From: jim on

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> phaeton <blahbleh666(a)> wrote:
> >I hear a lot of people up in arms about the addition of Ethanol to
> >gasoline. Many places do it just in the wintertime, others do it year
> >round. One of the gas stations in my little town even has a bunch of
> >"100% REAL GAS - NO ETHANOL" signs up all over the place. With all
> >the whining and crying about "people putting water in the gas[sic]",
> >I've honestly never noticed a difference in operation or efficiency.
> 10% ethanol is good. Yes, it slightly reduces the total energy of
> combustion a little, but it prevents knocking and it's much less
> hazardous than the other popular anti-knock additives like MTBE and lead.

Yes and that is pretty much the only reason that the politicians are
behind ethanol. The other additives are cheaper but having additives that
poison children or give people headaches don't make politicians popular.


> >My guess is that Ethanol earned a bad reputation (1970s, maybe?) when
> >cars used to be carbureted and timing advanced with mechanical weights
> >and such. However, modern cars with EFI and its associated arsenal of
> >sensors simply adapt to whatever difference it makes, but many people
> >are still stuck with the 'ethanol sucks' mentality. True?
> Also, realize that ethanol dissolves a lot of rubber formulations. Run
> pure ethanol in your car and you'll find hoses and seals going bad right
> and left. A lot of people had that experience trying pure ethanol back
> in the seventies, too. Of course, back then it wasn't quite so bad since
> there weren't anywhere near as many hoses and seals to replace....
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: Kevin Bottorff on
Steve <no(a)spam.thanks> wrote in

> C. E. White wrote:
>> "Steve" <no(a)spam.thanks> wrote in message
>>>Thank you ever so much, "environmentalists." But I have no doubt
>>>that they'll find a way to put the blame on something other than the
>>>corn surge due to ethanol....
>> You mean like municipal waste treatment plants?
> Who knows, but they'll find something that they aren't responsible for
> and then lobby to shut it down.
>> Now as for crop land being converted to corn...converted from what?
>> There is very little crop land in the Mississippi river system that
>> isn't already devoted to either corn, cotton, or wheat. All of these
>> crops get similar amounts of nitrogen fertilizer.
> They GET similar amounts, but the claim is that much more runs off from
> corn than the others and winds up in the river.

That is not proven to be true at all. Nitrogen runoff from corn has
dramaticly dropped per acre in the last 10 years as nitrogen use per acre
has dropped as better research and cost of nitrogen has changed. what
really chafts my britches is town and city people fertilizing there
worthless lawns with 10 times the amount of fert. I use per acre. My crop
has value, your lawn is worthless other than the O2 it produces. Also
more pesticides are dumped on lawns at a incorect rate that most all the
farms. KB

>> I am not sure that ethanol is the answer, but I also think that the
>> anti-ethanol lobby is lying through their collective teeth. I know who
>> is funding the pro-ethanol lobby. Who is funding the anti-ethanol
>> lobby? I'd say follow the money......Who stands to loose the most if
>> ethanol displaces a significant amount of foreign oil?
> I don't know that there IS an anti-ethanol lobby, per se. I certainly
> can't make it add up to being a winner just by balancing energy
> in/energy out and considering the amount of cropland displaced for more
> corn. Too bad we CAN'T really use sugar cane, but the climate is what
> is. Hey, maybe if we can get a little more global warming going, we
> be able to grow sugar in Iowa! :-p

Oh yea sign me up. I could stand some heat about now. KB


Thunder Snake #9
"Protect" your rights or "lose" them.
From: clifto on
Paul wrote:
> My car gets 10% less mileage on 10% ethanol.

Funny you should say. "They" say that won't happen, and yet the same thing
happens in my case with two cars. Haven't had real gasoline in the third
car yet. so can't say if it's unanimous.

Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali,
Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause
as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.
From: clifto on
C. E. White wrote:
> "Mitch" <wolberg5.nnnooo(a)> wrote in message
> news:fke20m$re8$1(a)
>> Heard an interview with a farmer who also is a partner in an ethanol
>> plant. He said it took 1 gal of fuel to produce 1.3 gal. Now keep in
>> mind that gasoline also has related refining costs. He also said he
>> was looking into switching to switch grass. The bio-fuels industry
>> is in its infancy and its bound to get more efficient as time goes
>> by.
> You get 1.3 gal of ethanol AND you have almost as much animal feed as
> if you fed the corn directly.

And you've taken food out of the mouths of humans.

Funny how the beef industry cites the rising cost of animal feed, caused
by ethanol production, as a reason for the rising cost of beef.

Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali,
Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause
as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.
From: boxing on
ethanol blended gasoline. its high octance and prevents gas line
freeze up. that's good enough for me. i think i would rather give my
money to the farmers than the arabs. the farmers haven't got into
suicide bombing just yet.