Clean burning and good at lining politicians' pockets with money from the companies that make ethanol.
Coming from the petrochemical world, the oil companies have been lining politicians’ pockets for decades. My old company even had our own lobbyists. While ethanol has its pros and cons, the benefits aren’t all bunk.
You make a good point. Let see. Which would I rather have? 91 octane@$3.30 a gal. or 105 octane@$2.20 a gal. Tough decision.
Oh, and 30 more hp.
Alcohols are solvents, that is why it eats up seals. E10 won't hurt the seals on a modern vehicle. There are seals you could use which would be fine (even with E95), but it would cost a lot more to your company. I am guessing they decided it was cheaper to just regularly replace the cheaper seals. Gasoline will do the same thing if not using seal material made for it.
The second article proves that Kentucky is the most dependent. There is a typo in the description (read past the first paragraph). Here is the actual page cited:
Keep in mind that ethanol is by far more expensive to produce than gasoline and it's your tax dollars that are artificially keeping the price of ethanol down.
Biased article is biased.
You are definitely supplying the other side bias.. :cheers:
My bias is on the side of science, especially coming from the industry. As stated before, there are pros and cons to ethanol. We shouldn't make decisions solely based on how profitable a technology is.