On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 16:06:38 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 12:27:07 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article
,
" wrote:

On Dec 1, 6:02Â*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Â*"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:

In article , Â*"Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Ethanol requires fossil fuels to plant, harvest, transport, distil.
Last time I looked, it's energy negative. Takes more energy to
produce, than what you get back.

nit: that basically only applies to corn based ethanol. Brazil for
some eerie reason is able to grow sugar cane and produce ethanol that
is energy positive

Â* Â* Minor nit, since very little sugar cane ethanol is available in the
US, which is what we were talking about. Â* To sorta get this back on
track, I have seen nothing to indicate that ethanol from sugar cane does
any less damage to the vehicles. Anybody? --

I agree. Everything I've seen indicates it's the ethanol itself that is
the problem, not some contamination particular to the way it's produced.
C2H6O is C2H6O.

then one would think that there would be a downward spiral of ethanol use in
Brazil
You forget Brazillian vehicles are BUILT to use Ethanol as fuel.

so what you are saying is that American Manufacturers aren't as smart as
Brazil?

or are you saying there are no old cars in Brazil?
No, Malcolm. What I am saying is the vehicles there are designed to
run on Ethanol because it is their primary motor fuel. Yankees could
design vehicles to run on it too - but ethanol is not universally
available in Yank-land and the cost to make every vehicle totally
multi-fuel capable is significant in a country where 5 dollars makes
the difference between buying something decent and buying junk - with
the junk almost universally winning.

As for old cars - they need to run on gasoline (more expensive) or be
extensively modified for ethanol.