Only if they remove the animal oil fats.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

billy ray wrote:
>
> Does that mean the price of Orville Redenbacher Popcorn is going up?

 

Only if they remove the animal oil fats.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

billy ray wrote:
>
> Does that mean the price of Orville Redenbacher Popcorn is going up?

 

Only if they remove the animal oil fats.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

billy ray wrote:
>
> Does that mean the price of Orville Redenbacher Popcorn is going up?

 

Hee. Not sure what is gonna happen, as it seems one problem with the
new mandatory ethanol inclusion is where are they gonna get all that
ethanol. Rumors of emergency bailouts from the eastern Tennessee and
western North Carolina private sources appear to be just rumors.

billy ray proclaimed:

> Does that mean the price of Orville Redenbacher Popcorn is going up?
>
>
> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:T5adnRkHC5jNtwLZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>>Apparently the Wyoming/Montana/Utah oil shale folks are hoping for just
>>another dollar or two per barrel as well. As is Conagra.
>>
>>Jeff DeWitt proclaimed:
>>
>>
>>>Higher prices for oil are making resources that didn't use to be
>>>profitable suddenly look very good, Alberta's oil sands for one...
>>>
>>>http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/89.asp
>>>
>>>In a few years as all these new oil sources come online we are going to
>>>be facing a glut of oil again... unless the government does something to
>>>screw it up.
>>>
>>>And I try to NEVER underestimate the power of our government to screw
>>>things up.
>>>
>>>Jeff DeWitt
>>>
>>>
>>>Brian wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Face it, the age of cheap energy is gone, a victim of overconsumption of
>>>>a limited nonrenewable resource, driven by an unsustainable population.
>>>>Whatever we fuel our vehicles with in 25 years, you can bet it will
>>>>still be at least $50 a tank in today's dollars.
>>>>
>>>>B
>
>
>

 

Hee. Not sure what is gonna happen, as it seems one problem with the
new mandatory ethanol inclusion is where are they gonna get all that
ethanol. Rumors of emergency bailouts from the eastern Tennessee and
western North Carolina private sources appear to be just rumors.

billy ray proclaimed:

> Does that mean the price of Orville Redenbacher Popcorn is going up?
>
>
> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:T5adnRkHC5jNtwLZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>>Apparently the Wyoming/Montana/Utah oil shale folks are hoping for just
>>another dollar or two per barrel as well. As is Conagra.
>>
>>Jeff DeWitt proclaimed:
>>
>>
>>>Higher prices for oil are making resources that didn't use to be
>>>profitable suddenly look very good, Alberta's oil sands for one...
>>>
>>>http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/89.asp
>>>
>>>In a few years as all these new oil sources come online we are going to
>>>be facing a glut of oil again... unless the government does something to
>>>screw it up.
>>>
>>>And I try to NEVER underestimate the power of our government to screw
>>>things up.
>>>
>>>Jeff DeWitt
>>>
>>>
>>>Brian wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Face it, the age of cheap energy is gone, a victim of overconsumption of
>>>>a limited nonrenewable resource, driven by an unsustainable population.
>>>>Whatever we fuel our vehicles with in 25 years, you can bet it will
>>>>still be at least $50 a tank in today's dollars.
>>>>
>>>>B
>
>
>

 

Hee. Not sure what is gonna happen, as it seems one problem with the
new mandatory ethanol inclusion is where are they gonna get all that
ethanol. Rumors of emergency bailouts from the eastern Tennessee and
western North Carolina private sources appear to be just rumors.

billy ray proclaimed:

> Does that mean the price of Orville Redenbacher Popcorn is going up?
>
>
> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:T5adnRkHC5jNtwLZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>>Apparently the Wyoming/Montana/Utah oil shale folks are hoping for just
>>another dollar or two per barrel as well. As is Conagra.
>>
>>Jeff DeWitt proclaimed:
>>
>>
>>>Higher prices for oil are making resources that didn't use to be
>>>profitable suddenly look very good, Alberta's oil sands for one...
>>>
>>>http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/89.asp
>>>
>>>In a few years as all these new oil sources come online we are going to
>>>be facing a glut of oil again... unless the government does something to
>>>screw it up.
>>>
>>>And I try to NEVER underestimate the power of our government to screw
>>>things up.
>>>
>>>Jeff DeWitt
>>>
>>>
>>>Brian wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Face it, the age of cheap energy is gone, a victim of overconsumption of
>>>>a limited nonrenewable resource, driven by an unsustainable population.
>>>>Whatever we fuel our vehicles with in 25 years, you can bet it will
>>>>still be at least $50 a tank in today's dollars.
>>>>
>>>>B
>
>
>

 

The July issue of Car and Driver had a very interesting article on this
whole ethanol /E85 thing. Most of the following has been lifted from their
article.

<<<Jeff Dewitt, our government has absolutely
screwed this thing up.>>>

Here are some of the big minuses.
It has a lower BTU content, it would require more
transportation capacity and larger tanks for the same energy as gas.
It takes more than a gallon of gasoline to make a
gallon of ethanol.
There is a 25-30 percent decrease in mileage using
E85.
At the moment, corn is the easiest to convert to
ethanol. That will drive up the price of corn, which will affect food
prices.
A Univ. of Calif. at Berkley study looked at several
ethanol studies. They concluded that between 5-26 percent of the energy in
corn-based ethanol was "new".
The remaining being recycled-fossil fuel
energy used to make the ethanol.
In 2004 the U.S. consumed 100 "quads" (quadrillion
BTU's of energy). 86 of those quads were from fossil fuel. Of the 86 quads,
only 40 were from petroleum. About 18 of
the 40 petroleum quads were refined into
gasoline. Using the most favorable figure of 26 percent new energy, that
represents only about 0.16 quads.
Of the original 18 quads, ethanol would
comprise less than 1 percent. Compared to the original 86 quads, ethanol
would replace less than two-tenths of one percent.
If the actual energy gain is on the low
side, 5 percent, the gains would be divided by five.


Granted there have been some large breakthroughs lately, and more will
surely follow as more money is poured into ethanol production. Processes
that use waste rather than valuable corn will have to be developed to make
this thing economical. Will it ever be enough to lessen our dependence on
imports? Never. Not by itself and certainly not without some serious
conservation efforts coupled with major investments in solar power, wind
power, wave power, mass transportation and probably even nuclear power.




"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:35qdnWNgVvow2ALZnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Hee. Not sure what is gonna happen, as it seems one problem with the new
> mandatory ethanol inclusion is where are they gonna get all that ethanol.
> Rumors of emergency bailouts from the eastern Tennessee and western North
> Carolina private sources appear to be just rumors.
>
> billy ray proclaimed:
>
>> Does that mean the price of Orville Redenbacher Popcorn is going up?
>>
>>
>> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:T5adnRkHC5jNtwLZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>
>>>Apparently the Wyoming/Montana/Utah oil shale folks are hoping for just
>>>another dollar or two per barrel as well. As is Conagra.
>>>
>>>Jeff DeWitt proclaimed:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Higher prices for oil are making resources that didn't use to be
>>>>profitable suddenly look very good, Alberta's oil sands for one...
>>>>
>>>>http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/89.asp
>>>>
>>>>In a few years as all these new oil sources come online we are going to
>>>>be facing a glut of oil again... unless the government does something to
>>>>screw it up.
>>>>
>>>>And I try to NEVER underestimate the power of our government to screw
>>>>things up.
>>>>
>>>>Jeff DeWitt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Brian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Face it, the age of cheap energy is gone, a victim of overconsumption
>>>>>of a limited nonrenewable resource, driven by an unsustainable
>>>>>population.
>>>>>Whatever we fuel our vehicles with in 25 years, you can bet it will
>>>>>still be at least $50 a tank in today's dollars.
>>>>>
>>>>>B
>>
>>

 

The July issue of Car and Driver had a very interesting article on this
whole ethanol /E85 thing. Most of the following has been lifted from their
article.

<<<Jeff Dewitt, our government has absolutely
screwed this thing up.>>>

Here are some of the big minuses.
It has a lower BTU content, it would require more
transportation capacity and larger tanks for the same energy as gas.
It takes more than a gallon of gasoline to make a
gallon of ethanol.
There is a 25-30 percent decrease in mileage using
E85.
At the moment, corn is the easiest to convert to
ethanol. That will drive up the price of corn, which will affect food
prices.
A Univ. of Calif. at Berkley study looked at several
ethanol studies. They concluded that between 5-26 percent of the energy in
corn-based ethanol was "new".
The remaining being recycled-fossil fuel
energy used to make the ethanol.
In 2004 the U.S. consumed 100 "quads" (quadrillion
BTU's of energy). 86 of those quads were from fossil fuel. Of the 86 quads,
only 40 were from petroleum. About 18 of
the 40 petroleum quads were refined into
gasoline. Using the most favorable figure of 26 percent new energy, that
represents only about 0.16 quads.
Of the original 18 quads, ethanol would
comprise less than 1 percent. Compared to the original 86 quads, ethanol
would replace less than two-tenths of one percent.
If the actual energy gain is on the low
side, 5 percent, the gains would be divided by five.


Granted there have been some large breakthroughs lately, and more will
surely follow as more money is poured into ethanol production. Processes
that use waste rather than valuable corn will have to be developed to make
this thing economical. Will it ever be enough to lessen our dependence on
imports? Never. Not by itself and certainly not without some serious
conservation efforts coupled with major investments in solar power, wind
power, wave power, mass transportation and probably even nuclear power.




"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:35qdnWNgVvow2ALZnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Hee. Not sure what is gonna happen, as it seems one problem with the new
> mandatory ethanol inclusion is where are they gonna get all that ethanol.
> Rumors of emergency bailouts from the eastern Tennessee and western North
> Carolina private sources appear to be just rumors.
>
> billy ray proclaimed:
>
>> Does that mean the price of Orville Redenbacher Popcorn is going up?
>>
>>
>> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:T5adnRkHC5jNtwLZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>
>>>Apparently the Wyoming/Montana/Utah oil shale folks are hoping for just
>>>another dollar or two per barrel as well. As is Conagra.
>>>
>>>Jeff DeWitt proclaimed:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Higher prices for oil are making resources that didn't use to be
>>>>profitable suddenly look very good, Alberta's oil sands for one...
>>>>
>>>>http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/89.asp
>>>>
>>>>In a few years as all these new oil sources come online we are going to
>>>>be facing a glut of oil again... unless the government does something to
>>>>screw it up.
>>>>
>>>>And I try to NEVER underestimate the power of our government to screw
>>>>things up.
>>>>
>>>>Jeff DeWitt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Brian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Face it, the age of cheap energy is gone, a victim of overconsumption
>>>>>of a limited nonrenewable resource, driven by an unsustainable
>>>>>population.
>>>>>Whatever we fuel our vehicles with in 25 years, you can bet it will
>>>>>still be at least $50 a tank in today's dollars.
>>>>>
>>>>>B
>>
>>

 

The July issue of Car and Driver had a very interesting article on this
whole ethanol /E85 thing. Most of the following has been lifted from their
article.

<<<Jeff Dewitt, our government has absolutely
screwed this thing up.>>>

Here are some of the big minuses.
It has a lower BTU content, it would require more
transportation capacity and larger tanks for the same energy as gas.
It takes more than a gallon of gasoline to make a
gallon of ethanol.
There is a 25-30 percent decrease in mileage using
E85.
At the moment, corn is the easiest to convert to
ethanol. That will drive up the price of corn, which will affect food
prices.
A Univ. of Calif. at Berkley study looked at several
ethanol studies. They concluded that between 5-26 percent of the energy in
corn-based ethanol was "new".
The remaining being recycled-fossil fuel
energy used to make the ethanol.
In 2004 the U.S. consumed 100 "quads" (quadrillion
BTU's of energy). 86 of those quads were from fossil fuel. Of the 86 quads,
only 40 were from petroleum. About 18 of
the 40 petroleum quads were refined into
gasoline. Using the most favorable figure of 26 percent new energy, that
represents only about 0.16 quads.
Of the original 18 quads, ethanol would
comprise less than 1 percent. Compared to the original 86 quads, ethanol
would replace less than two-tenths of one percent.
If the actual energy gain is on the low
side, 5 percent, the gains would be divided by five.


Granted there have been some large breakthroughs lately, and more will
surely follow as more money is poured into ethanol production. Processes
that use waste rather than valuable corn will have to be developed to make
this thing economical. Will it ever be enough to lessen our dependence on
imports? Never. Not by itself and certainly not without some serious
conservation efforts coupled with major investments in solar power, wind
power, wave power, mass transportation and probably even nuclear power.




"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:35qdnWNgVvow2ALZnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Hee. Not sure what is gonna happen, as it seems one problem with the new
> mandatory ethanol inclusion is where are they gonna get all that ethanol.
> Rumors of emergency bailouts from the eastern Tennessee and western North
> Carolina private sources appear to be just rumors.
>
> billy ray proclaimed:
>
>> Does that mean the price of Orville Redenbacher Popcorn is going up?
>>
>>
>> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:T5adnRkHC5jNtwLZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>
>>>Apparently the Wyoming/Montana/Utah oil shale folks are hoping for just
>>>another dollar or two per barrel as well. As is Conagra.
>>>
>>>Jeff DeWitt proclaimed:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Higher prices for oil are making resources that didn't use to be
>>>>profitable suddenly look very good, Alberta's oil sands for one...
>>>>
>>>>http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/89.asp
>>>>
>>>>In a few years as all these new oil sources come online we are going to
>>>>be facing a glut of oil again... unless the government does something to
>>>>screw it up.
>>>>
>>>>And I try to NEVER underestimate the power of our government to screw
>>>>things up.
>>>>
>>>>Jeff DeWitt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Brian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Face it, the age of cheap energy is gone, a victim of overconsumption
>>>>>of a limited nonrenewable resource, driven by an unsustainable
>>>>>population.
>>>>>Whatever we fuel our vehicles with in 25 years, you can bet it will
>>>>>still be at least $50 a tank in today's dollars.
>>>>>
>>>>>B
>>
>>

 

A 747 takes > 60,000 gallons to fly ~ 7500 miles.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7xEng.2224$4c7.622@tornado.southeast.rr.com.. .
> Yeah... the same Al Gore who is flying around on jets burning up God
> only knows how much fuel warning us about the dangers of burning fuel.
>
> Jeff DeWitt
>
> billy ray wrote:
> > No, methane powered Jeeps will still create carbon dioxide that AlGore
says
> > caused the death of all the dinosaurs and the many ice ages.
> >
> > Of course.... there is still that nagging question of who was running
> > gasoline powered engines and using other fossil fuels hundreds of
millions
> > of years ago before those fuels were created..
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Steve Foley" <steve.foley@DELETE.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:gtymg.50075$mF2.48272@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> >>Think Methane!!!
> >>
> >>
> >>"billy ray" <billy_ray@SPAMfuse.net> wrote in message
> >>news:f965$449a8ede$48311525$13074@FUSE.NET...
> >>
> >>>Solar powered Jeeps?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >