True, in this case they still left it up to the manufacturer for them to determine. They just put the regulation on gas sold at gas pumps and let the market deal with how it wanted to adapt to the change in gas. Far more effective than the US method but I suspect that has more to do with federal/state issues than anything else (many stupid things the US feds do is because of that dynamic)
Oh no, regulation for the sake of regulation is idiotic - regulation that creates multiple positive ancillary effects that may not happen in the market otherwise is worth doing.
Quality matters to me regardless of any particular issue like ethanol. My current vehicle is 13 years old, has required less than CDN$15,000 in initial cost and maintenance/repairs (~$1500/year). The body is going to go before the guts which is what I want in a major investment like a car. Preserves resale value and keeps costs low.
Ethanol requires higher quality parts, especially tubing and seals. In Canada, by regulating a minimum % of ethanol in all gas this forces the car manufacturers to adapt and install those parts where they might have gone with a cheaper alternative.
They don't prey on us because we've used technology/fire/etc to prey on them for thousands of years. Natural selection at work, the ones that attack us get killed so the ones that are fearful/wary of us propagate. We're not particularly strong or nimble - brains and endurance are about the only things that recommend us as a species.
1) I said a part of the reason, not the entire reason cars were lasting longer. 2) This issue of gasoline for fueling tractors just doesn't exist in Canada - they either have tractors that are compatible/use a different fuel or they have storage on site that they get refilled by the oil companies directly. 3) There are alternative ways to fuel cars, that's why ethanol is not the only government mandate - they're also mandating related to electric and other fuels. 4) The reason ethanol is a hedge is that the intent isn't to replace oil 100%, it's to reduce consumption of oil reserves to make them last longer, this gives technology a chance to find a better solution. Also, when the oil reserves do start drying up most gas based vehicles will be e85 compliant or non-gas based so the impact will be lessened. 5) The reason for encouraging corn over wood is that only 370 million tons/year of wood can be produced sustainably in the US. Agricultural on the other hand is just over 1 billion tons/year - corn in particular has the side effect of creating food/feed where the alternatives do not. Technically, switchgrass is the best source, especially since it can grow in poor soil environments and is self seeding.
Actually, governments were worrying about that sort of thing as early as 1875 when Wisconsin offered a prize for a vehicle that would be a "cheap, practical substitute for the horse and other animals". http://www.wisconsinhistory.or...
That is one of the roles of government, to look ahead at potential problems and find ways of mitigating them before they become a problem.
Hopefully, because of the various government actions being taken today (from biofuel to electric cars to renewables) we won't have to worry about it.
oh and "how long did it take to develop the e85?" Ford was the first in the modern era, and it took them 14 years to come up with a commercially viable product, the Taurus - and only then because it was legislated. In those 14 years Ford produced only 705 experimental versions of the Escort, Taurus, and Crown Victoria. Since then only 1 in 18 vehicles sold in the US has been e85.
etc. Conventional oil reserves only account for 30% of the total reserves, of all the known reserves, at current production rates, they'll be depleted within 65 years.
American Motor Association stats wouldn't agree because the US has not had nation wide deployment of ethanol blends. They hope to have 10,000 stations by 2015! Canada has had it nation wide in ALL gas stations since 1999 and the Canadian stats don't point to a problem with ethanol and vehicle longevity.
Oh and I forgot to answer the question about fleet cars being new... apparently I didn't copy the link properly as it is cut off at the end... here's the correct link:
As you can see from the stats on page 7, a 16 year old car would have only a 21% chance of being on the road if it was manufactured in 1984. A 16 old car manufactured in 1993 has a 35% chance of still being on the road. If ethanol was damaging engines as the article suggests then you'd see a reduction in these numbers not an increase. One could make the case that this did occur in cars manufactured from 1999 to 2001 as such a reduction, but one that was short lived and corrected by 2002.
My post was a direct response to the motorcycle comment, not the overall issue. However, part of the reason that cars have gotten better in the past 20 years is because of government regulations requiring ethanol. The manufacturers adjusted their manufacturing to account for this reality.
As to the financial sense, it does make sense in the long term view. In the short term you're absolutely correct that, on the surface at least, it doesn't make any sense. Let me ask you this though: What happens when the oil does run out and these regulations weren't put in place? Car companies wouldn't have vehicles capable of handling the fuel properly, the amount of corn/etc needed for manufacturing bio-fuels would not be there, even if the materials were there the processing capacity & expertise would not exist. There are a lot of elements in the supply chain that exist for traditional oil that did not exist for bio-fuels. Some could be converted but that takes time - especially at the level required to meet market demands. It was never about the environment, it was a hedge against another energy crisis and/or collapse of the oil economy.
Sadly the stats don't agree with your anecdotal story.
Canada has required a minimum of 5% ethanol in gas since 1999. Typically you'll see 15% ethanol. The percentage of original vehicles that have survived long term has gone up. Especially on the 12 years and up vehicles which the survival rate has gone up as much as 14%. http://www.fleetbusiness.com/p... see page 7.
And we die by poisonous snakes, spiders, scorpions, jellyfish, plants; disease carriers like rats, cockroaches, etc; And just about anything that we poke/prod/otherwise mistreat that has large claws/horns/etc or that is just large enough to pummel us to death like apes, elephants, and even kangaroos.
Humans die easily in the wild, it's our technology that keeps us safe.
I doubt there will be a title crawl. That said it's pretty simple if there is one:
"The Rebellion succeeded, stumbled, and eventually formed the Galactic Alliance... yada yada yada"
You can set the story in the other half of the galaxy, maybe throw in a random negative comment about the Vong, and leave Coruscant out of it entirely since it's one planet in an entire galaxy. If you do need to set part of the story on one of the planets the Vong trashed then have it as a trashed world and when they first land have a quick bit of diaglogue "- What happened here? - The Vong. They're gone now" and move on.
It was ruled under a democracy with an elected president. The stories were told from the perspective of Starfleet, the space equivalent of a merger between a Navy and NASA.
Umm.....Chekov wasn't in the show until season 2....
It was a poorly constructed sentence which combined a couple thoughts - having a positive Russian character a few years (5?) after the Cuban missile crisis was quite a change from the norm. Other media of the time depicted the Russians as evil (From Russia with Love) or bumbling (The Russians are Coming). So yes, he was not in the pilot, but the overall point is the same.
Slashdot Mirror
True, in this case they still left it up to the manufacturer for them to determine. They just put the regulation on gas sold at gas pumps and let the market deal with how it wanted to adapt to the change in gas. Far more effective than the US method but I suspect that has more to do with federal/state issues than anything else (many stupid things the US feds do is because of that dynamic)
Oh no, regulation for the sake of regulation is idiotic - regulation that creates multiple positive ancillary effects that may not happen in the market otherwise is worth doing.
Quality matters to me regardless of any particular issue like ethanol. My current vehicle is 13 years old, has required less than CDN$15,000 in initial cost and maintenance/repairs (~$1500/year). The body is going to go before the guts which is what I want in a major investment like a car. Preserves resale value and keeps costs low.
Ethanol requires higher quality parts, especially tubing and seals. In Canada, by regulating a minimum % of ethanol in all gas this forces the car manufacturers to adapt and install those parts where they might have gone with a cheaper alternative.
They don't prey on us because we've used technology/fire/etc to prey on them for thousands of years. Natural selection at work, the ones that attack us get killed so the ones that are fearful/wary of us propagate. We're not particularly strong or nimble - brains and endurance are about the only things that recommend us as a species.
Corn prices have been going up because of ethanol - there was never an excess of corn because the primary use is feed for cattle.
lol - it was a joke, Cane Toad eggs are lethal to humans.
Not even tribes in Brazil are without technology - they use bows, blow darts, poisons, etc. cavemen used axes, spears, made clothing, etc.
Mileage is a different issue from damaging engines. Everyone knew going in that Ethanol was less efficient.
1) I said a part of the reason, not the entire reason cars were lasting longer.
2) This issue of gasoline for fueling tractors just doesn't exist in Canada - they either have tractors that are compatible/use a different fuel or they have storage on site that they get refilled by the oil companies directly.
3) There are alternative ways to fuel cars, that's why ethanol is not the only government mandate - they're also mandating related to electric and other fuels.
4) The reason ethanol is a hedge is that the intent isn't to replace oil 100%, it's to reduce consumption of oil reserves to make them last longer, this gives technology a chance to find a better solution. Also, when the oil reserves do start drying up most gas based vehicles will be e85 compliant or non-gas based so the impact will be lessened.
5) The reason for encouraging corn over wood is that only 370 million tons/year of wood can be produced sustainably in the US. Agricultural on the other hand is just over 1 billion tons/year - corn in particular has the side effect of creating food/feed where the alternatives do not. Technically, switchgrass is the best source, especially since it can grow in poor soil environments and is self seeding.
Actually, governments were worrying about that sort of thing as early as 1875 when Wisconsin offered a prize for a vehicle that would be a "cheap, practical substitute for the horse and other animals". http://www.wisconsinhistory.or...
That is one of the roles of government, to look ahead at potential problems and find ways of mitigating them before they become a problem.
Hopefully, because of the various government actions being taken today (from biofuel to electric cars to renewables) we won't have to worry about it.
oh and "how long did it take to develop the e85?" Ford was the first in the modern era, and it took them 14 years to come up with a commercially viable product, the Taurus - and only then because it was legislated. In those 14 years Ford produced only 705 experimental versions of the Escort, Taurus, and Crown Victoria. Since then only 1 in 18 vehicles sold in the US has been e85.
It doesn't need to be massive to have a major effect on the economy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
etc. Conventional oil reserves only account for 30% of the total reserves, of all the known reserves, at current production rates, they'll be depleted within 65 years.
American Motor Association stats wouldn't agree because the US has not had nation wide deployment of ethanol blends. They hope to have 10,000 stations by 2015! Canada has had it nation wide in ALL gas stations since 1999 and the Canadian stats don't point to a problem with ethanol and vehicle longevity.
Oh and I forgot to answer the question about fleet cars being new... apparently I didn't copy the link properly as it is cut off at the end... here's the correct link:
http://www.fleetbusiness.com/p...
As you can see from the stats on page 7, a 16 year old car would have only a 21% chance of being on the road if it was manufactured in 1984. A 16 old car manufactured in 1993 has a 35% chance of still being on the road. If ethanol was damaging engines as the article suggests then you'd see a reduction in these numbers not an increase. One could make the case that this did occur in cars manufactured from 1999 to 2001 as such a reduction, but one that was short lived and corrected by 2002.
My post was a direct response to the motorcycle comment, not the overall issue. However, part of the reason that cars have gotten better in the past 20 years is because of government regulations requiring ethanol. The manufacturers adjusted their manufacturing to account for this reality.
As to the financial sense, it does make sense in the long term view. In the short term you're absolutely correct that, on the surface at least, it doesn't make any sense. Let me ask you this though: What happens when the oil does run out and these regulations weren't put in place? Car companies wouldn't have vehicles capable of handling the fuel properly, the amount of corn/etc needed for manufacturing bio-fuels would not be there, even if the materials were there the processing capacity & expertise would not exist. There are a lot of elements in the supply chain that exist for traditional oil that did not exist for bio-fuels. Some could be converted but that takes time - especially at the level required to meet market demands. It was never about the environment, it was a hedge against another energy crisis and/or collapse of the oil economy.
Sadly the stats don't agree with your anecdotal story.
Canada has required a minimum of 5% ethanol in gas since 1999. Typically you'll see 15% ethanol. The percentage of original vehicles that have survived long term has gone up. Especially on the 12 years and up vehicles which the survival rate has gone up as much as 14%. http://www.fleetbusiness.com/p... see page 7.
And we die by poisonous snakes, spiders, scorpions, jellyfish, plants; disease carriers like rats, cockroaches, etc; And just about anything that we poke/prod/otherwise mistreat that has large claws/horns/etc or that is just large enough to pummel us to death like apes, elephants, and even kangaroos.
Humans die easily in the wild, it's our technology that keeps us safe.
I vote the submitter of this article starts by eating some Cane Toad eggs.
That's the kicker - fair use.
The does will just cite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... and laugh at Blizzard.
*blushes*
I just wish I could correct the typo ;) hehe
I doubt there will be a title crawl. That said it's pretty simple if there is one:
"The Rebellion succeeded, stumbled, and eventually formed the Galactic Alliance... yada yada yada"
You can set the story in the other half of the galaxy, maybe throw in a random negative comment about the Vong, and leave Coruscant out of it entirely since it's one planet in an entire galaxy. If you do need to set part of the story on one of the planets the Vong trashed then have it as a trashed world and when they first land have a quick bit of diaglogue "- What happened here? - The Vong. They're gone now" and move on.
It's really not that hard to skirt these issues.
The network wanted a Davey Jones, Roddenberry used the opportunity to push the envelope.
It was ruled under a democracy with an elected president. The stories were told from the perspective of Starfleet, the space equivalent of a merger between a Navy and NASA.
They don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Umm.....Chekov wasn't in the show until season 2....
It was a poorly constructed sentence which combined a couple thoughts - having a positive Russian character a few years (5?) after the Cuban missile crisis was quite a change from the norm. Other media of the time depicted the Russians as evil (From Russia with Love) or bumbling (The Russians are Coming). So yes, he was not in the pilot, but the overall point is the same.