lakeliving
Well-Known Member
We need that emoticon of the guy eating pop corn for the back and forth here....crap I said c word (corn)
Update on Ethanol Mandate from Boating United
- Thread starter Jack M
- Start date
Geoffrey & Brenda
Moderator
I know i really shouldn't add fuel to the fire here (ha-ha) but i can't help myself.
I own a repair facility that works on mostly fleet and business vehicles, our local natural gas company bought 3 Ford Ranger flex fuel trucks, early 2000 models for their meter readers.
They ran them on E85 as long as the could, by that i mean the E85 ate up the Flex Fuel Smart Sensors on all 3 trucks. That sensor tells the ecm what fuel is currently running in the system. And E85 destroyed them!
We replaced the sensors,(over $600.00 each) and they had run them on regular pump gas ever since. The last one went out of service last year, because the sensor had failed again, even running E15.
This is only one of many many failures i have seen, but truly the most ironic of them all.
I own a repair facility that works on mostly fleet and business vehicles, our local natural gas company bought 3 Ford Ranger flex fuel trucks, early 2000 models for their meter readers.
They ran them on E85 as long as the could, by that i mean the E85 ate up the Flex Fuel Smart Sensors on all 3 trucks. That sensor tells the ecm what fuel is currently running in the system. And E85 destroyed them!
We replaced the sensors,(over $600.00 each) and they had run them on regular pump gas ever since. The last one went out of service last year, because the sensor had failed again, even running E15.
This is only one of many many failures i have seen, but truly the most ironic of them all.
Jack M
Moderator
A friend of mine just had to have his 3 carbs rebuilt on a 75 hp Merc
Jack M
Moderator
cwag911
Moderator
I sent the letter.
Jack M
Moderator
I did get a response .
February 5, 2016
Thank you for contacting me about the Renewable Fuel Standards. I appreciate you taking the time to express your views. Your input is, and will always be, welcomed and appreciated.
The Energy Policy Act (P.L. 109-58) was signed into law in 2005. Among other things, this law established a federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The RFS is a market-based program designed to meet America's energy needs by reducing our dependence on foreign oil and limiting our country's carbon emissions. The RFS establishes a minimum volume of biofuels that must be used in the national transportation fuel supply.
I share your concerns about maintaining a reliable and safe energy supply for our nation, which is why I have consistently supported a diversified approach to energy production. While biofuels will be an important part of our energy future, we must ensure today's consumer fuel needs are appropriately and safely met. By adding ethanol to the fuel supply, the RFS can lower the cost of gasoline for drivers, while allowing consumers to continue to choose the type of fuel they want to use. Including ethanol in the fuel supply reduces greenhouse gas emissions and lowers the cost of fuel at the pump.
In Michigan, the RFS helps to create jobs and support farmers. The ethanol industry currently supports over 9,500 jobs in Michigan and presents an opportunity for continued growth. According to Michigan State University, eliminating the RFS would cost Michigan more than $400 million in lost economic activity and cost hundreds of jobs at biofuel plants. Job losses in the agriculture industry could be even higher.
While we must find ways to diversify our energy portfolio and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, we also must be mindful of the impacts of increased ethanol and biofuel use. Among other things, it is critical that we safeguard water quality by reducing nutrient runoff, as well as protect and preserve habitat for wildlife. Additionally, consumers should continue to have access to the types of fuel that works best for their boats, motorcycles, collector cars, and other vehicles and equipment.
On November 30, 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency announced the final volume requirements for the RFS for 2015 and 2016, establishing total renewable fuel volume amounts at 16.9 and 18.1 billion gallons for each year, respectively. Corn-based ethanol will account for 14.05 and 14.5 billion gallons of the RFS for each year, respectively. While this is a step in the right direction, I recently sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency urging them to continue to work towards reaching the higher biofuels goals set by Congress.
I will continue to monitor this issue and will be sure to keep your views in mind. Thank you again for contacting me. I always enjoy hearing from you and hope that you take the time to contact me again soon. For more information, please feel free to visit my website, http://www.peters.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Gary C. Peters
United States Senator
February 5, 2016
Thank you for contacting me about the Renewable Fuel Standards. I appreciate you taking the time to express your views. Your input is, and will always be, welcomed and appreciated.
The Energy Policy Act (P.L. 109-58) was signed into law in 2005. Among other things, this law established a federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The RFS is a market-based program designed to meet America's energy needs by reducing our dependence on foreign oil and limiting our country's carbon emissions. The RFS establishes a minimum volume of biofuels that must be used in the national transportation fuel supply.
I share your concerns about maintaining a reliable and safe energy supply for our nation, which is why I have consistently supported a diversified approach to energy production. While biofuels will be an important part of our energy future, we must ensure today's consumer fuel needs are appropriately and safely met. By adding ethanol to the fuel supply, the RFS can lower the cost of gasoline for drivers, while allowing consumers to continue to choose the type of fuel they want to use. Including ethanol in the fuel supply reduces greenhouse gas emissions and lowers the cost of fuel at the pump.
In Michigan, the RFS helps to create jobs and support farmers. The ethanol industry currently supports over 9,500 jobs in Michigan and presents an opportunity for continued growth. According to Michigan State University, eliminating the RFS would cost Michigan more than $400 million in lost economic activity and cost hundreds of jobs at biofuel plants. Job losses in the agriculture industry could be even higher.
While we must find ways to diversify our energy portfolio and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, we also must be mindful of the impacts of increased ethanol and biofuel use. Among other things, it is critical that we safeguard water quality by reducing nutrient runoff, as well as protect and preserve habitat for wildlife. Additionally, consumers should continue to have access to the types of fuel that works best for their boats, motorcycles, collector cars, and other vehicles and equipment.
On November 30, 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency announced the final volume requirements for the RFS for 2015 and 2016, establishing total renewable fuel volume amounts at 16.9 and 18.1 billion gallons for each year, respectively. Corn-based ethanol will account for 14.05 and 14.5 billion gallons of the RFS for each year, respectively. While this is a step in the right direction, I recently sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency urging them to continue to work towards reaching the higher biofuels goals set by Congress.
I will continue to monitor this issue and will be sure to keep your views in mind. Thank you again for contacting me. I always enjoy hearing from you and hope that you take the time to contact me again soon. For more information, please feel free to visit my website, http://www.peters.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Gary C. Peters
United States Senator
keithkz
Well-Known Member
Yeah I got the same bogus response from Peters as well....talk about a useless political answer.
lakeliving
Well-Known Member
Did you expect something else from a politician?
Wild and Free
Well-Known Member
- Moderators
- 1,103 posts
I'm gonna have to hide your comment.
Religion and politics, we just don't talk about them here. ;-)
Happy boating!!!
Randy
Mod Team
The above is a copy and paste of a pee pee slapping I got from goldnrod24 Randy for making a comment on a political subject.
This topic seems to fit the bill just the same. Just saying......................................
Link
Moderator
I see a difference here wild & free. Jack posted the updated ethanol; information as it effects the boating industry. I would suggest that all of us do refrain from political view comments as they don't belong on this boating forum
Sent 20 May 2015 - 09:06 AM
- Moderators
- 1,103 posts
I'm gonna have to hide your comment.Religion and politics, we just don't talk about them here. ;-)
Happy boating!!!
Randy
Mod Team
The above is a copy and paste of a pee pee slapping I got from goldnrod24 Randy for making a comment on a political subject.
This topic seems to fit the bill just the same. Just saying......................................
Wild and Free
Well-Known Member
When there are links to sites for political purposes and replies from politicians talking about a huge hot button topic like subsidized fuel supplies which the letter refers to in big politician style circle it doesn't get anymore political than that so there is no way of not making political comments on a subject that is pure politics. :angry:
Double standards here no matter what industry it affects. I am a coal miner, ex-farmer & part time rancher......... don't get me started on this subject. I hate ethanol more than most for my own long list of reason but can not comment on it...............or can I??????
Which set of standards and rules are we following here?
Do as we say not as we do??????????????
Double standards here no matter what industry it affects. I am a coal miner, ex-farmer & part time rancher......... don't get me started on this subject. I hate ethanol more than most for my own long list of reason but can not comment on it...............or can I??????
Which set of standards and rules are we following here?
Do as we say not as we do??????????????
Last edited by a moderator:
Bill N
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,900
- Reaction score
- 2,428
The political arena is sooo important right now.
The lasting effects of political choices will have on boating and the rest of our lives.
I just don't understand why mentioning it is so taboo, particularly in the Dock Talk section.
You mention politics here & you'd think you just raped a baby the way people get all butt hurt!
The lasting effects of political choices will have on boating and the rest of our lives.
I just don't understand why mentioning it is so taboo, particularly in the Dock Talk section.
You mention politics here & you'd think you just raped a baby the way people get all butt hurt!
Link
Moderator
I am sure that there are political forums on the web that would welcome your comments and points of view however this forum is for boating and not political discussions.
Wild and Free
Well-Known Member
Then back up your words and lock and delete this thread or your words are worthless here as this is as political a topic as it gets and you are backing it whole heartedly!
Where do you stand here Link, Jack and Randy? You can't have it both ways guys.
Last edited by a moderator:
Link
Moderator
It is my opinion that an update on the ethanol issue with a formal response from a US Senator is quite different than a forum member posting his personal political views.
Not when the answer from the US Senator is based strictly on politics, rather than fact. The facts are that the production of ethanol is actually energy negative (consumes more than it creates or saves); is harmful to small engines, motorcycles, RVs, and the marine industry; and has driven the cost of food up tremendously. Add to that the fact that the corn we waste on this ill conceived venture could be sold for food to starving nations, and the enormity of this boondoggle is more than obvious.
BTW, my answer is NOT political in any way. It only points out the negative aspects of ethanol, and it's negative effects on all of us that use our boats. If you read fully the effects of this latest ruling, you will find that it will not only increase the ethanol % to a minimum of 15%, but also that because of the now lower consumption of gasoline and yet the mandated higher amount of ethanol, it will mean Lower amounts or possibly no Ethanol free fuels will be produced. At best this means the cost of our marine fuels will go up, and at worst that we will have a much higher probability of damage to the engines in our boats due to ethanol damage.
And that's a fact, NOT POLITICS. Seems to me to be a very important Boating, NOT political issue.
Wild and Free
Well-Known Member
Much like the wind energy market, no money in it without government subsidies buying them in the first place neither would the ethanol industry exist without the government buying down the cost and then forcing it on all.
Let the free market systems work without subsidies period and we would not have this issue!
I know a bit about things as I am in a unique position here in ND's energy fields. I was born and raised a farmer rancher and now work in the coal industry but within 75 miles of my house I have 2 ethanol plants, 6 coal fired power plants, a coal gasification plant and 2 soon to be 3 or 4 oil and diesel specific refineries and all of it surrounded by wind towers, one hydro electric power generation station, one natural gas fired power plant soon to be one or two more within a few hundred miles of me and then add the Bakken oil field on top of it all.
Food, Fuel and energy is our lives here in western ND. And this Current administration is in full swing trying to kill the entire fossil fuels industry and all of what's natural and trying to cram everything un-natural down our throats and trying to get us to accept it as normal, this goes for social issues as well. :angry:
Let the free market systems work without subsidies period and we would not have this issue!
I know a bit about things as I am in a unique position here in ND's energy fields. I was born and raised a farmer rancher and now work in the coal industry but within 75 miles of my house I have 2 ethanol plants, 6 coal fired power plants, a coal gasification plant and 2 soon to be 3 or 4 oil and diesel specific refineries and all of it surrounded by wind towers, one hydro electric power generation station, one natural gas fired power plant soon to be one or two more within a few hundred miles of me and then add the Bakken oil field on top of it all.
Food, Fuel and energy is our lives here in western ND. And this Current administration is in full swing trying to kill the entire fossil fuels industry and all of what's natural and trying to cram everything un-natural down our throats and trying to get us to accept it as normal, this goes for social issues as well. :angry:
Last edited by a moderator:
Link
Moderator
Tooner I agree that your answer is one sided but not overly political, this is coming from someone that carries in ethanol free gas 100% of the time even though it is a pia. Ethanol is of great concern to boaters and can have a place on this forum to keep us up to date as long as it doesn't come to bashing political figures and the responses are non-inflammatory.
The problem I had was following the letter from the Senator the next few threads were most certainly political and then W&F felt the need to throw ethanol-free gas on the fire. I support Randy's comments that Religion and politics should not be brought up on this forum
The problem I had was following the letter from the Senator the next few threads were most certainly political and then W&F felt the need to throw ethanol-free gas on the fire. I support Randy's comments that Religion and politics should not be brought up on this forum
Last edited by a moderator:
Jack M
Moderator
I posted the response from Senator Peters "only" to show that I did receive a response .There are others that never respond ,no matter what the topic .
Last edited by a moderator: