I got this in my junk mail and I did submit the letter to the EPA. Did any of you get the same email? Here it is:
With record low temperatures sweeping across the U.S., the last thing you want is to spend time outside dealing with car trouble -- but that's what could happen if you use gasoline with high ethanol content.
Gasoline mixed with high amounts of ethanol exhibits poor cold-starting performance -- meaning that as temperatures drop, ethanol blended fuel could cause you some early morning headaches.
Thankfully, the EPA is beginning to recognize the problems caused by gasoline blended with ethanol and has proposed to lower the amount of ethanol required to be blended into our fuel supply this year. Will you take a moment and let the EPA know you support their decision?
Cold weather is just one area where ethanol just doesn't perform. It also lowers your fuel economy -- taking money out of your pocket by requiring you to fill your tank more often. Not to mention, it causes residue buildup in engines raising the chances for costly repairs and voided warranties.
Click here to tell the EPA you've had enough of ethanol mandates, and you don't want to worry about your car not starting in the dead of winter.
All I will say is , There are Many issues with Ethanol in fuel systems and engine types . My wife's Mounty Flex fuel does better with E10 . My 78 , fresh rebuild , does not mind it . My Fergy won't run on it . My 75 CB 550 hates it . I have not put it in my 53 .I have seen Many 2 strokes killed by it . Many aspects to this debate . Just saying...
Well, getting rid of the ethanol is going to cost US a lot more money. Legislation going back to the Bush administration gives refiners a 45¢ a gallon tax credit. I can get non ethanol gas here, but it cost at least 45¢ a gallon more.
I actually did a research project on ethanol fuels this year for college. Ethanol has its advantages and dis advantages. High corrosion, low fuel economy. It does lower some emissions when compared to pure gas though. Theres other stuff too but if i go any more i might end up writing out my whole research paper again haha.
Petitioning the EPA is meaningless. This is a legislative issue as federal mandates are in force.
The way the current administration is running things, mandates don't mean anything. The executive branch has done so many things on its own when it needed Congressional legislation. Plus the EPA has said it will proceed with shutting down the coal industry even if Congress does not pass the needed legislation.
About 7,000 coal miners who have been laid off here in this region in the last year can certainly substantiate that claim.
I do understand that the coal industry is under heavier regulation, but I question anybody to show a direct quote from the EPA that "it will proceed with shutting down the coal industry even if Congress does not pass the needed legislation."
The truth is that congress passed the legislation in 1990.
And to be precise, what he said was ""Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket," Obama told the Chronicle . "Coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers." So he did not single out coal. Of course Cap and trade was never passed, so that makes his comment kinda moot here.