For those of us who try to use "no ethanol" gas for our small motor engines, we're being lied to and ripped off. At a visit to a small motor repair shop I was told that there is no such thing, it just has less than 10% ethanol. I researched and found that 5% or more is labeled "ethanol included" but less than 5% doesn't have to be noted. So at the next stop at a gas station with a "no ethanol" pump I asked if it was true. The manager showed me the invoice of his last gas delivery. It showed "4.97% alcohol" in the gas to the "no ethanol" tank. So the dealers interpretation of "no", and that alcohol & ethanol are different, is a total farce!

On 03/21/2014 09:42 AM, wrote:
For those of us who try to use "no ethanol" gas for our small motor engines, we're being lied to and ripped off. At a visit to a small motor repair shop I was told that there is no such thing, it just has less than 10% ethanol. I researched and found that 5% or more is labeled "ethanol included" but less than 5% doesn't have to be noted. So at the next stop at a gas station with a "no ethanol" pump I asked if it was true. The manager showed me the invoice of his last gas delivery. It showed "4.97% alcohol" in the gas to the "no ethanol" tank. So the dealers interpretation of "no", and that alcohol & ethanol are different, is a total farce!




Yep.


When I first heard about it, it seemed like a great idea
but it's not.

For work, my van was rated E85 so I thought, what the heck and I filled
it up with E85. By the second tankful the thing ran terribly and stalled
a lot. I talked to the dealership and they told me that no matter what
the specs on my van say...do NOT use that E85 stuff.

The van did work OK on E20 but whatever the savings on fuel were negated
by worse MPG.


After that I just used "standard" gas which still has some ethanol in it.

When I found out how much energy is used to produce it I thought the
whole idea absurd.


Corn should be grown for eating and not for fuel.

On 3/21/2014 10:42 AM, wrote:
For those of us who try to use "no ethanol" gas for
our small motor engines, we're being lied to and ripped
off. At a visit to a small motor repair shop I was
told that there is no such thing, it just has less
than 10% ethanol. I researched and found that 5%
or more is labeled "ethanol included" but less than
5% doesn't have to be noted. So at the next stop at
a gas station with a "no ethanol" pump I asked if it
was true. The manager showed me the invoice of his
last gas delivery. It showed "4.97% alcohol" in the
gas to the "no ethanol" tank. So the dealers
interpretation of "no", and that alcohol & ethanol
are different, is a total farce!

Wonder if there is some way for the commoner to
test? Take a quart, and see how many drops of
water before one settles to the bottom? Some
simple thing like that?
DAGS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rd-iO1-ZCMo
Water mix, and shows different cloudy level.

Ethanol removal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfZgDkRwAUk
(Be nice if this works....)





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

On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 08:31:48 -0700, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

...snip....
Wonder if there is some way for the commoner to
test? Take a quart, and see how many drops of
water before one settles to the bottom? Some
simple thing like that?
DAGS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rd-iO1-ZCMo
Water mix, and shows different cloudy level.

Ethanol removal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfZgDkRwAUk
(Be nice if this works....)


I heard that during WWII the mustang fighters [P-51] were outfitted with
small spray of water droplets into the cylinders. The steam generated
extra boost and when activate, the pilot just 'took off' and left standing
anyone around. Two downsides were tended to blow the rings [well, duh!]
and if you didn't 'purge' your engine out afterward by running a decent
amount of time, the moisture vapor got deposited everywhere and 'rotted'
the engine out.

So, that means it's ok to use that alcohol fuel, but remember to purge
your engine with pure fuel before you shut it off.

uh, and just HOW do we do that? Hey, I'm the idea man. YOU tie the bell on
the cat's neck!

RobertMacy writes:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 08:31:48 -0700, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

...snip....
Wonder if there is some way for the commoner to
test? Take a quart, and see how many drops of
water before one settles to the bottom? Some
simple thing like that?
DAGS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rd-iO1-ZCMo
Water mix, and shows different cloudy level.

Ethanol removal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfZgDkRwAUk
(Be nice if this works....)


I heard that during WWII the mustang fighters [P-51] were outfitted with
small spray of water droplets into the cylinders. The steam generated
extra boost and when activate, the pilot just 'took off' and left standing
anyone around. Two downsides were tended to blow the rings [well, duh!]
and if you didn't 'purge' your engine out afterward by running a decent
amount of time, the moisture vapor got deposited everywhere and 'rotted'
the engine out.

Note that the 707 and DC-8 (and military derivitives) used water injection
to increase jet engine thrust (and increased HC emissions). The B-52 would burn
5 tons of water (mixed with methanol) on takeoff with the old PW J-57's.

On 3/21/2014 11:28 AM, philo wrote:
When I found out how much energy is used to produce it I thought the
whole idea absurd.


Corn should be grown for eating and not for fuel.

I've checked a couple web sites, some say ethanol
is energy neutral "why bother, then?" and others
say it's a loss. My theory is loss, such as loss of
farm land, and farmer time.

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

On Friday, March 21, 2014 4:03:48 PM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 3/21/2014 11:28 AM, philo wrote:

When I found out how much energy is used to produce it I thought the

whole idea absurd.





Corn should be grown for eating and not for fuel.



I've checked a couple web sites, some say ethanol

is energy neutral "why bother, then?" and others

say it's a loss. My theory is loss, such as loss of

farm land, and farmer time.



--

.

Christopher A. Young

Learn about Jesus

www.lds.org

.

It can be a energy positive by creating ethanol from things other than corn, like grass, waste vegetable matter etc.

Years ago I had a bunch of trees trimmed and had them chipped. they were left in a big pile......

fermented creating alcohol. my knowledgable neighbor warned me to spread them out or they could catch on fire....

there are commercial operators trying to get this tech to work dependaby

another source is running coal fired power stations exhaust thru big tubes filled with water and algea, which grows great from the CO2 in the exhaust. This cuts CO2 emmisions by 1/2 and the algea is fermented into ethanol

On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 07:42:28 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

For those of us who try to use "no ethanol" gas for our small motor engines, we're being lied to and ripped off. At a visit to a small motor repair shop I was told that there is no such thing, it just has less than 10% ethanol. I researched and found that 5% or more is labeled "ethanol included" but less than 5% doesn't have to be noted. So at the next stop at a gas station with a "no ethanol" pump I asked if it was true. The manager showed me the invoice of his last gas delivery. It showed "4.97% alcohol" in the gas to the "no ethanol" tank. So the dealers interpretation of "no", and that alcohol & ethanol are different, is a total farce!

Most of our cars here in Brazil are a gasoline/ethanol mix.
You can mix the fuels in the tank and the electronics takes care of
the timing etc. Ethanol is much cheaper than gasoline, if you live
near the distilleries , like I do. Gasoline is probably cheaper in the
big urban centers.
All our ethanol is from sugar cane. Maize (corn) and wood are
far too expensive to work with.
HTH
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Friday, March 21, 2014 3:03:48 PM UTC-5, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 3/21/2014 11:28 AM, philo wrote:

When I found out how much energy is used to produce it I thought the

whole idea absurd.





Corn should be grown for eating and not for fuel.



I've checked a couple web sites, some say ethanol

is energy neutral "why bother, then?" and others

say it's a loss. My theory is loss, such as loss of

farm land, and farmer time.



--

.

Christopher A. Young

Learn about Jesus

www.lds.org

.

Loss comes to small motor equipment also. It ruins rubber hoses and soft metal. For example, I have a ATV that had a ruined carburetor because of ethanol in the fuel. It could not be fixed because of the ruined metal around the needle valve where the fuel flows into the carb. A new carb from the dealer is $260, all because of the ethanol. And I was by far not the 1st one to experience that problem.

On 03/21/2014 03:03 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 3/21/2014 11:28 AM, philo wrote:
When I found out how much energy is used to produce it I thought the
whole idea absurd.


Corn should be grown for eating and not for fuel.

I've checked a couple web sites, some say ethanol
is energy neutral "why bother, then?" and others
say it's a loss. My theory is loss, such as loss of
farm land, and farmer time.




Even if it is energy neutral, it's pointless.

On 03/21/2014 03:56 PM, bob haller wrote:

It can be a energy positive by creating ethanol from things other than corn, like grass, waste vegetable matter etc.

Years ago I had a bunch of trees trimmed and had them chipped. they were left in a big pile......

fermented creating alcohol. my knowledgable neighbor warned me to spread them out or they could catch on fire....

there are commercial operators trying to get this tech to work dependaby

another source is running coal fired power stations exhaust thru big tubes filled with water and algea, which grows great from the CO2 in the exhaust. This cuts CO2 emmisions by 1/2 and the algea is fermented into ethanol




The US has huge landfills. There are some countries that burn their wast
to produce energy rather than bury it. Yes, it could cause air pollution
but if it was filtered the way you mentioned the air could be kept
pretty clean.

On 3/21/2014 10:42 AM, wrote:
For those of us who try to use "no ethanol" gas for our small motor engines, we're being lied to and ripped off. At a visit to a small motor repair shop I was told that there is no such thing, it just has less than 10% ethanol. I researched and found that 5% or more is labeled "ethanol included" but less than 5% doesn't have to be noted. So at the next stop at a gas station with a "no ethanol" pump I asked if it was true. The manager showed me the invoice of his last gas delivery. It showed "4.97% alcohol" in the gas to the "no ethanol" tank. So the dealers interpretation of "no", and that alcohol & ethanol are different, is a total farce!


Don't feel bad. Michigan doesn't even require labels but does require
filling stations stay 10% or under. I originally thought they did and
thus, frequented the same stations assuming they contained no ethanol.
When I was told there wasn't a law requiring labels, I searched to
discover they were right. I then walked into one of my favorite filling
stations (who don't use labels) and asked how much ethanol is in their
tanks. The guy was honest and said 10%. I also learned all stations use
it now, therefore, there's nothing we can do, unless we use another
method of transportation which doesn't require fuel.

On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 21:15:23 -0500, philo* wrote:

On 03/21/2014 03:56 PM, bob haller wrote:

It can be a energy positive by creating ethanol from things other than corn, like grass, waste vegetable matter etc.

Years ago I had a bunch of trees trimmed and had them chipped. they were left in a big pile......

fermented creating alcohol. my knowledgable neighbor warned me to spread them out or they could catch on fire....

there are commercial operators trying to get this tech to work dependaby

another source is running coal fired power stations exhaust thru big tubes filled with water and algea, which grows great from the CO2 in the exhaust. This cuts CO2 emmisions by 1/2 and the algea is fermented into ethanol




The US has huge landfills. There are some countries that burn their wast
to produce energy rather than bury it. Yes, it could cause air pollution
but if it was filtered the way you mentioned the air could be kept
pretty clean.
At Waterloo Regional Landfill, we have several large Cat generators
running on Methane "landfill gas" - enough power to light a small
town. The old Kitchener dump provided gas for a large concrete pipe
manufacturer.

On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 22:16:26 -0400, Meanie
wrote:

On 3/21/2014 10:42 AM, wrote:
For those of us who try to use "no ethanol" gas for our small motor engines, we're being lied to and ripped off. At a visit to a small motor repair shop I was told that there is no such thing, it just has less than 10% ethanol. I researched and found that 5% or more is labeled "ethanol included" but less than 5% doesn't have to be noted. So at the next stop at a gas station with a "no ethanol" pump I asked if it was true. The manager showed me the invoice of his last gas delivery. It showed "4.97% alcohol" in the gas to the "no ethanol" tank. So the dealers interpretation of "no", and that alcohol & ethanol are different, is a total farce!


Don't feel bad. Michigan doesn't even require labels but does require
filling stations stay 10% or under. I originally thought they did and
thus, frequented the same stations assuming they contained no ethanol.
When I was told there wasn't a law requiring labels, I searched to
discover they were right. I then walked into one of my favorite filling
stations (who don't use labels) and asked how much ethanol is in their
tanks. The guy was honest and said 10%. I also learned all stations use
it now, therefore, there's nothing we can do, unless we use another
method of transportation which doesn't require fuel.
Just across the border in Ontario, all Shell premium fuel is 0%
ethanol. We can safely use it in aircraft with Mogas STC - which does
NOT allow ethanol in the fuel.

On Friday, March 21, 2014 10:47:25 PM UTC-5, wrote:




We have a waste to energy plant here but sorting the trash and

maintaining the scrubbers and such make it pretty expensive.



I think they actually burn the paper and plastic from the recycle

stream mostly but they get in trouble when they say it out loud.

It does make more sense than trucking it 1000 miles or more to a real

recycling facility.

Scrubbers are also removing sulfur from the air so fertilizer companies are adding it to their bags of the mix. They say agriculture needs it but it's no longer free from the air.

On 3/21/2014 9:35 PM, wrote:

Loss comes to small motor equipment also. It ruins rubber hoses and soft metal. For example, I have a ATV that had a ruined carburetor because of ethanol in the fuel. It could not be fixed because of the ruined metal around the needle valve where the fuel flows into the carb. A new carb from the dealer is $260, all because of the ethanol. And I was by far not the 1st one to experience that problem.


Trust the government to make something that
works.... not work.
--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 3/21/2014 8:42 AM, wrote:
For those of us who try to use "no ethanol" gas for our small motor engines, we're being lied to and ripped off. At a visit to a small motor repair shop I was told that there is no such thing, it just has less than 10% ethanol. I researched and found that 5% or more is labeled "ethanol included" but less than 5% doesn't have to be noted. So at the next stop at a gas station with a "no ethanol" pump I asked if it was true. The manager showed me the invoice of his last gas delivery. It showed "4.97% alcohol" in the gas to the "no ethanol" tank. So the dealers interpretation of "no", and that alcohol & ethanol are different, is a total farce!


Not something I really keep track of, but I thought ethanol replaced
MTBE as an octane booster (because of water contamination by MTBE). (And
MTBE replaced tetraethyllead.) Wouldn't there need to be some percentage
of ethanol in gasoline unless another octane booster was used?
(Percentage would be a lot less than the ag producers want.)

On 03/21/2014 10:42 AM, wrote:
For those of us who try to use "no ethanol" gas for our small motor engines, we're being lied to and ripped off. At a visit to a small motor repair shop I was told that there is no such thing, it just has less than 10% ethanol. I researched and found that 5% or more is labeled "ethanol included" but less than 5% doesn't have to be noted. So at the next stop at a gas station with a "no ethanol" pump I asked if it was true. The manager showed me the invoice of his last gas delivery. It showed "4.97% alcohol" in the gas to the "no ethanol" tank. So the dealers interpretation of "no", and that alcohol & ethanol are different, is a total farce!


Wouldn't the alcohol content have to be listed on the MSDS?

Here's the MSDS for Marathon's Recreational 90 fuel:

https://www.marathonpetroleum.com/br...0314MAR019.pdf

On 3/21/2014 10:42 AM, wrote:
For those of us who try to use "no ethanol" gas for our small motor engines, we're being lied to and ripped off. At a visit to a small motor repair shop I was told that there is no such thing, it just has less than 10% ethanol. I researched and found that 5% or more is labeled "ethanol included" but less than 5% doesn't have to be noted. So at the next stop at a gas station with a "no ethanol" pump I asked if it was true. The manager showed me the invoice of his last gas delivery. It showed "4.97% alcohol" in the gas to the "no ethanol" tank. So the dealers interpretation of "no", and that alcohol & ethanol are different, is a total farce!

Interesting ... just another way for the government to screw us. In
addition, after reading this thread one morning, that afternoon I heard
an ad on the radio for TruFuel. Leave it to some entrepreneur to come
up with a money maker. It has no alcohol and comes in pure gas, plus
40:1 and 50:1 mixtures for 2 cycle engines. NOT CHEAP, though. Six
quarts runs over $30. Ouch!

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:54:58 -0600, bud-- wrote:

On 3/21/2014 8:42 AM, wrote:
For those of us who try to use "no ethanol" gas for our small motor engines, we're being lied to and ripped off. At a visit to a small motor repair shop I was told that there is no such thing, it just has less than 10% ethanol. I researched and found that 5% or more is labeled "ethanol included" but less than 5% doesn't have to be noted. So at the next stop at a gas station with a "no ethanol" pump I asked if it was true. The manager showed me the invoice of his last gas delivery. It showed "4.97% alcohol" in the gas to the "no ethanol" tank. So the dealers interpretation of "no", and that alcohol & ethanol are different, is a total farce!


Not something I really keep track of, but I thought ethanol replaced
MTBE as an octane booster (because of water contamination by MTBE). (And
MTBE replaced tetraethyllead.) Wouldn't there need to be some percentage
of ethanol in gasoline unless another octane booster was used?
(Percentage would be a lot less than the ag producers want.)
Octane can be raised by the cracking and reformulaing of the feed
stock without using lead, MTBE or ethanol - it's just more expensive.
MMT is the current octane boosting additive of choice. There are also
some non-metallic orgonochemical compounds.

March 23, 2014

A couple minutes ago, I was listening to the radio
in the kitchen. The news voice said that the cost
of gasoline in california was up, again. Because
the cost of ethanol (which is used in making
gasoline) is up. Well, did it occur to anyone to
use LESS ethanol, and keep the price down? We did
fine without ethanol gasoline for a lot of years.


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

On 03/23/2014 05:25 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
March 23, 2014

A couple minutes ago, I was listening to the radio
in the kitchen. The news voice said that the cost
of gasoline in california was up, again. Because
the cost of ethanol (which is used in making
gasoline) is up. Well, did it occur to anyone to
use LESS ethanol, and keep the price down? We did
fine without ethanol gasoline for a lot of years.





Yep, if all the effort that went into ethanol production simply went
into making cars more fuel efficient the problem would be solved.


I was at a new car dealership recently and amazed to see most of their
vehicles got about the same MPG that cars got 30 years ago.

On 3/23/14 5:46 PM, philo wrote:


Yep, if all the effort that went into ethanol production simply went
into making cars more fuel efficient the problem would be solved.


I was at a new car dealership recently and amazed to see most of their
vehicles got about the same MPG that cars got 30 years ago.


My company work pickup is getting less mpg than the previous ones.
At least, that's according to the mpg calculator on the dash. I
haven't actually computed the mileage so can't say for sure.
I've been using 10% ethanol for years so that isn't affecting the
comparison.

On 3/23/2014 6:46 PM, philo wrote:
gasoline) is up. Well, did it occur to anyone to
use LESS ethanol, and keep the price down? We did
fine without ethanol gasoline for a lot of years.





Yep, if all the effort that went into ethanol production simply went
into making cars more fuel efficient the problem would be solved.


I was at a new car dealership recently and amazed to see most of their
vehicles got about the same MPG that cars got 30 years ago.

It takes some ammount of energy to move here to
there. I'd have said to do more drilling, and
issue more permits for refineries.

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

On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 19:45:13 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

It takes some ammount of energy to move here to
there. I'd have said to do more drilling, and
issue more permits for refineries.

Can't remember where or when I saw it, but making Ethanol takes more
water to produce than fracking. Something like 12,000 bottles vs one
gallon?

On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 19:54:09 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 19:45:13 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

It takes some ammount of energy to move here to
there. I'd have said to do more drilling, and
issue more permits for refineries.

Can't remember where or when I saw it, but making Ethanol takes more
water to produce than fracking. Something like 12,000 bottles vs one
gallon?

Product Water Used

1 gal. of gasoline 2 to 2.5
1 gallon of ethanol 3
1 can of fruit 9.3
1 gallon of paint 13
1 lb of sugar 14
1 lb of plastic 24
1 lb of synthetic rubber 55
1 lb of cotton 101
1 Sunday newspaper 150

Source: U.S. Grains Council/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
http://web.extension.illinois.edu/ethanol/wateruse.cfm

On 03/23/2014 10:54 PM, Oren wrote:

Can't remember where or when I saw it, but making Ethanol takes more
water to produce than fracking. Something like 12,000 bottles vs one
gallon?


Why would they use bottled water to make ethanol?

On 03/24/2014 03:42 AM, Marc wrote:
On 03/23/2014 10:54 PM, Oren wrote:

Can't remember where or when I saw it, but making Ethanol takes more
water to produce than fracking. Something like 12,000 bottles vs one
gallon?


Why would they use bottled water to make ethanol?



They wouldn't.

The number was given just to give you an idea of how much water gets used.

Looks like the Sunday newspaper has the worst statistics though

On 3/22/2014 6:53 AM, wrote:
On Friday, March 21, 2014 10:47:25 PM UTC-5,
wrote:

We have a waste to energy plant here but sorting the trash and

maintaining the scrubbers and such make it pretty expensive.



I think they actually burn the paper and plastic from the
recycle

stream mostly but they get in trouble when they say it out loud.

It does make more sense than trucking it 1000 miles or more to a
real

recycling facility.

Scrubbers are also removing sulfur from the air so fertilizer
companies are adding it to their bags of the mix. They say
agriculture needs it but it's no longer free from the air.


No. The one does not follow the other. Some fertilizers have always
had certain micronutrients included, others have not. It has nothing
to do with air scrubbers, it's a marketing decision, and that is based
on what the product will be used for and where it will be used - and
that is based on regional soil micronutrient and pH issues.

On 3/23/2014 6:45 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 3/23/2014 6:46 PM, philo wrote:
gasoline) is up. Well, did it occur to anyone to
use LESS ethanol, and keep the price down? We did
fine without ethanol gasoline for a lot of years.





Yep, if all the effort that went into ethanol production simply went
into making cars more fuel efficient the problem would be solved.


I was at a new car dealership recently and amazed to see most of their
vehicles got about the same MPG that cars got 30 years ago.

It takes some ammount of energy to move here to
there. I'd have said to do more drilling, and
issue more permits for refineries.


How many times do you have to be told that the issue isn't supply? For
the past fews years we have been producing more fuel than we use.
Since domestic demand is down and has been down for several years, the
refineries are doing two things to maintain pricing: 1. shipping the
surplus overseas; 2. periodically reducing production to reduce supply.

Again: the US is producing more fuel than it can use. As a matter of
fact, the low level of consumption in the US is the factor behind the
refineries' decision to add ethanol to even the (formerly)
ethanol-free gasoline. It has to do with the Renewable Fuel Standard.
That's a federal law that requires a set amount of ethanol be added to
gasoline produced in a given year. At the time the law was written, it
was (realistically) assumed that fuel consumption would increase year
over year, so the law mandated an increase in ethanol to be added as well.

Except that fuel consumption in the US in the past several years has
_decreased_, which the law did not anticipate. Thus, refiners are
mandated to incorporate a set amount of ethanol into a diminishing
supply of gasoline. They can't add more ethanol to the ethanol blended
gas without running into labeling problems. So they decided to reduce
the octane level of the ethanol-free gas and push the octane back up
by adding ethanol to it, thus solving the problem of what to do with
all that mandatory ethanol.

Believe it or not, the EPA sees this as a bad and stupid thing for
everybody involved - the gov't, the refineries, and the customers. So
the EPA has proposed a rule that would lower the mandated level of
ethanol to be added to the nation's fuel supply to keep it in balance
with current consumption. This would permit ethanol-free gasoline to
remain ethanol free. So far, the only opposition to this proposed rule
has come from the ethanol industry aka Big Agriculture. They're
working on Congress to forbid the EPA from using common sense, because
that would cost them money. Here they built all those ethanol
production plants and demand isn't keeping up with supply. Boo-effin'-hoo.

On 03/24/2014 11:02 AM, philo wrote:
On 03/24/2014 03:42 AM, Marc wrote:
On 03/23/2014 10:54 PM, Oren wrote:

Can't remember where or when I saw it, but making Ethanol takes more
water to produce than fracking. Something like 12,000 bottles vs one
gallon?


Why would they use bottled water to make ethanol?



They wouldn't.

The number was given just to give you an idea of how much water gets used.

Looks like the Sunday newspaper has the worst statistics though

Ok, so how big are the bottles? 12oz? 24oz? 128oz?

On Monday, March 24, 2014 10:23:35 AM UTC-5, Moe DeLoughan wrote:


Scrubbers are also removing sulfur from the air so fertilizer

companies are adding it to their bags of the mix. They say

agriculture needs it but it's no longer free from the air.



No. The one does not follow the other. Some fertilizers have always

had certain micronutrients included, others have not. It has nothing

to do with air scrubbers, it's a marketing decision, and that is based

on what the product will be used for and where it will be used - and

that is based on regional soil micronutrient and pH issues.

Yes it does. Micronutrients added to fertilizer are almost always less than .5%. Adding 8% sulfur to a bag of 8-8-8 fertilizer does not make sulfur a "micronutrient".

A direct quote from the manager of the fertilizer plant:
"Sulfur is a secondary plant nutrient that is required by all plants in fairly large quantities. Plants get some sulfur from the air but with industrial plant emissions being reduced by EPA regulations not as much is available through the air for plant uptake. To prevent a sulfur deficiency it is advisable to add sulfur in fertilizer."

That quote from the horses mouth overrides your opinion.

On 03/24/2014 03:26 PM, Marc wrote:

Ok, so how big are the bottles? 12oz? 24oz? 128oz?




Standard size of course/