Re: Related Question, but different
 

The poor children of Mexico are staving, because of the price of
tortillas.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/


"RoyJ" <spamless@microsoft.net> wrote in message
news:Fa_ii.3813$Od7.2512@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
> You are unlikely to see mandated E-85, it would take about a 10x
> increase in alcohol production, we are already running into supply
> shortages of the corn currently used for alcohol production.
>
> What you will see is a mandated 10% (up to perhaps 20%) alcohol mix.
> Some of the farm states have had that mandate for years. California
> banned MTBE (?) due to ground water contamination, you will be getting
> the 10% alky shortly. Most states with the 10% mandate make it real
> tough to get the straight gas you old vehicle likes.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Re: Related Question, but different
 

The poor children of Mexico are staving, because of the price of
tortillas.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/


"RoyJ" <spamless@microsoft.net> wrote in message
news:Fa_ii.3813$Od7.2512@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
> You are unlikely to see mandated E-85, it would take about a 10x
> increase in alcohol production, we are already running into supply
> shortages of the corn currently used for alcohol production.
>
> What you will see is a mandated 10% (up to perhaps 20%) alcohol mix.
> Some of the farm states have had that mandate for years. California
> banned MTBE (?) due to ground water contamination, you will be getting
> the 10% alky shortly. Most states with the 10% mandate make it real
> tough to get the straight gas you old vehicle likes.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Re: Related Question, but different
 

The poor children of Mexico are staving, because of the price of
tortillas.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/


"RoyJ" <spamless@microsoft.net> wrote in message
news:Fa_ii.3813$Od7.2512@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
> You are unlikely to see mandated E-85, it would take about a 10x
> increase in alcohol production, we are already running into supply
> shortages of the corn currently used for alcohol production.
>
> What you will see is a mandated 10% (up to perhaps 20%) alcohol mix.
> Some of the farm states have had that mandate for years. California
> banned MTBE (?) due to ground water contamination, you will be getting
> the 10% alky shortly. Most states with the 10% mandate make it real
> tough to get the straight gas you old vehicle likes.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Re: Re: Related Question, but different
 

"Peter Stolz" <pstolz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:i4_ii.32508$YL5.8051@newssvr29.news.prodigy.n et...
>> Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not
>> suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad
>> thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem?
>>
>> If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same
>> amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the
>> fact that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems
>> to me that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global
>> warming is 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2
>> emissions.
>>
>> Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on to
>> flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food
>> supply, we are looking at some serious issues here.
>>
>>
>
> Jeff,
> Exactly the point I was trying to make, except stated in a much more
> cohesive and organized way. And to add to your point, it takes about one
> gallon of diesel fuel (used by farmers) to produce one gallon of ethanol.
> This stuff is supposed to make sense?
> Pete
>


So, we take a gallon of fuel away from the farmers, and a bushel of corn
from the food chain. What is the upside of this again?

Re: Re: Related Question, but different
 

"Peter Stolz" <pstolz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:i4_ii.32508$YL5.8051@newssvr29.news.prodigy.n et...
>> Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not
>> suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad
>> thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem?
>>
>> If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same
>> amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the
>> fact that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems
>> to me that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global
>> warming is 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2
>> emissions.
>>
>> Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on to
>> flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food
>> supply, we are looking at some serious issues here.
>>
>>
>
> Jeff,
> Exactly the point I was trying to make, except stated in a much more
> cohesive and organized way. And to add to your point, it takes about one
> gallon of diesel fuel (used by farmers) to produce one gallon of ethanol.
> This stuff is supposed to make sense?
> Pete
>


So, we take a gallon of fuel away from the farmers, and a bushel of corn
from the food chain. What is the upside of this again?

Re: Re: Related Question, but different
 

"Peter Stolz" <pstolz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:i4_ii.32508$YL5.8051@newssvr29.news.prodigy.n et...
>> Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not
>> suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad
>> thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem?
>>
>> If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same
>> amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the
>> fact that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems
>> to me that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global
>> warming is 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2
>> emissions.
>>
>> Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on to
>> flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food
>> supply, we are looking at some serious issues here.
>>
>>
>
> Jeff,
> Exactly the point I was trying to make, except stated in a much more
> cohesive and organized way. And to add to your point, it takes about one
> gallon of diesel fuel (used by farmers) to produce one gallon of ethanol.
> This stuff is supposed to make sense?
> Pete
>


So, we take a gallon of fuel away from the farmers, and a bushel of corn
from the food chain. What is the upside of this again?

Re: Re: Related Question, but different
 

"Peter Stolz" <pstolz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:i4_ii.32508$YL5.8051@newssvr29.news.prodigy.n et...
>> Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not
>> suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad
>> thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem?
>>
>> If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same
>> amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the
>> fact that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems
>> to me that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global
>> warming is 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2
>> emissions.
>>
>> Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on to
>> flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food
>> supply, we are looking at some serious issues here.
>>
>>
>
> Jeff,
> Exactly the point I was trying to make, except stated in a much more
> cohesive and organized way. And to add to your point, it takes about one
> gallon of diesel fuel (used by farmers) to produce one gallon of ethanol.
> This stuff is supposed to make sense?
> Pete
>


So, we take a gallon of fuel away from the farmers, and a bushel of corn
from the food chain. What is the upside of this again?

Re: Re: Related Question, but different
 

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:j6hji.13676$q12.4039@trnddc08...
>
> "Peter Stolz" <pstolz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:i4_ii.32508$YL5.8051@newssvr29.news.prodigy.n et...
>>> Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not
>>> suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad
>>> thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem?
>>>
>>> If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same
>>> amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the
>>> fact that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems
>>> to me that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global
>>> warming is 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2
>>> emissions.
>>>
>>> Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on
>>> to flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food
>>> supply, we are looking at some serious issues here.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Jeff,
>> Exactly the point I was trying to make, except stated in a much more
>> cohesive and organized way. And to add to your point, it takes about one
>> gallon of diesel fuel (used by farmers) to produce one gallon of ethanol.
>> This stuff is supposed to make sense?
>> Pete
>>
>
>
> So, we take a gallon of fuel away from the farmers, and a bushel of corn
> from the food chain. What is the upside of this again?
>
>
>
Exactly. The upside for the people who don't really know the facts is that
they get to "feel good" about it. For the rest of us, there isn't one.

Re: Re: Related Question, but different
 

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:j6hji.13676$q12.4039@trnddc08...
>
> "Peter Stolz" <pstolz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:i4_ii.32508$YL5.8051@newssvr29.news.prodigy.n et...
>>> Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not
>>> suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad
>>> thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem?
>>>
>>> If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same
>>> amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the
>>> fact that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems
>>> to me that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global
>>> warming is 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2
>>> emissions.
>>>
>>> Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on
>>> to flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food
>>> supply, we are looking at some serious issues here.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Jeff,
>> Exactly the point I was trying to make, except stated in a much more
>> cohesive and organized way. And to add to your point, it takes about one
>> gallon of diesel fuel (used by farmers) to produce one gallon of ethanol.
>> This stuff is supposed to make sense?
>> Pete
>>
>
>
> So, we take a gallon of fuel away from the farmers, and a bushel of corn
> from the food chain. What is the upside of this again?
>
>
>
Exactly. The upside for the people who don't really know the facts is that
they get to "feel good" about it. For the rest of us, there isn't one.

Re: Re: Related Question, but different
 

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:j6hji.13676$q12.4039@trnddc08...
>
> "Peter Stolz" <pstolz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:i4_ii.32508$YL5.8051@newssvr29.news.prodigy.n et...
>>> Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not
>>> suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad
>>> thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem?
>>>
>>> If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same
>>> amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the
>>> fact that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems
>>> to me that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global
>>> warming is 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2
>>> emissions.
>>>
>>> Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on
>>> to flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food
>>> supply, we are looking at some serious issues here.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Jeff,
>> Exactly the point I was trying to make, except stated in a much more
>> cohesive and organized way. And to add to your point, it takes about one
>> gallon of diesel fuel (used by farmers) to produce one gallon of ethanol.
>> This stuff is supposed to make sense?
>> Pete
>>
>
>
> So, we take a gallon of fuel away from the farmers, and a bushel of corn
> from the food chain. What is the upside of this again?
>
>
>
Exactly. The upside for the people who don't really know the facts is that
they get to "feel good" about it. For the rest of us, there isn't one.