http://ethanolproducer.com/articles/12160/37-senators-issue-letter-in-support-of-a-strong-rfs
By Erin Voegele | April 24, 2015
[
A bipartisan group of 37 senators have send a letter to the U.S. EPA urging the agency to reverse course from the 2014 proposed rule and maintain a strong renewable fuel standard (RFS) to drive innovation and growth in America’s economy while helping reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
For starters, I figured at least a minimum of 37% of the senate were idiots, and I believe the case could be made for more. If you think having politicians decide what should be scientific or engineering issues is a good idea, just wait until they are rooting and digging in your health care--OH WAIT, They are!!!
And just how does it reduce our dependency on foreign oil? I could see conversion of coal to synfuels doing that, but not burning a fuel with significantly less BTU yield per unit volume than gasoline, and which takes more fuel to produce than it yields.
By the same token, the EPA has fought tooth and nail against the 80 year old process of hydraulic fracturing even without ANY proof of damage to surface waters or groundwater and while those jerks were on their witch hunt we
still managed to put the US producing more oil than Saudi, in less than 10 years. There's plenty more where that came from, we know where it is, and we know how to get it.
No one is saying ban ethanol production, we are saying to do away with the mandate and subsidies and let the market decide.
I'll opt for using real gasoline in vehicles I have going back to 1941, small engines, outboards, chainsaws, and other equipment. The vehicles get 10% better gas mileage on real gasoline than E10, and fuel system components don't corrode away.
We had a candidate who was so unconcerned about the cronyism in Corn Country that he said he'd do away with that mandate, which put him in the starting blocks and headed the right direction. Instead, hanging your hat on someone 'seeing the light' (MAYBE) doesn't seem like a good action plan.
