Best
74 Comments
Post
  • #11
    !
    Jackbooted EPA thugs forcing us to breathe cleaner air - just another part of the Kenyan Socialist Plan to... um... well, do something nefarious.
  • #4
    !
    ATM the epa is fining refineries because they are not adding a certain chemical to their mixtures. The crutch is that chemical does not exist and the epa admits to that, but still continue fining them. The EPA is a dinosaur that needs gutted and reworked to get rid of the crazy and lunacy with a heck of a lot more government oversite on them. No more spy planes over ranchers properties , no more shutting down jobs.
  • #5
    !
    Cellulose biofuels do 'exist', just not in enough quantities to actually be implemented as an everyday product every citizen can get
  • #6
    !
    @kirbstomp1 That just means that for the intent the EPA has in mind it doesn't exist. It does, however, allow the EPA to levy fines as they know that, hey, they're God. Doesn't too much matter about availabilty. That has nothing to do with them saying"Because".
  • #7
    !
    @justapirate - the EPA and the IRS are 2 agencies that's steal Americans money. But he said the chemical didn't exist, I googled 'epa fines refineries' and in the first article it said they have it, it just doesn't exist in the quantities the EPA, pretty much meaning, 'hey, were here to take your money.'
  • #1
    !
    Hmm, proponents say a penny more, the fuel industry says up to nine cents more, the reality is probably in between til it gets to our local gas stations where it becomes an additional fifteen cents per gallon. That's the usual scenario.

    Now, the big question is- Is this real or is it just more voodoo for the green crowd? I guess I'm gonna need to see more reports and try to cut through the BS that's gonna come from both side. It ain't gonna be easy.
  • #8
    !
    Yesterday a story came out that the IMF ( International Monetary Fund) released statements in essence ordering America to raise fuel taxes on Americans buy 1 dollar and 50 cents per gallon. this EPA under Obama will do everything it can to comply to the globalist greenies.

    remember it's not so much about the environment as it is population control. this article states that these pennies would have the equivalent of " removing 33million cars" just imagine how many people couldn't afford to drive if they had to pay another 1.50 per gallon.

    .....
  • #12
    !
    @bsking And, I say, "screw the IMF." When they make the same demands upon China, India, Russia and others they can come here and respectfully request that the citizens of the USA do likewise...until then they can go pack sand.
  • #20
    !
    @seedtick the difference is we have a secretary of state now who, in his inaugural speech, focused more on environmental bs then he did foreign affairs. we are in deep sh#t for the next few years
  • #14
    !
    For commuter vehicles hydrogen or natural gas are ideal replacement fuels. Big stuff, not so much though. Not enough energy in the fuel as compaired to gasoline.
  • #30
    !
    @Dan_Tien

    Yeah but compared to gasoline it makes a pretty poor fuel for an internal combustion engine. Just like natural gas.

    The drawbacks of hydrogen use are low energy content per unit volume, high tankage weights, very high storage vessel pressures, the storage, transportation and filling of gaseous or liquid hydrogen in vehicles, the large investment in infrastructure that would be required to fuel vehicles, and the inefficiency of production processes.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehic...
  • #44
    !
    @Thunderchicken The positive aspects of hydrogen fuel include no expensive pollution control devices (catalytic converters, emission sensors, etc) because the exhaust from burning hydrogen is mostly water, total freedom from foreign oil supplies, no massive oil spills from tankers, platforms and pipelines, and production capability available anywhere there is water and electricity. Anyone who believes that hydrogen produces low energy when burned should review films of the Hindenberg burning. That was pressurized only to the point needed to fill the bladders in the dirigible. Continued research on efficient hydrogen fuels and engines could very well improve the power yield, but the word is most innovations aimed at using hydrogen as a fuel have been bought up by oil companies which have also been producing disinformation about the efficacy of hydrogen as a fuel source.
    "When U.S. Energy Secretary Stephen Chu first took office in 2009 he was not a very big fan of hydrogen fuel cells but things have changed, including the secretary’s stance on hydrogen." http://www.autoline.tv/daily/...
  • #45
    !
    @Dan_Tien

    As I said, hydrogen or natural would be fine for a commuter vehicle. But in heavier trucks,(even a loaded 1/2 ton pick up) you often can't carry enough fuel for even one days usage. The energy to volume ratio simply doesn't work. To have the same range as a pickup truck with a thirty gallon gas tank, it would take a sixty plus gallon sized tank.

    I got a kick out of the "it's faster than charging a battery" bit in the video. If fueling a hydrogen powered vehicle is anything like fueling a natural gas powered vehicle,(and I believe they should be similar) it's not like pulling into a gas station either. It does take a while. Not overnight but a few hours.
  • R Load more replies

  • #28
    !
    The EPA is out of control, they with the compliance of Obama are continually by-passing congress. Congress won't pass Cap and Trade (bi-partisan vote) fine, Obama just has his EPA do it with regulations. Obama et al want to eradicate the gas and oil industry, they don't care who they hurt in the process, how many lose jobs, how many can't afford to heat their homes or run their cars, how high the cost of food and clothes go, they just want to appease the "Green Lobby" - the tree huggers who seem to want us back in caves minus the camp fire, just a lonely solar panel or windmill on top. The US has lowered our carbon emissions more than any other country in the world due to natural gas use, but the wacko greens don't want to hear that, no, we need more windmills, solar panels etc. at a higher cost for use. Heaven forbid this administration do anything for the ordinary household. Lower the cost of heating and cooling? No way - the greens don't want that. Lower the cost of gasoline? Heck no! The greens don't want that. Save jobs? No indeed, the Green Lobby must be appeased, they have votes and money to donate. This president who is getting daily less relevant due to his lead from behind quest is only out for more votes apparently, the heck with the USA as a whole.
  • #3
    !
    This has been coming since 2010, by 2025 new cars with have to get around 35 miles per gallon. I gotta get out of America...no more pickup trucks...what am I gonna do
  • #31
    !
    I have to admit I'm a bit confused. Is sulfur an additive to the original mixture?? "Leaded" gas (if you're old enough to remember) was an additive. But making 'unleaded' fuel, although not having to add the lead was higher in price.
    One of the byproducts of reduction should be more fuel efficient cars that burn less.
  • #62
    !
    @kirbstomp1 - You stated in another post about being younger and in college. I'm glad that you value experience and consider that. It is a good thing that young folks are more involved in current affairs and in political forums. I enjoy your input and also value younger opinions.
  • #29
    !
    So $260 is the breaking point where you say "no more gas"? I'm confused as to what your argument is.
  • #49
    !
    @AceLuby just saying gas is too expensive already. That was just an example. There is no breaking point, unfortunately because you have the never ending cycle of haveing to go to work to buy gas to go to work. People have to have it.
  • #51
    !
    Let see, the US has a population of about 300 million in a world of 7+billion. China,India & Mexico, where we send all our jobs have no polution controls so wouldn't the world be better off if we sent the EPA to these countries untill they become as efficient as we are .
  • #52
    !
    @culinary Yes, but my point is that the increase is fairly negligible in the grand scheme of things... what, like 3%?
  • #53
    !
    @marine1 Or we should put a carbon tax on goods from those countries and promote stuff made in the USA?
  • R Load more replies

  • #72
    !
    Congress needs to redefine the mission of the EPA including limiting its rule making abilities and trampling on people’s rights. Right now they are out of control and making things worse. Their "brilliant" idea of adding ethanol to gasoline has not only driven up the price of gasoline, but also driven up the cost of food. And ironically, because of the low energy content of ethanol, an ethanol blended gasoline actually uses more gasoline over a set distance, causing more pollution than 100% gasoline.
  • #65
    !
    I voted, Yes. However, I'm going to put a caveat onto my vote by saying that I will support the new rules if Obama and Democrats stop interfering with oil companies that want to exploit our country's vast oil reserves. In other words, mitigate the increase in gas price due to the new regulations by allowing Americans to exploit our own natural resources--not to mention that we need to be energy independent.

    Also, let's be honest, if we really want to cleanup our air, let's outlaw diesel-polluting trucks. Diesel is dirty! I'm tired of being poisoned by diesel cars and trucks that literally make me have to open my windows in order to breath--even when it's cold out. Build more refineries and exploit domestic oil reserves. At this point, I seriously doubt refineries would be able to keep up with demand for gasoline if diesel engines were phased out. But something needs to be done about pollution caused by diesel engines.
  • #64
    !
    Interesting that the energy industry gets even an ounce of credibility on this issue. You would think they would jump at the chance to market significantly cleaner fuels. It would sure beat the patronizing ads they insult us with now. As if they really care about your child's test scores.
  • #60
    !
    Just another way to increase taxes, nothing new there. People should simply buy less gasoline, and it would hit the oil market and bring prices down.
  • #54
    !
    Folks, hold on to your seat belts. This might get a bit bumpy. We are asking the wrong question. Americans are being fed a steady stream of lies and misinformation, and there is no other way to put it. Is it the oil companies who's obvious goal is to maximize volume? Is it our government/EPA putting needless restrictions which causes this? I don't know, but we REALLY need to find out. Our cars/trucks operate at an average of around 21 MPG here in the US. I inherited my mom's little Civic, and on a good day I could get 400 miles on this 10 gallon tank, and I'm sure we all know from experience, the larger the tank the lower the fuel economy, so 300-450 mile range would be pretty standard in any US car. Then I saw this. Top Gear - Series 12, Episode 4. Haven't seen it? Netflix it. I hope UKviewpoint will weigh in on this subject.

    The 3 hosts received a challenge to each drive any car of their choice from to Basel, Switzerland to Blackpool, England. This is 750 miles away! You could choose any route you wanted, and Jeremy not only chose a route 840 miles away, he also chose a Jaguar XJ6 with a V-8 twin turbo. They had to almost double a "normal" range. It's stupid. It's insane. I couldn't be done. Even Jeremy chose the Jaguar, because he could care less about fuel economy. But what happened? They made it. They ALL made it! The Jaguar had an estimated usage of over 50MPG, and that was with Jeremy driving like he could care less if he made it or not (at first). The Volkswagen was in the 70's! I have heard Prius' reporting in the 90's! Why? Why are we being fed a bed of lies that says if you are getting 40 MPG, that's about as good as it gets? Try Googling the top 10 most efficient cars in America. Lousy. The UK, based on statistics I could find is 37MPG, and I bet realistically if you took the large trucks and old vehicles out, it would be in the 60's.

    So we need to stop arguing a couple pennies on the price of gas or whether or not we need to decrease emissions 5-10%. We as Americans need to demand why we do not have access to cars that routinely will offer 50-100% better gas mileage than we have here because THAT will cut emissions way before spending millions of dollars on some new refining techniques. This technology already exists!

    Now if that's not enough for you, Google Lincvolt, an engine giving one of the heaviest production cars ever made, fuel economy in the triple digits.
  • #68
    !
    @Firestorm Sorry, I'd like to back you up but Jeremy Clarkson is a liar. The Jaguar xj6 will only do 23mpg max on a highway.
  • R Load more replies

  • #47
    !
    I feel that it is ridiculous to assume that increasing vehicle emissions' standards and fuel refinement requirements would or should increase fuel cost and believe that both the auto and oil industry should work to embrace the increased functionality afforded by such provisions by focusing instead on working to keep their products relevant in an ever evolving world of alternatives composed of a consciously ascending consumer base.

    In otherwords, they should WILLINGLY fall in line or risk being replaced altogether.
  • #43
    !
    More drag on business and cost to the economy. If Obama can destroy all businesses, then he gets his dream of a totally socialist society. Once again, while China pushes toward capitalism as fast as they can, Obama and the moron liberals want to turn us into China.
  • #42
    !
    taking 33 million cars off the roads, the Post reports.

    The liberals have a plan, That plan is to make gasoline exspensive...So much that poor people cant afford it.
    This my freinds is what liberals do.
    They raise prices, they keep the poor where they are.
    they keep blks in the ghetto's
    Liberals have never truly helped anyone.
    They claim to , However its all just a scam.
    Never trust a Liberal to actually help anyone, their actual goal is to make you and i live in a 3rd world country.
    Gay marriage will just help get us there a little quicker, Please study the agenda!!!
  • #41
    !
    You can actually run your vehicles on water and there is a device that fits under the hood that separates hydrogen from oxygen and your vehicle runs on hydrogen with a waste product of oxygen. Cost to buy the materials is under $200. It is heavily patented and cannot be marketed as a unit, however you can build it yourself and place it on your vehicle without violating the patent. Depending on how you set it up you can get between 50MPG and 300MPG on a gallon of water. It is not sweeping the country because you have to change your exhaust pipes to stainless steel to avoid rust, also the valves and rings in the engine need to be changed. Car manufactures could use this if the oil companies had not purchased the patent.
  • #40
    !
    Our current regime is working against the interests of American citizens. They've increased regulation to oil producers, making it more difficult and expensive to drill. They've regulated refining to the point that more domestic refineries are shutting down every year, and new ones are blocked from being built. They've regulated the trucking industry in order to make it more difficult and expensive to move fuel around. They've blocked pipelines that would increase worldwide supply. They've banned drilling in the easy locations where the oil is, so that drilling must be done in ever more difficult and dangerous locations, which increases costs, not to mention risk. In shorts, they've done EVERYTHING to keep fuel prices high, and have done NOTHING to reduce prices. Do economists actually sit around scratching their heads wondering why the U.S. economy won't rebound? It's really pretty simple: Fuel prices are eating up a larger and larger percentage of the average citizen's paycheck, and government gets a good chunk of that increased revenue through taxes and fees, both overt and hidden. Not only do Americans pay more to fill their vehicle's tanks, but Americans are paying more for every single thing moved by vehicle, from food to toilet paper. Want cheaper fuel? Then quit voting for people who have promised they are going to do everything in their power to raise the price of fuel.
  • R Load more comments...
Post