On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:12:28 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

From what I can figure, ethanol in gasoline is a bit loser, on so many
fronts. Takes food out of the food chain, and actually uses more energy than
it replaces. And I find that ethanol gasoline gets lower mileage. I'm
encouraged, that we're doing less to push the ethanol crap on our people.


********. brazilian ethanol is much more energy efficient to produce, somewhat
on the order of 9 or 10 times less energy input to produce a gallon as compared
to corn (and they grow a ****load of it in Florida) Ethanol from corn is made
from field corn which is almost always used as animal feed. In the process of
making ethanol the DDGS are sold to ranchers at a cost that is less than the
equivalent whole corn cost. the DDGS is higher in protein than whole corn so the
rancher needs less DDGS than whole corn and they get it at a reduced price. So
how can the cost of food (which means beef) go up?

Nine or ten? No, more like three (cane vs. corn) with another three *perhaps*
possible, using switchgrass.

The Daring Dufas wrote:

Switchgrass is a plentiful biomass to use for ethanol production and I
don't know why it hasn't received the push it needs to be the new source
for ethanol.

http://www.farmland.org/programs/env...FYEmtAodEnarWA


http://preview.tinyurl.com/cxpry9u

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panicum_virgatum

TDD




Because Dubya mentioned switchgrass in his last State of the Union
address, and we *know* that anything he says has to be evil and stupid
and should be dismissed -- even when he's right.

You knew that already, didn't you?

-Bob

" wrote in
:

Well, there you have the major problem with "liberalism". They don't
care about cost/benefit analysis. "It's for the children." Hell,
they don't even care if a program *works*, just as long as it feels
good. Right, Han?

Thanks for getting me back in the discussion! I would like to submit that
I'm for a cost-benefit analysis of many, most or all proposals. Sometimes
others (you?) don't seem to care about the benefits I do care about.

OTOH, my dad's cars didn't have all that air pollution stuff on them, and
getting at things, even with those horrible little French cars, was easier
and for sure the mileage was better...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in
:

That's too much to hope for, where government bureaucrats are involved.

Again, I blame the lawyers ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 31 Dec 2011 02:16:57 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

Well, there you have the major problem with "liberalism". They don't
care about cost/benefit analysis. "It's for the children." Hell,
they don't even care if a program *works*, just as long as it feels
good. Right, Han?

Thanks for getting me back in the discussion! I would like to submit that
I'm for a cost-benefit analysis of many, most or all proposals. Sometimes
others (you?) don't seem to care about the benefits I do care about.

OTOH, my dad's cars didn't have all that air pollution stuff on them, and
getting at things, even with those horrible little French cars, was easier
and for sure the mileage was better...
The mileage was better because they were lighter and lower powered.
They really stunk up the air too. (I've owned a few).

On 12/30/2011 8:16 PM, Han wrote:
z wrote in
:

Well, there you have the major problem with "liberalism". They don't
care about cost/benefit analysis. "It's for the children." Hell,
they don't even care if a program *works*, just as long as it feels
good. Right, Han?

Thanks for getting me back in the discussion! I would like to submit that
I'm for a cost-benefit analysis of many, most or all proposals. Sometimes
others (you?) don't seem to care about the benefits I do care about.

OTOH, my dad's cars didn't have all that air pollution stuff on them, and
getting at things, even with those horrible little French cars, was easier
and for sure the mileage was better...


I owned 3 Renaults back in the early 1970's, they were loads of fun to
tinker with. ^_^

TDD

On 12/30/2011 8:10 PM, zxcvbob wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

Switchgrass is a plentiful biomass to use for ethanol production and I
don't know why it hasn't received the push it needs to be the new
source for ethanol.

http://www.farmland.org/programs/env...FYEmtAodEnarWA


http://preview.tinyurl.com/cxpry9u

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panicum_virgatum

TDD




Because Dubya mentioned switchgrass in his last State of the Union
address, and we *know* that anything he says has to be evil and stupid
and should be dismissed -- even when he's right.

You knew that already, didn't you?

-Bob

Only from those who are afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome. I wish
those folks would get over it and try to do their part as citizens and
support anyone who can get the country back on top. ^_^

TDD

In article ,
Han wrote:


Thanks for getting me back in the discussion! I would like to submit that
I'm for a cost-benefit analysis of many, most or all proposals. Sometimes
others (you?) don't seem to care about the benefits I do care about.

But then the losers of the c/b analysis ALWAYS drag out "how can you
put a price on life or health or whatever".

OTOH, my dad's cars didn't have all that air pollution stuff on them, and
getting at things, even with those horrible little French cars, was easier
and for sure the mileage was better...
I am not sure how much of the getting at things is directly related to
pollution stuff and how much related to wanting to make sure the dealers
stayed in business by engineering things to make shade tree mechanics
much harder to do.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article ,
Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

That's too much to hope for, where government bureaucrats are involved.

Again, I blame the lawyers ...

Congress and large stretches of the bureaucracy are made up of lawyers.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Kurt Ullman wrote in
news
In article ,
Han wrote:


Thanks for getting me back in the discussion! I would like to submit
that I'm for a cost-benefit analysis of many, most or all proposals.
Sometimes others (you?) don't seem to care about the benefits I do
care about.

But then the losers of the c/b analysis ALWAYS drag out "how can you
put a price on life or health or whatever".

We'll discuss that again when we get to talk about end of life care ...

OTOH, my dad's cars didn't have all that air pollution stuff on them,
and getting at things, even with those horrible little French cars,
was easier and for sure the mileage was better...
I am not sure how much of the getting at things is directly related
to pollution stuff and how much related to wanting to make sure the
dealers stayed in business by engineering things to make shade tree
mechanics much harder to do.

Well, I've tinkered a bit with the Fiats I owned in the early 70's, but
after that my time became too precious ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Kurt Ullman wrote in
news
In article ,
Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

That's too much to hope for, where government bureaucrats are
involved.

Again, I blame the lawyers ...

Congress and large stretches of the bureaucracy are made up of
lawyers.

Exactly my point.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
Han wrote:

K

But then the losers of the c/b analysis ALWAYS drag out "how can you
put a price on life or health or whatever".

We'll discuss that again when we get to talk about end of life care ...

Yep, although I would like to note at the outset that most of the
umbrage over the last six months of life is skewed somewhat to my mind
since it doesn't really account for the intensity of the spending. Makes
sense that you are sickest just before you die.


When I was an EMT, I noted that a fair number of the people that died
on me where relatively healthy until they weren't. WHile it was true
that a lot of money was spent in the last 6 months of life, about 99% of
that was spent in the last 6 hours.
My wife's uncle is a good example. He was healthy as an Ox until a
coronary artery finally closed. By the time they took him to the local
hospital, got him sorta stabilized, shipped to Little Rock and worked on
him until he died on the table they spent upwards of $60,000 (this was
mi-80s).
I haven't seen a study yet that teases out how much was "wasteful"
or unneeded. Just saying they spend most of the money in the last 6
months of life tells me nothing except that people are the sickest just
before they croak. Can I get a rousing "No, duh"?

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

In article ,
Han wrote:

K

But then the losers of the c/b analysis ALWAYS drag out "how can
you
put a price on life or health or whatever".

We'll discuss that again when we get to talk about end of life care
...

Yep, although I would like to note at the outset that most of the
umbrage over the last six months of life is skewed somewhat to my mind
since it doesn't really account for the intensity of the spending.
Makes sense that you are sickest just before you die.


When I was an EMT, I noted that a fair number of the people that died
on me where relatively healthy until they weren't. WHile it was true
that a lot of money was spent in the last 6 months of life, about 99%
of that was spent in the last 6 hours.
My wife's uncle is a good example. He was healthy as an Ox until a
coronary artery finally closed. By the time they took him to the local
hospital, got him sorta stabilized, shipped to Little Rock and worked
on him until he died on the table they spent upwards of $60,000 (this
was mi-80s).
I haven't seen a study yet that teases out how much was
"wasteful"
or unneeded. Just saying they spend most of the money in the last 6
months of life tells me nothing except that people are the sickest
just before they croak. Can I get a rousing "No, duh"?

I think it is definitely worthwhile to try to get someone "who was
healthy as an Ox until " all the medical help he/she can get. But
(hypothetically) should the old lady deep in her 80's who has been more
and more sickly lately and now needs dialysis be a candidate for a kidney
transplant?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
: In article ,
: My wife's uncle is a good example. He was healthy as an
Ox until a
: coronary artery finally closed. By the time they took him
to the local
: hospital, got him sorta stabilized, shipped to Little Rock
and worked on
: him until he died on the table they spent upwards of
$60,000 (this was
: mi-80s).


A couple were both 85 years old, and had been married for
sixty years. Though they were far from rich, they managed to
live a good life because they watched their pennies.
Though not young as they would like, they were both in very
good health, largely due to the wife’s insistence on healthy
foods and exercise during the last several decades.
One day, their good health could not save them, when they
went on a rare vacation and they were both killed in a
terrible auto accident, sending them off to Heaven.
As they reached the pearly gates, St. Peter escorted them
inside. He took them to a beautiful mansion, furnished in
gold and fine silks, with a fully stocked kitchen and a
waterfall in the master bath. A maid could be seen hanging
their favorite clothes in the closet.
They gasped in astonishment when St. Peter said, “Welcome to
Heaven. This will be your home now.
The old man asked Peter how much all this was going to cost.
“Why, nothing,” Peter replied, “Remember, this is your
reward in Heaven.”
The old man looked out the window and there he saw a
beautiful championship golf course, better then anything he
had seen on Earth.

“What are the greens fees?” grumbled the old man.
“This is heaven,” St. Peter replied, “You can play for free,
every day.”
Next they went to the clubhouse and saw the lavish buffet
lunch, with every imaginable cuisine laid out before them,
from seafood to steaks to exotic deserts, and free flowing
beverages.
“Don’t even ask,” said St. Peter to the man, “This is
Heaven, it is all free for you to enjoy.”
The old man looked around and glanced nervously at his wife.
“Well, where are the low fat and low cholesterol foods, and
the decaffeinated tea?,” he asked. “That’s the best part,”
St. Peter replied, “You can eat and drink as much as you
like of whatever you like, and you will never get fat or
sick. This is Heaven!”

The old man then ask, “No gym to work out at?” “Not unless
you want to,” was the answer.
“No testing my sugar or blood pressure or..” “Never again.
All you do here is enjoy yourself.”
The old man glared at his wife and said, “You and your
****in’ bran muffins. We could have been here ten years
ago!”

In article ,
Han wrote:


I think it is definitely worthwhile to try to get someone "who was
healthy as an Ox until " all the medical help he/she can get. But
(hypothetically) should the old lady deep in her 80's who has been more
and more sickly lately and now needs dialysis be a candidate for a kidney
transplant?

I would say that in our society, yeah probably. I have long said
that the major reason we don't have a sensible healthcare system is
because we, as a society, haven't come to any consensus on these kind of
questions. And even when we start talking about it, it can't be civil
for too long before the right starts talking about death squads and left
starts deciding it is all a plot to do in minorities.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Kurt Ullman wrote in
news
In article ,
Han wrote:


I think it is definitely worthwhile to try to get someone "who was
healthy as an Ox until " all the medical help he/she can get. But
(hypothetically) should the old lady deep in her 80's who has been
more and more sickly lately and now needs dialysis be a candidate for
a kidney transplant?

I would say that in our society, yeah probably. I have long said
that the major reason we don't have a sensible healthcare system is
because we, as a society, haven't come to any consensus on these kind
of questions. And even when we start talking about it, it can't be
civil for too long before the right starts talking about death squads
and left starts deciding it is all a plot to do in minorities.

The only thing that's pretty sure is that you won't recognize the
situation until it hits you in the face. And then you might have to make
a decision that will take years before you're finlly at peace with it.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 22:25:09 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/30/2011 8:16 PM, Han wrote:
z wrote in
:

Well, there you have the major problem with "liberalism". They don't
care about cost/benefit analysis. "It's for the children." Hell,
they don't even care if a program *works*, just as long as it feels
good. Right, Han?

Thanks for getting me back in the discussion! I would like to submit that
I'm for a cost-benefit analysis of many, most or all proposals. Sometimes
others (you?) don't seem to care about the benefits I do care about.

OTOH, my dad's cars didn't have all that air pollution stuff on them, and
getting at things, even with those horrible little French cars, was easier
and for sure the mileage was better...


I owned 3 Renaults back in the early 1970's, they were loads of fun to
tinker with. ^_^

TDD
Peugeot 204 wagon (1967) i n Zambia - drove it across country frpom
Livingstone to Mbereshi in the rainy season with 4 adults and half a
ton of supplies. So rough you either drove under 30mph or over 50 -
either crawl over the bumps or just hit about one in 10. You can guess
which option I chose. Every hour or so it was out with the hammer and
beat the beads of the rims back to a semblance of round. Thank God
and Michelin for "airstops"

Renault 12 sedan (1973) - Rallyed 1978- 1980 Ontario Regional
Navigational Rallye Series - fininished 4, 3, and 2, LOADS of fun, and
never broke it on a rallye. (lost the muffler once). Lowest powered
car on the series, and likely the longest suspension travel.

On 31 Dec 2011 15:00:42 GMT, Han wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in
news
In article ,
Han wrote:


Thanks for getting me back in the discussion! I would like to submit
that I'm for a cost-benefit analysis of many, most or all proposals.
Sometimes others (you?) don't seem to care about the benefits I do
care about.

But then the losers of the c/b analysis ALWAYS drag out "how can you
put a price on life or health or whatever".

We'll discuss that again when we get to talk about end of life care ...

OTOH, my dad's cars didn't have all that air pollution stuff on them,
and getting at things, even with those horrible little French cars,
was easier and for sure the mileage was better...
I am not sure how much of the getting at things is directly related
to pollution stuff and how much related to wanting to make sure the
dealers stayed in business by engineering things to make shade tree
mechanics much harder to do.

Well, I've tinkered a bit with the Fiats I owned in the early 70's, but
after that my time became too precious ...


Fiats are Italian - not French - but I had one of them too. A 1975 128
Sprt Coupe.
Converted it to electric, using an aircraft generator and a drum
switch/resistance/series-parallel speed controller. I was often asked
about it's reliability and my answer was "not great, but a heck of a
lot better than the Fiat" The car had 18000 miles on it when I
converted it ( 1978?) and I scrapped it due, in part, to terminal
chassis corrosion, in 1983?

On 12/31/2011 11:54 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 22:25:09 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/30/2011 8:16 PM, Han wrote:
z wrote in
:

Well, there you have the major problem with "liberalism". They don't
care about cost/benefit analysis. "It's for the children." Hell,
they don't even care if a program *works*, just as long as it feels
good. Right, Han?

Thanks for getting me back in the discussion! I would like to submit that
I'm for a cost-benefit analysis of many, most or all proposals. Sometimes
others (you?) don't seem to care about the benefits I do care about.

OTOH, my dad's cars didn't have all that air pollution stuff on them, and
getting at things, even with those horrible little French cars, was easier
and for sure the mileage was better...


I owned 3 Renaults back in the early 1970's, they were loads of fun to
tinker with. ^_^

TDD
Peugeot 204 wagon (1967) i n Zambia - drove it across country frpom
Livingstone to Mbereshi in the rainy season with 4 adults and half a
ton of supplies. So rough you either drove under 30mph or over 50 -
either crawl over the bumps or just hit about one in 10. You can guess
which option I chose. Every hour or so it was out with the hammer and
beat the beads of the rims back to a semblance of round. Thank God
and Michelin for "airstops"

Renault 12 sedan (1973) - Rallyed 1978- 1980 Ontario Regional
Navigational Rallye Series - fininished 4, 3, and 2, LOADS of fun, and
never broke it on a rallye. (lost the muffler once). Lowest powered
car on the series, and likely the longest suspension travel.

I had two R-10's and a 16, The most fun was the 1967 R-10 with the
1108cc engine that I could pull by hand and carry it to a workbench.
They were quirky funny little cars but I loved them. ^_^

TDD

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 14:09:37 -0500, Frank
wrote:

On 12/28/2011 12:46 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in
:

On 12/28/2011 10:46 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Which opens another question. Are the pollution laws reasonable? Are
they needed at all?

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

wrote in message

...

Even Al Gore has said ethanol mandated use in gasoline was a mistake.
This is a small step in the right direction.
The oxygenate law that makes it required should be repealed.
Refiners had always said that they could meet the pollution
requirements without it.
I was big agrabusiness like ADM that contributed vast amounts of
money to both parties to get it passed so that they would prosper.



Reasonable or not, refineries could have met them without the
oxygenate requirement.

Laws may be unreasonable as air quality standards are revised at whim
of EPA. Something satisfactory today may not be tomorrow.

I've yet to hear of a death certificate where the cause of death was
exposure to ozone, second hand smoke, radon - you name it, but EPA
says thousands of lives would be saved by tightening standards.

Hopefully, President Romney, will gut the EPA.

Whatever you say, the air in New York City is now MUCH, MUCH better than
it was in 1976.

To answer you more directly, death certificates usually state the direct
cause of death, not the underlying (series of) causes.

Of course. I understood that 90% of auto exhaust pollution was
eliminated when first legislated. To keep clamping is not worth the
gains.

Well, there you have the major problem with "liberalism". They don't care
about cost/benefit analysis. "It's for the children." Hell, they don't
even
care if a program *works*, just as long as it feels good. Right, Han?

Since I spend considerable time going through cost/benefit analyses for
energy-efficient lighting requirements involving the state of California, I
don't agree with your comment above. It's the law in CA that any new
legislative requirement involving energy efficiency meetk specific cost
payback, energy efficiency and environmental goals. They're all on line so
you can see for yourself. The NRDC and the ACEEE did similar analyses when
they proposed and promoted the federal legislation which became law in 2007
with the support of the DOE.

Tomsic