Bertram33 User Forum

How about letting us know one way or the other so we can all act superior and say: "HAH! See a$$holes! You were all wrong! Now give our boat's their value back!" Regards, Doug L. 1986 33 Bertram FBC Queen Elizabeth Marblehead, MA [img]http://www.bertram33.com/photogallery/p ... sabeth.jpg[/img]

Doug, We all know that whatever we say will have no effect on what the "experts" think and write. I think I will change the fuel in one of the samples , just to be sure it has fresh ethanol, and then we'll wait a little longer.I would say that by next year if there isn't any changes we should make as much noise about it as possible, but there will still be people who say"it happened to me, my tank melted when I started putting the new gas in it" without really realizing that their tank was failing all along and the ethanol just made it apparent by dissolving the goo and running it through their engines.

I agree!

Me too!

Hello All, Let me just say if car gas tanks were failing the Ambulance chasers would be all over it. Man I'm pissed. Capt. Sean

Study: Ethanol may add to global warming By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON -- The widespread use of ethanol from corn could result in nearly twice the greenhouse gas emissions as the gasoline it would replace because of expected land-use changes, researchers concluded Thursday. The study challenges the rush to biofuels as a response to global warming. The researchers said that past studies showing the benefits of ethanol in combating climate change have not taken into account almost certain changes in land use worldwide if ethanol from corn - and in the future from other feedstocks such as switchgrass - become a prized commodity. "Using good cropland to expand biofuels will probably exacerbate global warming," concludes the study published in Science magazine. The researchers said that farmers under economic pressure to produce biofuels will increasingly "plow up more forest or grasslands," releasing much of the carbon formerly stored in plants and soils through decomposition or fires. Globally, more grasslands and forests will be converted to growing the crops to replace the loss of grains when U.S. farmers convert land to biofuels, the study said. The Renewable Fuels Association, which represents ethanol producers, called the researchers' view of land-use changes "simplistic" and said the study "fails to put the issue in context." "Assigning the blame for rainforest deforestation and grassland conversion to agriculture solely on the renewable fuels industry ignores key factors that play a greater role," said Bob Dinneen, the association's president. There has been a rush to developing biofuels, especially ethanol from corn and cellulosic feedstock such as switchgrass and wood chips, as a substitute for gasoline. President Bush signed energy legislation in December that mandates a six-fold increase in ethanol use as a fuel to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, calling the requirement key to weaning the nation from imported oil. The new "green" fuel, whether made from corn or other feedstocks, has been widely promoted - both in Congress and by the White House - as a key to combating global warming. Burning it produces less carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, than the fossil fuels it will replace. During the recent congressional debate over energy legislation, lawmakers frequently cited estimates that corn-based ethanol produces 20 percent less greenhouse gases in production, transportation and use than gasoline, and that cellulosic ethanol has an even greater benefit of 70 percent less emissions. The study released Thursday by researchers affiliated with Princeton University and a number of other institutions maintains that these analyses "were one-sided" and counted the carbon benefits of using land for biofuels but not the carbon costs of diverting land from its existing uses. "The other studies missed a key factor that everyone agrees should have been included, the land use changes that actually are going to increase greenhouse gas emissions," said Tim Searchinger, a research scholar at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and lead author of the study. The study said that after taking into account expected worldwide land-use changes, corn-based ethanol, instead of reducing greenhouse gases by 20 percent, will increases it by 93 percent compared to using gasoline over a 30-year period. Biofuels from switchgrass, if they replace croplands and other carbon-absorbing lands, would result in 50 percent more greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers concluded. Not all ethanol would be affected by the land-use changes, the study said. "We should be focusing on our use of biofuels from waste products" such as garbage, which would not result in changes in agricultural land use, Searchinger said in an interview. "And you have to be careful how much you require. Use the right biofuels, but don't require too much too fast. Right now we're making almost exclusively the wrong biofuels." The study included co-authors affiliated with Iowa State University, the Woods Hole Research Center and the Agricultural Conservation Economics. It was supported in part indirectly by a grants from NASA's Terrestrial Ecology Program, and by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Searchinger, in addition to his affiliation with Princeton, is a fellow at the Washington-based German Marshall Fund of the United States. The study prompted a letter Thursday to President Bush and Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress from nearly a dozen scientists who urged them to pursue a policy "that ensures biofuels are not produced on productive forests, grassland or cropland." "Some opportunities remain to produce environmentally beneficial biofuels" while "unsound biofuel policies could sacrifice tens of hundreds of million of acres" of grasslands and forests while increasing global warming, said the scientists, including four members of the National Academy of Sciences. Regards, Doug L. 1986 33 Bertram FBC Queen Elizabeth Marblehead, MA [img]http://www.bertram33.com/photogallery/p ... sabeth.jpg[/img]

I hope the ripples of talk on this subject are heard and grow and are not drowned out by noise from midwest politicians held hostage by huge agriculture conglomerates. Bill Arnold 1988 33 FBC 'Retriever'

Bush is an idiot and will probably not listen. The only hope we have is after the election, then maybe a smarter man (notice I didn't say woman) will have a better take on it.

You SW Florida owners may be in luck. I just read this on the 31 site: Just spoke to my mobile gas supplier about the Ethanol thing. He says he will be supplying non-ethanol for years to come. For boats in Florida he has a guaranteed supply!!! He is familiar witht he tank and engine problems. Phone Mobile Marine Fueling 2392624281 Charlie . Regards, Doug L. 1986 33 Bertram FBC Queen Elizabeth Marblehead, MA [img]http://www.bertram33.com/photogallery/p ... sabeth.jpg[/img]

That is good he is in Naples . I use to use them until their prices went way up.

I was thinking of you when I read it buddy! Regards, Doug L. 1986 33 Bertram FBC Queen Elizabeth Marblehead, MA [img]http://www.bertram33.com/photogallery/p ... sabeth.jpg[/img]

Finally a national magazine has come out with the truth about the ethanol disaster: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... -1,00.html Regards, Doug L. 1986 33 Bertram FBC Queen Elizabeth Marblehead, MA [img]http://www.bertram33.com/photogallery/p ... sabeth.jpg[/img]

Nice to see an article like that in the Times. Hopefully it will get some attention. Unreal, "the grain it takes to fill a tank full of ethanol could feed a person for a year". That's incredibly ridiculous, and sad. Bill 1989 33 FBC Ipswich, Ma. > ~------- [img]http://www.bertram33.com/photogallery/p ... a_Rose.jpg[/img]

Interesting thread from the Hatt site: http://www.samsmarine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10042 Long story short, it looks like Florida passed an energy bill that exempts marinas (plus a few others) from having to carry ethanol. The bill doesn't say that marinas won't/can't carry ethanol, just that they don't have to. If only the other states would get their heads out of their asses to pass such a bill!

I followed Doug's link to the Hatteras site, and followed a link there to this, which, while directed at aircraft fuel, simply states the reasons ethanol blended fuel is not to be used in aircraft.. only a few sentences, but right to the point! BTW.. this site has a link to a company that sells test kits to determine if there is ethanol in the gas you buy! http://www.eaa.org/autofuel/autogas/test_kit.asp