L.W. \(Bill\) Hughes III

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

L.W. \(Bill\) Hughes III

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

L.W. \(Bill\) Hughes III

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

Jeff Strickland

"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?

Jeff Strickland

"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?

Jeff Strickland

"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?

Jeff Strickland

"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?

Peter Stolz

"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.

Peter Stolz

"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.

Peter Stolz

"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.