51 cents to the gallon, foreign ethanol has a tarriff imposed on it and we use our food as fuel. Resulting in high food prices which the citizens are stuck paying for.(double whammy) Sounds more like the USSR than the USA. Then the facts that it requires huge amounts of land and water, evaporates at an incredible rate and absorbs water. It is a fuel only a government could love, and that is only because it is not their money they are wasting. There is much evidence that burning ethanol in your vehicle will increase certain pollutants, and it does increase smog over gas. Plus a whole nother level of industry is added and all that diesel farm equipment pollutes like what, a hundred times the level of a modern car not to mention the product must be trucked in and out and large amounts of energy are required to produce it which produces more pollution. Then the taxpayer subsidizes ethanol at 51 cents to the gallon, foreign ethanol has a tarriff imposed on it and we use our food as fuel. Resulting in high food prices which the citizens are stuck paying for.(double whammy) Sounds more like the USSR than the USA.

Then the facts that it requires huge amounts of land and water, evaporates at an incredible rate and absorbs water. It is a fuel only a government could love, and that is only because it is not their money they are wasting.

]]> By: 1985 Gripen http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/e85-boondoggle-of-the-day-ca-to-subsidize-e85-stations/comment-page-1/#comment-174242 1985 Gripen Wed, 27 Feb 2008 06:51:27 +0000 http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/news-blog/e85-boondoggle-of-the-day-ca-to-subsidize-e85-stations/#comment-174242 <p>In the editorial post Mr. Niedermeyer uses a badly out-of-date myth that ethanol is “energy negative”, that is that it takes more fossil fuel to produce ethanol than the ethanol returns. The most well known (and since debunked) study to claim this was by David Pimentel, a well known ethanol critic, back in 2005. Various studies since then have proven Mr. Pimentel wrong, including one in the journal Science in 2006.</p> <p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_energy_balance" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_energy_balance</a></p> <p>So Mr. Niedermeyer is using a three-year-old debunked study on ethanol to rail against it.</p> <p>Also, there’s the claim that ethanol “increases emissions”. Care to elaborate and show some evidence, Mr. Niedermeyer? Because from everything I’ve read on the subject states ethanol actually REDUCES emissions.</p> <p>Lastly, and this is directed at the commenters here as well: don’t blame your living situation on California. Every state has the right to govern itself. California, if it were a country of its own, would be the world’s SIXTH-largest economy. California provides a disproportionate amount of wealth to the rest of the country. Don’t go hatin’ on California because you’re jealous. Why not try making your backwater state a little better instead of trying to tear down a state that should be a model for yours.</p>

In the editorial post Mr. Niedermeyer uses a badly out-of-date myth that ethanol is “energy negative”, that is that it takes more fossil fuel to produce ethanol than the ethanol returns. The most well known (and since debunked) study to claim this was by David Pimentel, a well known ethanol critic, back in 2005. Various studies since then have proven Mr. Pimentel wrong, including one in the journal Science in 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_energy_balance

So Mr. Niedermeyer is using a three-year-old debunked study on ethanol to rail against it.

Also, there’s the claim that ethanol “increases emissions”. Care to elaborate and show some evidence, Mr. Niedermeyer? Because from everything I’ve read on the subject states ethanol actually REDUCES emissions.

Lastly, and this is directed at the commenters here as well: don’t blame your living situation on California. Every state has the right to govern itself. California, if it were a country of its own, would be the world’s SIXTH-largest economy. California provides a disproportionate amount of wealth to the rest of the country. Don’t go hatin’ on California because you’re jealous. Why not try making your backwater state a little better instead of trying to tear down a state that should be a model for yours.

]]> By: Banned User http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/e85-boondoggle-of-the-day-ca-to-subsidize-e85-stations/comment-page-1/#comment-174102 Banned User Wed, 27 Feb 2008 04:26:49 +0000 http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/news-blog/e85-boondoggle-of-the-day-ca-to-subsidize-e85-stations/#comment-174102 Wheat inventories at lowest level in 60 years wheat prices at highest level ever and the government subsidizes making our food into fuel. Only the government could do something so economically idiotic. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7264239.stm Wheat inventories at lowest level in 60 years wheat prices at highest level ever and the government subsidizes making our food into fuel. Only the government could do something so economically idiotic.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7264239.stm

]]> By: EJ_San_Fran http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/e85-boondoggle-of-the-day-ca-to-subsidize-e85-stations/comment-page-1/#comment-174082 EJ_San_Fran Wed, 27 Feb 2008 04:15:30 +0000 http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/news-blog/e85-boondoggle-of-the-day-ca-to-subsidize-e85-stations/#comment-174082 California has a renewable fuel standard that obligates the oil companies to sell more biofuel. That's a good thing, because there is a strong incentive for 2nd generation biofuel that helps much better than corn ethanol to reduce greenhouse gases. So, over time more biofuel <strong>will</strong> be adopted in California, probably mostly blended as E10 in regular gasoline. Am I in favor of subsidized E85 pumps? It could be helpful. There needs to be a plan, though, to make sure they will be really used. That requires offering E85 that is sufficiently cheap to make it a sensible buy for consumers. California has a renewable fuel standard that obligates the oil companies to sell more biofuel. That’s a good thing, because there is a strong incentive for 2nd generation biofuel that helps much better than corn ethanol to reduce greenhouse gases.

So, over time more biofuel will be adopted in California, probably mostly blended as E10 in regular gasoline.

Am I in favor of subsidized E85 pumps? It could be helpful. There needs to be a plan, though, to make sure they will be really used. That requires offering E85 that is sufficiently cheap to make it a sensible buy for consumers.

]]> By: jkross22 http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/e85-boondoggle-of-the-day-ca-to-subsidize-e85-stations/comment-page-1/#comment-173812 jkross22 Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:46:19 +0000 http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/news-blog/e85-boondoggle-of-the-day-ca-to-subsidize-e85-stations/#comment-173812 Ahhh California - the place where science and facts play second fiddle to feeling good about yourself. Here, we trade intellectual curiosity for whatever makes us feel like we're doing something good. That should be the new state slogan. Ahhh California – the place where science and facts play second fiddle to feeling good about yourself. Here, we trade intellectual curiosity for whatever makes us feel like we’re doing something good.

That should be the new state slogan.

]]> By: NoSubstitute http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/e85-boondoggle-of-the-day-ca-to-subsidize-e85-stations/comment-page-1/#comment-173742 NoSubstitute Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:21:03 +0000 http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/news-blog/e85-boondoggle-of-the-day-ca-to-subsidize-e85-stations/#comment-173742 "P71_CrownVic : California, for the good of the country, needs to float away." The feeling is mutual. “P71_CrownVic :
California, for the good of the country, needs to float away.”

The feeling is mutual.

]]> By: David Holzman http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/e85-boondoggle-of-the-day-ca-to-subsidize-e85-stations/comment-page-1/#comment-173642 David Holzman Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:22:31 +0000 http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/news-blog/e85-boondoggle-of-the-day-ca-to-subsidize-e85-stations/#comment-173642 It does cost more. That's why the feds (and probably some states) have to subsidize it. It does cost more. That’s why the feds (and probably some states) have to subsidize it.

]]> By: Facebook User http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/e85-boondoggle-of-the-day-ca-to-subsidize-e85-stations/comment-page-1/#comment-173622 Facebook User Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:21:01 +0000 http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/news-blog/e85-boondoggle-of-the-day-ca-to-subsidize-e85-stations/#comment-173622 California, for the good of the country, needs to float away. California, for the good of the country, needs to float away.

]]> By: paulpita07 http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/e85-boondoggle-of-the-day-ca-to-subsidize-e85-stations/comment-page-1/#comment-173322 paulpita07 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 21:05:06 +0000 http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/news-blog/e85-boondoggle-of-the-day-ca-to-subsidize-e85-stations/#comment-173322 I would say the California Environmental Protection Agency's Air Resource Board is just as reliable as the New York Times. There should be more studies into the true effect of E85 on the environment. If it in fact used more fossil fuels to refine, would it not cost more? I would say the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Air Resource Board is just as reliable as the New York Times. There should be more studies into the true effect of E85 on the environment. If it in fact used more fossil fuels to refine, would it not cost more?

]]> By: Glenn Swanson http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/e85-boondoggle-of-the-day-ca-to-subsidize-e85-stations/comment-page-1/#comment-173282 Glenn Swanson Tue, 26 Feb 2008 21:01:28 +0000 http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/news-blog/e85-boondoggle-of-the-day-ca-to-subsidize-e85-stations/#comment-173282 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_creep" rel="nofollow">Wiki</a> has a definition for exactly what this is: <strong>Mission creep</strong> <em>is the expansion of a project or mission beyond its original goals, often after initial successes. The term often implies a certain disapproval of newly adopted goals by the user of the term. Mission creep is usually considered undesirable due to the dangerous path of each success breeding more ambitious attempts, only stopping when a final, often catastrophic, failure occurs. The term was originally applied exclusively to military operations, but has recently been applied to many different fields, mainly the growth of bureaucracies.</em> Wiki has a definition for exactly what this is:

Mission creep is the expansion of a project or mission beyond its original goals, often after initial successes.

The term often implies a certain disapproval of newly adopted goals by the user of the term.

Mission creep is usually considered undesirable due to the dangerous path of each success breeding more ambitious attempts, only stopping when a final, often catastrophic, failure occurs.

The term was originally applied exclusively to military operations, but has recently been applied to many different fields, mainly the growth of bureaucracies.

]]>