wrote the following:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 21:08:30 -0400, wrote:


OK. even if these so called subsidies existed (which i don't believe
for a minute) Then ok.

The problem doesn't stop with the amount of fuel required to produce
the corn, and then the ethanol from the corn.
If it did, it would be a simple matter to switch to ethanol to fuel
the equipment and the still.

The problem is the feed stock.
CORN is not the right, or even sensible product from which to produce
ethanol, particularly as a fuel to reduce oil dependancy, because corn
requires huge amounts of ammonia fertilizers - the production of which
requires HUGE amount of natural gas or petroleum......


The other issue is water. Corn needs a lot of water and we will run
out of water long before we run out of oil.
The Ogalalla aquifer that supplies most if the midwest where the corn
comes from is dropping several feet a year. That is "fossil water" and
when it's gone, it's gone too. It will take centuries to recharge.


Not to worry. Global warming will provide more fresh water than we can
ever use. We'll be swimming in it, or drowning in it, one of the two.


--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

On 11/3/2010 2:51 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
http://pure-gas.org/

Myself, and aparently many others. Find that the new "10% ethanol"
motor fuel gives about 15% less fuel mileage. I don't see a lot of
advantage to planting, harvesting and distilling to make a fuel that
provides less mileage. Wish I knew where to buy the old style
gasoline. Well, now, here is a list of stations that provide the old
style gasoline.

Now, you can know, also.


Nascar is hopping on the E15 wagon next season:

http://www.biofueldaily.com/reports/... Fuel_999.html

On 11/3/2010 7:58 PM, wrote:

Steve hasn't lived and driven very long in a cold climate, I would
guess. Frozen gas lines have long been a curse in cold humid areas.


52 yrs. in eastern kansas. Not the coldest spot on the planet, but we
do go below zero now and then. I've never had a fuel related issue with
a gasoline engine in the winter.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 21:11:17 -0500, Steve Barker
wrote:

On 11/3/2010 7:58 PM, wrote:

Steve hasn't lived and driven very long in a cold climate, I would
guess. Frozen gas lines have long been a curse in cold humid areas.


52 yrs. in eastern kansas. Not the coldest spot on the planet, but we
do go below zero now and then. I've never had a fuel related issue with
a gasoline engine in the winter.
"but it's a dry cold"

Hell Toupee wrote in news:iaruue$gq6$1
@speranza.aioe.org:


Iowa allows stations to offer both ethanol-free and
ethanol-adulterated gas. The ethanol-free fuel consistently run
several cents a gallon _cheaper_ than the ethanol-added gas. And I get
at least 10% better mileage on ethanol-free fuel, too. So considering
the lower price and better mileage of pure gasoline, it's quite
apparent that the only people benefiting financially from
ethanol-adulterated gasoline are the agribusiness lobby.

Ethanol-less fuel in Iowa is typical 10¢-15¢ HIGHER than ethanol blended
fuel. Blended has been subsidized and available for nearly 25 years here.
At first it was only 2¢ -3¢ cheaper now much more.
After communting 120 miles/day for years, and carefully monitoring my
mpg, I say the 'winter formula' with 'enhanced cold weather starting
properties' did more to hurt mpg than anything else. Every fall mileage
would drop until spring.

--
Steve
southiowa

weltschmerz
Pronunciation: 'velt-"shmerts
Function: noun
: mental depression or apathy caused by comparison of the actual state
of the world with an ideal state

wrote in news:i724d6duqgr3g5c6m68nlbph9m6udug26g@
4ax.com:

On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 21:08:30 -0400, wrote:

OK. even if these so called subsidies existed (which i don't believe
for a minute) Then ok.
The problem doesn't stop with the amount of fuel required to produce
the corn, and then the ethanol from the corn.
If it did, it would be a simple matter to switch to ethanol to fuel
the equipment and the still.

The problem is the feed stock.
CORN is not the right, or even sensible product from which to produce
ethanol, particularly as a fuel to reduce oil dependancy, because corn
requires huge amounts of ammonia fertilizers - the production of which
requires HUGE amount of natural gas or petroleum......

The other issue is water. Corn needs a lot of water and we will run
out of water long before we run out of oil.
The Ogalalla aquifer that supplies most if the midwest where the corn
comes from is dropping several feet a year. That is "fossil water" and
when it's gone, it's gone too. It will take centuries to recharge.


Actually the Ogalalla aquifer supplies irrigation water for only a small
part of corn harvest. Most corn is grown in other than the high plains,
in places where costly irrigation is not needed. I'm not arguing the
decline of the OA. Just where it is located, where corn is grown and
their connectivity.

--
Steve
southiowa

weltschmerz
Pronunciation: 'velt-"shmerts
Function: noun
: mental depression or apathy caused by comparison of the actual state
of the world with an ideal state

On 11/3/2010 9:12 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 14:11:25 -0500,
wrote:

George wrote:
On 11/3/2010 7:29 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
http://pure-gas.org/

Myself, and aparently many others. Find that the new "10% ethanol"
motor fuel gives about 15% less fuel mileage. I don't see a lot of
advantage to planting, harvesting and distilling to make a fuel that
provides less mileage. Wish I knew where to buy the old style
gasoline. Well, now, here is a list of stations that provide the old
style gasoline.

Now, you can know, also.

Got an FBO (Fixed Base Operator) near you? Buy 100 Octane aviation
gas and you're good to go.




And poison your catalytic converter..

And your great information could cost someone a grand if they didn't
realize you just like to screw with people...

You're right. My mistake. Avgas contains lead which is not good for
catalytic convertors.

My experience was back in the day - before catalytic convertors.

Before cat converters was also WELL before ethanol blended gasoline.

Give him a break, it has only been what 35 years since catalytic
converters were fitted on cars to meet newer emissions requirements...

On 11/3/2010 9:11 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 11:32:30 -0700, "Bob
wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methyl_tert-butyl_ether
Here is more than I ever thought I wanted to know about MTBE.
Aparently, it's water soluble, and gives water a bad taste. Gets into
the water via leaking tanks, spills, etc.

It's my view at the moment, that the farming needed to make ethanol
uses more fossil fuels than just pumping the dino juice out of the
ground. Here is what Wiki says:

If that's the case, the ethanol would cost more than gasoline, which is clearly
not the case, even if you account for the subsidies.

It does.
If you remove the agricultural subsidies the American farmer gets to
produce corn, and the subsidies given to the ethanol producers for
producing the ethanol, gasoline is less expensive (before taxation)
than booze alchohol (even made from unsubsidized, imported cane sugar)
before taxes.

Not to mention at least in my state the final subsidy that ethanol gets
is that it is exempt from road use taxes.

That is true, and profound. And angering!

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...


But only because of the subsidies.

Which means you are buying the ethanol, even if you are not putting
it in your tank (and even if you do not own or drive a vehicle)

The plot sickens. Even more of an energy suck than I thought?

I read a bit yesterday about Brazil, where they have sugar cane.
Aparently, that's good supply of carbs for fermenting.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
news
The problem doesn't stop with the amount of fuel required to produce
the corn, and then the ethanol from the corn.
If it did, it would be a simple matter to switch to ethanol to fuel
the equipment and the still.

The problem is the feed stock.
CORN is not the right, or even sensible product from which to produce
ethanol, particularly as a fuel to reduce oil dependancy, because corn
requires huge amounts of ammonia fertilizers - the production of which
requires HUGE amount of natural gas or petroleum......

So, global warming will distill the oceans for us?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"willshak" wrote in message
m...

Not to worry. Global warming will provide more fresh water than we can
ever use. We'll be swimming in it, or drowning in it, one of the two.


--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

On Thu, 4 Nov 2010 10:16:57 +0000 (UTC), "Steve.IA"
wrote:

Hell Toupee wrote in news:iaruue$gq6$1
:


Iowa allows stations to offer both ethanol-free and
ethanol-adulterated gas. The ethanol-free fuel consistently run
several cents a gallon _cheaper_ than the ethanol-added gas. And I get
at least 10% better mileage on ethanol-free fuel, too. So considering
the lower price and better mileage of pure gasoline, it's quite
apparent that the only people benefiting financially from
ethanol-adulterated gasoline are the agribusiness lobby.

Ethanol-less fuel in Iowa is typical 10¢-15¢ HIGHER than ethanol blended
fuel. Blended has been subsidized and available for nearly 25 years here.
At first it was only 2¢ -3¢ cheaper now much more.
After communting 120 miles/day for years, and carefully monitoring my
mpg, I say the 'winter formula' with 'enhanced cold weather starting
properties' did more to hurt mpg than anything else. Every fall mileage
would drop until spring.
Even if the fuel formulation did not change, winter driving in Iowa
will burn more gas than summer driving. As it does in Ontario -
particularly if there is any short distance driving involved. The
intake air temperature sensor has a pretty high control over fuel
mixture, as does the coolant temp sensor. Cold tires have a higher
rolling resistance (they are stiffer) and cold gear oils etc also take
more power.

On 11/3/2010 10:30 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 21:11:17 -0500, Steve Barker
wrote:

On 11/3/2010 7:58 PM, wrote:

Steve hasn't lived and driven very long in a cold climate, I would
guess. Frozen gas lines have long been a curse in cold humid areas.


52 yrs. in eastern kansas. Not the coldest spot on the planet, but we
do go below zero now and then. I've never had a fuel related issue with
a gasoline engine in the winter.
"but it's a dry cold"

LOL! i said something to a guy i worked with once who grew up in
arizona. I said " i hear the heat is not bad because there's no
humidity". He said, "that's a bunch of bull****, 105 is ****ing HOT!
period!" LMAO!

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

In article ,
Steve Barker wrote:

LOL! i said something to a guy i worked with once who grew up in
arizona. I said " i hear the heat is not bad because there's no
humidity". He said, "that's a bunch of bull****, 105 is ****ing HOT!
period!" LMAO!

Nobody has been able to explain to my satisfaction why it is better to
live in a convection oven instead of a bamboo steamer.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

wrote the following:
On Thu, 4 Nov 2010 10:16:57 +0000 (UTC), "Steve.IA"
wrote:


Hell Toupee wrote in news:iaruue$gq6$1
@speranza.aioe.org:


Iowa allows stations to offer both ethanol-free and
ethanol-adulterated gas. The ethanol-free fuel consistently run
several cents a gallon _cheaper_ than the ethanol-added gas. And I get
at least 10% better mileage on ethanol-free fuel, too. So considering
the lower price and better mileage of pure gasoline, it's quite
apparent that the only people benefiting financially from
ethanol-adulterated gasoline are the agribusiness lobby.


Ethanol-less fuel in Iowa is typical 10¢-15¢ HIGHER than ethanol blended
fuel. Blended has been subsidized and available for nearly 25 years here.
At first it was only 2¢ -3¢ cheaper now much more.
After communting 120 miles/day for years, and carefully monitoring my
mpg, I say the 'winter formula' with 'enhanced cold weather starting
properties' did more to hurt mpg than anything else. Every fall mileage
would drop until spring.

Even if the fuel formulation did not change, winter driving in Iowa
will burn more gas than summer driving. As it does in Ontario -
particularly if there is any short distance driving involved. The
intake air temperature sensor has a pretty high control over fuel
mixture, as does the coolant temp sensor. Cold tires have a higher
rolling resistance (they are stiffer) and cold gear oils etc also take
more power.


Tires are only stiffer until they are moving, then friction and flexing
warms them up.
Remember nylon ply tires? They thumped on the flat spots for the first
few thousand feet until they heated up.


--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

The one that grows politicians. Endless supply, I guess.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...


Which aquifer is NOT being depleted?

Well, just as long as they don't club baby seals to death, or cut the
heads off kittens like I'm told Democrats do. In their secret House of
Representatives meetings. While Republicans plot how to throw Gramma
out of the nursing home and compassionately assign her a shopping
basket. Might have to eat dogfood, but don't worry. We'll ship her a
new can opener.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...

Brazil is draining the wetlands and burning the rain forest to make
ethanol. That doesn't sound very ecologically sound to me.
Florida is buying out the sugar farmers here and restoring the
wetlands.

Living down wind of the Great Lakes, winter is humid, here. I talked
to an Army guy from Alaska. Asked, since we freeze solid here at 20F,
how can they do 50 below, and still be alive. He said it's the
humidity. Our winters in Rochester, NY feel much colder than the
Alaska winters.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...

LOL! i said something to a guy i worked with once who grew up in
arizona. I said " i hear the heat is not bad because there's no
humidity". He said, "that's a bunch of bull****, 105 is ****ing
HOT!
period!" LMAO!

Nobody has been able to explain to my satisfaction why it is better
to
live in a convection oven instead of a bamboo steamer.

Well, when it is hot and dry you sweat and cool down. When it's hot
and humid you sweat and grow mushrooms in your armpits and crotch.

105F or 115F and 95+% humidity is very draining. Been there, done
that, central Africa.

105F to 115F and 35% humidity is also hot, But it is bearable hot
because sweating and a bit of a breeze has a cooling effect.
Been there done that too, in SubSahara West Africa.

Same with cold.
-40F is cold at 14% RH
-5F goes right to the bone at 80%+ RH
-15F at 85%+ RH is downright brutal.

wrote:
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 11:32:30 -0700, "Bob
wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methyl_tert-butyl_ether
Here is more than I ever thought I wanted to know about MTBE.
Aparently, it's water soluble, and gives water a bad taste. Gets into
the water via leaking tanks, spills, etc.

It's my view at the moment, that the farming needed to make ethanol
uses more fossil fuels than just pumping the dino juice out of the
ground. Here is what Wiki says:

If that's the case, the ethanol would cost more than gasoline, which is clearly
not the case, even if you account for the subsidies.

It does.
If you remove the agricultural subsidies the American farmer gets to
produce corn, and the subsidies given to the ethanol producers for
producing the ethanol, gasoline is less expensive (before taxation)
than booze alchohol (even made from unsubsidized, imported cane sugar)
before taxes.

Hi,
Ethanol production is pure politics. Gas is cheaper often than a bottle
of water. We don't gron corn as food, it is an industrial raw material.

On 11/4/2010 1:47 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Nov 2010 10:26:14 +0000 (UTC), "Steve.IA"
wrote:

wrote in news:i724d6duqgr3g5c6m68nlbph9m6udug26g@
4ax.com:

On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 21:08:30 -0400, wrote:

OK. even if these so called subsidies existed (which i don't believe
for a minute) Then ok.
The problem doesn't stop with the amount of fuel required to produce
the corn, and then the ethanol from the corn.
If it did, it would be a simple matter to switch to ethanol to fuel
the equipment and the still.

The problem is the feed stock.
CORN is not the right, or even sensible product from which to produce
ethanol, particularly as a fuel to reduce oil dependancy, because corn
requires huge amounts of ammonia fertilizers - the production of which
requires HUGE amount of natural gas or petroleum......

The other issue is water. Corn needs a lot of water and we will run
out of water long before we run out of oil.
The Ogalalla aquifer that supplies most if the midwest where the corn
comes from is dropping several feet a year. That is "fossil water" and
when it's gone, it's gone too. It will take centuries to recharge.


Actually the Ogalalla aquifer supplies irrigation water for only a small
part of corn harvest. Most corn is grown in other than the high plains,
in places where costly irrigation is not needed. I'm not arguing the
decline of the OA. Just where it is located, where corn is grown and
their connectivity.

Which aquifer is NOT being depleted?

Growing up in Indiana, I don't recall ever seeing corn irrigated. Other
crops, sure, including with those giant walking sprinklers, but never corn.

--
aem sends...

wrote:
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 11:32:30 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:

If that's the case, the ethanol would cost more than gasoline, which is clearly
not the case, even if you account for the subsidies.

The hidden cost of ethanol is at the grocery store. Have you seen what
feed prices are or bought a box of cereal lately?
We are burning food in our car driving up grocery costs. There is not
much you eat that doesn't have some corn content somewhere in the
chain.

Farmers get about 20% of the amount consumers pay at the store. A
breakdown he http://tinyurl.com/24tpgw9
More info he http://tinyurl.com/2fnnv9e
It's commonly accepted among the farmers I know that ethanol
processing doesn't affect the feed value of corn. The leftovers
(distillers grains) make good feed. I don't know if the accepted
wisdom is dead accurate though.
There used to be charts online of various foods comparing prices
farmers received with what consumers paid. I couldn't find any of those
offhand this time. The closest I could come was this link to the
National Farmers Union http://tinyurl.com/2dkqdqh
Right under the headline Farmer's Share is a link to a PDF showing
consumer cost vs. farmer income. I didn't know how to post that here
directly.

On Nov 4, 10:51*am, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Nov 2010 08:59:38 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
The plot sickens. Even more of an energy suck than I thought?

I read a bit yesterday about Brazil, where they have sugar cane.
Aparently, that's good supply of carbs for fermenting.

Brazil is draining the wetlands and burning the rain forest to make
ethanol. That doesn't sound very ecologically sound to me.
Florida is buying out the sugar farmers here and restoring the
wetlands.

And that took DECADES of pressure from environmental groups and just
plain people who wanted the Everglades back.

On 11/4/2010 2:56 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 12:27:58 -0400, Kurt
wrote:

In articleEfWdnWkhNZ09QE_RnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d@giganews. com,
Steve wrote:

LOL! i said something to a guy i worked with once who grew up in
arizona. I said " i hear the heat is not bad because there's no
humidity". He said, "that's a bunch of bull****, 105 is ****ing HOT!
period!" LMAO!

Nobody has been able to explain to my satisfaction why it is better to
live in a convection oven instead of a bamboo steamer.

Well, when it is hot and dry you sweat and cool down. When it's hot
and humid you sweat and grow mushrooms in your armpits and crotch.

105F or 115F and 95+% humidity is very draining. Been there, done
that, central Africa.

105F to 115F and 35% humidity is also hot, But it is bearable hot
because sweating and a bit of a breeze has a cooling effect.
Been there done that too, in SubSahara West Africa.

Same with cold.
-40F is cold at 14% RH
-5F goes right to the bone at 80%+ RH
-15F at 85%+ RH is downright brutal.


I was working in Los Angeles in 1989 when it was 105° with little
humidity and the wind coming in from the desert. It felt like a
hair dryer blowing in through the open windows of a construction
site where I was working. I was bone dry, my underarms were dry
and my sweat evaporated immediately. Here in Alabamastan, at 105°,
my shoes are soaking wet along with anything I'm wearing and there
is a puddle on the floor anywhere I might stand for five minutes
which has nothing to do with bladder control. This summer, me and
my buddy were replacing an AC system and it was so hot, I didn't
have to urinate for eight hours even though I was drinking gallons
of water. It was leaking out of thousands of tiny holes all over
my body. 8-)

TDD

On 11/4/2010 6:26 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:


wrote:
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 11:32:30 -0700, "Bob
wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methyl_tert-butyl_ether
Here is more than I ever thought I wanted to know about MTBE.
Aparently, it's water soluble, and gives water a bad taste. Gets into
the water via leaking tanks, spills, etc.

It's my view at the moment, that the farming needed to make ethanol
uses more fossil fuels than just pumping the dino juice out of the
ground. Here is what Wiki says:

If that's the case, the ethanol would cost more than gasoline, which
is clearly
not the case, even if you account for the subsidies.

It does.
If you remove the agricultural subsidies the American farmer gets to
produce corn, and the subsidies given to the ethanol producers for
producing the ethanol, gasoline is less expensive (before taxation)
than booze alchohol (even made from unsubsidized, imported cane sugar)
before taxes.

Hi,
Ethanol production is pure politics. Gas is cheaper often than a bottle
of water. We don't gron corn as food, it is an industrial raw material.

Gron, what is "gron", is it something like "grok"? :-)

TDD

On 11/4/2010 10:00 PM, Higgs Boson wrote:
On Nov 4, 10:51 am, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Nov 2010 08:59:38 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
The plot sickens. Even more of an energy suck than I thought?

I read a bit yesterday about Brazil, where they have sugar cane.
Aparently, that's good supply of carbs for fermenting.

Brazil is draining the wetlands and burning the rain forest to make
ethanol. That doesn't sound very ecologically sound to me.
Florida is buying out the sugar farmers here and restoring the
wetlands.

And that took DECADES of pressure from environmental groups and just
plain people who wanted the Everglades back.


It was the alien reptile people who have infiltrated humanity. They
want The Everglades to use as a nursery for their young. 8-)

TDD

In article ,
aemeijers wrote:


Growing up in Indiana, I don't recall ever seeing corn irrigated. Other
crops, sure, including with those giant walking sprinklers, but never corn.

FWLIW, most of the walking sprinklers in Indiana are for the turf (or
lawn) farms.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke