On Feb 5, 10:08 am, Patrick <doctor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> jackbadger56 wrote:
> > On Feb 4, 9:55 pm, saab_o_naut <saabon...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> On Feb 4, 5:22 pm, jackbadger56 <castl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >>> It seems that if a manufacturer can make a car run on E85, they've
> >>> earned an official 'green' tag. AFAIK cars running on this still
> >>> produce greenhouse gases (is that right?), there are stuff-all
places
> >>> selling the ****, a tank seems to take you half the distance, and if
> >>> everyone switched over to it there'd be no
sugar/corn/potatoes/alpaca
> >>> goats or whatever they're currently deriving it from left to eat,
and
> >>> the only way to make up the shortfall of farming land would involve
> >>> clearing on a massive scale!
> >>> Another bloody red herring!!
> >> Ethanol fuel in Australia is limited to a maximum of 10 percent
> >> because the federal government has set up cartel-marketting
agreements
> >> between the key oil companies and Manildra Corp which is the biggest
> >> producer of ethanol in Australia. The 10 percent limit is set so
> >> Manildra can always keep product flowing so the pricing of 10 percent
> >> ethanol fuel can be kept artificially lower than regular ULP.
>
> > Well there's another 'problem'; E10 is about 2-3c cheaper than UL.
> > Shouldn't the real difference be closer to 10%?
>
> Only if ethanol is free, which it isn't.
>
> On the other hand, you fuel consumption goes up at LEAST 10%, as far as
> my experience goes.
OK. Is ethanol taxed? If not the difference should be 9% then.
|
