The Ethanol Papers - Paperturn manuscript - Flipbook - Page 200
do. First, the parts will need to be replaced at some point anyway, as I discovered with my Bentley. Second, the reasons for mandating a switch away from
leaded-gasoline were to benefit all of society, not just a relatively minute number
of enthusiasts. The argument that was made to Jay Leno after his AutoWeek
article was: "Why should we have to be concerned with your collection. You
should be concerned with us...the very vast majority."
Lance, I will take exception to your comment that "The stuff (meaning ethanol)
is HORRIBLE for vehicles and actually costs more petroleum to create it than
the simple straight up leaded and unleaded fuels we used prior to the Gov."
This is untrue.
The basis for the claim that ethanol is EROEI negative comes from the study
conducted by Ted Pimentel and Tad Patzek. The study was incorrect and has
been discredited several times in other university and government studies. In
fact, subsequent studies showed that gasoline is far more energy negative than
ethanol. David Blume has written about this for years, and we at The Auto Channel have written extensively about this. For more information about the EROEI
studies please READ THIS PAGE.
July 10, 2015
Posted by BABALUGATZ:
Ethanol is a failure. Costs MORE to produce than its worth, highly subsidized &
never mind old cars.....it's junk within 6 months, NO MATTER the age of the
car. Turns to varnish rather quickly.
Reply from MARC
Hey, Babalugatz, I'm glad you had the opportunity to join the conversation. The
"ugatz" part of your screen name made me laugh; it reminds me of my youth
growing up in Brooklyn and my Italian friends.
In any event, you couldn't be further from the truth, from a factual standpoint,
and from a metaphoric perspective.
What I mean by "metaphoric" is that you can't say it costs more than it's worth
because it is worth what people will pay. The point I think you are trying to make,