Skip to comments.
EPA Lifts Gas Requirements for States
AP via Earthlink ^
| February 15, 2006
| Erica Werner
Posted on 02/15/2006 4:51:41 PM PST by John W
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40 last
To: SFC Chromey
That's not what she was saying in '94 when we protested in Sacramento!
You've got that right. She was pushing MTBE, even though real science said it would contaminate the ground water. She claimed "scientists" that work for the state of California had proven that MTBE was safe. Now that the ground water has been contaminated, she is trying to claim she was against MTBE.
.
21
posted on
02/15/2006 6:16:13 PM PST
by
mugs99
(Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
To: Utilizer
A follow up from the EPA webpage: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemfact/f_mtbe.txt
Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (also called MTBE) is a colorless,
flammable liquid with a strong odor. It does not occur naturally but is
produced in very large amounts (9.1 billion pounds in 1992) by 27
companies in the United States. US demand for MTBE is likely to continue
to grow rapidly. The almost exclusive users of MTBE are companies that
add the chemical to gasoline. MTBE is added to gasoline to improve
combustion and to reduce harmful carbon monoxide emissions.
If it was a waste product why does it take 27 companies to produce it,sir?
Your have bad data.
Lurking'
To: LurkingSince'98
I'll take my chances. Our farm is only two miles outside of town. I ride my bike in for supplies when needed. We're pretty self-sufficent, otherwise. ;) (Yes, I know...Ethanol-fueled trucks bring supplies into town, blah, blah, blah...and if that dries up, I'll find another way to get what I need to live...which isn't much these days.)
I'm a free market type. If it's subsidized by the Government because the general population doesn't WANT it anyway, then crammed down our throats by the Legislature...I've found that I generally don't need it in the first place. That's just my little rule of thumb. :)
And just when will the government start subsidizing my laying hens so I can find a way to make fuel from chicken chit? I've got plenty. There's got to be a way! I mean, isn't pig chit supposedly the next Energy Savior? Right behind Ethanol? How much further down the line can chicken chit be as a fuel source? ;)
23
posted on
02/15/2006 6:27:01 PM PST
by
Diana in Wisconsin
(Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
To: RicocheT; newgeezer
The price of E85 - a fuel that's 85% ethanol made from grain and 15% conventional gasoline - is higher than that of gasoline, even though E85 has only 72% as much energy. The U.S. Department of Energy says a vehicle has to use 1.4 times as much E85 as gasoline to go the same distance.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1579257/posts
24
posted on
02/15/2006 6:28:06 PM PST
by
B4Ranch
(No expiration date is on the Oath to protect America from all enemies, foreign and domestic.)
To: John W
Watch out. The Greenies will be turning green.
To: John W
26
posted on
02/15/2006 6:29:30 PM PST
by
Tribune7
To: Diana in Wisconsin
the legislature in WI was not cramming it down your throats, the incentives were on the producing side, not forcing you to consume. If you don't like it don't buy it. Walk, it matters not.
Whether you care to face it or not gas is never going back to $1.00 or 1.50 per gallon at least not in your lifetime.
For the past 5 years Exxon, BP, Chevron have all produced and delivered less barrels of oil every year. For five years running. The government is trying to do catchup and get any fuel to replace the shortfall.
The marketplace will decide on ethanol especially when they have no gasoline.
Lurking'
To: LurkingSince'98
All due respect to a fellow FReeper, but that was not My understanding of it nor was it what I picked up from the investigations of its attributes as I followed its inception in the California mess. I readily admit that My expertise is not in this area (being predominately in the Electronics Engineering / R&D area in Silicon Valley), but I well remember listening to Lee Rodgers and Melonie in the mornings keeping us all updated as to what they were discovering about this molecular string and its effects upon us all, and all the experts (including some ex-EPA scientists that felt they had to speak out about it).
Sorry you feel you are too enlightened to follow their links, but I reiterate that if you wish I will provide what links and information I can in this matter. MTBE is extremely dangerous, mostly because it displaces the water molecule in many processes so that alone should have sent up a red flag. FReeRegards!
28
posted on
02/15/2006 6:35:28 PM PST
by
Utilizer
(What does not kill you... - can sometimes damage you QUITE severely.)
To: pikachu
To: Utilizer
hey my links are the CAS ie the chemical registry and the EPA itself. It is definitely not a waste product and it definitely has an effect on combustion efficiency.
What the hell was Melanie's major? journalism?
get your facts straight, because you are dead wrong.
If your are right refute what I wrote.
Lurking'
To: John W
"
States no longer will have to add corn-based ethanol or MTBE to gasoline to fight pollution..."I hate to break the news to Erica Werner, but MTBE was not added to fight pollution per se. It was added to enhance the octane rating of raw gasoline in place of tetra-ethyl lead. Lead is a much more effective octane enhancer, but, unfortunately, is also a pollutant.
It was the all-knowing, all-seeing and all-wise EPA that mandated MTBE which, in itself, is a rather serious pollutant as it percolates down into underwater aquifers.
To: LurkingSince'98
The almost exclusive users of MTBE are companies that add the chemical to gasoline. If it was a waste product why does it take 27 companies to produce it,sir?
From what I understand, whether wanted or not, MTBE is a by-product of petroleum refineries. Were it not for the government-generated demand as a gasoline additive, what would MTBE be besides a waste product?
32
posted on
02/15/2006 7:28:05 PM PST
by
supercat
(Sony delenda est.)
To: John W
So does this mean I will be able to buy a normally priced tank of gas during my remaining lifetime ..?? I don't think I'll hold my breath waiting!
33
posted on
02/15/2006 8:53:04 PM PST
by
CyberAnt
(Democrat Leadership: No program - no ideas - no clue.)
To: RaceBannon; scoopscandal; 2Trievers; LoneGOPinCT; Rodney King; sorrisi; MrSparkys; monafelice; ...
Connecticut ping!
Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.
34
posted on
02/15/2006 10:22:39 PM PST
by
nutmeg
(NEVER trust democRATs with our national security)
To: Utilizer
35
posted on
02/15/2006 10:52:26 PM PST
by
SFC Chromey
(We are at war with Islamofascism)
To: LurkingSince'98
the legislature in WI was not cramming it down your throats...Oh yes they are
36
posted on
02/15/2006 11:24:42 PM PST
by
BlueMondaySkipper
(The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. - George Orwell)
To: John W; calcowgirl; Carry_Okie; SierraWasp; NormsRevenge; Czar
California has a different status under clean air laws than the rest of the country because of the state's pollution problems. Naturally.
37
posted on
02/16/2006 12:28:58 AM PST
by
FOG724
(http://nationalgrange.org/legislation/phpBB2/index.php)
To: Utilizer; Jimbaugh
Source of some sort, please? I know MTBE is a major pollutant of groundwater and should have been banned years ago but there must have been some reason to include it originally?
38
posted on
02/16/2006 12:47:07 AM PST
by
Tunehead54
(Nothing funny here ;-)
To: supercat
"But if a car has a properly functioning cat, what does oxygenated gas do except reduce efficiency?"Oh, there you go, asking logical questions of the EPA!
39
posted on
02/16/2006 10:33:13 AM PST
by
Redbob
(I'd rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than ride in a car with Teddy Kennedy!)
To: Diana in Wisconsin
"I'm a free market type. If it's subsidized by the Government because the general population doesn't WANT it anyway, then crammed down our throats by the Legislature...I've found that I generally don't need it in the first place. That's just my little rule of thumb."Hear! Hear!
40
posted on
02/16/2006 10:44:46 AM PST
by
Redbob
(I'd rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than ride in a car with Teddy Kennedy!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson