PDA

View Full Version : E.P.A. Expects to Raise Amount of Ethanol 15%



milo
12-05-2009, 02:23 PM
I hope they don't go through with this. I guess if we had the choice at the pump, I wouldn't object. Maybe they should use "blending" pumps for ethanol?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/business/energy-environment/02ethanol.html?_r=1

texanrt
12-05-2009, 02:37 PM
How many (and what types of) bikes would be put out of service based on that decision?

36654
12-05-2009, 03:03 PM
I hope they don't go through with this. I guess if we had the choice at the pump, I wouldn't object. Maybe they should use "blending" pumps for ethanol?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/business/energy-environment/02ethanol.html?_r=1

On one hand there's you and on the other is US Agri-business (i.e., Archer Daniels Midland, Monsanto and all the farm states). You loose. Very simple.

Read the NY Times story............the ethanol producers have excess capacity that needs to be tapped. That's the issue. ADM(corn processing) and Monsanto (seed) dominate the Dept. of Ag. It's just like the coal company's and WV. In both cases, ADM/Monsanto and the Coal companies are simply supporting "domestic" fuel production to enable US energy independence.

EPA is just giving permission for them to do so, relative to emissions. As a fuel, the emissions should be similar, or slightly improved, with the ethanol. If it possibly damages some vehicle's engine or fuel system, that isn't an issue for the EPA or USDA. You, as a consumer, might care, but caveat emptor my friend.........

jireynolds67
12-05-2009, 03:16 PM
Personally, I hope it never happens. I know in most cases, we have no choice, as the ethanol is already blended in but I do not like to use gasoline with any percentage of ethanol in any of my vehicles. I think it is bad for the engines and it decreases the gasoline mileage. Just my opinion. Jim Reynolds

grossjohann
12-05-2009, 03:24 PM
Yup. Don't let it sit in your tank either... the Ethanol will break down in a couple of months.

Higher Octane with Ethanol, but faster burn. Funny, I think it actually increases the amount of carbon emissions.

jforgo
12-05-2009, 10:29 PM
Yup. Don't let it sit in your tank either... the Ethanol will break down in a couple of months.

Higher Octane with Ethanol, but faster burn. Funny, I think it actually increases the amount of carbon emissions.

If you look at it from the "life cycle" perspective; ie; including the activities involved in the corn production, it definitely does increase pollution. The real "green" people are figuring this out. The agrobiz political interests just repeat the "goin green" sloganeering so that most will never figure it out.

JAMESDUNN
12-05-2009, 11:04 PM
On one hand there's you and on the other is US Agri-business (i.e., Archer Daniels Midland, Monsanto and all the farm states). You loose. Very simple.

Read the NY Times story............the ethanol producers have excess capacity that needs to be tapped. That's the issue. ADM(corn processing) and Monsanto (seed) dominate the Dept. of Ag. It's just like the coal company's and WV. In both cases, ADM/Monsanto and the Coal companies are simply supporting "domestic" fuel production to enable US energy independence.

EPA is just giving permission for them to do so, relative to emissions. As a fuel, the emissions should be similar, or slightly improved, with the ethanol. If it possibly damages some vehicle's engine or fuel system, that isn't an issue for the EPA or USDA. You, as a consumer, might care, but caveat emptor my friend.........
All true and..Tom Vilsack is the head of Ag., Tom is the ex -governor of Iowa, the lagest corn producing state.

DARKCLOUD
12-06-2009, 04:21 AM
If you increase the alcohol content to 15%, that means you would need to increase alcohol production 50%. Where would that much corn come from? Already alcohol plants have closed from lack of corn. Alcohol plants have went broke by paying too much for corn.

Why not sell grain alcohol to the Chinese?

Remember when the Chinese would only take pound sterling from the English in trade for tea? Once England's treasury was broke, what did England trade with China to get their pound sterling back?

JON

36654
12-06-2009, 02:36 PM
If you increase the alcohol content to 15%, that means you would need to increase alcohol production 50%. Where would that much corn come from? Already alcohol plants have closed from lack of corn. Alcohol plants have went broke by paying too much for corn.

Why not sell grain alcohol to the Chinese?

Remember when the Chinese would only take pound sterling from the English in trade for tea? Once England's treasury was broke, what did England trade with China to get their pound sterling back?

JON

JON,

Alcohol plants went broke because the price of gas dropped.

Believe it or not, I wasn't alive in the latter 1700's and early 1800's, so I can't remember, but I have studied this period in history. Drawing parallels to the opium/tea trade is really uncomfortable at this time ( Production (India, Pakistan and Afghanistan) - Market (China) - Profit (tea to England)). That worked for a while. But, eventually, the Chinese leadership realized that this market was corrupting their government and attempted various reforms. Sadly, the Chinese were never truly successful in purging the corruption until the Maoist revolution, a century later.

Relative to US history, the developing opium/tea trade is really a pivotal event which enabled our independence from England. With the expansion of the Empire into India, cash strapped England was primarily focused on exploiting this new found source of wealth. As such, the American revolution was a minor annoyance (in a barren wilderness) of passing interest to the Empire and, thus, received commensurate levels of monetary and military support. The French recognized this and were happy to provide a modest naval blockage which resulted in the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown and American Independence.

BTW, our financial wizards took your suggested approach a decade ago, they just substituted "Collateralized Debt Obligations" for corn alcohol and "us" for the Chinese.

kenk
12-06-2009, 10:28 PM
If approved, this is bad news for the world and American consumers. Ethanol requires cheap corn, high oil prices and a government subsidy for viability. Most of the ethanol plants over the past two years went out of business because of high price of corn ($10 a bushel) and lower fuel prices. With fuel cost again on the rise, so are corn prices. Corn is closing in on $4 a bushel. The only way to off-set these two variables is higher government subsidies. If this is EPA policy is approved (by unelected government bureaucrats - so much for our constitution), the demand for corn will again rise since it directly competes with domestic consumption in food stuffs and animal feed.

The end result will be higher food prices and increased fuel costs. Meanwhile for folks in the Midwest, increased ethanol will decrease fuel mileage and cause potential problems with vehicles not designed for ethanol. For the rest of you folks that don't live in states where Ethanol is mandated, you will pay along with us with higher food prices and government subsidies.

Another unintended cost of ethanol is the strain on the third world where corn is a staple food. You may recall the food riots a few years ago when the cost of corn hit $10 bushel. Higher corn prices result in higher numbers of starvation worldwide. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/04/14/world.food.crisis/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6933

Meanwhile, the farmer is being duped into thinking they are getting ahead. As corn prices increase, so does fuel prices, corn seed and fertilizer. A bag of corn seed is now over $300 bags. And, you can't legally use the corn in your bins to plant another crop. The seed dealers know where you bought the seed and will test your crop genetically, and then prosecute you. This is nothing more than political payoffs for large campaign donations by ADM, Dupont and others.

119240
12-06-2009, 10:56 PM
Great more popcorn on the streets.
I saw a great cartoon of a motorcycle blowing popcorn out it's tailpipe.

36654
12-06-2009, 11:20 PM
If this is EPA policy is approved (by unelected government bureaucrats - so much for our constitution), the demand for corn will again rise since it directly competes with domestic consumption in food stuffs and animal feed.

Do you feel the same anger at USDA which administers the farm subsidies? EPA is only evaluating the impact of increasing the percentage of ethanol in the blend. These bureaucrats are only doing what your elected representatives have agree to for several decades? What you are asking for is a complete remake of US agribusiness which is effectively built on dirt cheap, subsidized corn and illegal alien labor to minimize costs. It's really ugly and just plain bad.

You can rant all you want, but your anger at the EPA is misplaced.

kenk
12-07-2009, 01:34 AM
Do you feel the same anger at USDA which administers the farm subsidies? EPA is only evaluating the impact of increasing the percentage of ethanol in the blend. These bureaucrats are only doing what your elected representatives have agree to for several decades? What you are asking for is a complete remake of US agribusiness which is effectively built on dirt cheap, subsidized corn and illegal alien labor to minimize costs. It's really ugly and just plain bad.

You can rant all you want, but your anger at the EPA is misplaced.

I do feel the same anger against the USDA. So does every farmer when he walks into a USDA service office. Any old farmer will tell you that they were much better off before government subsidies and USDA control. Farm subsidies have destroyed the traditional markets based on supply and demand. A few years ago, a study out of Kansas State University stated the average Kansas Farmer's income for the year was $42k. The average Kansas farmer received $47k in farm subsidies that year. The government now controls through their programs, just about every grain crop that goes into the ground.

Bureaucrats are doing what bureaucrats do best....growing their budgets and control on the American people. Expanding the Ethanol program is the responsibility of elected accountable politicians, not bureaucrats. There are plenty of example of how the EPA has used bad science to eliminate individual liberties on individual property right or worked with other federal agencies to shut down citizens rights to use public lands.

http://www.ama-cycle.org/legisltn/rapidresponse.asp

Another well-known case is shutting down Yellowstone to only a small number of snowmobiles. This ridiculous policy was made by bureaucrats that sit in DC traffic fours hours each day.

Left unchecked, the EPA will eventually destroy the motorcycle industry by forcing motorcycle to meet the much stricter small car emissions standard for HC + NOx. Only our elected official stand between the EPA and this future policy. This press release from the EPA dates back to 2003. http://epa.gov/otaq/regs/roadbike/420f03046.pdf

From this EPA document....Are motorcycles a less-polluting alternative to cars?
No, in fact, motorcycles produce more harmful emissions per mile than a
car or even a large SUV. The current federal motorcycle standard for
hydrocarbon emissions is about 90 times the hydrocarbon standard for
today’s passenger cars. And when new emission standards go into effect,
SUVs will be about 95 percent cleaner than today’s motorcycle.

The current EPA emission standard is 16 times the HC standard for motorcycles when compared to the small car standard. The Bush administration stopped the EPA from mandating the small car standard. There's nothing stopping them now. It simply a matter of time before the EPA mandates a standard beyond the technical capabilities of the industry, increasing the already high prices of motorcycles, eliminating some or all manufacturers.

No...my anger against the EPA is well-placed. They are a threat against our liberties.

milo
12-07-2009, 02:23 AM
In my original post I mentioned.....


. I guess if we had the choice at the pump, I wouldn't object. Maybe they should use "blending" pumps for ethanol?


Would there be a negative consequence if stations sold gasoline (or whatever it is now) through "tri-blended pumps"? Consumers could chose what octane and however much alcohol they want? I know I would be willing to pay extra for a "less alcohol, adequate octane" blend. This could satisfy both the citizens and bureaucrats.

36654
12-07-2009, 02:39 AM
I do feel the same anger against the USDA. So does every farmer when he walks into a USDA service office. Any old farmer will tell you that they were much better off before government subsidies and USDA control. Farm subsidies have destroyed the traditional markets based on supply and demand. A few years ago, a study out of Kansas State University stated the average Kansas Farmer's income for the year was $42k. The average Kansas farmer received $47k in farm subsidies that year. The government now controls through their programs, just about every grain crop that goes into the ground.

Bureaucrats are doing what bureaucrats do best....growing their budgets and control on the American people. Expanding the Ethanol program is the responsibility of elected accountable politicians, not bureaucrats. There are plenty of example of how the EPA has used bad science to eliminate individual liberties on individual property right or worked with other federal agencies to shut down citizens rights to use public lands.

http://www.ama-cycle.org/legisltn/rapidresponse.asp

Another well-known case is shutting down Yellowstone to only a small number of snowmobiles. This ridiculous policy was made by bureaucrats that sit in DC traffic fours hours each day.

Left unchecked, the EPA will eventually destroy the motorcycle industry by forcing motorcycle to meet the much stricter small car emissions standard for HC + NOx. Only our elected official stand between the EPA and this future policy. This press release from the EPA dates back to 2003. http://epa.gov/otaq/regs/roadbike/420f03046.pdf

From this EPA document....Are motorcycles a less-polluting alternative to cars?
No, in fact, motorcycles produce more harmful emissions per mile than a
car or even a large SUV. The current federal motorcycle standard for
hydrocarbon emissions is about 90 times the hydrocarbon standard for
todayÔÇÖs passenger cars. And when new emission standards go into effect,
SUVs will be about 95 percent cleaner than todayÔÇÖs motorcycle.

The current EPA emission standard is 16 times the HC standard for motorcycles when compared to the small car standard. The Bush administration stopped the EPA from mandating the small car standard. There's nothing stopping them now. It simply a matter of time before the EPA mandates a standard beyond the technical capabilities of the industry, increasing the already high prices of motorcycles, eliminating some or all manufacturers.

No...my anger against the EPA is well-placed. They are a threat against our liberties.


So, BMW motorcycles should be dirtier than BMW cars? What justifies sloppier engineering on the motorcycle? Based on the prices I've paid, the $/hp is similar for the small BMW cars and bikes, so the technology should be similar. Your defense of your liberties seems to be more of a defense of poor engineering.

Relative to farmers and the free market, why don't your brave souls in Kansas just go cold turkey on the USDA handouts? They don't have to take crop insurance.

milo
12-07-2009, 02:56 AM
I'm not sure there's *any* motorcycle that meets auto emissions. Are you arguing they should?

kenk
12-07-2009, 03:36 AM
So, BMW motorcycles should be dirtier than BMW cars? What justifies sloppier engineering on the motorcycle? Based on the prices I've paid, the $/hp is similar for the small BMW cars and bikes, so the technology should be similar. Your defense of your liberties seems to be more of a defense of poor engineering.

Relative to farmers and the free market, why don't your brave souls in Kansas just go cold turkey on the USDA handouts? They don't have to take crop insurance.

All motorcycle are dirtier than cars. Most are dirtier than cars 20 years ago. Here's a recent article I wrote published on the subject last February:

The European Commission and the Association des Constructeurs Europeens de Motocycles (ACEM) issued a proposal to the motorcycle industry that would slowly migrate motorcycles through the EURO 4 requirements in 2012 and up to EURO 5 in 2015, to match those of automobiles. In June 2007, the ACEM officially introduced EURO 5 emissions regulations for automobiles. Two-wheeled vehicles, such as mopeds, scooters and motorcycles, were not included in these requirements. As of today, all motorcycles sold in Europe must meet the less-stringent EURO 3 standards.

But is this realistic standard for all European made motorcycles? Automobiles use a variety of technologies to offset emissions, but these technologies tend to be too big, too heavy, or too hot to fit on a motorcycle and work as effectively as similar systems on automobiles. Even if a motorcycle manufacturer is able to convert automobile emissions technologies for motorcycles applications, the added cost per unit could exceed what the consumer is willing to pay.

This explains why the EPA and the California Air Board are more lenient on motorcycles than they are on other passenger vehicles. John Swanton from the California Air Resource Board was recently quoted by the Los Angeles Times stating, "The emissions picture [for motorcycles] is fairly grim, but we think its fair for where motorcycles are today." According to the EPA, the maximum emission standard for motorcycle hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide in the US under 2010 Tier 2 standards is currently 2.25 grams per mile, compared with .098 for automobiles, meaning a motorcycle can emit 23 times more ozone-forming pollutants as a car does and still meet EPA standards. BMW motorcycles easily exceed the EPA Tier 2 and EURO 3 motorcycle standards. Most 2009 BMW motorcycle are emitting between .3 and .9 grams per mile. However, falls short of meeting the automobile standards.

In the January 2009 BMWRA OTL Bonfires section, it was reported that BMW AG’s Board of Directors narrowly voted against shutting down the motorcycle division. The quote used was “BMW makes more money on replacement fenders for BMW cars than it makes on motorcycle.” Meeting the automobile standard would require new technologies and added expense that would reduce or eliminate the manufacturer’s profit margins. Without profit in the motorcycle division, the line could be converted to a more profitable hybrid automobile line. Companies are not in business to loose money.



As for farmers and subsidies, government subsidies were not designed for the farmer. They were designed to provide stable, low commodity prices for the consumer and a cheap source of farm products for big industry. Grain prices are not significantly more than they were 35 years ago, because they are held artificially low due to government subsidies. In 1974, corn sold for $3 a bushel. If the corn prices increased at the rate of inflation, corn wouldn't be now $3.80 a bushel. The price of corn would be reflected in the cost of production and inflation. Do you want to pay $20 bushel for corn? I will trade you the farm subsidies for corn price based on free markets. You simply can't pay for a $200,000 Combine with corn prices kept artificially low due to government intervention. Its how the government controls agriculture.

You also can't farm without insurance. One hail storm would put you out of business. The government controls farm insurance by keeping the price artificially low.

mika
12-07-2009, 04:11 AM
I'm not sure there's *any* motorcycle that meets auto emissions. Are you arguing they should?

I wonÔÇÖt get in a debate with Kenk about the EPA etc destroying the American motorcycle industry. He sees a death knell I see an industry that is being forced to face what the auto industry began to forty years ago. (Kenk I hope we can leave it at that). There are smaller operations that are going to be hard pressed to comply and may fold. Large manufacturers like H-D and now Victory/Polaris are going to have to comply with Euro 5 regulations so they will be able to sell in Europe and other markets such as India which have adopted the Euro standards for cars and motorcyles.

The ACEM (http://www.acem.eu/cms/environmental_pol.phpstated goal of the [url=http://www.acem.eu/cms/environmental_pol.php) ÔÇô the European Auto and Motorcycle Manufactures Association of which BMW is a member ÔÇô is

ÔÇ£Over the last decade PTWs have achieved remarkable progress in reducing their environmental impact. At the 5th Annual Conference on December 1, 2008 ACEM members proposed to achieve parity of motorcycles with passenger cars Euro 5 reductions in 2015, for pollutant emissions.ÔÇØ

Since this stance was taken there have been many debates about what the standards should be and how they would be measured for cars and motorcycles in Euro 5. However; the reality is parity is coming.

Kenk and I differ on EPA and USDA. I donÔÇÖt blame them or the bureaucrats at the federal or local level. Frankly they are doing what they have been told to and are paid to do.

Ag policy needs to be reformed.
There is no energy policy in the US.

The owners of the problem are our elected representatives at all levels of government for not tackling the restructuring of the farm budget and related programs that is needed. Poor Ag policy and programs have reinforced bad energy and environmental decisions such as ethanol.

I do not see the bureaucrats or politicians as the threat to our liberties either. We own that ourselves for accepting this and allowing this to continue by re-electing our representatives.

kenk
12-07-2009, 04:24 AM
I won’t get in a debate with Kenk about the EPA etc destroying the American motorcycle industry. He sees a death knell I see an industry that is being forced to face what the auto industry began to forty years ago. (Kenk I hope we can leave it at that). There are smaller operations that are going to be hard pressed to comply and may fold. Large manufacturers like H-D and now Victory/Polaris are going to have to comply with Euro 5 regulations so they will be able to sell in Europe and other markets such as India which have adopted the Euro standards for cars and motorcyles.

The ACEM (http://www.acem.eu/cms/environmental_pol.phpstated goal of the [url=http://www.acem.eu/cms/environmental_pol.php) – the European Auto and Motorcycle Manufactures Association of which BMW is a member – is

“Over the last decade PTWs have achieved remarkable progress in reducing their environmental impact. At the 5th Annual Conference on December 1, 2008 ACEM members proposed to achieve parity of motorcycles with passenger cars Euro 5 reductions in 2015, for pollutant emissions.”

Since this stance was taken there have been many debates about what the standards should be and how they would be measured for cars and motorcycles in Euro 5. However; the reality is parity is coming.

Kenk and I differ on EPA and USDA. I don’t blame them or the bureaucrats at the federal or local level. Frankly they are doing what they have been told to and are paid to do.

Ag policy needs to be reformed.
There is no energy policy in the US.

The owners of the problem are our elected representatives at all levels of government for not tackling the restructuring of the farm budget and related programs that is needed. Poor Ag policy and programs have reinforced bad energy and environmental decisions such as ethanol.

I do not see the bureaucrats or politicians as the threat to our liberties either. We own that ourselves for accepting this and allowing this to continue by re-electing our representatives.

I would agree with most of what you say. The bureaucrats are simply doing what bureaucrats do. They get away with what they do because the average American is either uninformed or unconcerned. Elected Representative claimed to represent their constituents. However, the reality is they represent the special interests that fund their reelections.

While I would agree that motorcycle manufacturers have made considerable progress on emissions, the reality is they are nowhere close to meeting the considerably stricter standards of autos. The EPA will either lead or follow suit with EURO5 on motorcycles, which places small cars at .05 HC. That's 16 times better than the emission from the current BMW R1200 series motorcycle. Forcing the industry to meet an unattainable standard, could bankrupt the industry. It certainly will eliminate small manufacturers with low profit margins and reduce the availability of some motor designs not capable to meeting the new standard. I would be surprised if it eliminated all single and dual cylinder motorcycles.

I would also disagree with your assessment that it is our elected representative that make the difference. A single representative has little power over the smothering bureaucracy of our current government. Most of the time, they are simply ignored when they request information. I've known several and they are usually frustrated by their inability to get anything changed. Our constitution provides them with the power of the purse. However, they're simply 1 of 435. Special interest and bureaucrats unfortunately rule. They are financially supported by parties that receive their funding from special interests. We know all to well that they are forced to vote on policies that they haven't read and truly don't understand.

The reality is not a single representative confiscated the wealth of private corporations like GM and Chrysler and nationalized them. Not a single representative had anything to do with the confiscation of private capital in five of the nations largest banks and the nations largest insurance company AIG. All were following government dictated policies that got them in financial difficulties. Not a single representative had the ability to stop this unconstitutional abuse of power that clearly violated the limited innumerated powers from our constitution. However, executive branch bureaucrats appointed by the President did. Our founders would not recognize the overburdening executive branch that is simple out of control. The EPA is an example of bureaucrats out of control.

mika
12-07-2009, 05:20 AM
:wave

New engines:
Single and twin manufacturers will be challenged by new standards. Some engines such as the S&S monster V-twins currently built will have trouble. For manufactures such as them they challenge will be designing something that complies and is accepted by their target market. H-D has had trouble gaining the acceptance from their US market with the VRod yet in Europe and elsewhere it is the seller and should be able to comply with the next round of standards.

In the BMW world the CamHead is coming out in no small part because the more efficient heads will allow BMW to bring the R bikes into compliance.

Old Bikes.
Ethanol at 10% and if it goes to 15% is a Challenge with a capital C and an Opportunity with a capital O.
- A challenge for owners and restorers to tune and maintain their bikes.
- A opportunity for the aftermarket parts and equipment manufacturers of all sorts to design and make the parts, fluids, paints and parts we need to deal with the proposed change in fuel.

jforgo
12-07-2009, 06:55 AM
The EPA is required to approve or deny applications for new fuel formulations in the US. This is to ensure a new formulation doesn't cause additional pollution. The Agribiz folks applied, with obvious reasons, for approval to sell 15% ethanol gas in the US. The EPA approves or denies the new fuel on the basis of how clean it burns versus existing formulations. The 15% stuff is therefore not a new pollution fighting initiative by the EPA. You can be sure they do not care about the impact on older vehicles.

Then there is the separate issue of Euro5 emissions standards in the future for motorcycles. Who knows what additional restrictions CARB will throw in the mix? Plug in bikes would seem to be looming large in our future. Or a direct injection turbodiesel might be simpler technologically than a gasohol bike?

kenk
12-07-2009, 02:15 PM
Here's an interesting quote:

Charles Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, says, just because the agency can approve higher ethanol content doesn't mean anybody is forced to sell it. Refiners are saying they won't put more ethanol into their gasoline unless Congress gives them protection from potential lawsuits from motorists or consumers who claim the ethanol hurt their engines.

The key legal issue for EPA is whether the higher ethanol content, which causes engines to run hotter, could damage emission controls and increase air pollution. EPA has options including approving E15 for all automobiles, boats and equipment or allowing E15 only for automobiles made since 2004, which have more advanced engines and emission systems.


From today's Wall Street Journal. A perfect example how politically motivated bureaucrats in the EPA make policies within the broad range of US laws without any direct involvement by our elected representatives.

Officials gather in Copenhagen this week for an international climate summit, but business leaders are focusing even more on Washington, where the Obama administration is expected as early as Monday to formally declare carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant.

An "endangerment" finding by the Environmental Protection Agency could pave the way for the government to require businesses that emit carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases to make costly changes in machinery to reduce emissions -- even if Congress doesn't pass pending climate-change legislation. EPA action to regulate emissions could affect the U.S. economy more directly, and more quickly, than any global deal inked in the Danish capital, where no binding agreement is expected.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126013960013179181.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStori es

This dangerous pollutant (carbon dioxide) is a necessary component for all human life. Plant require carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis Carbon dioxide levels increase and decrease with natural warming and cooling periods in our earth five thousand million year old history.

osbornk
12-07-2009, 05:53 PM
If " According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a traditional gas powered lawn mower produces as much air pollution as 43 new cars each being driven 12,000 miles.", imagine how much pollution the farm equipment used to produce the corn produces. The farm equipment is many times larger, used for many more hours and much of it is older and more polluting.

Ken

ANDYVH
12-18-2009, 10:21 PM
Yes, it could be argued that a motorcycle engine (and to the EPA that's all cycle engines) may run dirtier than a car or SUV engine, per mile. But, a cycle engine uses far less fuel per mile. It takes FAR less energy to produce and dispose of a cycle for its useable life. Over its life of production and use, I'd bet any cycle requires less overall energy than does a car or SUV or truck. Perhaps a better statement is total environmental impact rather than fuel or emissions impact.

Now, if every cycle owner and rider in the country REALLY used their motorcycles as much as they could, then I say yes the cycles that do run dirtier are contributing to greater emissions. But really, most riders use their bikes more for recreation than anything else, and as such rack up minimal miles.

But to push 15% Ethanol on the market is bull. That is being done more by those lobbying for Ethanol (those being the Ethanol producers) than by any green thinking politicians. Everyone knows Ethanol produces less performance and mileage per gallon than gasoline. So we end up paying up front for a lesser fuel, and then paying more again because we have to buy more of it for the same miles we'd have covered on gasoline.

Ethanol is also known to create fuel and engine problems that gasoline does not cause. So we'd end up paying more again.

kenk
12-19-2009, 04:27 PM
Yes, it could be argued that a motorcycle engine (and to the EPA that's all cycle engines) may run dirtier than a car or SUV engine, per mile. But, a cycle engine uses far less fuel per mile. It takes FAR less energy to produce and dispose of a cycle for its useable life. Over its life of production and use, I'd bet any cycle requires less overall energy than does a car or SUV or truck. Perhaps a better statement is total environmental impact rather than fuel or emissions impact.



The other day, I rode with four others to our weekly Wednesday ROMEO (Retired Old Motorcyclists Eating Out) lunch here in Kansas, since we received 10 inches of snow earlier in the week.

The car was a late-model Buick that averaged 28 mpg. We usually ride as a group on four motorcycles that average about 40 mpg. If you combine four bikes, we average 10 mpg to get us to our location when we ride. When you consider the fact this newer Buick is well within the EPA emissions standards carrying hundreds of pounds of emission control devices, it average less than .05 HC per mile. Our individual bikes average 16-32 times that emission standard. With four bikes, we're emitting 64-128 times the emissions per mile compared to the car. If you buy into the anthropogenic global warming science debate, these facts should bother you. Frankly, I don't.

Its only a matter of time before the EPA gets around to further restricting emissions on motorcycles. They fully understand what I explained above, and plan on using these facts for further regulating motorcycle emissions. Since they no longer do a cost benefits analysis on the cost of regulations to the industry, we have to rely on AMA and motorcycle industry groups to lobby on our behalf in order to put enough political pressure on politicians to save our way of life. If you're on the sidelines on this issue, don't be surprised if the only version of motorcycle available in the future, plugs into a socket in your garage.

36654
12-19-2009, 05:02 PM
When you consider the fact this newer Buick is well within the EPA emissions standards carrying hundreds of pounds of emission control devices, it average less than .05 HC per mile. Our individual bikes average 16-32 times that emission standard. With four bikes, we're emitting 64-128 times the emissions per mile compared to the car.

Sounds like a succinct statement of a technical issue


we have to rely on AMA and motorcycle industry groups to lobby on our behalf in order to put enough political pressure on politicians to save our way of life.

You protect your way of life with lawyers and politicians. I'll try my luck with science and technology. BMW has been advertising the advantages of a flat torque curve for years. You can't get a flatter torque characteristic than an electric motor.

kenk
12-19-2009, 06:29 PM
Sounds like a succinct statement of a technical issue



You protect your way of life with lawyers and politicians. I'll try my luck with science and technology. BMW has been advertising the advantages of a flat torque curve for years. You can't get a flatter torque characteristic than an electric motor.

Sounds great...if your science is back to the future. Sitting in the Eisenhower Presidential Museum is an electric car made almost 100 years ago that belonged to the rich parents of Mamie Eisenhower. It went 100 miles between charge. Not much has changed.

That electric motor is charged by some form of energy. It's usually coal energy (50% of America's Power). The Nickel batteries are highly toxic and require the creation of a superfund cleanup site to mine. One accident and your family is covered with toxic Nickel along with a hazardous spill. Do you ever wonder why there is no government information of the dangers of toxic nickel batteries? Doesn't sound like good technology, and it's certainly not based on good science. Follow the money.

36654
12-19-2009, 07:51 PM
Sounds great...if your science is back to the future. Sitting in the Eisenhower Presidential Museum is an electric car made almost 100 years ago that belonged to the rich parents of Mamie Eisenhower. It went 100 miles between charge. Not much has changed.

That electric motor is charged by some form of energy. It's usually coal energy (50% of America's Power). The Nickel batteries are highly toxic and require the creation of a superfund cleanup site to mine. One accident and your family is covered with toxic Nickel along with a hazardous spill. Do you ever wonder why there is no government information of the dangers of toxic nickel batteries? Doesn't sound like good technology, and it's certainly not based on good science. Follow the money.

Run to your politicians............ They'll happily take your vote and money. A few empty campaign lines and they got you.

You can't out-Chinese the Chinese. Protecting the same old technology will only result the lowest cost producer dominating the markets.

So, what are you protecting? The opportunity for all Americans to work at Chinese, Vietnamese or Bangladesh pay scales.