• bthest@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    If America was a person on a raft dying of thirst then we’re at the part where they start gulping down ocean water.

  • stoly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    This is stupid. You have to use so much fucking gas to farm those fields. It just adds to the load.

    • Bakkoda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      5 hours ago

      And you simply end up buying more gas because it’s less efficient if your car doesn’t take it. So demand will actually increase. Which makes sense when you realize whose in charge.

      • TrippingBalls@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        How about all those people who paid extra for the cars that burn E85… To get less mpg

        Financial literacy is very not common in government… Even less so with the population

  • WanderWisley@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Water down the gas, then contaminate the water with in a AI data center. Art of the deal! We will be so much winning you might get tried of all the winner! 🫲🍊🫱

    • Pyr@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      If only AI data centres had to pay $5 a gallon for gasoline to power their equipment and we could use free clean water to power our vehicles.

  • green_goglin@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    Real benefit: Combustion motor life cycle shortened enhancing planned obsolescence for manufacturer product cycles and future sales. Diluted gas is less efficient and despite paying less you’re actually paying more both near and long term. So much winning.

    • Bakkoda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I drive a 2018 wrx with a very modest etune. It’s tuned for longevity as it’s not even an hp gain. This will be difficult to run in my car.

      • pahlimur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Why? It raises the octane, so you can run more boost easily. It just requires more fuel delivery because it has lower energy density. Are you near injector or fuel pump flow limits?

    • ClownStatue@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Fortunately, us Americans suck at math. A consequence of our “world class” public education.

  • akilou@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    76
    ·
    14 hours ago

    However, while the E15 rollout can lower prices, ethanol does contains less energy than gasoline, so eventually with E15, a driver will end up burning more fuel for the same amount of distance, albeit fuel which is slightly cheaper than standard gasoline.

    MAGAs are dumb enough to think they’re getting some kind of deal

    • JennaR8r@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Ethanol also rots the internal works of your vehicle so vehicles will disintegrate and people will be forced to buy new vehicles in 2027+ which will all have mandatory big brother spyware.

    • bajabound@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      14 hours ago

      I monitor gas mileage in my truck pretty closely. Even resetting the fuel trims and running a couple tanks, E15 doesn’t really change mine that much over E10, maybe 1 mile per gallon less. Now on the other hand E85 is closer to 5-6mpg less. It all depends on how much less it costs at the time, but overall E15 is slightly cheaper for my use case. Any savings I might have is more than taken away by filling up my equipment, diesel is crazy now and no ethanol gas is right behind it.

    • Miles O'Brien@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Well yeah, their entire lives have been spent sucking oil dick, their entire foundation of their wealth is tied up in oil, and even though they’re rich enough to pivot entirely and never feel a difference in their lives, they’re stuck in the sunk cost mentality.

      It’s too risky to invest in a brand new industry that’s on shaky legs. Never mind that it stopped being a “new” industry decades ago and has proven it will do quite well, and is thriving. They stopped paying attention to real life many many decades ago. As far as they are concerned, they didn’t have to do any sort of personal growth, so they are woefully out of touch with reality.

      Oil is what was there when they (or their parents they inherited wealth from) were kids, so obviously they have to dig their heels in to keep oil from flopping. Anything else is secondary.

    • SuiXi3D@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      16 hours ago

      To be fair, I can’t run my car off of wind power.

      But also to be fair, I could be doing so were I enabled to do so.

      EDIT: What I mean by this is that I in no way nor have I ever been in a position to purchase an EV. I would love to, but it requires money I simply do not have.

      • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        12 hours ago

        If your wind power charged a battery and you hooked up to it nightly with your electric car, it could. Certainly if the municipal grid uses wind power.

  • DupaCycki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    14 hours ago

    This is literally the exact same kind of thing as USSR-aligned countries would do in the 80s. Back then it was “stupid communism”, but today it’s “glorious capitalism”.

    • orclev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      16 hours ago

      They absolutely can, just not as much, and not in the ways they’re used to. They’ve invested heavily in oil based products up to and including fighting many many wars as well as shaping their entire international policy around it.

      They could pivot to renewables, something several Democrats started the process of doing, but until the pivot completes their profits would take a nose dive (plus the massive losses from the heavy investment into oil refineries). Even then though the unfortunate crux of the matter is that rare earth metals are an increasingly vital component of all future technology and the biggest deposits of those are all very inconveniently placed from a US perspective (almost exclusively within the territory of countries the US has a somewhat poor relationship with).

  • Keilik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    17 hours ago

    I don’t think many people on here are into classic cars much, but if they allow more ethanol in gas that’s going to fuck up a pretty large amount of classic cars. Modern fuel lines are plastic to deal with the ethanol and impact resistance. before that we used rubber, and the current widely used (cheap) replacement fuel hose tolerates ethanol at the levels we had well enough for a few years.

    So there’s a decent chance this would burn down a bunch of cars (and boats) when the fuel lines dissolve from the ethanol and start spilling gas.

      • Zulu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Oh lord. Are 2000s cars classic cars now? Someone take me out back and shoot me.

        • Bad_Engineering@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          15 hours ago

          Good news, you’re not fucked. Your car has been running on roughly 10-15% ethanol its entire life. If you havnt had problems yet, you likely won’t. Unless they go full stupid and put an absurd amount in of ethanol in, then it won’t effect most cars on the road today.

    • Bad_Engineering@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      15 hours ago

      The main problem with ethanol in rubber fuel lines is that ethanol causes hardening and flaking of the rubber. Long before it ever gets bad enough to leak the little flakes of hardened rubber detatch from the inside of the line and travel down to fuel pumps, injectors, and carburators. Where they clog up all the small metered orifices that regulate the amount of fuel the engine is getting. This can lead to the car just not running or running poorly, to the internal components of the engine breaking or seizing, thus trashing the whole engine.

    • INeedANewUserName@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      I thought most of those boats sunk/vehicles burned from the first round of ethanol addition? Any fiberglass fuel tank went to the bottom eventually as I understand it.

    • Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      If you’re driving a classic car in the middle of a gas crisis, you kinda deserve it, imo. Those things are about the only thing more inefficient than a jacked up pavement princess.

      Edit: learned that “classic” has a much broader definition than I thought. Oops.

      • Medic8me@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        I drive a car thati bought used over a decade ago. It’s cost effective, paid for and not a gas guzzler. Fuck me though cause I own an old car. One with rubber gas lines.

        • Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          17 hours ago

          Did I say “fuck people with slightly older cars”?

          I was specifically responding to op complaining about affecting classic cars. It sucks that your slightly older car might be affected by this, but don’t jump into the shade and pretend I threw it at you.

          • justsomeguy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            16 hours ago

            “Classic car” isn’t just some vibe. It’s literally a legal term for cars of a certain age. Depending on the country it refers to >15, >20 or >25 years old cars. That means you can have a relatively fuel efficient car that is considered a classic car.

            The first Toyota Prius came out 1997 (29 years ago) and would be considered a classic car today.

      • Keilik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        15 hours ago

        I’m actually driving my 1971 MGB around these days because I get 55MPG since it has 75ish horsepower and weighs about 2000lbs total lol