On 6/28/2013 9:38 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 6/28/13 9:32 PM, . wrote:
"Dean Hoffman" " wrote in message
...
On 6/27/13 9:16 PM, RBM wrote:

I think this stuff is just the only successful technology currently
available that meets the EPA standards for diesels. It doesn't matter
who the manufacturer is, all diesel trucks in the U.S. made after 2010
have the same stuff strapped on to them.

This new crap is even showing up on farm equipment and irrigation
power
units. It might make sense to limit emissions on city buses, but on
farm
equipment?

It MIGHT make sense to limit emissions on city buses?


Depends on the trade offs.

The U.S. government keeps increasing the fuel mileage standards, for
example. Vehicles are being made lighter as a result. How many more
people are killed or injured because of that? Suppose we had vehicles
sturdily built like the ones from the 50s 60s with modern safety features?

"The Law Of unintended Results" It's what happens when Congress designs
anything and imposes by law, impossible or insanely difficult to
implement standards. The "Won't Flush Toilets" were one of plumbing
fixtures designed by Congress. ^_^

TDD

On 6/28/2013 10:55 PM, Richard wrote:
16 year-old Evie Sobczak from St. Petersburg, Florida has engineered a
new method of turning algae into biofuel. She determined a novel and
more efficient way to grow the organisms, extract oil, and use the
product as biodiesel. Her method uses no chemicals, and creates 20
percent more oil than current technologies. Her efforts won her first
place at Intel’s International Science and Engineering Fair.

(more)
http://www.inhabitots.com/16-year-old-develops-cleaner-more-efficient-method-of-creating-biofuel/


What a fantastic kid, I hope she doesn't burn out at a young age and
goes on to develop more brilliant solutions to problems facing the
World. ^_^

TDD

technomaNge on Fri, 28 Jun 2013 21:02:26 -0500 typed in
rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On 06/28/2013 06:26 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:


That was my point. OTOH, you could render enough fat from the
shiftless slobs to power at least one percent. ;-)

Hmm, there's a new "energy source".


Soylent Green Diesel is people!

No it's not - iz made from Lieberuls. They just look like
Peoples.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 6/28/2013 9:38 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 6/28/13 9:32 PM, . wrote:
"Dean Hoffman" " wrote in message
...
On 6/27/13 9:16 PM, RBM wrote:

I think this stuff is just the only successful technology
currently available that meets the EPA standards for diesels. It
doesn't matter who the manufacturer is, all diesel trucks in the
U.S. made after 2010 have the same stuff strapped on to them.

This new crap is even showing up on farm equipment and
irrigation power
units. It might make sense to limit emissions on city buses, but
on farm
equipment?

It MIGHT make sense to limit emissions on city buses?


Depends on the trade offs.

The U.S. government keeps increasing the fuel mileage standards,
for example. Vehicles are being made lighter as a result. How
many more people are killed or injured because of that? Suppose we
had vehicles sturdily built like the ones from the 50s 60s with
modern safety features?

"The Law Of unintended Results" It's what happens when Congress
designs anything and imposes by law, impossible or insanely difficult
to implement standards. The "Won't Flush Toilets" were one of plumbing
fixtures designed by Congress. ^_^

My car is safer, and my toilet works just fine, better than the old one I
replaced. Thank you congress.

On 6/29/2013 4:54 PM, Bob F wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 6/28/2013 9:38 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 6/28/13 9:32 PM, . wrote:
"Dean Hoffman" " wrote in message
...
On 6/27/13 9:16 PM, RBM wrote:

I think this stuff is just the only successful technology
currently available that meets the EPA standards for diesels. It
doesn't matter who the manufacturer is, all diesel trucks in the
U.S. made after 2010 have the same stuff strapped on to them.

This new crap is even showing up on farm equipment and
irrigation power
units. It might make sense to limit emissions on city buses, but
on farm
equipment?

It MIGHT make sense to limit emissions on city buses?


Depends on the trade offs.

The U.S. government keeps increasing the fuel mileage standards,
for example. Vehicles are being made lighter as a result. How
many more people are killed or injured because of that? Suppose we
had vehicles sturdily built like the ones from the 50s 60s with
modern safety features?

"The Law Of unintended Results" It's what happens when Congress
designs anything and imposes by law, impossible or insanely difficult
to implement standards. The "Won't Flush Toilets" were one of plumbing
fixtures designed by Congress. ^_^

My car is safer, and my toilet works just fine, better than the old one I
replaced. Thank you congress.


We have one of the first ones to come out and it's a horror story. It
takes two to three flushes to clear it. My friend GB on the other hand
had one of the toilets containing a pressure tank and the thing will
geld you if you flush it while seated on the throne. My 63 Dodge was
safe because anyone seeing it coming got the heck out of my way. ^_^

TDD

On 6/29/2013 6:09 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 6/29/2013 4:54 PM, Bob F wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 6/28/2013 9:38 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 6/28/13 9:32 PM, . wrote:
"Dean Hoffman" " wrote in message
...
On 6/27/13 9:16 PM, RBM wrote:

I think this stuff is just the only successful technology
currently available that meets the EPA standards for diesels. It
doesn't matter who the manufacturer is, all diesel trucks in the
U.S. made after 2010 have the same stuff strapped on to them.

This new crap is even showing up on farm equipment and
irrigation power
units. It might make sense to limit emissions on city buses, but
on farm
equipment?

It MIGHT make sense to limit emissions on city buses?


Depends on the trade offs.

The U.S. government keeps increasing the fuel mileage standards,
for example. Vehicles are being made lighter as a result. How
many more people are killed or injured because of that? Suppose we
had vehicles sturdily built like the ones from the 50s 60s with
modern safety features?

"The Law Of unintended Results" It's what happens when Congress
designs anything and imposes by law, impossible or insanely difficult
to implement standards. The "Won't Flush Toilets" were one of plumbing
fixtures designed by Congress. ^_^

My car is safer, and my toilet works just fine, better than the old one I
replaced. Thank you congress.


We have one of the first ones to come out and it's a horror story. It
takes two to three flushes to clear it. My friend GB on the other hand
had one of the toilets containing a pressure tank and the thing will
geld you if you flush it while seated on the throne. My 63 Dodge was
safe because anyone seeing it coming got the heck out of my way. ^_^

TDD


I'm happy with the toilets. Probably later models. Figure they help
keep septic drain field dry. But, I don't need somebody holding my hand
or pushing me to make my decisions.

CFL's are a good example. I'm in favor of them in fixtures kept on for
long periods of time but those in the bathroom often last only 6 months
because of short term use.

Point is that one size does not fit all and that is the problem with
government over regulation.

Frank wrote:
On 6/29/2013 6:09 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 6/29/2013 4:54 PM, Bob F wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 6/28/2013 9:38 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 6/28/13 9:32 PM, . wrote:
"Dean Hoffman" " wrote
in message
...
On 6/27/13 9:16 PM, RBM wrote:

I think this stuff is just the only successful
technology
currently available that meets the EPA standards
for diesels.
It doesn't matter who the manufacturer is, all
diesel trucks
in the U.S. made after 2010 have the same stuff
strapped on to
them.

This new crap is even showing up on farm
equipment and
irrigation power
units. It might make sense to limit emissions on
city buses,
but on farm
equipment?

It MIGHT make sense to limit emissions on city buses?


Depends on the trade offs.

The U.S. government keeps increasing the fuel
mileage
standards, for example. Vehicles are being made
lighter as a
result. How many more people are killed or injured
because of
that? Suppose we had vehicles sturdily built like
the ones from
the 50s 60s with modern safety features?

"The Law Of unintended Results" It's what happens when
Congress
designs anything and imposes by law, impossible or
insanely
difficult to implement standards. The "Won't Flush
Toilets" were
one of plumbing fixtures designed by Congress. ^_^

My car is safer, and my toilet works just fine, better
than the old
one I replaced. Thank you congress.


We have one of the first ones to come out and it's a
horror story. It
takes two to three flushes to clear it. My friend GB on
the other
hand had one of the toilets containing a pressure tank
and the thing
will geld you if you flush it while seated on the throne.
My 63
Dodge was safe because anyone seeing it coming got the
heck out of
my way. ^_^ TDD


I'm happy with the toilets. Probably later models.
Figure they help
keep septic drain field dry. But, I don't need somebody
holding my
hand or pushing me to make my decisions.

CFL's are a good example. I'm in favor of them in
fixtures kept on
for long periods of time but those in the bathroom often
last only 6
months because of short term use.

Point is that one size does not fit all and that is the
problem with
government over regulation.

but..but... they know what's best for you and their choice
is the only oneg

On 6/29/2013 5:57 PM, Frank wrote:
On 6/29/2013 6:09 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 6/29/2013 4:54 PM, Bob F wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 6/28/2013 9:38 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 6/28/13 9:32 PM, . wrote:
"Dean Hoffman" " wrote in message
...
On 6/27/13 9:16 PM, RBM wrote:

I think this stuff is just the only successful technology
currently available that meets the EPA standards for diesels. It
doesn't matter who the manufacturer is, all diesel trucks in the
U.S. made after 2010 have the same stuff strapped on to them.

This new crap is even showing up on farm equipment and
irrigation power
units. It might make sense to limit emissions on city buses, but
on farm
equipment?

It MIGHT make sense to limit emissions on city buses?


Depends on the trade offs.

The U.S. government keeps increasing the fuel mileage standards,
for example. Vehicles are being made lighter as a result. How
many more people are killed or injured because of that? Suppose we
had vehicles sturdily built like the ones from the 50s 60s with
modern safety features?

"The Law Of unintended Results" It's what happens when Congress
designs anything and imposes by law, impossible or insanely difficult
to implement standards. The "Won't Flush Toilets" were one of plumbing
fixtures designed by Congress. ^_^

My car is safer, and my toilet works just fine, better than the old
one I
replaced. Thank you congress.


We have one of the first ones to come out and it's a horror story. It
takes two to three flushes to clear it. My friend GB on the other hand
had one of the toilets containing a pressure tank and the thing will
geld you if you flush it while seated on the throne. My 63 Dodge was
safe because anyone seeing it coming got the heck out of my way. ^_^

TDD


I'm happy with the toilets. Probably later models. Figure they help
keep septic drain field dry. But, I don't need somebody holding my hand
or pushing me to make my decisions.

CFL's are a good example. I'm in favor of them in fixtures kept on for
long periods of time but those in the bathroom often last only 6 months
because of short term use.

Point is that one size does not fit all and that is the problem with
government over regulation.

I'm typing this post by the light of my new LED light bulb in my desk
lamp which sits on top of my Dell workstation case. I did have a curly
compact fluorescent bulb but those tend to emit UV light that can damage
one's eyes. The CFL lights encased in a bulb are not dangerous to the
eyes. I'm looking at replacing several lights around the house with LED
lights. ^_^

TDD

On 6/28/13 11:18 PM, gregz wrote:

The U.S. government keeps increasing the fuel mileage standards, for
example. Vehicles are being made lighter as a result. How many more
people are killed or injured because of that? Suppose we had vehicles
sturdily built like the ones from the 50s 60s with modern safety features?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g

Greg


I do remember seat belts were mandated in car construction maybe
in 1964 or so.
I wonder what U.S. vehicles would look like if designers and
consumers didn't have government regulations to contend with.

And, how many years exposure to said light does it
take to be dangerous? Before or after that saccharine
gives you liver cancer?
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message ...

I'm typing this post by the light of my new LED light bulb in my desk
lamp which sits on top of my Dell workstation case. I did have a curly
compact fluorescent bulb but those tend to emit UV light that can damage
one's eyes. The CFL lights encased in a bulb are not dangerous to the
eyes. I'm looking at replacing several lights around the house with LED
lights. ^_^

TDD

I remember the first time I saw a GM "Smart"
car. Made me think of bring on the clowns.
Second thougth was crash worthiness. I had
visions of it colliding with a bread truck, and
flying off into space like a table tennis ball.
Smart, huh?

..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
"Dean Hoffman" " wrote in message ...

I wonder what U.S. vehicles would look like if designers and
consumers didn't have government regulations to contend with.

In article , Dean Hoffman "" wrote:

The U.S. government keeps increasing the fuel mileage standards, for
example. Vehicles are being made lighter as a result. How many more
people are killed or injured because of that? Suppose we had vehicles
sturdily built like the ones from the 50s 60s with modern safety
features?

The vehicles built in the 50s and 60s were deathtraps compared to today's
cars. You are much more likely to survive or have fewer injuries in
a crash with a modern car compared to one from 50 years ago, all other things
being equal.

I don't really care much for the IIHS or the nanny regulations our country
has adopted, but you can't argue with performance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtxd27jlZ_g


--
Often wrong, never in doubt.

Larry W. - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

On 6/29/2013 9:36 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
And, how many years exposure to said light does it
take to be dangerous? Before or after that saccharine
gives you liver cancer?
.

The danger is really in the CFL glass that may have a defective phosphor
coating which will let harmful levels of UV light escape
the glass tubing. My eye doctor warned about the possibility of
developing cataracts from UV exposure, besides, I didn't like the glare
from the light. O_o

TDD

On 06/29/2013 09:11 PM, Larry W wrote:

In article , Dean Hoffman "" wrote:

The U.S. government keeps increasing the fuel mileage standards, for
example. Vehicles are being made lighter as a result. How many more
people are killed or injured because of that? Suppose we had vehicles
sturdily built like the ones from the 50s 60s with modern safety
features?

....which I've never needed. If you buy a new car every couple of years
you have a point, but I don't. When I get rid of a car it's all used up.

The vehicles built in the 50s and 60s were deathtraps compared to today's
cars. You are much more likely to survive or have fewer injuries in
a crash with a modern car compared to one from 50 years ago, all other things
being equal.

I don't really care much for the IIHS or the nanny regulations our country
has adopted, but you can't argue with performance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtxd27jlZ_g




--
Cheers,
Bev
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
What if there were no hypothetical questions?

"Dean Hoffman" " wrote in message
...
On 6/28/13 9:32 PM, . wrote:
"Dean Hoffman" " wrote in message
...
On 6/27/13 9:16 PM, RBM wrote:

I think this stuff is just the only successful technology currently
available that meets the EPA standards for diesels. It doesn't matter
who the manufacturer is, all diesel trucks in the U.S. made after 2010
have the same stuff strapped on to them.

This new crap is even showing up on farm equipment and irrigation
power
units. It might make sense to limit emissions on city buses, but on
farm
equipment?

It MIGHT make sense to limit emissions on city buses?

Depends on the trade offs.

The U.S. government keeps increasing the fuel mileage standards, for
example.

As they should.

Vehicles are being made lighter as a result. How many more people are
killed or injured because of that?

Crash worthiness is independent and not a function of
vehicle mass.

Suppose we had vehicles sturdily built like the ones from the 50s 60s with
modern safety features?

Yes by all means, let's return to the technology of a half
century ago.

On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 13:06:04 -0500, "." wrote:




Suppose we had vehicles sturdily built like the ones from the 50s 60s with
modern safety features?

Yes by all means, let's return to the technology of a half
century ago.


You can go, but I'm staying here. I love my XM radio, rearview camera,
power everything, heated seats, no exhaust fumes, no tune up every
10,000 miles, tires that last for 50,000 miles, remote starter, and on
and on.

It would be fun once in a while to cruise around in one of my old cars
from the past, but not for my everyday driver.

On 6/30/13 1:06 PM, . wrote:

The U.S. government keeps increasing the fuel mileage standards, for
example.

As they should.

Why? What's wrong with people choosing a vehicle that gets ten or
forty miles per gallon?

On 6/30/13 3:01 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article ,
Frank wrote:


Biodiesel, though, makes more sense than using ethanol.

Pretty much. Ethanol is a huge loser. It takes as much energy
to process it as it contains. The only time it makes sense is
if your processing plant is right next to the fields where the
plants are grown, and the processing plant runs on solar, wind,
or nuclear power. In which case, ethanol isn't really an energy
*source*, but an energy *storage system*.

Ethanol might've been an energy sink at one time but that's
apparently no longer true: http://tinyurl.com/n2s2y6z

Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 6/30/13 1:06 PM, . wrote:

The U.S. government keeps increasing the fuel mileage standards, for
example.

As they should.

Why?

To increase the tax revenue from cars that can't meet higher standards.
I would prefer taxing people for having children instead, but that's not
the issue.

What's wrong with people choosing a vehicle that gets ten or forty
miles per gallon?

Nothing. No one is forced to buy a brand new car each year in the US.

GW

On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 18:52:28 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Takes a lot of grains and starches off the market, that could have been used for feeding animals or humans. Or making manufacturing. On the other hand, I've heard we have plenty of oil in the ground in the USA, and off the coast. Our fuel shortages and high prices are due to Washington DC, not due to any real shortage.

There is no fuel shortage. Prices are roughly the same as they were in
1980, allowing for general inflation. Washington has almost nothing to
do with fuel costs.

We have plenty of grains and starch to eat. Those are not issues.

All in all, Chris, that's a lot of mush inside your head, for one
person. Where do you get all that stuff?

--
Ed Huntress


.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
.
"Edward A. Falk" wrote in message ...
In article ,

Pretty much. Ethanol is a huge loser. It takes as much energy
to process it as it contains. The only time it makes sense is
if your processing plant is right next to the fields where the
plants are grown, and the processing plant runs on solar, wind,
or nuclear power. In which case, ethanol isn't really an energy
*source*, but an energy *storage system*.

On 6/30/13 5:52 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Takes a lot of grains and starches off the market, that could have
been used for feeding animals or humans. Or making manufacturing. On
the other hand, I've heard we have plenty of oil in the ground in the
USA, and off the coast. Our fuel shortages and high prices are due to
Washington DC, not due to any real shortage. . Christopher A. Young


Conventional wisdom here in farm country is that the feed value
of corn is unaffected by ethanol production. The left over distillers
grains have as much feed value as the kernel corn.

In article ,
Geoff Welsh wrote:

Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 6/30/13 1:06 PM, . wrote:

The U.S. government keeps increasing the fuel mileage standards, for
example.

As they should.

Why?

To increase the tax revenue from cars that can't meet higher standards.
I would prefer taxing people for having children instead, but that's not
the issue.

So, basically you want a tax system based on punishment for things you
don/t like.
--
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 6/30/2013 8:29 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 6/30/13 5:52 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Takes a lot of grains and starches off the market, that could have
been used for feeding animals or humans. Or making manufacturing. On
the other hand, I've heard we have plenty of oil in the ground in the
USA, and off the coast. Our fuel shortages and high prices are due to
Washington DC, not due to any real shortage. . Christopher A. Young


Conventional wisdom here in farm country is that the feed value
of corn is unaffected by ethanol production. The left over distillers
grains have as much feed value as the kernel corn.

Take the fine hand of the government mandating that so much ethanol must
be used in fuel each year and consider that crop yields can vary
considerably from season to season. In years of poor yield, this takes
away from the food market as ethanol is mandated and price of food goes
way up. Been happening.

On 6/30/2013 7:38 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Geoff Welsh wrote:

Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 6/30/13 1:06 PM, . wrote:

The U.S. government keeps increasing the fuel mileage standards, for
example.

As they should.

Why?

To increase the tax revenue from cars that can't meet higher standards.
I would prefer taxing people for having children instead, but that's not
the issue.

So, basically you want a tax system based on punishment for things you
don/t like.


Theory and principle aside, out here in the real world those
are the all and only taxes we suffer. Down here at the
bottom of the pile, I'm always someone's enemy and therefore
punished accordingly.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 6/30/13 7:49 PM, Frank wrote:
On 6/30/2013 8:29 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 6/30/13 5:52 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Takes a lot of grains and starches off the market, that could have
been used for feeding animals or humans. Or making manufacturing. On
the other hand, I've heard we have plenty of oil in the ground in the
USA, and off the coast. Our fuel shortages and high prices are due to
Washington DC, not due to any real shortage. . Christopher A. Young


Conventional wisdom here in farm country is that the feed value
of corn is unaffected by ethanol production. The left over distillers
grains have as much feed value as the kernel corn.

Take the fine hand of the government mandating that so much ethanol must
be used in fuel each year and consider that crop yields can vary
considerably from season to season. In years of poor yield, this takes
away from the food market as ethanol is mandated and price of food goes
way up. Been happening.


As much of the crop goes into booze as into cereal:
http://tinyurl.com/l2czsbk
There are more charts like this floating around the web if you're
interested. http://tinyurl.com/mh89aa4
The raw material cost of the food is overshadowed by the retailing
costs much of the time.

Washington holds back drilling - supply and demand.
Washington taxes layer upon layer onto the fuel as a
tax source.

The additives MTBE (trash junk that pollutes ground water) and now
grain alcohol that robs the national store, world food bank, and
home base food for all. Feed prices are up and fuel is also.

Martin

On 6/30/2013 6:08 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 18:52:28 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Takes a lot of grains and starches off the market, that could have been used for feeding animals or humans. Or making manufacturing. On the other hand, I've heard we have plenty of oil in the ground in the USA, and off the coast. Our fuel shortages and high prices are due to Washington DC, not due to any real shortage.

There is no fuel shortage. Prices are roughly the same as they were in
1980, allowing for general inflation. Washington has almost nothing to
do with fuel costs.

We have plenty of grains and starch to eat. Those are not issues.

All in all, Chris, that's a lot of mush inside your head, for one
person. Where do you get all that stuff?

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 13:06:04 -0500, "." wrote:




Suppose we had vehicles sturdily built like the ones
from the 50s
60s with modern safety features?

Yes by all means, let's return to the technology of a
half
century ago.


You can go, but I'm staying here. I love my XM radio,
rearview camera,
power everything, heated seats, no exhaust fumes, no tune
up every
10,000 miles, tires that last for 50,000 miles, remote
starter, and on
and on.



He did say with modern safety features.
I'd love a "57 Chevy with all the new bells and whistles or
a GTO, Impala SS. etc
At least Chrysler/Dodge are smart enough to bring the
Challenger and Charger back

On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 22:16:19 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Washington holds back drilling - supply and demand.

No, Washington isn't holding back drilling. They've let out hundreds
of drilling leases that the oil companies aren't using. Prices have
come down, not up. There is more supply than demand.

Washington taxes layer upon layer onto the fuel as a
tax source.

No, there is one federal tax on gasoline: 18.4 cents/gallon, where
it's been since 1993. With inflation, its value keeps going down.


The additives MTBE (trash junk that pollutes ground water) and now
grain alcohol that robs the national store, world food bank, and
home base food for all. Feed prices are up and fuel is also.

Corn ethanol has had some influence on grain prices. Otherwise, every
one of your assertions here is a myth, Martin.

Ed Huntress


Martin

On 6/30/2013 6:08 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 18:52:28 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Takes a lot of grains and starches off the market, that could have been used for feeding animals or humans. Or making manufacturing. On the other hand, I've heard we have plenty of oil in the ground in the USA, and off the coast. Our fuel shortages and high prices are due to Washington DC, not due to any real shortage.

There is no fuel shortage. Prices are roughly the same as they were in
1980, allowing for general inflation. Washington has almost nothing to
do with fuel costs.

We have plenty of grains and starch to eat. Those are not issues.

All in all, Chris, that's a lot of mush inside your head, for one
person. Where do you get all that stuff?

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 13:06:04 -0500, "." wrote:

Suppose we had vehicles sturdily built like the ones from the 50s 60s
with
modern safety features?

Yes by all means, let's return to the technology of a half
century ago.

You can go, but I'm staying here. I love my XM radio, rearview camera,
power everything, heated seats, no exhaust fumes, no tune up every
10,000 miles, tires that last for 50,000 miles, remote starter, and on
and on.

It would be fun once in a while to cruise around in one of my old cars
from the past, but not for my everyday driver.

I think your sarcasm detector is malfunctioning.

"Dean Hoffman" " wrote in message
...
On 6/30/13 1:06 PM, . wrote:

The U.S. government keeps increasing the fuel mileage standards, for
example.

As they should.

Why?

Really!? You haven't so much as the first inkling of any clue?

What's wrong with people choosing a vehicle that gets ten or
forty miles per gallon?

One can obtain any number of vehicles, from classic muscle
cars, to any of the below, or a build your own, which would,
at best, get 10 mpg in city driving:
Lamborghini Murciélago, Bugatti Veyron, Bentley Azure,
Bentley Brooklands, Bentley Continental, Ferrari 612
Scaglietti, Maybach Type 57 ...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 18:52:28 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Takes a lot of grains and starches off the market, that could have been
used for feeding animals or humans. Or making manufacturing. On the other
hand, I've heard we have plenty of oil in the ground in the USA, and off
the coast. Our fuel shortages and high prices are due to Washington DC,
not due to any real shortage.

There is no fuel shortage. Prices are roughly the same as they were in
1980, allowing for general inflation. Washington has almost nothing to
do with fuel costs.

We have plenty of grains and starch to eat. Those are not issues.

All in all, Chris, that's a lot of mush inside your head, for one
person. Where do you get all that stuff?

--
Ed Huntress

Are any more clues than religious or Mormon necessary?

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when
religious belief has a cozy little classification in the DSM."
- David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)

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

"Edward A. Falk" wrote in message
...
In article ,

Pretty much. Ethanol is a huge loser. It takes as much energy
to process it as it contains. The only time it makes sense is
if your processing plant is right next to the fields where the
plants are grown, and the processing plant runs on solar, wind,
or nuclear power. In which case, ethanol isn't really an energy
*source*, but an energy *storage system*.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 22:16:19 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Washington holds back drilling - supply and demand.

No, Washington isn't holding back drilling. They've let out hundreds
of drilling leases that the oil companies aren't using. Prices have
come down, not up. There is more supply than demand.

Washington taxes layer upon layer onto the fuel as a
tax source.

No, there is one federal tax on gasoline: 18.4 cents/gallon, where
it's been since 1993. With inflation, its value keeps going down.


The additives MTBE (trash junk that pollutes ground water) and now
grain alcohol that robs the national store, world food bank, and
home base food for all. Feed prices are up and fuel is also.

Corn ethanol has had some influence on grain prices. Otherwise, every
one of your assertions here is a myth, Martin.

Ed Huntress

During an expose years ago on "60 Minutes", the question
"which is the more toxic, MTBE or the gasoline itself?" was
posed. The definitive reply stated conclusively that it was
actually the latter, rendering the entire alarmist groundwater
contamination issue by MTBE effectively moot.

Martin

On 6/30/2013 6:08 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 18:52:28 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Takes a lot of grains and starches off the market, that could have been
used for feeding animals or humans. Or making manufacturing. On the
other hand, I've heard we have plenty of oil in the ground in the USA,
and off the coast. Our fuel shortages and high prices are due to
Washington DC, not due to any real shortage.

There is no fuel shortage. Prices are roughly the same as they were in
1980, allowing for general inflation. Washington has almost nothing to
do with fuel costs.

We have plenty of grains and starch to eat. Those are not issues.

All in all, Chris, that's a lot of mush inside your head, for one
person. Where do you get all that stuff?

On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 08:40:08 -0500, "." wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 18:52:28 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Takes a lot of grains and starches off the market, that could have been
used for feeding animals or humans. Or making manufacturing. On the other
hand, I've heard we have plenty of oil in the ground in the USA, and off
the coast. Our fuel shortages and high prices are due to Washington DC,
not due to any real shortage.

There is no fuel shortage. Prices are roughly the same as they were in
1980, allowing for general inflation. Washington has almost nothing to
do with fuel costs.

We have plenty of grains and starch to eat. Those are not issues.

All in all, Chris, that's a lot of mush inside your head, for one
person. Where do you get all that stuff?

--
Ed Huntress

Are any more clues than religious or Mormon necessary?

"Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when
religious belief has a cozy little classification in the DSM."
- David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)

I don't know much about the Mormons. From what little I've seen, they
tend to be pretty well educated, in general. I'm sure there are
exceptions.

It looks more like paleo-conservative cynicism to me. Things have to
be going wrong, and it has to be somebody else's fault -- especially
if there are any non-conservatives in power. We're on the road to
perdition and no amount of evidence to the contrary will be
considered.

It turns their minds into oatmeal and they're incapable of examining
evidence in an objective way.

--
Ed Huntress


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

"Edward A. Falk" wrote in message
...
In article ,

Pretty much. Ethanol is a huge loser. It takes as much energy
to process it as it contains. The only time it makes sense is
if your processing plant is right next to the fields where the
plants are grown, and the processing plant runs on solar, wind,
or nuclear power. In which case, ethanol isn't really an energy
*source*, but an energy *storage system*.

On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 08:44:58 -0500, "." wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 22:16:19 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Washington holds back drilling - supply and demand.

No, Washington isn't holding back drilling. They've let out hundreds
of drilling leases that the oil companies aren't using. Prices have
come down, not up. There is more supply than demand.

Washington taxes layer upon layer onto the fuel as a
tax source.

No, there is one federal tax on gasoline: 18.4 cents/gallon, where
it's been since 1993. With inflation, its value keeps going down.


The additives MTBE (trash junk that pollutes ground water) and now
grain alcohol that robs the national store, world food bank, and
home base food for all. Feed prices are up and fuel is also.

Corn ethanol has had some influence on grain prices. Otherwise, every
one of your assertions here is a myth, Martin.

Ed Huntress

During an expose years ago on "60 Minutes", the question
"which is the more toxic, MTBE or the gasoline itself?" was
posed. The definitive reply stated conclusively that it was
actually the latter, rendering the entire alarmist groundwater
contamination issue by MTBE effectively moot.

I wondered about that. I mean, how much more toxic can it be than
gasoline?

I remember the discussion about the show you mention, but I never saw
it. Interesting.

Ed Huntress


Martin

On 6/30/2013 6:08 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 18:52:28 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Takes a lot of grains and starches off the market, that could have been
used for feeding animals or humans. Or making manufacturing. On the
other hand, I've heard we have plenty of oil in the ground in the USA,
and off the coast. Our fuel shortages and high prices are due to
Washington DC, not due to any real shortage.

There is no fuel shortage. Prices are roughly the same as they were in
1980, allowing for general inflation. Washington has almost nothing to
do with fuel costs.

We have plenty of grains and starch to eat. Those are not issues.

All in all, Chris, that's a lot of mush inside your head, for one
person. Where do you get all that stuff?

Ed Huntress wrote:



During an expose years ago on "60 Minutes", the question
"which is the more toxic, MTBE or the gasoline itself?" was
posed. The definitive reply stated conclusively that it was
actually the latter, rendering the entire alarmist groundwater
contamination issue by MTBE effectively moot.

I wondered about that. I mean, how much more toxic can it be than
gasoline?

MTBE mixes with water. Gasoline doesn't.
It also does not bind as well to soil as gasoline molecules.
That means it travels quickly with rain water into aquifers.
The EPA for years said it was safe until it started showing
up in water supplies wherever it was used.

On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 10:16:08 -0500, jim
wrote:



Ed Huntress wrote:



During an expose years ago on "60 Minutes", the question
"which is the more toxic, MTBE or the gasoline itself?" was
posed. The definitive reply stated conclusively that it was
actually the latter, rendering the entire alarmist groundwater
contamination issue by MTBE effectively moot.

I wondered about that. I mean, how much more toxic can it be than
gasoline?

MTBE mixes with water. Gasoline doesn't.
It also does not bind as well to soil as gasoline molecules.
That means it travels quickly with rain water into aquifers.
The EPA for years said it was safe until it started showing
up in water supplies wherever it was used.

So what's the bottom line on MTBE as it's understood today?

--
Ed Huntress

On 7/1/2013 10:19 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 10:16:08 -0500,
wrote:



Ed Huntress wrote:



During an expose years ago on "60 Minutes", the question
"which is the more toxic, MTBE or the gasoline itself?" was
posed. The definitive reply stated conclusively that it was
actually the latter, rendering the entire alarmist groundwater
contamination issue by MTBE effectively moot.

I wondered about that. I mean, how much more toxic can it be than
gasoline?

MTBE mixes with water. Gasoline doesn't.
It also does not bind as well to soil as gasoline molecules.
That means it travels quickly with rain water into aquifers.
The EPA for years said it was safe until it started showing
up in water supplies wherever it was used.

So what's the bottom line on MTBE as it's understood today?



Like many things that our economy rides on - necessary evil...

In article ,
Ed Huntress wrote:

On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 08:44:58 -0500, "." wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 22:16:19 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Washington holds back drilling - supply and demand.

No, Washington isn't holding back drilling. They've let out hundreds
of drilling leases that the oil companies aren't using. Prices have
come down, not up. There is more supply than demand.

Washington taxes layer upon layer onto the fuel as a
tax source.

No, there is one federal tax on gasoline: 18.4 cents/gallon, where
it's been since 1993. With inflation, its value keeps going down.


The additives MTBE (trash junk that pollutes ground water) and now
grain alcohol that robs the national store, world food bank, and
home base food for all. Feed prices are up and fuel is also.

Corn ethanol has had some influence on grain prices. Otherwise, every
one of your assertions here is a myth, Martin.

Ed Huntress

During an expose years ago on "60 Minutes", the question
"which is the more toxic, MTBE or the gasoline itself?" was
posed. The definitive reply stated conclusively that it was
actually the latter, rendering the entire alarmist groundwater
contamination issue by MTBE effectively moot.

I wondered about that. I mean, how much more toxic can it be than
gasoline?

I remember the discussion about the show you mention, but I never saw
it. Interesting.

Don't think it is the toxicity but rather the persistence. In
otherwords, it doesn't break down as quickly so it can be less nasty but
for a longer period of time.

From the EPA website.
Because MTBE dissolves easily in water and does not "cling" to soil very
well, it migrates faster and farther in the ground than other gasoline
components, thus making it more likely to contaminate public water
systems and private drinking water wells. MTBE does not degrade
(breakdown) easily and is difficult and costly to remove from ground
water.
How long will MTBE remain in water?
MTBE is generally more resistant to natural biodegradation than other
gasoline components. Some monitoring wells have shown little overall
reduction in MTBE concentration over several years which suggests that
MTBE is relatively persistent in ground water. In contrast, studies of
surface water (lakes and reservoirs have shown that MTBE volatilizes
(evaporates) relatively quickly.
--
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 Mon, 01 Jul 2013 17:27:27 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Ed Huntress wrote:

On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 08:44:58 -0500, "." wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 22:16:19 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Washington holds back drilling - supply and demand.

No, Washington isn't holding back drilling. They've let out hundreds
of drilling leases that the oil companies aren't using. Prices have
come down, not up. There is more supply than demand.

Washington taxes layer upon layer onto the fuel as a
tax source.

No, there is one federal tax on gasoline: 18.4 cents/gallon, where
it's been since 1993. With inflation, its value keeps going down.


The additives MTBE (trash junk that pollutes ground water) and now
grain alcohol that robs the national store, world food bank, and
home base food for all. Feed prices are up and fuel is also.

Corn ethanol has had some influence on grain prices. Otherwise, every
one of your assertions here is a myth, Martin.

Ed Huntress

During an expose years ago on "60 Minutes", the question
"which is the more toxic, MTBE or the gasoline itself?" was
posed. The definitive reply stated conclusively that it was
actually the latter, rendering the entire alarmist groundwater
contamination issue by MTBE effectively moot.

I wondered about that. I mean, how much more toxic can it be than
gasoline?

I remember the discussion about the show you mention, but I never saw
it. Interesting.

Don't think it is the toxicity but rather the persistence. In
otherwords, it doesn't break down as quickly so it can be less nasty but
for a longer period of time.

From the EPA website.
Because MTBE dissolves easily in water and does not "cling" to soil very
well, it migrates faster and farther in the ground than other gasoline
components, thus making it more likely to contaminate public water
systems and private drinking water wells. MTBE does not degrade
(breakdown) easily and is difficult and costly to remove from ground
water.
How long will MTBE remain in water?
MTBE is generally more resistant to natural biodegradation than other
gasoline components. Some monitoring wells have shown little overall
reduction in MTBE concentration over several years which suggests that
MTBE is relatively persistent in ground water. In contrast, studies of
surface water (lakes and reservoirs have shown that MTBE volatilizes
(evaporates) relatively quickly.

Aha. Very interesting. Thanks, Kurt.

--
Ed Huntress

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ed Huntress wrote:

On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 08:44:58 -0500, "." wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 22:16:19 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Washington holds back drilling - supply and demand.

No, Washington isn't holding back drilling. They've let out hundreds
of drilling leases that the oil companies aren't using. Prices have
come down, not up. There is more supply than demand.

Washington taxes layer upon layer onto the fuel as a
tax source.

No, there is one federal tax on gasoline: 18.4 cents/gallon, where
it's been since 1993. With inflation, its value keeps going down.

The additives MTBE (trash junk that pollutes ground water) and now
grain alcohol that robs the national store, world food bank, and
home base food for all. Feed prices are up and fuel is also.

Corn ethanol has had some influence on grain prices. Otherwise, every
one of your assertions here is a myth, Martin.

Ed Huntress

During an expose years ago on "60 Minutes", the question
"which is the more toxic, MTBE or the gasoline itself?" was
posed. The definitive reply stated conclusively that it was
actually the latter, rendering the entire alarmist groundwater
contamination issue by MTBE effectively moot.

I wondered about that. I mean, how much more toxic can it be than
gasoline?

I remember the discussion about the show you mention, but I never saw
it. Interesting.

Don't think it is the toxicity but rather the persistence. In
otherwords, it doesn't break down as quickly so it can be less nasty but
for a longer period of time.

From the EPA website.
Because MTBE dissolves easily in water and does not "cling" to soil very
well, it migrates faster and farther in the ground than other gasoline
components, thus making it more likely to contaminate public water
systems and private drinking water wells. MTBE does not degrade
(breakdown) easily and is difficult and costly to remove from ground
water.
How long will MTBE remain in water?
MTBE is generally more resistant to natural biodegradation than other
gasoline components. Some monitoring wells have shown little overall
reduction in MTBE concentration over several years which suggests that
MTBE is relatively persistent in ground water. In contrast, studies of
surface water (lakes and reservoirs have shown that MTBE volatilizes
(evaporates) relatively quickly.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

Unlike the petroleum distillates it is in solution with, MTBE
is easily removed by, to name but one, common activated
charcoal filtration systems. The scare tactic was nothing
more than a smoke screen generated by the petroleum
refiners and distributors in a cynical attempt to misdirect
the populace (by blaming a government mandated additive)
and conceal the actual problem, leaking fuel storage tanks.