Bob F wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
Conservatives would like all hard working, honest
people to succed. Liberals woud like government
to succeed in running the lives of everyone.

You should listen to Rush Limbaugh, and Sean
Hannity. It would all bcome more clear to you.

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

You watch FOX "news", and know nothing about the real world. It is
well documented the Fox viewers are wrong more than people that don't
watch any news.

Can you provide such documentation?

History repeats. A couple generations ago, we used to call MTBE gasoline
"ethyl".

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

"Douglas Johnson" wrote in message
...
" wrote:

Corn based ethanol is a disaster. We
are burning food.

If it becomes cost efficient to get ethanol from cellulose, that's another
story. But we ain't there yet. The only positive thing about ethanol in
gasoline is that it is not as bad as the alternative: MTBE.

-- Doug

So, tell me. When was the last time I watched Fox news?

Since you're telling me about myself, be specific.

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

"Bob F" wrote in message
...
Stormin Mormon wrote:
Conservatives would like all hard working, honest
people to succed. Liberals woud like government
to succeed in running the lives of everyone.

You should listen to Rush Limbaugh, and Sean
Hannity. It would all bcome more clear to you.

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

You watch FOX "news", and know nothing about the real world. It is well
documented the Fox viewers are wrong more than people that don't watch any
news.

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 20:32:55 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:08:44 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote in
news:atlas-bugged- :

In article ,
"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

Won't work in the U.S., though, because the climate here won't
support production of sugar cane on the scale required.

And the US does not permit the importation of Brazilian ethanol.

which has nothing to do with the fact that it is energy positive
Which has NOTHING to do with ethanol fuel in the U.S of A, or
Canada.

sure it does, it shows that there are reasonable alternatives to corn for
ethanol that are energy positive
Except they are not REWASONABLE for the USA or Canada. Now, if the
USA spent 1/4 of what they are spending on wars in the middle east on
research to convert cellulose to ethanol, there are HUNDREDS of
reasonable feedstocks - most of which would be energy positive, which
would have little or no effect on food-grain prices. (or sugar prices,
as far as that goes)

On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 14:51:58 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote in
Re AAA: E15 could
really fark up your car, void warranties:

"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote in news:atlas-bugged-
:

In article ,
Doug Miller wrote:


Won't work in the U.S., though, because the climate here won't support
production of sugar
cane on the scale required.

that would probably be news to florida

So you think that Florida is capable of producing sugar cane on the scale required to
supply the motor vehicle fuel needs of the U.S., or even a significant fraction thereof?

Dream on.

Looks like there is plenty of room for expansion:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/sugar-sweeteners/background.aspx#production

In article ,
wrote:

Now, if the
USA spent 1/4 of what they are spending on wars in the middle east on
research to convert cellulose to ethanol, there are HUNDREDS of
reasonable feedstocks - most of which would be energy positive, which
would have little or no effect on food-grain prices. (or sugar prices,
as far as that goes)

Since you arrogant Canadians aren't funding any wars, and your economy
is so much more robust than ours, and you're all far more intelligent
than we are anyway, why don't y'all do it?

In article ,
wrote:

Except they are not REWASONABLE for the USA or Canada. Now, if the
USA spent 1/4 of what they are spending on wars in the middle east on
research to convert cellulose to ethanol, there are HUNDREDS of
reasonable feedstocks - most of which would be energy positive, which
would have little or no effect on food-grain prices. (or sugar prices,
as far as that goes)

It has got relatively little to do with wars and much more to do with
Congresscritters not wanting to cross the grain farmers and those
ethanol plants already in place.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

History repeats. A couple generations ago, we used to call MTBE gasoline
"ethyl".

No. "Ethyl" is short for tetraethyl lead, an additive to used to increase the
octane of gasoline. MTBE is an acronym for methyl tertiary butyl ether, an
additive used make gasoline burn cleaner.

Ethanol is the other additive allowed for cleaner burning. It has the side
effect of increasing octane slightly, 2-3 point at the 10% level.

-- Doug

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 10:31:52 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Now, if the
USA spent 1/4 of what they are spending on wars in the middle east on
research to convert cellulose to ethanol, there are HUNDREDS of
reasonable feedstocks - most of which would be energy positive, which
would have little or no effect on food-grain prices. (or sugar prices,
as far as that goes)

Since you arrogant Canadians aren't funding any wars, and your economy
is so much more robust than ours, and you're all far more intelligent
than we are anyway, why don't y'all do it?
We've been helping you guys in Afganistan (at huge cost both
financially and in lives) and we are only 1/10 the size.

On 12/1/2012 12:31 PM, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Now, if the
USA spent 1/4 of what they are spending on wars in the middle east on
research to convert cellulose to ethanol, there are HUNDREDS of
reasonable feedstocks - most of which would be energy positive, which
would have little or no effect on food-grain prices. (or sugar prices,
as far as that goes)

Since you arrogant Canadians aren't funding any wars, and your economy
is so much more robust than ours, and you're all far more intelligent
than we are anyway, why don't y'all do it?


Do the Canadians have "Affirmative Action" to gum up the works? I know
the British have a version of it know as "Positive Discrimination" which
I think is a more correct descriptive name for it because such policies
positively discriminate against the competent. O_o

TDD

On 12/1/2012 3:24 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 10:31:52 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Now, if the
USA spent 1/4 of what they are spending on wars in the middle east on
research to convert cellulose to ethanol, there are HUNDREDS of
reasonable feedstocks - most of which would be energy positive, which
would have little or no effect on food-grain prices. (or sugar prices,
as far as that goes)

Since you arrogant Canadians aren't funding any wars, and your economy
is so much more robust than ours, and you're all far more intelligent
than we are anyway, why don't y'all do it?
We've been helping you guys in Afganistan (at huge cost both
financially and in lives) and we are only 1/10 the size.


My Canadian cousins get screwed over by their government too in many of
the same ways so I have no quarrel with my Northern neighbors since what
happen here and there affects everyone in The Americas. ^_^

TDD

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 18:41:31 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/1/2012 12:31 PM, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Now, if the
USA spent 1/4 of what they are spending on wars in the middle east on
research to convert cellulose to ethanol, there are HUNDREDS of
reasonable feedstocks - most of which would be energy positive, which
would have little or no effect on food-grain prices. (or sugar prices,
as far as that goes)

Since you arrogant Canadians aren't funding any wars, and your economy
is so much more robust than ours, and you're all far more intelligent
than we are anyway, why don't y'all do it?


Do the Canadians have "Affirmative Action" to gum up the works? I know
the British have a version of it know as "Positive Discrimination" which
I think is a more correct descriptive name for it because such policies
positively discriminate against the competent. O_o

TDD
Yup - an english speaking white heterosexual male doesn't even need
to bother applying for a job in the civil service - he is definitely
in the minority.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

We fought two wars for longer than WWII and somehow expected there wouldn't
be sacrifices. Unlike WWII, we fought the AfRaq wars on credit, and now
we're going to have to pay for our mostly failed attempts at "nation
building." We didn't escape the sacrifices that long wars require, we
merely postponed them. Time to pay the piper.

If these were are only problems, I would happy. But we haven't even
begun to address the unfunded liablity of SS, MCare, MCaid. That's
another $121.6 trillion. Combine the federal budget deficit with the
unfunded liabilities for current entitlement programs (excluding
Affordable Care Act because those liabilities are still obscured) and it
comes to a mindboggling $1.2 million per taxpayer.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

In article ,
Doug Miller wrote:

"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote in
news:atlas-bugged-
:

In article ,
Doug Miller wrote:


Won't work in the U.S., though, because the climate here won't support
production of sugar
cane on the scale required.

that would probably be news to florida

So you think that Florida is capable of producing sugar cane on the scale
required to
supply the motor vehicle fuel needs of the U.S., or even a significant
fraction thereof?

Dream on.

I'll let the post from CRNG address that issue, but there's no reason sugar cane
couldn't be expanded to other areas and I'll bet it would grow nicely in parts
of Mexico...and we do have the ability to use Mexican ethanol

Then again, there is the sugar beet, sunchoke and hemp for ethanol, all of which
I believe are also energy positive

In article ,
" wrote:

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

In article ,
*"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

* * Minor nit, since very little sugar cane ethanol is available in the
US, which is what we were talking about. * 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

In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:


As a self-proclaimed liberal, I'd like to see all wealthy people be
honest and ethical


Those Limousine Liberals sure do have a long way to go in that sense.
^_^

TDD

just not quite as far as those Lear Jet Conservatives


Lear Jet hell, private 757. ^_^

TDD

bigger plane but still the same distance


Like Air Force One which is kept airborne by the power of the Messiah. ^_^

TDD

Whereas those private 757 are kept aloft by the power of Lucifer


Yea, I'm a Devil worshiper. ^_^

TDD

is that supposed to be news to us?

In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:


As a self-proclaimed liberal, I'd like to see all wealthy people be
honest and ethical


Those Limousine Liberals sure do have a long way to go in that sense.
^_^

TDD

just not quite as far as those Lear Jet Conservatives


Lear Jet hell, private 757. ^_^

TDD

bigger plane but still the same distance


Like Air Force One which is kept airborne by the power of the Messiah. ^_^

TDD

Whereas those private 757 are kept aloft by the power of Lucifer


Yea, I'm a Devil worshiper. ^_^

TDD

Guess that makes me a believer in the Messiah

In article ,
wrote:

And the US does not permit the importation of Brazilian ethanol.

which has nothing to do with the fact that it is energy positive
Which has NOTHING to do with ethanol fuel in the U.S of A, or
Canada.

sure it does, it shows that there are reasonable alternatives to corn for
ethanol that are energy positive
Except they are not REWASONABLE for the USA or Canada. Now, if the
USA spent 1/4 of what they are spending on wars in the middle east on
research to convert cellulose to ethanol, there are HUNDREDS of
reasonable feedstocks - most of which would be energy positive, which
would have little or no effect on food-grain prices. (or sugar prices,
as far as that goes)

damn those oil company execs and munitions makers

In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 12/1/2012 12:31 PM, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Now, if the
USA spent 1/4 of what they are spending on wars in the middle east on
research to convert cellulose to ethanol, there are HUNDREDS of
reasonable feedstocks - most of which would be energy positive, which
would have little or no effect on food-grain prices. (or sugar prices,
as far as that goes)

Since you arrogant Canadians aren't funding any wars, and your economy
is so much more robust than ours, and you're all far more intelligent
than we are anyway, why don't y'all do it?


Do the Canadians have "Affirmative Action" to gum up the works? I know
the British have a version of it know as "Positive Discrimination" which
I think is a more correct descriptive name for it because such policies
positively discriminate against the competent. O_o

TDD

How does "Affirmative Action" gum up the ethanol problem...other than favoring
one group of rich republican businessmen over another?

On 12/2/2012 2:34 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 12/1/2012 12:31 PM, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Now, if the
USA spent 1/4 of what they are spending on wars in the middle east on
research to convert cellulose to ethanol, there are HUNDREDS of
reasonable feedstocks - most of which would be energy positive, which
would have little or no effect on food-grain prices. (or sugar prices,
as far as that goes)

Since you arrogant Canadians aren't funding any wars, and your economy
is so much more robust than ours, and you're all far more intelligent
than we are anyway, why don't y'all do it?


Do the Canadians have "Affirmative Action" to gum up the works? I know
the British have a version of it know as "Positive Discrimination" which
I think is a more correct descriptive name for it because such policies
positively discriminate against the competent. O_o

TDD

How does "Affirmative Action" gum up the ethanol problem...other than favoring
one group of rich republican businessmen over another?


ZOOMmmm Right over your pointy little head. ^_^

TDD

On 12/2/2012 2:28 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:


As a self-proclaimed liberal, I'd like to see all wealthy people be
honest and ethical


Those Limousine Liberals sure do have a long way to go in that sense.
^_^

TDD

just not quite as far as those Lear Jet Conservatives


Lear Jet hell, private 757. ^_^

TDD

bigger plane but still the same distance


Like Air Force One which is kept airborne by the power of the Messiah. ^_^

TDD

Whereas those private 757 are kept aloft by the power of Lucifer


Yea, I'm a Devil worshiper. ^_^

TDD

is that supposed to be news to us?


You knew, which coven are you a member of? ^_^

TDD

"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote in news:atlas-bugged-
:

In article ,
Doug Miller wrote:

"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote in
news:atlas-bugged-
:

In article ,
Doug Miller wrote:


Won't work in the U.S., though, because the climate here won't support
production of sugar
cane on the scale required.

that would probably be news to florida

So you think that Florida is capable of producing sugar cane on the scale
required to
supply the motor vehicle fuel needs of the U.S., or even a significant
fraction thereof?

Dream on.

I'll let the post from CRNG address that issue, but there's no reason sugar cane
couldn't be expanded to other areas and I'll bet it would grow nicely in parts
of Mexico...and we do have the ability to use Mexican ethanol

Last I checked, Mexico wasn't part of the US, so whether cane will grow in Mexico is
irrelevant to the question of whether it can be grown in the US.

I repeat: the climate in the US is inhospitable to growing sugar cane on the scale required to
produce sufficient ethanol fuel.

Then again, there is the sugar beet, sunchoke and hemp for ethanol, all of which
I believe are also energy positive

Certainly much of the arable land in the US is hospitable to growing sugar beets -- but we
were talking about cane, remember?

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.

In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:

wrote:

Now, if the
USA spent 1/4 of what they are spending on wars in the middle east on
research to convert cellulose to ethanol, there are HUNDREDS of
reasonable feedstocks - most of which would be energy positive, which
would have little or no effect on food-grain prices. (or sugar prices,
as far as that goes)

Since you arrogant Canadians aren't funding any wars, and your economy
is so much more robust than ours, and you're all far more intelligent
than we are anyway, why don't y'all do it?


Do the Canadians have "Affirmative Action" to gum up the works? I know
the British have a version of it know as "Positive Discrimination" which
I think is a more correct descriptive name for it because such policies
positively discriminate against the competent. O_o

TDD

How does "Affirmative Action" gum up the ethanol problem...other than
favoring
one group of rich republican businessmen over another?


ZOOMmmm Right over your pointy little head. ^_^

TDD

oh I was ignoring your traditional anti-white racism to see if you could
actually answer the question

In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:

Lear Jet hell, private 757. ^_^

TDD

bigger plane but still the same distance


Like Air Force One which is kept airborne by the power of the Messiah.
^_^

TDD

Whereas those private 757 are kept aloft by the power of Lucifer


Yea, I'm a Devil worshiper. ^_^

TDD

is that supposed to be news to us?


You knew, which coven are you a member of? ^_^

TDD

we all knew

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?

In article ,
Doug Miller wrote:


Won't work in the U.S., though, because the climate here won't support
production of sugar cane on the scale required.

that would probably be news to florida

So you think that Florida is capable of producing sugar cane on the scale
required to supply the motor vehicle fuel needs of the U.S., or even a
significant fraction thereof?

Dream on.

I'll let the post from CRNG address that issue, but there's no reason sugar
cane couldn't be expanded to other areas and I'll bet it would grow nicely
in parts of Mexico...and we do have the ability to use Mexican ethanol

Last I checked, Mexico wasn't part of the US, so whether cane will grow in
Mexico is irrelevant to the question of whether it can be grown in the US.

but we do trade with Mexico. In fact some of that corn that is turned into
ethanol and not tortillas could have been being shipped to Mexico



I repeat: the climate in the US is inhospitable to growing sugar cane on the
scale required to produce sufficient ethanol fuel.

why be a piker: the climate in the US is inhospitable to growing many foods on
the scale to support Americans year round



Then again, there is the sugar beet, sunchoke and hemp for ethanol, all of
which I believe are also energy positive

Certainly much of the arable land in the US is hospitable to growing sugar
beets -- but we were talking about cane, remember?

actually we were talking about ethanol, remember. if not just look at the
subject line

"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote in news:atlas-bugged-
:

In article ,
Doug Miller wrote:


Won't work in the U.S., though, because the climate here won't support
production of sugar cane on the scale required.

that would probably be news to florida

So you think that Florida is capable of producing sugar cane on the scale
required to supply the motor vehicle fuel needs of the U.S., or even a
significant fraction thereof?

Dream on.

I'll let the post from CRNG address that issue, but there's no reason sugar
cane couldn't be expanded to other areas and I'll bet it would grow nicely
in parts of Mexico...and we do have the ability to use Mexican ethanol

Last I checked, Mexico wasn't part of the US, so whether cane will grow in
Mexico is irrelevant to the question of whether it can be grown in the US.

but we do trade with Mexico. In fact some of that corn that is turned into
ethanol and not tortillas could have been being shipped to Mexico

We weren't talking about growing sugar cane in Mexico. You disagreed with me when I said
that it wouldn't work to try to grow it in the US.



I repeat: the climate in the US is inhospitable to growing sugar cane on the
scale required to produce sufficient ethanol fuel.

why be a piker: the climate in the US is inhospitable to growing many foods on
the scale to support Americans year round

Fortunately for the US, that isn't true. We're able to supply our own needs well enough that
the Federal government pays farmers to *not* grow food...



Then again, there is the sugar beet, sunchoke and hemp for ethanol, all of
which I believe are also energy positive

Certainly much of the arable land in the US is hospitable to growing sugar
beets -- but we were talking about cane, remember?

actually we were talking about ethanol, remember. if not just look at the
subject line

Not correct. You and I were talking about producing ethanol specifically from sugar cane --
starting when I said that it wasn't feasible for the US to do as Brazil is doing, because our
climate won't support sugar cane growth on the necessary scale.

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.

In article ,
wrote:

As for old cars - they need to run on gasoline (more expensive) or be
extensively modified for ethanol.
ANd with the average age of the fleet of cars in the US now just over
11 years, it would take a while for the old cars to work their way out
of use.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 20:34:18 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

As for old cars - they need to run on gasoline (more expensive) or be
extensively modified for ethanol.
ANd with the average age of the fleet of cars in the US now just over
11 years, it would take a while for the old cars to work their way out
of use.

_Warnings Not to Use ‘E15’ Gas in Your Car_

Video:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/money-with-melissa-francis/index.html#/v/2000862202001/warnings-not-to-use-e15-gas-in-your-car/?playlist_id=1671716501001

Phase separation, detonation and messed up car systems.

In article ,
Doug Miller wrote:

Won't work in the U.S., though, because the climate here won't
support production of sugar cane on the scale required.

that would probably be news to florida

So you think that Florida is capable of producing sugar cane on the
scale required to supply the motor vehicle fuel needs of the U.S., or
even a significant fraction thereof?

Dream on.

I'll let the post from CRNG address that issue, but there's no reason
sugar cane couldn't be expanded to other areas and I'll bet it would
grow nicely in parts of Mexico...and we do have the ability to use
Mexican ethanol

Last I checked, Mexico wasn't part of the US, so whether cane will grow in
Mexico is irrelevant to the question of whether it can be grown in the US.

but we do trade with Mexico. In fact some of that corn that is turned into
ethanol and not tortillas could have been being shipped to Mexico

We weren't talking about growing sugar cane in Mexico. You disagreed with me
when I said that it wouldn't work to try to grow it in the US.

We are already growing it in the US, of course I do understand that you mean it
wouldn't work in the sense of growing enough. Fine, so we'll grow more sugar
beets to make sugar with, we'll use sugar cane to make ethanol to replace corn
based and then the corn can be used to the worlds malnourished





I repeat: the climate in the US is inhospitable to growing sugar cane on
the scale required to produce sufficient ethanol fuel.

why be a piker: the climate in the US is inhospitable to growing many foods
on the scale to support Americans year round

Fortunately for the US, that isn't true. We're able to supply our own needs
well enough that the Federal government pays farmers to *not* grow food...

Sure, but since there are some places that like to have tomatoes, strawberries,
avocados, most fresh fruit and lots of other veggies year round, even though
they aren't necessary for survival, we import them. We can import ethanol from
Brazil





Then again, there is the sugar beet, sunchoke and hemp for ethanol, all
of which I believe are also energy positive

Certainly much of the arable land in the US is hospitable to growing sugar
beets -- but we were talking about cane, remember?

actually we were talking about ethanol, remember. if not just look at the
subject line

Not correct. You and I were talking about producing ethanol specifically from
sugar cane -- starting when I said that it wasn't feasible for the US to do
as Brazil is doing, because our climate won't support sugar cane growth on
the necessary scale.

Okay, but I was also talking about plants that could produce ethanol energy
positive, so while I wouldn't mind seeing most of florida and louisiana and
whoever else grows it turned into a big sugar cane plantation, we'll just have
to use sugar beets, sunchokes, hemp and whatever else works until we can grow
algae that feeds on oil spills and can then be converted to ethanol
--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis
volutpat commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit
urna pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia
scelerisque ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed
est gravida ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi
egestas venenatis. Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta
lobortis ultricies. Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas
volutpat aliquet sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt
sed dolor. Nullam nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium
accumsan odio. Sed ut mi iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec
augue dui, in mattis urna. In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu
lorem sed odio porttitor blandit.


--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis
volutpat commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit
urna pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia
scelerisque ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed
est gravida ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi
egestas venenatis. Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta
lobortis ultricies. Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas
volutpat aliquet sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt
sed dolor. Nullam nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium
accumsan odio. Sed ut mi iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec
augue dui, in mattis urna. In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu
lorem sed odio porttitor blandit.

In article ,
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.

what a wonderful business opportunity. I'd imagine that the cost of subsidizing
the cost of converting cars to run on ethanol as a primary fuel or to make them
multi-fuel might be cheaper than the costs of securing oil

--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis
volutpat commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit
urna pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia
scelerisque ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed
est gravida ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi
egestas venenatis. Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta
lobortis ultricies. Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas
volutpat aliquet sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt
sed dolor. Nullam nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium
accumsan odio. Sed ut mi iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec
augue dui, in mattis urna. In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu
lorem sed odio porttitor blandit.


--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis
volutpat commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit
urna pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia
scelerisque ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed
est gravida ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi
egestas venenatis. Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta
lobortis ultricies. Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas
volutpat aliquet sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt
sed dolor. Nullam nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium
accumsan odio. Sed ut mi iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec
augue dui, in mattis urna. In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu
lorem sed odio porttitor blandit.

On 12/2/2012 6:02 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:

wrote:

Now, if the
USA spent 1/4 of what they are spending on wars in the middle east on
research to convert cellulose to ethanol, there are HUNDREDS of
reasonable feedstocks - most of which would be energy positive, which
would have little or no effect on food-grain prices. (or sugar prices,
as far as that goes)

Since you arrogant Canadians aren't funding any wars, and your economy
is so much more robust than ours, and you're all far more intelligent
than we are anyway, why don't y'all do it?


Do the Canadians have "Affirmative Action" to gum up the works? I know
the British have a version of it know as "Positive Discrimination" which
I think is a more correct descriptive name for it because such policies
positively discriminate against the competent. O_o

TDD

How does "Affirmative Action" gum up the ethanol problem...other than
favoring
one group of rich republican businessmen over another?


ZOOMmmm Right over your pointy little head. ^_^

TDD

oh I was ignoring your traditional anti-white racism to see if you could
actually answer the question


Another moron who thinks Affirmative Action only applies to Negroes.
Typical P.L.L.C.F. who can't even define their favorite swear word
which is "racist". It must be a real trip to see the world as nothing
but racist. ^_^

TDD

On 12/2/2012 6:05 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:

Lear Jet hell, private 757. ^_^

TDD

bigger plane but still the same distance


Like Air Force One which is kept airborne by the power of the Messiah.
^_^

TDD

Whereas those private 757 are kept aloft by the power of Lucifer


Yea, I'm a Devil worshiper. ^_^

TDD

is that supposed to be news to us?


You knew, which coven are you a member of? ^_^

TDD

we all knew


Oh, that's right, you're a member of the P.L.L.C.F. coven! ^_^

TDD

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:



Okay, but I was also talking about plants that could produce ethanol energy
positive, so while I wouldn't mind seeing most of florida and louisiana and
whoever else grows it turned into a big sugar cane plantation, we'll just
have
to use sugar beets, sunchokes, hemp and whatever else works until we can grow
algae that feeds on oil spills and can then be converted to ethanol

Of course the main reason we don't use cane or beets is price supports
from the Government (which were continued by the farm bill). Sugar sells
for about 18 cents a pound while ethanol is at around 10 cents per pound
(of feedstock).
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Friday, November 30, 2012 3:19:33 PM UTC-5, 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.

Anywhere I look, corn ethanol is 10-30% energy POSITIVE. You must be reading the feedlot operator propaganda.

Feedlot operators (i.e. people that raise animals for meat, and buy all their feed instead of growing it) have been crying for the last few years because the price of grains have been high, and they'll say/do anything to get the price of grain back down in the toilet where it was.

Yeah, cheap feed makes maximum profits for the feedlot operators, but the grain farmers take it on the chin, selling their product for mere pennies over the cost of producing it!

Try the food vs. fuel argument next

In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 12/2/2012 6:05 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:

Lear Jet hell, private 757. ^_^

TDD

bigger plane but still the same distance


Like Air Force One which is kept airborne by the power of the Messiah.
^_^

TDD

Whereas those private 757 are kept aloft by the power of Lucifer


Yea, I'm a Devil worshiper. ^_^

TDD

is that supposed to be news to us?


You knew, which coven are you a member of? ^_^

TDD

we all knew


Oh, that's right, you're a member of the P.L.L.C.F. coven! ^_^

TDD

they still let you attend?

In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:

Do the Canadians have "Affirmative Action" to gum up the works? I know
the British have a version of it know as "Positive Discrimination" which
I think is a more correct descriptive name for it because such policies
positively discriminate against the competent. O_o

TDD

How does "Affirmative Action" gum up the ethanol problem...other than
favoring
one group of rich republican businessmen over another?


ZOOMmmm Right over your pointy little head. ^_^

TDD

oh I was ignoring your traditional anti-white racism to see if you could
actually answer the question


Another moron who thinks Affirmative Action only applies to Negroes.
Typical P.L.L.C.F. who can't even define their favorite swear word
which is "racist". It must be a real trip to see the world as nothing
but racist. ^_^

TDD

like you?

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:



Okay, but I was also talking about plants that could produce ethanol energy
positive, so while I wouldn't mind seeing most of florida and louisiana and
whoever else grows it turned into a big sugar cane plantation, we'll just
have
to use sugar beets, sunchokes, hemp and whatever else works until we can
grow
algae that feeds on oil spills and can then be converted to ethanol

Of course the main reason we don't use cane or beets is price supports
from the Government (which were continued by the farm bill). Sugar sells
for about 18 cents a pound while ethanol is at around 10 cents per pound
(of feedstock).

but don't price supports amount to "entitlements"