Results 81 to 86 of 86
-
October 3rd, 2010 03:33 PM #81
Bio-Fuel laws actually place the concern of the agricultural lobby over the welfare of the rest of the population, and are used in some industrialized countries as a means of subsidizing agriculture through taxation.
If we're enacting laws for the welfare of the many (if, by welfare, we're looking at removing pollutants), we'd be adding more taxes to fuel instead of alcohol. Taxes that would be put into adding more renewable energy to our public infrastructure (hydro and wind power stations) and which would go to making our cities more pedestrian and bicycle friendly.
Bio-fuels will not reduce a car's carbon footprint. There's a reason biofuels cost more per liter than gasoline. It takes a lot of energy to grow crops for biofuels and a lot more to refine these crops into alcohol for use in automobiles. Then you consider transport costs, storage costs (you can't use regular gasoline storage, due to the danger of water contamination with ethanol) and mixing costs... the only way for biofuels to actually reduce a vehicle's carbon foot print is if you're using straight vegetable oil (unprocessed).
Aside from the fact that we can't produce enough ethanol locally, as ghosthunter pointed out, corn is one of the worst crops to use for biofuel. The most efficient biofuel crop is actually sugarcane. There was a promise of renewed vigor in the sugarcane growing sector from the biofuels law, but we have yet to see enough local production to meet our needs.
We're never going to "feel" a positive environmental effect from biofuels... A 10% blending is just too small to affect the total carbon output of motor vehicles in the Philippines, especially given the fact that ethanol production isn't exactly carbon-neutral, as I noted above.
They're not. Not even the US, which is one of the biggest ethanol producers, has enough production to seriously dent its use of foreign oil. And other countries give consumers a choice in terms of fuels, recognizing that many small motors (lawnmowers, weed whackers, etcetera) and marine users can't use ethanol as easily. In fact, there are groups that keep track of non-mixed gasolines so consumers who actually need "pure" gas can find it. Our government doesn't seem to give a damn about the negative economic effects that mandating E10 for all gas has.
I'd be much happier, actually, if they cleaned up our diesel... as mandating low-sulfur diesel will have a more immediate and long-lasting effect on the quality of local air and more health benefits than mandating E10 does. And I'd be even happier if instead of mandating E10, they'd allow for "pure" gas, E10 and mandate that companies sell a percentage of E85... as I'd like to be able to make that switch. I was waiting for SeaOil's E85, but it never came. I had plans of making my car run on gasoline, E85 and LPG. As it is, it only uses two of the three... :griN:
Ang pagbalik ng comeback...
-
Verified Tsikot Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Posts
- 234
October 3rd, 2010 09:47 PM #82My 97 Accord performs like crap when on any E10 gas, even XCS. I only found this out fairly recently after spending more money than I should have chasing after repairs to make the engine work like new again .... Blaze lang pala ang sagot hehehe.
So is it possible to make my Accord perform optimally on E10 gas? (aside from replacing the engine with an E10 compatible one :P )
-
October 3rd, 2010 10:24 PM #83
-
October 3rd, 2010 11:00 PM #84
-
Verified Tsikot Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Posts
- 234
October 3rd, 2010 11:38 PM #85
-
October 4th, 2010 09:07 AM #86
I agree that a cleaner diesel would significantly clean the air compared to the implementation of E-10 blended gasolines. Most passenger vehicles don't spew out black soot, 90% buses and jeeps at EDSA do
... and many are dead drunk at home... heh heh.
Traffic!