IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT E-85 FLEX-FUEL
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Related Question, but different
Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
>
> "Peter Stolz" <pstolz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:i4_ii.32508$YL5.8051@newssvr29.news.prodigy.n et...
>
>>> Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm
>>> not suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that
>>> a bad thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem?
>>>
>>> If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the
>>> same amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now
>>> add the fact that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself,
>>> and it seems to me that we are headed for an environmental train
>>> wreck IF global warming is 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or
>>> exaserbated by CO2 emissions.
>>>
>>> Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands
>>> on to flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the
>>> food supply, we are looking at some serious issues here.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Jeff,
>> Exactly the point I was trying to make, except stated in a much more
>> cohesive and organized way. And to add to your point, it takes about
>> one gallon of diesel fuel (used by farmers) to produce one gallon of
>> ethanol. This stuff is supposed to make sense?
>> Pete
>>
>
>
> So, we take a gallon of fuel away from the farmers, and a bushel of corn
> from the food chain. What is the upside of this again?
Some groups who have an early presidential candidate selection process
get a pretty healthy money bribe at your expense if you eat beef, drink
milk, eat corn, [and the latest victim] drink beer, or want diesel fuel?
>
> "Peter Stolz" <pstolz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:i4_ii.32508$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?
Some groups who have an early presidential candidate selection process
get a pretty healthy money bribe at your expense if you eat beef, drink
milk, eat corn, [and the latest victim] drink beer, or want diesel fuel?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Related Question, but different
Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
>
> "Peter Stolz" <pstolz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:i4_ii.32508$YL5.8051@newssvr29.news.prodigy.n et...
>
>>> Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm
>>> not suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that
>>> a bad thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem?
>>>
>>> If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the
>>> same amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now
>>> add the fact that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself,
>>> and it seems to me that we are headed for an environmental train
>>> wreck IF global warming is 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or
>>> exaserbated by CO2 emissions.
>>>
>>> Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands
>>> on to flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the
>>> food supply, we are looking at some serious issues here.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Jeff,
>> Exactly the point I was trying to make, except stated in a much more
>> cohesive and organized way. And to add to your point, it takes about
>> one gallon of diesel fuel (used by farmers) to produce one gallon of
>> ethanol. This stuff is supposed to make sense?
>> Pete
>>
>
>
> So, we take a gallon of fuel away from the farmers, and a bushel of corn
> from the food chain. What is the upside of this again?
Some groups who have an early presidential candidate selection process
get a pretty healthy money bribe at your expense if you eat beef, drink
milk, eat corn, [and the latest victim] drink beer, or want diesel fuel?
>
> "Peter Stolz" <pstolz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:i4_ii.32508$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?
Some groups who have an early presidential candidate selection process
get a pretty healthy money bribe at your expense if you eat beef, drink
milk, eat corn, [and the latest victim] drink beer, or want diesel fuel?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Related Question, but different
Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
>
> "Peter Stolz" <pstolz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:i4_ii.32508$YL5.8051@newssvr29.news.prodigy.n et...
>
>>> Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm
>>> not suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that
>>> a bad thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem?
>>>
>>> If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the
>>> same amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now
>>> add the fact that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself,
>>> and it seems to me that we are headed for an environmental train
>>> wreck IF global warming is 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or
>>> exaserbated by CO2 emissions.
>>>
>>> Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands
>>> on to flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the
>>> food supply, we are looking at some serious issues here.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Jeff,
>> Exactly the point I was trying to make, except stated in a much more
>> cohesive and organized way. And to add to your point, it takes about
>> one gallon of diesel fuel (used by farmers) to produce one gallon of
>> ethanol. This stuff is supposed to make sense?
>> Pete
>>
>
>
> So, we take a gallon of fuel away from the farmers, and a bushel of corn
> from the food chain. What is the upside of this again?
Some groups who have an early presidential candidate selection process
get a pretty healthy money bribe at your expense if you eat beef, drink
milk, eat corn, [and the latest victim] drink beer, or want diesel fuel?
>
> "Peter Stolz" <pstolz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:i4_ii.32508$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?
Some groups who have an early presidential candidate selection process
get a pretty healthy money bribe at your expense if you eat beef, drink
milk, eat corn, [and the latest victim] drink beer, or want diesel fuel?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Related Question, but different
Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
>
> "Peter Stolz" <pstolz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:i4_ii.32508$YL5.8051@newssvr29.news.prodigy.n et...
>
>>> Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm
>>> not suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that
>>> a bad thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem?
>>>
>>> If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the
>>> same amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now
>>> add the fact that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself,
>>> and it seems to me that we are headed for an environmental train
>>> wreck IF global warming is 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or
>>> exaserbated by CO2 emissions.
>>>
>>> Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands
>>> on to flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the
>>> food supply, we are looking at some serious issues here.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Jeff,
>> Exactly the point I was trying to make, except stated in a much more
>> cohesive and organized way. And to add to your point, it takes about
>> one gallon of diesel fuel (used by farmers) to produce one gallon of
>> ethanol. This stuff is supposed to make sense?
>> Pete
>>
>
>
> So, we take a gallon of fuel away from the farmers, and a bushel of corn
> from the food chain. What is the upside of this again?
Some groups who have an early presidential candidate selection process
get a pretty healthy money bribe at your expense if you eat beef, drink
milk, eat corn, [and the latest victim] drink beer, or want diesel fuel?
>
> "Peter Stolz" <pstolz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:i4_ii.32508$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?
Some groups who have an early presidential candidate selection process
get a pretty healthy money bribe at your expense if you eat beef, drink
milk, eat corn, [and the latest victim] drink beer, or want diesel fuel?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Related Question, but different
Yes. It is also curable, just let the particulate smogs come back and
trigger another ice age.
FrankW proclaimed:
> Global Warming?
> Is it a cover for something even more frightning?
>
> http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html
>
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>>
>> "SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
>> news:flqn83t7ffq6qdmfpnm6nspharnqi3o3md@4ax.com...
>>
>>> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:21:39 -0600, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
>>>>
>>>>> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to
>>>>> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have
>>>> decreed
>>>> a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In
>>>> technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do
>>>> it.
>>>> OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion
>>>> boxes.
>>>>
>>>> For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected
>>>> to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their
>>>> gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as
>>>> folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles,
>>>> would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem with E85 is several fold. First it requires different fuel
>>> lines (SS steel and different rubber), next it requires a different
>>> carb or bigger injector because it takes a LOT more of it. ALso, it
>>> has about 60% the energy contant of gas for you have to burn more of
>>> it to do same work. And lastly it is not as environmental freindly as
>>> they would lead you to believe. It is increases CO2 emissions about
>>> 50% over gas (politicains never tell you that) because it is
>>> considered a preburnt fuel (it has a high carbon content in fuel for
>>> the amount of BTU you can get out of it)
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
trigger another ice age.
FrankW proclaimed:
> Global Warming?
> Is it a cover for something even more frightning?
>
> http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html
>
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>>
>> "SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
>> news:flqn83t7ffq6qdmfpnm6nspharnqi3o3md@4ax.com...
>>
>>> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:21:39 -0600, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
>>>>
>>>>> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to
>>>>> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have
>>>> decreed
>>>> a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In
>>>> technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do
>>>> it.
>>>> OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion
>>>> boxes.
>>>>
>>>> For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected
>>>> to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their
>>>> gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as
>>>> folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles,
>>>> would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem with E85 is several fold. First it requires different fuel
>>> lines (SS steel and different rubber), next it requires a different
>>> carb or bigger injector because it takes a LOT more of it. ALso, it
>>> has about 60% the energy contant of gas for you have to burn more of
>>> it to do same work. And lastly it is not as environmental freindly as
>>> they would lead you to believe. It is increases CO2 emissions about
>>> 50% over gas (politicains never tell you that) because it is
>>> considered a preburnt fuel (it has a high carbon content in fuel for
>>> the amount of BTU you can get out of it)
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Related Question, but different
Yes. It is also curable, just let the particulate smogs come back and
trigger another ice age.
FrankW proclaimed:
> Global Warming?
> Is it a cover for something even more frightning?
>
> http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html
>
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>>
>> "SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
>> news:flqn83t7ffq6qdmfpnm6nspharnqi3o3md@4ax.com...
>>
>>> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:21:39 -0600, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
>>>>
>>>>> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to
>>>>> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have
>>>> decreed
>>>> a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In
>>>> technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do
>>>> it.
>>>> OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion
>>>> boxes.
>>>>
>>>> For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected
>>>> to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their
>>>> gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as
>>>> folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles,
>>>> would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem with E85 is several fold. First it requires different fuel
>>> lines (SS steel and different rubber), next it requires a different
>>> carb or bigger injector because it takes a LOT more of it. ALso, it
>>> has about 60% the energy contant of gas for you have to burn more of
>>> it to do same work. And lastly it is not as environmental freindly as
>>> they would lead you to believe. It is increases CO2 emissions about
>>> 50% over gas (politicains never tell you that) because it is
>>> considered a preburnt fuel (it has a high carbon content in fuel for
>>> the amount of BTU you can get out of it)
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
trigger another ice age.
FrankW proclaimed:
> Global Warming?
> Is it a cover for something even more frightning?
>
> http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html
>
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>>
>> "SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
>> news:flqn83t7ffq6qdmfpnm6nspharnqi3o3md@4ax.com...
>>
>>> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:21:39 -0600, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
>>>>
>>>>> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to
>>>>> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have
>>>> decreed
>>>> a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In
>>>> technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do
>>>> it.
>>>> OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion
>>>> boxes.
>>>>
>>>> For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected
>>>> to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their
>>>> gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as
>>>> folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles,
>>>> would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem with E85 is several fold. First it requires different fuel
>>> lines (SS steel and different rubber), next it requires a different
>>> carb or bigger injector because it takes a LOT more of it. ALso, it
>>> has about 60% the energy contant of gas for you have to burn more of
>>> it to do same work. And lastly it is not as environmental freindly as
>>> they would lead you to believe. It is increases CO2 emissions about
>>> 50% over gas (politicains never tell you that) because it is
>>> considered a preburnt fuel (it has a high carbon content in fuel for
>>> the amount of BTU you can get out of it)
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Related Question, but different
Yes. It is also curable, just let the particulate smogs come back and
trigger another ice age.
FrankW proclaimed:
> Global Warming?
> Is it a cover for something even more frightning?
>
> http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html
>
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>>
>> "SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
>> news:flqn83t7ffq6qdmfpnm6nspharnqi3o3md@4ax.com...
>>
>>> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:21:39 -0600, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
>>>>
>>>>> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to
>>>>> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have
>>>> decreed
>>>> a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In
>>>> technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do
>>>> it.
>>>> OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion
>>>> boxes.
>>>>
>>>> For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected
>>>> to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their
>>>> gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as
>>>> folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles,
>>>> would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem with E85 is several fold. First it requires different fuel
>>> lines (SS steel and different rubber), next it requires a different
>>> carb or bigger injector because it takes a LOT more of it. ALso, it
>>> has about 60% the energy contant of gas for you have to burn more of
>>> it to do same work. And lastly it is not as environmental freindly as
>>> they would lead you to believe. It is increases CO2 emissions about
>>> 50% over gas (politicains never tell you that) because it is
>>> considered a preburnt fuel (it has a high carbon content in fuel for
>>> the amount of BTU you can get out of it)
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
trigger another ice age.
FrankW proclaimed:
> Global Warming?
> Is it a cover for something even more frightning?
>
> http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html
>
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>>
>> "SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
>> news:flqn83t7ffq6qdmfpnm6nspharnqi3o3md@4ax.com...
>>
>>> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:21:39 -0600, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
>>>>
>>>>> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to
>>>>> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have
>>>> decreed
>>>> a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In
>>>> technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do
>>>> it.
>>>> OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion
>>>> boxes.
>>>>
>>>> For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected
>>>> to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their
>>>> gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as
>>>> folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles,
>>>> would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem with E85 is several fold. First it requires different fuel
>>> lines (SS steel and different rubber), next it requires a different
>>> carb or bigger injector because it takes a LOT more of it. ALso, it
>>> has about 60% the energy contant of gas for you have to burn more of
>>> it to do same work. And lastly it is not as environmental freindly as
>>> they would lead you to believe. It is increases CO2 emissions about
>>> 50% over gas (politicains never tell you that) because it is
>>> considered a preburnt fuel (it has a high carbon content in fuel for
>>> the amount of BTU you can get out of it)
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Related Question, but different
Yes. It is also curable, just let the particulate smogs come back and
trigger another ice age.
FrankW proclaimed:
> Global Warming?
> Is it a cover for something even more frightning?
>
> http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html
>
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>>
>> "SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
>> news:flqn83t7ffq6qdmfpnm6nspharnqi3o3md@4ax.com...
>>
>>> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:21:39 -0600, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
>>>>
>>>>> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to
>>>>> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have
>>>> decreed
>>>> a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In
>>>> technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do
>>>> it.
>>>> OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion
>>>> boxes.
>>>>
>>>> For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected
>>>> to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their
>>>> gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as
>>>> folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles,
>>>> would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem with E85 is several fold. First it requires different fuel
>>> lines (SS steel and different rubber), next it requires a different
>>> carb or bigger injector because it takes a LOT more of it. ALso, it
>>> has about 60% the energy contant of gas for you have to burn more of
>>> it to do same work. And lastly it is not as environmental freindly as
>>> they would lead you to believe. It is increases CO2 emissions about
>>> 50% over gas (politicains never tell you that) because it is
>>> considered a preburnt fuel (it has a high carbon content in fuel for
>>> the amount of BTU you can get out of it)
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
trigger another ice age.
FrankW proclaimed:
> Global Warming?
> Is it a cover for something even more frightning?
>
> http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html
>
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>>
>> "SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
>> news:flqn83t7ffq6qdmfpnm6nspharnqi3o3md@4ax.com...
>>
>>> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:21:39 -0600, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
>>>>
>>>>> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to
>>>>> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have
>>>> decreed
>>>> a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In
>>>> technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do
>>>> it.
>>>> OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion
>>>> boxes.
>>>>
>>>> For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected
>>>> to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their
>>>> gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as
>>>> folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles,
>>>> would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem with E85 is several fold. First it requires different fuel
>>> lines (SS steel and different rubber), next it requires a different
>>> carb or bigger injector because it takes a LOT more of it. ALso, it
>>> has about 60% the energy contant of gas for you have to burn more of
>>> it to do same work. And lastly it is not as environmental freindly as
>>> they would lead you to believe. It is increases CO2 emissions about
>>> 50% over gas (politicains never tell you that) because it is
>>> considered a preburnt fuel (it has a high carbon content in fuel for
>>> the amount of BTU you can get out of it)
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Re: Related Question, but different
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Jeff Strickland wrote:
> "Peter Stolz" <pstolz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:i4_ii.32508$YL5.8051@newssvr29.news.prodigy.n et...
>>> Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not
>>> suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad
>>> thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem?
>>>
>>> If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same
>>> amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the fact
>>> that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems to me
>>> that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global warming is
>>> 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2 emissions.
>>>
>>> Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on to
>>> flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food supply,
>>> we are looking at some serious issues here.
>>
>> Jeff,
>> Exactly the point I was trying to make, except stated in a much more
>> cohesive and organized way. And to add to your point, it takes about one
>> gallon of diesel fuel (used by farmers) to produce one gallon of ethanol.
>> This stuff is supposed to make sense?
>> Pete
>
> So, we take a gallon of fuel away from the farmers, and a bushel of corn from
> the food chain. What is the upside of this again?
Archer Daniels Midland gets a solid market for its surplus corn /and/ a
tax break on "alternative" fuel production. It's only good if you're a
stock holder in ADM.
--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.
> "Peter Stolz" <pstolz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:i4_ii.32508$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?
Archer Daniels Midland gets a solid market for its surplus corn /and/ a
tax break on "alternative" fuel production. It's only good if you're a
stock holder in ADM.
--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.
