This is a very debatable issue. Does it have an impact on the environment ?
Published studies show that ethanol has an 87% burn rate compared to 100% for gas. This means a few less horsepower, less kilometres per litre and residue in the fuel system in a vehicule. This means jet lines cleaning at some point in time.
The study also demonstrates an increase in fuel costs, 10% ethanol versus regular gas, decreases the number of kilometers per litre, at plus or minus 4%.
Say one tank fill up per week at $50, 52 fill ups per year will become 54 or an additional $100 per year. Be it fuel-injected, turbo engines, the lower burn rate of 105 ethanol leaves residues that may require fuel lines to be cleaned more frequently. This is a cost of around $140. Ethanol is formulated from corn which must be transported from fields to processing plants. Once transformed it is sent to a refinery to be added to pure gasoline. A lot of emissions are created with this.
By increasing consumption of gasoline at $100 per year, cleaning the fuel lines at $140 (say every two years therefore $70 per year), an accumulation of residues can and most likely will affect the anti pollution sensors in the modern day vehicles with alarms activated for residue accumulation.
What we are not told is the impact of 10% ethanol on supposedly cleaning the environment.
The study believes the impact is neutralised due to increase litre consumption and additional releases from transporting and converting corn to ethanol.
Is 10% ethanol a scam to sell more litres and collect more taxes or is it real? When travelling in some states in the U.S. there are signs posted at a large number of gas stations that read “ETHANOL FREE”. Studies show what is gained on one side is lost on the other.
Another government tax grab and a benefit for refineries to sell more. Remember the phrases used by politicians at all levels, “it’s for your own good or benefit” and the phrase “it’s only xx% more”?
Is that not what the promised electric costs were all about? Where are the savings that are not anywhere to be seen and that some consider gouging?
While you are here, we have a small ask.
More people are reading The Review than ever before — across our many platforms. So far, we have not put up a paywall to limit the stories you can read. We want to keep you in the news loop. But advertising revenues are increasingly going to the big two: you know who they are. If you value The Review’s independent, local community journalism, or you value the many ways we support dozens of community organizations in their endeavours, consider supporting our work. It takes time, effort and professional smarts to stay on top of community news and present well-researched, objective news articles on issues which matter to you.
If you read stories on this website, or you have come here from an Instant Article post on Facebook, think about subscribing. It would be a vote of confidence for the work that we do, and for the future well-being of your community.
Latest posts by Louise Sproule (see all)
- Assessment Review Board allows appeal of 19 years of property taxes due to assessment error - February 15, 2019
- Suspects arrested in connection with stolen vehicles, diesel fuel - February 15, 2019
- Drivers charged with impaired driving - February 15, 2019