98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
#381
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On Tue, 15 May 2007 13:12:12 -0700, Bob Officer
<bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:
> The excessive cost of bio fuels is a bad solution. Growing corn or
> any other starch is the least efficient method of converting solar
> power to energy.
And more importantly, it's a waste of perfectly good corn squeezins...
<bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:
> The excessive cost of bio fuels is a bad solution. Growing corn or
> any other starch is the least efficient method of converting solar
> power to energy.
And more importantly, it's a waste of perfectly good corn squeezins...
#382
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Bob Officer <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 10:29:31 -0700, in
> rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>The problem is this, people always think in terms of monetary cost
>>and that's wrong where "green" is concerned. Think of a coal fired
>>generating station suppling energy to your house and to a factory
>>making solar panels. Your house requires X amount of energy to run
>>your TV, PC, etc. over it's lifetime.
>>If the coal fired plant uses 2X energy to supply your house and
>>the solar panel requires 3X energy to make, you get the solar
>>panel and don't have any more electric bill, you saved a fortune
>>and it's GREAT for you, the consumer but it's BAD for the ecology
>>because your house has now used MORE energy, consumed more of the
>>planet's resources, etc. The reverse would be true if the solar
>>panel cost 1.5X to manufacture, then it would be good for you, the
>>consumer, and good for the ecology as well.
>
> Please show the cost of manufacturing the solar panel is 3x.
Note the word "if".
> it is a one time cost.
Yes,note the first paragraph above. All costs in the above example are
lifetime costs so they can all be considered one time costs.
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 10:29:31 -0700, in
> rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>The problem is this, people always think in terms of monetary cost
>>and that's wrong where "green" is concerned. Think of a coal fired
>>generating station suppling energy to your house and to a factory
>>making solar panels. Your house requires X amount of energy to run
>>your TV, PC, etc. over it's lifetime.
>>If the coal fired plant uses 2X energy to supply your house and
>>the solar panel requires 3X energy to make, you get the solar
>>panel and don't have any more electric bill, you saved a fortune
>>and it's GREAT for you, the consumer but it's BAD for the ecology
>>because your house has now used MORE energy, consumed more of the
>>planet's resources, etc. The reverse would be true if the solar
>>panel cost 1.5X to manufacture, then it would be good for you, the
>>consumer, and good for the ecology as well.
>
> Please show the cost of manufacturing the solar panel is 3x.
Note the word "if".
> it is a one time cost.
Yes,note the first paragraph above. All costs in the above example are
lifetime costs so they can all be considered one time costs.
#383
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Bob Officer <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 10:29:31 -0700, in
> rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>The problem is this, people always think in terms of monetary cost
>>and that's wrong where "green" is concerned. Think of a coal fired
>>generating station suppling energy to your house and to a factory
>>making solar panels. Your house requires X amount of energy to run
>>your TV, PC, etc. over it's lifetime.
>>If the coal fired plant uses 2X energy to supply your house and
>>the solar panel requires 3X energy to make, you get the solar
>>panel and don't have any more electric bill, you saved a fortune
>>and it's GREAT for you, the consumer but it's BAD for the ecology
>>because your house has now used MORE energy, consumed more of the
>>planet's resources, etc. The reverse would be true if the solar
>>panel cost 1.5X to manufacture, then it would be good for you, the
>>consumer, and good for the ecology as well.
>
> Please show the cost of manufacturing the solar panel is 3x.
Note the word "if".
> it is a one time cost.
Yes,note the first paragraph above. All costs in the above example are
lifetime costs so they can all be considered one time costs.
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 10:29:31 -0700, in
> rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>The problem is this, people always think in terms of monetary cost
>>and that's wrong where "green" is concerned. Think of a coal fired
>>generating station suppling energy to your house and to a factory
>>making solar panels. Your house requires X amount of energy to run
>>your TV, PC, etc. over it's lifetime.
>>If the coal fired plant uses 2X energy to supply your house and
>>the solar panel requires 3X energy to make, you get the solar
>>panel and don't have any more electric bill, you saved a fortune
>>and it's GREAT for you, the consumer but it's BAD for the ecology
>>because your house has now used MORE energy, consumed more of the
>>planet's resources, etc. The reverse would be true if the solar
>>panel cost 1.5X to manufacture, then it would be good for you, the
>>consumer, and good for the ecology as well.
>
> Please show the cost of manufacturing the solar panel is 3x.
Note the word "if".
> it is a one time cost.
Yes,note the first paragraph above. All costs in the above example are
lifetime costs so they can all be considered one time costs.
#384
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Bob Officer <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 10:29:31 -0700, in
> rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>The problem is this, people always think in terms of monetary cost
>>and that's wrong where "green" is concerned. Think of a coal fired
>>generating station suppling energy to your house and to a factory
>>making solar panels. Your house requires X amount of energy to run
>>your TV, PC, etc. over it's lifetime.
>>If the coal fired plant uses 2X energy to supply your house and
>>the solar panel requires 3X energy to make, you get the solar
>>panel and don't have any more electric bill, you saved a fortune
>>and it's GREAT for you, the consumer but it's BAD for the ecology
>>because your house has now used MORE energy, consumed more of the
>>planet's resources, etc. The reverse would be true if the solar
>>panel cost 1.5X to manufacture, then it would be good for you, the
>>consumer, and good for the ecology as well.
>
> Please show the cost of manufacturing the solar panel is 3x.
Note the word "if".
> it is a one time cost.
Yes,note the first paragraph above. All costs in the above example are
lifetime costs so they can all be considered one time costs.
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 10:29:31 -0700, in
> rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>The problem is this, people always think in terms of monetary cost
>>and that's wrong where "green" is concerned. Think of a coal fired
>>generating station suppling energy to your house and to a factory
>>making solar panels. Your house requires X amount of energy to run
>>your TV, PC, etc. over it's lifetime.
>>If the coal fired plant uses 2X energy to supply your house and
>>the solar panel requires 3X energy to make, you get the solar
>>panel and don't have any more electric bill, you saved a fortune
>>and it's GREAT for you, the consumer but it's BAD for the ecology
>>because your house has now used MORE energy, consumed more of the
>>planet's resources, etc. The reverse would be true if the solar
>>panel cost 1.5X to manufacture, then it would be good for you, the
>>consumer, and good for the ecology as well.
>
> Please show the cost of manufacturing the solar panel is 3x.
Note the word "if".
> it is a one time cost.
Yes,note the first paragraph above. All costs in the above example are
lifetime costs so they can all be considered one time costs.
#385
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Bob Officer <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 10:29:31 -0700, in
> rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>The problem is this, people always think in terms of monetary cost
>>and that's wrong where "green" is concerned. Think of a coal fired
>>generating station suppling energy to your house and to a factory
>>making solar panels. Your house requires X amount of energy to run
>>your TV, PC, etc. over it's lifetime.
>>If the coal fired plant uses 2X energy to supply your house and
>>the solar panel requires 3X energy to make, you get the solar
>>panel and don't have any more electric bill, you saved a fortune
>>and it's GREAT for you, the consumer but it's BAD for the ecology
>>because your house has now used MORE energy, consumed more of the
>>planet's resources, etc. The reverse would be true if the solar
>>panel cost 1.5X to manufacture, then it would be good for you, the
>>consumer, and good for the ecology as well.
>
> Please show the cost of manufacturing the solar panel is 3x.
Note the word "if".
> it is a one time cost.
Yes,note the first paragraph above. All costs in the above example are
lifetime costs so they can all be considered one time costs.
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 10:29:31 -0700, in
> rec.autos.makers.jeep+******, XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>The problem is this, people always think in terms of monetary cost
>>and that's wrong where "green" is concerned. Think of a coal fired
>>generating station suppling energy to your house and to a factory
>>making solar panels. Your house requires X amount of energy to run
>>your TV, PC, etc. over it's lifetime.
>>If the coal fired plant uses 2X energy to supply your house and
>>the solar panel requires 3X energy to make, you get the solar
>>panel and don't have any more electric bill, you saved a fortune
>>and it's GREAT for you, the consumer but it's BAD for the ecology
>>because your house has now used MORE energy, consumed more of the
>>planet's resources, etc. The reverse would be true if the solar
>>panel cost 1.5X to manufacture, then it would be good for you, the
>>consumer, and good for the ecology as well.
>
> Please show the cost of manufacturing the solar panel is 3x.
Note the word "if".
> it is a one time cost.
Yes,note the first paragraph above. All costs in the above example are
lifetime costs so they can all be considered one time costs.
#386
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Grumman-581 <grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM-gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 13:12:12 -0700, Bob Officer
> <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:
>
>> The excessive cost of bio fuels is a bad solution. Growing corn
>> or any other starch is the least efficient method of converting
>> solar power to energy.
>
> And more importantly, it's a waste of perfectly good corn
> squeezins...
AMEN to that! But note that corn squeezins are a non-energy source, if
taken in sufficient quantity they can result in a complete lack of
movement! <G>
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 13:12:12 -0700, Bob Officer
> <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:
>
>> The excessive cost of bio fuels is a bad solution. Growing corn
>> or any other starch is the least efficient method of converting
>> solar power to energy.
>
> And more importantly, it's a waste of perfectly good corn
> squeezins...
AMEN to that! But note that corn squeezins are a non-energy source, if
taken in sufficient quantity they can result in a complete lack of
movement! <G>
#387
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Grumman-581 <grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM-gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 13:12:12 -0700, Bob Officer
> <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:
>
>> The excessive cost of bio fuels is a bad solution. Growing corn
>> or any other starch is the least efficient method of converting
>> solar power to energy.
>
> And more importantly, it's a waste of perfectly good corn
> squeezins...
AMEN to that! But note that corn squeezins are a non-energy source, if
taken in sufficient quantity they can result in a complete lack of
movement! <G>
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 13:12:12 -0700, Bob Officer
> <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:
>
>> The excessive cost of bio fuels is a bad solution. Growing corn
>> or any other starch is the least efficient method of converting
>> solar power to energy.
>
> And more importantly, it's a waste of perfectly good corn
> squeezins...
AMEN to that! But note that corn squeezins are a non-energy source, if
taken in sufficient quantity they can result in a complete lack of
movement! <G>
#388
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Grumman-581 <grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM-gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 13:12:12 -0700, Bob Officer
> <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:
>
>> The excessive cost of bio fuels is a bad solution. Growing corn
>> or any other starch is the least efficient method of converting
>> solar power to energy.
>
> And more importantly, it's a waste of perfectly good corn
> squeezins...
AMEN to that! But note that corn squeezins are a non-energy source, if
taken in sufficient quantity they can result in a complete lack of
movement! <G>
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 13:12:12 -0700, Bob Officer
> <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:
>
>> The excessive cost of bio fuels is a bad solution. Growing corn
>> or any other starch is the least efficient method of converting
>> solar power to energy.
>
> And more importantly, it's a waste of perfectly good corn
> squeezins...
AMEN to that! But note that corn squeezins are a non-energy source, if
taken in sufficient quantity they can result in a complete lack of
movement! <G>
#389
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Grumman-581 <grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM-gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 13:12:12 -0700, Bob Officer
> <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:
>
>> The excessive cost of bio fuels is a bad solution. Growing corn
>> or any other starch is the least efficient method of converting
>> solar power to energy.
>
> And more importantly, it's a waste of perfectly good corn
> squeezins...
AMEN to that! But note that corn squeezins are a non-energy source, if
taken in sufficient quantity they can result in a complete lack of
movement! <G>
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 13:12:12 -0700, Bob Officer
> <bobofficers@127.0.0.7> wrote:
>
>> The excessive cost of bio fuels is a bad solution. Growing corn
>> or any other starch is the least efficient method of converting
>> solar power to energy.
>
> And more importantly, it's a waste of perfectly good corn
> squeezins...
AMEN to that! But note that corn squeezins are a non-energy source, if
taken in sufficient quantity they can result in a complete lack of
movement! <G>
#390
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Hi Herb,
The energy it took to make this iPod charger is the equivalent of a
hundred and ten bucks, I don't know about you, but I don't bother to pull my
chargers out of the wall:
http://www.earthtechproducts.com/p7....hannelid=NEXTA
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Herb Leong" <herb@urusei.net> wrote in message
news:w5udnfqHB64H_9TbnZ2dnUVZ_sOknZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
> What kind? Don't care. The problem is the total energy cost of the
panel.
> Coal, oil, nuke, or solar--as long as the panels produce more energy in
> their lifetimes than what they took up to be made themselves, the
situation
> is a win, otherwise it is a waste...
>
> /herb
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
The energy it took to make this iPod charger is the equivalent of a
hundred and ten bucks, I don't know about you, but I don't bother to pull my
chargers out of the wall:
http://www.earthtechproducts.com/p7....hannelid=NEXTA
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Herb Leong" <herb@urusei.net> wrote in message
news:w5udnfqHB64H_9TbnZ2dnUVZ_sOknZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>
> What kind? Don't care. The problem is the total energy cost of the
panel.
> Coal, oil, nuke, or solar--as long as the panels produce more energy in
> their lifetimes than what they took up to be made themselves, the
situation
> is a win, otherwise it is a waste...
>
> /herb
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com