Please, NO MORE ADDITIVES in CA gas!
07-03-2001 | 05:37 PM
#1
Thread Starter
*Hella* isn't a word.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,898
Likes: 0
From: T.W.D.Y.A, CA
Please, NO MORE ADDITIVES in CA gas!
I was watching CNN.... the ppl they interviewed all had very good and valid points about Ethanol.
1. This state has laws god can't pass. The refineries say they can produce a better cleaner burning gas w/o the use of ethanol or mtbe. I say let them have a chance.We can get the air cleaner by holding SUV's to the same standards as cars. They spend less fuel, there are fewer emissions.
2. Ethanol cna't be shipped with gasoline. It has to be transported seperate from the gas, and that means added transportation costs. The stuff has to be mixed in at the last moment. WTF??? This is starting to get lame. We don't need to be paying more for gas!
It's not fair for Californians to have to support the Bush administration's will to subsidize the midwestern corn farmers income with our pocketbooks. If the Bush adminsitration wants to subsidize them, have them use that HUGE surprise we supposedly have in the federal budget. In a state that relies heavily on cars, this is not good for the economy. What the hell, will our next car have to be a PRIUS or INSGHT???
1. This state has laws god can't pass. The refineries say they can produce a better cleaner burning gas w/o the use of ethanol or mtbe. I say let them have a chance.We can get the air cleaner by holding SUV's to the same standards as cars. They spend less fuel, there are fewer emissions.
2. Ethanol cna't be shipped with gasoline. It has to be transported seperate from the gas, and that means added transportation costs. The stuff has to be mixed in at the last moment. WTF??? This is starting to get lame. We don't need to be paying more for gas!
It's not fair for Californians to have to support the Bush administration's will to subsidize the midwestern corn farmers income with our pocketbooks. If the Bush adminsitration wants to subsidize them, have them use that HUGE surprise we supposedly have in the federal budget. In a state that relies heavily on cars, this is not good for the economy. What the hell, will our next car have to be a PRIUS or INSGHT???
07-03-2001 | 05:43 PM
#2
Banned
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 9,151
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere between here and there, yet neither.
I say they convert all our cars to run alcohol...don't know if it's actually ethanol...maybe menthanol is what is used for racing fuel...then I'll support the Midwest farmers forever... 
Originally posted by HellaWhat:
<STRONG>I was watching CNN.... the ppl they interviewed all had very good and valid points about Ethanol.
1. This state has laws god can't pass. The refineries say they can produce a better cleaner burning gas w/o the use of ethanol or mtbe. I say let them have a chance.We can get the air cleaner by holding SUV's to the same standards as cars. They spend less fuel, there are fewer emissions.
2. Ethanol cna't be shipped with gasoline. It has to be transported seperate from the gas, and that means added transportation costs. The stuff has to be mixed in at the last moment. WTF??? This is starting to get lame. We don't need to be paying more for gas!
It's not fair for Californians to have to support the Bush administration's will to subsidize the midwestern corn farmers income with our pocketbooks. If the Bush adminsitration wants to subsidize them, have them use that HUGE surprise we supposedly have in the federal budget. In a state that relies heavily on cars, this is not good for the economy. What the hell, will our next car have to be a PRIUS or INSGHT??? </STRONG>
<STRONG>I was watching CNN.... the ppl they interviewed all had very good and valid points about Ethanol.
1. This state has laws god can't pass. The refineries say they can produce a better cleaner burning gas w/o the use of ethanol or mtbe. I say let them have a chance.We can get the air cleaner by holding SUV's to the same standards as cars. They spend less fuel, there are fewer emissions.
2. Ethanol cna't be shipped with gasoline. It has to be transported seperate from the gas, and that means added transportation costs. The stuff has to be mixed in at the last moment. WTF??? This is starting to get lame. We don't need to be paying more for gas!
It's not fair for Californians to have to support the Bush administration's will to subsidize the midwestern corn farmers income with our pocketbooks. If the Bush adminsitration wants to subsidize them, have them use that HUGE surprise we supposedly have in the federal budget. In a state that relies heavily on cars, this is not good for the economy. What the hell, will our next car have to be a PRIUS or INSGHT???
</STRONG>
07-03-2001 | 05:45 PM
#3
Thread Starter
*Hella* isn't a word.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,898
Likes: 0
From: T.W.D.Y.A, CA
Methanol produces a lot les CO2 emmissions than regular gas, but it produces much more of another contaminant that gas doesn't. And u gotta remember, engines have to be built to run on the stuff. It's not like gasoline, you can easily douse a methanol fire with water, unlike Gas 
07-03-2001 | 05:48 PM
#5
Thread Starter
*Hella* isn't a word.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,898
Likes: 0
From: T.W.D.Y.A, CA
Originally posted by Nashua_Night_Hawk:
<STRONG>In your Golden state you'd better start learning to ride a bicycle...</STRONG>
<STRONG>In your Golden state you'd better start learning to ride a bicycle
...</STRONG>
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post