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.

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.

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.

Re: Re: Related Question, but different
 

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Peter Stolz wrote:

>> 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

Not to put too fine a point on it as you've got the concept right, but
your measure units are off. As near as I can tell from web searches
(alternative energies, like diet fads and religious cults, are filled with
wild-eyed True Believers). It takes about the BTU equivalent of a 2/3s of
a gallon of gasoline to produce a gallon of corn ethanol. A gallon of
ethanol yields about 2/3s the BTUs of a gallon of gasoline, so the energy
yield is a wash and you might as well have simply burned the gas and left
the corn in the field.




--
"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.

Re: Re: Related Question, but different
 

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Peter Stolz wrote:

>> 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

Not to put too fine a point on it as you've got the concept right, but
your measure units are off. As near as I can tell from web searches
(alternative energies, like diet fads and religious cults, are filled with
wild-eyed True Believers). It takes about the BTU equivalent of a 2/3s of
a gallon of gasoline to produce a gallon of corn ethanol. A gallon of
ethanol yields about 2/3s the BTUs of a gallon of gasoline, so the energy
yield is a wash and you might as well have simply burned the gas and left
the corn in the field.




--
"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.

Re: Re: Related Question, but different
 

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Peter Stolz wrote:

>> 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

Not to put too fine a point on it as you've got the concept right, but
your measure units are off. As near as I can tell from web searches
(alternative energies, like diet fads and religious cults, are filled with
wild-eyed True Believers). It takes about the BTU equivalent of a 2/3s of
a gallon of gasoline to produce a gallon of corn ethanol. A gallon of
ethanol yields about 2/3s the BTUs of a gallon of gasoline, so the energy
yield is a wash and you might as well have simply burned the gas and left
the corn in the field.




--
"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.

Re: Re: Related Question, but different
 

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Peter Stolz wrote:

>> 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

Not to put too fine a point on it as you've got the concept right, but
your measure units are off. As near as I can tell from web searches
(alternative energies, like diet fads and religious cults, are filled with
wild-eyed True Believers). It takes about the BTU equivalent of a 2/3s of
a gallon of gasoline to produce a gallon of corn ethanol. A gallon of
ethanol yields about 2/3s the BTUs of a gallon of gasoline, so the energy
yield is a wash and you might as well have simply burned the gas and left
the corn in the field.




--
"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.

Re: Related Question, but different
 

"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:iOGdndid26uCZRDbnZ2dnUVZ_v7inZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> 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?


Wait a damn minute!

I can pay another dime or two per pound for my steaks, spend a bit more for
milk for my children, cough up more cash for my corn flakes, but start
messing with my beer and I have to draw a line in the sand.

Re: Related Question, but different
 

"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:iOGdndid26uCZRDbnZ2dnUVZ_v7inZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> 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?


Wait a damn minute!

I can pay another dime or two per pound for my steaks, spend a bit more for
milk for my children, cough up more cash for my corn flakes, but start
messing with my beer and I have to draw a line in the sand.

Re: Related Question, but different
 

"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:iOGdndid26uCZRDbnZ2dnUVZ_v7inZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> 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?


Wait a damn minute!

I can pay another dime or two per pound for my steaks, spend a bit more for
milk for my children, cough up more cash for my corn flakes, but start
messing with my beer and I have to draw a line in the sand.